The Ambassador, the Iraqi, and the Penguin

An ambassador--his name happens to be Timothy Carney--an Iraqi, and a penguin walk into a bar. The bartender asks how the Iraqi will ever possibly pay for his drink. The ambassador replies:

"The point to make there is that Iraq is basically a rich country; that in fact there's been a successful effort to mightily reduce the debt that Iraq had incurred during the Saddam Hussein era. I would argue that as Iraq returns to its former levels of 3 million-plus barrels a day of oil exported, that you're going to find as much money as the country needs for the major portion of this effort at maintenance and sustainment as you've defined it."

Oh wait, I think I've already heard this joke before; but back in March 2003, it went like this:

A Deputy Secretary of Defense--his name was Paul Wolfowitz--an Iraqi exile, and a penguin walk into the House Committee on Appropriations. A Congressman asks how the invasion and occupation the Bush administration has just launched will be paid for. The Deputy Secretary of Defense replies that our "Second Iraq War" won't be "overly expensive for American taxpayers": "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people… and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years… We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

Oh, and ambassador Carney, who is officially in Baghdad as the "coordinator for Economic Transition in Iraq," offered his gem on how the Iraqis could take over paying for the "reconstruction" of their country in a March 9th, 2007 Department of Defense briefing in the Iraqi capital.

When you hear jokes like this repeated almost four years later, head for the exits… fast.

Comments (58)

1. Sadly, you know when you're REALLY going to hear...

   "Let the Iraqis pay for their own reconstruction from the oil revenues"?

   After we've bugged out (either under Bush or the Next Guy/Gal), the place has gone to total chaos, and the UN and the NGOs are giving us a Rwanda situation like we've never seen and PLEADING with the West and the USA to provide some humanitarian support.

   The chaos and civil war is inevitable now....and I think it's also inevitable, that even under a Dem Administration and Dem Congress in 2009....the same argument will be made, so that we're off the hook.

   Posted by Mask at 03/14/2007 @ 2:56pm

2. I am still waiting for my cheap oil ...I thought thats why Bush went to Iraq...its about oil, right?

   Posted by john maasch at 03/14/2007 @ 3:14pm

3. I am still waiting for my cheap oil ...I thought thats why Bush went to Iraq...its about oil, right?

   Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/14/2007 @ 3:14pm

   It's not about cheap oil at the pump for us, its about more profits for the oil companies.

   On the topic of the thread:

   I'm glad someone who made such a totally inept prediction regarding global economics like Wolfowitz did (the consequences of that wrong prediction are currently measured in the billions of dollars) is thoroughly discredited and no longer in a position to make economic decisions on such a global scale....

   Posted by bjkron at 03/14/2007 @ 3:27pm

4. What did the penguin say?

   "Why isn't anyone else here wearing a tux?"

   Posted by w_m_bear at 03/14/2007 @ 3:38pm

5. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/14/2007 @ 3:14pm

   That's right, John, Bush went to Iraq for the oil. Problem is, as with everything else this administration touches, the deal went [Ar]bust[o]. Heckuva job, there, Wolfowitz--aren't you the guy who said we would need to have 30,000 troops in Iraq come August of 2003?

   Looks like you'll have to go to Venezuela to get some cheap oil, Maasch. Oh! that's right! You're too rich to be eligible for the CITGO cut-rate heating-oil plan. Damn! Hey, Maasch, you eat out a lot; do you ever worry that some third-world kitchen staff worker reads your comments here and is putting boogers in your salad?

   Posted by nathanhale at 03/14/2007 @ 4:13pm

6. Posted by BJKRON 03/14/2007 @ 3:27pm

   !!!

   Posted by drhammer at 03/14/2007 @ 5:02pm

7. BJ<

   I am not sticking up for oil compamys nor am I dumping on them..they are just the normal whipping boy for the left.

   Profits for oil companys come from gas sales...their profit margins are low, the total profit is high...there is more profit in a gallon of water than oil companys maker on a gallon of gas. ..4 cents...those are the real economics...and most of their profits come fromm sales over seas...

   !!!

   Posted by john maasch at 03/14/2007 @ 5:26pm

8. No Tom. Haven't heard that one but have you heard this one?

   "WASHINGTON, March 14 -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a "remaining military as well as political mission" in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military."

   The joke sort of revolves around the word "significant" (military force).

   Posted by lrjones4 at 03/14/2007 @ 7:53pm

9. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/14/2007 @ 5:26pm | ignore this person

   they have been posting record profits.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 03/14/2007 @ 7:56pm

10. Posted by LRJONES4 03/14/2007 @ 7:53pm

    And if she's the nominee, no choice...the Left MUST vote for her regardless.

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2007 @ 9:01pm

11. Posted by LRJONES4 03/14/2007 @ 7:53pm

    Also LR....according to young WILL...

    everything Hillary does comports with the "Liberal Agenda". So it must be good!

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2007 @ 9:23pm

12. Posted by MASK 03/14/2007 @ 9:23pm

    Mask,

    Have a bit of trouble keeping up with Willie's thinking so don't try.

    You would know better than us over here but one can't help thinking that it is highly likely that the US and some of the rest of the Coalition troops will be in Iraq for a very long time yet.

    If Hillary represents their thinking, then moderate Dems also probably see that there is too much at stake in terms of American prestige and credibility to leave except on US terms. For all the talk about the US being diminished militarily by Iraq, it is the super presence in the ME that is keeping all the players in the Gulf reasonably honest, including Iran and Syria. That alone, isn't the worst reason to hang around.

    She could simply be trying to wedge Obama on this one but on the other hand she does seem to have the score on the board, as a hawk, to credibly own this sort of policy.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 03/14/2007 @ 10:28pm

13. Also LR....according to young WILL...

    everything Hillary does comports with the "Liberal Agenda". So it must be good!

    Posted by MASK 03/14/2007 @ 9:23pm

    you poor little dummy. you stil can't find an example of where she stepped outside of the liberal agenda can you?

    you poor poor dummy

    Posted by Will C. at 03/14/2007 @ 10:37pm

14. Have a bit of trouble keeping up with Willie's thinking so don't try.

    Posted by QuagmireJONES4 03/14/2007 @ 10:28pm

    if you'd lay off the foster's quagmire you might remember that I have advocated and still advocate using the US military to secure the iraqi oil fields until the iraqi's sort out the, how can I best say this?... oh yeah, the quagmire.

    i'll remind you again tomorrow after the hangover wear's off

    Posted by Will C. at 03/14/2007 @ 10:43pm

15. I have advocated and still advocate using the US military to secure the iraqi oil fields until the iraqi's sort out the, how can I best say this?... oh yeah, the quagmire.

    secure the oilfields? it is their country and their oil. why don't you advocate that we kill their leaders and convert the people to christianity. that's about as much sense you are making here.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/14/2007 @ 11:40pm

16. Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/14/2007 @ 9:05pm

    Trouble is the idiots want gas so high that we don;t use it to save the planet...so the Chinese and Indians use it instead..with the true libs in power America ius in great peril as these clowns will defend nothing..lest we become disrespected in the world..style over substance..

    Posted by john maasch at 03/14/2007 @ 11:40pm

17. the idiot's might want that maasch, but the great liberal center wants a renewable fuel source that goes for what gas goes for now.

    but we won't see that happen until after we sweep you idiot's out of office.

    Posted by Will C. at 03/14/2007 @ 11:47pm

18. and I'm thinking that 2008 just might be the end of hamsterland

    Posted by Will C. at 03/14/2007 @ 11:47pm

19. Secure the oilfields? it is their country and their oil. why don't you advocate that we kill their leaders and convert the people to christianity. that's about as much sense you are making here.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/14/2007 @ 11:40pm

    I saw the environmental catastrophe wrought on the world by saddam hussein lighting off the Kuwaiti oil fields. Were we too pull out completely, I think there is a high probability that the opposing factions will target the Iraqi oil fields in the same manor to deny their riches to the other side.

    and I'm not so sure Boots and Coots or Red Adair is going to rush in to put them out with a civil war raging down the street.

    Do you?

    Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2007 @ 12:34am

20. you poor little dummy. you stil can't find an example of where she stepped outside of the liberal agenda can you?

    Posted by WILL C. 03/14/2007 @ 10:37pm

    Why no WILL, I can't....obviously THIS is the "Liberal Agenda", right, guys?

    "She said in the interview that there were "remaining vital national security interests in Iraq" that would require a continuing deployment of American troops. (my bold for you)

    The United States' security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state "that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda," she said. "It is right in the heart of the oil region," she said. "It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel's interests." (my bold...for FROMREDBIRD et al)

    ---NY Times

    Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 06:03am

21. Will, congrats, you have arrived at the Bush misadministrations policy.

    how was setting oilfields on fire in Kuwait a worldwide catastrophy?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/15/2007 @ 07:46am

22. An ambassador, a penguin and an Iraqi walk into a bar.

    the bartender says "What is this, some kind of joke?"

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2007 @ 07:55am

23. MAASCH,John, I am not saying you do not produce a trickle down effect. But YOU do not make anything. Ideas do make the word go round, but without craftsmen/technicians/laborers you cannot do what you do. You will attempt to screw the price of production down as low as you can, moving your new factory overseas if the numbers don't add up here.

    Remember who makes it possible for you do do what you do.

    Did you tip the health inspector? If your taxes get cut some more, where will the money come from to pay the guy that make sure your gallon of gas is actually a gallon? If the country had an extra $408,452,107,006, maybe you could get your wish of lower taxes. If Wolfewitz/Cheney had been correct, maybe you would get your tax cut. But they were WRONG< WRONG< WRONG. So you should pay the taxes to cover your war.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2007 @ 07:59am

24. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/15/2007 @ 07:46am

    JR, you gotta realize where WILL is coming from.

    Hillary says it, it's the right policy. Why? Easy, she's a "liberal Democrat" (WILL's def, not mine).

    Ergo, if Hillary says "we MUST leave a contingent (of unknown size) of US troops in Iraq"....that's the "liberal agenda".

    Later if Obama or Edwards or 90% of the liberal bloggers say "No, any US presence in Iraq would be a bad idea"....THAT's the "liberal agenda" too.

    If Bush or some Republican says "we MUST leave a contingent (of unknown size) of US troops in Iraq".....that's "hamster neo-con idiocy".

    And if you don't understand the complexities and nuances of how the "liberal agenda" is what's good or what "liberal Democrats" TELL us is "good"....then you're a poor little dummy, because it's all so clear to WILL.

    Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 08:00am

25. MASK, the "librool agenda" is to take all white babies from the rich white parents and give them, and the money, to gay illegal hispanic mens.

    Is Hillarious Clinton for that?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2007 @ 08:01am

26. Cheney, the 3rd Marines and Achmed Chalabi walk into Iraq promising a quick little war and a peaceful ME.

    the bartender says "What is this, some kind of joke?"

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2007 @ 08:06am

27. The Wif is watching Montel, eeww. But Rev Haggards little boy toy is on. good stuff.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2007 @ 08:08am

28. Posted by WILL C. 03/15/2007 @ 12:34am

    what "civil war"? Whatchoo talkin' 'bout Willis?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2007 @ 08:17am

29. Al Qaida wants us to stay in Iraq, bogged down far from home base.

    al Qaida wants us to cut and run from Iraq, showing the world that democracies don't like drawn out wars.

    Way to go chimpy!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2007 @ 08:23am

30. Posted by CRABWALK 03/15/2007 @ 08:01am

    All I know is what WILL tells me about the "liberal agenda", CRABBY.

    Apparently, since Hillary is for keeping an indeterminant number of troops in Iraq (maybe not in Baghdad) for an indeterminant period of time....and WILL says She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed and her policies are part of the "liberal agenda"...

    I guess that's what the "liberal agenda" is....He even offered this-

    BLOG | Posted 02/24/2007 @ 10:03am Stalking Hillary: Her Tough Side Nicholas von Hoffman

    she's a thinking women not prone to mindless repitition. She is a liberal after all.

    Posted by WILL C. 02/24/2007 @ 11:17am

    If Hillary does something that is outside of the Liberal Agenda, I'll be more than happy to take her to task. However, that she has yet to do that is probably lost on someone like yourself who has taken his poor littleness to it's ultimate dummy depths

    Posted by WILL C. 02/25/2007 @ 2:44pm

    Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 08:45am

31. Al Qaida wants us to stay in Iraq, bogged down far from home base.

    al Qaida wants us to cut and run from Iraq, showing the world that democracies don't like drawn out wars.

    Way to go chimpy!!

    Posted by CRABWALK 03/15/2007 @ 08:23am | ignore this person

    you have put your finger on it, the big contradiction. the reality is that al qaeda has very little influence in Iraq. their numbers in Iraq have been exaggerated from the start, to suit Bush's purposes. hear me good: nothing good will ever come from this war. nothing. all that's left is damage control.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/15/2007 @ 09:09am

32. Clinton came to the DNC and spoke with the Democratic base. She twice asserted that a Hillary Clinton presidency would mean no more war in Iraq. Yet this is clearly not the position that she holds; her real position is to continue America's presence in Iraq for the indefinite future that starts in January 2009. Clinton's lies at the DNC stem directly from her inability to wrap her mind around the idea of implementing the only sound course for Iraq: ending the war now and bringing our troops home.

    this seems to describe your position as well, Will.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/15/2007 @ 09:24am

33. Will, Maasch, your incessant bickering is a drag, give us a break.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/15/2007 @ 10:31am

34. John, please don't think that I do not appreciate the levels inherent in production/sales/distrubution/sales and the people involved in all aspects of our economy. I just think too many have forgotten the actual primary producers of wealth, the working class schlub. Not to get too marxist. lest I earn my very own beanie. (look ma! I'm Airforce II)

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2007 @ 10:54am

35. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/14/2007 @ 3:14pm

    It was about the oil, although Darth Cheney was so clueless about politics it has become a disaster that will be paid for by our grandchildren

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/15/2007 @ 11:00am

36. nothing good will ever come from this war. nothing. all that's left is damage control.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/15/2007 @ 09:09am

    Hmmm, what about the re-distribution of wealth from the multitude of taxpayers to the private contractors beholden to no law?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2007 @ 11:02am

37. Deadeye Dick, Chimpy and Condi walk into a bar and they buy a round of "the best" for the house. When the barkeep asks how they'll pay Dickie says "We're going to Iraq and we'll be greeted a liberators. They'll throw so much money at us that we'll keep the drinks flowing and the war will be over before you know it."

    Dickie had to play the piano while Chimpy danced with a tin-cup and Condi did the pole-dance thing. I think they're still at it.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/15/2007 @ 11:07am

38. Condi on the pole?

    Oh Condi, Condi I'm talkin' to you girl

    What's it gonna hurt come on give me a whirl

    Shake your body now let me see you go

    One time for me Oh Condi I love you so

    Skank for me Condi show me what you got

    They say you're too uptight I say you're not

    Dance around me spinnin' like a top

    Oh Condi Condi Condi don't ever stop

    -Steve Earl.

    thanks Steve. good stuff.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2007 @ 11:14am

39. Crabs

    LOL...good stuff

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/15/2007 @ 11:43am

40. I am still waiting for my cheap oil ...I thought thats why Bush went to Iraq...its about oil, right?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/14/2007 @ 3:14pm | ignore this person

    John,

    The US trade deficits are an indicator of the America's inability to compete witht the European and Japanese economies. Most domestic investment is in the non-sustainable service industry, and the majority of US investment in sustainable (manufacturing) is in foreign countries. America is a declining power economically,like 19th century England, it will rely more heavily on its true and unchallenged strength: the military. The current trends, particularly the trade deficits, are unsustainable. The US needs to maintain control over the remaining petroleum resources in order to preserve its dominant postion in the world. The number one export from America right now is the dollar. This is due to the petrodollar arrangement struck with the Saudis just prior to the oil shock of the 70s. The neo-Clowns were scribling their fears concerning foreign competition challenging the US grip on power in the 90s (there are numerous papers-it's no secret to those who can read) and so clearly, energy,oil in particular, is the key. Right now, for the first time post-WWII, the Euro represents a viable threat to the dollar as the world's reserve currency. As you're probably aware the dollar is the currency used in all oil transactions. It is very prudent for American policy planners to make certain no OPEC nation bails from the greenback to Euro; this could cripple the American economy. With the dollar as the world's reserve currency (backed by oil transactions) the US has the unique ability to sustain yearly account deficits, pass huge tax cuts, expand credit and its grotesque military machine needed to continue protecting oil reserves around the globe. The radical conservatives (as opposed to the "realist"), in desperation, have moved America from post-war "soft power" and multilateralism to the overt assertion of "hard power" policies that aggressively conduct "preventive" wars on non-compliant nations sitting on "our" resources-- and are not willing to risk the chance that some of these countries may switch currencies. Don't underestimate the threat of the Euro; Cheney, Wolfowitz,etc. are not. The Euro ascended beyond the dollar in the wake of the Enron, Worldcom, accounting scandal-plagued economy of the early 2000s, and there are many foreign investors having doubts as to the dollar's long-term viability as the world reserve currency.

    Posted by Oustbush at 03/16/2007 @ 12:04am

41. Where the heck is LoveLoki these days? Loki, are you out there? Well, Montana is beautiful country; more so than the glowing screen and plastic keyboard!

    Posted by Oustbush at 03/16/2007 @ 12:26am

42. OUSTBUSH,

    I have something to add to your comments on the economic decline of the US...

    Do not forget the fastest growing economy in the world, China. India is doing well too. Both have increasing needs for oil to keep on growing economically. I think I read in the back pages of my local newspaper some months ago that Asian countries have met (led by China) to discuss an Asian equivalent to the Euro.

    Back to original post...

    Why does only the ambassador speak? Perhaps the Iraqi is a zombie (killed in the war "to free his country and bring democracy to it") and the penguin, realizing both his companions are dead beats, ...

    Posted by sanjose at 03/16/2007 @ 01:26am

43. Where the heck is LoveLoki these days?

    I miss her too, but then I missed Darla too. welcome back, dear

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/16/2007 @ 02:20am

44. John Maash wrote: Profits for oil companys come from gas sales...their profit margins are low, the total profit is high...there is more profit in a gallon of water than oil companys maker on a gallon of gas. ..4 cents...those are the real economics...and most of their profits come fromm sales over seas...

    This does not explain how in a single quarter profits can rise by the tune of $100B. Did consumers buy an additional 2.5 trillion gallons of gasoline during that period? He may not be defending the oil companies but, he sure sounds like a lobbyist. They're lies, I wish people would stop propagating them.

    Posted by AppleMan at 03/16/2007 @ 02:58am

45. Posted by SANJOSE 03/16/2007 @ 01:26am | ignore this person

    SanJose,

    Yes, good point. I would also say that an indication of the steady confidence the Chinese have in their current economic course is their refusal to devote significant amounts of their large capital reserves to the military sector. As of 2003, they were only spending $33 billion on military expenditures (Japan spent $47 billion by comparison). And of course, the US is spending nearly half a trillion dollars annually.

    Posted by Oustbush at 03/16/2007 @ 09:44am

46. Where the heck is LoveLoki these days?

    I miss her too, but then I missed Darla too. welcome back, dear

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/16/2007 @ 02:20am | ignore this person

    Johannesrolf,

    Yeah, people need a little break from this stuff, but usually do return just to make sure they're not alone in their sober observations of a nation driving drunk and bleary-eyed off a cliff.

    Posted by Oustbush at 03/16/2007 @ 09:51am

47. Posted by OUSTBUSH 03/16/2007 @ 09:51am | ignore this person

    are you trying to tell me something? if you are, I thank you for your concern.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/16/2007 @ 10:13am

48. how was setting oilfields on fire in Kuwait a worldwide catastrophy?

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/15/2007 @ 07:46am

    did I say worldwide? I could have sworn I said on the world. here lets take a look...

    I saw the environmental catastrophe wrought on the world by saddam hussein lighting off the Kuwaiti oil fields.

    Posted by WILL C. 03/15/2007 @ 12:34am

    oh well

    Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 02:45am

49. "She said in the interview that there were "remaining vital national security interests in Iraq" that would require a continuing deployment of American troops. (my bold for you)

    Posted by MASK 03/15/2007 @ 06:03am

    you poor little dummy. we still have troops deployments in europe that liberals put in place after WWII.

    your never going to be smart if you keep acting stupid

    Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 02:48am

50. Apparently, since Hillary is for keeping an indeterminant number of troops in Iraq (maybe not in Baghdad) for an indeterminant period of time....and WILL says She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed and her policies are part of the "liberal agenda"...

    Posted by MASK 03/15/2007 @ 08:45am

    you poor little dummy. I've never used the term She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed. That's a conservative agenda term and that's why we found it in you little hamster post.

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 02:51am

51. this seems to describe your position as well, Will.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/15/2007 @ 09:24am

    Are you being deliberatly obtuse JR? If hillary intends to keepthe troops in Iraq to secure that oil fields then my position would seem to be hers

    Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 02:55am

52. Posted by MASK 03/15/2007 @ 08:00am

    JR, you gotta realize where WILL is coming from.

    Hillary says it, it's the right policy. Why? Easy, she's a "liberal Democrat" (WILL's def, not mine).

    you poor litle dummy. That's hamster resoning. liberals don;t do hamster resoning. we don't fdo blind loyalty. and we don;t lie about other people..

    But you hamsters do

    Ergo, if Hillary says "we MUST leave a contingent (of unknown size) of US troops in Iraq"....that's the "liberal agenda".

    yup deploying tropps is well within the liberal agenda. But it's only a part of the liberal agenda. You characteization of it as the "liberal agenda" really just demonostrates how truly clueless you are.

    Later if Obama or Edwards or 90% of the liberal bloggers say "No, any US presence in Iraq would be a bad idea"....THAT's the "liberal agenda" too.

    not deploying tropps is also part of the liberal agenda. and this is so becuse the liberal agenda is about choices. and choices are the foundation of freedom. I tried explaingithis to you before mask

    But you're a dummy

    If Bush or some Republican says "we MUST leave a contingent (of unknown size) of US troops in Iraq".....that's "hamster neo-con idiocy".

    in the cases of the chimps they have lied to us so much that it really doens't matter what they say. It's unbeliveable.

    lying is a key component to the conservative agenda

    And if you don't understand the complexities and nuances of how the "liberal agenda" is what's good or what "liberal Democrats" TELL us is "good"....then you're a poor little dummy, because it's all so clear to WILL.

    and all the others who aren't poor little dummy's.

    Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 03:06am

53. you poor poor dummy

    Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 03:06am

54. "yup deploying tropps is well within the liberal agenda. But it's only a part of the liberal agenda. You characteization of it as the "liberal agenda" really just demonostrates how truly clueless you are."

    "not deploying tropps is also part of the liberal agenda. and this is so becuse the liberal agenda is about choices. and choices are the foundation of freedom. I tried explaingithis to you before mask" ----Posted by WILL C. 03/17/2007 @ 03:06am

    So if the liberal agenda is about choices...the Bush CHOOSING to Surge troops into Iraq is part of the liberal agenda too, right?

    Guess if Bush CHOOSES to attack Iran...that's the liberal agenda too.

    ROFLMAO!

    You made the wrong play this time, young WILLIAM. If you had denounced Hillary's support for continueing occupation of Iraq...or better, hadn't said you'd "call it her to task if she stepped outside the liberal agenda" earlier...

    you wouldn't find yourself DEFENDING a continueing US occupation of Iraq....on a left-wing blog...and basically supporting...

    "stay the course" and George W. Bush!

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2007 @ 07:52am

55. Are you being deliberatly obtuse JR? If hillary intends to keepthe troops in Iraq to secure that oil fields then my position would seem to be hers

    Posted by WILL C. 03/17/2007 @ 02:55am | ignore this person

    that is what I said.you seem to have gone off the rails Will, with insults making up the bulk of your posts. do as you will,pun intended, aber ohne mich. ignored.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 09:10am

56. hat is what I said.you seem to have gone off the rails Will, with insults making up the bulk of your posts. do as you will,pun intended, aber ohne mich. ignored.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/17/2007 @ 09:10am

    damn JR...luvvy and maasch have more spine then you do.

    Because of your spinelessness you will be the one and only person that has ignored me that I won't heckle.

    I will allow you to enjoy your ignorance in peace

    Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 1:18pm

57. Posted by MASK 03/17/2007 @ 07:52am |

    So if the liberal agenda is about choices...the Bush CHOOSING to Surge troops into Iraq is part of the liberal agenda too, right?

    you poor little dummy. here let us review and earlier post of mine...

    in the cases of the chimps they have lied to us so much that it really doens't matter what they say. It's unbeliveable.

    Posted by WILL C. 03/17/2007 @ 03:06am

    --------------------------------------------------- Guess if Bush CHOOSES to attack Iran...that's the liberal agenda too.

    you poor little dummy. here let me refresh your memory...

    In the cases of the chimps they have lied to us so much that it really doens't matter what they say. It's unbeliveable.

    Posted by WILL C. 03/17/2007 @ 03:06am

    --------------------------------------------------- ROFLMAO!

    you just farted didn't you?

    You made the wrong play this time, young WILLIAM. If you had denounced Hillary's support for continueing occupation of Iraq...or better, hadn't said you'd "call it her to task if she stepped outside the liberal agenda" earlier...

    you wouldn't find yourself DEFENDING a continueing US occupation of Iraq....on a left-wing blog...and basically supporting...

    "stay the course" and George W. Bush!

    but why would I flip flop after and done what you just stated if for the better part of this last year I have defended staying in iraq and securing the oil fields.

    That would make me....you

    LOL!

    Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 4:43pm

58. the white house has told us it's never been about staying the course

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 4:44pm