You've seen grenades right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_grenade

Bit of a tight fit I think. But they are really human are they, so it may just be possible.

BTW Referring to Afghanistan as "the Afghan" is a perfectly valid construction, it is a Britishism. I am Canadian so we talk and spell funny sometimes. As a citizen of the world and universal expert, I am sure that you must know that, I guess it slipped your mind, along with whatever other facts you might once have been in possession of.

I wasn't involved in that one, but know the people who were.

Where do you loons get this crap from? I've never known one liberal who "approves" of al-Qaeda. All you right-wing crackpots seem to do is make lists of everyone you hate (which is, well, EVERYONE) and put "-loving" at the end of each one, assuming we must naturally "love" everyone you hate. It's like grade school.

Just stop. Put down your gun, give up on your macho John Wayne fantasies, stop thinking there's Reds under the bed and join us here in the world of the sane and reasonable. You probably don't even personally know any liberals, and if you do, I doubt very much they've ever spoken out in favor of terrorists. Or is "not a Republican" your knee-jerk definition of "in favor of terrorists"?

It pains me that we have reached a point in this country that we should even be having this discussion. The "Greatest Generation" fought and died against Nazis who did the same thing for this???

- I know it has become some kind of 'fashionable' to compare Bush to Hitler or the "Bush years to the rule of the Nazis - Please don't do that - it's not only very foolish you might also join very unpleasant company and even as my German 'half' could be proud - about all these nice things you said about my deceased countrymen - these Generals tried to kill Adolf a little late in the game and I think if Bush would have given orders to attack Poland, France, England, Russia and a few other countries more - (to keep it simple) - you probably would have seen a lot more 'action' (and I will not tell you about the loss of life - because you never should compare it)

documentation please?

As I wrote, most think you a liar.

But, the question was evaded by you. Why were you (or your buddies) there killing innocent men, women, and children in the first place?

Why would you disobey the rules of engagement and torture these enemy soldiers?

Why are you destroying America by wasting our blood and treasure overseas just so you can enjoy torture porn?

And why are you using a scenario that crazy Uncle Charlie claimed true just after his first Nam tour? Of course, he added the stupid canard that the vagina was "sideways" on gooks.

And lastly, what is the point of your porn story?

I'm wondering what I would do in the pres-elect's current position.

Granted, he is just another slick politician, and as Little Brother points out, the only populist thing about him was his marketing. His main allegiance is to the financial sector, with defense running a close 2nd. Despite the Change We Can Believe In brand, Mr. Obama is very timid when it comes to standing up to those political and economic entities which are devastating our middle class. However, it seems to me that he is very knowledgable about the Constitution, & I believe that he's well aware of the likely damage to our collective soul resulting from the failure to hold accountable all these Cheney administration sh*tstains for their myriad crimes.

Unfortunately, if justice is pursued, Obama will probably lose a lot of the support (from both parties) he needs to advance his economic recovery agenda... no doubt the leadership of both parties (or, more accurately, both branches of the corporatist party) have made that crystal clear to him.

Who's Nailin' Paylin?

Not a myth. It's an actual incident.

I wasn't involved in that one, but know the people who were.

-- steveindallas

I knew of another "Special Ops" guy on another blog who loved to tell us secret stories. He was called out as you have been. Then, finally, his 'girl friend' told us that we would "never hear about this or read about this in the news papers or on TV, but her "Special Ops" guy, along with his "Special Ops" buddies, was killed. "Only a pool of blood for evidence". You "Special Ops" guys sure have a flair for the B'movie dramatics. I thought you all were "Special Ops" approved because you had the good sense not to tell about your "Special Ops" adventures. No?

Did anyone try to stop this administration in a coup?

Not that we know of. Insiders might have information that they haven't shared with the rest of us, but there is no sign of any coup or any other extra-legal efforts to thwart or remove the Bush regime. Instead, there were numerous extra-legal actions to put them in power (I consider the SCOTUS decision that gave the Presidency to Bush to be lawless) and to expand and enhance executive power.

After the effort to murder key Senators opposed to the Patriot Act, as well as key members of the media, through the distribution of anthrax (only a photographer and some postal workers paid for it with their lives) Congressional opposition was muted or silenced. And after Paul Wellstone's voice fell silent, most of the remaining opposition in Congress shut up. There was a certain amount and kind of permitted "opposition" within very strict parameters and that was it.

Some military people have been up front in their opposition -- or just in telling the truth -- but they have either had to resign or have had their careers ruined. Same with FBI and other DoJ personnel. So far as we know, none has ever contemplated a coup.

There was a time when things seemed so out of kilter there was actually hope among some (few) "progressives"(!) that the CIA would man up and perpetrate a coup, but it didn't happen. Instead, the CIA was tamed and put work supporting the purposes of the Regime.

There's been no reason for corporate interests to finance and perpetrate a coup, has there?

It's really kind of striking. There have been no known assassination attempts (at least that I can recall.) Very limited disruptive protest. Very little domestic terrorist activity, and most of what there has been has had the effect of enhancing the power of the Regime.

Despite the extraordinary level of public disapproval of the Regime, extra-legal actions against them have been almost nonexistent. The very idea of it is shocking and appalling to most internet progressives, for they almost unanimously prefer quiet literary, journalistic, political and legal action -- books and blogs, news media investigations and reports, campaigns and voting, and suits and prosecutions.

In my view, the real coup was in the Bushevik seizure of the government, enabled by the Supreme Court that lawlessly intervened in an election dispute, which was then essentially given the approval (and often the willing complicity) of the entire ruling class -- and for a while most of the public.

And so, any coup to unseat them would have been a counter-coup, eh?