« The McLaughlin Group | Main | Classified, for about 5 minutes »

November 17, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452132569e200e54f87ad1d8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Thanking Our Troops:

Comments

cal1968

Forget your stupid tokens. Give them what they really want.
They want to come home, and they want to come home alive.
That is the best we can do for them. They are war weary.

They need to come home, yesterday.

Ree

I don't know who CAL1968 is maybe Jack right? My husband just retired and he volunteered more then once to deploy his brother is still in and has been to Afghanistan and Iraq and his bags are packed in case he needs to go back...nobody is tired except of the Socialist who hate this country, and use the War as a political crudgel to try and breakdown moral. Have you ever even served in the US Armed Services? You don't get to speak for anyone but yourself. You certainly don't get to speak for me or mine.

charlie

Thanks for your consideration and gratitude towards our troops, Monica and Ree!

"How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is,
To have a thankless child. (or citizen)"
Shakespeare

Our troops risk life and limb to protect us, and what do they get from the lib jerks among us? Spat in the face, and stabbed in the back!!

Who, then, we may ask, 'is the real enemy'?

M/M

Ree,

Thanks to you, your husband and your brother-in-law for serving our country. I was watching C-Span this morning and a soldier on leave from Afghanistan called in and expressed how committed he was to his mission and how demoralizing it is to hear that people are not supporting him.

I try to stay away from discussions about the war out of respect for the troops and their families, but I did want to post this message from Rush's site because it really expresses what our troops and their families are going through. We can't forget that these people are fighting for us and they need our support.


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23366#continue


Military moms have trouble watching television or reading the newspaper when they read over and over that their children are fighting or were wounded or were killed for nothing. Military moms hear their officemates, their neighbors, their fellow parishioners, sometimes even their other family members disparage the war effort, or famously declare that they “support the troops but not the war” as if that is a rational statement. Military moms hear and see that their sons and daughters names are used by anti-war politicians and activists in an effort to score political points, using their children’s blood and sacrifice as a cover. And military moms try not to be bitter, not to be angry, not to profane their children’s decision to protect and defend the United States. Military moms try to live up to their children who tell them: “Mom, don’t get angry at them. I am fighting to protect their right to be jerks.”


Dover Kitzmiller

Neo-cons like Monica Crowley placed the troops in the situation they find themselves today. I think it's rich that a spoiled ivy league brat like Monica Crowley posts messages thanking our troops, quotes John Stuart Mills, and posts photographs of herself posing with Don Rumsfeld. The Iraq war was justified under false pretenses by Crowley's ilk. I'm not going to suggest you enlist, Monica, because you would be more of a hindrance than a help (you might break a nail). But please have the decency to stop "thanking our troops" in a war where young lives and money are thrown away based on lies you defend.

SteveOk

As for neo-cons being responsible for this war, people like John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry voted to authorize this war. A vote for war brings with it the responsibility to see it through to victory, sadly many in the Democrat Party look at the polls and head for the hills, demanding surrender. Joe Lieberman is one of the few Democrats with the convictions to stand by his vote to support the troops. We need to have a "Grand Review" of the military sometime next year before Bush leaves office to honor the soldiers who participated in this war and honor the sacrifics they made. I should be on the same scale as the original "Grand Review" after the Civil War. The Democrats can hold their own rally and invite people like Jane Fonda to speak.

J. Pierpont Finch

Shattering Conventional Wisdom About Saddam's WMD's
By John Loftus
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, November 16, 2007
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F715A709-2614-4EA5-967C-F6151F94A364

Finally, there are some definitive answers to the mystery of the missing WMD. Civilian volunteers, mostly retired intelligence officers belonging to the non-partisan IntelligenceSummit.org, have been poring over the secret archives captured from Saddam Hussein. The inescapable conclusion is this: Saddam really did have WMD after all, but not in the way the Bush administration believed. A 9,000 word research paper with citations to each captured document has been posted online at LoftusReport.com, along with translations of the captured Iraqi documents, courtesy of Mr. Ryan Mauro and his friends.

This Iraqi document research has been supplemented with satellite photographs and dozens of interviews, among them David Gaubatz who risked radiation exposure to locate Saddam’s underwater WMD warehouses , and John Shaw, whose brilliant detective work solved the puzzle of where the WMD went. Both have contributed substantially to solving one of the most difficult mysteries of our decade.

The absolutists on either side of the WMD debate will be more than a bit chagrinned at these disclosures. The documents show a much more complex history than previously suspected. The "Bush lied, people died" chorus has insisted that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever after 1991 - and thus that WMD was no good reason for the war. The Neocon diehards insist that, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the treasure-trove is still out there somewhere, buried under the sand dunes of Iraq. Each side is more than a little bit wrong about Saddam's WMD, and each side is only a little bit right about what happened to it.

The gist of the new evidence is this: roughly one quarter of Saddam's WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990's. Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid to late 1990's. The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam's nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003. His nuclear weapons equipment was hidden in enormous underwater warehouses beneath the Euphrates River. Saddam’s entire nuclear inventory was later stolen from these warehouses right out from under the Americans’ noses. The theft of the unguarded Iraqi nuclear stockpile is perhaps, the worst scandal of the war, suggesting a level of extreme incompetence and gross dereliction of duty that makes the Hurricane Katrina debacle look like a model of efficiency.


Without pointing fingers at the Americans, the Israeli government now believes that Saddam Hussein’s nuclear stockpiles have ended up in weapons dumps in Syria. Debkafile, a somewhat reliable private Israeli intelligence service, has recently published a report claiming that the Syrians were importing North Korean plutonium to be mixed with Saddam’s enriched uranium. Allegedly, the Syrians were close to completing a warhead factory next to Saddam’s WMD dump in Deir al Zour, Syria to produce hundreds, if not thousands, of super toxic “dirty bombs” that would pollute wherever they landed in Israel for the next several thousands of years. Debka alleged that it was this combination factory/WMD dump site which was the target of the recent Israeli air strike in Deir al Zour province..


Senior sources in the Israeli government have privately confirmed to me that the recent New York Times articles and satellite photographs about the Israeli raid on an alleged Syrian nuclear target in Al Tabitha, Syria were of the completely wrong location. Armed with this knowledge, I searched Google Earth satellite photos for the rest of the province of Deir al Zour for a site that would match the unofficial Israeli descriptions: camouflaged black factory building, next to a military ammunition dump, between an airport and an orchard. There is a clear match in only one location, Longitude 35 degrees, 16 minutes 49.31 seconds North, Latitude 40 degrees, 3 minutes, 29.97 seconds East. Analysts and members of the public are invited to determine for themselves whether this was indeed the weapons dump for Saddam’s WMD.


Photos of this complex taken after the Israel raid appear to show that all of the buildings, earthern blast berms, bunkers, roads, even the acres of blackened topsoil, have all been dug up and removed. All that remains are what appear to be smoothed over bomb craters. Of course, that is not of itself definitive proof, but it is extremely suspicious.


It should be noted that the American interrogators had accurate information about a possible Deir al Zour location shortly after the war, but ignored it:

"An Iraqi dissident going by the name of "Abu Abdallah" claims that on March 10, 2003, 50 trucks arrived in Deir Al-Zour, Syria after being loaded in Baghdad. …Abdallah approached his friend who was hesitant to confirm the WMD shipment, but did after Abdallah explained what his sources informed him of. The friend told him not to tell anyone about the shipment."


These interrogation reports should be re-evaluated in light of the recently opened Iraqi secret archives, which we submit are the best evidence. But the captured document evidence should not be overstated. It must be emphasized that there is no one captured Saddam document which mentions both the possession of WMD and the movement to Syria.


Moreover, many of Saddam's own tapes and documents concerning chemical and biological weapons are ambiguous. When read together as a mosaic whole, Saddam's secret files certainly make a persuasive case of massive WMD acquisition right up to a few months before the war. Not only was he buying banned precursors for nerve gas, he was ordering the chemicals to make Zyklon B, the Nazis favorite gas at Auschwitz. However odious and well documented his purchases in 2002, there is no direct evidence of any CW or BW actually remaining inside Iraq on the day the war started in 2003. As stated in more detail in my full report, the British, Ukrainian and American secret services all believed that the Russians had organized a last minute evacuation of CW and BW stockpiles from Baghdad to Syria.


We know from Saddam’s documents that huge quantities of CW and BW were in fact produced, and there is no record of their destruction. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore, at least as to chemical and biological weapons, the evidence is compelling, but not conclusive. There is no one individual document or audiotape that contains a smoking gun.

There is no ambiguity, however, about captured tape ISGQ-2003-M0007379, in which Saddam is briefed on his secret nuclear weapons project. This meeting clearly took place in 2002 or afterwards: almost a decade after the State Department claimed that Saddam had abandoned his nuclear weapons research.

Moreover the tape describes a laser enrichment process for uranium that had never been known by the UN inspectors to even exist in Iraq, and Saddam's nuclear briefers on the tape were Iraqi scientists who had never been on any weapons inspector’s list. The tape explicitly discusses how civilian plasma research could be used as a cover for military plasma research necessary to build a hydrogen bomb.

When this tape came to the attention of the International Intelligence Summit, a non-profit, non-partisan educational forum focusing on global intelligence affairs, the organization asked the NSA to verify the voiceprints of Saddam and his cronies, invited a certified translator to present Saddam’s nuclear tapes to the public, and then invited leading intelligence analysts to comment.

At the direct request of the Summit, President Bush promptly overruled his national intelligence adviser, John Negroponte, a career State Department man, and ordered that the rest of the captured Saddam tapes and documents be reviewed as rapidly as possible. The Intelligence Summit asked that Saddam's tapes and documents be posted on a public website so that Arabic-speaking volunteers could help with the translation and analysis.

At first, the public website seemed like a good idea. Another document was quickly discovered, dated November 2002, describing an expensive plan to remove radioactive contamination from an isotope production building. The document cites the return of UNMOVIC inspectors as the reason for cleaning up the evidence of radioactivity. This is not far from a smoking gun: there were not supposed to be any nuclear production plants in Iraq in 2002.

Then a barrage of near-smoking guns opened up. Document after document from Saddam's files was posted unread on the public website, each one describing how to make a nuclear bomb in more detail than the last. These documents, dated just before the war, show that Saddam had accumulated just about every secret there was for the construction of nuclear weapons. The Iraqi intelligence files contain so much accurate information on the atom bomb that the translators’ public website had to be closed for reasons of national security.

If Saddam had nuclear weapons facilities, where was he hiding them? Iraqi informants showed US investigators where Saddam had constructed huge underwater storage facilities beneath the Euphrates River. The tunnel entrances were still sealed with tons of concrete. The US investigators who approached the sealed entrances were later determined to have been exposed to radiation. Incredibly, their reports were lost in the postwar confusion, and Saddam’s underground nuclear storage sites were left unguarded for the next three years. Still, the eyewitness testimony about the sealed underwater warehouses matched with radiation exposure is strong circumstantial evidence that some amount of radioactive material was still present in Iraq on the day the war began.

Our volunteer researchers discovered the actual movement order from the Iraqi high command ordering all the remaining special equipment to be moved into the underground sites only a few weeks before the onset of the war. The date of the movement order suggests that President Bush, who clearly knew nothing of the specifics of the underground nuclear sites, or even that a nuclear weapons program still existed in Iraq, may have been accidentally correct about the main point of the war: the discovery of Saddam’s secret nuclear program, even in hindsight, arguably provides sufficient legal justification for the previous use of force.

Saddam’s nuclear documents compel any reasonable person to the conclusion that, more probably than not, there were in fact nuclear WMD sites, components, and programs hidden inside Iraq at the time the Coalition forces invaded. In view of these newly discovered documents, it can be concluded, more probably than not, that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program in 2001-2002, and that it is reasonably certain that he would have continued his efforts towards making a nuclear bomb in 2003 had he not been stopped by the Coalition forces. Four years after the war began, we still do not have all the answers, but we have many of them. Ninety percent of the Saddam files have never been read, let alone translated. It is time to utterly reject the conventional wisdom that there were no WMD in Iraq and look to the best evidence: Saddam’s own files on WMD. The truth is what it is, the documents speak for themselves.
-------------
John Loftus is President of IntelligenceSummit.org, which is entirely free of government funding, and depends solely upon private contributions for its support. The full research paper on Iraqi WMD, along with the supporting documents and photographs can be found at www.LoftusReport.com

J. Pierpont Finch

Dover Kitzmiller:

My dictionary defines a LIE as:

a statement or statements THAT ONE KNOWS TO BE FALSE which is put forth WITH THE INTENT TO DECEIVE.

I defy you to present evidence supporting your accusations that the current administration put forth statements or statements THAT THEY KNEW IN ADVANCE TO BE FALSE, and, in the process HAD THE INTENT TO DECEIVE.

Only an ignoramus would make the accusations you post!

FK

OK, really, enough with calling anyone who disagrees with the Administration's war policy a Socialist. That's just plain absurd.

Sending a text message to the troops is something out of junior high school. The most patriotic thing you can do is make plans to vote Democratic next November.

FK

I can't even believe what I read here. It's unreal.

So if I am against the war, that makes me against the troops? People, I don't blame our armed forces for what this Administration got us into. They are doing their jobs, which is to fight where the government tells them to fight.

But I don't support the Administration. They manipulated information to get us there, ignoring any information that did not support their view. And I also blame Congress for believing what the Administration told them. They should have known better than to trust Bush.

But when you put the blame on Congress, what you are saying is that Bush is not "the decider", as he claims sometimes -- when he is not trying to pass the buck for his awful decisions.

SteveOk

Ok, accuse me of being a "middle schooler" I'm still sending a text to the troops for doing a great job. Those that don't want to send a text message to the troops over Thanksgiving can text Jane Fonda or Rosie O'Donnell. The troops want to finish the job and believe that they can finish with just a little support from back home.

FK

It's arrogant of you to claim to speak for the troops. You don't.

Ree

"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night
because rough men stand ready
to do violence on their behalf." George Orwell

George Orwell knew a thing or two about Socialist and their agenda.

Iraq was a Socialist Country, Saddam's hero Joesph Stalin, we liberated a Socialist Country. The Socialist in this Country didn't like it! The Berlin Wall came down, and the Cold War was declared over. The Socialist just didn't disappear. A Liberal and a Socialist are not the samething.

The point that Monica somehow doesn't have the right as an American, to thank anyone she wants is a Socialist Concept not an American ideal. Censorship is not American Culture. Monica Crowley is an American Citizen and has the Right to Thank the American Military Service People or anyone else she wants. The critizm that somehow someone posting on this board has the right to decide what she can and can't do in a Free Country is totally wrong! We have Free Speech and Freedom of Expression in the United States of America. This isn't the Socialist States Of America. Monica doesn't remove the negative comments, that tells me she agrees with Free Speech Advocates.

FK

You are missing the point, Ree. I'm not saying that people can't express anything they want here. You make it sound like we want this site censored.

I'm using my freedom of speech to criticize the things said here. If Monica wants to thank the troops, she can do so. But I think that sending a text message like a little junior high school girl is sophomoric. My opinion. I said it. And I can say it.

Ree

Fredk2929,

I am not missing the point, you tell others commenting here on this blog, all the time to lay off the personal insults, and I agree with you but then you turn around and insult Monica. I have read those comments, Monica is no less deserving of respectful exchange, then anyone else.

The Military loves getting mail, Mail Day, as in Snail Mail is a big thing to them, getting mail from home BIG DEAL, they ask for it. Yes email is great and they do enjoy the email but they like the physical letter they can hold in their hands. This has always been true for as long as military people have been fighting wars. So maybe you think it is junior high school, you are not the one on the other end far from home recieving the message. It is Thanksgiving and so many are going to be far from home, and not in the greatest living conditions, we are fighting in cultures, that have been left behind, while the rest of us- our cultures were advancing.

I have read that Bill O'Reilly is in Afghanistan right now I wish some other media personalities, would do the same for Iraq, and report back from that War Front. If you feel strongly about the troops drop them a line and don't be surprized when you hear back from them...they want human contact, they are in tough places and they want to hear back from us...even text messages.

charlie

As our immune system is to our bodies; so are the troops to our nation.
Without them, we'd be as helpless and defenseless as a newborn babe.

Most of the fools who rant and rave against them, have never been in a fistfight, much less in a situation where the ememy is trying to kill you.

So, wherever they may be, let's try to give them all the encouragement and support we can. They may be tough hombres, but they too need to be appreciated.

Ree

All,

The Military does not make Policy, Politician's make Policy. The anti war crowd, isn't just made up of only ordinary Americans, against the Iraq War, some have other motives...maybe to swell the ranks the legitimate anti war people, are willing to overlook these people's political mechinations, that doesn't mean the rest of us are going to overlook, that the Iraq War, is being used for nefarious political ends...we have people fathers, mothers, brothers,sisters,aunts, uncles, cousins, neighbors ect...fighting and dying, I am saying STOP using them for political gain. I don't care what the political idealogy is that is being advanced, by this disrespectful treatment of people, who raised their hand, took an oath, then stood up and carried out their oath, to Protect and Defend, all of us, you know "We the People"

FK

Ree --

I'll concede that I have been sucked into the name-calling on this site, and I do not anticipate that that will continue as long as Finch and Charlie are here. They think that calling someone a Socialist or liberal is a valid counter-argument.

But it does start with Monica Crowley. And, based on what I read in her columns, she has not earned my respect. Her assertions are unsupported, and her attempts at humor (i.e., CLIT) are childish.

I see your point that, at this time of the year, the troops could use some good wishes, whether by letter, e-mail, or even text-message. Thank you for making that point intelligently, without resorting to insults. I always think of "texting" as something the kids do, but I stand corrected on this point.

Happy Thanksgiving to you.

FK

Correction: In my first paragraph above, I meant that "I DO anticipate that that will continue . . ."

However, I stick by the rest of what I said . . . including conceding the point on texting to Ree and wishing her a happy Thanksgiving.

Ree

Happy Thanksgiving!

cal1968

All this sentimental claptrap about thanking our troops is nauseous when they are being murdered over there, along with thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens.
When History looks back at George Bush, Rumsfeld, Chaney, and the other neocons who got our country into this mess, they will be forever condemned as the "murderers" that they are.
Of course it will be too late for the dead American servicemen and women who will have died as a direct result of the wrongdoings of those evildoers.
It will be a black page in our history, the blackest of all.

FK

The sentiments may mean something to our soldiers. While we sit in our comfortable homes and offices arguing on this blog, they are forced to fight this horrible fight.

cal1968

What in hell are our troops doing in 177 countries any way? What is this, the Roman empire?

When I mentioned sentimentality, I was referring to in gratuitous gesturing by Monica, Limbaugh Hannity and the like to justify a corrupt regime in Washington—not genuine individual concern which any American feels for our warriors who are trapped over there.

FK

Gotcha. Then your point is well-taken on sentimentality.

Jack Flynn

Holy Cow. Where do I begin?

Ree said: “nobody is tired except of the Socialist who hate this country, and use the War as a political crudgel to try and breakdown moral”

Besides thousands of the troops who have been ordered over there, the people who are also tired of the war are the millions upon millions of Americans who kicked the Repubs out in ’06 and will reaffirm their will in ’08. Are they all socialists, like you say Ree, “using the War as a political crudgel to try and breakdown moral”?
I don’t think so Ree. They understand the devastation the Decider and his cohorts have wreaked, by lying us into an unnecessary and immoral war, trampling on human rights granted by the Geneva Convention, endangering our Constitutional liberties, and ignoring
the suffering and will of the Iraqi people, our troops, and our own people here at home.

And Ree, I assume Cal is speaking for himself, but I agree with him 100 percent.


Charlie said: “As our immune system is to our bodies; so are the troops to our nation.
Without them, we'd be as helpless and defenseless as a newborn babe.”

If that is so, Charlie, we should keep those troops within the body perimeter, where they will be most effective, instead of hop-scotching them into 177 other bodies throughout the world. Most newborn babies have pretty darn good immune systems, excepting the ones who whose mothers have received poor pre-natal healthcare because of the wrongheaded priorities of the Bush administration.


Steveok,

Not ok Steve. The decision to get into this war falls on the Decider, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the Decider’s other neocon advisors. (Not to mention enablers, like Rice and moral cowards like Colin Powell.) Congress voted the way they did because they were provided with misleading and false information by George Tenent, Cheney and others.
Your biggest lie, Stevo, is the one you are telling yourself, when you ignore the real culprits, try to lay the blame on Kerry, Edwards and Clinton, and imply that those who are against this immoral war are out for “political gain”. Were the masses of American people who voted against the war in ’06 out for political gain, or did they finally understand the story behind the story, and realize that the Decider’s war policy was based on lies and against American interest and values?


M/M said:
“We can't forget that these people are fighting for us and they need our support.”

I take issue with that statement M/M. They are not fighting for us.
Have you forgotten M/M? “Us” voted against the war in ’06 and “Us” will state that even more emphatically in ’08.
They are following the orders of the Commander and Chief. That is why they are there.
If they were fighting for us, the National Guard would be back here in the U.S.A defending our borders and ports and put to work when natural and unnatural disasters occur.


Finchy,
You’re still crazy.


And finally, Monica.

Instead of dialing, “8-9-2-7-9”, Monica, how about dialing M for MURDER.
Because that is what you are supporting, Monica—not just Blackwater, but also the murder of our own men and women over there.

Jack Flynn

Fuel to the fire:

An excerpt from McClellan's soon to be released book, titled "What Happened".

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
There was one problem. It was not true.
I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."

J. Pierpont Finch

HERE IS THE OUTRAGEOUS WAY SOME OF OUR TROOPS ARE BEING THANKED!

11/19/07:

Wounded Soldiers Being Asked For Parts Of The Signing Bonuses Back

http://kdka.com/local/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) ― The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.

To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.

Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.

One of them is Jordan Fox, a young soldier from the South Hills.

He finds solace in the hundreds of boxes he loads onto a truck in Carnegie. In each box is a care package that will be sent to a man or woman serving in Iraq. It was in his name Operation Pittsburgh Pride was started.

Fox was seriously injured when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle. He was knocked unconscious. His back was injured and lost all vision in his right eye.

A few months later Fox was sent home. His injuries prohibited him from fulfilling three months of his commitment. A few days ago, he received a letter from the military demanding nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus back.

"I tried to do my best and serve my country. I was unfortunately hurt in the process. Now they're telling me they want their money back," he explained.

It's a slap for Fox's mother, Susan Wardezak, who met with President Bush in Pittsburgh last May. He thanked her for starting Operation Pittsburgh Pride which has sent approximately 4,000 care packages.

He then sent her a letter expressing his concern over her son's injuries, so she cannot understand the U.S. Government's apparent lack of concern over injuries to countless U.S. Soldiers and demands that they return their bonuses.

While he's unsure of his future, Fox says he's unwavering in his commitment to his country.

"I'd do it all over again... because I'm proud of the discipline that I learned. I'm proud to have done something for my country," he said.

But Fox feels like he's already given enough. He'll never be able to pursue his dream of being a police officer because of his wounds and he can't believe he's being asked to return part of his $10,000 signing bonus.

KDKA contacted Congressman Jason Altmire on his behalf. He says he has proposed a bill that would guarantee soldiers receive full benefit of bonuses.

everyone should EMAIL the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to protest this outrage!

J. Pierpont Finch

JACK FLYNN:

Take your medication - You're having delusions again!

C-Hay

Monica - this is fantastic. I forwarded this to everyone I know and posted it to my website:

http://c-hayes.townhall.com/g/8c62f71a-9061-42f0-abb0-419749e5452a

Michelle Malkin has picked up on this too - so thanks for spreading the word. Thanks for all you do.

charlie

HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL--except the atheists.

Wonder whom they'll be giving thanks to? Probably Marx!!

FK

Which clergyman do you follow, Up-Chuck? Frederick Waldron Phelps, Sr.?

Jack Flynn

Thank you Charlie. Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.

charlie

Freddy,

FYI, my clergyman is Dr. Frederick Eikerenkoetter, the man who sells 'good-luck charms'. If you send him a sizable donation, he'll send you something to change your luck. Good luck.

You are right. I am Upchuck. When I see what's going on here, and in the world, it makes me want to puke.

The comments to this entry are closed.