Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Mailbag - George W's War

I surspectify that since I have the day off, I'm going to be late getting the blog updated. Plus, I'm still recovering from the whole convention thing (although the weekend did much to refresh me). So into the mailbag for this interesting gem. It's just something to make you think:

No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought.

Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It's up to our leader to convince them.That's why we call the leader 'Commander in Chief.'

George W.'s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander in Chief had to lobby for legislative approval. Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral persuasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.

George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end, only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched.

After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort. Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander in Chief of misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.

As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted. Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle. Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat. At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.

Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned. Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts. Then, in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the Commander in Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.

So on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown , a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the
Revolutionary War.


Were you thinking of someone else?


Shaw Hussein Kenawe said...

Simplistic, and in no way whatsoever, in any case, applicable to the US invasion, based on lies, of a sovereign nation.

Must we continue to give you the evidence? The lie about the yellowcake? Colin Powell's shameful UN performance about the fake tubes? Etc. Etc.

If anything, you give a good reason for Bush to have kept his nose OUT of Iraq.

The American colonists rose up and threw off their tyranny THEMSELVES.

France didn't invade the 13 colonies and chase the British oppressors off the continent.

Bad comaprison. But the Right does this all the time. They think the average American can't figure out when they're selling them a load of bullshit.

Anonymous said...

It’s a no brainer that Saddam DID have WMD’s at one time. How can anyone deny that?
But the way I see it is that it was Saddam’s plan all along to lure Bush into a costly invasion on the prtetext of WMD and then when the Americans arrived and found none, it would make us and Bush look bad.
Progressives (Liberal’s) who deny that Hussein HAD WMD before the war are helping Islamofascists, Sunni insurgents, and the defeatist, anti-war “movement” in the States. If progressives continue to deny the irrefutable truth that Hussein had WMD, they’re degradingly taking away one of the main and still true justifications for the war. This is impermissible, especially since there exists much evidence that Hussein had WMD in the run-up to the war; it’s only progressives and other anti-war traitors who’ve been denying this. People with more credibility than mentally ill progs swear that Hussein moved them to Syria. Georges Sada––former Hussein general––has a book out attesting to this fact. Further, when the group that looked for WMD wrote its report, it didn’’t say that Hussein didn’t have the capability for it; it concluded that Hussein was in the ACT OF RESTARTING his WMD. This means Bush should be thanked for invading Iraq because if Bush didn’t, Hussein would’’ve been able to develop WMD by now.
Saddam had Hans Blix and the UN as well as others in his pocket because of his oil.

Anonymous said...

I would have to agree with Bob on this one. Come on guys
Saddam hid them or just never moved because it was mixed in with conventional ammunition and the chances of the UN finding a few dozen or hundred chemical shells in the middle of tens of thousands of conventional ones at an ammunition depot was effectively nil and moving them might have attracted the UN’s attention.
Which doesn’t change the fact that Saddam did in fact have or hide the WMD when everyone from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to Kofi to Dubya said that doing so would mean he was through whether you like it or not. And, whether you agree or disagree, those were the conditions given to Saddam in order to avoid war, from the end of Desert Storm on: give it all up, don’’t keep the ability to make it, and never try to make it again
Saying “No WMD” is bull Crap, but of course you guys don’t care about that. You can’t be that dumb to understand that a shell filled with sarin is indeed a weapon of mass destruction according to the definition of that rather Orwellian phrase, but I doubt it. You’re just scared that that great herd of sheeple known as the American people will hear about this and start liking Dubya again. I’’d be scared of that too, since this basically means that both sides either were wrong in 2003 or are wrong today.
As of 2005, small quantities of chemically degraded mustard gas had been found in old munitions. These are generally regarded as left-overs from the pre-sanction era before the 1991 Gulf War which were not destroyed by the Iraqi regime.
Sadam Hussein was a scarey guy who attempt to kill a former US president.Sadam Hussein was no saint, rather a very evil dictator who would gladly destroy all Americans, both liberal and conservative. Americans should be happy that he’s gone. Any American who is not happy that there is a little bit of evidence justifying the actions of its country smacks of someone who is much more partisan than American. Please decide which team you are on, America’s or the liberal party’s .You libs are everything that is wrong with this country I haven’t read even half off all of your cockimammy comments! But this one is way out there.

Patrick M said...

Shaw, when I decided to run this, it was with the confidence that Iraq is on the way to success.

Now I freely admit that this is not a direct comparison. I also admit this is not the total story of Iraq, nor does it address some of the questions the Bush administration has failed to answer.

But the story does illustrate one point. When we go to war, we commit an act that will cost lives. And there will always be those who will fall in line to say what we are doing is the wrong thing. Sometimes, it's a matter of trusting our leaders to get the job done. And while this war has had its share of missteps, we are finally on the right track. Even Obama figured this out.

Cutiepie: First of all, either you've confused me with Bob or are pasting your comments on his blog, but welcome either way.

You libs are everything that is wrong with this country I haven’t read even half off all of your cockimammy comments!

If you haven't even read half the blather, how are you capable of commenting on it and determining they're everything wrong with this country?

Patrick M said...

Cutie: Sorry, comment notification posted out of order, which explains why I'm out of order.

Bob: It’s a no brainer that Saddam DID have WMD’s at one time. How can anyone deny that?

It fits the template of Bush being a liar, which is a label Shaw has been flinging around in increasing amounts.

This means Bush should be thanked for invading Iraq....

I'm on the fence on this one. While I have no doubt that the world is better off without Saddam, I do have questions about popping up. And while the liberals simplify it to "Bush lied" for the sake of indoctrination, there are some legitimate questions that will probably only be answered after Bush is out of office.

Toad734 said...

Well ya, since George Washington wasn't the President in 1781, he wasn't elected until 1789. Sure, you kind of get around that by calling him the Commander in Cheif but the other differences are:
a.Washington was a real general with military experience.
b.The British attacked us on our soil, Iraq never attacked us.
c. The Revolutionary War was over in 6 years, Iraq will not be. In fact, If McCain is elected it will last another 95 years.
d.We were fighting for our freedom, not the price of oil.
e. Bush did lie, Washington never lied.
F. Washington wasn't out for power or control, as soon as the war was over, he resigned his powers.
G. As President, Washington never started any useless wars.
H. There were few in the continental congress who were against the war. The vote for Washington to become commander in Chief and the creation of a continental army was unanimous. The Supreme Court did not hand him that job.
I. After the fighting initially started, the American congress offered peace and reconciliation to King George; he refused.

As I am sure this is some sort of chain mail, I assume that most everything else is inaccurate as well.

Toad734 said...


It's a no brainer that Saddam didn't have weapons in 2003, every weapons inspector from here to Sweden agreed.

The only weapons Saddam ever did have were the ones Reagan gave him.

I know who does and will have weapons and thats N. Korea and Iran yet we haven't invaded those countries have we?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

No matter what you may think or whatever side you are on. Those young men and women who served in Iraq, fought, bled and died there understand the real price of freedom and liberty far more than the sneering liberal elitists, who at every turn try to cut off their funding.

Patrick M said...

Toad, nothing in the email (which is something interesting and quality enough that I'd print it) was untrue. It was made to make a point. That you have a need to be more detailed than Shaw at pointing out every difference (which I covered previously) tells me you got the point, but it doesn't fit your worldview.

So please stop wasting my time with inanity.

Stones: It's amazing how the history of Saddam messing with the world for a decade gets turned into "Bush Lied," isn't it.

Cutie: If you noticed, even the liberals in Congress approved that spending, no matter how much they parroted the "war is lost" mantra. Tells you something about their real expectations on victory.

shaw kenawe said...

To cutiepie:

Not only has McCain refused to support the 21st Century GI Bill, which the Veterans of Foreign Wars endorsed last June, he has consistently voted against increasing funding for the Veterans’ Administration, which oversees all medical care for veterans.

McCain voted AGAINST an amendment providing $20 billion to the VA’s medical facilities. [5/4/06]

McCain voted AGAINST providing $430 million to the VA for outpatient care “and treatment for veterans,” one of only 13 senators to do so. [4/26/06]

McCAin votd AGAINST increasing VA funding by $1.5 billion by closing corporate loopholes. [3/14/06]

And he voted AGAINST increasing VA funding by $1.8 billion by ending “abusive tax loopholes.” [3/10/04]

He voted AGAINST FOR a $650 million increase in veterans’ medical care funding. [8/1/01]

You can google each and every one of those bills.

Support the troops?

Sneering elitist?

It's mcCain who owns the 8 palaces and has a private jet.

How many homes and jets do you own, cutiepie. Are you able to live the elitist life of McCain?

Toad734 said...

And I was wondering when the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac post was coming? You know, another shining example of how an under regulated business will almost always go corrupt with greed and leave the tax payers to clean up the mess because they had too many lobbyist in their ranks which kept congressional oversight at bay??

Oh wait, you think there should be less regulation and those companies should be able to do what they want when they want even if they cook the books in order to justify CEO pay.

My bad, I almost forgot you were a conservative.

Toad734 said...


So where are they?

Toad734 said...


Doesn't fit my world view...that those two scenarios are one and the same...You're damn right it doesn't fit my world view because they were not the same, as I pointed out. Completely different circumstances, one where we were attacked and our freedoms were at stake and one where we weren't attacked and neither our freedom, safety or liberty was at stake. ONe lasted 6 years, one will last 100 years if McCain is elected. I would say there are plenty of differences here. It would be like me saying Obama is going to be a great president becaus the last lawyer turned state senator from Illinois, Lincoln, was a great president. They are two completely different people from two different times in two different political situations. Now, if you believe your post, then you must also believe that Obama will save the union.

Cindy said...

As you said, no one likes war.
But the WMD, Saddan, Bush and all the UN stuff is old news.
The question is what are we going to do about a new president?

I am very ecstatic that McCain has nominated Sarah Palin. I am a tried and true conservative and I like Sarah because she is tough and no nonsense and unafraid to express her beliefs. Sure, she could use more experience but she will be vice president and with her smarts she will grow into that job. We have seen it may times in the past.
It used to be arrogant those old self centered candidates chose as veeps because they were unheard of so they would not be upstaged and would be along for the ride. et al, Roosevelt/Truman (that reference during the Palin speech wasn't lost on me) Carter/Walter Mondale, G Bush Sr./Dan Quayle Clinton/Gore. Most of the 19th and early 20th century candidates used the unknown veep formula with some noted exceptions; McKinley/Roosevelt and some others.

As far as Obama being a muslim, I think that is only part of the story. I think he believes in an amalgamation of beliefs including muslim, black separatism and socialism all rolled up into one banner flown at Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Church.

Either way, there should be no question that Barack Obama does not have the best interest in America and Americans at heart. Yes, we should question his patriotism. And he should not be our president

Anonymous said...

Cindy made some good points.
Toad, said: where we were attacked and our freedoms were at stake and one where we weren't attacked and neither our freedom, safety or liberty was at stake.

Why should we wait til then?

Shaw Hussein Kenawe said...

cindy sez:

As far as Obama being a muslim, I think that is only part of the story. I think he believes in an amalgamation of beliefs including muslim, black separatism and socialism all rolled up into one banner flown at Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Church.

Well, cindy what you "think" is bullshit. You give me one quote from Obama to back up your allegations about him, otherwise, you're nothing but a smear monger and Rovian jerk. Okay?

Either way, there should be no question that Barack Obama does not have the best interest in America and Americans at heart.

Well, for your information, cindy, HALF of red-blooded, flag-loving Americans don't agree with you. You are not a MAJORITY in thinking this. So be careful about your calumny and gutter allegations.

I'm sick of this shit. You have nothing to back up your crap. Attack the man on his policies, fine. You scabarous people attack a man's or a woman's patriotism because he or she doesn't agree with your politics? NOT ONE DEMOCRATE HAS ATTACKED MC CAIN OVER HIS LOVE OF COUNTRY. But we all know it is a favorite tactic of Fascists to pull this shit.

Yes, we should question his patriotism. And he should not be our president.

And I question your patriotism for attacking a fellow American without any evidence. You practice the politics of the sewer.

I. Am. Sick. Of. It.

And so are many Americans. We've had 8 years of Rovian hatred for fellow Americans. Enough.

PS. Go to hell.

Patrick M said...

Shaw: First of all, on those bills McCain voted against, I'm going to guess it's each one is probably one of those bills that started out right but got so laden with pork that McCain said no.

And second, is everything you don't like Rovian? For some reason, you seem to hate him more than Bush. Is it because he was successful at winning arguments with liberals? For some reason, you seem to take losing personally. Next you're probably gong to question his patriotism or something. :)

BTW, do you have to be so hard on the new people?

Toad: Fine, ignore what I said if it makes you feel like you won an argument. I'll just laugh at you.

Cindy: Welcome. It always helps to have more conservatives around.

However, you don't help the cause by questioning Barack Obama's faith or patriotism. It's fair to look into his last church (Angry Time with J Wright) and to ask questions when his associations point to a radical point of view.

However, the Muslim question is clearly debunked. He was born to a Muslim father and did a little school time. However, his adult life has been marked by association with Christianity. And while his choice of church may have been politically convenient, I won't question his personal faith.

As for patriotism, he owes his success to this country. While his policies may undo some of that, it does not mean he's out with the intention to destroy the country. That's the job of whackies that make Shaw look conservative by comparison.

So before you start flinging the rumor shit, remember that good conservatives are better than that.

Cindy said...

"Flinging the rumor shit"
I beg your pardon!!!!!

Thank you very much Patrick M. But I don’t need you or anyone else to defend or explain my views. YOU may be sick of this shit, but I am sick of these worthless liberals twisting and spinning everything in their direction! You say that I have nothing to back up MY crap.! Well I have as much evidence to back up what I say as you or anyone else here has. And WHY NOT attack his patriotism? Are you going to question that as well? Is not finding it within his heart to salute OUR flag unpatriotic? I think it is. Is what his miserable wife said about America un patriotic? I think that is as well. How can anyone being an American say that they have never before been proud of America? Was she not proud to see the Berlin wall come down because of us? How about our freeing thousands of Jews in the Nazi camps? Was she not proud of that? The 2 of them are MARXIST creeps and i don’t want either of them in the White House . So please don’t tell me what to say and what not to say. I think that his patriotism is as important as anything else. Without patriotism how can anyone lead and fight for us?
This may be your blog, but you don’t have control of me.
That being said.
Let's give credit where credit's due - John McCain had the guts and foresight and humility to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate. That's the sign of a secure leader. Compare and contrast Obama's panic selection of old Joe Biden in response to the Georgia invasion which illustrated his lack of foreign policy understanding. Sarah Palin is the best thing that has happened to the republican party in years, and i think it’s a shame for a man that is running for the presidency to have to be SO scared of her as to do and say what he is doing right now.
Did you believe his “Hands off" policy for one minute? I didn’t
Thank you.

Patrick M said...

Cindy: I hope I don't have to repeat myself too much here.

You brought the Muslim and unpatriotic lines into it. These are things that liberals use to point to the narrowness and stupidity of Republicans (because they can't differentiate between the GOP and conservatism). So while you have a right in the benevolent dictatorship of my blog to say what you want (hell, I let Toad post, don't I?), expect demagoguery like that to be challenged here.

As for the patriotism, or lack thereof, it depends on how you define it (shit, sounding like Clinton). The mindset of the Obamas, based on their pattern of behavior, belies a serious discontent with the power structure and politics of the USA. But I don't question their patriotism because they are working within the system to change the country to their liberal vision. Compare that with some like Bill Ayers (conveniently, a stepping stone for Obama) or more recently the nutty Code Pinkos. You have people who don't engage in discourse here, but only attack and destroy (with Ayers being the worse of the two) the structure of the USA. To contrast it more simply, an antiwar protestor that stands outside the GOP convention is expressing an opinion, but not unpatriotic, a Code Pinko trying to shout down McCain during his speech is an unpatriotic douche not worth listening to. Ever.

As for the "hands off" policy, I think, based on the polls and the reactions of the smarter liberal feminists (Camille Paglia and Kirsten (yum-o) Powers jump to mind), that the Obama camp better start trying to cap the crazies they attract, because it will elect McCain and Sarah Palin (emphasis making a point) in under two months. :)

Cindy said...

No Patrick, you don’t have to repeat yourself at all.
The “P.S. Go to Hell”
statement that you allow on this board was enough for me to NOT want to participate here any longer.
I don’t need people saying that to ME.ANYWHERE!

Patrick M said...

Cindy: That was Shaw that told you to go to hell. You're welcome to stay and tell her to go fuck herself if you choose.

Although if it comes to trading insults, I'll eventually start deleting both of you (but you get a pass to respond in kind once).

Cindy said...

No Patrick, I was NOT trading insults with anyone at any time and it is YOU that said to " tell her to go fuck herself if I choose"

I know that it was Shaw that made that remard, but yet you chose to lash out at me and not at her.

But no thank you, that's not my style.
Ban whoever you like, but don't bother banning me. I find no reason to be here with your mess of street idiots.
I'd like to think that I have a bit more class that that. I don't need this at all.
See you around.

Victor's Voice said...

Saddam is long gone, now we have an election to talk about. Whether you like it or not McCain is the best we have and I believe that with him in charge we will get this war won and fast.
On another note:
Senator barack H. Obama has been forced to revise his attack plans.
While B H O may be content going after a gray haired old man, apparently he isn't up to the task of taking on an attractive woman.

We saw this shortly after McCain announced that he had chosen the little known Sarah Palin as the Obama campaign and the DNC rolled out Wisconsins Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton to tell us, "If she becomes president of the United States of America, I think we would have someone who is pretty fragile at the helm."

U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison stated, "This choice calls into question both Senator McCain's judgment and a McCain administration's ability to lead a nation in crisis."

Leftist females lined up to denigrate Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin.

After Sarah Palin electrified America with her acceptance speech, Senator Obama has turned to former rival, Hillary Clinton "to Counter Palin."

The New York TImes article above say the Obama campaign is "dispatching Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to Florida on Monday and bolstering his plan to deploy female surrogates to battleground states."

The call for skirts to hide behind are also for governors Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

What to think of a man that cannot do his own dirty work and must hide behind women's skirts to counter an opponent. If he cannot face Sarah palin, who is only the VP choice, ow would he face up to America's enemies?

Maybe he should send Michelle to fight in his place?

Shaw Hussein Kenawe said...

I hereby apologize to cindy for saying "go to hell."

I was imprudent. I was pissed off.

I should know better than to post a comment after dealing with heartbreaking family situations.

I come here very often to get my mind to focus on something else.

I was wrong. And I apologize.

But I stand by my calling cindy out on her unsubstantiated smears on Obama's patrotism and calling him a Muslim.

say as you or anyone else here has. And WHY NOT attack his patriotism? Are you going to question that as well? Is not finding it within his heart to salute OUR flag unpatriotic?--cindy

Being absent minded in one instant and not putting his hand over his heart (and you DON'T know if he finally did because that picture captured one instant in time) does not call into question ANYONE's patriotism. If that's all you got, you got nothin'.

I think it is.

Of course you do. The rabid right calls EVERY Democrat's patriotism into question. It's called smearing you opponent when you got nothing else. And I have to admit, when it comes to cesspool tactics, you guys are really, really good. The Devil himself envies your abilities.

Is what his miserable wife said about America un patriotic? I think that is as well. How can anyone being an American say that they have never before been proud of America? Was she not proud to see the Berlin wall come down because of us? How about our freeing thousands of Jews in the Nazi camps? Was she not proud of that? The 2 of them are MARXIST creeps and i don’t want either of them in the White House .

I'm biting my tongue here, because I really want to say that you're full of toro poo-poo, but that would be insulting you, wouldn't it, cindy.

However, you can insult a man and woman who have probably faced more shit and hatred because of who they are, than you'll even READ about in three lifetimes.

PS. For the low-information people out there, Michelle said "for the first time in her "adult life." And one comment like that doesn't call into question her patriotism, not matter how hard you try.

Meanwhile, we've all seen by now that McCain, in the past, has support Democrats and even considered running with John Kerry, he's called a maverick because he OPPOSES his party on major issues, not because he AGREES WITH IT. So essentially you all are excited about this man because he has opposed many of your parties positions?

And lastly, while you obsess on Obama's flag pin (did you not notice McCain DIDN'T have one on in his acceptance speech at the convention? (gasp!) and Michelle's ONE small comment, Sarah Palin has been caught lying about her record.


How do you respond to that? Is it okay to be a liar, so long as you're wearing lipstick?

Patrick M said...

Cindy: I address substance. If you can't handle that, too bad for you.

If you note, the majority of Shaw's argument was substantive, with only the personal postscript. Sometimes you take the bad with the good. And if you get back to read the rest of this thread, you'll notice she did apologize.

But between the girl fight (minus the hair, ripped clothing and the view) and last weeks shootout between some other bloggers, this gives me an idea for atother post on Friday (9/11 intervening).

Victor: I think I mentioned this on another blog, but it's like the Clinton-Lazio debate. Obama would be best served to ignore Sarah rather than invade her personal space, and he'd als be helped if he could get the idiots on his side to knock off the personal attacks. It's the surest way to elect McCain. The fact is, idiots on both sides fire up the opposing base. And the GOP base in particular is fired up. Even more so than the ever-vehement Shaw was above.

Shaw: Smearing says as smearing does. Or something.

Sarah Palin has been caught lying about her record.


Strangely, I couldn't find the "lie" in the articles you cite on your blog. What I found was some distortion of her record on the bridge, pointing to Obama's earmark which were nonexistent this year (hard to ask for them when you're not there), and blaming the pork that Alaska's two senators are bringing in on the governor.

You really like that word "lie" now, don't you? To borrow words from you on the original subject of this post, but fit nonetheless:

Simplistic, and in no way whatsoever, in any case, applicable....

Victor's Voice said...

"Sometimes you take the bad with the good"

In Cindy's defense, that "Go to hell" remark was pretty bad.
I wouldn’t blame her for leaving .
No body has to take that “Bad” with the good.
What and where was the Good?

Come on now, have we sunk to that kind of name calling?
If she ever said that to me, I'd be out of here as well.

Patrick M said...

Victor: Up to the last line, Shaw's comments hadn't crossed any line. That's part of getting a discussion going. Plus, we're all adults here (I think) and that means sometimes someone will cross over the line. Had it continued, I would have intervened.

In addition, we do allow people to revise and amend their remarks. Shaw has apologized. That means it's no longer an issue, unless you can't let it go. Then I'm going to lump you in with the kooks that are still screaming "selected, not elected" even now.

Victor's Voice said...

Patrick said: "Then I'm going to lump you in with the kooks that are still screaming "selected, not elected" even now"

Lump away!

Toad734 said...


you're right, lets carpet bomb the entire middle east and russia. Then they will all love us and everything will be ok. They will have learned their lesson.

Patrick M said...

Toad: They don't have to love us if they're all dead. That's kind of the point there.

Bit Stones was talking about the Bush Doctrine, which, as Sarah got right when asked, is preemption.