Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 600

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 724

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 57

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/cache.php on line 404
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » How to Turn Surrender into Total Humiliation

If there’s anything the architect of 12 years of Iraqi “sanctions” and standing by idly while tens of thousands of innocents were being massacred by Saddam Hussein knows, it’s how to take a bad situation and make it even worse (via LC & IB Ace):

“The Way Forward: A New Approach” is the title of the [Baker] group’s 142-page report.

Among the report’s 79 recommendations is a change in the central mission of U.S. troops in Iraq and a renewed diplomatic effort in the Middle East.

“The primary mission of U.S. forces should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army,” the report reads. “It’s clear [the] Iraqi government will need U.S. assistance for some time to come, especially in carrying out new security responsibilities. Yet the United States must not make open-ended commitments to keep large numbers of troops deployed in Iraq.”

This is what’s called “making a commitment without making a commitment.” Obviously, the fact that our troops are already assisting the Iraqi army and Security Forces has completely failed to register on the senile old twit’s radar. So his “genius” recipe seems to be that we should continue doing what we’re doing, we just shouldn’t commit to actually getting it done.

The report recommends an initial increase in the number of U.S. troops dedicated to training and supporting the Iraqi security forces, but calls for the gradual withdrawal of all other U.S. forces.

All U.S. troops not involved in this training and support mission, the report says, could leave Iraq by “the first quarter of 2008.”

In other words: Running away while pretending not to. We’ll give them a bunch of “advisors” and empty promises of support, promises of support that can then be promptly de-funded by the weasels in Congress. Why am I having this strange feeling of deja vu?

And what else does Baker’s Gathering of Surrender Weasels suggest that we do while we’re busy abandoning the battlefield to Islamofascists?

As expected, the Iraq Study Group recommends that the United States deal directly with Syria and Iran, something the Bush administration has resisted.

Ah, but of course. Merely creating a defeat and handing the ululating apes an enormous victory over the Great Satanic Paper Tiger isn’t enough for Baker’s Bunch of Frenchies. Oh no, we have to make absolutely sure that Ahmadinnerjacket and Pencilneck Assad know that they’ve won by making concessions and granting them legitimacy by groveling before them.

The only rational way of “dealing directly” with psychotic regimes like those of Syria and Iran is by force. Overwhelming, uncompromising force. If you start negotiating with the pathologically insane, you only buy them time to perfect the plans they’re going to carry out anyway, making the cost of the inevitable confrontation much more horrible with every passing day of inactivity. I thought that we learned that back in the 1930s, but obviously some people are exceedingly slow learners.

But wait, there’s more:

The report also calls for an aggressive and comprehensive diplomatic initiative to deal with instability in the Middle East.

“The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals with the Israeli-Arab conflict and regional instability,” the report says.

Talks should include Israel, Lebanon and Palestinian leaders who recognize Israel’s right to exist.

And which leaders would those be, because we haven’t heard of any. Not to mention that we find it mildly puzzling, to say the very least, that Israel should pay the price for the Bush Administration’s complete and utter refusal to let our troops do their job, which is to utterly crush their enemies.

It’s not enough for the Baker group to manufacture a total defeat for the U.S., they have to drag Eretz Yisroel down with them too. In a perfect world, Israel would tell Baker, Bush and the rest of the craven cowards in Washington to go fuck themselves with a telephone pole. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world. We live in a world where that whimpering pussy, Ehud Olmert, is in charge.

I can’t WAIT for that whole generation of worthless, selfish, cowardly cuntsacks to point up their toes and quit wasting our oxygen.

Unfortunately, the damage will have already be done, and generations to come will spend decades cursing the spineless weasels for the horrendous costs that their pathological fear of doing their jobs and confronting evil imposed upon them.

29 Responses to “How to Turn Surrender into Total Humiliation”
  1. Unregistered Comment by LC Xealot UNITED STATES

    As I indicated in a previous post, I find it absolutely amazing that people cannot learn from history. It has been shown time and time again that the only effective way of dealing barbarians is with force or threat of force. It is the language they speak. You would not walk up to a Greek, say “Hi” in English and expect a meaningful response… similarly you cannot walk up to a barbarian and say “I want to negotiate” and expect any meaningful results. They only speak “death” and “submission” so it is best to treat with them on these terms.

    I am very disappointed with the American public. We seem to have terminal amnesia.. forgetting the acts of 9/11, forgetting the rampant terrorism of recent times. It is as if the public has a 5 year memory… if the conflict isn’t won within that time, we just give up and walk away, even if we were 99% of the way there.

    Of course I need not mention the rampant stupidity of this Iraq commission. Let’s be honest here, posting your timetable and intent to withdrawl from a conflict only means your enemies will hunker down, act semi-peaceful and wait for you to leave. Then they will be out in full force doing all the fun things we’ve come to expect from terrorists, insurgents and the like. Not only that but we will have proven the terrorists correct… we would be a paper tiger. We could bring down any regime in the world in a matter of days or weeks… but we couldn’t even stop a bunch of crazies in a third world cesspit. What’s next, we surrender to the indepentend poultry farmers of Czechoslovakia?

  2. Unregistered Trackback by Stop The ACLU

    Iraq Study Group Release Report…

    You can download it here or read the full text at Wake Up America.
    In a nutshell, the leaks were pretty accurate. Withdraw significant number of troops within 16 months, and talk to Iran and Syria. Yikes!
    Allah Pundit says the verdict is…Suc…

  3. Unregistered Comment by Aethilgar UNITED STATES

    And in other news (mentioned on The Drudge Report):

    REPORT: Sources close to the Hamas-led government claimed that Hamas representatives recently held talks with officials from the US Democratic Party at a secret location.

    I’m truly at a loss for words… but my gut feeling is to pick up another box of rounds for my M1911A1.

  4. Kristopher Comment by Kristopher UNITED STATES

    The only talking Syria and Iran should get involves thermonuclear weapons.

    No good will come of this failure of nerve.

  5. LC Joe D,  A&IG/GWN Comment by LC Joe D, A&IG/GWN CANADA

    Lemme see;

    Calls for precipitous withdrawal….. check.

    Calls for negotiating with terrorists……check.

    Calls for cutting of funds by Democratic Congress…..check.

    Calls for disengaging on battlefield because we are losing and taking casualties when, in fact, our magnificent armed forces have won every battle and the enemy requires outside intervention……check.

    Calls to MSM to only show footage/stories that are detrimental to the efforts of American troops…check

    Babe Ruth was right…..and I get an awful feeling. If I were an Iraqi who had fought with the US or attempted with them to bring a decent form of government and a sense of freedom to my homeland, I do believe I would, right fucking now, be looking for a route to the border and out. It ain’t easy hangin’ from the skids on a slick.

  6. LC Joe D,  A&IG/GWN Comment by LC Joe D, A&IG/GWN CANADA

    Ahhh yes…fresh new faces with fresh new ideas from the LLL/Dems.

    Not only are the ideas from 1975 but so are some of the “actors”.

    I think I wanna puke.

  7. thepresenceusmc Comment by thepresenceusmc UNITED STATES

    Interesting Wikipedia background on the Heir Apparent to Rumsfeld’s throne:

    In January 2004, Gates co-chaired a Council on Foreign Relations task force on U.S. relations towards Iran. Among the task force’s primary recommendation was to directly engage Iran on a diplomatic level regarding Iranian nuclear technology. Key points included a negotiated position that would allow Iran to develop its nuclear program in exchange for a commitment from Iran to use the program only for peaceful means.

    Here’s the CFR report.

  8. Sir Christopher Comment by Sir Christopher UNITED STATES

    we are seriously doomed

  9. Unregistered Comment by colostomybag646 UNITED STATES


    Guess what, Ima shitbag?

    We were right.

    You were wrong.

    We’re gonna bring our boys home from the Bush Blunder. You assholes are welcome to go over there and take their place.

    You’re living in Democrat country now, bitches.

  10. CiSSnarl5.7 Comment by CiSSnarl5.7

    You assholes are welcome to go over there and take their place.

    You’re living in Democrat country now, bitches.

    I’m already “over there” just biding time until the call comes,the flag goes up and I have to come home and defend the U.S. from worthless assholes like you…mmmkay?

  11. Deathknyte Comment by Deathknyte UNITED STATES

    colostomybag646, sub-standard trolling. Whoever is pretending to be a libtard, either get some practice or give it up.


  12. Alan K. Henderson Comment by Alan K. Henderson UNITED STATES

    James Baker is cluless about the Middle East - anyone remember his plan for peace in Israel?

    In a key speech delivered in May 1989 to AIPAC, US Secretary of State James Baker III placed the blame on Israel for the Arab-Israel conflict, and seemed to echo Arab propaganda, urging Israeli leaders to abandon the “unrealistic vision of a Greater Israel” that includes the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He then laid out the American position on what is now called the Arab-Israeli peace process. He urged self-government for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza in a manner acceptable to Palestinians, Israel, and Jordan, a formula designed to provide ample scope for Palestinians to achieve their full political rights while also providing ample protection for Israel’s security. This utopian vision has failed to materialize.

    Following up on Israel’s Four Point Plan of May 1989 in September 1989, Egypt and Israel discussed several peace proposals that foundered over the issue of participation by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). At that time, it was the firm policy of Israel not to deal with the PLO, believing that 1988 PLO statements about a change of policy toward Israel were not sincere. In an attempt to help break the deadlock, the US became more actively involved.

    On November 1, 1989, US Secretary of State Baker formally submitted his Five-Point Election Plan to Israel and Egypt, although they had reviewed drafts beforehand. It was based on Israel’s Four Point Plan of May 1989 and did not go into detail. It was intended as a framework under which Egypt would facilitate bringing Palestinian Arabs (but not the PLO) into a process of discussion about elections to establish proper representation for the Palestinians, and potentially other issues.

    Israel agreed in principle in November but attached two reservations: that the PLO not be involved in the naming of Palestinian delegates and that the discussions be limited to preparations for the elections. The Israel National Unity government fell in March 1990 in a vote of no confidence precipitated by disagreement over the government’s response to the Baker initiative. Prime Minister Shamir formed a new government in June 1990 and rejected the Baker Plan. Baker attempted to work with Shamir who continued to reject Baker’s five point plan, even after most of the Israeli demands had been accepted. Shamir’s government took the view that the plan was too risky and the US was willing to sacrifice Israel and the Jewish people for their own interests. Frustrated by this process, Baker sarcastically provided the White House telephone number suggesting that Shamir call when he was “serious about peace”.

  13. MoMinuteMan Comment by MoMinuteMan UNITED STATES

    Personally, I think that if we are gonna keep pussy-footing around in Iraq instead of bringing the fuckin’ heat and finishing this (like we should have done in the first place and been done with it in six months), we should re-deploy.

    The Sunis and Shias have been trying to wipe each other out for over a thousand years, and I say let ‘em! We pull back to a position to protect the only group that has managed to live in peace, the Kurds, and to guard the borders with Iran and Syria to keep their camel’s nose outta the tent. And when the dust settles, THEN we approach the last man standing and make a favorable to us deal with them for the oil to pay for the trillion dollars we’ve spent on this little safari. They get what they want, death to their enemy, and we get what we want, peace in Iraq and buck a gallon gas. Win/Win!!

    But we let them know if they start fucking up and try to get their jihad on, we’re gonna fuck ‘em in the neck with a battle axe.

  14. LC HJ Caveman82952 Comment by LC HJ Caveman82952 UNITED STATES

    Seems I’ve seen this movie before…about thirty years ago…..

  15. LC Guido Cabrone Comment by LC Guido Cabrone UNITED STATES

    Seems I’ve seen this movie before…about thirty years ago…..

    Yeah, talk to my brother-in-law about that one. He was a crew chief on a Navy chopper pulling people off the roof of the American Embassy.

    And today, his wife, (my sister), has the lovely task of dealing with Chief Shitting Bull. Fortunately, she’s in the medical school, so only has to occaisionally deal with his ignorant ass…

  16. Unregistered Comment by LC Wes, Imperial Mohel

    In one of his novels, Tom Clancy accurately defined realpolitik as, in plain English, “fuck(ing) your buddy.”

    The idiocy contained in the ISG report only proves his point.

    And to think that James Baker III and his cohorts are considered “realists” in Washington…

    Feh. :dunce_tb:

  17. Unregistered Comment by LC Wes, Imperial Mohel

    As expected, the Iraq Study Group recommends that the United States deal directly with Syria and Iran, something that the Bush Administration has resisted…

    even though the ISG itself doesn’t think that the Iranians, in particular, actually want to talk to us. Posted today at National Review Online’s “The Corner” blog, this snippet from page 52 of the ISG’s report:

    Our limited contacts with Iran’s government lead us to believe that its leaders are likely to say they will not participate in diplomatic efforts to support stability in Iraq. They attribute this reluctance to their belief that the United States seeks regime change in Iran.

    Nevertheless, as one of Iraq’s neighbors Iran should be asked to assume its responsibility to participate in the Support Group. An Iranian refusal to do so would demonstrate to Iraq and the rest of the world Iran’s rejectionist attitude and approach, which could lead to its isolation. Further, Iran’s refusal to cooperate on this matter would diminish its prospects of engaging with the United States in the broader dialogue it seeks.

    “Broader dialogue Iran seeks?!” WTF are they talking about? Baker, Hamilton and the rest of the overpaid, overstuffed idiots just told us how the Iranians don’t want to talk to us in the first place because we think their rulers aren’t fit to serve as dogcatchers…but we’re still supposed to try to talk to them anyway in the interests of Iraqi soverignty?

    And only a completely clueless fool wouldn’t think that Iran’s leadership hasn’t already amply demonstrated “a rejectionist attitude and approach” to the entire civilized world over the past twenty-five years of Iran’s Islamist revolution. Where the hell have these people been for the past quarter of a century?

    Memo to James A. Baker III, Lee Hamilton, et al: You’re all supposed to be realists…so, for God’s sake, GET REAL.


  18. Alan K. Henderson Comment by Alan K. Henderson UNITED STATES

    He’s still at it:

    Baker wants Israel excluded from regional conference

    Invite our enemies like Syria, but not our allies. Right.

  19. Unregistered Comment by readerjp UNITED STATES

    I am just INCENSED about this stupid report, made by stupid old men who have failed incessantly to make peace by their means. YOU DON’T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS!!!

    Moreover, there are plenty of flaws in their reasoning(?)

    It’s a Myth that the U.S. Hasn’t Already Engaged Syria and Iran

    America has been trying for decades to resolve differences diplomatically with Iran and Syria. The Bush administration, which has been repeatedly burned in recent years when it tried to engage these governments, prefers discretion and holding lower-level talks. These regimes insist on holding well-publicized summits that yield them P.R. windfalls without forcing them to substantively change their policies. The fact is that, since the Carter presidency, U.S. administrations of both parties have tried unsuccessfully to persuade these governments to end their support for terrorism and their efforts to sabotage Washington’s efforts to facilitate peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors.…=110009346

    The Danger of Engaging with the Enemy -

    SHOULD THE United States turn to Iran and Syria for help in reducing the violence bloodying Iraq? James Baker’s Iraq Study Group, out this week with its well-leaked recommendations, thinks direct talks with Tehran and Damascus would be a fine idea. I think so too — right after those governments switch sides in the global jihad.

    As things stand now, however, negotiating with Iran and Syria over the future of Iraq is about as promising a strategy for preventing more bloodshed as negotiating with Adolf Hitler over the future of Czechoslovakia was in 1938. There were eminent “realists” then too, many of whom were gung-ho for cutting a deal with the Fuehrer. As Neville Chamberlain set off on the diplomatic mission that would culminate in Munich, William Shirer recorded in “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” Britain’s poet laureate, John Masefield, composed a paean in his honor . When the negotiations were done and Czechoslovakia had been dismembered, the prime minister was hailed as a national hero. The Nobel Committee received not one, not two, but 10 nominations proposing Chamberlain for the 1939 peace prize.

    AND YET MORE HOLES IN DHIMMI BAKER’S RECOMMENDATIONS. (I wonder how much Saudi Arabia is paying him for this)

    Iran’s Limited Ability to Stabilize Iraq - Patrick Clawson
    (Washington Institute for Near East Policy)

    The Baker-Hamilton commission will presumably recommend reaching out to Iran to seek its involvement in stabilizing Iraq.
    U.S. officials say Iran has had a major and direct role in Iraq’s security problems. According to U.S. intelligence, Iran has provided explosives and trigger devices for roadside bombs and training for several thousand fighters inside Iran. To date, however, these efforts seem to have given Iraqi fighters the means to better carry out what they intended to do anyway.
    Those Iraqis who accept Iranian support may not be as willing to accept Iranian orders that involve changing their course of action. It is by no means clear that Iran has the ability to dissuade the fighting groups it supports from continuing their violent attacks. Rather, the violence in Iraq seems to be increasingly led by local leaders who do not respond well to outside orders.

    When the radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr ordered some commanders in the Mahdi Army to stop their random killing of Sunnis, they ignored him. As New York Times reporter Sabrina Tavernise wrote, “As many as a third of [al-Sadr’s] militiamen have grown frustrated with the constraints of compromise and have broken off.” If al-Sadr cannot control the Mahdi Army, it is unrealistic to think that Iran can order around fighters with whom it has often had a difficult relationship.
    Iran’s role in Iraq is asymmetrical: it can cause trouble, but it cannot bring peace. Iran can do more to destabilize Iraq than to stabilize it.

    In sum, Iran has shown little interest in talks with the U.S. on Iraq, and, in any case, could do little to advance stability in Iraq. Counting on Iran to help improve security in Iraq is an exercise in extremely optimistic thinking.

    The writer is deputy director for research at the Washington Institute.

    Sorry for the length.

  20. Unregistered Comment by readerjp UNITED STATES

    Had to include this humorous/serious column by Mark Steyn.

    Iraq is just test of will for America

    By Mark Steyn

    James Baker’s “Iraq Study Group” seems to have been cast on the same basis as Liza Minnelli’s last wedding. A stellar lineup: Donna Summer, Mickey Rooney, the Doobie Brothers, Gina Lollobrigida, Michael Jackson, Mia Farrow, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Jill St. John. That’s Liza’s wedding, not the Baker Commission. But at both gatherings everyone who was anyone was there, no matter how long ago it was they were anyone. So the fabulous Baker boy was accompanied by Clinton officials Leon Panetta and Bill Perry, Clinton golfing buddy Vernon Jordan, Clinton’s fellow sex fiend Chuck Robb, the quintessential ”moderate” Republican Alan Simpson, Supreme Court swing vote par excellence Sandra Day O’Connor . . .

    As its piece de resistance, the Baker Commission concluded its deliberations by inviting testimony from — drumroll, please — Sen. John F. Kerry. If you’re one of those dummies who goofs off in school, you wind up in Iraq. But, if you’re sophisticated and nuanced, you wind up on a commission about Iraq.

    doesn’t it strike you as just a tiny bit parochial? Aside from Senator Kerry, I wonder whether the commission thought to hear from anyone such as Goh Chok Tong, the former prime minister of Singapore. A couple of years back, on a visit to Washington just as the Democrat-media headless-chicken quagmire-frenzy was getting into gear, he summed it up beautifully:

    ”The key issue is no longer WMD or even the role of the U.N. The central issue is America’s credibility and will to prevail.”

    It would, furthermore, be a particularly contemptible confirmation of a line I heard Bernard Lewis, our greatest Middle Eastern scholar, use the other day — that ”America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.” To punish your friends as a means of rewarding your enemies for killing your forces would seem to be an almost ludicrously parodic illustration of that dictum. In the end, the world would understand that Vietnam is not the exception but the rule.

    It’s not the planes, the tanks, the men, the body armor. It’s the political will. You can have the best car in town, but it won’t go anywhere if you don’t put your foot on the pedal. Three years ago, when it was obvious Syria and Iran were violating Iraq’s borders with impunity, we should have done what the British did in the so-called ”Confrontation” with Indonesia 40 years ago when they were faced with Jakarta doing to the newly independent state of Malaysia exactly what Damascus and Tehran are doing to Iraq. British, Aussie and Malaysian forces sent troops on low-key, lethally effective raids into Indonesia, keeping the enemy on the defensive and winning the war with barely a word making the papers.

    More here:

  21. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    The Iraq Study Group Report brought to you in linkable HTML form by The Truth Laid Bear

    From Ms Underestimated: “It Is Not a Serious Document” - Bill Kristol (VIDEO)

    LC Wes (#15) says: “In one of his novels, Tom Clancy accurately defined realpolitik as, in plain English, “fuck(ing) your buddy.”

    The idiocy contained in the ISG report only proves his point“…

    Damn! Nailed it right sir!

  22. Unregistered Pingback by Inoperable Terran » Total humiliation

    […] Misha has the only analysis of the Baker report that matters. Posted by Ian S. in […]

  23. dragineez Comment by dragineez UNITED STATES

    I have to admit to reading this blog just to learn how the far right is thinking. But I have to agree with you on this one. It appears the recommendation boils down to: “Use harsh language, and if that doesn’t work - run away.”

  24. EvilFreeSmeg Comment by EvilFreeSmeg UNITED STATES

    Anybody else thinking that Glenn Beck’s perfect storm needs to be updated with a massive killing of liberals? That looks to be the only way to save the world. We can’t fight the enemy in front of us if we’re being cut down from behind.

  25. cmblake6 Comment by cmblake6 UNITED STATES

    Damnit y’all, we’re preaching to the choir here! Saw a thing over on Curmudgeonly and Skeptical about a Tom Watson (?) that was pretty good. Only problem was his other general numbness of thought. After reading this guys stuff, I was impressed with only that one item, about protecting America.

  26. LC 0311 crunchie Comment by LC 0311 crunchie UNITED STATES

    Sore loser colostomy? Appropriate name BTW. I don’t see conservatives screaming about fixed elections, rigged voting machines and stolen elections.

    What we are concerned about is where this war will go from here. You see we realize the gravity of the situation and the stakes of the current war. We will not tolerate fifth columnists in this country turning this war into a defeat.

    As far as us killing anybody, the perfect storm EvilFreeSmeg referenced is a very real scenario tha could be coming down the pike if the leadership of this country doesn’t grow a collective set of balls and WIN this war.

    And even if we were talkin about killing libs, what are you going to do about it? We got the GUNS and the training and willingness to them if it comes to it!

  27. Management™ Comment by Management™ UNITED STATES

    Sore loser colostomy? Appropriate name BTW. I don’t see conservatives screaming about fixed elections, rigged voting machines and stolen elections.

    LCs, don’t respond to that pussy.  He’s been tossed and all his messages are going in the bit bucket henceforth.


  28. LC HJ Caveman82952 Comment by LC HJ Caveman82952 UNITED STATES

    And even if we were talkin about killing libs, what are you going to do about it? We got the GUNS and the training and willingness to them if it comes to it!

    That we do, crunchie, that we do. And losers like the shitbag make it so very easy……
    I’d sooner sight in on the shitbag than any terrorist…they can come later. Or if the bullet penetrates far enough, get them both.
    Demorat country? Not a chance.

  29. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    Now that the Iraq Study Group (note: its NOT bipartisan regardless of how its presented in the news media or parroted by the libtards) I have to wonder if the the sniper who sent this goat felcher to meet analallah and the 72 Helen Thomas virgins will end up being outted by some a-hole like this clown and end up in a situation that could lead to some sort of human rights indictment?