Robert Gates column

Gates1

The return of the professional

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
“AMID TAWDRINESS, he stands for honor, duty and decency,” another author once wrote of John le Carre’s fictional hero George Smiley.
    George was the master Cold Warrior brought back in from retirement to save British intelligence from the liars, self-dealers, ideologues, social climbers and traitors who had turned it inside out. He did so quietly, humbly and competently. Then he went his way, with little gratitude from the system.
    With Robert Gates’ nomination to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, old George seemsGates3
to have come back in from the cold yet again, although in different form.
    Mr. Gates is a Smileyesque professional. He was the only Director of Central Intelligence ever to have come up through the ranks. He had spent two decades in the Agency, from 1969 through 1989, with a several-year hiatus at the National Security Council. He received the National Security Medal, the Presidential Citizens Medal, the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal (twice) and the Distinguished Intelligence Medal (three times).
    I trust professionals, particularly those who have devoted themselves to national service. Not in every case, of course — there are idiots and scoundrels in every walk of life — but if all other things are equal, give me the pro from Dover over someone’s golf buddy every time.
    Perhaps that’s why I sometimes lower my standards from the le Carre level to enjoy a Tom Clancy novel. Jack Ryan moves in a world peopled by competent, heroically dedicated public servants. Most wear uniforms — soldiers, sailors, Marines, cops — but others are costumed in the conservative suits of the FBI, CIA or Secret Service. The ones you have to watch out for are the politicians; they always have agendas that have little to do with protecting the country or the rule of law.
Rumsfeld
    This has a ring of truth to me. I grew up in the Navy and have spent my adult life dealing with a broad variety of people from cops to lawyers to FBI agents to politicians to private business types. I know a lot of fine politicos and private-sector executives, but as a percentage, I’ll more quickly trust the honor of public-service professionals.
    Of course, they often don’t trust me — at least not at first — and I don’t blame them. The press spends too much time with publicans and sinners, and absorbs too many of their values. As a group, for instance, we tend to love it when a special prosecutor is appointed. That means fireworks, and fireworks are news.
    Call me a heretic, but I’ve always wondered why we don’t just let the professional investigators do their jobs. Do we really think the FBI — not the political appointees at the top, but the career agents who do the work — can’t investigate corruption? Sure, a politician can try to get such a civil servant fired or transferred to garbage detail, but such overt efforts to subvert the system tend to get noticed, a la Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre.”
    Mr. Gates has had his own run-ins with politicians and special counsel. He withdrew from consideration to become Ronald Reagan’s CIA director in 1987 because he had been senior enough for the Iran-Contra affair to have cast its shadow over him. He was under formal investigation in that connection when he was nominated again under George H.W. Bush. No one ever pinned any wrongdoing on him, and he was confirmed by the Senate.
    This time, the Democrats who are likely to line the gauntlet he must again run to confirmationGates2
were generally supportive of his nomination. Of course, look at the act he’d be following. Mr. Gates is described as a soft-spoken, yet tough-minded, “pragmatist and realist,” an antithesis to the civilian ideologues who have been running the war.
    In Thursday’s news reports, the Gates nomination was treated as another sign of “the ascendancy of the team that served the president’s father.” There’s truth — and reassurance, for pragmatists — in that. He has for the past several months served as one of the “Wise Men” reviewing and critiquing the conduct of the Iraq War, along with former Secretary of State James Baker. That makes him particularly, if not uniquely, well prepared to run the war more successfully.
    Of course, he’s not a Defense professional. But the Pentagon might be an exception to my general preference. In that particular case, the real professionals — the uniformed leaders, the warriors —spend their careers trying to stay out of the Pentagon. I worry about the ones who do otherwise. Beyond that, it’s probably best that Defense not be headed by a general or admiral, to preserve the principle of civilian oversight. But it would be nice if they had a boss who would listen to them.
    Given those conditions, who would be better than a pragmatic national security professional who possesses mastery of the entire spectrum of intelligence gathering and analysis, and has been studying in depth what has gone wrong in Iraq? He just needs to help the president pick a direction. The generals and admirals will know how to get the job done from that point.
    They’re professionals, too.

Rummy

111 thoughts on “Robert Gates column

  1. bill

    Gates of Hell: Another Constitution-Betraying Bushist in the Pentagon
    Written by Chris Floyd
    Thursday, 09 November 2006
    Could anyone be worse than Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary? Well, how about an old Bush Family factotum who was hip-deep in the Iran-Contra arms-drugs-terror scam, who doctored, spun and manipulated intelligence for partisan purposes and also steered secret U.S. military intelligence to help Saddam Hussein launch WMD attacks? Oh, plus someone who has no experience whatsoever of the military? Sounds like a dream candidate; and of course our Dear Leader — manfully shaking off the great slap he took from the ungrateful American people who clearly don’t deserve such sterling leadership — has found him.
    Jason Leopold has the skinny on Def Sec nominee Robert M. Gates, a man whose murky past has already deep-sixed one attempt to get him through the Senate confirmation process. Of course, with good old holy Joe the Schmo Lieberman now holding the balance of power in the Senate, Gates will probably squeeze into the Pentagon, where he can preside over whatever butt-covering bug-out plan that other old Bush Family factotum, Jim Baker, comes up with. (One question arises from all this, and somebody in the White House press corps should ask it: Which George Bush is president of the country now?)
    Gates Has History of Manipulating Intelligence (Truthout)
    Excerpts: Robert Gates, the former director of the CIA during the presidency of George H.W. Bush who was tapped Tuesday by the president to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, is part of Texas’s good ol’ boy network. He may be best known for playing a role in arming Iraq’s former dictator Saddam Hussein with American-made weapons in the country’s war against Iran in the 1980s…
    During contentious Senate confirmation hearings in October 1991 – which are bound to come up again – Gates’s role in cooking intelligence information during the Iran-Contra scandal was revealed. It was during those hearings that senators found out about a December 2, 1986, 10-page classified memo written by Thomas Barksdale, the CIA analyst for Iran. That memo claimed that covert arms sales to the country demonstrated “a perversion of the intelligence process” that is staggering in its proportions.
    The Barksdale memo was used by Gates’s detractors to prove he played an active role in slanting intelligence information during his tenure at the agency under Reagan. Eerily reminiscent of the way CIA analysts were treated by Vice President Dick Cheney during the run-up to the Iraq war three years ago, when agents were forced to provide the Bush administration with intelligence showing Iraq was a nuclear threat, Barksdale said he and other Iran analysts “were never consulted or asked to provide an intelligence input to the covert actions and secret contacts that have occurred.”
    Barksdale added that Gates was the pipeline for providing “exclusive reports to the White House,” intelligence that was “at odds with the overwhelming bulk of intelligence reporting, both from U.S. sources and foreign intelligence services”….
    At the hearing, other CIA analysts said Gates forced them to twist intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by the former Soviet Union. Analysts alleged a report approved by Gates overstated Soviet influence in Iran that specifically led the late President Ronald Reagan into making policy decisions that turned into the Iran-Contra scandal. Jennifer Glaudemans, a former CIA analyst, said at the 1991 Gates confirmation hearings that she and her colleagues at the CIA believed “Mr Gates and his influence have led to a prostitution of [Soviet] analysis…..”
    If confirmed, Gates would arguably be overseeing a war that removed a dictator he personally helped to prop up. Tom Harkin, a senator from Iowa, described Gates’s role in intelligence sharing operations with Iraq during a time when the United States helped arm Saddam Hussein in Iraq’s war against Iran.
    I also have doubts and questions about Mr. Gates’s role in the secret intelligence sharing operation with Iraq,” Harkin said during Gates’s confirmation hearings on November 7, 1991. “Robert Gates served as assistant to the director of the CIA in 1981 and as deputy director for intelligence from 1982 to 1986. In that capacity, he helped develop options in dealing with the Iran-Iraq war, which eventually evolved into a secret intelligence liaison relationship with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Gates was in charge of the directorate that prepared the intelligence information that was passed on to Iraq. He testified that he was also an active participant in the operation during 1986. The secret intelligence sharing operation with Iraq was not only a highly questionable and possibly illegal operation, but also may have jeopardized American lives and our national interests. The photo reconnaissance, highly sensitive electronic eavesdropping, and narrative texts provided to Saddam may not only have helped him in Iraq’s war against Iran, but also in the recent gulf war.
    Great! Yet another Saddam-loving Pentagon goober whose blind obedience to nutball White House policies helped kill American soldiers! It will be as if Rummy never left.

    Reply
  2. bill

    Sounds like a dream candidate; and of course our Dear Leader — manfully shaking off the great slap he took from the ungrateful American people who clearly don’t deserve such sterling leadership — has found him.
    Jason Leopold has the skinny on Def Sec nominee Robert M. Gates, a man whose murky past has already deep-sixed one attempt to get him through the Senate confirmation process. Of course, with good old holy Joe the Schmo Lieberman now holding the balance of power in the Senate, Gates will probably squeeze into the Pentagon, where he can preside over whatever butt-covering bug-out plan that other old Bush Family factotum, Jim Baker, comes up with. (One question arises from all this, and somebody in the White House press corps should ask it: Which George Bush is president of the country now?)
    Gates Has History of Manipulating Intelligence (Truthout)
    Excerpts: Robert Gates, the former director of the CIA during the presidency of George H.W. Bush who was tapped Tuesday by the president to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, is part of Texas’s good ol’ boy network. He may be best known for playing a role in arming Iraq’s former dictator Saddam Hussein with American-made weapons in the country’s war against Iran in the 1980s…
    During contentious Senate confirmation hearings in October 1991 – which are bound to come up again – Gates’s role in cooking intelligence information during the Iran-Contra scandal was revealed. It was during those hearings that senators found out about a December 2, 1986, 10-page classified memo written by Thomas Barksdale, the CIA analyst for Iran. That memo claimed that covert arms sales to the country demonstrated “a perversion of the intelligence process” that is staggering in its proportions.
    The Barksdale memo was used by Gates’s detractors to prove he played an active role in slanting intelligence information during his tenure at the agency under Reagan. Eerily reminiscent of the way CIA analysts were treated by Vice President Dick Cheney during the run-up to the Iraq war three years ago, when agents were forced to provide the Bush administration with intelligence showing Iraq was a nuclear threat, Barksdale said he and other Iran analysts “were never consulted or asked to provide an intelligence input to the covert actions and secret contacts that have occurred.”
    Barksdale added that Gates was the pipeline for providing “exclusive reports to the White House,” intelligence that was “at odds with the overwhelming bulk of intelligence reporting, both from U.S. sources and foreign intelligence services”….
    At the hearing, other CIA analysts said Gates forced them to twist intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by the former Soviet Union. Analysts alleged a report approved by Gates overstated Soviet influence in Iran that specifically led the late President Ronald Reagan into making policy decisions that turned into the Iran-Contra scandal. Jennifer Glaudemans, a former CIA analyst, said at the 1991 Gates confirmation hearings that she and her colleagues at the CIA believed “Mr Gates and his influence have led to a prostitution of [Soviet] analysis…..”
    If confirmed, Gates would arguably be overseeing a war that removed a dictator he personally helped to prop up. Tom Harkin, a senator from Iowa, described Gates’s role in intelligence sharing operations with Iraq during a time when the United States helped arm Saddam Hussein in Iraq’s war against Iran.
    I also have doubts and questions about Mr. Gates’s role in the secret intelligence sharing operation with Iraq,” Harkin said during Gates’s confirmation hearings on November 7, 1991. “Robert Gates served as assistant to the director of the CIA in 1981 and as deputy director for intelligence from 1982 to 1986. In that capacity, he helped develop options in dealing with the Iran-Iraq war, which eventually evolved into a secret intelligence liaison relationship with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Gates was in charge of the directorate that prepared the intelligence information that was passed on to Iraq. He testified that he was also an active participant in the operation during 1986. The secret intelligence sharing operation with Iraq was not only a highly questionable and possibly illegal operation, but also may have jeopardized American lives and our national interests. The photo reconnaissance, highly sensitive electronic eavesdropping, and narrative texts provided to Saddam may not only have helped him in Iraq’s war against Iran, but also in the recent gulf war.
    Great! Yet another Saddam-loving Pentagon goober whose blind obedience to nutball White House policies helped kill American soldiers! It will be as if Rummy never left.

    Reply
  3. bill

    Wrong man to replace Rumsfeld
    By Melvin A. Goodman
    Originally published November 10, 2006
    Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld’s resignation has unloaded a great deal of unwelcome baggage for the Bush administration, but the nomination of Robert M. Gates is unlikely to help resolve the disastrous war in Iraq or the uniformed military’s opposition to the civilian leadership at the Pentagon. Unlike successful secretaries of defense in the recent past, Mr. Gates lacks essential experience in military and industrial affairs and has had serious problems with the congressional confirmation process.
    from The Baltimore Sun

    Reply
  4. Brad Warthen

    The Wall Street Journal doesn’t like him either. But then, they didn’t want Rummy to go:
    “President Bush made a crucial point at his press conference yesterday when he warned America’s ‘enemies’ not to read the vicissitudes of our democracy as ‘a lack of will.’ Too bad he then undermined that message by accepting the ‘resignation’ of Donald Rumsfeld a day after his party’s election defeat — and only a week after saying he wanted his defense secretary to serve out his term.
    “We realize Mr. Rumsfeld had become a political lightening rod, and that after six years Mr. Bush may want someone else to engage on defense policy with Democrats who have demanded the Pentagon chief’s head. But the timing of the secretary’s dispatch, and Mr. Bush’s flustered explanation about the cause and timing, sent a message of retreat, rather than resolve. His nomination of Robert Gates also doesn’t reassure us about Mr. Bush’s policy direction…”
    “Which brings us back to Mr. Gates, whose nomination makes us wonder if Mr. Bush is signaling a change in policy, or worse, a new resignation toward Iraq. Mr. Gates is a capable public servant with broad security experience. But much of that experience is with the CIA, which has misjudged the nature of the enemy throughout this conflict. Mr. Gates is also on the Baker-Hamilton study group that Congress established to examine policy options for Iraq, and we hope his nomination doesn’t mean Mr. Bush has already signed onto its soon-to-be-released recommendations. One of those proposals is reportedly a new engagement with Iran and Syria, which would make a hash of the President’s ‘freedom agenda.'”
    “Most troubling regarding Iraq, Mr. Gates was deputy national security adviser under Brent Scowcroft in 1991, when President Bush’s father abandoned the Shiite uprising that followed the first Gulf War. One reason the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki has had such a hard time dismantling Shiite militias is because Shiites fear that it’s only a matter of time before the U.S. abandons them again and they will have to confront the Sunni Baathist insurgency on their own. If President Bush wants to reassure Shiites on this score and about Mr. Gates, he should announce that the recent efforts to appease the Sunni terrorist political fronts in Iraq have failed.
    “We presume Mr. Gates will be grilled about these and other issues during his confirmation hearings. He should be.”

    Reply
  5. Spencer Gantt

    Rats! Another name to add to my list of DON’T BOTHER TO READ posters. Such “foaming at the mouth” hatred, venom and bilge. Unbelievable.
    Remember to always read comments from the bottom up (the Jim Webb way – HAH!), and you won’t have to waste your time.
    So long as someone has no criminal record and isn’t wanted by the law or the IRS, they should be allowed to “serve” regardless who the President is.

    Reply
  6. Dave

    The stage is being set now. A year from now, we have the opportunity to have Gatesgate. That will top Watergate, IranContragate, Travelgate, etc.. What better scandal than Gatesgate? We are entering the Congress of endless investigation while nothing will get done.

    Reply
  7. Mary Rosh

    Dave, unlike the Republican Congress, which didn’t do any investigation or oversight, or get anything done, Pelosi and Reid are industrious enough to pass necessary legislation and fulfill their Constitutional responsibility of overseeing the executive branch.

    Reply
  8. Dave

    Mary, cite something useful that has ever been the result of a House or Senate investigation. And don’t tell me the investigation of steroids in baseball was a success. Name one.

    Reply
  9. Ed

    Gates wasn’t who we needed as SecDef, but then neither is Pelosi who we need as Speaker either. I agree with Dave that we are entering the season of the endless congressional hearing…my prayer is that Wonder Woman (Pelosi), Henry Waxman (nuclear nostrils) and all the other liberal goons give the american people so many independent counsels and waste so much time, money and energy in endless congressional investigations/witch hunts that it totally pi$$es the country off and we rise up and throw this bunch out in ’08. Maybe in the next two years republicans can clean house, electrocute and dispose of all the “moderates” and “centrists” that caused us to lose last week, and decide on a real presidential candidate that is made of genuine presidential timber and is not afraid to step out and lead on conservative principles . Conservatism wins every time it’s tried…we’ve just had no one who would lead on it lately. Ed

    Reply
  10. Mary Rosh

    Yeah, Ed, conservatism never fails. The reason conservative policies never work is that they aren’t ever implemented in a sufficiently pure form.
    South Carolina is one of the most conservative states, and is also a failure, with an ignorant, uneducated, unproductive, low wage work force. It has high rates of illiteracy, infant mortality, child and spouse abuse, divorce, out of wedlock births, teen pregnancy, alcoholism, smoking, and obesity. Its economy would collapse if not for a constant stream of subsidies flowing in from the federal government and financed by liberals in states like New York, California, and New Jersey. Conservatives have dominated South Carolina’s government for over 100 years. All during that time, South Carolina has been an impoverished, backward state. But the reason that South Carolina is a failure isn’t because conservative policies don’t work, it is because South Carolina has never tried conservatism. Yeah, right, tell me another one.
    But even if you’re right, Ed, what difference does it make? Who cares whether conservatism produces failed policies because of inherent defects in conservatism, or if attempts to implement conservative policies produce failed results because conservatism is so brittle that it can never be implemented in a sufficiently pure form? The problem is that no attempt to produce a successful and prosperous population by means of conservative policies ever succeeds.
    So why not take a more pragmatic approach? Instead of struggling to implement conservative policies, which fail so easily, producing backward and impoverished societies like that of South Carolina, why not implement liberal polcies? Perhaps liberal policies won’t produce results as good as those produced by the conservative ideal, but liberal policies seem to be much more robust, producing populations which are well educated, prosperous, and productive, and capable of paying both their own share of federal taxes, and an extra amount used to provide subisidies to support conservative states as they struggle to come up with a set of conservative policies that produces something other than ignorance and squalor.

    Reply
  11. Mary Rosh

    Yeah, Ed, I expect anything longer than a couple sentences would be too hard to read for someone who sounds out words one syllable at a time.

    Reply
  12. Lee

    The same Democrats who screamed, long after it was too late to actually do so, that President George Bush should have sent our forces on into Baghdad to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 1991, voted in 1998 to do so, again in 2002 to do so, then immediately after President G.W. Bush removed Saddam, they began a campaign of lies that Saddam posed no threat and the war was unnecessary.
    They are partisan liars, pragmatic only about doing whatever it takes to preserve and increase their personal power.

    Reply
  13. Steve Gordy

    Lee is trying to shout louder by posting the same comment on multiple threads. As far as Iraq policy is concerned, Toles’ editorial carton in yesterday’s State says it all.

    Reply
  14. bud

    Brad writes:
    “… who would be better than a pragmatic national security professional who possesses mastery of the entire spectrum of intelligence gathering and analysis, and has been studying in depth what has gone wrong in Iraq?”
    Any answer to that question that does not include: “We shouldn’t have gone in there in the first place”, gets us nowhere. “Going in” was what went wrong. Sure, we made plenty of other mistakes but the whole invasion was fundementally flowed from the outset. It’s crucial that we acknowledge that before we can even begin to solve this mess.
    We’re seen by practically everyone in the world as imperialistic occupiers. That perception must change. And only by acknowledging what a huge mistake it was to go in can we begin the healing process. If Gates is willing to do that, then perhaps we can work out some solution. Otherwise we’re doomed.

    Reply
  15. bud

    Mary, Ed must listen to Rush “Lost the U.S. Senate” Limbaugh. None of his listeners is able to read much more than a sentence or two. Perhaps we can mail him a copy of My Pet Goat.

    Reply
  16. bud

    George W. Bush is without a doubt the most dishonest, lyingest, SOB ever to occupy the White House. At least he admits it with the Rumsfeld debacle.
    Bush said in an Oval Office interview with The Associated Press and other reporters on Nov. 1 that he expected Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney to stay in his administration until the end. A day after Democrats triumphed, Bush acknowledged he misled the reporters because he “didn’t want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign.”
    I guess the voters are not entitled to have honest information so they can make an informed decision in the voting booth. Shame on Mr. Bush. If I were the Dems I would reject Mr. Gates out of hand. He’s nothing but an old neo-con retread with very little (2 years) military experience.

    Reply
  17. Lee

    Can you name a specific item which you think Bush lied about, or is this just visceral hatred and fear that you might lose some government handout?

    Reply
  18. Lee

    The real lying is by Democrats who said President Bush should have “finished the job” in 1991 by overthrowing Saddam, then voted in 1998 for war “to remove the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction”, and now claim that Saddam was no threat to us and had no WMD.

    Reply
  19. bud

    Lee, re-read my last post. Bush said, on November 1, he expected Rumsfeld to stay until the end of his term. He fired him a week later. He then admitted his initial show of support (on November 1) was not true, that he (Bush) did in fact intend to dismiss Rumsfeld. The definition of a lie is to say something, with full knowledge that it is false. In this case the president said he was planning to keep Rumsfeld, knowing that he was not going to keep him. That is a lie.
    What could be argued is whether this lie was honorable in some way. Bush claims he did not want to inject politics into the election process, therefore the lie was justified. But it was not honorable because it represented a distortion of his intentions as president and hence the voters were denied information that could have been useful in deciding how to vote.
    Did this lie cost the GOP control of congress? Some think so. Perhaps in Virginia if a few fence-sitting voters knew Rumsfeld was gone it’s possible they would have been more favorable to Mr. Allen. And that could have tipped the balance.
    But whether it did or didn’t change the outcome of the election the people have a right to full and truthful disclosure. The truth seems to be something in short supply in this administration.

    Reply
  20. Dave

    Bud, I agree Bush erred in not making his personnel change public before the election. However, had he done that, you know the driveby media would have gone into agony over it as an election ploy. As I have posted before, if most of the media or Democrats had 1 tenth the class of W, it would be a miracle.

    As for calling this a lie, that is ridiculous. Does your company announce personnel decisions about letting people go publicly? Get real on this lie business. How about you supporting the troops in Iraq for a change instead of constantly beating the drum that we have to exit without a victory. Iraq to me is win or else, no options other than to win. You are either with Bin Laden or Bush, which one is it?

    Reply
  21. Lee

    bud claims to know the details of when and how Donald Rumsfeld resigned or was asked to resign. How laughable, and delusional.
    Bush was damned for hiring Rumsfeld, for keeping Rumsfeld, and now for replacing Rumsfeld. That’s what you call blind hatred.

    Reply
  22. Mary Rosh

    “Iraq to me is win or else, no options other than to win. You are either with Bin Laden or Bush, which one is it?”
    This is an argument from authority, with yourself as the authority. The response, of course, is, that no one cares what Iraq is or isn’t “to you,” because you’re a stupid, lazy, worthless, freeloading, hypocritical coward. My opinion of what the U.S. goal should be in Iraq is to achieve the best solution possible for the United States.
    The fact that you believe that advocating a war that you aren’t going to fight in makes you a man doesn’t matter to me, and the fact that you believe that a willness to send others into danger makes you brave doesn’t matter to me. I want to achieve the best possible result for the United States.
    Your claim that someone is either with bin Laden or Bush is a false dichotomy. No one cares what you say about it, because you have proven over, and over, and over again that you don’t care about the safety or welfare of America.
    As a matter of fact, you can’t be for Bush and against bin Laden, because al Qaeda explicitly endorsed Bush in the 2004 election. So one might say that you’re either against Bush or against al Qaeda. And THIS claim is based on what al Qaeda has actually said.

    Reply
  23. Dave

    Scary Mary, what you keep proving is your insanity. And, it’s now 2006 going on 07, get with the present and stop reliving the 2000 and 2004 elections.

    Reply
  24. Lee

    Al Qaeda announced on Nov 10 that even if the Democrats do withdraw the troops, they won’t rest until they blow up the White House.
    Face it, Democowards. You have no place to hide. You have to face the enemy and defeat him.

    Reply
  25. Mary Rosh

    Dave, it has nothing to do with reliving the 2004 and 2000 elections. It has to do with paying attention to ACTUAL EVIDENCE of what bin Laden actually thinks. Bin Laden explicitly endorsed Bush. If you support Bush, you agree with bin Laden. If you oppose Bush, you oppose bin Laden.

    Reply
  26. Lee

    Is anyone really dumb enough to believe that Bin Laden wants President Bush to have the support of the American people to finish the job of mopping up the terrorists?
    Bin Laden did say, after the fact, that Clinton’s withdrawal from Somalia was a great recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. A Democrat surrender in Iraq would be an even greater recruiting tool, and create an even bigger mess for some real Americans to clean up.

    Reply
  27. bud

    I’m going to offer something a bit more constructive that the constant natering that we’ve engaged in on this thread. Let’s start with some suggestions for Mr. Gates (if confirmed) on Iraq.
    What we need to do first is eliminate those options that have not worked. Simply put, the current American troop levels and/or distribution of those troops is not bringing about a satisfactory outcome for America’s best interests. Given the enormous effort we’ve devoted to training an Iraqi army for the past 2+ years it’s safe to say that we’re failing to achieve an effective fighting force that will allow us to leave. Can’t we at least agree on that?
    If we have too few troops and it’s unlikely we can forge an effective fighting force from the Iraqi citizenry then what? Here are the options:
    1. Bring in more America troops.
    2. Use more force at different locations.
    3. Attempt to forge a dialogue with other nations in the region, especially Iran and Syria. Use their leverage to bring about security.
    The first option will almost certainly require a draft. If we decide as a nation this is the course to take then everyone must sacrifice something. Everyone. That includes everyone who contributes to this blog.
    The second option has been tried many times in many ways. Perhaps we can give it yet another go. But at some point we have to accept the fact that this simply will not work. It’s a fools errand to keep trying the same things over and over again and expect different results. Those of us on the left say we’ve tried this enough already, but if those of you who are pro-war want to try a few more times explain why it will work better the next time.
    The third option is fraught with risks but may represent the only real hope. We should at least give it a try.

    Reply
  28. Lee

    1. How many more troops?
    The Democrats are calling for witdrawal in 90 days. We have more allied troops now than our commanders think we need.
    2. At exactly what new locations would you deploy these troops? Why? Why have our commanders not already deployed them to these locations?
    3. We already have dialogs with Syria, Iran and other Muslim nations. What would you do differently? Give them more money? Back down and let them acquire more WMD to use on Israel and our forces?

    Reply
  29. bud

    Lee, I think you missed my point. These are the options to consider if we’re serious about continuing in Iraq. I personally think we should quit Iraq. But something must change. But what?

    Reply
  30. Dave

    I like Option 2 but for starters we should bomb to smithereens the Iranian nuclear plants and all of their military sites. If they mass 1 million Iranians to storm into Iraq after our soldiers, then vaporize the border with nukes. This is for starters.

    Reply
  31. Lee

    bud, your point is that you only have vague, contradictory suggestions, based on no knowledge, just like the people for whom you voted.

    Reply
  32. bud

    Apparently Dave doesn’t like option number 3.
    We may actually consider some type of conventional strike against the Iranian nuclear plants but no president would ever consider the use of nuclear weapons in this context. So let’s get serious. How would you implement option number 2?

    Reply
  33. bud

    Lee, my suggestions are not vague at all. If I was president, I would order an immediate withdrawl of all American forces from Iraq. How specific is that. What I’m trying to get you, Brad, Dave and Lex to do is provide some suggestions on how to win the war and exactly what you mean by win. It’s easy to sit back and say we must win. The hard part is figuring out how. I even offered a few suggestions to get you started. If you don’t like these come up with your own.

    Reply
  34. Lee

    You would withdraw all troops from Iraq, but draft and deploy more troops to other nameless places.
    That’s the same contradictory, non-specific non-strategy the Democrat leaders have. That’s why the terrorists are celebrating the election of Democrats.
    We went through the same discraceful partisanship in Vietnam: the Democrat started and escalated the war, then kept reiging in our troops and micromanaging every operation for political timing. The news media reported our victories as if they were defeats. As soon as Nixon was elected in 1968, the Democrats turned 180 degrees and demanded immediate withdrawal, then timetables, and “dialogues” with the NVA, Red China and Russia.

    Reply
  35. Dave

    Bud, keep in mind that Harry Truman already used the nuclear option, although not really on military targets but on entire cities. Our president, whomever that is, better be ready to use the nuke option. We are 300 million people in a world of 6 billion or so, and with the Islamic threat its inevitable that they will attack us when they have the capability. Pre-emption is the only answer. Sooner or later we will be at that point, probably sooner. Iran CANNOT get a nuclear bomb. Period. Or they will use it.

    Reply
  36. bud

    Yes, Truman used the bomb and we found out just how terrible it is. The following people will not use the bomb unless we are attacked first:
    George W. Bush
    John McCain
    Barack Obama
    John Kerry
    John Edwards
    Rudy Guliani
    Hillary Clinton
    Newt Gingrich
    Joe Biden
    Dick Cheney
    Nancy Pelosi
    Dennis Hastert
    Whatever their political differences these folks are unanimous in opposing the use of nuclear weapons in a pre-emtive strike. Conventional weapons, perhaps, nuclear no. So why suggest this as a potential course of action?

    Reply
  37. Lee

    We already have been attacked first, several times. That is why Congress and the Senate voted almost unanimously, in 1998, to authorize President Clinton to bomb and invade Iran to thwart a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon attack through the terrorists trained in Iraq, which include the Sept 11 hijackers.
    They again overwhelmingly renewed the authorization for President Bush. Our forces have found a great number of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons in Iraq.
    Pakistan has admitted it was working on a new nuclear bomb, but stopped.
    Libya handed over nuclear weapons which Clinton did not know existed.
    China has betrayed their pledge to Al Gore, and used the technology he gave them to build and test a hydrogen bomb and a new ICBMS.
    North Korea has betrayed its agreement with Clinton and finished a nuclear bomb.
    Iran has plutonium and is building a bomb and ballistic missiles which will reach Israel.
    It is fool’s talk to tell them we would not use every weapon at our disposal to preempt their strikes against us.

    Reply
  38. bud

    Fools talk??? No president will premptively use a nuclear weapon. Everyone knows that. It’s etched in stone. A done deal. The fat lady has sung. That’s just the way it is. It’s kind of like suggesting we change the color of the sky. It’s pointless.
    Besides, there’s no need to use or threaten the use of nukes. We have an incredible military edge over any country or combination of countries that could possibly intend us harm. Besides, what does any of this have to do with Iraq? The mission there is what needs to be resolved. Solutions please. What does the right want to do about Iraq?

    Reply
  39. Dave

    Bud, tactical nukes are in our arsenal right now. These are battlefield ready nukes and are not the megaton range used to destroy an entire city. And Lee is right, we have been attacked and so any use of these would not be pre-emptive with Iran.

    Reply
  40. bud

    Dave and Lee, you make my case so much better than I could ever do on my own. The deluded, fear-infested, war mongering right in this country has just completely lost touch with reality. The only way the Iranians, with a military budget of about $5 billion/year, pose any threat to us is if we goad them into something. They have neither the means nor the inclination to attack the U.S. or it’s citizens. They are desperately trying to build nukes in order to have a modest deterence to our imperialist ambitions. They hear “Axis of Evil” and see a drawn-out occupation of a neighboring Shiite nation and conclude they are next. And who could blame them?
    We need a dialogue with them that will lead to a withdrawl of our troops in Iraq. This idiotic talk of nuking them is preposperous. Even the hapless, mentally- challenged Decider understands we can’t use nukes. The environmental consequences alone would be devestating.
    Thankfully a solid majority of the American voting population belatedly recognized the right-wing of the GOP for the nutcase, dangerous lunatics that they are and sent them packing. After President Clinton’s inagural in January 2009 perhaps we can finish the clean-up operation in foreign affairs and return the world to the peaceful state of affairs it enjoyed in 2000.

    Reply
  41. Lee

    Our military budget today, even with a war going on, is about 30% less in relation to our economy than we spent during the Cold War.
    Our deficits are entirely due to excessive welfare spending. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 revitalized the economy from the Clinton recession and generated enough excess revenue to balance the budget, if we had not increased spending on social programs.

    Reply
  42. Lee

    The instability in Iraq is being fomented by Syria and Iran, to take the pressure off themselves, because they know reform is coming, just as soon as we can bring Iraq into the modern world.

    Reply
  43. Dave

    Bud, I guess Iran plans on wiping Israel off the map because they suspect the J00s would like to usurp their lands. By the way, there is NO logic in terrorist Muslim minds so trying to appeal to reason or negotiating with them is sheer folly. They only respect fear of another’s power, and that is why we are a target.

    Reply
  44. Mary Rosh

    Bud, you said this about the Iranians.
    “We need a dialogue with them that will lead to a withdrawal of our troops in Iraq.”
    Iran is a Muslim country.
    Pigs are unclean to them.
    Therefore, they don’t eat or handle pork.
    Therefore, it will be harder than you may think to talk them into helping to save our bacon in Iraq.
    I think they will try if approached, because they are as threatened by instability as anybody else. But the situation may be beyond their ability to solve, just as it is beyond ours.

    Reply
  45. Dave

    Mary, that goes as your most sensible post ever. You are maturing on this blog right before our eyes. Brilliant!!!!!!!!!!

    You are right because to Islamics we are infidels who must be converted or enslaved or killed. Starting from that premise, that makes it pretty hard to find common ground for negotiation. This is what Israel has had to deal with now since the inception of Israel in modern times and for a thousand years or more before that.

    Reply
  46. Lee

    As Al Qaeda said after last week’s election, even if the Democrats remove every US soldier from the Mideast, they won’t be happy until they blow up the White House.

    Reply
  47. bud

    Mary, you may be right. It’s entirely possible that we’re in a situation that can’t be satisfactorily resolved. But I think at least part, if not most, of the problem is the continued, threatening nature of our occupation of Iraq. If we simply remove our troops there are enough moderates in the region who genuinely want peace and a prosperous future that maybe, just maybe we can move forward in a positive direction. Everyone wins in that case.
    Look at Vietnam. The president is visiting that war-torn nation soon in an attempt to normalize trade relations. The Daves and Lees of the 70s would have regarded that an impossibility 30 years ago. They were wrong then and they’re wrong now. The same is likely to happen with Iran if we simply leave. But it will probably take a couple of decades for the wounds to heal.

    Reply
  48. Lee

    Yeah, look at Vietnam to see the same failed policies of the Democrats. The Democrats who put the US in that war then demanded withdrawal as soon as the voters fired them in 1968.
    We left, and the North Vietnamese murdered another 2,000,000 South Vietnamese and Chinese. The Cambodians murdered even more.
    Now millionaire Democrats build running shoe factories there and pay 25 cents an hour, while their party back home cries to raise the minimum wage in America to $7.50.

    Reply
  49. bud

    Lee, what you said is partially true. But in the final analysis we are much better off today because we left Vietnam in 1973. Had we continued, Siagon would have still fallen. Genocide would have still ensued eventually and thousands more American lives would have been lost. It’s derisively been called cut and run but it’s the most pragmatic course of action given a host of bad options.

    Reply
  50. Lee

    bud, you are obviously too young to have any direct knowledge of Vietnam, only the propaganda fed you by socialist losers who control the colleges and media. America never lost a battle in Vietnam, but did have a lot of them nullified by politicians in another round of dialogues with the communists.
    Reagan stood up up to them, and they folded like a wet paper sack. Now their socialist factories hum to enrich American liberals, who don’t care how many little people are enslaved to make them some cheaper clothes.

    Reply
  51. Mary Rosh

    Dave, your racism notwithstanding, the fact that Iranians don’t eat pork doesn’t make them our enemies. The fact is that we share common interests with Iran, namely, we want to achieve some kind of stability in Iraq. They have some credibility with the Shiite insurgents, while we have none. If asked and allowed, I’m sure they can be counted on to do what they can to get the situation under some kind of control, because that benefits everyone in the region, including them.
    Your ideas about how Muslims are somehow inherently our implacable enemies, motivated only by a desire to kill us, has nothing to do with Muslims. You say, “starting from that premise,” but there is no reason to start from your premise. The premise you postulate doesn’t have support from any observations of real Muslims. The fact that you postulate the premise is simply a reflection of you. It tells us about your stupidity and racism, but it doesn’t tell us anything about how to negotiate with Iran.
    Muslims do what it is in their interest to do, the same as everyone else.
    In order to negotiate with Iran, we should select a negotiator who will not start with the premise that all Muslims see us as infidels to be converted, enslaved, or killed. That aspect of it isn’t difficult, you just find someone whose life isn’t built around racism, cowardice, and handouts.

    Reply
  52. bud

    Conservatives have been wrong about every aspect of the Iraq conflict. Why should we expect them to be correct about anything related to this situation in the future. They were wrong about the WMD. Wrong about flowers and chocolates. Wrong about Mission Accomplished. Wrong about the “Insurgency in it’s last throes”. Wrong about the cost of the war. Wrong about the casualties of the war. Wrong about the impact of the Iraqi elections. And on and on.
    Given this 100% track record of being wrong why should anyone believe that if we withdraw our troops from Iraq the situation in the middle-east will get worse? And why should we believe it’s impossible to negotiate with the Iranians? It is simply foolish to believe the conservative fear-mongers any longer. Perhaps the voters are finally starting to understand that.

    Reply
  53. Lee

    Democrats said Iraq had WMD, and dropped 80,000 bombs on Iraq from 1998 to 2000.
    President Bush sent in American forces, and they captured tons of WMD. Just last month, 100,000 pages of Iraq nuclear weapons engineering was posted on the Internet.
    Terrorist training camps were captured intact, with videotapes of hijacker training and Saddam telling the terrorists to, “kill the Jews, but attack America first”.
    The mission of “regime change in Iraq”, as Bill Clinton tried to achieve but failed, was accomplished in 21 days by our military under President Bush.
    We have killed over 40,000 terrorists and Saddam loyalists. We only have a few thousand more to exterminate, but the Democrats want to surrender, to deny America victory because they hate Bush.

    Reply
  54. Lee

    Saddam Closer To Bomb Than Anyone Thought
    New York Times 11-02-06
    The New Yorks times confirms that in 2002 Saddam Hussein’s “scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away:”
    Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations

    Reply
  55. Ready to Hurl

    bud, the law of averages would seem to indicate that conservatives would be correct sooner-or-later.
    However, as Lee’s posts demonstrate, when a person is fanatically determined to view the world through a distorting lens then not even the odds work for them.
    For example, Lee claims that we’ve “killed 40,000 terrorists and Saddam loyalists” with only a “few thousand” left to go. Yet violence in Iraq is skyrocketing. Hundreds of bodies are found some days in the streets of Baghdad. American troops have essentially lost control of other cities.
    Maybe Lee and Dead-eye Dick Cheney are correct. Maybe the “insurgency” is in its “last throes.” What’s more likely is that the “insurgency” has morphed into a civil war/chaos.
    It takes real “talent” to be 50% accurate and 100% wrong.

    Reply
  56. Lee

    “Violence in Iraq” is not skyrocketing.
    It went up in October because the guerrillas were murdering civilians to influence cowardly Americans in the November elections, and our coalition forces launched an offensive to clean out some hot spots, which we did.
    Face the fact, as the NY Times has, that Iraq did have WMD, and was close to having an atomic bomb to give to Al Qaeda, which President Bush stopped.

    Reply
  57. Ready to Hurl

    At least 700 Iraqis die in 8 days of unrelenting violence
    Associated Press
    BAGHDAD, Iraq — The numbers are staggering: In the past eight days, 714 Iraqis have fallen victim to the country’s sectarian bloodbath. They’ve been beheaded, tortured and blown up while looking for work. They’ve been shot, kidnapped and felled by mortars.
    The number of killings in the past eight days is more than all but a few U.S. states see in a year. Iraq’s death toll has reached at least 1,319 already in November, well above the 1,216 who died in all of October, which was the deadliest month in Iraq since The Associated Press began tracking the figure in April 2005.
    At least 111 people were killed nationwide on Sunday, following a week of appallingly high daily death tolls: 134, 90, 119, 106, 49, 52 and 53.
    The actual totals are likely considerably higher because many deaths are not reported. Victims in those cases are quickly buried according to Muslim custom and never reach morgues or hospitals to be counted.

    Reply
  58. Ready to Hurl

    The U.S. elections are over.
    The ever accelerating bloodbath continues unabated.
    What’s your excuse now, Lee?
    Face WHAT fact, Lee? Don’t you think that the Bush Administration would pre-empt every news source in the country if it had evidence to prove that the Iraq invasion was justified?
    Your grassy knoll “evidence” just doesn’t pass the laugh test, Lee. YOU’RE the one who needs to face reality– as painful as it is for your delusions.

    Reply
  59. Dave

    RTH – Get used to it, we are dealing with Muslims here. We are in this for the long haul because if we are not, that kind of killing is coming here. The terrorists would like nothing better than to proliferate those killings in the USA as soon as they can.

    Reply
  60. Ready to Hurl

    Jeez, Dave, WE’RE occupying THEIR country but your simplistic analysis is that we’re dealing with a Muslim threat– kinda like plague-bearing rats.
    Should we just exterminate Muslims (or force their conversion to Christianity) like Ann Coulter suggests?

    Reply
  61. Lee

    If Democrats really cared about civilians being murdered by Islamoterrorists, they would unleash our military to hunt them down and destroy the mosques they use as havens.
    But these Democrats didn’t say a word when Clinton let Saddam bribe the UN and starve 1,000,000 Iraqi children to death in order to by WMD machinery.
    If the Democrats have their way, the US will pull out and the terrorists will murder 2,000,000 civilians, just as the communists did after the liberals’ surrender in Vietnam.

    Reply
  62. Dave

    RTH – Actually, conversion would be the best thing we could do to the Islamic world. They would leave the 10th century behind while beginning to support equal rights for women, capitalism, and tolerance of other faiths. Novel ideas all to Muslims. Islamic governments force conversions all the time and some have death penalties for those who wish to worship something different. Nearly all violence in the world is being generated by Muslims. Lots of noise out of N. Korea but its all for show. Sooner or later we will have to deal with over 1 billion people who want to kill those who dont believe what they believe. Ignore that at your own peril.

    Reply
  63. Biff

    Hey guys, I’M BACK!!!!!!!
    You think you can get rid of me, but that’s where you are wrong.
    I’m like the cockroach, that one you killed, but managed to come back and spred my germs for all to have.
    War in Iraq is crap. If Bush wasn’t a fucking IDIOT, he would pull his men out and have peace, that fucking war munger. He needs to get out of office and the USA needs a president that won’t fuck it’s people and help those who need help and the poorer countries. That fucking Bush asshole.
    Any ways, how you all doin’. Glad to be back and better than EVER.

    Reply
  64. Biff

    Oh come on. No one wants to play with me.
    Now you people hurt my feelings.
    I want to talk to you about war and crime and Iraq and Bush and what not but, how can I if you fail to post a comment to me.
    Otherwise, if no one responses then prepare for the BOOM, and I mean BOOM.
    You think the last blog was devistating, that was jsut my warm up routine and now, here we go!

    Reply
  65. Lee

    “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
    We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream.
    It must be fought for, protected,
    and handed on for them to do the same,
    or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children
    what it was once like in the United States when men were free.”
    — Ronald Reagan

    Reply
  66. Black Gold

    Hey yah’ll. I reside down in dear ol’ Virginny, and I’d just like to throw my two cents in; my only two cents, actually! You see, the cotton business ain’t what she used to be, and all my “African-American” happy helpers are getting lazy and fat. Well, not as fat as my little Tessa, but I reckon yah’ll get the idea. Anywho, I hate cockroaches cause, by Saint-Jeeves, they is always getting up my underware and making me itch something fierce. You ain’t never itched in them places till you had a roach running about. Sounds like yah’ll got a bit of a roach problem yoreselves on this here site, and I reckon I know just hows to get rid of it.

    Reply
  67. Mr. Slap My Monkey Please

    Well, “Fee” is the word that men and woman shared in this country long ago.
    Now we are slaves to the corrupt and destorted system, we call a demorcarcy and what was all the fighting for years ago, if now we are just as bad off as we once were.
    Sensless and uddernonsense, fighting for a democracy for other countries that don’t deserve it.
    If they wanted to live in termoil and poverty, then it is their right to by the
    natural laws of this great earth.
    Who’s to say that they need help, and that we are the ones to help them.
    We use the pre-emptive self-defence law, so we can invade and liberate ourselves from certain doom, but, the UN saw right through that and now we say we are there to put a civilized democracy in Iraq.
    And it’s not just in other counries that have to worry about violence and criminal activity, when we see it all day long on the tele.
    Someone just stole a stereo or a white man was part of a drve by and a black man was the victim.
    Racist people has overwhelmed this country and now we have losted the meaning of free and equal people.
    War here and war there. War is happening everwhere and we are just adding to the
    mass destruction of this world and for what. “A good cause” or “Freedom.”
    We can’t free anyone, till we as a country are free and respected.
    The UN is a good organization for the world but is run by corrupt officals and so, when it comes to important decisions we get chaos and destruction and Genocide and that’s the worst.
    Rwanda is a good example of how a good organization with good intentions failed to help a country get a demorcacy. Why?
    We try now to help and we may have another Rwanda on our hands and what’s the point. We have a good intention, but bad leadership.
    _Mr. Slap My Monkey Please

    Reply
  68. The Flash

    Imagine a world of happiness. A world of pleasantries, of jump-rope and hop scotch, long walks on a moonlit beach and glorious days spent with the person you love, snuggled up underneath the covers, enjoying the first rays of mornings’ light, projecting a wonderous tapestry pon the canvas like horizon,putting the likes of Michelangelo or Leonardo DaVinci to shame.
    And than God said: “Let there be Bush.”
    Ok, so the world has never been quite the perfect, but I’m sure you understand where I’m coming from.

    Reply
  69. The Flash

    Oh shizznizzle, my D-Fizzle is on the Fritz-Tizzle. Foh sho, yo dig? Word. Peace, my home-fry in the crib, gotta gotta get me some f-bang, dawg. Like sho, foh, noh my joe hoe. Oh moe, my toe. Yo.
    So now my nig ain’t gotta word foh yo to rap with, my sistah’s mistah ain’t got nuthin on me, yo.

    Reply
  70. The Flash

    Let’s talk Barney. I think Barney is a very educational induvidual, with some good points and a purple exterior. Deep down, beneath those green blotchs and googly eyes, there lies a heart of gold. Literally speaking. Oh, i meant coal, not gold. The words sound so much alike, that I messed them up. HA! What-ev. How can you mess up words while typing, going by sound? It doesn’t stand to make sence, you know?

    Reply
  71. Sushi Man

    Shark meat, fish meat and octopus and squid and leech and whale is good sushi at sushi bar. Very rich in protein and very cheap. But beware that the fish you eat to much can cause touble in the internals and then you can’t poop right and pee normal and digest in a proper way. You have cramps and disease and stuff that isn’t normal.
    Don’t be like a sushi guy and cook you fish. Or if your the type that can’t have a fish meal than grab a fish by the tail and smack the person closest to you in the face, with a cut on the stomach so that the innerds come a flying out and smacks a woman in the face and she sqeals like a pig.
    Take a chop stick and poke an eye out and eat it. Burn your fish and HAVE a NICE FISH

    Reply
  72. Regina Dollar

    Money by thy name and money by my game. Money here and money there. I can’t imagine a world with no money. Owwwwwww! Prada and other name brand shoes.
    Jingle Jingle. Music to my ears and why because I hate the Sushi Guy.

    Reply
  73. Ready To Hurl

    Isn’t it strange? You know what I’m talking about. Even though you pretend to deny it, deep down, we all know. We’re all the same.
    “I am, indeed, a king, because I know how to rule myself.” -Pietro Arentno
    Those words, simple in saying, yet masterful in conectption, are like striking a bell, letting forth a resonant tone of perfect harmony and equal bliss. Perhaps everyone of you could learn by that single quote.
    You all think you have it figured out. You’re all quite wrong. I’m not talking about what I’m saying, either. I’m talking about life.
    You’re all wrong.

    Reply
  74. Rusty and Dusty.

    One day I had to be the bearer of bad news when I told a wife that her husband had died of a massive myocardial infarct. Not more than five minutes later, I heard her reporting to the rest of the family that he had died of a “massive internal fart.”
    Another thing happened to me that day at the hospital. I was making my rounds when a man came up to me yelling at me that a deer hit his car and that he was injuered so I examined hima dn found no injuries and he said “Not me you idiot, the deer.”
    WHat a day that was. When I got home, Iwas ready to fall down dead. So as per normal I walked to the big chair fo mine and sate down and removed my shoes and socks. Relaxed and asked my wife, for a drink. The dog came to me with a beer, and then I thought, I don’t have a dog. What is going on. Oh I thought when I saw the ching family enter the room and look at me.
    When I made it home, and my real home. My wife was ready to have the baby. Right, I sprank to action and lifted her dress and started to remove her under garments, when I realized, I was in teh wrong womans dress. I was in the sisters and not my wife. Well, that wasn’t strange or anything.
    To bed I went, just after the day I had and the baby was born. And you can probably guess it, worng room, with the sister again. But I couldn’t get away, because of handcuffs and rope. That’s all you need to know.

    Reply
  75. Ready To Hurl

    “Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you.”
    -Matthew 5:44
    Think about it.

    Reply
  76. John the cleaner

    There were four presidents: Washington, Lincoln, Clinton, and Bush, and they were on an airplane. Washington goes to the window and throws a dollar bill out the window, and says: I made one person happy!”. Next, Lincoln goes to the window and throws five one dollar bills out the window, and says: “I made five people happy!”, and after a few minutes, Clinton throws Bush out the window, and says:” I made America happy!”
    A man goes to the White House and asks to see President Clinton.
    The Marine on duty tells the guy that Clinton isn’t President, and to
    please leave.
    The man goes away. The next day he comes back to the White House
    and asks to see President Clinton. The marine on duty reminds him
    that Clinton is not President, and to please go away. The man goes away.
    The next day, he comes back again, and again the same Marine is on
    duty. The man asks to see President Clinton, and the Marine, his
    patience worn out, says, “WHY DO YOU KEEP COMING HERE
    ASKING FOR HIM? CLINTON IS NOT PRESIDENT ANYMORE!!!”
    The man smiles and says, “I know, I just like hearing it.”
    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
    He who laughs last thinks slowest.
    It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
    Latest survey shows that 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the world’s population.

    Reply
  77. Jim

    I have to say that people are morons. Plain and utter morons. Jokes are demoralizing and turn intellegtual people stupid.
    War is no better. Morons that is what people are that have posted comments on this blog.
    Dave, Lee, Bud, Bill, Ready to Hurl (?) and Brad Warthen are people that show me that they are civilized people.
    The others need a swift kicken in the briches and to be called a wanker.
    Them fuckin’ bloody americans. They need to be proper and have a cup of tea and crumpets and read the paper in order to show me intellect. MORONS!
    I need a cup of earl grey tea, warm after reading this trash. Maybe a swing down to the old pub for a pint of bitter and then a ride in the bobby, but mustn’t forget my jumper, Bloody cold out today.
    MORONS is a word that I can’t say enough for these people. Bloody yankee bastards. They are all wankers

    Reply
  78. The Flash

    Seventeen Apples and a beached banana never got anybody fruit salad. It takes more than a duck to have a fowl. Do you get what I’m saying, here? Three cobs of corn and a piano don’t make someone rich in day. It’s been to have jogged around the block twice than to not have jogged at all. A male peacock in mating season is prettier than a female. Red lights only last until the light becomes green. There’s always more gnomes on someone else’s lawn. My wife is sexier than yours.

    Reply
  79. Jim

    Listen Brad. I didn’t post anything today except for this thing. You may believe me or not I don’t care. But I don’t know how to speak like a brit and now you blame me for the post. I hate tea, but the bitter i like.
    Oops, dead give away. Well, maybe I should shut my mouth.

    Reply
  80. The Flash

    Fah la la la la la la la la la la la la la la. Fah la la la la la la! Fah la la la! FAH LA LA LA LA LA LA! Fa la. Fa la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la laaaaaaaaaa! Fah.

    Reply
  81. Shelleybum

    I like cherry pies and I like hockey. But what else is new.
    Horses rock, both for riding and breeding.
    Dated the same man for the better part of three years and going on four. We have had a separation in there for while and I tryed this other asshole for about a month and I was gald to get rid of that bastard.
    So stupid and slow and fat. He was a plain idiot and had no real personality. He thouht he was funny, but he wasn’t and he never did anything with me (go to the movies, hang out, call me), nothing you hear.
    So anyways later :)

    Reply
  82. The Flash

    Wow Shellybum, the guy you just described sounds like a real asshole! I’ll bet he even denies using your email address and your nick-name! Jeeze, what a character.
    On a similar note, I’m sore from screwing yesterday.
    Not like that, you sick minded freaks! I was screwing a wooden chair with drywall screws and a screw driver. Do you know why I was screwing a wooden chair with drywall screws and a screw drivers?
    1) Economics. The price of two hundred drywall screws is slightly less than the price for forty wood specified screws. Think about it.
    2) I didn’t have philip drill bit for the drill. Bummer.
    So now my wrist is sore and screwing in drywall screws in order to construct a wooden chair.

    Reply
  83. S. T.

    I dated the same man for three almost four years and we are happy. We separeted for two months one time and I decided to date this asshole of a guy, who wouldn’t give me the time of day. That basterd.

    Reply
  84. Biff

    I think I might have sprank my pinky finger Brad. It hurts as old hell. And I hate the book I’m reading for English and what do you think of it.
    Did you read the last posting. Some one has some man troubles. Sounds cool lets see if they are still on.

    Reply
  85. The Flash

    Wow! Two stories, both quite similar. You two sound like you both have alot in common. What does S.T. stand for, anyway? I’m merely curious :-)

    Reply
  86. The Flash

    Hey Biff, I reckon Shellbum and T.S. are the same person!
    I wish I could play the drums
    *Air drum solo*
    Wasn’t that too cool?

    Reply
  87. S.T.

    S. T. is my initials and that’s all you need to know. Okay and yes me and shelleybum are the same person, I wanted to trick you guys into thinking otherwise.

    Reply
  88. Biff

    well, you have to try harder S.T. I tried to pull the same trick on Brad but he was able to see right through me and you as well.
    So nayways how are you? What gender are you? I’m a male and single, if you are a woman and I hope you are, then maybe we should get a hold of each other and have a meeting at say, Le Chinous in Toronto. How about it are you up for it.

    Reply
  89. S.T.

    I’m a woman, and 17 and yes I will meet with you. I will email you at six o’clock tonight and that will explain everything you need to know, like how and when to find me.
    Don’t worry about the other in my life, he is clueless and will not know what I’m doing. He’s an idiot.

    Reply
  90. Biff

    Cool, look forward but I have no internet at home and can’t recieve your email. But I have other ways of getting the email. So don’t worry.

    Reply
  91. S.T.

    It isn’t biff, it was me Tara Shelly and I was joking about emailing Biff, I would have to have eaten shit and died befor I would ever talk to that asshole again and Brad, It’s me Biff, and yes she called me an asshole and yes I called her a slut. But you didn’t really care about it, nor do I. I just thuoght that is would hilarious to have Tara on the blog, so I can call her a slut. But she really isn’t, she is a nice person but as a hatred for me for some reason, before I called her a slut.

    Reply
  92. Homer

    Sie bev?ren sind morons und nincompoops und m?gelegt erhalten und ein altes Mannesel RAM haben Sie, bis Sie wie ein kleines Weibchen schreien. Nagel ohne Kopf sind Sie ein Drehknopf und ich bin plattiert, daߠKris f?se Woche weg war, weil er ein Arschloch ist und concieted und denkt ist, daߠer in der teh Welt h?tens Sachen das beste ist, aber er eine wenige Scheiߥ ist.

    Reply
  93. Homer

    Well i like football and i like school and i like vicky and she likes me back……..and she showed me her boobies and i like them too!
    Yah.

    Reply
  94. The Flash

    Sorry I have not posted anything on the weekend. I’m sure you missed me, Brad, but that’s just how it is. Dave I couldn’t care less about, but I know Brad missed me. He’s a very emotional kind of guy.
    This weekend I chopped down a Christmas Tree and William’s Christmas Tree Farm. It was good times. Not that any of you would know, being American and all. You’re all such pathetic losers! It actually makes me smile to think that you perseve ME as the pathetic loser, when it is really you who are.

    Reply
  95. Homer

    Oh I’m gonna cry. Why because I had something in my fly.
    Hey That cowboy hunk of fenkle matter asked me how i was doing with the lady friends of mine and I said it all came to a hault and he said why. Well i don’t know the real reason why, it may be that my hat was on too tight or that my head was screwing just right, but what ever the reason my hat or my head the woman just stopped talking to me.
    It was thursday that it all came crumbling down and now i’m a loner again and he wants me to start again talking that is. But i have to stop this whole thing from coming but how.

    Reply
  96. Snipps

    Dude, like man wow I trippen’ out on this stuff.
    Wooooooooooo! The poster is talking to meeee!
    It says that I’m funny lookin’.
    Crazy
    Oh man what a trip I’m on. Woooow!
    Dude, man like you want some, well then you must find some Beer. Canadian Beer rocks. Eh!

    Reply
  97. Biff

    Well, Brad again you say I wrote the post and I deny it. This time I said the truth with me not writing it. I don’t drink beer, whisky be my drink and that person is drunk off beer. Kris is scratching his nuts and everyone is saying way to go, Brad asks Kris when he got a hair cut. A couple of weeks ago, it does taste like, it’s country lookin’, nice ass, I like the bathing suit with the nice,I’m trying to figure out something, pop she’s nude, pick nose, pop, it’s mel gibson, what a oh rock the devil, rocky comes out on the weekend, scratch nuts, prince of darkness, POD, I don’t know, only lookin’ for certain kinds, who’s that, I have no idea who it is, pop, think slowly, good for you way to go you alright Chris, is that her whole name, nicky J, that’s a cool name.
    Wow it’s hard to type as fast as you two talk and Mr. Keen.

    Reply
  98. Jenna

    I have to say that these people don’t have social lives.
    Like really, you truly believe that people are reading your postings. They have more important things to do like going to the mall and hangen’ with friends.
    You people need to get out more and meet new people. By the postings I can tell that it’s all males that have posted things and like guys you need to get some female companionship.
    Your probably never been with a woman n wouldn’t know where to begin.
    Start by having a meal date followed by a movie. It works, every time.
    Flowers, candy and cards, poems, foreplay, hell things that seem cony will more than likely work and while your at it, buy some new clothes, colone and shave, shower with soap and water and tehn go out on the town.
    Bars, nightclubs, dances and the mall works. Act nice, look into the eyes not chest and have something intelligent to say to them instead of: do you like Star Wars or are you a Star Trek fan? Boy do those people kill me.
    Anywho stop posting and get a grip on reality, because it may just pass you by.
    Later Boys:)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *