Father Robert Drinan, D-Constitution

posted by John Nichols on 01/30/2007 @ 2:52pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (41)

Subscribe Now

When Father Robert Drinan was swept into Congress as part of the "New Politics" surge of 1970 -- which saw Democratic primary voters across the country replace pro-Vietnam War incumbents with anti-war champions such as California's Ron Dellums and New York's Bella Abzug--the new representative from Massachusetts arrived as a Constitutional scholar who had a bone to pick with Richard Nixon's imperial presidency. The longtime dean of the Boston College of Law, Drinan joined the House Judiciary Committee with the stated purpose of renewing the system of checks and balances by asserting the power of Congress to constrain and, where necessary, sanction the president for overstepping his authority.

Nixon was not amused. He placed Drinan's name high on the White House "enemies list" and the chairman of the Republican National Committee, a Nixon acolyte named George Herbert Walker Bush, declared that the dissenting Democrat's defeat would be a top priority of the president's party.

Drinan did not blink. The Jesuit priest, who has died this week at the age of 86, never hesitated to identify Nixon's military adventurism in southeast Asia as both "morally objectionable" and "illegal." And the wily and whimsical scholar--who had joked with supporters such as a young John Kerry about campaigning on the slogan: "Vote for Father Drinan or Go to Hell"--was determined to hold Nixon to account on both counts.

In particular, Drinan believed that Nixon's secret order of a massive carpet bombing campaign against Cambodia--according to White House transcripts, the president announced to aides: "I want gunships in there. That means armed helicopters, DC-3s, anything else that will destroy personnel that can fly. I want it done!"--represented an absolute violation of the constitutional requirement that wars be authorized by Congress.

After New York Times reporter William Beecher exposed the fact that the initial carpet-bombing campaign had gone on for more than a year and killed tens of thousands of Cambodians, Drinan introduced H. Res. 513 – "Resolution impeaching Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors"--on July 31, 1973. An embarrassment to House Democratic leaders, who were trying to mute discussion of impeachment at a time when Nixon's approval ratings remained high, Drinan's resolution, which citied violation of Section 1, Article 8, of the Constitution – "The Congress shall have power to… declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water"--as the grounds for impeachment, was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. Despite the fact that committee chair Peter Rodino told CBS News on the night of its introduction that the question it raised was a "serious matter," the impeachment resolution attracted no cosponsors and languished in committee for months.

Almost exactly a year after its introduction, however, when the wheel had turned to such an extent that Nixon had in fact been impeached by the Judiciary Committee, a version of Drinan's resolution was finally considered in the committee's closing discussion on articles of how to act against Nixon. With support from the Congressional Black Caucus, Drinan pressed the committee to move his article of impeachment against Nixon for ordering the bombing of Cambodia without the permission of Congress. Key Democrats in Congress opposed the article, arguing that, while America people were prepared to impeach the president for the petty crimes of Watergate, they were not ready to remove him for violating the Constitutional constraint on presidential warmaking. Drinan was having none of it. To the suggestion that an article of impeachment sanctioning the president for the ordering the bombings would not "play in Peoria," the congressman from Massachusetts asked: "How can we impeach the President for concealing a burglary but not for concealing a massive bombing?"

Drinan's argument drew enthusiastic support from a number of the Judiciary Committee's younger members, including the Michigan representative who would eventually become its chair, John Conyers. But the committee's majority rejected the sanction by a vote of 26-12. The committee's failure to send a clear signal about the limits on presidential warmaking haunt the United States to this day.

When I began to study the history of impeachment, I consulted with Father Drinan, who helped to form my understanding of the founders' intent that the "heroic medicine" be used "to chain the dogs of war." Drinan and I spoke often in his later years, when he taught at Georgetown University Law Center and kept a wary eye on the Capitol where he had served from 1971 to 1981, when a papal order forced him to leave the House.

Drinan was frustrated by the caution of the Congress during the presidencies of both Bill Clinton and George Bush. He really did believe in the necessity of checks and balances--calling for his successors in the House to look beyond their party affiliations to challenge the failed approaches of Democratic and Republican presidents in the Middle East. And he never lost his sense of perspective when it came to impeachment. He dismissed Republican attempts to sanction Bill Clinton as petty moralizing gone awry. And he counseled those who would seek to remove George Bush and Dick Cheney to understand and respect the process--as he noted that he had in waiting more than two years after arriving in Congress as an anti-war firebrand to move his article of impeachment against Nixon. Before there can be serious talk of impeachment, the law professor explained, newly empowered House Democrats must exercise the powers afforded by their committee assignments to genuinely investigate charges of wrongdoing, with the honest intent of separating mistakes from misdeeds and with an eye toward establishing precisely where lines of law and morality may have been crossed.

Those who now occupy stations of power in the Capitol should not be hesitant, however, in asserting that Congress has the authority to block executive warmaking and to hold president's to account. Active almost to the end, Drinan delighted in the determination of Democrats like Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold and his old Judiciary Committee colleague, Conyers, to challenge the excesses of the current administration.

Drinan died one day after hundreds of thousands of anti-war demonstrators filled the streets of Washington, two days before Feingold opened a Senate Judiciary Committee session on using the power of the purse to end the war in Iraq and three days before Conyers was set to convene an oversight hearing titled: "Presidential Signing Statements under the Bush Administration: A Threat to Checks and Balances and the Rule of Law?"

In a week such as this it is not so difficult to understand why -- after the 2006 elections gave Democrats control of both houses of Congress and handed key committee and subcommittee chairs to the likes of Conyers and Feingold--the old Jesuit was heard to proclaim: "God heard our prayers!" I am only sorry that Father Drinan is not around to enjoy the hearings that are in every sense are celebrations of the Constitution that he so cherished.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' latest book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism.

Comments (41)

I kid you not; When I read this article, the advertisements below the comments part at the top were about tracking sex offenders!!! LMAO!!! A story about a priest with sex offender links! LMAO!!!

Posted by woodyee at 01/30/2007 @ 2:02pm
2 points-

1. Again, I just ask....

Does John Nichols not talk to David Corn around "The Nation" offices? Going into the second month, since Mr Corn was editorializing on Air America Radio and said that "Impeachment is a distraction. It will hurt efforts on more important issues like raising the minimum wage and ending the war in Iraq".

and 2. HOLY JEEBUS! Can you imagine how RESE is going to Cut & Paste this post to death? Mr Nichols praising Drinan...a JESUIT?!?!?!?! Part of the "Un-holy Cabal, who along with the Zionists, planned and executed 9/11 and is setting us up for the fascist takeover!!!!"?

hehe

Posted by Mask at 01/30/2007 @ 2:08pm
This is a wake people. Hold the smarminess for maybe a couple posts. Maybe.

Posted by Best Leftist at 01/30/2007 @ 2:43pm
Posted by BEST LEFTIST 01/30/2007 @ 2:43pm

BL, not defending WOODYEE crassness but for my part, if Mr Nichols is using Father Drinan's death for political purposes....doesn't that eliminate the "hold all criticisms until after the funeral, guys"?

Posted by Mask at 01/30/2007 @ 2:53pm
Father drinan was always a personal hero of mine precisely because his basis for the impeachment of president Nixon was war crimes. I thought that a brave and sensible thing, given that the only constitutional justification for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors." If responsibility for the deaths of thousands of Cambodian non-combatants (from, I may add, a neutral country) is not a high crime, that might be a suprise to those who were tried at Nuremberg by the Allied powers after WW II. And Woodyee: calm yourself. Not all clerics, Catholic or otherwise, are sexual offenders. The vast majority of clerics are dedicated, spiritual people. They, like us, are all too human at times. This does not excuse the dispicable crimes against children that a small minority have committed. Nor does it excuse what I think is the even more vile pattern of cover-ups by the bishops of dioceses and the Curia in Rome. But to blanket all with the limited tar that should be used on the few is foolish.

Posted by The Goods at 01/30/2007 @ 2:57pm
This is a wake people. Hold the smarminess for maybe a couple posts. Maybe.

Posted by BEST LEFTIST 01/30/2007 @ 2:43pm

But when it's all you've got...

Posted by Turk33 at 01/30/2007 @ 2:59pm
RIO is partially right on that first point.

Somehow on the Left, history has been re-written so that the Vietnam War began on January 20th, 1969 with the inauguration of Richard Nixon. Or if they aren't that bold, that Vietnam was "no big deal" until Nixon came to office.

To protect Johnson (or atleast cushion him a bit), given his liberal agenda on "The Great Society" and civil rights, amazingly Vietnam is now a "Republican war". "Started" by Eisenhower, somehow "nebulously" fought under Kennedy and Johnson, and then "total war" under Nixon.

He's wrong of course that Iraq can EVER be blamed on the Democrats. Except for their 50-50ish (among their own caucus) vote for authorization, the war was fought primarily by a Republican Congress, and EXCLUSIVELY by a Republican President.

Nobody is going to get the blame but Bush and Cheney for THIS disaster.

Posted by Mask at 01/30/2007 @ 4:57pm
I had the privilege of meeting Father Drinan while I was a student at Georgetown Law. He was a man of principle and a strong voice for the rapidly diminishing left. He will be missed.

Posted by bartap at 01/30/2007 @ 6:08pm
2 points-

1. Again, I just ask....

Does John Nichols not talk to David Corn around "The Nation" offices? Going into the second month, since Mr Corn was editorializing on Air America Radio and said that "Impeachment is a distraction. It will hurt efforts on more important issues like raising the minimum wage and ending the war in Iraq".

and 2. HOLY JEEBUS! Can you imagine how RESE is going to Cut & Paste this post to death? Mr Nichols praising Drinan...a JESUIT?!?!?!?! Part of the "Un-holy Cabal, who along with the Zionists, planned and executed 9/11 and is setting us up for the fascist takeover!!!!"?

hehe

Posted by MASK 01/30/2007 @ 2:08pm |

1. if you want ideological/policy locksteppers, go to a conservative blogsite...i love dissension and intellectual discord...the opposite results in PNAC and the neocons...and (ultimately?) iraq invasion...

2. rese is a strange bird but the possibility of the existance of some kind of cabal of high level conspirators or sociopathic conspiracies...like the gnomes of zurich...or the fiendish flouridaters...is not so absurd.

well not the jesuits nor the zionists nor that shit, but some kind of cabal of financial/intelligence establishment insiders who have morphed into and emerged publicly as the neoconservatives. what began as fervent anti-commernists in the 50's (20's, 30's?) and involved the private sector (anti commernist after all...). the group would consist of powerful and wealthy industrialist/wall streeters capable of financing shady shit as well as financing a private propaganda machine and shady in-and-outers politicians like the bushes who have oh so much to gain in troubled times...

not saying i believe in such a thing (and not saying that to avoid jabs at my sanity), but...yet another GREAT reason for investigations WITHOUT such strict oversight by the gubbament information officers. put the issue to rest and undoubtably dig up the dirt we know is there to PUT HEADS ON POLES!!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/30/2007 @ 7:39pm
Nobody is going to get the blame but Bush and Cheney for THIS disaster.

Posted by MASK

Actually, Masky, history will note that regime change in Iraq was a policy goal first stated by Bill Clinton.....but you're right, of course that this is W's war.....

But, then again, the final chapter hasn't yet been written, now has it? There are those of us who dare hope for victory, as distinguished from those who have given up on it, and still others who hope, even pray, for defeat for the US and our allies....those who consider the US to be an evil empire, even as they enjoy it's protections and freedoms...

The kind of people who would not fight to protect their own freedoms, much less anyone elses......unless the UN ok'd it, of course.....

Posted by davebarlett at 01/30/2007 @ 9:30pm
So,what was Nixon's "Secret Plan to end the war"? I was too busy ducking bullets and rockets waiting for the war to end to run down to the local hooch and drop a quarter in the NYT newspaper machine and never did find out.

By the way, Nixon was the only president I ever voted for that won. My first vote and Nixon stole it away. Very early lession in politics.

"Voters quickly forget what a man says." Richard Nixon (1913-1994)

I never did.

Posted by COProgressive at 01/31/2007 @ 12:00am
Posted by FREIHEIT 01/30/2007 @ 11:03pm

yeah imagine.

Ha Ha Ha Ha

the hasterland fantasy is not dead

Posted by Will C. at 01/31/2007 @ 01:30am
Now we get priests like this:

But now parishioners are trying to reconcile the saint they thought Rodis was with the sinner authorities say he is. Rodis, 50, has been charged with embezzling an estimated $600,000 to $700,000, possibly more, from the parish. And, unbeknownst to parishioners, for the past 14 years, Rodis has been living with a woman identified in court records as his wife and three children an hour away in Spotsylvania County, where his neighbors believed he was in the import-export business

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR200701 2902180.html?nav=rss_print/asection

Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2007 @ 08:22am
Can;t defend your man, attack someone else. Blame Clinton, that always works. So what that he has been gone for 6 years. Deflect, dodge, spin, parry, thrust.

Face it, Nixon was a criminal, as is Chimpy McFlightsuit. Nationalism is not an honorable trait when ones eyes are closed tight.

Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2007 @ 08:27am
Posted by WOODYEE 01/30/2007 @ 2:02pm

That is almost as good as listening to your Priest of Lies, Bubba Oh Really(?). His show is brought to me by "adult entertainment" venues. At the same time he rails against the immoral left. gotta love it. at least The nation takes money from people that are trying to catch republicans, er child molesters.

do i make you horny? Got Foley?

Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2007 @ 08:30am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/30/2007 @ 7:39pm

1. Don't want "locksteppers", IBBLE. But I note it's quite "odd" that David Corn spoke out against impeachment on Air America (as I believe he has on his NPR appearances)....but never has done so here at "The Nation"? My feeling is that it's to not set up his friend John Nichols for some counter-posts from the Right, or even from people like me who agree with Corn that impeachment is a waste of time.

Not sure you're blanket statement about "conservative websites" holds true, either. Now that you've got guys like SAM BROWNBACK coming out against the Surge, maybe the war. I'd say they have a fair amount of dissension too.

2. RESE is the best. (PLUNGER really just second-rate compared to him). His sinister machinations between the "Jesuits" and the "Zionists" stretching back to...well, maybe the Crucifixion of Jesus...take a Robert Anton Wilson comedy and try to turn it into a serious documentary. I often wonder what we'll see of RESE come NEXT February 2008, when impeachment becomes a legislative as well as political impossibility...and he (like the slight more normal Impeachmentos) realize that "they got away with it".

Have a feeling he'll turn his sights onto Hillary AND McCain and induct them into "32nd Level Initiates of the Cabal".

As for yourself, start down the Dark Path of "THEY who control it all" and forever will it dominate your life.....just a warning.

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2007 @ 09:54am
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 01/30/2007 @ 9:30pm

2 points-

1. Saying you support "regime change in Iraq" doesn't necessarily equate to "putting 150,000 troops into the country and trying to create post-WW2 Germany from it". A sniper taking out Saddam from 3000 feet would cause "regime change in Iraq" and would have saved us 3000+ dead Americans.

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2007 @ 09:59am
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 01/30/2007 @ 9:30pm Posted by MASK 01/31/2007 @ 09:59am

sorry...#2....define "victory"...specifically

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2007 @ 10:00am
Bravo to John Nichols for acknowledging one of the forgotten heroes of the now resurgent anti-war, anti-imperialist presidency movements. In our age when a bloated media system doggedly attempts to shrink the range of thinkable thought (as one wag tersely summarized it: "Be silent, consume, die,"), Drinan's whole life refuted these Orwellian constrictions. He listened to his conscience - and spoke truth to power, in and out of season. And once, when I was a provincial l'il cowpoke in the largely rural part of Massachusetts Fr. Drinan represented, he helped forge an indelible vision in my psyche: Peace is possible. The abuse of presidential power is nothing to tolerate. What a visionary he was!

Posted by jhamlet at 01/31/2007 @ 11:03am
CRABWALK - What the hell are you talking about? Have you been sniffing those fumes when you've been smithing???

Posted by woodyee at 01/31/2007 @ 11:05am
As for yourself, start down the Dark Path of "THEY who control it all" and forever will it dominate your life.....just a warning.

Posted by MASK 01/31/2007 @ 09:54am

ha! been down there and came back. nothing to be scared of. just requires a little perspective and raeason...

but i wonder about the blanket nature of your dismissal of all conspiratorial speculation...

i mean, i dont buy into the wilder "foucault's pendulum" stuff, though i'm sure conspiracies have always been with us and perhaps this sort of speculation is based on something that once was...

but i think keeping an open mind to the possibility that conspirators might exist, and be conspiring, is not crazy. i think its crazy to NEVER consider such. look at watergate...

now you say "yeah, they were so competant. look how they got away with what the did!"

and i say, yeah - they were not nearly as competant as they thought they were. but whoever really offed kennedy was GOOD...lol.

i do not discount the possibility that someone who should have/could have done something to stop 9/11 did not, in order to get our "pearl harbor" justification for implementing PNAC's imperial ambitions...and sleeps well at night since a few thousand of us and a few hundred thousand of "them" is precious small price to pay for americanizing the world...

but then maybe they are simply criminally negligent and incompetant at anything other than lining their own pockets and lying to get/stay elected...

but if you dont believe that cheney and company are the "end justifies the means"/"history is written by the winners" types, well, i like the world you live in. its a nicer place than this one...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/31/2007 @ 12:37pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/31/2007 @ 12:37am

IBBLE, once down the RESE Path, where do you draw the line?

Why stop at LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose), when MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose) is so tantilizing? After all, you claim they "needed their 'Pearl Harbor' to enact PNAC"...therefore they COULDN'T just "wait around" for Al Queda to attack and topple two skyscrapers and kill 3000 people....they'd NEED it to happen, and pretty quickly so as to no risk losing the 2004 re-election.

(See how easy it is...even I'M able to sound like RESEY-poo)

Of course the flaw is...the more "evil genius" status you lay upon Cheney-Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld-Bill Kristol....the less "they're ALSO incompent idiots" you can. Can't be BOTH, as the contradiction is obvious.

But if they're not incompetent and are capable of THE most extraordinary machinations devised by the mind of Man....then the next step is the obvious "And they're planning on declaring martial law and establishing themselves in a fascist dictatorship".

After all, if these guys would "kill 3000 Americans on purpose", they obviously aren't going to just GIVE UP POWER due to some silly thing like the Constitution...are they?

And on...and on....and on. Then ultimately you're left with no hope, and you've got to contruct SOME basis for the possibility that "they can be stopped"...and you come up "getting the Truth out on the Internet". You start Cut & Pasting from every wacko conspiracy site you can find, cross-referencing articles from WorldNetDaily on the Right and 9/11TruthOut on the Left, and claim that you're some kind of "revolutionary standing up against the New Order"....by pressing the Control and V keys on a keyboard 300 times a day.

Maybe you're resistant...like those of us who aren't alcoholics who can enjoy a drink or two safely or who take a toke, but don't move on to heroin. Choice is yours of course.

I'm just letting you know that there's a risk.

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2007 @ 1:08pm
Posted by MASK 01/31/2007 @ 1:08pm

now you are just being silly. how could someone be so competant and incompetant at the same time? quite possible, and arrogance does precede a fall.

but how hard would it really really be to allow this to happen, especially when you can classify anything you want? perhaps they simply did not realize how horrific it would be (giving the devils their due). or they did not care...

or perhaps they were/are simply incompetant...

i'd love a REAL, THOROUGH investigation one of these days...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/31/2007 @ 1:27pm
Posted by CRABWALK 01/31/2007 @ 08:22am Man, that story was hilarious(My mother thought it was too and she's more a devout Catholic than I am). Too bad for the parishioners though. Also "Chimpy McFlightsuit" is hilarious as well. Keep up the good work everybody.

Anyway, may Father Drinan rest in peace. I called my mother to ask her about Father 'cause he was before my time. She remembered him working in civil rights and the fact that the pope "recalled" him. She said he may have been too liberal for the pope's tastes at that time.

Posted by k330k at 01/31/2007 @ 3:14pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/31/2007 @ 1:27pm

When you start off at the BEGINNING, IBBLE...you're right.

By the time you get to RESE/PLUNGER-land though, you can't keep saying they're "incompetent" AND they're "diabolical masterminds who planned it down to the second, even to the Mossad agents sneaking thermite and nuclear warheads into the Towers and Building 7 with nobody seeing them!"

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2007 @ 4:27pm
I think that it is the identification of W to this war that so worries the left. Imagine the political fallout for the democrats if the war was successful in the eyes of the american electorate? Imagine how high the wave the republicans would be surfing!

Posted by FREIHEIT 01/30/2007 @ 11:03pm

Imagine? How about just remember 2003? Saddam was deposed, the Iraqi army was defeated and the nascent insurgency wasn't even registered by most people.

I don't need to imagine - I was here when it happened!

BTW, I have been against the invasion of Iraq since the administration started pushing it in 2002. I was in the minority then, but am in the majority now. I didn't change my view, but a third of the country got their heads out of their assess and joined me.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 01/31/2007 @ 5:35pm
BTW, I have been against the invasion of Iraq since the administration started pushing it in 2002. I was in the minority then, but am in the majority now. I didn't change my view, but a third of the country got their heads out of their assess and joined me.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 01/31/2007 @ 5:35pm

I'm with you man. If you listen carefully, you can hear all the same words used leading up to Iraq being used again in the lead up to Iran. The drums of war are starting to beat again. I'm against the Iran war just like I was against the Iraq war.

The difference being we don't have the troops to move on Iran, so Chimpy McFlightsuit will have to bomb the hell out of them. This would be a good chance to test out their new "Tactical Nuclear Weapon", which is just a little bitty "A Bomb" 1/20th of Hiroshima, then blame the mushroom cloud on hitting the Iranian weapon lab.

"Violence is the last resource of the incompetence." Salvor Hardin

Posted by COProgressive at 01/31/2007 @ 11:04pm
I'm looking forward to when Iran blows up the huge oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia in retaliation for the chimp bombing them just so I can collect on the bet going out to anyone here tonight of one crispy new dollar that the hamsters will try to blame President Clinton for the chimps unparalleled retardation.

Posted by Will C. at 01/31/2007 @ 11:16pm
two crispy new dollars if they blame carter also.

Posted by Will C. at 01/31/2007 @ 11:17pm
Three if they mention Chappaquiddick

Posted by Will C. at 01/31/2007 @ 11:17pm
Posted by MASK 01/31/2007 @ 4:27pm

no - my serious speculations end where i said above, and i dont pretend to know the answer. which is why i'd like some good investigations without the neocon commisars hovering about...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/31/2007 @ 11:40pm
when i say "where i said above", i mean way before the gnomes of zurich, fiendish flouridaters and such paranoid nonsense. theres enough to be paranoid about without gnomes of zurich and such.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/31/2007 @ 11:44pm
Lotta extra space....RESE must be up.

I'm HALF-tempted to de-Ignore to see if he has any "vital information that SUPPOSED liberal, Jesuit Drinan!!!"

hehe

Posted by Mask at 02/01/2007 @ 07:15am
Posted by WILL C. 01/31/2007 @ 11:17pm

There is a pattern, isn't there? it's all someone else's fault.

would that be one 3 dollar bill, or 2 $1.50 pieces? The 3 has a pic of the Chimp on it, it says "legal tender for all faith based war debt".

Posted by crabwalk at 02/01/2007 @ 09:39am
There is a pattern, isn't there? it's all someone else's fault.

Posted by CRABWALK 02/01/2007 @ 09:39am

You mean like "Vast Right Wing Conspiracies" and "hate radio"?

Posted by Mask at 02/01/2007 @ 10:57am
You mean like "Vast Right Wing Conspiracies" and "hate radio"?

Posted by MASK 02/01/2007 @ 10:57am 02/01/2007 @ 10:57am

well it certainly wasn't the liberals that wanted to know all about the presidents sex life.

and that was hillary defending her man before she knew the truth. She didn't continue to blame you hamsters after my favorite president volentarily came forward with the truth.

Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2007 @ 11:55am
would that be one 3 dollar bill, or 2 $1.50 pieces? The 3 has a pic of the Chimp on it, it says "legal tender for all faith based war debt".

Posted by CRABWALK 02/01/2007 @ 09:39am

it wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on.

Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2007 @ 11:56am
Posted by WILL C. 02/01/2007 @ 11:55am

I liked HIM too, WILL. Her? not so much.

But my point was CRAB seems to think that "they always think it's somebody else's fault"....

is not limited to the Right!

Posted by Mask at 02/01/2007 @ 12:49pm
But my point was CRAB seems to think that "they always think it's somebody else's fault"....

is not limited to the Right!

Posted by MASK 02/01/2007 @ 12:49am

hillary translates into they?

your as bad as the vast right wing conspiracy and hate radio

Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2007 @ 1:34pm
your as bad as the vast right wing conspiracy and hate radio

Posted by WILL C. 02/01/2007 @ 1:34pm

See, I KNEW it had to be somebody else's fault...the "somebody else" being me of course!

hehe

Posted by Mask at 02/01/2007 @ 2:16pm
See, I KNEW it had to be somebody else's fault...the "somebody else" being me of course!

hehe

Posted by MASK 02/01/2007 @ 2:16pm

It's your fault that my boy bill got a hummer.

Ha Ha Ha Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You might want to let him know

Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2007 @ 3:16pm