In the wake of the House passing a non-binding resolution that takes us one step further toward officially sanctioning a name change for Iraq (many Democratic lawmakers and a handful of Republicans prefer to call it “Vietnam”), Bushco stooge Bill Ardolino propagandizes for the American Imperialist War Machine in what I can only assume is a last ditch effort to save a failed campaign that has (once we get done legislating it into a “teachable moment,” wherein US “idealists” are scolded for their cowboy presumptuousness) set the stage for the kind of distant, brown on brown violence that—in the halcyon days of the Hussein regime—was at least something that we didn’t have to keep hearing about, and so wasn’t distracting us from our real legislative concerns, which include making the earth safe for its own climate, and making the US more appealing to progressives by bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, a kind of “proportional representation” measure for “finessing” the growing problem of free markets and free speech. Writes Ardolino:
Iraqis also have less malicious logistical problems, from trouble planning fuel-ordering schedules to maintaining unit operations with a leave policy (set by the Ministry of Defense) that guarantees soldiers 10 days off per month.
Americans have ceded influence on these matters to Iraqi bureaucrats before shaping and institutionalizing enduring systems that successfully deliver supplies and mitigate corruption. In my view, this is the greatest challenge facing the US bid to stand up Iraqi security forces. And it’s a frustrating problem for those interested in Iraqi success because it might be preventable, it’s surely worsened by American political forces clamoring for withdrawal […]
My surprise at the level of American disengagement was matched by surprise at how many of the Iraqis were actually willing to fight for their country, despite great personal risk and missing paychecks. If they can overcome or at least minimize the aforementioned logistical and pay issues, there is a good chance that the Iraqi Army will succeed in Fallujah.
Uh huh. Nice try, warmonger.
Withdrawal, as everyone knows (just check the polls!), would not only save the lives of the American troops many lawmakers support and love—but bringing the troops home where Nancy Pelosi can keep a close eye on them would also have the practical effect of keeping the jarhead baby killers from unleashing unspeakable violence on the women and children of Iraq.
So keep barking, Ardolino, you miserable war puppy. It won’t do you any good. Mommy’s in charge now—and she’s not going to tolerate you or your hypermasculine friends dragging anymore mud onto her nice clean floors of FREEDOM!
And yeah, that opening sentence was 170 words.
CHOKE ON THEM, DEATHMERCHANTS!
That was like, beautiful man. Just wow.
Me an the old lady are listening to some Airplane, and we’re probably gonna light up a fatty, but before I’m too stoned to type, I just wanted to say, like wow man.
People power. Save the whales.
P.S. Pelosi’s got a pretty nice set for a grandma. I’m kinda jealous. The old lady wears hers around her waist these days. Bummer, but what are you gonna do?
No way.
‘Cause, you know, I was able to read it without getting chapped lips.
Just curious:
If you really cared about winning in Iraq, then why aren’t you demanding the resignation of Bush and Cheney, so that they can be replaced by someone competent to fight the war? I think part of the issue a lot of Americans have with the war is a complete lack of confidence or trust in the man in charge (for good reason). Replacing Bush might at least help gain popular support for continuing the war.
Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our ‘surge’ will not include too many of these types…
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html
Bush has let the generals run the war. And Cheney, while he’s proven to be a decent shot, is a bit old to be running around in fatigues. Rumor has it he has a bum ticker.
As for calling for the resignation of the President, I do. I DEMAND he step down after the next general election. And I’m with Hillary in DEMANDING that he clean up his mess that she voted for before handing it off to the next President. Because that’s just not fair.
Why wait two years, Jeff? This is a crucial time for Iraq, right? Time for new management. Two years will be too late.
P.S. You’ll never get me to defend Hillary Clinton.
Whiskey Jack Murtha would get my nod. I can just picture the addled old bastard drooling over the map in the Sit Room and wheezing, “Whaddya mean it’s too far from Okinawa? It’s only 5 or 6 inches on the map!”
If you really cared about winning in Iraq, then why aren’t you demanding the resignation of Pelosi (second in the line of succession to the President, remember) and the selection by the Democrats of someone who is component, so they can put pressure on Bush and Cheney?
Slackjawedyokel,
You can’t think of any Republican who could do the job?
I’m just not much into empty symbolic gestures, Steve. Sue me.
The House, on the other hand…
Akatsukami,
You don’t think Pelosi is putting pressure on Bush and Cheney?
Where are Country Joe and the Fish when you need them…?
Jeff,
I think the “gesture” could get a lot of people who supported the war to come back into the fold, which I hardly think is empty for starters. Then there is always the possibility that the new guy would do a better job. So, potentially, you’d have more support and a more competent commander. That wouldn’t be empty or symbolic.
I think we should start by firing the military. This one clearly isn’t doing the job right. I DEMAND a more competent military. And the CIA should be fired, as well. Not to mention the entire Defense Department.
Where did I park my urban assault vehicle? I’m going to change the calculus, boys. FOLLOW ME!
Jeff,
Generally, you start at the top, right?
Stevie XX,
I can think of a lot of Republicans who can do the job, including the incumbents, if they aren’t being constantly bitten about the ankles by the “loyal” opposition.
And hell, while I’m at it, I DEMAND the mullahs of Iran cease their unpleasantries!
AND I DEMAND PIE!
No, Steve. I start with the people actually “losing” the war. The soldiers.
Fire them all, I say. Bring in some new blood.
The old ones we can just spit on. Thumbs DOWN, says the Emperor!
slackjaedyokel,
Name the Republicans who can do the job. Bush had his chance.
I hate when people ask patently stupid questions under the guise of serious inquiry.
Jeff,
You don’t sound like you are being very serious or sincere in your desire to win in Iraq (at least in your current posts). Is this all a joke to you? If so, I won’t need to waste more time responding.
Jeremy,
Although I have a different opinion regarding the war, it is a very serious question.
steve, by now it’s clear that Pelosi’s fuel-guzzling airplane is upsetting world balance. All those trips to the vineyard are casting a huge pall over No Cal and it’s clear that smog-influenced San Franciscans are thus, in their stupor, bringing about the persecution of women and children in Iran.
Obviously Pelosi has to go and go now. She had her chance and the world’s paying a terrible price as hundreds of thousands die needlessly. Pelosi was never capable and we all knew it—this most recent development obviously proves our collective prescience. Pelosi flew, millions slewn.
Can you prove that the Democrats have a candidate in place to quickly remedy this emerging situation? There’s always the possibility that the new broad would do a better job. So, potentially, you’d have more support and a more competent speaker and traveller. That wouldn’t be empty or symbolic either.
If this is all a joke to you I won’t waste my time responding.
I DEMAND Bush and Cheney step down, and that President Pelosi go in and WIN THIS WAR FOR US!
What Iraq needs is some TOUGH LOVE!—and who is better suited to provide military leadership than a woman who has proven time and again that she can keep her illegal immigrant labor focused on getting those grapes picked?
PELOSI OR BUST!
I demand an answer, steve.
steve, why are you avoiding my question? I am quite serious. Pelosi just flew, ten more slew.
JHoward,
Pelosi has been in for a month now. Bush has been in for 6 years. Whether or not I agree with your diversionary assessment of Pelosi, do you really think these are equivalent arguments?
steve, act now. Your apathy to this pressing issue speaks volumes. Why are you avoiding these deaths?
The Iraq war? No. You? Absolutely.
Bless you, my child.
Jeff,
Thanks for answering my question. Now that I know it’s all just a fun joke for you, I won’t respond unless I think of something really funny to say (unlikely, as I’m sure people will be quick to point out).
JHoward,
You seem about as sincere and serious as Jeff. I wonder if the Bush Administration is the same. That would explain a lot.
Diversionary assessment? Equivalent arguments?! steve, if you think millions of people dying so that Pelosi can fly around is a diversion, or that some lives are more equivalent than others, then I question your patriotism and sense of racial equity. Just who do you think you are defending what Al Gore has roundly condemned? Are you comfortable with the Democrat stance on this egregious inter-party strife?! Just how many years can the globe stand the loss not only of lives but also of millions of gallons of flaming kerosene?
Sir, I herewith challenge your sense of expendable hydrocarbons. How answer you?
That’s a given.
JHoward,
Yes, you truly believe that MILLIONS, not even thousands of people are dying for Nancy Pelosi’s airplane. Yes I’m really taking that at face value. You are a very serious person. Someone who would fit right in in the Bush Administration. Are you sure it isn’t BILLIONS dying for Nancy Pelosi’s airplane?
My take is that the House is simply responding to the bitching of its constituents, who, I think we can agree, are getting kind of pissed at how long this campaign is dragging on. Say what you will about the vicissitudes of war, this war was not sold that way, and has not been successfully sold that way, and the people ain’t buying. So, they complain, and the Congress reflects that complaint.
I have no idea how the surge is going/will go, and most of us are relatively untouched by the war, in terms of personal sacrifice. So complaints will continue to be tepid. Naturally, as an American I want the “Surge” to work, whatever that means, but I would like to have some idea of “end state” and when we are going to get there. So far, it’s still rather vague.
If the continuation of the war in Iraq has the same shape next year that it has now, the GOP will get creamed in 2008. I think that’s a bankable fact. Very soon, political calculation is going to enter the picture, not only for Dems but Republicans as well.
Wow. This demanding stuff is cool.
Get this. I demanded that the old lady, uh, well, go down on me (can you type that on the internet?), and she did.
I demanded that the cat get the hell out of the apartment, and it did.
When I stop tripping, I’m gonna demand that Chimpymcbushitler resign. That will prolly be tomorrow, though.
P.S. Bad news, people. My lucky streak broke. I just demanded that the old lady make me an omlette, and she told me to eff off and make the cat do it, but the cat’s outside. Bummer.
SteveX,
Hell we have been demanding that you & the rest of the little “a” team of slack jawed, historically ignorant, reactionary trolls make a point, provide a plan or at least stick to the topic of the thread & all you have managed to do is make asinine comments & disappear once it gets a little too hot for you.
By the way Steve, I guess changing the Defense Secretary & the general in charge of Iraq doesn’t count in your book as changes from the top down. I guess we shouldn’t hold the Congress members that voted for this war, initially suggested the surge & now do nothing – much like you have offered here – & sit back & complain. Funny how once the changes are made, your side of the aisle doesn’t have the patience to see if it works & dangle the funding for the actions most were clamoring for, for some cheap political, non-binding point. That wouldn’t be because you aren’t really interested in achieving a success, but much rather insuring your side is the one in power? You all imagine that this is a television show & that all the problems should be wrapped up & the moral taught before the last commercial break.
DIVERSIONARY ASSESSMENT! steve, if you’re going to continue to be this cavalier, I’m afraid that any subsequent argument you present is going to be met with my decidedly and roundly considered non sequitor. When it comes to letting this injustice stand, man, you have quite a bit of explaining to do.
Again: How do you justify all the deaths caused by uncontrolled releases of billions of pounds of carbon dioxide into the Iraqi atmosphere by a willfully negligent Speaker of the House? I can assure you that this is neither a flippant issue nor a orangish-yellow argument, steve. Pie notwithstanding.
Uh, I said the Iraq war wasn’t a joke to me, Steve. Can you not read?
You, however, are a joke to me. I mean, do you really fancy yourself some masterful Socratic thinker whose questioning can tease out from the benighted warmongers here some sense of civic pride in calling for the resignation of the duly elected President and Vice President?—all so you can say You Did Something?
Do you not realize that what you are saying amounts to, “we will support your war, but only if Bush and Cheney are fired”—even though Bush has already changed his Defense Secretary and his Iraq Commander (who the Democrats supported whole-heartedly, even as they just voted to thwart a plan he supports, and so have effectively tried to cut off at the knees) to pander to those for whom “change” is an end in itself?
What part of “long hard slog” and “stay the course” is lost on you? Or are you suggesting that, should the President and Vice President step down, they’d clear the way for a Democrat with a plan that would make the slog less long and hard, and wouldn’t require any kind of commitment that lasts longer than the time between AP/Ipsos polls?
Is that it? Bush and Cheney are stubbornly standing in the way of Victory?
For God’s sake, guys, stevexx has just volunteered to shut his puerile yap and fuck off for the duration or until he can think of something clever to say;
I hereby ACCEPT this offer on behalf of us all, so piss off, you sad individual.
No one can give a serious answer to my question? I guess I will just have to declare victory and leave the thread.
I’m still waiting, steve. Who’s gonna replace Pelosi so that small, young, brown, babies get a chance to live, breathe, and perspire? steve? I demand action and you, sir, stand there, athwart history, yelling stop?!
I’m going to workout.
Try not to let your righteous indignation get all over the carpet, would you, Steve X?
Jeff,
As I’m sure you know, they were estimating 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq at this point. That’s a lot longer and harder a slog than they anticipated, no? They screwed up. Time to put someone new in. That’s what you do.
Jeff,
My righteous indignation has little to do with the argument. Just respond to the points rather than what you think the tone implies.
A new Republican in charge would not only give a possible new direction in Iraq, but if he/she was successful, would give them a leg up in ‘08.
I’m not sure I understand this: the war in Iraq is not going as well as some would like – so let’s stop the whole thing. I dunno – do you think that in war the fact that the enemy is smart & changes tactics means that you give up, or do you adapt and change?
I think it’s foolish to give up because there are difficulties. (It’s a little-known fact, apparently, but in war soldiers die and things go badly. It would be great if there was a cost-free war, I suppose, or even better if the enemy would just lay down and die, but that might not happen for a while.)
What’s lacking is the will to win, which is an opinion expressed by many leftists. I dunno what planet they live on, but it seems to me that turning tail and surrendering will not do much to stop the jihadists from having their way with the world. You can choose to fight or run, but in either case, you’ll be fighting the same guys – they’re not going to stop just because we give up.
You said you were leaving the thread until you could make an intelligent contribution. But you’re still here trotting out the same tired provocations, like a maladjusted 10 year old.
Go away.
furriskey,
I was close, but then Jeff sent a serious post my way.
signed: A. Hitler.
BANG!
By the way, I resent your calling these the “same tired provocations”, these are brand new provocations. I haven’t gone for this line of argument before.
furriskey –
a better evocation of Godwin’s Law i’ve never heard.
thank you
Smells like, Victory!
Better luck next time.
I believe the key word we all have been insisting for you all along is leave. You want a serious answer, try asking a serious question for a change. I guess you think asking a question that ignores what is legal, what the Constitutional defines as the role of the Executive Branch, what has no historical precedent, what no other generation fighting a war on foreign soil has had the audacity to demand is serious. Guess what it isn’t & as you have shown throughout your brief visits here, you are not as well.
Historically & militarily, this war is nothing but a success, but politically it has shown the world that one side of this country, namely yours cares for power more than rule of law, supporting their troops or providing any semblance of a plan that doesn’t involve retreating & sacrificing 50 million people.
Can you name one war that has followed the initial plan or troop requirements 1 year, much less almost 4 years into it? No, you can’t because there has been & never will be.
steve, I grow weary of constantly demanding your reply. Which is that until you can rectify Pelosi’s clear and obviously willful destruction of the Iraqi rainforests, you, sir, have no leg to stand on.
That you continually ignore this relevant debate speaks even more volumes than the last time. I demand an answer and if you refuse I’m going to leave this tread, so help me. In my absence I’ll only stick around and comment as I find it necessary, I swear. As a San Franciscan, you owe the rest of us. You people had your hundred days and look what you did.
Ten minutes has passed. Dozens slew(n).
Steve-O,
Wow, is that really you? I saw the episode where like this pig–I mean policeman, shot you in the stomach with a rubber bullet. It looked like it really hurt. Did it really hurt?
Wee Man seems like a pretty cool guy, too.
steve? As promised, I left the thread but I can still read what you’re writing.
Steve —
Instead of declaring victory here, why not just declare it in Iraq?
POOF! PROBLEM SOLVED!
Geez, I was about Satchel’s age when the Great Society began. And there are still kids living in poverty in America. It’s time to pull out. It’s a quagmire. We tried, we sacrificed all those social workers, policy wonks and bureaucrats, but we failed, not through their fault, but because of the faulty intelligence.
I DEMAND LYNDON JOHNSON’S RESIGNATION!
Yeah, and I resent your thread-hogging bullshit. But you don’t see me posting seventy different times doing it.
Get lost already, creep.
Jeff left the thread to work out, steve, but don’t let that fool you. I know Jeff Goldstein, steve, and you, sir, are no Jeff Goldstein. Commenting is the highest form of patriotism, steve.
SteveX,
You aren’t providing a line of argument, you are demanding that your side be given control via a method that by-passes the voters, the Constitution & rational discourse all together. I’m glad you haven’t “gone for this line of argument before†& there is a reason that really “serious†people haven’t bothered as well, its retarded, illegal & unrealistic. Now just leave.
*snort*
Anyone else remember the leftards blaming Bush for 9/11? And how indignant they got when it was pointed out that Bush had been in office for 8 months when it happened, and that Clinton—whose term in office began with an attack by bin-Laden linked jihadis—had eight years to deal with the issue and did squat?
Incidentally, calling your insipid questions a “line of argument” makes all the real lines of argument who died to give yours its freedom spin over in their rhetorical graves.
I think a certain troll, before tossing off the same stale, tired bds-ridden talking points, might want to check what John Burns, by far the best reporter on Iraq pre- and post-war, had to say recently about the war and the occupation to Tim Russert.
The neo-con rethuglican scum at NRO provided
this transcript.
I think the money quotes are to the effect that Iraq pre-war was the 2nd nastiest place on earth—implication, Saddam had to go—and that nothing Bushhitler could have done post-war, save instituting our own represive regime w/ more than 1/2mil troops could’ve have prevented the collapse of Iraqi society.
So someone who knows a good deal more about Iraq than this troll has a very different opinion about the administration’s role in what has occurred.
Btw, we seen some half-assed trolls here, but this one is a friggin bore. Doesn’t get invited to too many parties, I’d suspect.
And of course if you haven’t gone for it, it’s brand new and we hadn’t grown sick and tired of it years before we met you.
Because that would imply that, like, there was stuff going on in this world before you were born or something. And that just can’t be so.
The fundamental problem is that the Leftmedia has convinced people to see victory as defeat.
If all it takes to defeat the US military is inflict 2.5 KIA per day (which is what the rate of loss has been in Iraq for years), we might as well disband the Department of Defense. And start memorizing the Koran.
In WWII, when the population was about half what it is today, we lost 300 KIA per day. And won.
Steve XX: Are you claiming that internal instability would help a nation fight a war?!
Maybe we could just throw the president out every two weeks like Italy….
Stevex
The American people had a chance in 2004 to ask Bush and Cheney to step down…. but too many of them declined to do so.
In 2006 the democrats win a few seats (AVALANCHE!!!) and start by doing nothing that supports the war effort on a combat level. The usual flip flop. Vote for Petraeus, but vote to deny him troops and funding to do what he proposed.
It is easy to blame any Commander in Chief.
Historically there have been huge criticisms.
The lefties laugh at WWII comparisons, but a cursory review of the individual failures within the larger context of that war show incompetency, stubborness, and negligence within the Executive branch. Prisoners were shot by our troops, women raped, babies bombed, friendly fire incidents were common. Japanese were put in Manzanar. Tactical errors led to enormous loss of life.
Strategic errors led to the repression (tanks crushing people in Czechoslovakia and Hungary) in eastern europe and in the division of China. China was so mishandled that they remain an enemy today. the Chinese fought us by proxy in Vietnam and outright in Korea.
War is hell. This war is less hell than almost any war in history.
There’s a non sequitur of some sort here, but I can’t put my finger on it.
Godwin’s Law, eh? OK.
BOOM!
I’ll just have to declare victory and leave the thread.
Signed. E. Hirohito.
Better?
I dont think the people on the line are the ones losing. I thought they often won at their missions.
If the war has been such a huge success, why are we still there, four years later? —Like it or not, that is what most Americans have on their minds.
The reason we are still there, of course, is because we won the war a long time ago, but we are there NOW until the political situation is to the liking of our government. That is a quite open-ended obligation. And that’s the issue.
Ok, I think I can arrive at a conclusion concerning steve ex-expat.
Here it is.
You, sir, are a booger eatin’ moron.
Anyone get a commissar-vibe when Steve-XX gets all imperious in his demands for punishment of what he declares as incompetence?
‘Cuz extra-Constitutional elections are like potato chips. You can’t stop after just one.
Why are you peeing on my post?
It’s a decent point: If you throw out the president now, for this, what do you throw him out for next? Next thing you know, you either have 500 governments in 60 years like Italy, or a Maximum Leader like Venezuela.
Only a lefty like Steve XX would advocate saving our democratic system under external threat by folding it internally. Of course, followed by capitulation externally.
Then the ruin would be complete, but Stevemadinejad would at least have scored a couple of points against his “Politically naive Republican Father”–’cuz that is all he is about.
You know, it takes a special kind of stupid to suggest that if Bush and Cheney were to step down the Republicans could pick somebody else to take their place, and then get pissy when no one takes you seriously.
Cheney and Bush could both be impeached, of course, and then what would we have. President Pelosi?!
Cheney and Bush will both be long gone in less than two years. And we will have a democratic House, Senate, and Executive, which in turn will start to screw the country up in their own special way.
I DEMAND WE GET RID OF LINCOLN!
Stevie, how many times are you going to get smacked around here before you get embarassed enough to slink away?
Tom: Depends on which Steve you are talking to. I’m just hanging out on my day off.
Nah. He thrives on it, like most lefties. The calculus goes like this:
“Jesus was persecuted for his beliefs.”
“I am persecuted for my beliefs.”
“Therefore, I am like Jesus.”
“The more I am smacked around the more Jesus-like I am.”
“I feel like Jesus when you smack me around!”
“Smack me around harder!”
TW: It’s so wrong83 and 84….
No, stevie is the clueless steve ex-expat.
His moniker is too cute to type.
Did Lincoln resign when the Civil War was going badly? No. he went and hired himself a new General.
So what did Bush just do? Same thing. Your point Steve? Yeah, I know, you don’t have one other than Bush sucks.
So tell me, how are the Democrats supporting the new Commander?
TomB: It’s likely he already has and will show up in another thread, pretending nothing happened.
Wasn’t Churchill nearly removed from office after Dunkirk?
TomB: It’s likely he already has and will show up in another thread, pretending nothing happened.
He’s the king of that. I tried to get him back to a thread where he left an number of questions unanswered (as he usually does). He brushed it off as “not one of his better efforts”.
He truly has no shame.
2 . To repeal the Military Selective Service Act. (Introduced in House)[H.R.424.IH]
3 . Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.808.IH]
emmadine, are you actus?
I’m not sure nearly is the right word, but he did lose support in his war cabinet in favor of Lord Halifax. However, if he had been removed, it would have been a completely legitimate parliamentary move, not a steviex wet dream of magially making Bush and Cheney disappear.
His stupidity is bottomless.
Just like Copperhead Democrats to stand in the way of freedom.
SteveX
If we had taken your advice during the US civil war, Democrats would still be owning slaves.
Gray,
Love your comment.
I would prefer if we had governments collapse everytime someone incorrectly labeled a roadsign in Flemish as opposed to French, like in Belgium. But I am unlikely to get my wish…
“I’ve pretty much made up my mind that the South have achieved their independence & I am almost ready to hope spring will see an end —I prefer intervention to save our credit but believe me, we shall never lick ‘em —The Army is tired with its hard, & its terrible experience & still more with its mismanagement & I think before long the majority will say that we are vainly working to effect what never happens—the subjugation (for that is it) of a great civilized nation. We shan’t do it—at least the Army can’t—“
Letter from Union Captain Oliver Wendell Holmes to his sister. November 1862
Why is it that the irritating fucks who threaten to take their ball and leave when their assininity is pointed out to them never actually wind up taking their ball and leaving? Perhaps because they have no balls, Steve?
SteveXX,
By what metric are you making the assertion that the war is going so very badly?
BRD
aw, I decide to be sociable one day and i miss all the fun. once again, stevexx demonstrates his complete ignorance of things military. I’ve mentioned before how I love that some leftys think the president is sitting around making battle plans and micromanaging operations.
anyhoo, RTO had a post a week or so ago on how it seems they’re already attempting to cut funding.
How much aid are you allowed to give an enemy before it is recognized as actually giving aid?
Well, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter with the ‘Desert One’ fiasco and Clinton ACTUALLY DID THOSE THINGS!
….and it was a disaster everytime.
But Democrap presidential operational micromanagement did what every leftist plan does:
Their micromanagement harmed the innocent, rewarded the dictators and left the problem unsolved.
stevexx…LOL at your abject stupidity! I was NOT for the continuation of the battle in Iraq, but I also don’t give one rat’s ass if YOU, and your niave ilk, would be appeased at Bush resigning. I just don’t give a fuck. Nobody does. Now be a good little child and run along. Tell “daddy” you love him and forgive him for his republicanism. I am actually feeling pity for you, now. IF you have EVER said anything resembling honest intellectual curiosity, I would bite my tongue. But you haven’t. You have made *lph** out to be a breath of fresh “counterpoint” air. That is how sad you really are.
tw: case38
Self-proclaimed physician heal thyself, because you are indeed a top notch headcase!
Like a good liberal his word is his bond. It took a minute to break that promise. Only rethuglicans are to be held accountable to what they say…..right stevexx?
OK……see ya!
What the fuck is that smell……..oh shit…sorry stevie I thought you left!
LIAR!