A Qualified "Yes" For The Surge
by Steve Soto
A clear example of why the LeftCoaster is a subprime blog.
Posted by at January 14, 2007 10:20 PMHagel seeks to assure Joe Lieberman and the Meet the Press audience that he is not "advocating defeat." This is an extremely disingenious statement, all the more so coming from a Vietnam veteran. It begs the question, defeat for whom? Those outside forces or foreign fighters who are aligned against the United States and the coalition forces do not number a significant ninety per cent or sixty per cent or even thirty per cent in Iraq. The grand total of those who could be labeled as terrorists and who are striking such fear into the likes of Lieberman and Hagel number a miniscule two [2] per cent of those who are fighting the U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. If the mainstream media would actually do its job by reporting this fact to the citizens of this country, then perhaps, just perhaps, they might finally realize that they have been lied to by their government and that the troops are being kept in that slaughterhouse for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Bring the troops home- safely- now.
Posted by Erroll at January 14, 2007 10:49 PMIt's nice, in an academic sort of way, that Bush is getting around to where he should have been three years ago, or even four years ago. At that point, we had fresh troops lacking body armor and all the unarmored HumVees and you know what? Even minus the hubris, I'm not sure a do-over would work. But the hubris WAS THE major feature, and bullheadedness kept the worst SecDef ever in position for two years after we could all see the enormity of his errors as we watched the consequences unfold.
I don't know if our officers and ground forces can produce any improvement from this plan. In fact, it doesn't matter, because the guy at the top lacks the intellectual capacity and every quality of character necessary to lead them. Even IF I knew we had the horsess, I would oppose this because Bush is fundamentally deaf to incoming information and will therefore fail to make necessary adjustments to maintain balanced, forward movement. He's going to fall off this bike, too.
We cannot put the entire project on hold for 2 years while the elect a new CIC. The sort of escalation he clearly has planned is intolerable; we simply cannot allow him to bomb Iran, and there's not a chance in hell he will ever allow any sort of diplomacy.
I was intensely opposed to the Iraq invasion, on legal, moral, and practical grounds. When it was clear it was going to happen, I had a few weeks when I hoped for the best, and when the looting started and our army started laying waste to orchards and groves of hundred year old palm trees, I figured it was fucked. There is no "best" to hope for in an attack on Iran.
Go read the Mark Seibel/McClatchy article posted on dKos. They're lying to us again. He works for us. If he ignores us, he gets impeached, and yes it IS that simple.
Posted by Jeany at January 14, 2007 11:34 PMIn my view, Sen Edwards is correct in supporting direct Congressional intervention now, not later. Sen Kennedy is correct for the same reason. Congress is not standing up on its hind legs to deal forthrightly with the issue in a timely manner. Dithering while the President's plan is in motion is "acceptance" and the Administration knows that, depends upon that, is backing them into a corner by accelerating deployments to Iraq, the Iranian border and Gulf, and intervening in Africa as well. It will not be long before the season changes in Afghanistan and that theatre becomes more active. This Administration is "GOING BIG" and "GOING LONG" at the same time. Why is that so hard to see?
Posted by gtash at January 15, 2007 02:52 AMCheney, always the player, said opposition to increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq plays into Osama bin Laden's hands.
"Bin Laden doesn't think he can beat us. He believes he can force us to quit," Cheney said, citing US military setbacks in Lebanon and Somalia that led to US withdrawals from those countries.
Cheney's remarks were made on FOXNews (GOP-TV).
Ironic, considering his administration long ago gave up on apprehending bin Laden.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070114/ts_alt_afp/usiraqbushpolitics_070114185917
Posted by Christopher at January 15, 2007 03:41 AMOnce again, Osama Bin Laden is resurrected to make a point, instill fear, or used as an excuse, and no one asks the question on why we haven't caught him yet. Pressure should be kept on this Administration about this issue.
Once again, end this war. If Congress does not end this war through cutting off funding, then the message, as far as I am concerned, is that the will of the people has little meaning. Debates, hearings, etc., and all the time, more are dying.
Bush has said that he doesn't care what Congress does, he is moving forward. We are going to wake up one morning to the news that we are now in a war with Iran. Then it will be too late to cut off funding or impeach him.
Posted by Judith at January 15, 2007 05:24 AMBy way of Josh Marshal's site:
"From The Independent:
The American company appointed to advise the US government on the economic reconstruction of Iraq has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into Republican Party coffers and has admitted that its own finances are in chaos because of accounting errors and bad management.
. . .
BearingPoint [formerly KPMG] is being paid $240m for its work in Iraq, winning an initial contract from the US Agency for International Development (USAid) within weeks of the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. It was charged with supporting the then Coalition Provisional Authority to introduce policies "which are designed to create a competitive private sector". Its role is to examine laws, regulations and institutions that regulate trade, commerce and investment, and to advise ministries and the central bank.
Last week The Independent on Sunday revealed that a BearingPoint employee, based in the US embassy in Baghdad, had been tasked with advising the Iraqi Ministry of Oil on drawing up a new hydrocarbon law. The legislation, which is due to be presented to Iraq's parliament within days, will give Western oil companies a large slice of profits from the country's oil fields in exchange for investing in new oil infrastructure."
So let's for the sake of argument Congress cannot do anything to stop the escalation. Biden and Obama and Barney Frank say the money is already in the budget that was passed in September 2006. Can anyone tell me if contracts to outfits like KPMG can be rescinded by Congress? In other words, can the brakes be applied to independent contractors and cronies to deter widening the scope of Republican war-making? (And yes, I do mean to label it "Republican" war making---it still is.)
Posted by gtash at January 15, 2007 05:44 AMi agre with judith..the people have spoken..this war should end..it was wrong and it was a mistake..i always felt the constitution was a remarkable..but there is something very wrong for a man such as gwbush to have that kind of power..to steer us into hell..get him out of there..or at least cut the funding for any more soldiers..
Posted by dennis at January 15, 2007 06:26 AMThe administration certainly is at fault for the current situation in Iraq. The question is where to go from here?
With this "Surge", there is a shot at salvaging the situation. Without it, the war is lost with staggering consequences for the people of Iraq in the form of worsening civil war, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.
If Congress cuts funding for the effort, they would be rightly responsible for the defeat and consequential humanitarian disaster.
At least Bush has stated the stakes and what he thinks will happen if we pull out. Why hasn't Edwards, Kennedy, Obama, and the rest of the Dems articulated what they think a likely post-withdrawal Iraq would look like?
Posted by InIraq at January 15, 2007 06:47 AM"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
When it comes to Osama bin Laden, this administration has about as much credibility as Robert Gates testifying about Oliver North and Iran-Contra.
Zero.
Posted by Christopher at January 15, 2007 07:18 AMInIraq is right--the last drop of water that falls in my teacup is responsible for the overflow, not the two cups I already poured in. And the last skinny person to get on the elevator after the twelve fat people? Its all her fault too, when the elevator crashes into the ground. Remember, if the war is already lost because of bush's incompetence, bad planning, failure to plan, and corrupt handling of taxpayer monies it is *The fault of the democrats* for not finding a magical solution to these problems at the eleventh hour. Because there is *always* a solution to every problem. For instance, when my toddler smashes a valauable figurine I can *always* just magically reassemble it without cracks. Or when I burn a meal to charcoal I can just slather butter on it and it will still receive four stars from zagats. And so it is with Iraq. If we could have won the war a couple of months ago without the surge, as Bush and rumsfeld were insisting, it must now be the case that only if we get the surge can we win the war today. And people standing in the way of the surge? they must be really evil people.
QED
aimai
Posted by aimai at January 15, 2007 07:34 AMChris, you wonder why a guy who can barely masticate a pretzel without a visit to the emergency room hasn't found Bin Laden yet?
Posted by TIKI AL at January 15, 2007 07:36 AMTo evoke Rumsfeld, what will happen upon the redeployment of American troops out of theater is unknown. Bush's plan presumes a specific scenario. The plans offered by various Dems presumes nothing, but is structured so that our troops will be in a position to respond to WHATEVER happens. Given the track record of Bush's cogitations, the notion that his stating "the stakes and what he thing will happen if we pull out" sets a bar that Democratic plans must exceed is hilarious. Under the terms you set, comparing plans becomes a dumb-off.
Here, the statement "If Congress cuts funding for the effort, they would be rightly responsible for the defeat and consequential humanitarian disaster", that's playing the fear card. It's been used with great success against Dems for decades and it's still a dishonest and scurrilous logical fallacy that should have no role in public debate, expecially when the stakes are as high as they are now. There never has been an intellectually honest public debate about about the war because the adminstration, knowing they were fudging the facts, played that fear card unceasingly, abrading the hair shirt Dems have worn since Vietnam. "Better watch out, you'll lose on national security."
Boogeda boogeda, be scared, BOO!!
Posted by Jeany at January 15, 2007 07:45 AMWhy hasn't Edwards, Kennedy, Obama, and the rest of the Dems articulated what they think a likely post-withdrawal Iraq would look like?
It's not their responsibility. Their responsibility is to articulate what America should look like. Iraq is the failed foreign policy as articulated by the commander in codpiece. The responsibility resides with the commander in codpiece. Any plan for escalation -or the lack thereof- requires the codpiece to articulate what post-America Iraq will look like. It is his war.
If Congress cuts funding for the effort, they would be rightly responsible for the defeat and consequential humanitarian disaster.
Untrue. Americans, and the troops, want out of Iraq. The Mad King, idiot son of George, is moving this debacle forward against the advice of his betters. He broke it, he owns it forever. He and his supporters are inextricably linked to his madness.
With this "Surge", there is a shot at salvaging the situation.
Too little, too late. The Mad King went to Iraq with Rummy's "new military" which is somehow new because they have been continually undermanned and undersupplied. I don't know how that becomes a new strategy, since historically it generally leads to defeat...although you do get some stories from it. Custer comes to mind.
That the neo-cons and republi-cons are now saying, "But look at how Dems wanted troop increasses years ago! Why can't they support it now?" A rational person might conclude that years ago increasing troops might have had an effect before we destroyed the civilization in Iraq and allowed it to get to this point.
For the neo-cons and republi-cons it has never been about the Iraqi people. Their statements express most heartly that everyone of the Towel Heads should die, and their deaths are nothing more than collateral damage. No more important than the collateral damage to Americans from the incompetent administration under which we live. It is about winning. Some nebulous and vague desire to not lose something that was lost the day The Mad King was annointed King by the priests of the supreme court.
The quicker we are out of Iraq the quicker the Iraqis will sort this out. They will go the way of Iran, with Sharia and everything negative that comes with that. And they will go that way regardless of if we send in 20,000 more troops or not. And they will go that way because of our incompetent intervention. Just like the events surrounding our puppet Shah in Iran, we will have created it and there is no way to stop it.
Posted by phidipides at January 15, 2007 07:52 AMRobert Seigel of NPR to David "Bobo" Brooks: You mean the legislative branch would develop military strategy? That would be extraordinary!"
Posted by Jeany at January 15, 2007 08:00 AMBush's strategy, as I understand it, was to put into play the foundation of his new Iran escalation while the Congress was in recess and under cover of his play for time with the American people as he "considered" all his options after the release of the ISG report.
What didn't get picked up on appears to be that by putting the forces into harm's way before his speech, Congress is now faced with denying funds to protect the troops on the ground in Iraq and all those deployed by sea and by air on their way. It's a Bush version of the Big Tabacco philosophy of it ain't wrong until your caught and it's cheaper to pay after you're caught than diminish your play book up front.
Posted by mainsailset at January 15, 2007 08:03 AMstv, th prblm hr s tht dwrds my b ctlly frcng th crp bys t mv p thr tmng bsln f scrng rn. Hw cn dwrds nt knw ths?
n thng fr crtn, r srl vrlrds WLL NT llw rn t g nclr. f thr crrt-n--stck, fr th l cmpns, s rfsd d t whtvr, thn dwrds s frcng th cnfrnttn rlr thn plnnd. D y s?
Th bv s 'pltcs,' r dprvty, dpndng pn yr pnt f rfrnc. thr wy, sspct tht y sly gt th pnt.
[Editor: ignore=off]Compare the salience of the situation in Iraq for the American people with the Iraqi people. What do we have that's on the line? What do they have that's on the line?
Posted by Jeany at January 15, 2007 08:20 AMThe point of the ISG report is that it's time to begin winding up the American presence in Iraq, and co-ordinating a grand diplomatic conference of the all the regional players, who presumably don't want to have a hot civil war, with all the attendant unpleasantness, in their midst.
Wingers like InBasement now disingenuously argue that a "humanitarian catastrophe" is somehow "certain" unless we stay indefinitely. If that's truly the case, which is doubtful, we can't stay forever anyway.
So I second phidipides points: the quicker we are out the sooner the Iraqis can actually begin to resolve this--and we don't have to leave until the Iraqi sects and their neighbors have developed some tentative diplomatic agreements about Iraq. Winding up and handing off to the the neighbors is what our new "strategy" should be, what the ISG is all about, what Americans want to do, what Iraqis want, and what Dems should push as their "plan".
Want a westernized, secular Iraq? Maybe you shouldn't have invaded a 60% shi'a country next door to Iran and toppled its secular dictator. Duh. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall....you remember the rest, don't you, wingnuts?
Posted by euzoius at January 15, 2007 08:37 AMIf Congress cuts funding for the effort, they would be rightly responsible for the defeat and consequential humanitarian disaster.
Get it straight: the only people responsible for the current humanitarian crisis in Iraq are past and present members of the Bush administration. It was their idea - we wouldn't be there but for the PNAC - so any and all culpability remains clearly on their shoulders.
Posted by ann at January 15, 2007 08:44 AMOne.More.Time.
Iraq is not an hitorical country. It was simply an administrative convenence created by the British after WWI. The sunnis, shiites and Kurds have mutual hatrids going back a thousand years or more against each other. Mutual fear of a series of dictators over the past 80 years does not make Iraq a viable country.
The only true solution is partition.
Posted by herbal tee at January 15, 2007 08:44 AMTo partition or not partition: that's none of our business, really. That's for the people of Iraq, with the help of their neighbors to work out. Our role, our only legitimate role is to support that effort through diplomacy.
Four years after a fact, we're never going to find a better way to do something really stupid, we (and the Iraqis) can only go forward from where we are. The longer we we stay, the worse that place will be.
Posted by Jeany at January 15, 2007 08:55 AMOh, and we need to realize that we're not in a strong position to persuade Iraqis that it's a bad idea to try to solve their problems with violence.
Posted by Jeany at January 15, 2007 09:10 AMTo partition or not partition: that's none of our business, really
No, it's not "our" business. But it will come in one form or another. It's just a matter of time.
It would be better not to have 150k American troops in the middle of it.
There is something that is never articulated, except - so far as I know - by Arthur Silber (http://thepowerofnarrative.blogspot.com).
And until it is articulated generally there will NEVER be an end to this.
It is this: the U.S. has blundered, it has created a hell for Iraq and the mother-of-all quagmires for itself. Instead of recognizing this and the beyond-imagining chaos that has resulted, all the U.S. discussion is solely about reducing troops because of "Iraq's civil war" and because (Bush's latest) "Iraqi's are not sufficiently grateful".
It's all about US. Arthur calls it "narcissistic jingoism" and he could not be more right.
Edwards knows that he can maneuver around both the too-cautious Hillary and Obama on the issue of the surge. He apparently has read the same polls
Ah, the populist "Used Car" Johnny!
Posted by muckdog at January 15, 2007 10:43 AMWith this "Surge", there is a shot at salvaging the situation.
Same thing a gambler tells himself when considering re-mortgaging the house, after maxing out the credit cards and having lost the car.
I recommend Gamblers Anonymous for those buying this bunk.
Edwards is a wolf in sheep's clothing, plain and simple.
Stop for a minute, and consider what he's actually done, and not his talk.
While many members in congress wisely voted against the Iraq war, Edwards not only voted for it, he co-sponsored the disastrous resolution with neocon Joe Lieberman, that made it possible.
Edwards also co-sponsored and voted for the massive increase in H-1b visas, that dumped 195,000 foreign workers on the job market, destroying perhaps hundreds of thousands of American tech careers.
Edwards voted for normal trade relations with China, making American workers have to compete with Chinese labor standards, which of course they can't.
Edwards voted for the DREAM act, forcing states to give in-state tuition (a subsidy) to illegal aliens, when there are poor Americans in these states who can’t afford to send their kids to college, partially because illegal immigration drove down their wages. This act, of course only encourages more illegal immigration because it extends even further the taxpayers obligations to those who break our laws to come here.
But what about civil liberties? Here again, Edwards voted to the Patriot act, perhaps the greatest risk to civil liberties, ever.
Edwards supporters don’t want Edwards to be held accountable for these facts. Yet, Edwards made himself extremely wealthy holding others (such as doctors) accountable - while doctors malpractice premiums rose so much as to make many obstetricians leave their specialty. More illegal alien taxpayer payed births, and fewer obstetricians - could that be why health care costs are skyrocketing?
One simple question - 10 years ago, if you did your job, the way Edwards performed as Senator, do you think he would he advocate that you get a big promotion?
Or do you think he would he have sued you and taken you to the cleaners?
So, Steve, who's paying you, Hillary, or Friends of Obama? McCain, perhaps? Because I've seen your post exactly word for word at several different blogs. Somebody's really scared of Edwards, aren't they? Astroturf all over the blogs means fear.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 15, 2007 11:37 AMHere are a few of the questions from Gamblers Anonymous list of twenty questions that people who want to approve this "surge" should be asking themselves
After losing did you feel you must return as soon as possible and win back your losses?
Did you often gamble until your last dollar was gone?
Did you ever borrow to finance your gambling?
Were you reluctant to use "gambling money" for normal expenditures?
Did you ever gamble longer than you had planned?
Have you ever committed, or considered committing, an illegal act to finance gambling?
I am DELIGHTED to see Edwards come out so strongly against the "war". It certainly makes him sound decisive. I don't understand why Obama, who I believe has been against the war from the beginning, is sounding so "mooey", lacking in firmness. Hillary? Only person I know currently running who can sound firm and decisive while dithering about where she stands on the occupation.
Posted by Julie at January 15, 2007 11:59 AMHere's my answer to Steve: I sort of like a politician who is honest and open about his political mistakes. The Senate is nothing if not the mother of compromise, and Senate service is an albatross to anyone running for higher office. I don't mind the questions or the information, but I won't decide based solely on such broadsides.
Thanks, coyote, for the heads-up about the spamming.
Posted by Jeany at January 15, 2007 12:09 PMNo problem, Jeany. I'm thinking Steve is a rightwing attacker, since he touches on the poor OB/Gyns no longer performing their LOVE on women.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 15, 2007 12:20 PMit's easier to dismiss me as a 'rightwing attacker', than to address whether what i said was true and relevant, which of course, they are.
cosponsoring a resolution enabling a warmonger (Bush), is more than just a 'mistake', it's a total disaster.
H-1b visas were a torpedo shot at the middle class 195,000 per year was a devestating number, people at the time said it would be, and the record shows it was. - and Edwards co-sponsored it
Why is it, that the only thing we are allowed to consider, about his term as Senator, is his title?
Posted by Steve at January 15, 2007 12:52 PM'That's Smart Politics 101 kids. He just stuck a finger in the eyes of his chief Democratic competitors, while McCain heads for the deep end of the lake with Lieberman as his anchorweight among independents.'
Edwards CO-SPONSORED the war resolution in 2002, with Lieberman
Edwards is a master of the wet thumb in the air
He could smell the emotion of a jury better than anyone
Posted by Steve at January 15, 2007 01:26 PMSteve, even if your analysis of Edwards were correct, I would still have to conclude he provides more hope and rationality for the nation than virtually anybody else on the field. That most especially includes the present Administration's cast of criminals; the rickety warrior hero McCain (prisoner of the last lost war) , and the two-timing Giuliani.
And if Mr. Edwards does have his finger to the wind, at least he recognizes the national sentiment and can accepts the way it is blowing (unlike the entire Executive Branch and the cowering Republicans who remain submerged in its fantasies.)
Posted by suds at January 15, 2007 03:27 PM"nrcssstc jngsm," tht s mst ccrt dscrptn f r pwr lt.
stv, xcllnt wrk n ths dwrds crp. Th 'mn' s whrmngr nd pr trsh. Ths ltst ctn vrfs hs chrctr flw.
sht p, cyt, y Blshvk trll. G spnd sm qlty nd qntty tm wth yr chldrn, f y cn vrcm yr slfshnss. Pg.
[Editor: ignore=off]Gee Scout, whatever happened to the holier than thou guy who used to post under your name?
Posted by suds at January 15, 2007 04:00 PMWhy hasn't Edwards, Kennedy, Obama, and the rest of the Dems articulated what they think a likely post-withdrawal Iraq would look like?
It looks like post-USSR Yugoslavia, with oil wells.
Several Dems have articulated a bit about this. So has Chuck Hagel. Without going "Oogah-boogah-boogah-Osama" like Cheney does to satisfy his masters at Exxon & Halliburton.
Posted by Kevin Hayden at January 15, 2007 04:31 PMSteve .
I don't give a purple crap about all that you're blabbering about.
When I decide who to vote for, it will be the person I judge is most likely to jump in front of my parade. Your "wet thumb in the wind" makes him more likeable, not less.
Duuuhhh
Posted by Jeany at January 15, 2007 04:34 PMsuds - he's too busy thinking about the children again. But check out Chris' new song in the Sam Gardiner thread:
Donkey Lord! Donkey Lord!
There is nothing new under the sun!
There is nothing new under the sun!
The oil corp flag will fly over Iran!
There is nothing new under the sun!
neo-Bolshevik Donkey Lord!
You make my head hurt!
You make me say ouch!
Has Jehova hammered on you yet?
Please, please just leave me alone!"
Btw, I'm a qualified supporter of Edwards. I believe mature politicians can grow wiser from making mistakes, especially mistakes that cost hundreds of thousads of lives. I saw a rather bulldoggish RFK turn into a great humanitarian within an 8 year period. I'm granting Edwards the benefit of that doubt.
But that doesn't mean he's the only Dem I could support. Chris Dodd, Tom Vilsack and Barack Obama are all worthy contenders imo. Hillary's record has been too consistently snafu - from healthcare to Iraq. She couldn't lead to a healthcare solution with 65% of Americans rooting for it. And she waited till 65% opposed the War on Iraq before shifting from her hawkish position.
If the race comes down to McCain and Hillary, I hope I find a reason elsewhere on the ticket to vote at all.
Posted by Kevin Hayden at January 15, 2007 04:49 PMA clear example of why the LeftCoaster is a subprime blog.
Spoken like a true Donald Trump/Paris Hilton follow the crowd lemming.
Soto & Co have always been considerate, principled bloggers who make me think.
Posted by Kevin Hayden at January 15, 2007 04:54 PMI hear you Kevin. I myself would rather have the choice of voting for someone who had the leadership skills to recognize the invasion of Iraq for what it was from the beginning, who had the balls to state clearly his oppostion to Bush's madness, and IN ADDITION who also had the leadership skills to understand that the strategy necessary for success for the Dems this time was to run a 50-state campaign rather than a blue state campaign. But he's not running this time. :-( I may write him in anyway, if I'm not happy with the official choices. I'm done holding my nose.
Posted by Julie at January 15, 2007 05:02 PMBut he's not running this time.
If you're talking about Al Gore, I'm with you. But I believe he thinks he can do more to get people serious about global warming by not being president, than by having to spend his entire term cleaning up the disasters of Bush's reign and being forced to put the environment on the back burner. I respect that he's going where he feels he can be more useful to the world, even if it means not being president.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 15, 2007 05:47 PMBRAVO Jeany. Couldn't have said it better.
Posted by Judith at January 15, 2007 05:51 PMAbove was in response to your post "Boogeda boogeda, be scared, BOO!!"
Posted by Judith at January 15, 2007 06:22 PMThe Teamster's Union is backing Edwards. So much for Steve's argument on him disliking middle income wage earners.
I agree with the assessement that a man can learn by his mistakes. At least he admits them. Certainly, no elected leader is currently doing that.
Besides, someone has take the lead in the Democratic Party.
steve, excellent work on this Edwards creep. The 'man' is a whoremonger and pure trash. This latest action verifies his character flaw.
shut up, coyote, ya Bolshevik troll. Go spend some quality and quantity time with your children, if you can overcome your selfishness. Pig.
Posted by scout at January 15, 2007 03:40 PM
*****
You have incurred my wrath, you little pile of shit on the lawn of humanity. Best brace yourself.
Scout, it didn't take long for me to put you back on the banned list. You're gone.
Posted by Steve Soto at January 15, 2007 10:05 PM