OK, I read Tims article, and I guess that being the liberal Democrat that I am, his whole thesis was the usual Republican crud. "Bush isn't so bad, look how bad it was 150 years ago when Lincoln was so much worse." Naturally, the argument wasn't that "Bush isn't so bad" as it was "Lets all adore St. George, he saved us from the terrorists". Now the republican lapdog Krauthammer is pushing for us to go to war with Iran. "No more than a year from now".
Dare I risk your wrath and ask, why should I believe that Iran is so ready to nuke the cities of the United States, when all I have to go on is the word of a group that crossed their hearts and said that Iraq was on the verge of having the atomic bomb.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Posted by James S Melbert at September 15, 2006 07:19 AM

That is a good post by Tim.

Today, the Left enjoys making movies about assassinating OUR President, but in Lincoln's time they did have a play at Ford's Theater where they could watch it. The Left can defend movies on killing the President as free speech, but it gets upset if we play loud rock music to captured enemies or put underwear on their heads.

Instead of making lists of people killed by "Bush's war," we should make a list of people killed because of the interference of the Left in our intelligence gathering and national defense. The second list wll be much longer.

Posted by Woody at September 15, 2006 07:20 AM

Mr. Melbert,

I do hope that you live in a very small town, well away from any large city.

Why, you ask? Oh, well maybe, just maybe all that the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran has said is...uh, what he (they) means.

Once, long ago, our vast oceans protected our country. That is all gone now.

Once, long ago, countries warred upon one another and those who fought were uniformed and easily identifiable. That is mostly gone now.

How, indeed, to protect ourselves?

Some say beating our spears into...well, guitars would cure all the anger in the world. If we'd just hold hands and sway together, all would be well.

Terrorists are just somehow misunderstood. If we'd just give them a hug....convert to Islam, start beating our wives, and............

Right. And I've got a couple of Towers in New York to sell you. Oh............no I don't.

Posted by tad at September 15, 2006 09:39 AM

Tad, what are you trying to say? Of course there are terropists. Of course they shuld be hunted down like the dogs they are. Killing terropists is a good thing.
But, you poor soul, lets get the terrorists, and not attempt the control of their oil. Sadam was not a danger to our country. Yet we were committed to a terrible situation because of the ego of a few people. two elected (maybe), and several more that were appointed by the president. And they lied, deliberately and with malice lied in order to start a war. and people like you defend them. Bah Hunbug!
You better believe that I want to catch and kill terrorists. But lets do that. Can you believe that Osama has been on Jazeera TV many times, but we can't find him? (Please don't tell me about Clintons failure to do that), tell me why we cant do it in the last five (5) years.

Posted by James S Melbert at September 15, 2006 11:43 AM

Mr. Melbert,

Gee, Sir, I really got you mad. You made more errors in spelling than I OFTEN (the vargaries of age at work, I suspect) do.

1. Where, indeed are the terrorists?
2. What must one do to be considered a terrorist?
3. Should the United States EVER go after nations, or more specifically the regimes in power (please note the very many "nations" are run by thugs with guns vice legitimate ballots), that terrorize their own people and neighboring people?
4. Re: 3, think Rwanda, Darfur (Sudan), etc.
5. Can, in a world filled with easily transportable nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, the United States await to be attacked....I might add...AGAIN?
6. Doth not the world watch to see what we have done, are doing and will do? Is not our will being measured?
7. I do not have the space nor time to go into the very technical methods that humans can be hunted down with scientific means. However, if you are being hunted thusly, the first thing you is cease ALL electronic communications. You spirit yourself to someplace very far away and you hide. You use disguises and frequent change of location to assure that no one knows where you are. In a world of more than 6 billion people, one CAN hide. Heck, read a Clancy or Forsythe book. Bin Ladin doesn't go where, Blair or Bush....or even you or I.
8. Question: Are we stealing ANYONE's oil? Whose, exactly? What proof is there to that?
9. Is the war in Iraq some horrid dementia of G.W. Bush's mind? Please look at a map of the Middle East. Think of how nearly all the countries there are ruled. This whole area is like children, completely unsupervised with matches and gasoline. Whoops, not PC. Think populations growing bigger and bigger. Think not enough jobs. Think women oppressed. Think poverty. Think who, indeed, is oppressing the masses. Think most (despite the vast wealth in some of those countries) of the people live in abject poverty. Ah, and whom to blame? The demagogues who want to retain their power MUST point at someone. It is: No surprise. Israel, "The West" and the United States.

Gad, Sir, I could go on and on. I am NOT completely pleased with all things Republican (generally) nor all things of this particular administration. However, "Hate Bush" isn't a foreign policy. Carping about the past isn't either. I have yet to hear one Democrat present a intelligent plan. Not one.

Sir, make no mistake. We are at war. There are lots of folks, demented or not, that wish us ill. How are we going to prosecute that war?

I submit that throwing verbal brickbats at our fellow citizens is not the answer.

I am no lover of FDR and his loopy social programs. However, I am completely convinced that our citizens were entirely right to rally behind him until the European Fascists (Germany, Italy and their satraps) and Militaristic Japan were vanquished.

Sir, again, we are at war. Truly devastating attacks came come again, and again and again. Is it not a good idea to go after anyone that is our enemy? Do we not have to convince others that we are NOT sheep just waiting to be slaughtered?

If nukes went off in Malibu (greater LA), Berkeley (greater San Francisco) and Boston...I am betting that Liberals would be beating the war drums.

We NEED to convince the world that we will do them no harm...but, in turn, they must do us no harm either. We cannot pull back to "fortress America". Those days, Sir, are sadly gone.

I wish you and yours, Peace. Peace, however, must be guarded by warriors. Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Barbara Striesand, nor ANY of the chattering classes will lace up a pair of boots for this country.

Send an attaboy message to a Soldier or Marine. They will appreciate it.

Posted by tad at September 15, 2006 02:04 PM

My whole life I've harboured a strong distrust of state power. Im mostly suspicious when government claims that they need an entension of powers in order to protect "us" the citizens. That said to compare what Lincoln was dealing with, a full scale civil war and sucession, to our modern day crisis, is decindingly unserious. Bush's demise seems to have made you guys unintentionally funny, as Woody's ridiculous suggestion attests. Anyways if "GM Corner" werent an echo chamber for hopeless partisans perhaps we could get some analysis here on Bush facing a fresh and much needed republican led by Lindsay Graham, McCain (didnt one of your wacko commentators expres the desire to kill him), John Warner and Colin Powell. But I wont be expecting much

Posted by Ahmed at September 15, 2006 02:56 PM

Oops..Thats Bush facing a fresh and much needed republican revolt

Posted by Ahmed at September 15, 2006 04:08 PM

http://tinyurl.com/zwspw

Thanks, GOPers. I think the underwear Woody speaks of isn't on the prisoners' heads, so much as you folks routinely wearing it on your own. Real fine administration you've got here. I'll never forget when Woody and GMR engaged in raging triumphalism as opposed to bowl after bowl of FrootLoops, like the above. Ah, those were the days.

If you guys were serious about being in WW3 or whatever, you'd be calling BushCo worse names than we on "the left" do about now. I had the pleasure of meeting my son's prospective in-law family at his wedding rehearsal dinner last nite and his new uncle, a 26-year Army vet who took a couple of bullets piloting choppers in Nam, a for-real Southerner who shares my love of Merle Haggard, told me it was obvious that Bush was a fool who had no idea what the hell he was doing in Iraq. He hates these guys from the perspective of a conservative who loves our military. I submit that "Colonel Dave" is both more perceptive, authentic, honest and knowledgeable than all of the clowns who post here put together. Anyone who can read that WaPo article I linked and not get sick to their stomach at what passes for "conservatism" these days is more ideologue than patriot.

Have a nice day...but consider STFU until your heads and hearts clear so that your love of country is motivating you more than unhinged hatred of liberals.

Posted by reg at September 16, 2006 11:22 AM

(since that's not an auto-link above, here's the first part of the article)

THE EMERALD CITY American Misadventures in the Green Zone
Best-Connected Were Sent to Rebuild Iraq

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 17, 2006; Page A01

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What they needed to be was a member of the Republican Party.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .

Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.

The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation that sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people. (end clip)

(Probably needless to say, Jim O'Beirne is the Right-Wing shrew, Kate O'Beirne's husband. Figures. As I said, thanks for all of this. What's next according to the true believers and unhinged blowhards ? You've managed to screw the Iraqis 12 days to Tuesday, create a political and moral crisis for the U.S. at a critical moment in our history, when effective national security should have been a priority, and sow domestic division like it was your version of seed corn? Yeah, thanks a hell of a lot. )

Posted by reg at September 16, 2006 11:33 AM

"6. Doth not the world watch to see what we have done, are doing and will do? Is not our will being measured?"

Oh, yeah. God knows that's the stone truth. And just exactly who, pray tell, is the problem in that scenario ? Who is, in reality and not the recesses of your minds, responsible for not just dropping the ball in our initial military response to 9/11, in Afghanistan and against bin Laden, but worse, the masteminds of what's been for at least three years turning into a total debacle in Badhdad ? The Jim O'Beirnes, Doug Feiths, Pual Bremers, etc, etc ad nauseum and those who put them in place and dreamed this scheme - Cheney and Rummy and Good Ol' Boy, or...the "media critics" and "cut&run" Democrats" like Tom Ricks and Jack Murtha. If you answer, "the latter", you really need to go crawl back in your spider hole.

This is your cue to tell me that if I don't have a surefire plan to clean up your folks' monstrous mess, I'm the bad guy because I've been calling this thing what it is for years - a crackpot misadventure that's, among other things, a brass ring for Iran as much as a hobbling of American power and strategic maneuver in the region when we can least afford it.

Posted by reg at September 16, 2006 12:57 PM

Reg, when I get past your anger and sarcasm, you actually make some excellent points, which I'll come back to in a moment.

There are two major truths that most of us in the U.S. (and in Europe) have evaded:

1) We really are at war with a group of Islamists motivated by an evil, religiously-based ideology.

Whether their ideology is the exposition of Islam or a perversion of Islam remains to be decided (by Muslims)...

This truth is ignored by most on the "left" including irreligious intellectuals and wishful thinkers of all stripes who rationalize the indefensible by narcissistically assigning all responsibility to ourselves. This behavior is intensified by a fear and hatred of the Bush administration (and often Republicans) that exceeds a fear and hatred of terrorists.

2) We as a country (and individually) need to act consistently with 1) (i.e. that we are at war).

This means that we need to put aside divisive partisan and ideological issues that we only have the luxury to debate in a time of peace.

Particularly in the first few years following 9/11, many on the right hypocritically used the WOT as an opportunity to pursue a parallel and divisive partisan agenda for domestic politics. This behavior is intensified by a fear and hatred of liberals (and usually Democrats) that exceeds a fear and hatred of terrorists.

***************************************

Of course, I am painting with overly broad paint strokes. Both the left and the right attempted to (and continue to) hijack the WOT for their other agendas. However, the right bears more culpability for the outcome since they are the ones who controlled Congress and the Presidency.

Yes reg, I remember also the pronouncements of those first administrators of post-war Iraq whose prime ambition was to convert the Iraqi economy into a market-based system (and a source of oil revenue for the U.S. to pay for war costs) before they dealt with the non-ideological necessity of securing domestic tranquility and rebuilding basic infrastructure.

Your article reference is just another example of individuals in high places hypocritically using the WOT as a cover for agendas antithetical to effective prosecution of the WOT.

Much of this, however, is water under the bridge. Laying aside assignment of culpabilities, we curently face a highly polarized partisan divide which you and many of the readers of this blog seem to view the other as on opposite sides.

And so I would ask you reg (and other readers) as to what would be the basis for putting our country on a coherent war basis with a unity of purpose. How do we get responsible people on the left to recognize that we're at war and we're not entirely to blame and that we have a cause worth winning; how do we get responsible people on the right to take seriously their language of war and propose (and undertake) the sacrifices we all as a nation (not just our soldiers and their families) need to make (rather than partying on business as usual).

Do we still possess sufficient spirit as a nation to preserve the great American experiment begun 230+ years ago, epitomized by the conclusion to the Declaration of Independence...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Or, as our Islamist enemies aver, do we love our material comforts more than the values we declare we uphold?

Posted by civil truth at September 16, 2006 01:35 PM

1) We really are at war with a group of Islamists motivated by an evil, religiously-based ideology.

I've got to go to a wedding, but for starters, please name anyone who matters in our political discourse who "evades" that truth. (Defining the elements of the statement differently than, say, William Kristol, is hardly an "evasion". Knowing the actual character of what we're up against in terms of "war" is the most critical factor - and I'd submit that you guys routinely have blown it by irrational, strategically loopy conflations - disastrously.)

Posted by reg at September 16, 2006 01:49 PM

It's funny how the Left finds someone in the military and parades him aorund as somehow representative of the views of everyone in the military: yet, the military men and women, including those in Iraq, overwhelming support President Bush and vote for the President--one reason that the Democrats, which touts Bush miltary opponents, in contradiction worked so hard in Florida to throw out thousands of ballots by overseas military personnel.

Posted by Woody at September 17, 2006 12:50 PM

Try dealing with the substance of what I wrote, Woody, rather than dismissing a vet who is sickened by Rumsfeld's gutting and running the military into the ground.

Oh, I forgot.

You can't.

(If you believe we're in WW3, etc. etc. GOPers should fight for a draft and doubling or tripling the troops in Iraq until the place is under control. I would. In fact, I did until it became obvious BushCo was incompetent and only cared about their image and winning elections, not winning their war. But your GOP hacks and wacks in the Beltway won't fight for a major military buildup in Iraq because they are hypocrites playing politics with the war and more concerned about public opinion in November than winning a war that they claim to believe is a "war for civilization". [This message was truncated because of foul language - last warning reg, don't do it again]

Posted by regr at September 17, 2006 03:51 PM

The part about "cajones" not matching the drivel ?

Sheeesh! Proves my point.

Posted by reg at September 17, 2006 05:21 PM

Reg, you need to lighten up. You can rant and rave in serial comments at Marcs, but not here, and the bit about cursing, well, you know dang well what it was. Re-read the rules for commenting here. That or get lost or, if you can, get reasonable. Marc puts up with your garbage, I don't have to.

Posted by GM at September 17, 2006 06:21 PM

Sorry, reg. I missed seeing any substance in your comment. It's just more of the same ranting and raving and serial posts with selected references to liberal media and selected quotes from people who don't represent anyone but themselves and who love the fawning by the left so much that they will say anything.

Hey, wasn't that a great Auburn-LSU game?! Tough, smash-mouth SEC football. My youngest son and I were there. I went to the Alabama game the week before. Conservatives have a life outside of politics. We don't have to be miserable like you guys. What a shame for you that you can't be more like us.

Posted by Woody at September 17, 2006 07:47 PM

I had a wonderful weekend, Woody. My son's wedding and three days of parties and fellowship with friends and family. Unfortunately, your much-vaunted attempts to project some kind of personal superiority are about as profound and insightful as your pitiful postings on politics.

This place is a joke. Neither one of you can muster even a shred of a response to the points I posted.

Waste of time...but I guess I knew that.

Posted by reg at September 17, 2006 11:28 PM

reg, do you have a son getting married each week? No? Well, back to the routine. My observations are that you sit around on the internet most of the time being miserable and telling everyone else that they should be miserable, too.

A waste of time is more accurately described as us taking the time to respond to you. You're just a mouthpiece for Democrats and the Left and full of irrational hate for our President, and your points are inconsistent depending upon whether they apply to the right or to the left. You are usually not insightful and depend on linking to articles by others rather than taking positions that YOU determined and have to defend, and you don't change your positions no matter how wrong you are proven to be.

Your self-presumed superiority furthers an agenda that has been rejected over-and-over by the American people in elections. Of course, you think that the American voter is just stupid, which is why you and your type try to make changes outside the democratic process.

I remind you that your responses to me rarely address my points and are totally illogical, usually consisting of personal name-calling and denial that any quoted source who disagrees with you is not a valid source to quote--usually followed by calling that source names also.

So, before you come here and try to pretend that you are so wise, consider that maybe there are others wiser than you who foresee the disasters that your side would produce if in power and that you won't admit and have been supported historically. We had our fill of Jimmy Carter, Democratic activist judges, Madeline Albright, and Janet "Tommy-gun" Reno; and, we sure don't want our armed forces guided by the Clinton's, who "loathe the military," and we don't want our nation's path decided by the U.N. and foreign nations who envy us and want to hurt us. It's amazing that you have claimed over the months that those mentioned somehow would benefit us.

You're smart, but wrong--very wrong. So, maybe, it would help if you tried being honest for once and, oh yes, a little less arrogant.

Posted by Woody at September 18, 2006 07:46 AM

That was tripe, Woody. The thing that mildly annoys me is your stupid - really stupid - reveling in sports wonkery as the sign of your being a wonderful person - when you're obviously an extremely limited man with little to offer in the way of intellect or insight. You'd bore the s__t out of me in 15 minutes. If your reveling in shallowness is fun for your friends, so be it. I, myself, have lots of fun with friends and family in my own way, as I'm sure you do in yours, and for you to try to persistently drag out your cramped assumptions about the bleak lives of people who happen to recognize your manifest limitations in the realm of political commentary - and who are often frustrated or outraged by your over-the-top ignorance, bigotry and denial (the denial was on full display in this thread, since you refused to acknowledge that I raised any issues) - claiming that you enjoy life and I or "liberals", or whoever, don't is just childish and absurd. You're a silly person when you do this. Not to be taken seriously. And you show yourself to be more than a little desperate - your entire approach to politics is the essence of ad hominem and personal hubris. Rather ridiculous hubris, at that. (Nobody cares about your favorite sports teams, beyond your buddies. I presume nobody cares about my excitement at having tickets to the Sonny Rollins concert or downloading Dylan's radio shows beyond my buddies. I love my wife. You love yours. We enjoy the kids. Hooorah!!!)

A more relevant point is that you guys would, if you actually cared about anything other than your tired rhetoric, be blogging about some of the points I raised above. But you're too insecure, too insular and too brainwashed by your own false expectations and false promises over the past few years to step up. As I said - not to be taken seriously.

Posted by reg at September 18, 2006 09:07 AM

Let's see. In that last comment, reg revealed his argumentative style and his depth by making references about me such as "tripe, your (sic) stupid - really stupid, an extremely limited man with little to offer in the way of intellect or insight, boring, shallow, cramped assumptions, manifest limitations, ignorance, bigotry and denial, childish and absurd, a silly person, desperate, ridiculous, tired rhetoric, insecure, insular, brainwashed, and not to be taken seriously." All that in just two paragraphs!

Then reg said that I engaged in ad hominem! Okayyyyy. This is one case where I can really understand Randy Paul's overused phrase of "you're projecting."

My overwhelming comments dealt with ideas. You don't deal with ideas. You just spout off editorials written by other liberals. It takes more of a mind to develop and cover the abstract than to copy other people who are proven to be dishonest or biased. I challenged you over at Marc Cooper's to discuss your own ideas on a topic, and you ducked and weaved and did everything to avoid that. I guess it's easier for you to avoid a question than to deal with it. And, why not, when you're building on sand.

And, guess what. I have a life beyond politics and blogging, but I don't have to read political opinions all day to form mine independently - unlike the herd mentality of the Left. All it takes is the willingness to be analytical, objective, logical, and honest--which I believe that I have, but that the liberal media that you defend and say isn't liberal cannot claim.

If you're so superior and we bore you, then don't come around here. You'll note that I quit commenting at Cooper's as it was totally hopeless to expect honest dialogue. You guys have now made it a comfortable home for the Left. Just like everything else, unless an institution is specifically conservative, the liberals will take it over and ruin it.

Oh, we who represent the "heart of America" will take baseball over art films any day.

Don't let the door hit you.

Posted by Woody at September 18, 2006 11:19 AM

Okay, Civil Truth, I'll hold it to that. Anyway, I read excerpts from Ann Coulter's book about talking with liberals, so it makes no sense to keep trying.

Posted by Woody at September 18, 2006 11:22 AM

Woody, you wouldn't know an idea if it dropped on your skull.
And in your case "really stupid" isn't ad hominem. Sometimes the facts speak for themselves based on an individual's stream of commentary over time. The problem with you is that when you're cornered in an argument, rather than work your way out with logic or evidence, you start complaining about who likes football and who doesn't. Or whether I'll enjoy the next weekend when I'm not reveling in my son's wedding. Childish tripe. If there's another word for it, I'm at a loss. You're cramped, bigoted and profoundly irrelevant.
And if you're the "heart of America", frankly you can't tell vital organs from your own butt. I just sent my other kid off to the Far East where he goes back on active duty in the Navy. So as far as your claiming "the heart of America" for you and your ratty band of true believers , you know what to do... (I'll spare GMR the need to delete comments.) The door won't hit me because I'm not even close to sharing your little box. I'm afraid for you, there's no door. You're beyond help. Civil Truth actually responded with some sense of seriousness. You ended up looking like the idiot that you are.

Posted by regr at September 18, 2006 01:55 PM

Woody, if you've got a serious question about anything I wrote addressing the issues above, I'll be more than happy to take it on. But I won't hold my breath. You came back at my comments with a bunch of lame generalizations that were the essence of dodging, weaving and driving yourself into a rhetorical ditch. Keep taking your cues from Coulter. It's your speed.

Posted by reg at September 18, 2006 02:05 PM

reg, I wasn't cornered. I just chose to not respond further than I did to your alleged point because it's more of the same nothing from you, so what's the sense?

You're quite wrong about the discussion of ideas, because I've brought that up many times at Coopers. I will state an opinion, and usually someone like Randy Paul will say that it's wrong because I don't have a source. It's my opinion...it's my position...my idea--not a linked source like you guys do. How illogical or stupid can you guys get? I guess very much so.

Civil Truth only responded courteously to you because he hasn't had to deal with your emotional, serial, profanity laden, ad hominem, ideological driven outbursts over the past year.

Here's your Heart of America. The average American doesn't buy into the welfare politics, the socialistic politics, and the weak military politics of the east and left coasts.

The more I read from you, the smarter Ann Coulter seems.

Posted by Woody at September 18, 2006 03:25 PM

Woody, if you're more outraged by me than by Jim O'Beirne and his ilk - or the issue I raised - it's because you're a flaming, blindered hypocrite. You jerked your knee and hit yourself square in the chin. If the conduct of this war is "nothing" to you, it's because you're more of an apologist than an American, your gold-plated sports bona fides notwithstanding.

Posted by reg at September 18, 2006 03:47 PM

Woody, please don't enlist me into your ongoing manure-slinging conflict with reg by putting your interpretative spin on my actions.

Given the evident toxic history among the three of you, it's clear this blog is not a fruitful venue for any conversation I might wish to engage in with reg.

reg, my yahoo e-mail address is linked to my name here. Feel free to contact me there. I will try to monitor it more frequently over the next few days.

Posted by civil truth at September 19, 2006 12:38 AM

Civil Truth, actually it was reg who initially enlisted you by writing to me, "You're beyond help. Civil Truth actually responded with some sense of seriousness. You ended up looking like the idiot that you are. However, I was being presumptious in replying "Civil Truth only responded courteously to you because he hasn't had to deal with your emotional, serial, profanity laden, ad hominem, ideological driven outbursts over the past year. I certainly don't speak for you, so I apologize. My comment would be more appropriate as a general belief rather than one specific to you.

Posted by Woody at September 19, 2006 07:27 AM