Funny, isn't it, how the left always throws out the definition of insanity, while they live it constantly.

Insanity--doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

I always knew these kooks were crazy...

the greatest paradox of all time:

YOU CANNOT HAVE PEACE UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED FOR WAR!

excellent post mark, but you could make mention of jimmy carter's "peace" movement against an ally in the shah of iran which lead to the american hostage crisis and an enemy of the u.s. til this day.

This is an interesting posting, and it may surprise you to know that I don't intend to dispute anything you've said here.

The problem is, you give everything from the perspective of the nation that needed to intervene to prevent abuses of power, military might and political position, and this is where the quandry comes in - because this time the danger signs come from the US, not from another country. A leader who rose to power on false promises, who has authorised the building of detainment camps and changed the laws so that any of his own people he names "enemy combatant" can be sent there without any recourse to proper lawful protection. A leader who has cut back on freedom for his people, and who regards himself above the law of not only his country, but the international community.

In short, a "decider".

So... by your own logic, expressed so well in this article, should another country now consider that for the benefit of the world that leader must be removed, even if doing so requires declaring war on the United States to remove him?

Whisper:

Remember tho, it's not considered "evil" if the United States does it.

That seals it for me. Peace is not the answer it is the problem. World domination is our only hope.

Armageddon will someday come, but you neocons are forcing the issue.

wolfie, what kind of crazy shizzle are you talking? The world only has to fear the might of the US if they are disrupting the peace, threatening their neighbors or butchering their own people (except when Democrats are in charge of course, then all of that stuff is OK). Any such bad actors come to your diseased lefty mind?

You can make a comparison to the War on Terror, but in this case Bush is the Hitler/Stalin figure.
He is the one that started a war to take Iraq's oil.

The War on Terror is BS. 3000 people died on 9/11 and 3500 Americans have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is only 6000 people in six years, roughly 1000 a year. 50,000 people die every year in car accidents. Why not declare a War on Cars?

The real sin is those 6,000 Americans did not have to die. If Bush was doing his job, 9/11 could have been avoid. He should have read briefs instead of taking more vacation time than any two presidents combined. And he did not have to go to war with Iraq over something that was masterminded in Afghanistan and funded by Saudi Arabia. He chose to lie to the American people about WMD so he could invade and take their oil and that proof is in the Hydrocarbon Act sitting before the Iraqi puppet government today.

should another country now consider that for the benefit of the world that leader must be removed, even if doing so requires declaring war on the United States to remove him?

Whisperwolf, perhaps you on the Left could enlist the aid of Chavez or someone like him to remove President Bush. Of course that would probably mean installing a different type of government in place of what we have, but I suspect it would be a government that people like you would be much more comfortable with.

"because this time the danger signs come from the US, not from another country."

you're right. after all it was our government who was responsible for 9/11.

"A leader who rose to power on false promises, who has authorised the building of detainment camps and changed the laws so that any of his own people he names "enemy combatant" can be sent there without any recourse to proper lawful protection."

so gitmo was built after bush was elected? and since when do terrorist who do not operate for any country get special treatment. by the way, their lives are now better that they are in club gitmo. they are healthier and getting much needed rest from the stress of jihad (thank you rush limbaugh).

"A leader who has cut back on freedom for his people,"

could you explain what freedoms have been taken away from you? last i checked, i could do everything i wanted to do when mr. hillary clinton was pres.

"and who regards himself above the law of not only his country, but the international community."

there you go worrying about what other countries think of us. i'll type this slower, so you can understand: THE WORLD HATES US. ALWAYS HAVE. BEFORE BUSH, BEFORE CLINTON, BEFORE NIXON. THEY HATE US BECAUSE WE HAVE THE MOST...THEY HATE US BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE US.

i hope you went and brushed your teeth after your regurgitation of the left wing talking points. your breath stinks!

above the law of not only his country, but the international community.

The "law of the international community"? Please excuse me while I roll on the floor with laughter.

Is this the same international community that:

Calls Israel "racist" and accuses it of "apartheid" for having the nerve to (gasp!) defend itself from suicide bombers and other terrorists?

Calls Israel "racist" while ignoring the real and obvious racism of Zimbabwe's leader Robert Mugabe, and of the Sudanese government towards the black natives in southern Sudan?

Intervened to defend Bosnian Croats and Muslims against Serbian aggressors, while Rwandans were being slaughtered?

Faults the U.S. for having the death penalty, while saying little if anything about China, which typically executes more people in a month, IN A SINGLE PROVINCE, than the U.S. executes in a year?

Wants to impose, through Kyoto, strict CO2 emission controls on the U.S. and much of Europe, while largely excempting Russia, China, Mexico and Brazil, even though China is soon expected to become the world's largest CO2 producer?

Excellent post, Mark. It still kills me that the liberals, the so called free thinkers, are so rigid about taking military solutions off the table. I remember the movie Patton, he makes the same argument (I guess it was based on his biography), about going straight from the victory celebration to making war with the Soviet Union. Of course, this would may saved something like 50 million people sent to gulags and/or "suicided" by the KGB. It seems like Clinton gets all her ideas on government from the former Soviet Union.

A leader who has cut back on freedom for his people, and who regards himself above the law of not only his country, but the international community.
Posted by: Whisperwolf at April 4, 2007 06:53 AM

Alright I'll bite. So what has Mr. Bush done exactly that puts him "above the law of not only his country, but the international community." What laws has he broken? Please inform me. Give me one thing that he's done that could be considered grounds for impeachment.

Mark used a Fox News-approved trap and Whisperwolf unfortunately fell for it. This is the time-honored trick: Mark made up a fictional position for the left, and then went on to attack it. Whisperwolf unfortunately fell into the trap of defending the lunatic position that Mark made up...

Case in point: The reason that the left wants the US out of Iraq has nothing to do with "Peace". The left for the most part supports the Afghanistan war, as it knows that they were truly behind 9/11 (along with the Saudis, but God forbid Bush will take his friends to task...). By the way - the "left" in this case according to the last polls is about 66% of the American people.

The American people are against the Iraq war not because a bleeding heart "peace" yearning, but because:
- We were led to it based on lies. WMDs, Uranium bought from Niger, Al Qaeda links, and other fairy tales that "president Cheney" made up to go to a war because they thought it would be a quick victory and then people would forget about the lies
- The strategy led by this president has FAILED, and the administration has consistently lied about the status of the war. "the war is in its last throws", "victory is around the corner", and now this "surge" nonsense. This administration created the war and did everything it wanted to do with the war, unopposed by congress until now. And the results are an utter FAILURE. It's time to have the "liberated" iraqis run their own country rather than have the US and its taxpayers be taken advantage of by corrupt factions of the iraqi government.

Mark, if you are going to try to articulate the position of the left, you should at least have the intellectual honesty and try to do it right.

BTW, Whisperwolf, even if you could equate the conditions at Gitmo with a Soviet gulag, the math suggests that if Bush has about 500 at Club Gitmo, that makes him only one hundred thousandth of the so called torturer that Stalin was. But I know the liberal mantra of Chief Wiggim, better to let a hundred criminals go free than chase after them. To a liberal, one who can't leave is no different that 50 million tortured and killed. But if you actually read some Solzhenitsyn (or listened to former Soviet political prisoners), you might see things differently.

"The War on Terror is BS. 3000 people died on 9/11 and 3500 Americans have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is only 6000 people in six years, roughly 1000 a year. 50,000 people die every year in car accidents. Why not declare a War on Cars?"

CWright, then why all of the uproar about our soldiers dieing? why are you keeping a death count. if it's "only" 3500 soldiers like you said than that should be a good sign of the way we have been fighting a war for 4 years and have only lost 3500. hell, that's only 875 a year. more people were murdered in Philly last year, i guess we need to get out of pennsylvania too.

you peace nicks are idiots. negotiating with someone who wants to kill you will never work.

Churchill is derided as a "war monger", trumping up phony fears of the Reds in order to improve his political situation at home.

As it turns out, this accusation was wrong about Churchill. Unfortunately, it is correct about Bush. If you are going to gamble the lives of thousands of troops, You'd better be right.

I love this bit:
"1964 – Faced with a growing crisis in Vietnam, the United States determines that intervention by US forces is necessary; this is done with great wisdom – we aver from the start that we are not there to secure victory, but only to prevent South Vietnamese defeat. This wonderful program – designed to preserve the peace and prevent a widening of the war, ends up with a couple million Vietnamese dead, the South Vietnamese regime dissolved and 55,000 Americans gone to their deaths."

But I have no idea of what your point is. We went to Iraq simply to...I'm not quite sure because they had so many versions of why we went there...but lets just say...we went there to affect regime change. Now 4 years of occupation later we are standing in the middle of a civil war. Regime change accomplished!

Falgore,
"you peace nicks are idiots. negotiating with someone who wants to kill you will never work."

And yet, among other examples, the Cold War is over and Libya is supposedly our new friend. Hell, even the British used to want to kill our soldiers (or were we insurgents back then without uniforms) and take over our country.

It is sad to see that to so many people it is still September 12, 2001. The world did not end on that day nor was it really changed in any substantial way save for the fact that those tragic events were seen by a few as an opportunity to use the fear that resulted to glean profits from war and death. Neither the Imperial Roman nor the National Socialist German saw their flaws until history had placed a period at the end of their rise in Europe. Those who only see half of history here and cling to ideology over fact are helping that hand dip a quill into the ruddy ink in preparation to punctuate.

Morris: "I remember the movie Patton, he makes the same argument (I guess it was based on his biography), about going straight from the victory celebration to making war with the Soviet Union. Of course, this would may saved something like 50 million people sent to gulags and/or "suicided" by the KGB."

Invading in 1945 wouldn't have helped to save most of those people, because they were already dead. Be that as it may, the USSR was not a happy place even after that. But it also should be kept in mind that Hitler had already tried to overrun Russia not 4 years earlier. And millions died before they kicked his butt -- with help from us and the other allies. Now, it's possible that had the Allies decided to invade Russia in 1945 (assuming they were inclined to do that), they might have succeeded in a regime change. But that's hardly a foregone conclusion. And that, I think, is something to keep in mind as well.

The theme of this post seems to be that all-out military invasion was the way to go -- in Russia in 1920 and 1945, in Germany in the 30s, in China and the USSR (by way of North Korea) in 1950, and in Viet Nam in the 60s -- because the "solutions" that did occur resulted in totalitarian regimes that proved to be dangerous to their populations and sometimes to us. But that conclusion requires the assumption that the proposed military interventions would have necessarily been successful, and come at a lesser toll than the outcome that ultimately did occur. Well, I'm not convinced. What I am convinced of is: (1) mistakes occur in attempts to solve problems peacefully and militarily; (2) that total placation on the one hand, or military invasion on the other, are not the only games in town, and; (3) that military intervention quite often does more harm than help. Simple solutions are usually not very good at solving complex problems.

I respectfully disagree, Ricorun. The theme of this thread is standing up to tyrants and evil. As Kennedy did in 1963; if the aggressor (USSR) is challenged unequivocally the odds move in our favor.

Would a challenge to Hitler have avoided war? I don’t know, but Churchill was right about Hitler and action, not appeasement was called for. What would have been the result if Kennedy allowed Soviet missles in Cuba?

As to the USSR post WWII; they still didn’t have what they desperately wanted; a deep water port and protection from invasion along their western front; Patton was right; the Soviets should have been pushed back to the Russian border, thus containing them and leaving them exposed once again. To Stalin, the war with Germany was a war of opportunity; and an iron curtain fell across Europe.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that Syrian President Bashar Assad assured her of his willingness to engage in peace talks with Israel.

LMAO! She must be drinking the same koolaide DougieW is drinking!

Experts say that Syria is viewing the visit by the American politician third in line to the presidency as a victory for Syrian diplomacy and a sign that Washington's isolation policy has failed.

Arab affairs expert Dr. Mordechai Kedar, of the BESA Center for Strategic Studies near Tel Aviv, said the visit had more to do with domestic American issues than Middle East peacemaking efforts.

"[Pelosi] understands nothing in the Middle East," he told Cybercast News Service, describing the visit as "a hammer to hit President Bush."

Kedar said Pelosi is trying to force a return to the former U.S. foreign policy of appeasing Mideast dictators. If she succeeds, she will reverse the positive changes that have already occurred in the drive to promote human rights and democracy, he argued.

Kedar noted that Syria is Iran's key ally, and said without Syria, Iran would not be able to export its Islamic revolution to Lebanon or Iraq.

Syria is a conduit for Iranian shipments of missiles and weapons to Hizballah, which opposes the pro-Western government in Beirut. Washington has also accused Syria of allowing anti-coalition insurgents to cross its borders into Iraq.

"Thanks to Syria and Iran, thousands of American soldiers were killed in Iraq," Kedar said. "And now, Pelosi is willing to appease them."

Kedar also raised the international investigation that has found evidence of Syrian involvement in a string of political assassinations of prominent anti-Syrian politicians in Lebanon in recent years.

He predicted that Damascus would view the easing of pressure as a license to carry out more assassinations in Lebanon.

CWright (aka DougieW): The GWOT started long before 9/11. The number of people who have died from the hands of Islamic terrorists is in the tens of thousands - from Africa to Spain, from London to the US.

"And yet, among other examples, the Cold War is over and Libya is supposedly our new friend."

and the cold war ended by us asking the soviets nicely to disarm right? regan negotiated with them right? or did he strike so much fear in them that they couldn't sustain what they were doing and collapsed? which was it again?

libya. we never encounterd them either militarily? and we negotiated with them too right? or did we strike so much fear into them that they handed over everything so we wouldn't destroy them as well? which is it?

"Hell, even the British used to want to kill our soldiers (or were we insurgents back then without uniforms) and take over our country."

we fought the british from tyranny and oppression. we fight in iraq to help them against...tyranny and oppression. we are fighting terrorists because they want to dominate the world through...take a guess...tyranny and oppression.

how about this? we do nothing. we pull out of iraq. we stop hunting terrorists. we let the ones we have go. and we leave the entire middle east alone. then when they ask you to bow down to allah and accept islam or have you head chopped off you'll think to yourself, damn why didn't someone try to stop this.

"how about this? we do nothing. we pull out of iraq. we stop hunting terrorists. we let the ones we have go. and we leave the entire middle east alone. then when they ask you to bow down to allah and accept islam or have you head chopped off you'll think to yourself, damn why didn't someone try to stop this."

Or then there's the option put forth by the Democrats which is to get out of Iraq where no good can be done and focus our considerable resources on capturing terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan and dealing with the growing threat from Hezbollah. Notice Iraq has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS YOU BROWNSHIRT F&*&^TARD???

You mean, Iraq isn't one front on the broader war on terror? thanks for clearing that up, GoreWarRight.

A few things to consider -

1) Bush is no Churchill. Bush is an idiot.

2) The Iraq misadventure - the most colossally stupid blunder committed by any president in history - is no WWII.

3) The "peace movement" (which hardly exists) didn't lose Iraq. If anybody "lost" Iraq, it was Bush.

4) The conditions in Iraq since the US invasion were predicatable and predicted.

5) If Iraq is the colossal failure that all sane people know it is, it wasn't for lack of time and valient effort.

If 4+ years, $500+ billion dollars, 3,200+ dead troops, 100,000+ dead civilians, 2 million+ Iraqi refugees, and the best trained and equipped military in the history of the world is not enought to achieve "victory", then whatever kind of "victory" the wingnuts imagined was probably never achievable there in the first place. And yet... there are still some die-hard ninnies out there who parrot ad nauseum, "give the war a chance!" - as if every chance hasn't already been given it.

If victory was to be had, we woulda had it already. Time to wake up from the absurd "Bush = Churchill" delusions.

"Or then there's the option put forth by the Democrats which is to get out of Iraq where no good can be done and focus our considerable resources on capturing terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan and dealing with the growing threat from Hezbollah."

name one democrate who has proposed such a thing. dems have no idea how to use the military, how to capture terrorists, how to stop terrorists, how to do anything with them except try to talk and reason and understand them and make them feel all warm and cuddly.

Notice Iraq has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS YOU BROWNSHIRT F&*&^TARD???

yeah, you're right, iraq was a great society where there were no terrorists, or evil dictators. it was a place where women and children roamed free, without a care in the world because to them they were living in paradise. you are absolutley right YOU MISERABLE LITTLE PIECE OF S**T! see i can throw a hissy fit and call names too.

Time to wake up from the absurd "Bush = Churchill" delusions.

No, it's time to wake up from the absurd "Aarontime = intelligent" delusions.

But really, folks--we were told, in the beginning of all of this, that this was gonna be a long war, a long struggle. Afghanistan and Iraq are merely front in the War on Terror.

It's gonna be a long war, this War on Terror. Long after we're allowed to even call it the long war or the War on Terror, it's gonna be raging.

So you appeasement monkeys can just paint a few peace signs, skip a few showers, and head off to the next anti-war rally. There'll be plenty to attend.

Peace...through victory!!!

"yeah, you're right, iraq was a great society where there were no terrorists, or evil dictators. it was a place where women and children roamed free, without a care in the world because to them they were living in paradise."

Straw man. One of Dear Leader's favorite tactics.

No one claims that Iraq was a paradise. No one likes Saddam except Chirac who was making money off him. But he was, as Colin Powell said in 2001, contained. Kim Jong is contained. However, OBL and Zawahiri live on to this day, remaking the camps and plotting more attacks.

"Turn" being a synonym for "ignore", as in ignoring all the abuse and crime which occurs in your own party while simaltaneously shaking the republican tree.

But really, all this adolescent vituperation, is it really necessary or are you simply manifesting an uncontrollable rage towards those whom you secretly acknowledge as superior to yourself?

Brownshirts? Dear Leader? Its as if CodePink had copulated with MoveOn and propagated a physical version of its own hysterical rantings. I would suggest therapy, but Im honestly not sure if it would help you.

GWR, what was your Typekey name prior to this stupid one?

Spook, navydad, help me out. GWR uses the term "sheep" a lot, like one of our former moron trolls. Who is it? I don't feel like checking the archives, but I know this loon has been here before.

baa, baa, GWR, have you any brains?

Deleted - overly insulting: call any of us a "brownshirt" again and get banned.

Your choice.

GWR, you're a fascist. I said it first. You're a moron. I said it first.

Nanny, nanny boo-boo...

Keefer: I already called GWR out on his real identity but he denied it. In a thread months ago, he admitted it and said he had to deny being the troll or he'd get banned again. Same blather, different profile name.

Aaron,

Predicted? Really?

So, who was predicting that Iraq would have 11 million voters who would write a constitution and elect the first legitimate government of Iraq, ever, and then raise an army of 300,000 troops to fight alongside our brave men and women?

Who predicted that the Marsh Arabs would have their homeland restored to them?

Who predicted that Iraqis would agree to fairly share their oil wealth among all three major ethnic groups?

Who predicted all that?

Mark: Who predicted that the Marsh Arabs would have their homeland restored to them?

Really? Do you have a reference for how those marshes are going? Do you know something I don't?Or did I miss the point?

I just read a review in our local paper from Andrew Klavan about the movie "300". Quoting from his online review (at www.andrewklavan.com)

"Now here’s 300, the mythologized story of the battle of Thermopylae, delivering the message of Thermopylae: if you want to be free, men have to be willing to fight and die to stay that way, just as the Spartans did 480 years before Christ."

It is worth reading the entire review.

Ricorun,

The Marsh Arabs were forced out as Saddam drained the marshes...now the marshes are being restored (thanks to the United States of America), and the Marsh Arabs have a chance to restore their very ancient way of life. It will never be as it was before, but at least its better than it was.

mark,

i think you misread my post. i was pointing out how gone war right was calling people nazi's. i would never to that. re-read the post.

"No one likes Saddam except Chirac who was making money off him. But he was, as Colin Powell said in 2001, contained."

GWR, You may actually want to read the Duelfer report that's been out for, oh I don't know, several years now. If you read it, you'd know that the so called containment was not holding. Sanctions were coming down via the oil for golden toilet seats and illegal arms deal, and that's why Saddam gathered WMD scientists and jacked up his MIC budget 40 times over.

Aaron writes:
"1) Bush is no Churchill. Bush is an idiot."

As much as I'd like to give you authority as an expert, people who steal lines from Green Day aren't at the top of my list, not that they don't have a few good songs. This is what's called a logical fallacy in big boy school, saying someone's position's not right because of a personal attack; if you want to act like a big boy, attack the position, and put down the Green Day album.

"2) The Iraq misadventure - the most colossally stupid blunder committed by any president in history - is no WWII."

Iraq was the most colossally stupid blunder committed by any president in history? Huh. I would have thought maybe it was condoning and accepting slavery for almost a hundred years, or denying women and racial minorities the right to vote for more than a century. Iraq, huh? Who knew?

And Mark got to your other points already.

Rico,
Thanks for that info on Stalin, I'd read Ivan Denisovich a few years ago, but never researched the exact history of it. Interesting stuff. Definitely, rigid military solutions can be fraught with setbacks, just as rigid negotiations. The trouble is, we're setting the tone in Iraq that we'll go to the UN and get a dozen resolutions that mean nothing before anyone has to actually do anything to change their behavior. As the world moves more quickly (such as news Iran may have a nuke by 2009), I think that's a dangerous precedent.

"So – remember people, whenever there is a bad situation out there, advocate peace – make sure that no action is taken to get at the source of the evil, because if you get at the evil early,not enough people will die later"

Oh, yeah. Pulling out will really kill more Americans. Lots and lots, because of those WMDs that Saddam made that could be launched at any moment wreaking horrendous destruction on the poor innocent American people.

Get a clue people.

Nutjob (aka ?),
How many times do I have to ask you libs to read the Duelfer report? Did your liberal arts education not include any courses on reading? Saddam's strategic intent was to begin building WMDs as soon as he brought down sanctions, and with his oil for food bribes that was happening on the quick time. Even German intelligence believed he had WMDs. Saddam had issued an order to disobey the UN resolutions (even more than they'd already been disobeyed with his building missiles capable of reaching Israel). And if you actually did read the Duelfer report, you'd know there's a transcript of a taped conversation between Saddam and his aides on the eve of Desert Storm in which he ordered the launch of the longest lasting germ weapons against Israel and Saudi Arabia if coalition forces approached Baghdad.

keefer, the ONLY one who ever thought Errortime was intelligent was ol' Error hisself. He makes drivel look good by comparison.

And then there is marc, with this gem of wisdom:
"We were led to it based on lies. WMDs, Uranium bought from Niger, Al Qaeda links, and other fairy tales that "president Cheney" made up to go to a war because they thought it would be a quick victory and then people would forget about the lies"

See, mark is one of those who doesn't think there is any reason to change his mantra, once he has it memorized, no matter how dumb it was from the get-go, no matter how often it has been debunked and repudiated, and no matter how insane he has to be to keep clinging it. It's his delusion, by gawd, and no one is going to take it away from him. It's just more of that goofball LLL garbage that makes me shake my head and say, GIGO.

But not content to stick with merely being wrong on every count, marc has to proceed to illustrate his abysmal ignorance of warfzre. Hey marc, there has never been a war or armed conflict ANYWHERE, at ANY TIME, in any era, which has not been marked by mistakes and misjudgements. In addition, there has never been a war in which a decision which was right when it was made, based on the facts at hand, didn't later turn out to have unintended and negative consequences---the situation shifted before the action could be taken, the enemy found out what was going to happen and changed its strategy accordingly, whatever.

Everyone who knows anything about war knows this.

We also know that winning takes a couple of things sadly lacking on the Left. The first is the courage to take the chances, to risk being called names and having insults thrown at you, to not only have the foresight to see the risk but the backbone/courage/integrity to try to head it off.

The second is the tenaciousness to stick it out even when it look dark, even when things aren't going your way, even when the rabble is screaming for your head. It is the courage of your convictions and the strength to forge ahead even when the screams of the ignorant threaten to drown out the thoughts of the wise.

You lefties call that arrogance, or stupidity, or any of a long list of juicy ephitets you love to hurl, in much the way chimps hurl their own similar weapons after plucking them from their nether regions. But you're just proving to us how dangerous it is, always has been, and always will be, to have a Lefty in charge when we are at risk.

But you can all save yourselves a lot of time and trouble. You don't NEED to keep telling us how ignorant you are. We know. We get it. We understand. The first time you started whining about how we deserved to be attacked, we got it. When you whimpered that we should not retaliate, we had you figured out. When you had to fall back on silly insults like "stupid" and "moron" to attack our President, we saw through you. When you started to scream for retreat, defeat, and appeasement, we knew what we were dealing with.

So you can quit trying to convince us. Just strut back to your Lefty side and brag about how you skunked us over here---but please stop with the drivel about lies and WMD and Cheney and morons and so on. (Amd it's THROES of defeat, not "throws".) It's embarrassing to watch. You are the intellecutal and political equivalents of the fat tone-deaf two-left-feet American Idol wannabes, who are oblivious to their shame.

Falgore,

Yeah, I noticed that but it was after I deleted your comments...sorry about that.