Friday, February 16, 2007

The Truce is Over

The Joe Lieberman website says the nonbinding resolution opposing the US presence in Iraq has created the potential for a Constitutional crisis. "The potential for a constitutional crisis here and now is real, with congressional interventions, presidential vetoes, and Supreme Court decisions. If there was ever a moment for nonpartisan cooperation to agree on a process that will respect both our personal opinions about this war and our nation's interests over the long term, this is it."


When people describe themselves as Anti-War; that they want to end the War, the unasked question is which one. During the 1960s America engaged in two wars. One overseas and the other at home. One may have ceased but the second has never ended. Nor will the "anti-War" crowd ever end it until they achieve final and unconditional victory.

That's why the outcome of the "Vietnam War" doesn't refer to the resolution of foreign conflict forty years old but to a perceived -- and permanent -- domestic outcome in America. Just as the Civil War abolished slavery, "Vietnam" was regarded as having abolished American "imperialism" overseas forever. And even though this "outcome" was never the explicit war aim of the Peace Movement; nor even did they claim it a victory, it remained at least within a minority, the Legacy of the 1960s. The antipathy of the Left towards Ronald Reagan and George Bush cannot be rationally explained without appreciating that, in their eyes at least, the conservatives were embarked on a "rolling back" of the gains of history; that they were trying to undo the results of the Civil Rights Movement and the Legacy of Vietnam.

Iraq may be a cultural and physical world away from Vietnam, but the domestic landscape of that earlier conflict resembles what it is today. Lieberman correctly characterized the Democratic resolution as a footstomping yell of "no".

Senator Lieberman argued that the non binding resolution, "proposes nothing. It contains no plan for victory or retreat... It is a strategy of "no," while our soldiers are saying, "yes, sir" to their commanding officers as they go forward into battle."

But it is a "no" to everything. A yell of outrage and pain that "their" world has been destroyed by George W. Bush. One might timidly point out that Osama Bin Laden and radical Islam might have had something to do with it, but that will be ruled out of order because the crime -- and you have to understand the crime -- could only have been committed domestically. By Republicans. By enemy Americans.

Senator Lieberman closed with a call for unity, "Whatever our differences here in this chamber, about this war, let us never forget the values of freedom and democracy that unite us and for which our troops have given and today give the last full measure of their devotion. Yes, we should vigorously debate and deliberate. That is not only our right, it is our responsibility. But at this difficult juncture, at this moment when a real battle, a critical battle is being waged in Baghdad, as we face a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and wants to do it again, let us not just shout at one another, but let us reach out to one another to find that measure of unity that can look beyond today's disagreements and secure the nation's future and the future of all who will follow us as Americans."

Fat chance. The Peace Movement doesn't want unity. It wants war. War until the world it is fighting for is unconditionally and irreversibly established. That a government for the masses, of the masses and by the masses, should briefly flicker on the face of the earth.


Blogger Nick said...

But why? Why was a war on American "imperialism" declared?

What background material (books, etc.) is recommended reading to understand this better?

2/16/2007 04:17:00 PM  
Blogger Ticker said...

One standard text familiar to the 60's generation was Felix Greene's The Enemy. It seems to be out of print now, and its author forgotten, probably because it is so ludicrous. But it was sacred text once. But the man to quote would be Chairman Mao Tse Tung. Remember him. His picture was everywhere. Nobody may remember these paragraphs today, but once upon a time you could get people in Left Wing circles to actually recite it, chapter and verse, in the way you can get a preacher to cite scripture. I give you Mao Tse Tung.

A new upsurge in the struggle against U.S. imperialism is now emerging throughout the world. Ever since the Second World War, U.S. imperialism and its followers have been continuously launching wars of aggression and the people in various countries have been continuously waging revolutionary wars to defeat the aggressors. The danger of a new world war still exists, and the people of all countries must get prepared. But revolution is the main trend in the world today.
Unable to win in Vietnam and Laos, the U.S. aggressors treacherously engineered the reactionary coup d’etat by the Lon Nol Sirik Matak clique, brazenly dispatched their troops to invade Cambodia and resumed the bombing of North Vietnam, and this has aroused the furious resistance of the three Indo Chinese peoples. I warmly support the fighting spirit of Samdech Norodom Sihanouk, Head of State of Cambodia, in opposing U.S. imperialism and its lackeys. I warmly support the Joint Declaration of the Summit Conference of the Indo Chinese Peoples. I warmly support the establishment of the Royal Government of National Union under the Leadership of the National United Front of Kampuchea. Strengthening their unity, supporting each other and persevering in a protracted people’s war, the three Indo-Chinese peoples will certainly overcome all difficulties and win complete victory.

While massacring the people in other countries, U.S. imperialism is slaughtering the white and black people in its own country. Nixon’s fascist atrocities have kindled the raging flames of the revolutionary mass movement in the United States. The Chinese people firmly support the revolutionary struggle of the American people. I am convinced that the American people who are fighting valiantly will ultimately win victory and that the fascist rule in the United States will inevitably be defeated.

Some of the Anti-War crowd were actually actively fighting to achieve Mao's vision because they believed it. Sincerely believed it. And somewhere under their balding pates many of them still do.

2/16/2007 04:30:00 PM  
Blogger lugh lampfhota said...

Sixty percent of the American people are asleep, paying little attention to anything other than their amusements. This herd gets a few minutes of "news" from a socialist media and education from a unionized, socialist academia.

Twenty percent of America holds traditional views and pays attention and looks elsewhere for news and education. And votes Republican.

Twenty percent of America range from socialists to Marxists, many due to union membership. And vote Democrat.

We have reached a tipping point in America when we no longer even care about winning war. There are perhaps two percent more Democrats than Republicans now. So America moves left.

Our enemies have noticed and will adjust accordingly. Russia, China and Islamists of all flavors sense an opportunity. We will all pay the price.

2/16/2007 04:58:00 PM  
Blogger Meme chose said...

Just one among so many absurdities here is that this 'war' fought by the 'anti-war' crowd would never have been persisted in had they not been able to 'fight' it from the comfort of their armchairs (and shortly, as you point out, from their wheelchairs).

It makes for an odd sort of war. Lots of attacks but all verbal, or where they get a chance, administrative.

2/16/2007 05:06:00 PM  
Blogger Ticker said...

It's now largely forgotten that after Khomeini came to power on the backs of an anti-Shah coalition in which the Left figured prominently, the Ayatollahs spent the aftermath purging and liquidating their former leftist allies. Recently, a columnist for the Guardian related how he first "noticed" Saddam Hussein's perfidy because all of his Leftist Iraqi friends were disappearing one by one. Historically, the Green Flag of Islam was appropriated from one of their allies within Byzantium, with whom they made common cause until Constantinople fell.

It's scarcely noticed but easy to confirm that wherever radical Islam triumphs the Left is herded into the concentration camps. In a way the Left is its own cure. The Red Green alliance is the Red in the service of the Green. Rachel Corrie may die for Islam but Islam will never give a hoot for Rachel Corrie. So if emigration to Mars were an option the morally superior thing to do would be to leave the Left to their friends, the Jihadis. "Nothing to kill or die for. And no religion too," says one. "Allah Akbar!" says the other.

But unfortunately space travel hasn't developed to the point where interplanetary migration is viable. So just as minorities in the Middle East have to bob and weave in the Middle of two rival movements within the Islamic confession, so too do people who just want to be left alone have to live in the shadows between two competing "visions" of the world.

2/16/2007 05:13:00 PM  
Blogger Bob W. said...

I wrote about the recent machinations of Congress today as well. You can find my analysis here.

2/16/2007 05:42:00 PM  
Blogger Ticker said...

The Left is very good at politics. Over the decades it has develop all the requisite organs of political work. Terminology, notation, technique. Recruitment strategies. Disinformation. It is the master manipulator of reality. O'Brien in 1984 provided an unmatched exposition of relativism in a world where reality was what you were told it was.

'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'


'And if the party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?'


The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston's body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O'Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.

'How many fingers, Winston?'


The needle went up to sixty.

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!'

The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!'

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Five! Five! Five!'

'No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?'

'Four! five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!'

Abruptly he was sitting up with O'Brien's arm round his shoulders. He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held his body down were loosened. He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks. For a moment he clung to O'Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round his shoulders. He had the feeling that O'Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O'Brien who would save him from it.

'You are a slow learner, Winston,' said O'Brien gently.

'How can I help it?' he blubbered. 'How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.'

'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'

2/16/2007 05:45:00 PM  
Blogger Mike H. said...

Part of Nick's answer is that the Greatest Generation who had seen the results of the gassing of WWI had gone through the Great Depression and had fought WWII felt that their children shouldn't have to face what they had faced. The children were spoiled to the point that they faced no adversity, valued nothing and understood nothing about where their security came from. My father's generation was called the Greatest and mine is being called the Worst. We won't be done with the internal war until my generation is dead.

2/16/2007 05:54:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

It also seems like the prime motive force was not intellectual revolutionary ardor per se, as it rarely is, but fear - fear of nuclear war, fear of the draft when it came, and not a principled fear, but a visceral one. The emotion is comprehensible. Imagine being born in 1948, as my father was: the Korean war may flicker in your consciousness, buttressed by the conversations of mothers and fathers at the dinner table or in front of a new black-and-white tv; Soviet nuclear threat, and the shock of Sputnik; the unreal glamor of Kennedy; Civil Rights triumphs and its blazing spear, Dr. King; the beginnings of Vietnam and the dawn of the mass media news agencies; and everywhere, millions and millions of people your own age; rock and roll and a shift in popular culture - and all this before one got to college, for many tens of thousands a novelty introduced by the GI Bill and for this generation then a new mass recreation. But it really wasn't until the draft that the mostly white mostly middle and upper-middle class white kids who were in 1965-1970 17-22 years had a blazing self-interest to galvanize their political identities. The USA wanted them for war; the USSR, ChiComs, and various revolutionaries they supported told them that it was their government's fault. From conversations with my father, it is clear that the glaring problem was there was no knowledge of the results of these Communist revolutions; contact with actual Russians and Chinese, among others, was virtually nil. The Russian, Polish, Serb, Czech, Slovenian and Hungarian communities here in Cleveland remain a novelty, fairly ensconced in their communities, rather introverted, and for the most part anti-Communist but nonetheless defeated Russians, Serbs, etc.

And think of the culture! It has been remarked that it was actually the epi-generation born just prior to the baby-boom (I think John Lennon was born in 1941, for example) that became the intellectual masters of the 60s Generation. Following their European masters of the decadent just-pre- and post-imperial European period...

But it is a subject too long to address in a post. Basically, however, they f-cked us up, and we shall not recover. It will be a terrible future spectacle, if it is accurately rendered, to read how a nation with such sound and admirable impulses and philosophy won the world, largely because, to approximate Patton, "some goddamn Germans decided they were supermen," and then their many of their most popular children worked as hard as possible to throw it away for an idea whose validity had already been exposed an destroyed 30 years before in the vast barbarous wastes of the permanently barbarous Russia, the historically pharoanic antithesis of all that the USA represented.

And of course to live through it is extraordinarily annoying.

2/16/2007 06:57:00 PM  
Blogger Boghie said...


I too am sensing another conflict - part of a 4th Turning...

We are not coming together. We do not value the current enemy as an adversary. Many are now looking past the current conflict against goat herders in the Mountains of Pakistan - or whatever. America is starting to feel like the joyus mid-fifties; the 1850's. There is no trust.

If the current conflict looks bad, think of a future one!!!

2/16/2007 08:03:00 PM  
Blogger OregonGuy said...

Here's a rant I laid down at Politburo diktat. I'm not embarrassed about my support for the Long War. Jefferson had to deal with it. Read news accounts from the day and compare to what our current President is going through.

Roosevelt had to deal with it. Times were simpler. "I want Perdicarris alive or Rasuli dead." Foreign policy for dummies.

The '50's saw the twilight of what had been Western Civ's policing of Islamic extremism. While American efforts at establishing democratic ideals as the cultural norm for Western Europe, dwindling European Imperialism took the lid off the box of Islamic extremism. Britain and France were more than willing to intercede in the efforts at regional hegemony by fellas like Nasser. If you recall, it was America that stepped forward in the United Nations to end that invasion.

With the decline of European hegemony came the concomitant increase in Soviet hegemony. While Europe invaded Egypt, Russia invaded Hungary. America was able to stand up to "the Good Guys" but was faced down by "the Bad Guys". Under the United Nation's Charter, the Soviet proclaimed, Hungary had a "right to self-determination". The Soviet Invasion was support for those rights. Prime Minister Nagy was arrested, and then executed two years later.

The lessons of "the Rights of Self-Determination" weren't wasted on the rest of the world. Move forward to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. As President Carter idly sat by and watched, not only did he ignore one of the most potent anti-Soviet weapons--gained through diplomacy by President Ford and used to great effect by President Reagan--in his arsenal, the Helsinki Accords, he watched dumbfounded as Iran fell to the Mullahs and Afghanistan fell to the Russians.

Up until then, what the world new of Islamic terror had only been visited upon the Israelis, as it had in 1972 during the Munich Olympics. Terror in those days ranged from Red Brigades, the Baader Meinhof Gang, Black Panthers, and the "Patty Hearst Abduction". Ergo, the common thread to today's political mire.

To a vast majority of the political Left, the Romanticism of being in the Weather Underground, or a freedom fighter for Bobby Seale and Huey Newton, or yelling "Pig" at cops, this was Revolution, man! This kind of romantic thinking was exemplified by mainstream groups, e.g., the Presbyterian Church supporting Angela Davis.

Take a look at the famous "Class of '74". Those politicians who were elected for the first time to legislative posts either in statewide or congressional races.

It is these leaders, who now hold seats of leadership in state houses and in the Congress who are leading the debate against the Long War today. And they are best represented by the man, elected at their political nadir, President of the United States, James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr.
So what is the thread of Foreign Policy coming from these Lefties?

Do you really want a legislative history, starting with the Church committee?

Let’s jump forward.

In the past decade we’ve been attacked by Iran, Iraq, Libya, and their proxies. An argument could be made that we’ve been attacked by the Saudis as well, but the discussion of Saudi policy versus governance would be lengthy, so I’ll just posit that the “official” Saudi position has been to support the United States as an ally. (Go ahead and rant off at this point. But what else are stipulations for, but to side-step the grease and go for the guts?)

During this period, the US has attempted peace-keeping. Negotiation. Bribery. Covert and direct aid. We’ve spilled American blood in Germany, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Israel, Egypt, Crete, Turkey, Indonesia, Yemen…all lost as a result of Islamic Terror. And the list isn’t complete. You’re forgetting the thousands killed on September 11, 2001.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Just as it abhorred the political vacuum during the Carter years, it hates the political vacuum we’re dealing with in Congress right now. But we lived through it. And we’ll live through this. More people will die as we fail to face up to the realities of the world we’re living in. Innocent people. People who didn’t choose to fight.

Not that Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children want to fight. But when tasked with the mission, they choose to fight. They go into the battle with full knowledge of the cost of failure. Unlike the men and women of the Twin Towers. Or, the Achille Lauro. If we don’t choose the mission, the mission will choose us.

Oh, and its funny the confluence of events. The “Class of ‘74” and the US Marines? John Murtha—corrupt but not convicted—was first elected to Congress in 1974. See why we study history?

I hope that this fits into the theme here. I know I'm an old guy and I get confused. So here's my contribution. May my children understand before it's too late.

2/16/2007 08:15:00 PM  
Blogger Boghie said...

Really now,

What is the difference between a Social War and a Culture War given time, space, and weapons...

Time to foment, ignore, and separate

Space to separate

And, weapons

2/16/2007 08:20:00 PM  
Blogger Ticker said...

I think the Third World will provide the strategic surprise. They are not -- they were never -- what the Left thought they were. People happy to live out their lives under a tyranny dancing under the mango trees before retiring in the dusk to their darkened huts to the sound of communal singing. They want cell phones, air travel and dental floss. They wonder what the stars are made of and how the world began. Worst of all for the Left they want freedom. The most monstrous lie in history was the one the Left repeated incessantly. How happy the masses were under Uncle Joe Stalin or the Great Helmsman. Do they know what poverty is? Poverty is watching your little son die because you can't afford a five dollar bottle of medicine. And burying him with all the homemade toys your hands made.

Ultimately this is conflict between the "Let Them Eat Cake" crew and people who simply want to live. It's between fantasy and reality. I have no worries about how that will end, though many bright things will vanish in the carelessness of the night.

The land seemed full of creaking and cracking and sly noises, but there was no sound of voice or of foot. Far above the Ephel Duath in the West the night-sky was still dim and pale. There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was a light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach. His song in the Tower had been defiance rather than hope; for then he was thinking of himself. Now, for a moment, his own fate, and even his master’s, ceased to trouble him. He crawled back into the brambles and laid himself by Frodo’s side, and putting away all fear he cast himself into a deep untroubled sleep.

2/16/2007 08:56:00 PM  
Blogger Mike H. said...

OregonGuy, speaking of Misguided Children, Feb. 21 @ 2100 EST on PBS. "The Marine"

2/16/2007 09:08:00 PM  
Blogger ambisinistral said...

While it is not good to underestimate a foe, it is equally as foolish to render them invincible. The anti-war crowd is playing with fire.

What do the people think?

They don't like getting nickle and dimed to death via IEDs and bombs in Iraqi market places, and so the cut and run crowd seem to offer an exit. "Things aren't so bad" and all that.

However, what if that British terror plot to down the ten airplanes, and their thousands of passengers, over the Atlantic had succeeded? What happens if a Western city produces Halabja-like pictures of the dead, or we have a Breslin in Kansas?

What will the majority of people think then?

Go to a corner bar, or a greasey spoon restaurant and ask a patron what they think about Iraq and they might want out. Then ask them what they think about Moslems and you're likely to get an ear full of venom.

We think the war against Islamic extremism is global in scope and existential in nature. The anti-war crowd thinks it is a much less malignant problem. Well, we shall see.

It will get worse, but it won't go away.

2/16/2007 09:09:00 PM  
Blogger Tarnsman said...

I think Libermann has just shot a warning shot across the bow of the SS Get-out-of-Iraq-now. He can single-handedly hand control of the Senate back to the Republicans. Right now Harry Reid owes his position to the good graces of the Senator. One, by the way, that is still pulling the knife in the back his former party put in him. There are 49 Democrats [one of whom can't even speak in complete sentences, let alone cast a vote (remember him, folks?)], 49 Republican and 2 Independents Senators. Control of the Senate hinges on a single vote. Libermann can simply cross the asile, stating he will not allow the Democratic Party (his former party) to jeopardize the security of the nation and create a constitutional crisis. The Senate goes from 51-49 to 50-50 and the Vice President becomes a voting member of the Senate. 51-49 Republican. Harry Reid is the new minority leader and all the nonsense in the House is DOA in the Senate. Question is, will Libermann do it?

2/16/2007 10:09:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

re: They are not -- they were never -- what the Left thought they were.

Which is why the Left has had to send so many of the misguided to cruel and early graves. Marx was the messiah of a religion the equal of Islam in its depravity.

2/16/2007 10:21:00 PM  
Blogger slimslowslider said...

"The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life." -- Teddy Roosevelt

2/16/2007 10:28:00 PM  
Blogger Papa Ray said...

The terrible thing about this mess is that "The Greatest Generation" and their children are responsible for it. They and we allowed the takeover of our educational system and the corrupution of our children for the last forty someodd years.

Here is an example of the propaganda that has been poured down our children's throats for years.

Addicted to War

It's enough to make me sick, but instead it is making me and others like me increasingly angry.

There is a long war ahead, but I'm afraid most of it will be fought here in this Republic.

It will be like nothing ever before. I'm sad that I most likely won't be here to add my efforts, but my grandchildren will be and they understand the threat from within.

They don't intend to stand by and see America destroyed.

Papa Ray
West Texas

2/16/2007 10:46:00 PM  
Blogger Alexis said...

In the history of civil wars, the side that wins is typically the side that desires war the least.

Which side tries to provoke a constitutional crisis? Which side gleefully seeks partisan conflict? Which side sneers at voters for the other side instead of courting them? Which side has been incites murder of the other side's politicians? That's the side more likely to lose a civil war.

Most of us want to live in peace. Those who seek to provoke a constitutional crisis out of hatred against an elected president won't elicit sympathy from those who value domestic tranquility.

2/16/2007 11:15:00 PM  
Blogger Joe Dees said...

What people are not grasping here is the fear the Left has that they will actually be conscripted to fight (and possibly die), and forced to join an institution which they view (see Arkin, among others) as chock full of racists, jingoists, the ignorant and the dense. They worry and fear that as long as the US remains in Iraq, that it is possible that Iran could do something (such as, say, testing a nuke - perhaps in Israel) that would demand a cross-border boots-on-the-ground military invasion in response, and that to defeat Iran, it would be necessary to reinstitute the military draft. However, if the US is deprived of positions from which such a response might be initiated, we would be forced to use the less effective Clintonian alternative of air-bombing and sea-shelling options, which would not necessitate a military draft, but would also not be likely to topple the Iranian regime. For these reasons, if the US is forced by the feckless panderers in Congress and their peace-at-any-price tool-pushers to leave Iraq before its liberation is secured, expect the push for retreat and withdrawal to next focus on Afghanistan. These cowards would much rather place their country in danger than risk danger to themselves.

2/17/2007 03:37:00 AM  
Blogger 3Case said...

Superlative thread, Wretchard.

2/17/2007 06:07:00 AM  
Blogger Clioman said...

Am pondering the Left and their fantasy views re: 'the lesser peoples.'

For as much as they eschew religion, you have to give credit to the Left: they REALLY know how to do Sanctimony.

2/17/2007 06:16:00 AM  
Blogger 3Case said...

"...let us never forget the values of freedom and democracy that unite us and for which our troops have given and today give the last full measure of their devotion."

The fallacy in Senator Joe's statement there is that the Marxists do not value freedom and democracy...never have. One cannot "forget" something one never had in the first place.

As to Senator Joe swapping sides in the Senate, his background (the part of CT and the era from which he originates) is such that he is a CT-bred Yellow Dog Democrat. This can be seen by his obsequiousness toward his party after the primary vote (when they stabbed him in the back), during his campaigning (during which they stabbed more) and after he won the general election. His campaign strategy was to suck up to the Dem party as hard as he could without sending away the Repub votes he needed to get elected. Joe Lieberman is a Democrat clown. Always has been.

2/17/2007 06:20:00 AM  
Blogger Pierre said...

And of course to live through it is extraordinarily annoying.

Yes it is...

The only way out seems to be through another birthing...that painful forcing of our way out into the portion of the world where up is not down and down is not up. We have lost the cultural battle with the left, their vision was far too attractive, lay about all day letting someone else work.

The only way we will win this war against the 7th century thugs is to utterly destroy the leftist ideology and anyone who believes that won't require a bit of death is looking through rose colored glasses. The only question is what will be the catalyst. After we destroy the leftists the Islamic Thugs will be left and the death and destruction that will be levied against them will make all previous wars look like disagreements.

I am desperately sad for my children because it appears that their world will be infinitely more violent and sad than mine was growing up.

2/17/2007 06:59:00 AM  
Blogger MyTimeCards said...

I, too, read Lieberman's comments as a shot across the Democrat bow. He may be many things, but there's no way he's unaware of the fact that he's the most powerful person in Congress right now, and his positions on this issue seem relatively principled.

2/17/2007 07:39:00 AM  
Blogger Adrian said...

Lieberman isn't in all that of a strong position. He might be able to give temporary control of the Senate back to the GOP, but Democrats will just take it back in 2008. Then the Democrats will be able to take their revenge on Lieberman. I'd bet that Joementum's all talk on his threats of defecting.

"A yell of outrage and pain that "their" world has been destroyed by George W. Bush. One might timidly point out that Osama Bin Laden and radical Islam might have had something to do with it, but that will be ruled out of order because the crime -- and you have to understand the crime -- could only have been committed domestically. By Republicans."

This just doesn't hold up to reality. A good part of the opposition to the Iraq war was that it detracted focus away from the war in Afghanistan, against bin Ladin, who actually attacked us. All of this imperialism crap you talk about can easily be applied to OEF, but it isn't. That's because the Left, just like the Right and everybody in between, wanted a military response to 9/11. The opposition to the Iraq invasion is, paraphrasing Barack Obama, opposition not to all wars, but to dumb wars.

2/17/2007 07:52:00 AM  
Blogger Brother D-Day said...

Definitely feels like battle lines have been drawn and a storm is coming in America.

Most of the country views Islamism as a threat and wants it defeated.

What the country is reacting to is the incompetence in the execution of the Iraq was over the last two/three years.

As one of our greatest generals once said,

"Men, this stuff some sources sling around about America wanting to stay out of the war and not wanting to fight is a lot of baloney! Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. America loves a winner. America will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise a coward; Americans play to win. That's why America has never lost and never will lose a war."

Americans want results. "Stay the course" was an asinine response by Bush to those questioning how we were fighting the war. It seemed like the guy was on another planet.

So Americans changed Congress to send a message and get decisive change.

They got it all right.

The cowards in Congress have sounded their retreat, stabbed our forces in their backs, and Americans won't like what they see when the consequences of Congress' actions are felt.

In the meantime, the press and the .gov play down the significance of a Lone Wolf attack in a shopping mall by a disaffected muslim youth.

Could be nothing. But when juxtaposed with similar attacks, in Raleigh, NC, Seattle, WA, Los Angeles, CA and others, one might think that angry men are getting ideas from other angry men via a global ideological network.

When the American Beslan happens, the jig will be up for the Vietnam-era, dhimmi-Left.

Their cries of "no Al-Qaida in Iraq" and "Iraq is a distraction from the War on Terror" will be farts in a windstorm as the battlefront returns to the local mall, school or downtown.

Americans all will want the fight, and they will want the fight won, no matter what it takes.

The dhimmi-Left will be marginalized to the sidelines.

2/17/2007 08:08:00 AM  
Blogger Brother D-Day said...

Adrian said...

This just doesn't hold up to reality. A good part of the opposition to the Iraq war was that it detracted focus away from the war in Afghanistan, against bin Ladin, who actually attacked us. All of this imperialism crap you talk about can easily be applied to OEF, but it isn't. That's because the Left, just like the Right and everybody in between, wanted a military response to 9/11. The opposition to the Iraq invasion is, paraphrasing Barack Obama, opposition not to all wars, but to dumb wars.

Fair point adrian.

Somehow my gut tells me if OEF were the only war we were involved in, the same cast of characters would be undermining that effort as much as Iraq.

"Why did you sting me?" asked the Frog.

"Because it is my nature." said the Scorpion.

2/17/2007 08:14:00 AM  
Blogger Adrian said...

brother d-day:

Up until March 2003, when OEF actually was the only war we were involved in, was anyone "undermining" it?

2/17/2007 08:21:00 AM  
Blogger Pierre said...

A good part of the opposition to the Iraq war was that it detracted focus away from the war in Afghanistan, against bin Ladin, who actually attacked us. All of this imperialism crap you talk about can easily be applied to OEF, but it isn't. That's because the Left, just like the Right and everybody in between, wanted a military response to 9/11. The opposition to the Iraq invasion is, paraphrasing Barack Obama, opposition not to all wars, but to dumb wars.

Iraq was another step in the war against those who attacked us. Limiting the war to Afghanistan simply because some of the training and planning originated there would have been like only attacking France in WW2 because the Germans were flying out of French Airfields.

Iraq is one of the main battlefields in this war and anyone who denies that is only trying to appease our enemies.

2/17/2007 08:28:00 AM  
Blogger Pierre said...

Up until March 2003, when OEF actually was the only war we were involved in, was anyone "undermining" it?

Actually yes already the hardcore left, those who are leading the war against Iraq, were mobilized against the war in Afghanistan. Michael Moore was already railing against the was nearly everyone who figures prominently now..ANSWER?? Yup

2/17/2007 08:30:00 AM  
Blogger Boghie said...


Much of al-Qaeda fled Afghanistan to Iran and Pakistan.

Why do you think anyone of importance to al-Qaeda is actually in Afghanistan?
If they are, they are probably within miles of a very porous border.

If they aren’t, than do we attack Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan? All at the same time?

Or are you using the whole “air drop 400,000 troops into Afghanistan’ as an excuse because you view the GWOT as discrete and multiple violations of national sovereignty by a voracious empire? We are fighting in the Philippines, Somalia, Yemen, and Indonesia as well. Why don’t you decry the Philippine War as a rapacious and unnecessary conflict?

Your argument about fighting Islamic Jihad within one state boundary in a culture that doesn’t respect state boundaries is rather insipid. Most of the peoples in this region are tribal – the next leap in social structure is not the state but the culture, Islam. Only Iran, and to some extent Iraq, have any semblance of a concept of the sovereign state. Tell me where to find the Sunni Jihadists? Where are the Shia Jihadists?

2/17/2007 08:40:00 AM  
Blogger Adrian said...

"Iraq is one of the main battlefields in this war and anyone who denies that is only trying to appease our enemies."

Wow, it only took four posts for someone to call me an al Qaeda appeaser. Impressive.

2/17/2007 08:43:00 AM  
Blogger Boghie said...


Why would you only look for Sunni Jihadis in Afghanistan?

Can we arrest Osama bin Laden and Zawahari?

Tell me where to send the police and I will push it up the line!!!

2/17/2007 08:46:00 AM  
Blogger Boghie said...


Your 'If only we could all shut up, like World War Two' post on 'Politics & Soccer' is quite illustrative of where you come from.

Tell me why we should have limited our actions in WWII to the Japanese - or perhaps why that view stands the test of time. I know you were just making a statement that there was 'informed dissent' during WWII, but:

"There was also extensive debate over FDR's prosecution of the war in general. Senator Albert B. Chandler of Kentucky, William Randolph Hearst, and Charles Lindberg all believed that the United States should not have gotten involved in the European theatre for a variety of reasons. Chandler thought the danger of Japan forcing China out of the war was an even greater danger than that of Germany forcing the Soviet Union out. Lindbergh on the other hand was isolationist, claiming "The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration."

Adrian, these folks are now known to be fools, racists, and military neophytes.

Why don’t you reference respected members of that era? It was, as you know, 'the greatest generation'!

Are you ready to be listed with fools like Buchanan, Carter, Odom, Johnson, Kusinich, or the Truthers?

Run away…

Faster Please…

2/17/2007 09:14:00 AM  
Blogger Adrian said...


If you ask me where to send the police, I'd say "The White House."

I don't know where you pulled the stuff about sending 400,000 to Afghanistan, or arresting al Qaeda or whatever. When I say that OIF detracted from OEF, I'm not talking about the 101st, I'm talking about the small number of SpecOps soldiers we have that are able to prosecute the kind of war we need to against al Qaeda, along with the logistical support and intelligence they require.

You're right, much of al Qaeda fled Afghanistan, however that was after we invaded, and after they bought off our tribal allies and were allowed to slip away to Pakistan. More SOF might have prevented that.

Monsieur Legrand:

I do remember Maureen Dowd predicting quagmire in Afghanistan. I'd guess you'd classify her as "hard left." But honestly, what impact do freaks like ANSWER have on the national debate? They're the political equivalent of the mentally ill homeless guy yelling at you when you don't give him any change.

The people Lieberman rants about as having a "strategy of no" are not ANSWER or Michael Moore (no comment on him from me, I've never seen any of his movies), they are the mainstream Congressional Representatives of this country, including some Republicans. I think it's kind of ridiculous to assert that people like Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe, who have said they'll vote with the Democrats on this resolution, are fighting some 40-year long cultural war against imperialism.

Peace out (the irony kills me ;} ). If you want to continue the discussion, feel free to comment on my blog at

2/17/2007 09:14:00 AM  
Blogger Adrian said...


I guess you missed the part where I note that other members of the America First Committee included Gerald Ford and Potter Stewart.

2/17/2007 09:16:00 AM  
Blogger Boghie said...


Run, run as fast as you can...

The 'America First Committee' disbanded shortly after Pearl Harbour!!!

Yuk, yuk...

Maybe President Ford - as a college student - realized he was a fool and bailed out of that silly moronothon of blathering idiots.

I always tell folks that 'A Fool is Forever'. Now, I have evidence that maybe this is not a basic axiom - but I really don't place Ford much above Carter as an effective President, eh...

Again, fools, racists, military neophytes, and those proven wrong by the test of time should not be the backing for impassioned argument.

Let's see a reference to Churchill, FDR, Patton - or even McCarther, Nimitz, or Bull Halsey who had to fight the Japanese under the constraints of the 'Germany First' doctrine.

2/17/2007 09:33:00 AM  
Blogger Boghie said...


Potter Stewart could not make a decision he could live with...

Very conflicted.

He sure was a guiding light in the Supreme Court. I can just imagine how his flip-flopping affected legal precedence in the 60’s and 70’s…

Oh, I don’t have to imagine. I am living the dream…

So, you want Bush and Congress to behave like Potter Stewart. Vote to send the military into a fight against Jihadis (note the lack of country names in the vote for war) and then wobble around to some other nuanced concept and then wander in some other stream of thought while drinking martinis at a solon of thoughtful intelligencia.

Whatever happened to making a decision with the information at hand (and no entity had full information – and cannot when dealing with a Stalinist state), implementing that decision, and seeing it through.

So, Liberals follow the Potter reasoned model of conflicted process. Why should I trust anyone following the Potter model of conflicted action or inaction or whatever? One day we go. Another day we bail. Yet a bit into the future we gotta go in again. I can see all the nations of the world just asking to be our allies. They were flocking to us after Vietnam too!!! And, the Japanese and Taiwanese were extremely confident in our treaties and statements during the 90’s. Yuk, yuk…

By the way, where would you rather be if containing Iran and Syria and Sunni Jihadis is the key factor in the GWOT?

Personally, I would rather be led by Harry Potter than Potter Stewart!

2/17/2007 09:59:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Reading posts like Adrian's, very characteristic of the opposition or the Left, it is hard, at this point, not to believe that this gets down to that irreducible quantity known as Personality. Some people view 9/11 as evidence that certain groups, themselves iterations of political-terrorist groups throughout Central Asia and Russia and the Balkans, have acquired the means, developed the techniques, and secured the support to launch deeply disruptive attacks against us from virtually untracable locations. Faced with that reality, some of us decided that this is not tolerable; the fact that a group or network of groups ranging from the Philipines to the Indian Subcontinent to the Persian plains through Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, and on and on has produced one or two or three or more groups capable of acting with the resources and impact of a quasi-government is deeply disturbing to people like us. We are not sympathetic to arguments of the national-right variety as a basis for overthrowing order - an argument, by the way, that Hitler (apparently the only enemy any of the Adrians recognize other than their own fathers) relied on effectively throughout the period 1933 - 1939.

Bah - the problem is that there are caricatures in the minds of Adrians, coupled with a deep ignorance of the basic brutality of life among other peoples, and animated by strong egotistical vindictiveness that is simply not resolvable by debate. For Adrians, debate is a weapon. This is obviously true for every lefty I know, and I know virtually no people - lifelong friends - who are not lefty. Have they ever read a book about, say, Pakistan? No. How about one about Islam, even a pro-Islam book by an imam? No. How about a history of the Ottoman Empire? No. How about a history of the Cold War dynamics in these regions? No. How about, for that matter, a history of World War 2, or a history of the USSR? No. How about a history of the political history of Iraq? No. How about a history of the French Revolution or the history of republicanism in France since? No. How about a history of World War I? No. Even on the History Channel? Maybe.

Ah, but they have surely read Stupid White Men; they have surely read State of Denial; they may have read Orientalism; they have probably read many books on why Bush is a fascist and the "Christian Right" is going to consume the country, declare a theocracy, and set up concentration camps for pinko liberals and take over the curriculum; they've probably read some Marx and Engels, and Beat poetry at some point, and sundry other obvious hippy and socialist-sympathetic literary talismans.

Unfortunately, it is a matter of personality and acculturation. The frustrating thing is they don't really seem to ask themselves whether it is even Possible that Bush's characerizations, or the Right's characterizations, could be true. For such human beings, who have nothing to guide them but the "I hate country club Christian plutocrats who are boring and unsexy and annoying and don't like AV dorks like me" sentiment, and then follow the party that exploits it, because they are lazy and silly and stupid and therefore ignorant. My favorite is the "Oh yeah!? You still believe there was al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded!?" My answer is: there was al Qaeda in 60 countries, including the USA, and you don't think there was al Qaeda in Iraq? But George Bush is going to declare an Imperium and abolish the Constitution? Yeah. One of these is more plausible than other, but apparently it takes a genius to determine which one.

The thing that strikes me about all this really is the following:

to us, the enemy is Islamism, and more generally the Muslim world's (1) degeneracy and (2) tendency to fascist-style delusions. (Have these lefties ever even read a history of Hitler's rise to power and of the Third Reich?)

to the left, the enemy is their fellow Americans who disagree with them.

And despite this, i still don't Feel the left is my enemy. it is increasingly difficult, however, to actually believe that they are not, because they keep telling me so.

2/17/2007 11:04:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

What is deeply embarrassing about the left in this current conflict, however, is how clearly bin Laden guessed at their reaction, and how blindly the left have fulfilled it. Way to go guys! What courage! What insight! You motherf-cking failures. Thank you for demonstrating the weakness of the democratic system. You let a trustfundbaby polygamizt making a go at "authenticity" as he sees it pull your strings like the petulent robots you unfortunately are. How gratifying it is to see how you use your self-evident freedoms. Congratulations!

2/17/2007 11:12:00 AM  
Blogger Pierre said...

I do remember Maureen Dowd predicting quagmire in Afghanistan. I'd guess you'd classify her as "hard left." But honestly, what impact do freaks like ANSWER have on the national debate? They're the political equivalent of the mentally ill homeless guy yelling at you when you don't give him any change.

There are a few premises of yours that simply don't have any basis in reality. And there are a few things that you simply refuse to face.

1. Iraq had a collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda.

2. Saddam was an active enemy of the United States

3. Afghanistan while important was not as important as Iraq...not nearly so.

4. Islamic terrorism is founded on the imperialism of Islam. Which means that it doesn't really matter whether it is Sunni or Shiite backed since either one with state backing will attack us.

5. The United States is the primary target because we are the primary obsticle. Many on the left believe that should we surrender our willingness to defend the West against the Barbaric hoards that spring up from time to time that we will stop being a target. Our wealth and the lure that it poses for their populations gaurantees that until we are destroyed we remain a target. Because our wealth is a thorn in the eye of the mullahs and fanatics who preach that Allah provides all.

Welcome to the real world.

2/17/2007 02:52:00 PM  
Blogger Joe Buzz said...

I would like to propose a strategy. Lets take out as many tangos as we possibly can between now and the '08 elections. I know that one Habu_ is with me.

2/17/2007 03:26:00 PM  
Blogger Mike H. said...

Joe Buzz, do you have any limits on location?

2/17/2007 04:15:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

heh heh, buzz & mike H, you're funnin' us--right?

Surely you're not having visions of getting rough with the USA-born English-speaking jihad-allies here stateside, are you?

Nah, we couldn't do that, yet--it's illegal.

This, however, signed by Democrat Woodrow Wilson, WAS legal.

Also, for the guy upthread flacking the 'no AQ in Iraq' line, here is a nice, readable, fairly comprehensive compendium of inconvenient truths (as if you don't already know 'em).

2/17/2007 04:53:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

No - if I wasn't clear above I was ridiculing the opinion that there was no AQ-Iraq connection. I only brought it up to shoot it down.

Silly bastard.

2/17/2007 06:59:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

The Flopping Aces link was for Adrian. Not you, Dan.

2/17/2007 07:20:00 PM  
Blogger 3Case said...

Clearest definition yet of the 21st Century Bourgeois:

'You let a trustfundbaby polygamizt making a go at "authenticity" as he sees it pull your strings like the petulent robots you unfortunately are.'

Thank you, dan.

2/17/2007 08:37:00 PM  
Blogger 3Case said...

Received this week from a friend and new to me:


The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals; and
2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girliemen.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note:

Most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, journalists, dreamers in
Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history: It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off."

2/17/2007 08:40:00 PM  
Blogger trangbang68 said...

Dang if I haven't witnessed the inanities of these loonie lefties all my adult years.I actually believed some of that once.Crosby,Stills,Nash and Young songs made alot of sense when you were under the influence of PCP and Maddog20/20.
"Almost cut my hair happened just the other increases my paranoia,like looking in the mirror and seeing a police car"
"Though your brother's bound and gagged and they chained him to a chair,Won't you please come to Chicago..."
I remember when I got off the self induced psychosis,,how profoundly embarrassed I was that I believed that left wing swill.Apparently some of the flotsom and jetsom of the 60's are still out there poisoning the culture,running universities and Congressional commitees .I saw an antiwar rally the other day with a few old graybeards with ponytails.
I wanted to yell"Hey Rip Van Winkle wake up"The band has quit playing,the acid's all gone,time to ;oh I don't know grow up maybe.

2/17/2007 09:18:00 PM  
Blogger Kat said...

Somehow my gut tells me if OEF were the only war we were involved in, the same cast of characters would be undermining that effort as much as Iraq.

Actually, they were.

The reason I gave up my Democrat credentials and registered as an Independent (who voted republican the very next election in 2004), was because within weeks of 9/11, before we even went in, there were a ton of notable Democrats and their fellow travellers who were putting out some carp about how it was our fault we were attacked. They were saying that it was our foreign policy. They were saying that before we went to war we should examine these policies and make changes.

Then, two weeks after the war in Afghanistan began, I distinctly recall Teddy Kennedy, drunken slob that he is, making a speech about Afghanistan was a quagmire.

The raging about the number of troops in Afghanistan was well under way before Tora Bora, the type of armor (or lack of)(though, I hazard a guess that not one of these idiots actually read anything definitive on the Afghan/Russo war), the lack of protection, where were our allies, etc, etc, etc

In fact, Mrs. Clinton and several others made such statements on public television regarding the material and physical make up of our forces in Afghanistan that I seriously considered whether it was treason.

So, yes, it was the rolling campaign against OEF that made me give up my Democrat credentials and made me fully understand the decrepit and foul Socialist (marxist - take your pick) venal Vietnam leftist leftover lunacy that totally went against everything I believed in regards to defense of this nation had taken over the party.

Let me state clearly that it was not Iraq that had me dumping my party, it was Afghanistan.

You know, strangely, I still wasn't sure that it was Socialist/ Communism thing until I heard Kerry/ Edwards' campaign use the term "misery index". I read Marx, too.

Lieberman is the last of the old School Democrats. The rest are just a bunch SDS wannabe Weathermen that decided they didn't need to blow up the government to overthrow it, they just needed to get enough of them elected to congress.

2/18/2007 02:30:00 AM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

"That a government for the masses, of the masses and by the masses, should briefly flicker on the face of the earth." - Wretchard

You have a pattern of ending your essays with a profound line that could be the foundation for another.

2/18/2007 05:35:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Sorry Buddy!

I do have one observation though. I liked to watch online the Pentagon Channel feed because they had all of Rumsfeld's addresses and press conference, most of the latter of which were reliably punctuated by hilariously dismissive Rumsfeldian retorts to those brat-vicious journalists. The final post concerning Rumsfeld, besides his address to the troops, was his farewell ceremony speech. In it he reminisced about the Cold War, and remarked on the numerous demonstrations against the USA but virtually none against the USSR, particularly in Europe (and I don't know whether this is true; I brought it up with someone I know and he disputed it; I sure have never Heard of any against the USSR, nor seen pictures, however), and he remarked that he was reading Churchill's history of WW2, and that he feared that we may be in a gathering storm, title of the first volume in that history.

So I decided to get and read it, partly because I've discovered how much can be gleaned and inferred about national character and the profound effect of forgotten events on the course of international relations, and y'know what? The parallels with the present period are, frankly, Disturbing.

It's one thing when I, or whoever, make the comparison, left as we outside the Pentagon are to infer the general drift of US and enemy action via internet and tv/radio media, but it is quite another when a person as informed and, in my view, incisive as Rumsfeld feels as though the situation is similar enough to warrant comment in his farewell address. Indeed the arguments of the left/anti-war/isolationist variety are Exactly the Same. Of course, that similarity is ramified by the Leninist critique, so perhaps it is unwise to be too convinced that events, rather than solipsism, drive the similarity, but man, it isn't exactly comforting to read pages and pages of parliamentary debates and press releases over a period of a decade and more and find such a strong echo.

2/18/2007 04:38:00 PM  
Blogger Whitehall said...

Foreign interference in the affairs of the Republic is a well-recognized risk - the Federalist Papers discuss it.

Could it be that part of the uproar from the Left on the NSA monitoring of foreign communications was their fear that those links might be exposed?

Applying Occam's Razor to the positions of many US leftist favors such a connection. The other plausible candidate is organized cultural suicide.

2/19/2007 12:50:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger