LA was not saved
-
By torture. http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/[^]
What clinches the falsity of Thiessen's claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen's argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.
And then we have this Torture used to extract false confessions[^] In related news Bush's Desaparecidos[^]
You're turning into Ilion. Link after link after link, never a coherent thought of your own. Speak up, boy. Don't tell us what you've read, tell us what you think.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
By torture. http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/[^]
What clinches the falsity of Thiessen's claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen's argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.
And then we have this Torture used to extract false confessions[^] In related news Bush's Desaparecidos[^]
"After KSM was captured by the United States, he was not initially cooperative with CIA interrogators. Nor was another top al Qaeda leader named Zubaydah. KSM, Zubaydah, and a third terrorist named Nashiri were the only three persons ever subjected to waterboarding by the CIA. (Additional terrorist detainees were subjected to other “enhanced techniques” that included slapping, sleep deprivation, dietary limitations, and temporary confinement to small spaces -- but not to water-boarding.) This was because the CIA imposed very tight restrictions on the use of waterboarding. “The ‘waterboard,’ which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits,” explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. “It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has ‘credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent’; ‘substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack’; and ‘[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.’”"[^] Doesn't exactly sound willy-nilly... Does it.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
"After KSM was captured by the United States, he was not initially cooperative with CIA interrogators. Nor was another top al Qaeda leader named Zubaydah. KSM, Zubaydah, and a third terrorist named Nashiri were the only three persons ever subjected to waterboarding by the CIA. (Additional terrorist detainees were subjected to other “enhanced techniques” that included slapping, sleep deprivation, dietary limitations, and temporary confinement to small spaces -- but not to water-boarding.) This was because the CIA imposed very tight restrictions on the use of waterboarding. “The ‘waterboard,’ which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits,” explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. “It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has ‘credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent’; ‘substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack’; and ‘[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.’”"[^] Doesn't exactly sound willy-nilly... Does it.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Doesn't exactly sound willy-nilly
You think that excuses it? Torture is torture whether on 1 or 1000. KSM was waterboarded 183 times in one month and it doesn't look like they got anything. Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in one month and the only intelligence they got out of him was before they tortured him.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Doesn't exactly sound willy-nilly
You think that excuses it? Torture is torture whether on 1 or 1000. KSM was waterboarded 183 times in one month and it doesn't look like they got anything. Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in one month and the only intelligence they got out of him was before they tortured him.
Daniel Pearl's head was cut off one time. What's your point? If the CIA was doing it daily to everybody they could get their hands on, that would be a big problem. Waterboarding three filthy douche bags for the purpose of keeping Americans safe, I couldn't care less. In fact, I'm all for making it four, and waterboarding Obama until he forks over a real birth certificate. ;P
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Daniel Pearl's head was cut off one time. What's your point? If the CIA was doing it daily to everybody they could get their hands on, that would be a big problem. Waterboarding three filthy douche bags for the purpose of keeping Americans safe, I couldn't care less. In fact, I'm all for making it four, and waterboarding Obama until he forks over a real birth certificate. ;P
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Daniel Pearl's head was cut off one time.
And the guy that they tortured to get the confession from probably didn't do it.
BoneSoft wrote:
If the CIA was doing it daily to everybody they could get their hands on
We have indeed focused on waterboarding when discussing torture, but most of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture and they were all used - and not just on 3. So, the CIA say only 3 were waterboarded - so what? They also said, at various times (1) they didn't torture (2) they only waterboarded KSM once (3) KSM gave them info that stopped a massive attack in LA. All lies.
BoneSoft wrote:
for the purpose of keeping Americans safe
And it failed to do that. Perhaps you are attempting to suggest that torture was used responsibly. Well Abu Ghraib definitively put the lie to that one.
-
You're turning into Ilion. Link after link after link, never a coherent thought of your own. Speak up, boy. Don't tell us what you've read, tell us what you think.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Daniel Pearl's head was cut off one time.
And the guy that they tortured to get the confession from probably didn't do it.
BoneSoft wrote:
If the CIA was doing it daily to everybody they could get their hands on
We have indeed focused on waterboarding when discussing torture, but most of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture and they were all used - and not just on 3. So, the CIA say only 3 were waterboarded - so what? They also said, at various times (1) they didn't torture (2) they only waterboarded KSM once (3) KSM gave them info that stopped a massive attack in LA. All lies.
BoneSoft wrote:
for the purpose of keeping Americans safe
And it failed to do that. Perhaps you are attempting to suggest that torture was used responsibly. Well Abu Ghraib definitively put the lie to that one.
I have never in my entire life seen anyone so willing to commit national sucicide under the guise of following some meaningless bullshit rule that is open to interpretation. I really want to hear what you have to say the next time some fucking fanatic blows some shit up. I realize it'll be Bush's fault but I want to hear you say it.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Daniel Pearl's head was cut off one time. What's your point? If the CIA was doing it daily to everybody they could get their hands on, that would be a big problem. Waterboarding three filthy douche bags for the purpose of keeping Americans safe, I couldn't care less. In fact, I'm all for making it four, and waterboarding Obama until he forks over a real birth certificate. ;P
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Daniel Pearl's head was cut off one time.
Boney, with all due respect, this isn't about what the Islamic thugs do. It is about what we do. I most emphatically think that the CIA ops should be left alone. They questioned whether their orders were legal, received assurances from lawyers they had every reason to trust that their orders were legit and they did what they felt they needed to do. However, I think a through and complete investigation into this issue is needed and should be welcomed. We do have laws against torture in this country and if they were broken, we need to look at how, why, and under whose aegis that happened. I doubt sincerely that the lawyers who rendered an opinion can be tried for any crime. However, the senior government officials who either gave the orders to torture or knew that it was going on cannot hide behind those lawyers and somehow make them culpable. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Hastert, Clinton, Delay, Bohnyer, the heads of the Intelligence committees -- all need to explain why a crime took place on American soil at their behest or with their acquiescence - if one did. Right now, I think, Oily and his friends are chuckling because they think to go after Bush and some of his cabinet, never realising that a can of worms has been opened that has the potential for destroying the political careers of a great number of senior Democrats as well. I would certainly welcome hearing Diane Feinstein explain, under oath, why she has kept quiet about her knowledge of waterboarding occurring in this country since 2003, and why she conspired with Dick Cheney, et al, to conceal this practice from her constituents.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Daniel Pearl's head was cut off one time.
And the guy that they tortured to get the confession from probably didn't do it.
BoneSoft wrote:
If the CIA was doing it daily to everybody they could get their hands on
We have indeed focused on waterboarding when discussing torture, but most of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture and they were all used - and not just on 3. So, the CIA say only 3 were waterboarded - so what? They also said, at various times (1) they didn't torture (2) they only waterboarded KSM once (3) KSM gave them info that stopped a massive attack in LA. All lies.
BoneSoft wrote:
for the purpose of keeping Americans safe
And it failed to do that. Perhaps you are attempting to suggest that torture was used responsibly. Well Abu Ghraib definitively put the lie to that one.
oilFactotum wrote:
but most of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture and they were all used
Says you. Why are you so concerned with something being percieved as torture? You can't possibly argue that by slapping and depriving these people of some sleep that it will hurt our troops, they get far worse treatment than waterboarding if they're interogated. So what's your stake in this? Is it purely political? Do you have a brother at Gitmo? Seriously, what drives you to obsess over this so much?
oilFactotum wrote:
And it failed to do that.
Did it? We've been safe... Up until The One was put into power anyway.
oilFactotum wrote:
Perhaps you are attempting to suggest that torture was used responsibly. Well Abu Ghraib definitively put the lie to that one.
Abu Graib wasn't tourture, wasn't sanctioned, wasn't CIA, and isn't relavant.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Daniel Pearl's head was cut off one time.
Boney, with all due respect, this isn't about what the Islamic thugs do. It is about what we do. I most emphatically think that the CIA ops should be left alone. They questioned whether their orders were legal, received assurances from lawyers they had every reason to trust that their orders were legit and they did what they felt they needed to do. However, I think a through and complete investigation into this issue is needed and should be welcomed. We do have laws against torture in this country and if they were broken, we need to look at how, why, and under whose aegis that happened. I doubt sincerely that the lawyers who rendered an opinion can be tried for any crime. However, the senior government officials who either gave the orders to torture or knew that it was going on cannot hide behind those lawyers and somehow make them culpable. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Hastert, Clinton, Delay, Bohnyer, the heads of the Intelligence committees -- all need to explain why a crime took place on American soil at their behest or with their acquiescence - if one did. Right now, I think, Oily and his friends are chuckling because they think to go after Bush and some of his cabinet, never realising that a can of worms has been opened that has the potential for destroying the political careers of a great number of senior Democrats as well. I would certainly welcome hearing Diane Feinstein explain, under oath, why she has kept quiet about her knowledge of waterboarding occurring in this country since 2003, and why she conspired with Dick Cheney, et al, to conceal this practice from her constituents.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Boney, with all due respect, this isn't about what the Islamic thugs do. It is about what we do.
Point taken, but I thought he just wanted to play a round of Irrelevant Numbers.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Oakman wrote:
Boney, with all due respect, this isn't about what the Islamic thugs do. It is about what we do.
Point taken, but I thought he just wanted to play a round of Irrelevant Numbers.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
I thought he just wanted to play a round of Irrelevant Numbers
He does. Which (in my humble opinion) is all the more reason for people like you who don't think by jerking their knees to respond with intelligence and insight. It makes him look even more foolish. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I thought he just wanted to play a round of Irrelevant Numbers
He does. Which (in my humble opinion) is all the more reason for people like you who don't think by jerking their knees to respond with intelligence and insight. It makes him look even more foolish. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Good advise. However, when taking his bate on this issue (he gives damn few opportunities on other issues) you have to know at this point that it ultimately is an exercise in futility. And going into it knowing that, it's often hard to resist the path of the Devil's Advocate. Which is a great argument for ignoring him all together. But sometimes taking the bate is pretty hard to resist as well.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
By torture. http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/[^]
What clinches the falsity of Thiessen's claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen's argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.
And then we have this Torture used to extract false confessions[^] In related news Bush's Desaparecidos[^]
Excellent! Getting all your ducks in a row to bring the previous administration into your kangaroo courts like some kind of South American junta. Obama's legacy is getting better all the time.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
but most of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture and they were all used
Says you. Why are you so concerned with something being percieved as torture? You can't possibly argue that by slapping and depriving these people of some sleep that it will hurt our troops, they get far worse treatment than waterboarding if they're interogated. So what's your stake in this? Is it purely political? Do you have a brother at Gitmo? Seriously, what drives you to obsess over this so much?
oilFactotum wrote:
And it failed to do that.
Did it? We've been safe... Up until The One was put into power anyway.
oilFactotum wrote:
Perhaps you are attempting to suggest that torture was used responsibly. Well Abu Ghraib definitively put the lie to that one.
Abu Graib wasn't tourture, wasn't sanctioned, wasn't CIA, and isn't relavant.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Says you.
Says the United States. We've convicted people for using the exact same methods of torture.
BoneSoft wrote:
with something being percieved as torture?
It is torture.
BoneSoft wrote:
So what's your stake in this?
It is a crime. Not just a crime, but a war crime. Our political leaders should not be considered above the law. It hurts us more than it helps us. As Admiral Blair said:
“The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
I think we are better than that. To find ourselves in the company of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Vietnam and Cambodia is deeply offensive. I think an institutionalized regime of torture would seep back into the US. Just look at how quickly we witnessed the casual brutality of Lindy Englund. Abu Ghraib is the direct result of the decisions to torture.
BoneSoft wrote:
Abu Graib wasn't tourture, wasn't sanctioned,
Wrong on both counts.
-
Excellent! Getting all your ducks in a row to bring the previous administration into your kangaroo courts like some kind of South American junta. Obama's legacy is getting better all the time.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
some kind of South American junta.
If we let the previous administration get by with committing war crimes that is exactly what we will have become. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/obama-bush-and-the-rule-of-law.html[^]
And so Obama's refusal to investigate war crimes is itself against the law. And so torture's cancerous route through the legal and constitutional system continues, contaminating the future as well as the past, rendering the US incapable of upholding Geneva against other nations, because it has violated Geneva itself, and giving to every tyrant on the planet a justification for the torture of prisoners. In this scenario, America becomes a city on a hill, where the rule of law is optional and torture acceptable if parsed into legal memos that do not pass the most basic professional sniff-test. America becomes a banana republic.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
some kind of South American junta.
If we let the previous administration get by with committing war crimes that is exactly what we will have become. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/obama-bush-and-the-rule-of-law.html[^]
And so Obama's refusal to investigate war crimes is itself against the law. And so torture's cancerous route through the legal and constitutional system continues, contaminating the future as well as the past, rendering the US incapable of upholding Geneva against other nations, because it has violated Geneva itself, and giving to every tyrant on the planet a justification for the torture of prisoners. In this scenario, America becomes a city on a hill, where the rule of law is optional and torture acceptable if parsed into legal memos that do not pass the most basic professional sniff-test. America becomes a banana republic.
No, I'm actually pretty sure trumping up a bunch of charges in order to eliminate the political opposition is much more representative of a junta than is roughing up a few terrorists to save people's lives. See, thats the part you keep leaving out. Most people kind of like having their lives saved in a way that does not in any way endanger their own freedoms and liberties.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
No, I'm actually pretty sure trumping up a bunch of charges in order to eliminate the political opposition is much more representative of a junta than is roughing up a few terrorists to save people's lives. See, thats the part you keep leaving out. Most people kind of like having their lives saved in a way that does not in any way endanger their own freedoms and liberties.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm actually pretty sure trumping up a bunch of charges in order to eliminate the political opposition
You've made dozens of posts either saying that Bush should be investigated by Congress since people thought he broke the law, that it was Congress's job to ride herd on the Executive Branch, or that Bush was obviously innocent because no-one in Congress was investigating him. Now it looks like there may be a Congressional investigation as well as a possible parallel one by the Attorney General who is, after all, supposed to investigate charges of criminality by Government Officials - and you are whining about it? :confused: Maybe you should be careful what you wish for.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
oilFactotum wrote:
but most of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture and they were all used
Says you. Why are you so concerned with something being percieved as torture? You can't possibly argue that by slapping and depriving these people of some sleep that it will hurt our troops, they get far worse treatment than waterboarding if they're interogated. So what's your stake in this? Is it purely political? Do you have a brother at Gitmo? Seriously, what drives you to obsess over this so much?
oilFactotum wrote:
And it failed to do that.
Did it? We've been safe... Up until The One was put into power anyway.
oilFactotum wrote:
Perhaps you are attempting to suggest that torture was used responsibly. Well Abu Ghraib definitively put the lie to that one.
Abu Graib wasn't tourture, wasn't sanctioned, wasn't CIA, and isn't relavant.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
what drives you to obsess over this so much?
His desire for revenge and retribution on the filthy Neocons who cheated the Goreacle and Hanoi Jane's friend out of their rightful presidencies consumes him. He burns with rage that can only be quelled by the blood of every single member of the Bush administration, and every CIA, DIA and FBI bureacrat who failed to reject instructions to do their job. Nothing comes second to his partisan rage. It must be sated, even if it destroys his own party.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm actually pretty sure trumping up a bunch of charges in order to eliminate the political opposition
You've made dozens of posts either saying that Bush should be investigated by Congress since people thought he broke the law, that it was Congress's job to ride herd on the Executive Branch, or that Bush was obviously innocent because no-one in Congress was investigating him. Now it looks like there may be a Congressional investigation as well as a possible parallel one by the Attorney General who is, after all, supposed to investigate charges of criminality by Government Officials - and you are whining about it? :confused: Maybe you should be careful what you wish for.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
and you are whining about it?
I'm not whining about it, I'm all for it. The fact that, given the attitude of anti-American zealots like oily, it is highly unlikely that there will be any ability on the part of those in charge from keeping it civil and at least marginally respectful of the office of the presidency. It will become an absolute circus of anti-American vitriole played out on a world stage for all to see. You add a little more economic decline to that scenario, and there will damned sure be someone drawing a line in the sand somewhere. In the end, I believe Bush and co will by vindicated on all charges. But even if they are not, the historic significance of it will be impossible to obfuscate. Historically, Bush did nothing that much differently from many of our greatest national heros. If Obama, oily, et al, really want to line up against that history, more the better. That is precisely where I want them. Obama is already doing an excellent job of trashing 233 years of American history before some of the most dispicable cretins the planet has ever known, now he is going to condemn Bush as the criminal for defending the country? Excellent! The pieces could not be played any more perfectly.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
what drives you to obsess over this so much?
His desire for revenge and retribution on the filthy Neocons who cheated the Goreacle and Hanoi Jane's friend out of their rightful presidencies consumes him. He burns with rage that can only be quelled by the blood of every single member of the Bush administration, and every CIA, DIA and FBI bureacrat who failed to reject instructions to do their job. Nothing comes second to his partisan rage. It must be sated, even if it destroys his own party.
Rob Graham wrote:
His desire for revenge and retribution on the filthy Neocons who cheated the Goreacle and Hanoi Jane's friend out of their rightful presidencies consumes him. He burns with rage that can only be quelled by the blood of every single member of the Bush administration, and every CIA, DIA and FBI bureacrat who failed to reject instructions to do their job. Nothing comes second to his partisan rage. It must be sated, even if it destroys his own party.
Brilliant. :thumbsup::thumbsup:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin