A fake? Perhaps, or maybe a red herring...

Posted by: epg at October 14, 2005 1:59 AM

I'm surprised they didn't blame the Jews for planting it. They blame the Jews, Crusaders and everybody esle.

Perhaps the fact that they don't blame the Jews means they know they've been caught with their hands in the falafel jar...

Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito at October 14, 2005 2:06 AM

The vehement denial makes me believe it is real.

"No, wait! It was Mossad! Or maybe Elvis! The aliens who kidnapped Elvis are Jewish. No wait, wasn't his middle name 'Aaron'? Sound Jewish to me! Elvis was a Mossad agent, and he faked this letter years ago before he faked his own death, but then he really died of the spaceship, but that was just after Bigfoot..."

Posted by: give me doughnuts at October 14, 2005 3:35 AM

I admit it, I actually sent the letter. Damn that devil he made me do it. Just the other night I awoke and satan (he sleeps in my nose at night) was whispering in my ear that I should write this letter to make light of the good works that Al-Queda is doing in Iraq. Anyway I wrote the letter and sent it by USPS to general delivery Baghdad. I finally realized my errant ways when I flushed Satan from my nostrils with a little water and Listerine. Man that Listerine burns. Just glad I did not put my return address on the envelope. Stupid Satan.

Posted by: JanuaryMan at October 14, 2005 6:17 AM

Bill Gertz, the Wash Times National Security Correspondent and someone in the know, expressed on the day the letter was publicized the possibility it might be an intelligence fabrication.

The letter was very validating for Bush...and for Musharraf, whose forces were credited for making life miserable for the "Mujahadeen". If it was a fabrication, it was most likely the Pakistani ISI.

My own instincts tell me it was real.

Posted by: Cornelius at October 14, 2005 6:44 AM

But if you try to tell a lefty about all those whom Saddam killed, they'll always just talk about the war dead.

Not that they'll believe you (these stats come via the CIA!), but just so you'll know, here are some interesting facts:

In 2000, Iraq had a death rate of 6.4 per thousand. Last year, the death rate was 5.66 per thousand. Multiply those numbers by the population of Iraq, and you will find that 24,000 fewer people died in 2004 than in 2000. And no, there was no surge at the start of the war; in fact, the death rate has been progressing downward each year since the start of the war.

Even if no further improvements in the death rate occur (and I can't imagine that), that would mean that the war will save 24,000 lives per year. Or, to put it another way, the life expectancy has increased more than 2 years (2.17).

But what about the quality of life?

You'll frequently hear that electrical consumption (a crude measure of economic activity) is barely up to what it was "before the war." Well, that's true, but misleading. In 2001, electrical consumption surged almost a third in a single year, 31.9%. The economy certainly didn't grow that much. Wouldn't you want to know what all that electricity was used for? Well, now that the US is in Iraq, electrical consumption is still higher than that. And it's being used for civilian purposes. So electrical production is up more than a third since 1999.

Oh, the children! What about the children?! Lefties love using infant mortality rates as a measure of a society's well-being. Well, guess what. The infant mortality rate is down 20%.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501528/posts

Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 14, 2005 8:35 AM

leavingtheleft

Thanks for those. I am desperate for some ammunition on the stats in Iraq & they are right on the money.

Cheers

Posted by: albion at October 14, 2005 8:58 AM

I'm sure our AQ spokesman will also say the pronouncements of small group of Iraqi Sunni religious leaders and assocs denouncing beheadings and the wanton massacre of Iraqi Shiites are also frauds: MEMRI,http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP100005

On the other hand, can anyone recall any splashy releases of beheading videos lately?

Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 14, 2005 9:36 AM

Whether it's fake is irrelevant. It's only whether it's accurate that matters.

/Dan Rather

Posted by: Insomniac at October 14, 2005 10:24 AM

Fake letter?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.....

Remeniscent of BAGDAD BOB on split screen with American Troops at the edge of the city telling Iraqi's "We are winning!"

Posted by: jawa at October 14, 2005 11:17 AM

I don't know if that Zawahri letter is fake or not but I know this one is.

--------------------------------------------------

Proposed Iraqi Constitution - Full Text

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=2889

By Associated Press
October 12, 2005

The following is the full text of the draft constitution being presented to Iraqi voters for approval on Saturday. It was translated from the Arabic by the U.N. Office for Constitutional Support and the translation was approved by the Iraqi government.

This text does not include any last-minute changes that are expected to be put to the National Assembly for approval but will be updated as soon as any announcements are made.

THE PREAMBLE

In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate.

We have honored the sons of Adam

SECTION ONE: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

Article 1:

The Republic of Iraq is an independent sovereign state. Its system of government is republican, representative (Parliamentary), democratic and federal.

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.

C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.

Article 3:

Iraq is a country of many nationalities, religions and sects, and is a part of the Islamic world, is a founding and active member of the Arab League, and is committed to its covenant.

Article 7:

First: No entity or program, under any name, may adopt racism, terrorism, the calling of others infidels, ethnic cleansing, or incite, facilitate, glorify, promote, or justify thereto, especially the Saddamist Baath in Iraq and its symbols, regardless of the name that it adopts. This may not be part of the political pluralism in Iraq. This will be organized by law.

Second: The State shall undertake combating terrorism in all its forms, and shall work to protect its territories from being a base or pathway or field for terrorist activities.

--------------------------------------------------

The constituition is too full of contradictions, just like the "moderate" Islam or the "moderate" muslim.

--------------------------------------------------

IC (Informed_Christian)

Posted by: Informed Christian at October 14, 2005 11:56 AM

Just a moment ago on NPR I heard Noah Feldman, who has had a good run as a wunderkind, no doubt because the Orthodox-Jew-as-scholar-of-Islam routine fascinates the easily fascinatable, especially in the press, is speaking in quick, self-assured tones (the kind that Marjorie Garber or Martha Nussbaum or any number of such people offer up --say it very fast, with complete assurance, and no one will be able to study, to subject to critical examination, not only this or that phrase, but the whole thing) about the Iraqi Constitution.

Listening to him, I was not put in mind of Hamilton, Jay, or Madison. And instead of thinking about those essays in The Federalist written to promote ratification of the Constitution (American version), I instead immediately thought of a thoroughly modern young American academic's well-padded resume, as he adds one more line item ("Appeared on NPR on numerous occasions to discuss the prospects for the Iraqi Constution" with one more date -- October 14, 2005 --appended at the end)), as he makes his plans, prepares his campaign, to leave NYU Law School for Yale, or Stanford, or Harvard.

Posted by: Hugh at October 14, 2005 1:31 PM

Al-Taqqiya, anyone? Or have we all had enough of that stuff by now?

Posted by: pythagoras at October 14, 2005 1:31 PM

Anyone able to read Arabic here? The analysis here seems like a reasonable explaination why the letter could be a fake...

The very first element of the letter is the blessing on the Prophet. It says:

al-salah wa al-salam `ala rasuli'llahi wa a-lihi wa suhubihi . . .

(peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of God and his family and his companions . . .)

the phrase "salla Allahu `alayhi wa alihi wa sallam" (the blessings and peace of God be upon him and his family) is a Shiite form of the salutation, because of the emphasis of the Shiites on the House or descendants of the Prophet. Because of the cultural influence of Shiism in South Asia, one does find that form of the salutation in Pakistan and India among Sunni Muslims...

...I do not believe that an Egyptian like al-Zawahiri would use this phraseology at all. But he certainly would not use it to open a letter to a Salafi. Sunni hardliners deeply object to what they see as Shiite idolatry of the imams or descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, for whom they made shrines such as Ali's at Najaf and Husayn's at Karbala.

Posted by: Anomolous at October 14, 2005 1:53 PM

Here's an interesting point, though. This letter may not have been entirely written by Zawahri, even though it might have been approved by him:

http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/10/thawahiris_last.html

The gang in Iraq may protest that this is a fake letter, but elements of it appeared on the Jihadist forums all the way back in July.

Posted by: David M. Hartzell at October 14, 2005 2:12 PM

Arab analysis is notoriously unreliable. There are Muslim "analysts" who will tell you it is impossible for Muslims to have been involved in 9/11 even though Osama has already taken responsibility. Besides why would anyone believe an AQ spokesman?I'm sure Zawahri was embarassed by the exposure of a letter that shows AQ leadership is out of the loop in Iraq. Not to mention Zawahri's request for cash from Zarqawi.

Posted by: Roxane at October 14, 2005 2:16 PM

Yeah, King, but no telling what he would have done once the weapons inspectors were gone and, of course you neglect to consider the untold number of children who were victims of his oil-for-food gambit, those children who were supposedly the victims of sanctions, which he was skirting and using the money he skimmed to build monuments to himself and bribe officials to look the other way, you shameless hypocrite.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 14, 2005 3:00 PM

Tolerance
I will concede your statement that Hussein was a " customer ". I want you to make your case that he was the " best friend of the U.S. and U.K." Just a quote from a Cabinet level officer to that affect will do. Take all the time you want.
I also challenge your use of the term "preemptive". The dictator Hussein was described by many, including President Bush, as a threat to peace in the Middle East. A preemptive attack it was not and never characterized as such by any member of Bush's government that I know of. Could you give me a quote please? Take all the time you want.

Posted by: pismopal at October 14, 2005 3:45 PM

Lets see if the letters basic requests are followed, if so then it would mean less Muslum deaths in Iraq, and a disapearing of civil war for now. If not, then perhaps it is a fake, or perhaps Zarqawi is a outlaw, even for Al Qaeda. Follow what happens we will.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at October 14, 2005 3:57 PM

King:

My government is the Canadian government. They've been complicit in looking away all of these years and doing nothing.

The focus on WMDs was the result of international law never being revised, largely because the usual suspects, China and other non-aligned nations, and not because the ultimate goal wasn't to depose a tyrant whose day of reckoning was long overdue. You also conveniently forget the death of a British police constable raiding a terrorists' apartment in connection with finding a ricin manufacturing operation and its links to an Ansar encampment in the Kurdish region. And that's only one example of reasonable and probable cause. There are many other similar examples that the rabidly anti-regime change MSM and people like you chose to ignore.

And the fact that the US once supported Saddam actually makes it all the more incumbant on the US to take action, and not refrain.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 14, 2005 4:17 PM

kt,
The Ba'ath party started killing long before Saddam came to power, think fascism and Ba'ath (and Wahhabism and Muslim Brotherhood) in the same thought. Saddam, like Stalin, was the thug that stayed in power longest.
There were 17 points presented to Congress and accepted by it as to why we should go to Iraq. Liberation was one. Unfortunately, the President and the Press emphasized only one, WMD. Easy sell.
The "complicit in a 1,000,000 deaths" because we supported Iraq against Iran when Iran was the obvious overwhelming threat in the region is just tripe. Are you advocating that we should have gone after Saddam earlier? Are you advocating that the US should ignore its own self-interest? I am sure you're still angry that the Brits and the Yanks went to North Africa, after all it was only about oil.
Also, do you forget that Saddam funded and promoted terrorism?
Bush made a point right after 9/11 that we weren't just going after Al-Qaeda, but all terrorist organizations and those who fund and aid them. That included those who terrorize other countries also. Currently, its almost entirely Islamofascist.

Posted by: Ariel at October 14, 2005 5:09 PM

> Because of the cultural influence of Shiism in South Asia, one does find that form
> of the salutation in Pakistan and India among Sunni Muslims...
>...I do not believe that an Egyptian like al-Zawahiri would use this phraseology at all.

As usual, Cole interprets things relative to what 'he' thinks reality is, rather than the actual facts. Zarwahiri is suspected to be 'in' Pakistan or India, so where he was born or what terms he may have used years ago when **not** actively involved with the very people that use the phrase Cole is complaining about, is about as relevant as claiming that someone who moved to Britain would 'never' use the term fag to refer to cigerettes, instead of gay people, just because they originated in the US. Or for that matter, that if I travelled to Mexico I would never eat Mexican food, since I normally eat American food, or even that having spent years in Virginia, like my sister has, her accent *and* language should still be Californiam. Juan Cole's analysis of the matter is just as inciteful as I have come to suspect, which is to say that if you base all your expert opinions only one's own prior opinion, and not on the actual facts of what is *really* going on, your going to tend to occationally get thing wrong. But then, that is a common problem in the modern US. If you are clueless, then what ever expert you latch onto 'must' be right, and if you 'are' that expert, then your opinion 'must' be correct, or so many clueless people wouldn't praise you for spending a bunch of time in **one** country, then painting every other country, coulture and subculture in the entire region with the same brush.

By Cole's definition, Mexico and Spain must have near identical cultures, since both speek spanish, and more importantly, this opinion *can't* be wrong, if he spent years studying Spanish culture, but never, ever, set foot in Mexico. But people see Muslim and figure, "Ah.. Those are all the same people, so Juan Cole must be an expert on *all* of them!" Not even close.

Posted by: Kagehi at October 14, 2005 5:22 PM

Which of the lying liars for Islam should we believe in any event ?

Even if the letter is for real, one still has to weigh motive and intent - go dousing for the truth.

If it was fake, I've got a copy of Protocols of the Elders of Islam I'd like to start hawking.

Posted by: dgene at October 14, 2005 5:30 PM

Kagehi (the exhaulted one) wrote:

As usual, Cole interprets things relative to what 'he' thinks reality is, rather than the actual facts.

Glad you could spare us a minute of your time for such insightful (or is that inciteful?) commentary. And a big *thank you* for informing us of the fact that Zawahri may be currently residing in Pakistan or India! I'm happy you didn't waste your precious mental resources by giving us an example of Zawahri's writings (of uncontested provenance) where he uses that particular greeting. Or maybe you have a secret informer who has told you about how the stress has finally convinced Zawahri to change religions. I'm sure that I speak for all of us here when I say that we're overwhelmed with gratitude to you for not telling us about that information and inadvertently revealing the identity of your sources. It is also so refreshing that someone of your stature can stand on the cold hard facts and not rely on logical fallacies. If only all blog comments could be as wonderful. I wish you all the best and hope to have the pleasure of reading your further musings on this, or any other topic.

Posted by: Anomolous at October 14, 2005 8:40 PM

King:

You need to put the "whole thing" in context.

In 1998, during the Clinton/Gore Administration, Congress, with strong bi-partisan support, passed the "Iraq Liberation Act". This became law which
called for the removal of Saddam Hussein. Now, if you look at it historically, Bush had nothing
to do with that. Clinton didn't have the political will to implement it even though that Act was funded to the tune of $98 million dollars.

Also, what would the American public want if it
was proven that Saddem was connected to 9/11:
Would they want a War of Liberation or the total
destruction of Iraq. See the point?

Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 93 WTC bombing was an Iraqi Agent.

Saddem promised revenge for losing Kuwait and his
meglomanical personality led him on.

Posted by: learjet0450 at October 14, 2005 8:59 PM

But if you try to tell a lefty about all those whom Saddam killed, they'll always just talk about the war dead.

Crusher: Do you have an example of a prominent Lefty doing so?

Irrelevanices snipped.

Thats not why we went to war. We went to war because Saddam supposedly had WMD's, was seeking nuclear arms and had *something* to do with 9/11.

All of which have turned out to be false.

Instead of focusing on the war on terror, Shrub decided to show he could best daddy and take out Saddam. Meanwhile the nexus of global terror, Iran ( not Iraq mind you) is on the verge of nuclear weapons.

Its always interesting to see the reason du jour for invading Iraq. It changes weekly.

Posted by: Crusher at October 14, 2005 10:19 PM

But if you try to tell a lefty about all those whom Saddam killed, they'll always just talk about the war dead.

Crusher: Do you have an example of a prominent Lefty doing so?

Irrelevanices snipped.

Thats not why we went to war. We went to war because Saddam supposedly had WMD's, was seeking nuclear arms and had *something* to do with 9/11.

All of which have turned out to be false.

Instead of focusing on the war on terror, Shrub decided to show he could best daddy and take out Saddam. Meanwhile the nexus of global terror, Iran ( not Iraq mind you) is on the verge of nuclear weapons.

Its always interesting to see the reason du jour for invading Iraq. It changes weekly.

Posted by: Crusher at October 14, 2005 10:19 PM

What’s with the regurgitated minutia? You guys need to sniff out the real reason we went to Iraq, and to do so you would have to have lived in a military culture. Do you really think that some Islamist clowns could incinerate several hundred top brass and support staff with 60,000 gallons of jet fuel, decimate the Pentagon, and not incur the wrath of the Military. They had a violent itch that needed scratching, and a few caves in Afghanistan aint gonna cut it (in defense vernacular). Believe this; George has his hands full holding back a pack of pit bulls at the Pentagon, and sometimes you just have to throw them some red meat. Iraq was just that.

Posted by: Thumper at October 14, 2005 11:00 PM

What’s with the regurgitated minutia?

Minutia? You mean severe intelligence lapses and outright lies ?

You guys need to sniff out the real reason we went to Iraq, and to do so you would have to have lived in a military culture. Do you really think that some Islamist clowns could incinerate several hundred top brass and support staff with 60,000 gallons of jet fuel, decimate the Pentagon, and not incur the wrath of the Military. They had a violent itch that needed scratching, and a few caves in Afghanistan aint gonna cut it (in defense vernacular). Believe this; George has his hands full holding back a pack of pit bulls at the Pentagon, and sometimes you just have to throw them some red meat. Iraq was just that.

You have a point there. Somebody who bided his time reading "My Pet Goat" while NY burned is probably incapable of acting as CIC.

Posted by: Crusher at October 14, 2005 11:21 PM

Pis writes"Tolerance
I will concede your statement that Hussein was a " customer ". I want you to make your case that he was the " best friend of the U.S. and U.K." Just a quote from a Cabinet level officer to that affect will do. Take all the time you want.
I also challenge your use of the term "preemptive". The dictator Hussein was described by many, including President Bush, as a threat to peace in the Middle East. A preemptive attack it was not and never characterized as such by any member of Bush's government that I know of. Could you give me a quote please? Take all the time you want."

This is just plain stupid.

Two Iraqui fighter jets damaged a US destroyer, (The Stark) and nothing happened in response to Iraq.

So long as Saddam was killing Iranians, he was are "best friend".

Don't mind pis. He has trouble repsonding to the meat of an argument, and would rather distract you by quibbling over semantics. THe simple fact is, that Reagan Bush gave Saddam a good deal of material help in his war against the Iranians, even while Saddam was aging war against his own people.

Nevermind Daddy's urging the Shia and Kurds to rebel, and then refuse to help them, unleashing another slaughter by Saddam.

Posters like pis have convienient memories.

Now I'm sure will be reagaled with tales of what Clinton did and didn't do. That's the excuse du jour.

Posted by: Crusher at October 14, 2005 11:29 PM

Countries do not have friends. Countries have vital interests that need to be served. Words are supposed to mean something. If you want to throw around words that can't be squared with facts, then that is your problem,isn't it? I am still waiting for you to defend your statements but all I get is a pathetic personal attack...yawn.

Posted by: pismopal at October 14, 2005 11:40 PM

"Somebody who bided his time reading "My Pet Goat" while NY burned is probably incapable of acting as CIC."

That's what I said crush, minutia. And apparently you are intoxicated on it. Just another socialist malcontent guzzling the swill of banality, preferring adolescent ad hominem attacks over substance. Let's see, how does that go "liar liar reading the goat book." Yea man, that's soooo convincing. George's three minute goat pause will change the course of history.

Perhaps you would prefer a screeching psychotic surrender monkey like the renowned Dr. Dean. No coincidence that the Islamists we peeing their pants in anticipation of a Dem President. At least George has testosterone.

Posted by: Thumper at October 15, 2005 12:11 AM

Crusher: Do you have an example of a prominent Lefty doing so?

You find a lot of that sort of thing in childrens` playgrounds. Instead I add the MSM, liberals and YOU.
By the way CAIR too.

Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 15, 2005 3:30 AM

As for leftist doodah the western decadency is very well represented by this obese, venal, drunkard of capitalist:
http://www.ytedk.com/
Truly decadent capitalist:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1454890/posts

Another decadent multi-culti, liberal slob:
http://www.sorostrading.com/picture2.html

Another decadent lumbering capitalist:
http://www.gargaro.com/algore.html

The capitalist who encourages murder:
most ineffectual president since Warren Harding, and has not won over any new fans of his executive record among historians or political idealists
http://www.redbridgereview.co.uk/html/martin-fields_carter.html

Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 15, 2005 3:34 AM

Leftists in crushing action:

DeGenova’s view of the war in Iraq and of the importance of America’s defeat is one that is widely shared on the political left. Robert Jensen, for example, is a professor at the University of Texas. As American marines engaged Sunni terrorists in a fierce battle in Falluja on December 03, 2004,Jensen wrote: “The United States has lost the war in Iraq, and that’s a good thing…. I welcome the U.S. defeat, for a simple reason: It isn’t the defeat of the United States— its people or their ideals — but of that empire. And it’s essential the American empire be defeated and dismantled.” (Austin Statesman) In Jensen’s mind, the real America whose troops are dying in Iraq is separate from “its people or their ideals,” should be seen as an evil empire that needs to be destroyed.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16259

Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 15, 2005 3:52 AM

I think that`s enuff. Time for you crusher to do your own research.
I have taught you to fish, now you don`t have to go hungry.

Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 15, 2005 3:54 AM

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Mary Jane McManus, wife of former Vietnam POW, Kevin McManus, who is part of a lawsuit against John Kerry for conspiracy and defamation.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19792

Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 15, 2005 7:36 AM

THumper writes:

""Somebody who bided his time reading "My Pet Goat" while NY burned is probably incapable of acting as CIC."

"That's what I said crush, minutia. And apparently you are intoxicated on it. Just another socialist malcontent guzzling the swill of banality, preferring adolescent ad hominem attacks over substance."

Yet another Bush Bot who is so confused, cannot distinguisg fact from reality. THe reality is that, for several minutes Bush couldn't figure out what to do except have his rear end pucker while the nation was under attack.

What do you suppose Roosevelt's reaction was to Pearl Harbor? Anything like shrub's?

You so used to ineptitude that you have no recourse to defend it.

"Let's see, how does that go "liar liar reading the goat book." Yea man, that's soooo convincing. George's three minute goat pause will change the course of history."

It was a 7 minute pause. The issue goes to character and leadership. Fact is Bush had no clue what to do. Whats even more laughable is your claim that our militrary needed more "red meat". LOL. I mean the trite silliness of your remark is too much to be believed.

But go ahead, give us more excuses for the liar and doofus in chief.

"Perhaps you would prefer a screeching psychotic surrender monkey like the renowned Dr. Dean."

Again, you miss the mark. THe problem is you're too foolish to even know what is you're aiming at. You're all talk, or should I say gibberish. Nobody on the left in the Congress or the Senate was against the invasion of Afghanistan and sending the Taliban to Kingdom Come. Not Dean, not even Ralph Nader (kook that he is). WHy is it the Bush bots seem to forget about this? So I have no idea what you and Mr. Link are on about. Many people had there reservations about IRaq. On the left and right, like Bush's daddy, Colin Powell, etc. But on the subject of gutting the Taliban, there were no divisions to speak of.

"No coincidence that the Islamists we peeing their pants in anticipation of a Dem President."

Indeed. THere afraid we might actually elect someone who would actually fight a war on terror.

"At least George has testosterone."

He's a coward. He can't even face the troops without a script. Testosterone my butt.

Its amazing how low a bar some people have.

Posted by: Crusher at October 15, 2005 8:59 PM

pis writes"
Countries do not have friends. Countries have vital interests that need to be served. Words are supposed to mean something. If you want to throw around words that can't be squared with facts, then that is your problem,isn't it? I am still waiting for you to defend your statements but all I get is a pathetic personal attack...yawn."

LOL. More semantics. Look, if you're not up to the task of defending your claims just say so.

Posted by: Crusher at October 15, 2005 9:01 PM

Crusher writes; "He's a coward. He can't even face the troops without a script. Testosterone my butt.
_____________________________________

That's right, testosterone - unlike all the soft bellied geldings prancing around the DNC headquaters.

So keep on whining for the next three years as Bush loads up the big bench with some heavyweights that will frustrate the demoncrats for decades to come. Frankly Crush, wouldn't you be more in your element over at the moveon.org site. You could frolic in that perverse hyperbole, and marinate yourself in more pathetic hatred of America.

Posted by: Thumper at October 15, 2005 9:27 PM

Crusher writes; "He's a coward. He can't even face the troops without a script. Testosterone my butt.
_____________________________________

"That's right, testosterone - unlike all the soft bellied geldings prancing around the DNC headquaters."

LOL. Apparently thumper wouldn't know the difference between estrogen and testostorne. And apparently he acknowledges the fact that Bush can't face the troops without the whole thing being scripted. It was nothing more than a prolonged photo-op.

"So keep on whining for the next three years as Bush loads up the big bench with some "heavyweights that will frustrate the demoncrats for decades to come."

Moi furstrated? LOL. The wealthy are never frustrated by anything. Furthemore, I don't live in areas which may experience large earthquakes or hurricanes. There's not much Bush's malfeasance can do to me.

But here we see the problem with Bush bots. They don't know who the enemy is. They think the Constitution is the enemy. So they fight that too. 10 years ago I figured the only way Bob Barr and the ACLU would ever work togethar on anything is if hell froze over. I was wrong. All it took was a necocon assualt on the Constitution. Don't worry, I don't think Aunt Bea will be confirmed. Heck even Ann Coulter thinks its laughable. Which reminds of another thing I thought wouldn't happen until hell froze over.

I'd actually agree with Ann Coulter on something.

"Frankly Crush, wouldn't you be more in your element over at the moveon.org site."

Nope I prefer it over here, where I can give jihadists as well as faux conservatives public wedgies. What the jihadist lack in organization and weaponry, bush and his cronies makes up for in incompetence.

"You could frolic in that perverse hyperbole, and marinate yourself in more pathetic hatred of America."

ROFL. The epitome of bush botism. If you disagree with them and point out shrub's myriad shortcommings, you hate America. Nothing like false dichotomy and mis-direction all in the same paragraph. Try wrapping yoruself in the flag rather than toilet tissue.

You don't even know what "America" is. You're nothing more the school yard bully who's just been stood up and you're not handling it well.

Posted by: Crusher at October 15, 2005 11:22 PM

Crusher, you are bullshit.

Posted by: Gary at October 16, 2005 3:02 PM

Gary boiled it down to it's essence crush - B.S. I can always recognize a "crusher" - they hang together in the cult of self-worship, only venturing out long enough to find that the world is bigger than they
are, and that their feeble arguments dissolve in the face of reality. Allow me to go find more ageeable company. You are a waste of good net time.

Posted by: Thumper at October 16, 2005 8:02 PM