Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe punditocracy is buzzing about General Wesley Clark's critique of John McCain's readiness to be Commander-In-Chief.
"In national security terms, he's largely untested and untried," Clark told the Huffington Post earlier in June. On CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday, Clark elaborated: "In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions."
Clark said McCain's experiences as a POW in Vietnam made him a hero, but added: "I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."
After undermining the patriotism of Democrats for years, Republicans were quick to accuse Clark of attacking McCain's military service.
But in terms of offensiveness, what Clark said was nothing compared to Senator Joe Lieberman's appearance on the very same program.
Channeling his inner Dick Cheney, Lieberman predicted that electing Barack Obama as President could lead to another terrorist attack on US soil in 2009. "Our enemies will test the new president early," Lieberman said. "Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration."
Lieberman's comments come a week after McCain senior advisor Charlie Black predicted that another terrorist attack would be a "big advantage" for McCain.
Black's quip was quickly denounced, but Lieberman's latest salvo caused barely a peep of protest. When Republicans (and so-called "Independent Democrats" like Lieberman) attack Democrats as soft on national security, it's par for the course. But when the game is flipped, Republicans reach for the panic button.
Share this article
News & Analysis »
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrick Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Wonkette
RSS
Despite clear, repeated warnings in the summer prior to 911, Bush did NOTHING. Made no move whatsoever to keep Americans safe.
Yet, the GOP media-fuelled stereotype is that "they'll keep us safe from terrorists!"
Worst attack in history on American soil under the watch of which party? (I'm sure someone can surely blame Clinton, right?)
The simple truth is that the GOP has done nothing but use terror opportunistically to dump money into the military and the myriad "defense" contractors. 911 was the greatest gift the neo-cons could have ever asked for.
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 1:28pm
Ari, the difference between the two is Wesley Clark is an advisor for the Obama camp and Senator Joe Lieberman is speaking on his own behalf. Also, Liberman made a statement of fact, Clark did not.
"Our enemies will test the new president early," Lieberman said. "Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration."
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 1:35pm
"Our enemies will test the new president early," Lieberman said. "Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration."
And the Afghan prison was sprung by the Taliban in the 7th year of the GWOT.
Frauds.
Posted by RLawrence at 06/30/2008 @ 1:39pm
Freakshow:
I noticed you really didn't dispute my claim, that Bush did NOTHING in the face of evidence of pending terrorism, the worst terrorism we've seen on US soil--ever. You merely deflected the argument back to Clinton like I knew you would, and then follow with some ad hominems.
You're so predictable...
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 1:41pm
On the military side of things, Eisenhower, Clark, and Fallon would qualify on foreign policy issues. They direct foreign armies and were brought into contact with many foreign leaders through their duties. By way of contrast, McCain lead a Squadron made tactical decisions as opposed to strategic decisions. He never had the rank!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 06/30/2008 @ 1:44pm
"Ari, the difference between the two is Wesley Clark is an advisor for the Obama camp and Senator Joe Lieberman is speaking on his own behalf. Also, Liberman made a statement of fact, Clark did not. "
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 1:35pm
God, what are you a disciple of Alberto Gonzales, playing petty semantics? You know as well as anyone that Lieberman is a STAUNCH McCain supporter, and the difference between him and Clark in their respective "official" positions is inconsequential.
Whether or not Lie-berman uses Bush/911 as an example is equally irrelevant. He's still playing the old GOP, fear-mongering electoral strategy.
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 1:47pm
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 1:28pm
What warnings MATT!?!? The Intelligence community didn't even know who they were looking for. Everything the Clinton administration turned over to the Bush administration was vague at best. What came out after the 9/11 attacks was part of a CYA because the NSA, FBI and CIA did not do their jobs effectively and they were not cooperating with each other.
The 9/11 commission placed the blame squarely on the failures of the intelligence community's lack of imagination, bloated buearucracy, high turnover and underfunding. All of this was happening during the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 1:48pm
What warnings MATT!?!?
Gosh, really? "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE THE US"...George Tennet....none of this sounds familiar?
Despite what Bush and Cheney's handpicked "commission" may or may not have said, even the mainstream press acknowledges that yes, the administration received clear warnings before 911.
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 1:56pm
"God, what are you a disciple of Alberto Gonzales, playing petty semantics? You know as well as anyone that Lieberman is a STAUNCH McCain supporter, and the difference between him and Clark in their respective "official" positions is inconsequential."
"Whether or not Lie-berman uses Bush/911 as an example is equally irrelevant. He's still playing the old GOP, fear-mongering electoral strategy."
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 1:47pm
Petty semantics!? So what! Lieberman can support whomever he wishes and say what ever he likes. Being a staunch supporter won't cost him anything and it is not the same as being a representative advisor like Clark is to Obama. The positions are relevant and that's the difference.
And for your second question: Liberman cited a statement of fact. What facts did Wesley Clark have to cite that McCain's fighter pilot experience did qualify him to be CIC?
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 1:58pm
What facts did Wesley Clark have to cite that McCain's fighter pilot experience did qualify him to be CIC?
Ooops, that should read.. "did not" qualify him to be CIC?
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:00pm
Also, Liberman made a statement of fact, Clark did not.
"Our enemies will test the new president early," . . .
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 1:35pm
THAT'S a statement of fact?!?!?!?
Has Joe also told us who is going to win the World Series too?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/30/2008 @ 2:09pm
"Gosh, really? "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE THE US"...George Tennet....none of this sounds familiar?"
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 1:56pm
Being determined means nothing. They had few leads and the intelligence agencies were forced to rely heavily on satellite survellance to get the job done. The Clinton administation gutted them just like the millitary.
But more importantly, 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been avoided if Clinton had paid the Sudanese govt for Bin Laden's damn head in the first place.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:10pm
Lieberman's and Clark's official positions within the ranks of their respective campaigns matter to no one. My point is, who but you or someone picking with obsessive furvor for semantic inconsistencies, would care?
As to the other point-- fine. Being a fighter pilot, getting shot down and becoming a POW automatically qualifies one to be president. You are absolutely correct.
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 2:11pm
Being determined means nothing. They had few leads . . .
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:10pm
Yet, when Joe Lieberman speaks . . . its a "statement of fact!!!"
Posted by Hman23 at 06/30/2008 @ 2:15pm
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:10pm
ACook, these statements only further validate the notion that Republicans can't accept accountability for anything! I don't think Bill Clinton was perfect, in fact I wasn't even paying attention back then, and I'm certainly not a Clintonista today! But come on-- own up to your boy, GW! It's really childish to deflect everything, (IRAQ? REALLY???) back to Clinton!
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 2:15pm
What facts did Wesley Clark have to cite that McCain's fighter pilot experience did qualify him to be CIC?
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:00pm
And what facts does Joe Leiberman have to cite that "Our enemies will test the new president early?"
Posted by Hman23 at 06/30/2008 @ 2:17pm
Here we have seen in the past couple of weeks Obama attempting to "betray" the anti-war folks with more centrist comments and they are left with attacking John McCain's military experience.
Is there any decent American that doesn't understand the hatred the far left has for America and especially the military. They only tolerate someone like Clark as long as he's attacking conservatives. Other than that they go back into denouncing him as a war criminal for Kosovo and Bosnia.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/30/2008 @ 2:17pm
"THAT'S a statement of fact?!?!?!?"
"Has Joe also told us who is going to win the World Series too?"
Posted by Hman23 at 06/30/2008 @ 2:09pm
It is a statement of fact that Bin Laden staged an attack on the WTC during the first year of both Clinton and Bush presidencies.
If Joe knew who was going to win the World Series then good for him, because right now my hometown Atlanta Braves are getting their asses totally kicked this season.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:18pm
If Joe knew who was going to win the World Series then good for him, because right now my hometown Atlanta Braves are getting their asses totally kicked this season.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:18pm
If only you had Smoltz and Maddux back!
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 2:22pm
...but not that racist prick, John Rocker.
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 2:23pm
"Lieberman's and Clark's official positions within the ranks of their respective campaigns matter to no one. My point is, who but you or someone picking with obsessive furvor for semantic inconsistencies, would care?"
"As to the other point-- fine. Being a fighter pilot, getting shot down and becoming a POW automatically qualifies one to be president. You are absolutely correct."
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 2:11pm
MATT, I disagree. Clark's position does matter. You are a supporter of Obama and are free to say what you like about his candidacy, but you are not one of his advisors.
As for the other statement, I disagree with that one too. Clark did not need to remark on any of McCain's millitary record. That is one of McCains strongest abilities. He has a lot more vulnerabities that Clark could have targeted. It's like you trying to wrestle with a sumo wrestler.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:27pm
"...but not that racist prick, John Rocker."
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 2:23pm
See..something you and I both agree on...
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:28pm
I have personally met/interacted with Wesley Clark many times in the past 5 years. He's a jerk. But even a jerk can tell the truth. Objectively speaking (which rules out politics), service as a junior officer 40 years ago, being a POW, and commanding a training squadron, does not confer National Security Expertise on a presidential candidate. Willingness to serve says something about character, but NOT about judgement. I'm enjoying this election season. Senator McCain is about to receive an education in politics.
Posted by Hamiltonian at 06/30/2008 @ 2:35pm
lvliberty-Just because you are filled with hatred does not mean that the far left is,too.Don't put your emotions on other people.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/30/2008 @ 2:36pm
Wesley Clark has no position on Obama's campaign.
Posted by mss128 at 06/30/2008 @ 2:37pm
"If only you had Smoltz and Maddux back!"
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 2:22pm
Ughh, Smoltz is out for the entire season (again) and Maddux needs some serious shoulder therapy. Our relief pitcher, Rafael Soriano is on the DL too. Geez, why can't we get some healthier players?
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:38pm
See..something you and I both agree on...
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:28pm
Good, good. I'm glad for that.
But as for point #1, it clearly matters to you, but again, to whom else? It might be a huge deal, but no one else cares, so ultimately in the Court Of Public Opinion-- it doesn't matter.
Point #2, As a General, with considerably more millitary leadership experience than McCain, who better than to critiqe the backbone of the old man's campaign? His vulnerabilites are obvious, it's exposing McCain's "strengths" as the vulnerabilities that they are that Clark intended to do.
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 2:41pm
I'm no real fan of Clark, but he's right so I'm glad he said it: Combat service does not necessarily qualify one as presidential material.
Posted by william.harry13 at 06/30/2008 @ 2:43pm
Ughh, Smoltz is out for the entire season (again) and Maddux needs some serious shoulder therapy. Our relief pitcher, Rafael Soriano is on the DL too. Geez, why can't we get some healthier players?
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:38pm
They're too old now! Good luck getting a pitching staff as dominating as theirs was in the 90's ever again (without the Yankee's bankroll)!
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 2:46pm
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:18pm
You are of course ignoring the first sentence of what you quoted.
I could counter by saying Clark made a statement of fact because McCain was a POW.
Either way, what you intially psoted makes no sense.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/30/2008 @ 2:47pm
I see nothing wrong with what Clark said - it's totally true. The Repubs are up in arms because, really, it's the only thing McCain has going for him.
It's okay to denigrate Kerry's three Purple Hearts and Silver Star, but not okay to point out that service <> presidential qualification? That smacks of hypocrisy.
Posted by Balrog at 06/30/2008 @ 2:51pm
"Point #2, As a General, with considerably more millitary leadership experience than McCain, who better than to critiqe the backbone of the old man's campaign? His vulnerabilites are obvious, it's exposing McCain's "strengths" as the vulnerabilities that they are that Clark intended to do."
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 2:41pm
Granted Clark has more leadership experience, but he's not running for president. If he were, then you'd get no argument from me. But a fired two-star former general attacking a POW war hero, who flew combat missions, will not bode well in the eyes of the American public. They will accuse Obama of cowardice, and feel he's hiding behind Clark to divert attention from himself, having no military experience.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:51pm
Personally, I'd rather fly with a pilot that DIDN'T get shot down.
Posted by Balrog at 06/30/2008 @ 2:53pm
"You are of course ignoring the first sentence of what you quoted."
Posted by Hman23 at 06/30/2008 @ 2:47pm
I did answer your question. Go back and re-read what I said after LVL's post.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:55pm
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:51pm
Until people are reminded that military service is not a pre-requisite to becoming CIC, something that at least more than half of people recognize.
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 2:57pm
Most republicans rejected McCain, the war hero,in 2000 in favor of the coward who would not fight in a war he supported and,now,these GOP hypocrites are pretending to love this war hero that they rejected for a coward.They did not care that Bush/Rove trashed the war hero and rewarded them for doing so,but,now,these hypocrites are pretending to love the war hero and pretending to get upset if you say anything negative about him.It's a joke.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/30/2008 @ 2:59pm
"I see nothing wrong with what Clark said - it's totally true. The Repubs are up in arms because, really, it's the only thing McCain has going for him."
"It's okay to denigrate Kerry's three Purple Hearts and Silver Star, but not okay to point out that service <> presidential qualification? That smacks of hypocrisy."
Posted by Balrog at 06/30/2008 @ 2:51pm
Balrog, what Clark said was not a statement of fact. It was an attack. As for Kerry, he wasn't denegrated so much for his purple hearts, it was how he got them in the first place. And if his dumb ass hadn't open his mouth up about what he did to them afterwards and testifing before the senate in 1975, then I don't think anyone would have swiftboated like they did.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 3:01pm
Why is McCain in particular touted as a "war hero"? He got shot down, captured, and survived 5 years in The Hanoi Hilton. Plenty of other pilots got shot down and captured. What did McCain do that was so "heroic"?
Is McCain more of a war hero than, say, Col. Hal Moore? (Ia Drang valley; "We Were Soldiers Once, and Young")
Col James "Nick" Rowe? (wrote a book called "Five Years to Freedom" - nobody's ever heard of this guy, but HE is a hero)
Gene Csuti? (Marine Medic)
Posted by Balrog at 06/30/2008 @ 3:01pm
Balrog, what Clark said was not a statement of fact.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 3:01pm
Here's what Clark said: "I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."
Now, what part of that isn't a fact?
Are you saying that Clark DOES think getting shot down is qualification to become President?
Or are you saying that ANYONE that gets shot down is qualified to be President?
Or are you nitpicking the fact that the A4 Skyhawk isn't a fighter plane?
Posted by Balrog at 06/30/2008 @ 3:08pm
"Why is McCain in particular touted as a "war hero"? He got shot down, captured, and survived 5 years in The Hanoi Hilton. Plenty of other pilots got shot down and captured. What did McCain do that was so "heroic"?
Posted by Balrog at 06/30/2008 @ 3:01pm
Probably because his story was told the loudest and that he's the most visible POW in the Senate. But he's no more war hero than the rest who have served this great nation of ours with honor.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 3:09pm
I did answer your question. Go back and re-read what I said after LVL's post.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:55pm
No you did not. And I read it. You are still talking nonsense. Re-read mine. Clark's statement about McCain being a POW is one of fact too.
Your "fact/attack" line of argument is stupid.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/30/2008 @ 3:10pm
But he's no more war hero than the rest who have served this great nation of ours with honor.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 3:09pm
So he's not REALLY a war hero, just pumped up as one.
Posted by Balrog at 06/30/2008 @ 3:12pm
Is there any decent American that doesn't understand the hatred the far left has for America and especially the military.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/30/2008 @ 2:17pm
Have you stopped beating your wife, Luvvie?
Posted by Balrog at 06/30/2008 @ 3:14pm
But he's no more war hero than the rest who have served this great nation of ours with honor.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 3:09pm
But lets be real, the real service isn't to the country, it's to big business, Wall Street, and investment bankers. A real hero, defending our business interests.
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 3:17pm
Gene Csuti? (Marine Medic)
Posted by Balrog at 06/30/2008 @ 3:01pm
Carlos Hathcock (Marine sniper and war hero)
Posted by Benchrest at 06/30/2008 @ 3:22pm
"Here's what Clark said: "I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."
"Now, what part of that isn't a fact?"
Are you saying that Clark DOES think getting shot down is qualification to become President?
"Or are you saying that ANYONE that gets shot down is qualified to be President?"
"Or are you nitpicking the fact that the A4 Skyhawk isn't a fighter plane?"
Posted by Balrog at 06/30/2008 @ 3:08pm
Well, when you "think" something is true it usually implies the statement is subjective without having to back up the claim. However when you "know" something to be true, there is evidence to back up that same claim.
Second statement is subjective. The statement has no merits to stand on. I know of no other presidents that were shot down in Vietam that I can compare to.
Third statement, I don't know anything about fighter planes. I can make no claims.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 3:24pm
"But lets be real, the real service isn't to the country, it's to big business, Wall Street, and investment bankers. A real hero, defending our business interests."
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 3:17pm
My husband and my eldest son would disagree with you. He served in Vietnam and my son is headed to Afghanistan. I found out last week.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 3:30pm
McCain had been a POW before his run in 2000 and the GOP did not believe that that qualified him to be POTUS .They did not believe that his time in service or his time in the senate qualified him for the job of POTUS.They went with a guy who flew a bar stool during Nam and fell off of those and was captured by a toilet bowl which he bowed to..
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/30/2008 @ 3:41pm
"They went with a guy who flew a bar stool during Nam and fell off of those and was captured by a toilet bowl which he bowed to.."
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/30/2008 @ 3:41pm
IM, that's pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 3:47pm
McCain had been a POW before his run in 2000 and the GOP did not believe that that qualified him to be POTUS .They did not believe that his time in service or his time in the senate qualified him for the job of POTUS.They went with a guy who flew a bar stool during Nam and fell off of those and was captured by a toilet bowl which he bowed to..
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/30/2008 @ 3:41pm
Showing your best effort at being a jerk?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/30/2008 @ 3:47pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/30/2008 @ 3:41pm
Now THAT is what I would call a "statement of fact."
Posted by Hman23 at 06/30/2008 @ 3:50pm
Showing your best effort at being a jerk?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/30/2008 @ 3:47pm
Pales in comparison to yours...
Posted by Balrog at 06/30/2008 @ 3:51pm
LvLiberty-Is there anything in my statement that you can show that is not factual?
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/30/2008 @ 3:55pm
Posted by libzRfreaks at 06/30/2008 @ 3:45pm
Freakshow, you consistently demonstrate your intelligence and maturity by using the language of grown folks to illustrate your points.
Whether Clark said Kerry was qualified as CIC strictly based on military experience or not, so what? Does he speak for everyone on "the left"? Is qualification the same as a pre-requisite? Go read a book or two, learn a couple of definitions of some words bigger than the four-letter type of which you're more accustomed to, then pop off smarty pants!
You working up a good buzz, or are you already drunk?
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 3:57pm
It is an unfortunate symtom of our media-driven society that Wesley looked like Hollywood's version of a general so he got to be one.
Looking back on the Kerry candidacy, I would describe Clark's comments as 'swift-jetting' but it's so hard to apply the word 'swift' to anything that comes out of this empty uniform's mouth.
If Clark had anything approaching a three digit IQ, he would know that McCain has often made jokes about managing to get shot down. McCain has experience in the Senate that should be used to tout his Commander and Chief qualifications.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/30/2008 @ 4:01pm
My husband and my eldest son would disagree with you. He served in Vietnam and my son is headed to Afghanistan. I found out last week.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 3:30pm
No offense intened to you or them ACook. I suppose my cynicism should have been more clearly directed to the Masters of the Universe than to the human individuals involved. Whether someone considers themself an idealist, a pragmatist, or a cynic, ultimately there is only a reality that, in my opinion, is more dominated and motivated by profits than people may realize. The efforts of military families (yes John McCain's too) are admirable. It's my opinion that such bravery is too often used to serve causes beyond the rhetoric of what we are told it's for.
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 4:08pm
THE VOICE OF THE SUPERIOR INTELLECT.....
Posted by libzRfreaks at 06/30/2008 @ 3:59pm
Good to see you coming around son. Go on now and git...come back with useful information, facts, or anything beyond the vomit you spew around here.
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 4:12pm
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 4:12pm
The ignore feature will clean that mess up in a jiffy.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/30/2008 @ 4:16pm
'...Interim reports of the 9/11 Commission note that the FBI Ashcroft inherited from Janet Reno was a mess (the computer system was decrepit, 66 percent of its analysts were unqualified to do their jobs, intelligence collection was woefully mismanaged) and that the bureau and the Justice Department had not regarded counterterrorism as a top priority....Ashcroft had a lot of FBI issues on his plate: the Wen Ho Lee investigation, FBI agent Robert Hanssen's espionage, mishandling of documents in the Timothy McVeigh case, illegal campaign contributions originating in the People's Republic of China. Perhaps it was natural that, as a commission report says, the FBI's "counterterrorism strategy was not a focus of the Justice Department in 2001." Rather than acknowledge or explain this, Ashcroft came before the commission loaded for bear. He waved a mid-1990s Justice Department memo his department had just declassified, which he claims was the origin of the so-called wall that separated investigations of terrorists from criminal inquiries and which he and others blame for impeding counterterrorism efforts. This memo had been written by 9/11 commissioner Jamie Gorelick when she was Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration....' -- David Corn -- The Nation -- 15 April, 2004
'It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required…These instructions leave entirely to OIPR [the Office of Intelligence and Policy Review] and the [Justice Department's] Criminal Division when, if ever, to contact affected U.S. attorneys on investigations including terrorism and espionage…The most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating.' -- US Attorney Mary Jo White (a Clinton appointee), 1995 It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required.'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/30/2008 @ 4:23pm
The ignore feature will clean that mess up in a jiffy.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/30/2008 @ 4:16pm
I know. It's just not as much fun.
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 4:24pm
Unfortunately, I have to agree that the fact/opinion distinction is a little hazy. Both of the claims in question draw from known facts and inject their own beliefs to generate a conclusion.
Additionally, I don't see either of the statements as offensive, which is why the "Cheney-esque" label for Lieberman's statement was wholly unwarranted. What he said was literally "terrorist groups have tested new Presidents, see the last three Presidents, and they're likely to do so again." The correct response to make to him, I think, is that his point is non-unique. BOTH John McCain AND Barack Obama would be "new Presidents," so his analysis gives us no reason to believe there would be an early terrorist in an Obama administration and not in a McCain administration.
<i>Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/30/2008 @ 4:01pm </i>
I think that the part about McCain is right. I would argue that both his military experience and his experience with the Senate give him strong qualifications in national security.
Does working in the military give you strong credentials on national security? Not necessarily, though. What it DOES give you, however, is at least some sense of what Congressional policies look like on the ground, and even if you weren't a high-ranking general, that's still valuable.
The other piece of this, though, is McCain's subsequent experience in the Senate, serving for a long time on committees that dealt specifically with national security issues. THAT experience is unambigously relevent to McCain's national security credentials.
<i>Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 4:08pm </i>
When has what you're describing taken place? When has the military been used to serve uniquely financial (as opposed to actual national security) objectives? The closest case I can think of is Iraq, but I don't think that one really fits at all, and if you wanted to cite it, I'd be more than willing to engage you on it.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/30/2008 @ 4:44pm
Clark did not need to remark on any of McCain's millitary record. That is one of McCains strongest abilities.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 2:27pm
Well that is the relevant question, isn't it?
Wesley Clark is daring to point out that McCain (Boosh's Wingman) has no national command level experience, thus torpedoing the argument that he has better credentials than Obama.
Clark is right and as Colonel Jessup would say "you can't handle the truth."
Posted by skeletonman at 06/30/2008 @ 4:51pm
Posted by Thrawn at 06/30/2008 @ 4:44pm
Well, first you can name for me one military intervention that did not have finacial motivation (post WWII). Our economy, in this period, has been based on military Keyensianism, another term for the empire we've been assembling around the world. Defence contractors, and every company affilliated in this "industry", consistently profit during periods of conflict. Therefore, it's in the influential defence industry's best interest to engage ourselves in conflicts.
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 4:56pm
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/01/0081346
Yes, I cited this same site on another thread. Chalmers Johnson's record is hard to skoff at as well, given his own record as a cold warrior and experience writing intelligence estimates within the CIA.
The simple equation of Military Keynesianism is "war=money".
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 5:00pm
Posted by Thrawn at 06/30/2008 @ 4:44pm
We could even start with WWII, in which US Standard Oil profited from both sides of the conflict by selling fuel to Germany's fighter plains (for just one example).
The cold war itself-- the threat of communism was so great that we just HAD to keep building nukes, and provide jobs and livelihood for every employee involved in their production (another small example).
Our entire economy is and has been supported by military expenditures for some time. Again, maybe you could provide one conflict in which financial gain was not the underlying, covert, but still primary objective?
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 5:23pm
"Here we have seen in the past couple of weeks Obama attempting to "betray" the anti-war folks with more centrist comments and they are left with attacking John McCain's military experience.
Is there any decent American that doesn't understand the hatred the far left has for America and especially the military. They only tolerate someone like Clark as long as he's attacking conservatives. Other than that they go back into denouncing him as a war criminal for Kosovo and Bosnia."
Well, Clark is a war criminal for much of the bombing he directed, and so is Bill Clinton...and every President since World War II. But that still does not make what Clark said about McCain is wrong. McCain has about as much experience in executive decision as I do. Actually, I have more...and I never dropped bombs on children, and certainly never got shot down doing it.
Hate this country and the military? No. Hate the flag-suckers who are too cowardly to do anything to help this country but hide and beg others to do some bombing for them, or bleet like sheep as they are led into invasions? Yes.
Posted by onthehelm at 06/30/2008 @ 5:55pm
So....everybody see my posts now?
Posted by Maskbeta at 06/30/2008 @ 5:52pm
I do! I can see it! What happened to the old Mask?
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 5:57pm
j'accuse Joan Goodall!!!
heheh
Posted by Maskbeta at 06/30/2008 @ 6:02pm
Bloggers in the Mist
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 6:12pm
<i>Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 5:23pm </i>
Ahh, very interesting, but I think this misplaces the burden of proof. You have claimed that the military acts based on financial motives rather than national security, I called this into question, and now YOU have the burden to prove the claim you've made.
The closest you've come is either World War II or the Cold War in general. To these, a couple responses:
1) World War II? Seriously? This is perhaps the clearest example AGAINST your position for two reasons. First, the claim that businesses profited (which isn't sufficient even if true) is manifestly false. Why? Because one of the effects of war, especially a war of this magnitude, is a gigantic loss of work force across the board. If anything, these businesses would have profited far more from a mere defensive buildup than an actual war. Second, your account makes no sense given the actual timeline of events. We delayed getting into war for several years, and then only got in once the US was directly attacked. The evidence that we were somehow "pushed" into a war that we should have gotten into some time before Peral Harbor seems pretty weak at the moment.
2) The Cold War? This is a better case for you, but it's still insufficient for your position for two reasons. First, as I already said above, the fact of business profits doesn't prove that those profits were the MOTIVATION for particular actions. Second, we have pretty good evidence from the primary actors involved in most Cold War expansions that their reasoning was based not on profiting from the military but instead on their (correct) perception of serious threats that demanded attention. Granted, Eisenhower did also warn of the military-industrial complex, and properly so, but that doesn't mean he believed that his decisions were based on maximizing the military's profit.
Look, I won't pretend that company profits haven't entered into war deliberations, and I think it's almost always dangerous when they do. That said, however, your claim that such profits have driven most of the US' wars seems profoundly unwarranted.
<<Well, Clark is a war criminal for much of the bombing he directed, and so is Bill Clinton...and every President since World War II.
Posted by onthehelm at 06/30/2008 @ 5:55pm >>
Why?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/30/2008 @ 6:13pm
Posted by Thrawn at 06/30/2008 @ 6:13pm
"..is a gigantic loss of work force across the board."
One of the most prosperous periods for our country was the period directly after WWII. The war did nothing but put people to work-- it stimulated the economy. Pearl Harbor was arguably provoked in itself through Roosevelt's aggressive posturing. Why? Because our economoy needed it.
"First, as I already said above, the fact of business profits doesn't prove that those profits were the MOTIVATION for particular actions. Second, we have pretty good evidence from the primary actors involved in most Cold War expansions that their reasoning was based not on profiting from the military but instead on their (correct) perception of serious threats that demanded attention."
There is always rhetoric to disguise true intention in the world of politics. Do I have a mathematical equation, or some hidden documents to reveal the true motivation for conflice? No, but is it necessary, when the net results imply enough. There are also primary actors involved in the cold war that would support my claim (i.e. Chalmers A Johnson). When the cold war ended, what took the place of "the communists"?
I think it's naive to believe that our involvement in conflicts past and present were always strictly for "keeping America safe" and "spreading democracy", and "fighting communism" or "terrorism". There's always some line of bullshit behind the bank accounts that grow from the misery of war.
I gotta go. No time to respond to your response today, though I'll check back in tomorrow! Have a good one.
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 6:31pm
Posted by Maskbeta at 06/30/2008 @ 6:02pm
Gonna take some gettin used to.
Why Maskbeta instead of Mask1?
Posted by Benchrest at 06/30/2008 @ 6:34pm
I've been reading this thread with interest. I don't personally see anything wrong about what Clark said, and have at times thought the same thing. It is not a matter of his heroism; Clark said he idolized McCain back then. Clark himself was seriouly wounded in Vietnam.
As for showing respect for the heroism of others, the swiftboating of Kerry is just one example. Perhaps the worst case is the campaign against Max Clelland in 2002. Remember that? There was an ad questioning his patriotism, and showing him in company with Bin Laden and others. This of a man who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam.
And the people accusing Clark are those who saw nothing wrong with saying that McCain's time as a POW disqualified him because of the traumatic reactions.
Sometimes facts are helpful.
Posted by ramara at 06/30/2008 @ 6:37pm
Posted by Maskbeta at 06/30/2008 @ 8:02pm
Yeah, that sucks. That is the end of an era. It was a great run, though.
Good luck with "TN" blog folks. Give em a clue.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/30/2008 @ 8:37pm
BTW Mask. All of your posts are gone off of the Kenneth Foster link on the Save Jeff Woods thread.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/30/2008 @ 8:48pm
"Perhaps the worst case is the campaign against Max Clelland in 2002. Remember that? There was an ad questioning his patriotism, and showing him in company with Bin Laden and others. This of a man who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam."
Posted by ramara at 06/30/2008 @ 6:37pm
Actually Ramara, the former senator from GA kinda tripped on his own feet. He tooted his own horn too much and too often until word got out that he didn't lose his limbs in direct combat, falling on an enemy grenade the way he had been protraying it, he had lost them horsing around with a live grenade at base camp. And the saddest part of all, his tour was ending. He should've walk out with everything in tact. We were so embarrassed after hearing that. He would have never lost his seat if he told the truth back then.
Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 8:51pm
Posted by Maskbeta at 06/30/2008 @ 8:41pm
ALL of your posts are gone. Vendetta? Somebody at The Nation is a frickin scumbag.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/30/2008 @ 8:59pm
Democrats have a similar verbal habit. Whenever they are criticized they squeal, "You're questioning my patriotism!"
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/30/2008 @ 8:34pm
Which party is making a big deal about whether or not Obama wears a flag pin on his lapel? The Republican party pulls out the patriotism card as often as my wife pulls out her Visa card...
Posted by Balrog at 06/30/2008 @ 9:26pm
RE: Double Standards ... Smart guy this Obama, as smart as Dubya 8 yrs back: Just keep running from his weak spots. "I will never question others' patriotism"? Do you have one, Obama?
---------
Obama: I will never question others' patriotism Jun 30 12:44 PM US/Eastern By JENNIFER LOVEN Associated Press Writer
INDEPENDENCE, Mo. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Monday he will never question others' patriotism during the race and blames his own "carelessness" for some criticism of him so far. Obama sought to reassure voters about his commitment to the country, choosing the aptly named town of Independence as his backdrop.
Posted by HelenDAO at 06/30/2008 @ 10:03pm
That would be the Party that is trying to tie him to radical '60s hippies like Ayers, Dorhn, and Abbie Hoffman who never wore a flag pin, but made his underware out of flags.
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/30/2008
Do you not see the hypocrisy here? The Repubs spend tremendous effort smearing the Dems as unpatriotic, then try to pin the whiner label on them when the Dems call them on their bullshit!
Posted by Balrog at 06/30/2008 @ 11:32pm
marybretbrad - I wonder about the source of your story about Cleland's wounds. I ask because another version is posted a few comments bafore yours. Yesterday I was checking out a story that McCain was involved in starting the Forrestal fire in 1967. There was one entry that mentioned him when I checked the Forrestal fire. At the bottom of that insubstantial post, it said "Source" and I clicked it and a page came up saying "The Christian Party" but nothing else. Meanwhile the story was making its way around Daily Kos at least.
Anyway, when McCain was being attacked in South Carolina, it was Kerry who made sure that vets went down to help. The Vietnam vets in the Senate looked out for each other. That's why I was so mad at McCain campaigning with Bush in '04, and being luke warm about the swiftboaters.
Courage or patriotism have nothing to do with political parties, or even politics. When Kerry testified in Congress, he was not saying things he saw or thought of on his own; he was repeating personal testimonies of vets at a conference I forget where. And the swiftboaters were led by someone Kerry had debated on the Dick Cavett show. It was an old grudge; the guys on his boat tell a diffferent story.
Posted by ramara at 06/30/2008 @ 11:45pm
John Nichols
Wouldn't you have to ask yourself "Why?" (the 'double standard')
I think there is a particular matter you either do not know about, or fail to properly appreciate.
It is the claimed falsehood of John McCain's war hero image.
The claim, whether one believes it or not, precisely contradicts A. Katsman's (confusing) statement in today's Jerusalem Post: "he refused special treatment offered once it was discovered that he was the "crown prince" (the son of the adminral in charge of the Pacific Fleet) because he wouldn't provide the enemy with any propaganda victories."
This is said to be categorically false. He received special Soviet medical care, and not only collaborated extensively with N. Vietnamese propaganda campaign, but provided military information as well. In essence, enjoying 'crown prince' treatment BECAUSE he was the Admiral's son. And perhaps -- we do not know -- turned into some sort of Manchurian Candidate. In any case, his well known short temper is readily explained by: "Somewhere in the unplumbed human part of John Sidney McCain III, he knows his POW experience contradicts the war hero image he projects. This essential dishonesty, this lie of the soul, is a sign of a larger lack of character -" http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine06132008.html(Valentine)
Now, this also explains the 'double standard'. Clarke would surely know of these dark accusations; he's 'copping a plea by proxy', pretending to hold McCains feet to the fire on good, but easily rebutted points (let military men just fade away, imho) The mediaheads eat that up because it allows this hot issue of McCain's real character to be brought up in a way they can deal with, without acknowledging that the accusations even exist. (
This is "splitting off" that which is incompatible with the conscious standpoint, as Jung puts it. ""Nobody believes these idiots. They're a bunch of jerks. Forget them," said Mark Salter, McCain's chief mythologist. Salter is credited by casting McCain as a modern Teddy Roosevelt, "the war hero turned domestic reformer.")
But in broad terms, this is criminal. It amounts to reversing what cannot be talked about, which would condemn him -- and Republicans who would front such a lie -- into something that can be talked about, given the reversal, in terms approaching sheer adulantion. But they know how to come off it, with that.
This psychodynamic mechanism of consciously reversing what the unconscious accepts as the case was called "reaction formation" by Freud.
On the flip-side of Oedipus' coin, Joe Lieberman hardly draws disapprobation at all for his and Charlie Black's loathsome terror mongering ....it's in synch with what War Heroes have to do to get elected. THEY ARE THE NEOS who will lay John McCain's whip on the backs of Obama and female Democrats.
Those who go along with this help promote THE BIG LIE: THAT WHICH IS UNFIT AND IMMORAL IS REVERSED BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS, INTO THE HONORED AND PRESIDENTIAL.
Posted by jones at 07/01/2008 @ 12:04am
Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/30/2008 @ 11:50pm
I'm kinda partial to Masked Man. The Lone Ranger is right up his alley relative to him keeping everyone honest.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/01/2008 @ 12:22am
"Wesley Clark is an advisor for the Obama camp"
ACOOK
nope - he's not.
from what i heard he said...whats the big deal? the man expressed his opinion about mccain and said nothing that anyone other than a prickly priss or diehard partisan should take offense over.
yeah...mccain was in the military, got shot down over north vietnam, spent several hellish years as a pow of sadistic bastards...i and every other non braindead schmuk over the age of ten know this.
so effin what? this alone neither qualifies him to be commander in chief, as some kind of foriegn policy wizard, nor does it give the flippy floppy old bastard a blank check to have is wrinkled old ass sucked from here to e-effin-ternity, innoculating him from all criticism, doubt of character, or mockery.
if anyone tells me i cant say whatever the hell i feel like about the man because he's some kind of seargent effin york, eff them.
and then that gee effin dee'd traitorous slime joe lieberman gets away with pandering to the stupidest lowest common denominator of the aipac/neocon brain rust...sickening ass.
MESSAGE TO OBAMA...
i tremendously admire you and respect you and stand in awe of your intellect, organizational abilities, and natural diplomatic abilities...but...
DO NOT LET THOSE SLIMEY FASCISTS SCARE YOU INTO HENPECKING ANYONE FAMOUS WHO SUPPORTS YOU FROM TELLING THE TRUTH AND EXPRESSING REASONABLE OPINIONS THAT JUST HAPPEN TO PISS OFF THE G-DAMNED ENEMY.
eff the wicked bastards. let not your decency stay your hand when driving the dagger home. thats what they depend on - its how they survive, thrive, and regularly grind the decent into the mud of history. thrust that bodkin in to the hilt and laugh when you twist it and then wrench it out.
thats all they respect although their respect should not be a concern at all. only their destruction.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 12:33am
Posted by jones at 07/01/2008 @ 12:04am | ignore this person | warn this person
good post.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 12:54am
Clark was absolutely correct about McCain's lack of experience. The conservative Republican war-mongers need a "war hero" to "protect America against those horrible satanic terrorists", so he is the convenient choice. McCain has never functioned as an executive in the public or private sector. He is a political hack at best.
To anyone with an ounce of grey matter, it should be obvious by now that 9-11 was a false flag operation, conceived and planned by the subversive neocons at least a decade ago, and enabled by the religious loons in the current Administration. McCain and the Republicans are "tough on terrorism"? Only an imbecile would swallow such manipulation and deception.
Posted by NukularProficy at 07/01/2008 @ 02:45am
Christ!!
Much ado about nothing.
Clark was right. Big deal.
Support the troops, till you can come up with some twisted logic about something they say that might, maybe, if you pin your ears back and sing "wmd's wmd's wmd's" at the top of your lungs, could be interpreted by Ann coulter as being offensive to the false patriotism of somebody.
The repubs have NOTHING. They have 8 years of Chimpy, which they are running away from as fast as their little hamster feet will carry them. They have a gosh-durned "librool" running for president, so they create fog around surrogates to cloud the water. What a crock of Stimpy.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 07:31am
Mask-a-bater?
Who?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 07:33am
ACOOK, JOMAMMA
BOO!
Be afraid.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 07:35am
Is there any decent American that doesn't understand the hatred the far left has for America and especially the military. They only tolerate someone like Clark as long as he's attacking conservatives. Other than that they go back into denouncing him as a war criminal for Kosovo and Bosnia.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/30/2008 @ 2:17pm
And once again, Liverlips shows just how full of shit he really is. Clark, a real military general, who just happens to question you war hawk chicken shits is anti-American?!
Go to Israel Liverlips or better still, go attack Iran for Israel and die the warrior you claim to be.
Questioning the GOP (Grand Oil Party) should be #1 on every American's minds since we've been attacked under GOP leadership, our economy is in the toilet under GOP leadership, our Army is at the breaking point under GOP leadership, and the U.S. is the most hated country on the planet thanks to GOP leadership.
You have proven time and time again that you are blind to truth, hypocrytical to the nth degree with your faith, and would screw your own country over for Israel. Piss off.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/01/2008 @ 09:18am
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 07:33am
Call me what you like, just don't call me late for dinner!
(1930s joke brought to you by the Smithsonian Dept. of Yuk-yuks)
BTW, can we call you "CRABS"?....heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/01/2008 @ 09:26am
"While in the Senate, there was a partisan battle over whether or not employees of the new Homeland Security department would have union protection against being fired for incompetence. Democrats wanted them to keep their jobs protecting the nation if they were incompetent and Republicans wanted to be able to fire people who were incompetent."
That last part is loaded to the point of untruthfulness. Extending collective-bargaining rights to federal employees in the relevant departments isn't close to being the same as protecting incompetent employees. Given the administration chronic habit of political cronyism in its hiring and firing decisions, putting such protection up as a breakwater against administration flexibility would actually seem a good thing. Further, such protection would mean that whistleblowers wouldn't be nearly as vulnerable to employer retaliation, meaning that flaws in the system would've been more likely to come to light.
Chambliss's ad consisted of putting Cleland's face alongside bin-Laden's. To say that isn't questioning his patriotism is nonsense.
Posted by brunowe at 07/01/2008 @ 09:48am
To marybretbrad - First of all, what Clark said was that McCain had no more military experience with strategic planning and diplomacy more than Obama did. Then Scheiffer said that Obama had never been shot down in a fighter plane. That's when Clark said he didn't think that getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down qualified one to be president. He was responding directly to Scheiffer's comment. The swiftboaters, on the other hand, made a deliberate attack on Kerry's record. And Kerry's boatmates tell a different story. Somehow the context is missing in the reaction Clark's comment has been getting.
Second, I would like to point out to ACook that wanting to change America is not the same as hating America. The full quotation is "My country right or wrong, right or wrong, my country. When she is right, let us fight to defend her. When she is wrong, let us fight to change her." (I may have a word or so wrong, but you get the idea.)
Posted by ramara at 07/01/2008 @ 11:25am
Search Results 1 - 30 of about 74200 for "mask". (0.33 seconds)
from the nation search.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/01/2008 @ 12:04pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/01/2008 @ 12:04pm
Yeah, but if you go to the article, no posts exist.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/01/2008 @ 12:07pm
i think BRANNIGAN owns MASK1 AND MASK2
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/01/2008 @ 12:07pm
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 07:33am
Can I call you "CRABS"?....heheh
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/01/2008 @ 09:38am
Maasch gave me some ointment last year, all cleared up.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 12:19pm
MASK -
Welcome back. How did you escape from LVLIBERTY's basement?
Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 12:35pm
Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 12:35pm
I see the 'reprogramming' failed.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/01/2008 @ 12:44pm
MASK -
Welcome back. How did you escape from LVLIBERTY's basement?
Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 12:35pm
He read from the Book of Mormon and the Koran?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 12:50pm
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/01/2008 @ 1:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
so you didn't get canned? good - yankeegrits was ghoulishly hoping...not REALLY, of course...but you know how that works...really not really...lol.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 2:13pm
I see the 'reprogramming' failed.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/01/2008 @ 12:44pm
The jury is still out . . . the new "Maskbeta" has me suspicious.
He's like MASK . . . but a little . . . I dunno . . . different.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 3:38pm
Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 3:38pm
LVLIB probably had the ropes too tight around his neck resulting in oxygen deprivation and secondary dain bramage.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/01/2008 @ 4:10pm
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/01/2008 @ 9:31pm
Gotcha.
I like the Old Coke better.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/02/2008 @ 11:37am