If he's a cowboy, I'm the Queen of Sheba.
dyslexia wrote:Absolutely true, i say and and post exactly what I think, in contrast with the bullshit from the right.
So Good Ole Dys, the Right on A2K post something other than what they actually think?
That's interesting.
In other words, they believe all the tripe you and your confreres lay out but petulantly choose to post something in opposition.
So America is not divided between Left and Right, but Proud Left and Bratty Left?
You know, it's not quite in keeping with the Good Ole Dys personae to lash out with some emotion fueled idiotic statement such as you just posted.
Having a bad time of late?
dyslexia wrote:Absolutely true, i say and and post exactly what I think, in contrast with the bullshit from the right.
So Good Ole Dys, the Right on A2K post something other than what they actually think?
That's interesting.
In other words, they believe all the tripe you and your confreres lay out but petulantly choose to post something in opposition.
So America is not divided between Left and Right, but Proud Left and Bratty Left?
You know, it's not quite in keeping with the Good Ole Dys personae to lash out with some emotion fueled idiotic statement such as you just posted.
Having a bad time of late?
I've postulated he's having issues with kidney stones, but it's unconfirmed as of yet.
Ticomaya wrote:I've postulated he's having issues with kidney stones, but it's unconfirmed as of yet.
Can't be. Crusty old prospecters like Dys pass "stones" the way a twelve year old cow passes a calf.
Must be that he's having trouble with his rabbit ears - can't seem to get Oprah real clear.
More smoke and mirrors from the tico gang. For the record, Dys makes more sense in an uncomplete sentence than you lot make in paragraph after paragraph of your propaganda.
Remember the repuglican talking point about "undermining the CiC" and all the attacks on Democrats for their legitmate concerns on an illegal and immoral war.
A head's up. As Jon Stewart has noted about republican talking points. There's no logic in propaganda. Another posting.
Quote:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/defeatism-and-attacks-on-commander-in_14.html
Defeatism and attacks on the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war
We have a rule in our country that "attacking the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war" helps The Terrorists and emboldens our enemies.
...
In the wake of the Bush administration's engineering of the Israel-Lebanon U.N. resolution, it looks like the Commander-in-Chief has a lot of new enemies and the The Terrorists have a lot of new allies:
It seems that a whole slew of right wingers are now attacking the CiC; The National Review Editors, Dan Riehl, Michelle Malkin, Daily Pundit, ...
A few quotes.
Quote:
Bush's proud words of five years ago stand revealed as hollow and meaningless. What happened?
What happened was one of the biggest failures of leadership in Presidential history.
Bush turned out to be singularly ill-equipped for this task, both by skill and by temperament. His public relations management was curiously hesitant and badly timed, and, of course, his inabilty to speak effectively in public was a gigantic handicap. His temperament, it eventually became clear, was hesitant, overly calculating, timid, and "compassionate."
He abdicated the hard decisions in favor of political maneuvering and meaningless gestures.
The first administration of the first century of the American Third Millennium will, in my estimation, be remembered as one of the biggest failures of that century.
I'm hoping we can get through the next two years without any major disasters, ... He is a dangerous failure, and America will be well rid of him.
http://www.dailypundit.com/2006/08/george_bush_where_i_stand.php
It seems that even rabid rightwing nuts can sometimes see thru the crap. What's up with our local crew, Tico, Foxy, MM, ...?
What happened to this special Republican talking point?
Here's someone who agrees with George Bush.....
Quote:They Are Fascists
Monday 14 August 2006
Many of us are only concerned with reputation and image, our image in the media, and the reputation of the Muslims in the world, but they do not care about reforming the original source, their children.
When US President George W. Bush described those who plotted to kill thousands of passengers in ten airliners as Muslim fascists, protests from a number of Islamic societies in the west and the east were voiced against this description.
What is wrong with using a bad adjective to describe a terrorist as long as he is willing to personally call himself an Islamist; declares his stance, schemes, and aims; while his supporters publicly call for killing of those whom they consider infidels, or disagree with them religiously or politically.
The strange thing is that the protesting groups, which held a press conference, would better have held it to denounce the deeds of those affiliated to Islam, who harmed all Muslims and Islam.
Bush did not say that the Muslims were fascists; he said that the Muslim fascists were the problem, i.e. he distinguished between an extremist group and the general innocent peaceful Muslims. Yes, fascism is a word that has bad connotations, and is used here to approximate the meaning to the listeners. The westerners know that fascism is an extremist nationalist movement, which emerged from the European society, and was responsible for destructive wars caused by its premises, which are based on discrimination, racism and hatred. This approximation is correct when you apply it to the literature of the Islamic extremists. The same as the Europeans fought fascism and the fascists by word and by gunpowder, the world will fight the extremist Islamists. This is what the good Muslims, who are at the forefront of those hunting down Al-Qaeda, do; the same as the Muslim who exposed the latest conspiracy to hijack the airliners, when he hastened to inform the security authorities when he suspected what was happening in the neighborhood.
This is why I do not understand what those people - who want to protect reputation and image from the westerners - want to call the Muslim extremists who resort to violence? Do they want to call them Khawarij (The earliest Islamic sect, which traces its beginning to a religious-political controversy over the Caliphate)? The problem is that no one (in the west) understands its historical meaning. Do they call them by their names only, such as Osama, Ayman, Muhammad, and Zamani? Do they call them according to the sarcastic Egyptian way: "people who should remain nameless?"
Describing them as fascists in the west is better than all the bad adjectives that rightly or wrongly have been attributed to them. This is because as far as the westerners are concerned, fascism means a specifically defined group that still lives within their societies, is from their ethnic groups and religion, and hence distinguishes between them and the others.
What is more important than preoccupation with preserving the image is to rectify the situation, and to confront the extremists among us. The majority of the westerners did not know anything about Islam and Muslims until Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, Muhammad Ata, and the culprits of the London explosions called themselves Islamists, and started to use the Koran and the Islamic historical nomenclatures. You cannot call the Red Brigades Movement anything g other than what they call themselves, and there is no escape from calling them Italian communists; the same applies to the National Front in Britain, which is described as a Nazi and fascist movement.
At the end, describing rotten apples as rotten does not make the people hate eating good apples. The same applies to the Muslims; there are one billion Muslims in the world, and the world has no option other than dealing with them, and hunting down the evil minority among them. We have wasted a long time since the seventies in being preoccupied with protesting against nomenclatures and images. This is despite the fact that these people hijack civilian airliners, kill people in restaurants, and justify their actions by using pan-Arab or Islamic descriptions. To describe a Muslim as terrorist is natural if he is a terrorist, the same as you do with a Colombian drug smuggler, an Italian Mafioso, a Russian butcher, a British Nazi, or a US right-wing extremist.
http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=5994
Intrepid wrote:mysteryman wrote:dyslexia wrote:BernardR wrote:Advocate says that Bush is getting "revenge" for 9/11
Was that akin to Roosevelt saying that Pearl Harbor was a day of infamy and then loosing America's military power against Japan?
Well the thing is Possum FDR did not attack Nova Scotia because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor
Your right,he didnt.
Instead,he declared war on Germany.
You are wrong MM. Even this Canadian knows that Hitler declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941. FDR declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. Three days later, Germany declared war on the U.S.
You are 100% correct.
Now,why did we go to war against Germany?
They were no threat to us,they had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor,they could not hurt us economically or militarily,so what was the reason?
Because they declared war on us?
That sounds like a "mouse that roared"scenario,doesnt it.
mysteryman wrote:Intrepid wrote:mysteryman wrote:dyslexia wrote:BernardR wrote:Advocate says that Bush is getting "revenge" for 9/11
Was that akin to Roosevelt saying that Pearl Harbor was a day of infamy and then loosing America's military power against Japan?
Well the thing is Possum FDR did not attack Nova Scotia because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor
Your right,he didnt.
Instead,he declared war on Germany.
You are wrong MM. Even this Canadian knows that Hitler declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941. FDR declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. Three days later, Germany declared war on the U.S.
You are 100% correct.
Now,why did we go to war against Germany?
They were no threat to us,they had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor,they could not hurt us economically or militarily,so what was the reason?
Because they declared war on us?
That sounds like a "mouse that roared"scenario,doesnt it.
You are 100% correct.
Now, why did we go to war against Iraq?
They were no threat to us, they had no WMD's, they had nothing to do with the attack on Sept. 11, they could not hurt us economically or militarily, so what was the reason?
Oil? Revenge? To bring democracy? The US could not stay in Saudi Arabia any longer because the Saudis wanted the US out of the HolyLand, which included bin Laden (who is a Saudi). The US needed a new strategic location: enter - Iraq.
Neither Iraq nor the US declared war on one another BTW
Giant U.S. embassy rising in Baghdad
chew on this one
War, Lies and WMDs
by Richard Cummings
Is there an ethical distinction between lying to get your country out of a war and lying to get your country into one? DeGaulle did the former when, in a room filled with French officers, he proclaimed "Algerie Francaise!" only to win power and pull out of a long, drawn out colonial war that had left hundreds of thousands dead and which had left France drained. The preponderance of the evidence strongly suggests that Bush did the latter when he said the existence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction was sufficient reason to go to war with Iraq.
Saddam Hussein was under an obligation to destroy his WMDs under the terms that ended the first Iraq war. To justify a second Iraq war to implement a regime change, Bush needed to show that Saddam Hussein was in violation of those terms. His basic instrument was United Nations Resolution 1441. In order to get a second resolution to satisfy his only real ally, Britain, he needed evidence that the U.N. inspectors were failing and that WMDs did, indeed, exist.
To this end, Colin Powell trotted out photos of vehicles that may or may not have been mobile weapons labs and produced statements by defectors that the WMDs did exist. To this spectacle, America and Britain added an obsolete dissertation by a graduate student published in an Israeli journal from an institution for research in international affairs funded by Ronald Lauder, and forged documents from Niger about Saddam's attempts to purchase uranium for making nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Bush and his minions, including Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice kept repeating that the WMDs were there, and that there were proven Iraqi ties to Al Queda, the other justification for the war being that it was somehow related to the war on terrorism. There is still no concrete proof of any Iraq-Al Queda connection.
An army officer, a key source in Kirkuk, reports that not only is the MEK (Mujahaiden Badr Corps) not a pro-Al Queda operation with ties to Iran, as the Bush administration asserted, it is opposed to the regime in Iran and has been fighting Iranian para-military units in Northern Iraq. Well equipped and superbly trained, the MEK did fight with Saddam Hussein against Iran, but only for the purpose of toppling the Mullahs. Most of the upper level MEK commanders and a very significant minority of their troops are women, so they hardly qualify as Fundamentalist terrorists. When Condoleeza Rice said their base in Northern Iraq where they trained was tied to Al Queda, she was lying through her teeth. She knew exactly who and what they were. The Army source in Kirkuk reports that Rumsfeld is considering using them in an invasion of Iran, the way he used the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The only difference is that the MEK is a far superior fighting force. It is currently under U.S. Army protection against the Iranian para-military units.
Moreover, David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security and a former U.N. nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq, has said, "We conclude that the large number of deployed weapons the administration said that Iraq had was not nearly as sophisticated as the administration claimed." And the discovery of two possible mobile biological weapons labs falls far short of the claims that Bush and members of his administration made before the war.
It was Bush, himself, who said in an October 2002 speech, "We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons?"
The Bush administration also accused France and Germany with providing Iraq with technology in the form of precision switches that could be used to detonate nuclear bombs. In actuality, as The New York Times reported, the switches were presented as spare parts for medical equipment and French authorities had immediately barred the sale.
Was this a Hitlerian use of the "big lie" technique ("Repeat a lie often enough and the people will believe it. The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed.") or did the Bush administration actually believe that these things existed? And if it were a matter of lying, is lying about war any better or worse than lying about sex? When Clinton denied that he had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinski, his position was that there had been no penetration. Of course, he lied under oath, which is not the same thing as lying in a speech or a press conference. But if the lies add up to what can be called an "abuse of power," it starts to become something much more troubling than the inability to acknowledge that fellatio is indeed sexual, the major difference being that in the case of abuse of power, it is the country and its people who are violated. And abuse of power is abuse of power, whatever the nutty professor, Leo Strauss, might have said.
But before one can answer any of these questions, one must first understand that in Washington, knowledge is power. And since the basic game in Washington is getting power, it follows that having exclusive access to knowledge is the essential ingredient for the accumulation of power. Which is why the director of the CIA is always one of the most powerful figures in Washington. As head of the CIA, he is also the DCI, the Director of Central Intelligence, meaning that all intelligence flows through him. Such agencies as the NSA, the DIA, Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence, and any other agency involved in intelligence, report to the DCI. As since it is the head of the CIA who briefs the president every morning on matters of intelligence, it is he who defines the arcane realm of intelligence and its consequences to the chief executive, who is also commander in chief of the armed forces.
This is not a situation that sits well with Donald Rumsfeld, the SECDEF, as he is known in the corridors of power. Rumsfeld sees himself more as the Secretary of War (as that cabinet position was once known) than as the Secretary of Defense. He is not into defending. He is into attacking. He sees his task as defining who the enemy is and then obliterating him. It is inconceivable to him that he must wait for the intelligence gathered by his own military intelligence agencies to flow through George Tenet, who then interprets it to the President, before he can act on it. It quickly became obvious to him that he needed to bypass this bureaucratic hierarchy.
To this end, he allowed Paul Wolfowitz, his Deputy Secretary, to create the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, the "Cabal," as Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, has said they call themselves. Its director is Abram Shulsky, a disciple of Leo Strauss (who said lying by the leader was OK), who reports to Under-Secretary of Defense, William Luti, a retired Navy captain who was a strong supporter of war with Iraq. But with a small staff and limited resources, it was not likely that this office could, by itself, effectively find the WMDs. And while it did work to secure the cooperation of the leaders of the Iraqi National Congress, including its leader, Ahmed Chalabi, who had secured secret CIA funding, it was not so much a collector of intelligence as a receiver of it. The beauty of the Office of Special Plans, is that it does not fit into the hierarchy that must report to the DCI. It reports directly to Rumsfeld, himself. Rumsfeld needed a way to get intelligence in such manner as to circumvent the DCI, so he, with his own direct access to the President, could contradict what George Tenet was telling him.
Enter Science Application International Corporation (SAIC), the world's largest private "Information-Technology" ("I-T") company, which, since January 23, 2003, is a major Department of Defense contractor. A Fortune 500 company with annual revenue of $5.9 billion, it is the world's largest consulting firm and one of the top 100 defense contractors. Its Board of Directors includes Bobby Inman, Admiral USN, (Ret.), once regarded as anti-Israel and forced to withdraw as a candidate to head the CIA, but now, more than willing to make amends for the right price. SAIC is a leader in biomedical research and has provided biomedical information to the Federal government. It is involved in nuclear energy and in chemical research, providing "terrorism response training" and "inspection technology" for the defense industry. It currently aids the United States Government in establishing "a formidable presence to arrest or even prevent Global terrorist activities." It boasts: "SAIC's national security efforts reach across all branches of the military and support the full spectrum of military operations - from peace keeping and humanitarian missions to major conflicts. SAIC also helps the Department of Defense, the FBI and other agencies combat terrorism, cybercrime and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
In actuality, as sources in the Pentagon report, SAIC is the vehicle for the information Special Plans has been receiving. And it, in turn, according to sources in Jerusalem, has been receiving information from Israeli sources involved in chemical and biological warfare and from the Mossad, which, increasingly, has grown so suspicious of the CIA, it has become sufficiently alienated from it to prefer to cooperate with Rumsfeld rather than with Tenet. Israel rejected the Tenet plan and resents the fact that the CIA has been put in charge of overseeing the implementation of the Road Map. According to inside sources in Tel Aviv, Sharon suspects Tenet of being pro-Palestinian and regards giving him information as counter-productive. Which is why, as Seymour Hersch reported in The New Yorker, Tenet is getting beaten up and morale at the Agency is at an all-time low.
Meanwhile, according to the Israeli sources, the Mossad gets a considerable amount of its information from its Iraqi operatives, most of which are from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), including Ahmad Chalabi, who is a virtual Mossad operative. Mossad's objective is to make Chalabi, who is currently looked upon with suspicion by the CIA, so indispensable to the Americans, that he will end up organizing, if not heading, the eventual Iraqi government. Indeed, he is rapidly becoming L. Paul Bremmer III's pet rock. To the Israelis, he is the only alternative to an Islamic republic, something that is anathema to them and totally unacceptable because of its inevitable threat to Israeli security. And while it is true that, on the surface, the Pentagon is running Chalabi, he is ultimately a creature of Israeli intelligence, which now says, as it has been widely reported, that the WMDs it identified to Bush have been smuggled out of Iraq and are now in Syria, where Israel wants the next regime change.
There is a rationale to what the Israelis have been doing in providing their information with regards to the WMDs. Bush wanted his war because, a White House source related, Karl Rove told him that it would keeps his polls up. As long as the war against terrorism goes on forever, which the invasion of Iraq now appears to guarantee, given the suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, Bush won't fall victim to his father's fate, when his victory in Iraq was forgotten by the time the election came around. He wanted it also because it would rid Saudi Arabia of its only military threat, so American troops could leave the Islamic Holy Land. The Israelis wanted him to buy into the WMD basis for the war, so he would eventually have to turn against Syria to prove he was right. Israel has openly called for a "regime change" in Syria. With the suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and again in Israel, the heat is on again. Another major terrorist attack in America and Bush will blame Syria and/or Iran. And the worse it gets, the bigger the SAIC contract will be. Does SAIC want to see Bush re-elected? Does Roger Clemens throw right-handed?
So did Bush lie? It all depends on how one defines "lie." Coriolanus "dissembled," which is defined as "to hide under a false appearance, to put on the appearance of: SIMULATE: to put on a false appearance: conceal facts, intentions, or feelings under some pretense."
Shakespeare wrote:
"What have you done? Behold! The heavens do ope,
the gods look down, and this unnatural scene
They laugh at. Oh my mother! Mother! O!
You have won a happy victory to Rome;
But for your son, believe it, O believe it,
Most dangerously you have with him prevail'd,
If not most mortal to him. But let it come."
De Gaulle won a kind of victory for France by dissembling. Because humans are misled by rhetoric, as Heidegger said, what he did was probably right, but it was the opposite of Leo Strauss' political philosophy because it was the reverse of the interventionism Strauss advocated. But maybe most Americans simply don't care about any of this and are prepared to take Bush's word for it, or simply let him get away with it, because they have no interest in politics and would like to have someone else take care of everything for them. What do they care if Leo Strauss is, in actuality, the theorist of choice of the new Military-Industrial Complex.? But as Pericles observed, "Just because you don't take an interest in politics, doesn't mean that politics won't take an interest in you."
May 22, 2003
Richard Cummings [send him mail] taught international law at the Haile Selassie I University and before that, was Attorney-Advisor with the Office of General Counsel of the Near East South Asia region of U.S.A.I.D, where he was responsible for the legal work pertaining to the aid program in Israel, Jordan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. He is the author of a new novel, The Immortalists, as well as The Pied Piper - Allard K. Lowenstein and the Liberal Dream, and the comedy, Soccer Moms From Hell. He holds a Ph.D. in Social and Political Sciences from Cambridge University and is a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.
Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com
Richard Cummings Archives
Again, the hypocrisy, the doublespeak, the delusions of people who lie so readily, they can't keep their lies straight.
Quote:
George Bush is Right.......... Kind Of
Cognitive dissonance
By Michael Barone
August 15, 2006
Last Tuesday, anti-Iraq war candidate Ned Lamont beat Sen. Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary. On Thursday, British authorities arrested more than 20 British Muslims who were plotting to blow up American airliners over the Atlantic Ocean.
Tuesday was a victory for the angry antiwar left that set the tone in the Democrats' 2003-04 presidential cycle and seems likely to set the tone in 2007-08. But last Thursday reminded us there are, as George W. Bush has finally called them, Islamic fascist terrorists who want to kill us and destroy our way of life.
The Thursday lesson was not one last Tuesday's victors wanted to learn. Left-wing bloggers played an important part in Mr. Lamont's victory. Here's the reaction of one of them, John Aravosis, to the red alert ordered here in response to the British arrests: "Do I sound as if I don't believe this alert? Why, yes, that would be correct. I just don't believe it. Read the article. They say the plot had an 'al Qaeda footprint.' Ooh, are you scared yet?"
We are looking at cognitive dissonance. The mindset of the left blogosphere is that there's no real terrorist threat out there. We wouldn't have any serious problem if we would just do something different -- raise the minimum wage or reduce the number without health insurance (the first issue Mr. Lamont mentioned on election night), withdraw from Iraq or (as some left bloggers suggest) sell out Israel.
As for Mr. Lamont, on victory night he mentioned his policy to handle the nuclear threat posed by Iran: We should "bring in allies" and "use carrots as well as sticks." He evidently failed to notice we deputized Britain, France and Germany to negotiate with Iran for three years and that Iran was offered plenty of carrots and has not been threatened with many sticks. Once again, a disconnect with reality.
The mullahs and Iran's Holocaust-denying President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad want to destroy Israel and damage to United States as much as they can. They say so over and over again. They hate our way of life, our freedoms and our tolerance. Unfortunately, there's no obvious and easy way to handle the Iranian regime, just as there was no obvious and easy way to handle Adolf Hitler in the late 1930s.
At least Neville Chamberlain was made of sterner stuff. His Tuesday was the Munich agreement in September 1938, when he and the French persuaded Czechoslovakia to give up its borderlands to Hitler. He was cheered by vast crowds eager to avoid the horrors of war. His Thursday came in March 1939, when Nazi troops marched into Prague.
Chamberlain proceeded to build up Britain's military forces and to embark on a vigorous diplomacy to cabin Hitler in. He realized instantly he had been, as Winston Churchill said in his funeral oration in the House of Commons, "deceived by a wicked man." He prepared to call Churchill, his bitter critic on Munich, into government. Chamberlain's diplomacy ultimately failed: Hitler wanted war too much. But Chamberlain stayed true to his countrymen, yielding his place to Churchill and strenuously supporting him when Britain was in peril.
Can we expect as much of our left? It seems doubtful. Our left criticized George W. Bush when the New York Times revealed that the National Security Agency was surveilling telephone calls from al Qaeda suspects overseas to the United States. Now it appears the United States surveilled the British terrorists, who made phone calls to the United States. The left cried foul when the New York Times revealed that the United States was monitoring money transfers at the SWIFT bank clearinghouse in Brussels. Now it appears there was monitoring of money transfers by the British terrorists in Pakistan. On Tuesday, the left was gleeful that it was scoring political points against Mr. Bush. On Thursday, it seemed the supposedly controversial NSA surveillance contributed to savings thousands of lives.
Joseph Lieberman is criticized for saying, "I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us -- more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet communists we fought during the long Cold War. We cannot deceive ourselves that we live in safety today and the war is over, and it's why we have to stay strong and vigilant."
That view didn't prevail on Tuesday. But it sure made sense on Thursday.
JTT wrote:Again, the hypocrisy, the doublespeak, the delusions of people who lie so readily, they can't keep their lies straight.
Quote:
George Bush is Right.......... Kind Of
Right on, JTT. Some folks just prefer delusion because then they don't have to deal with what IS. As William Rivers Pitt said:
"George W. Bush and his people can hold forth about the wonders of democracy and peace and can condemn worldwide violence in solemn tones. Until the US stops being the world's largest arms dealer, these words from our government absolutely reek of hypocrisy."
The sum total of Tico's discussion, above.
What's wrong with you, Tico? You've never been much for honesty but my last posting was right on target, the aftermath of Bush and bushites.
You can't simply dismiss the hypocrisy by changing the subject, though you're mighty good at that tangent man. Tried to pull another tico.
