9/11 generation! jeebers creepers.

You read some very strange stuff, Glenn. I am barely aware of 'The Weekly Standard', and have a mere passing awareness of Hugh Hewitt and Mr. Barnett.

Words fall short...

But why go to the Standard when Michael Gordon, our pal, is reporting front and center on the New York Times? Todays front page article explains (exclusively?) how military planners are saying it will be 2009 before things will... well, you know.

Dead skunk in the middle of the road... and I can't get a straight piece of news.

I come here to get some news on the dead skunk(nyt, etc. el) and defend the Constituion, Glenn. (...and play with bebop.) Not, to endlessly endure the ravings of people crazier than our four-peckered billy goat.

all the words fit for print,

Bah.

I don't chit chat with the sitty slickers.

On the other hand, I like hip hop. :)

regards,

bah.

ps. what was that last thing about happy idiots, humming... pray (& and if required, prey) for the end o' war. amen.

no be o', either.

Look, Glenn, there is no credibility for the Iraq 'war'. (*the 'Intelligence' that could have provided credibility and justification..., failed to materialize)

However, I don't see this a Republican thing! Hell, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. There are plenty of Republicans who oppose this war.

Nor is it some kind-of theological Christian crusade. There are plenty of Christians who oppose this war.

No, this war - now billed as the 'central front in the war on global terrorism' in Iraq - is just plain crazy. (*if you happened to watch "Meet The Press - meet Tim Russert" yesterday w/ the Bush Adm.'s National Intelligence Director, you will know whereof I speak. On both counts.)

It is difficult to argue/persuade/debate with crazy people. Even if the MSM were so inclined.

That's why we have Belleview(sp?) hospital and places like that. They realize that crazy people can be highly intelligent and have the potential to cause much harm in a civilized, free and democratic society.

Sincerely,

Bah.

*ps. wrt The Intelligence. I watched with rapt attention as Colin Powell delivered the 'intelligence' to the world at the United Nations just prior to Iraq invasion. It was not credible.

I have a standard reply for most all of Bush's condemnations: Don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining. (*and you know it's raining bad when Putin has to explain democractic principles to Bush!)

I informed my senator, Mitch-$isfreespeech-McConnell, likewise. But he says my complaint ain't worth the paper it was written on.

Still, I think (i know) all paper has an intrinsic value.

Rough as a cob,

bah.

~aside. I suspect most of the people around here wouldn't know an out/house if they were sitting in sitty hall. :)

Well, if Gen. Petraeus is to report this Sept. on the 'central front in the war on global terrorism' in Iraq... not a wit. And, frankly, I don't give damn about any report that describes U.S. involvement in Iraq as 'the central front in the global war on terrorism'. That makes no sense.

Update: Top military officials have decided it will be Nov. before they can assess whether (or not) the central front in the global war on terrorism in Iraq is succeeding.

Update II: I am still awaiting the Report on why Iraq is the central front in the global war on terrorism?

Sincerely,

bah.

"You must live near the UN building ... They should suicide-bomb that place"

dang nation. In my informal talks with Bush supporters (there is no other word for them, Glenn) the only thing that arouses their ire more than Bill Clinton is...the United Nations. I have no explanation for this either.

In a word, for Bush supporters the UN is ...UNAmerican.

President Bush explains it best: "American foreign policy ...must have a great and guiding goal: to turn this time of American influence into generations of democratic peace." And as we all know by now; 'You are with us, or you are with the terrorists.' Love it, or leave it.

Beyond the horrific consequences of a clearly unjustifiable war of agression in Iraq; beyond mauling the U.S. Constitution to something unrecognizable... there will remain Bush's legecy of undermining and subverting the functional authority of a United Nations.

By unilaterally and unjustly invading another nation contrary to the wishes of the community of nations, including many of our long-standing Allies, President Bush's mis-use of American influence has essentially destablized the entire world... for generations to come.

Perhaps, in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, President Bush Sr. explained it best:

"...The coalition would instantly have collapsed (referring to occupation of Iraq). ...Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish."

Not to mention destroying the precedent of international response wrt the 'the war on global terrorism'!

Because the world is round, it blows my mind.

bah.