Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times calling for Donald Rumsfeld to be fired. Coast Guard Times still on the fence   (sfgate.com) divider line 296
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

9533 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Nov 2006 at 12:34 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



296 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-11-04 12:05:26 PM  
TheSwissNavy:

Bush's plan, fwiw, was to stabilize Iraq and thus provide a check against Iran, sort of like renewing a bad neighborhood in the inner city.

The problem with the plan was an inherent lack of basic understanding. Iraq is majority Shia. It was a check against Iran (and we therefore supported it for that pragmatic reason) in the 1980s because it was controlled by a Sunni minority. Its Shia religious leaders have long had ties with Iran, and since the overthrow of Saddam and the intention to implement a democracy (which presumably means "equal votes") it's always been a foregone conclusion that majority will rule. The Shia leaders have made many pilgrimages to Iran since 2003 and Iran is exercising its influence and biding its time.

The challenge to the U.S. has been how, in the face of the extreme likelihood that Iran will exert the most influence with Iraq, to encourage Iraq to create a government that gives equal voice and representation to the minority Sunnis and Kurds and to remain leaning more toward the U.S. That's a very tall order, because the mechanics in place are set to create an Iran-leaning Iraq. It doesn't matter whether we leave in one month, or a phased withdrawal or what. The net result will likely be a strengthened Iran which will be the dominant influence in the region, with unfortunately influence over both a considerable amount of oil reserves and production as well as a key shipping channel for oil - the Strait of Hormuz.

But we'll see what James Baker comes up with in a month or so. He's a pretty smart, practical guy. Probably also a bit ticked because the two Republican predecessors understood measured strength and the proper use of restraint when it was the "right" solution.
 
2006-11-04 12:11:31 PM  
NewportBarGuy: /Huge fan of the Coasties.


I used to be a huge fan, back when they did useful work. Now if you get into trouble offshore, they call a private company to rescue you, so as not to be distracted from their new primary mission: raising the profitability of illegal drugs in America.

Well, that, and helping Castro keep his Cubans at home.
 
2006-11-04 12:12:54 PM  
Wild Bluebonnet

maybe your boys should start worrying more about the reality on the ground than their fears of the evil libs. right now if one of them gets crippled the bush administration has ensured that the VA is underfunded. this means that your boys, should they ever get mangled will be provided the minimum care that can be afforded. this is precipitated by the iraq war, more wounded+less funding= more misery.
 
2006-11-04 12:15:20 PM  
I'll wait and see what the Smarmy Times has to say about it.
 
2006-11-04 12:19:42 PM  
2006-11-04 02:06:18 AM Ateam


General: Mr. President, we are losing a lot of good men. I think we need to make a few...

Bush: Hold on. Hold on. Pull my finger


Ok, I LOL'd.
 
2006-11-04 12:20:55 PM  
Suck it libs!
 
2006-11-04 12:22:33 PM  
By the way, further along the lines of "conservative" vs. "liberal" vs. "right" solutions, there is a Vanity Fair article coming out which has already been excerpted where the author spoke with many of the former so-called neocon hawks who originally pushed for and created much of the framework for the whole Iraq thing.

It's interesting that most of them have come to the conclusion that the theory was brilliant but the execution was flawed. They're all blaming the administration now for incompetence, which is quite a turnaround, having conservatives calling other conservatives incompetent.

Kenneth Adelman, a lifelong neocon activist and Pentagon insider who served on the Defense Policy Board until 2005, wrote a famous op-ed article in The Washington Post in February 2002, arguing: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." Now he says, "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional." Fearing that worse is still to come, Adelman believes that neoconservatism itself-what he defines as "the idea of a tough foreign policy on behalf of morality, the idea of using our power for moral good in the world"-is dead, at least for a generation. After Iraq, he says, "it's not going to sell." And if he, too, had his time over, Adelman says, "I would write an article that would be skeptical over whether there would be a performance that would be good enough to implement our policy. The policy can be absolutely right, and noble, beneficial, but if you can't execute it, it's useless, just useless. I guess that's what I would have said: that Bush's arguments are absolutely right, but you know what, you just have to put them in the drawer marked can't do. And that's very different from let's go." "The most dispiriting and awful moment of the whole administration was the day that Bush gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to [former C.I.A. director] George Tenet, General Tommy Franks, and [Coalition Provisional Authority chief] Jerry [Paul] Bremer-three of the most incompetent people who've ever served in such key spots. And they get the highest civilian honor a president can bestow on anyone! That was the day I checked out of this administration. It was then I thought, There's no seriousness here, these are not serious people. If he had been serious, the president would have realized that those three are each directly responsible for the disaster of Iraq."

Richard Perle: "Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad. I'm getting damn tired of being described as an architect of the war. I was in favor of bringing down Saddam. Nobody said, 'Go design the campaign to do that.' I had no responsibility for that." Perle goes so far as to say that, if he had his time over, he would not have advocated an invasion of Iraq: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' ... I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."

Frank Gaffney, an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan and founder of the Center for Security Policy: "[Bush] doesn't in fact seem to be a man of principle who's steadfastly pursuing what he thinks is the right course. He talks about it, but the policy doesn't track with the rhetoric, and that's what creates the incoherence that causes us problems around the world and at home. It also creates the sense that you can take him on with impunity."

To David Frum, the former White House speechwriter who co-wrote Bush's 2002 State of the Union address that accused Iraq of being part of an "axis of evil," it now looks as if defeat may be inescapable, because "the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them." This situation, he says, must ultimately be blamed on "failure at the center"-starting with President Bush.
 
2006-11-04 12:23:51 PM  
Wild Bluebonnet: Wild Bluebonnet: what really concerns them is the hatred their fellow Americans are showing them.


What a completely moronic strawman.


TheSwissNavy: Not a lot of room for discussion with people who meet in book clubs to discuss "What's the Matter with Kansas ?";

You haven't read it, have you?
 
2006-11-04 12:28:35 PM  
TheSwissNavy:

Ironic - here's an article today describing the challenge the U.S. faces with a Shia majority controlling Iraq. Interesting excerpts:

Iraq's ruling Shiites have voiced growing concern that the United States is subtly shifting support to Sunni Arabs, the bulwark of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, in a bid to salvage 43-months of democracy building in Iraq and tamp down violence. The perceived re-energized bid to draw the Sunni insurgency into Iraq's political process marks, in the eyes of anxious Shiites, a worrisome and major alteration of American policy in a period that has seen growing strains in the U.S.-Iraqi relationship. "There is much talk of such a shift, and it is in part driven by the (American) desire to contain Iran," said Vali Nasr, an expert on Shiites who lectures at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

Analysts like Nasr and Iraqi politicians said Washington's perceived shift away from total support for the Shiites also was in part dictated by its desire to find an exit strategy from Iraq through a new power-sharing formula. The United States has for decades maintained strong ties with moderate, Sunni-led Arab nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Those time-tested alliances were meant in part to ward off the influence of Iran, which is run by a fundamentalist Shiite theocracy that is deeply hostile to Washington.

With that in mind, many saw the U.S.-Shiite alliance in Iraq as temporary and predicted that Washington would eventually disengage and return to look to old Arab allies to protect its interests in the region. "The Americans realize now that the present formula of Shiite domination in Iraq will not help them leave," said Mustapha al-Ani, a Dubai-based Iraqi analyst. "They are looking for a new balance of power in Iraq."
 
2006-11-04 12:58:11 PM  
Wild Bluebonnet - I only speak to them through emails and when they call. They are concerned that after the elections the country is going to sell them out, they're very concerned about the support they have here.

This is like the bazillionth post I've seen you make trading on your (alleged) family members to say "don't vote Democrat in the midterms!!!" and lets not forget your proud declaration that you're a "straight-ticket Republican" down the line every time.

This is pretty disgusting. If you really are the aunt of combat troops in Iraq, it's even more disgusting.

If you believe in something just state it. Don't make up pretend soldiers to say it to give it more authority. If you really do have nephews over their. Quit using them as sock poppets for your partisan hackery.

If you want to encourage people to vote Republican, why don't you tell them what an awesome job the Republicans are doing. Quit making up bullshiat "liberals hate our troops" crap to try to play amateur propagandist on the intarwebs. (or are you a 'professional' one?)

Also, for the record... I've got friends and family in Iraq/returned from Iraq too. I've met several more. Several are conservatives... none I've ever talked with seems to imagine that ANY of their fellow Americans hate them. Which is precisely what leads me to believe that either you're lying through your teeth to us, or to your 'nephews,' to curry support for the Republican party.

Whichever it is, it's dishonest and disgusting.
 
2006-11-04 01:03:36 PM  
technicolor-misfit: Whichever it is, it's dishonest and disgusting.


You are wasting your time. Partisans gave up logic when they picked a team.
 
2006-11-04 01:09:41 PM  
technicolor-misfit: Whichever it is, it's dishonest and disgusting.


Wow. That was an epic blast. On target too.
 
2006-11-04 01:20:53 PM  
SwissNavy posted:

"Try having that discussion with a liberal and their eyes will bleed"

followed by

"assigning a pathological state to your political enemnies is a sign of tinfoil hatdom"

Nice hat.
 
2006-11-04 01:27:11 PM  
TheSwissNavy: I don't know if invading Iraq was the 100% right thing to do, but it wasn't the 100% wrong thing to do either. Try having that discussion with a liberal and their eyes will bleed, however. Not a lot of room for discussion with people who meet in book clubs to discuss "What's the Matter with Kansas ?"; assigning a pathological state to your political enemnies is a sign of tinfoil hatdom.

Bolded for ironic-y goodness
 
2006-11-04 01:30:53 PM  
Hehe even the military is turning on bush. This is soo cool, soon nobody will have the will to fight in iraq.

Looks like the real heros aka the insurgents are winning. Good work iraqis drive the invaders out. Most american support you now
 
2006-11-04 01:31:07 PM  
PunGent: SwissNavy posted:

"Try having that discussion with a liberal and their eyes will bleed"

followed by

"assigning a pathological state to your political enemnies is a sign of tinfoil hatdom"

Nice hat.


crap.

one post away from the first-to-pwn status.
 
2006-11-04 01:31:53 PM  
PatMcCroch: Hehe even the military is turning on bush. This is soo cool, soon nobody will have the will to fight in iraq.

Looks like the real heros aka the insurgents are winning. Good work iraqis drive the invaders out. Most american support you now


Shut up, mr. fake liberal sock puppet.
 
2006-11-04 01:40:39 PM  
ElRonHubbardsBalls It has nothing to do with admitting a mistake...it has to do with the fact that Rumsfeld and Cheney have always run the show and Bush was always the worthless chump.

True, but there are a few more reasons why Rummy has total job security.

1. Rummy is the firewall that is protecting Cheney and Bushie. Bob Woodward says Cheney has told Bush not to fire Rummy because if he does, the war critics will come after him (Cheney) next, and after him, Bush himself. They are concerned about saving their own worthless asses. It's more than just not wanting to admit a booboo. They're on the edge of the abyss.

2. A new SecDef would mean confirmation hearings. Think about that for a sec. If the Dems take the Senate (knock on wood) Bushie is going to wish he got rid of Rummy when he had the chance.
 
2006-11-04 01:40:46 PM  
Also, to state my own views:

If Democrats win a majority in Congress, it won't eliminate George Bush's role or authority as Commander-in-Chief. It will simply provide the much-needed check on his power that our Constitution intended.

If the current Republican majority Congress had been doing its job in providing that check, perhaps it wouldn't be so critical. But they haven't. They've been so giddy at all their partisan power and control that they've fallen down in their duty to provide a check on the power of the Executive.

In short, they've been Bush's little pet rubber-stamp Congress. They have put loyalty to party before their responsibility to country. This dereliction of duty shouldn't be ignored or tolerated.
 
2006-11-04 01:48:51 PM  
TheSwissNavy: Anyone who believe Iran wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes is an idiot, they're sitting on enough natural gas to power the solar system.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but not the second. I mean, I'm not saying I don't think that the iranian regime wants nukes, I'm sure they do.

I'm saying that to say nuclear power wouldn't be useful to them at all is wrong. Iran does have crude oil. They have no refineries, so everything they sell, they end up having to buy back refined at a higher price.

That aside, if you switch to nuclear power, and no longer need to buy back a good percentage of you're crude, that's more inventory. I mean, that's free oil right there, who's going to turn that down? The less you use, the more you have.

Thirdly, I don't think we should count out the cost of each, nuclear power is pretty cheap. It makes perfect economic sence for them to move into a nuclear power situation.



That said, thats one of the few things that they do that makes economic sence, most of the country lives in horrible poverty while a very very small elite live as ultra rich superhumans.

All the while, they spend so much money to finance arabs blowing themselves it, it's a little sicking really. They say (the mullahs) stand for morality and what's right religiously, but their mismanagement of the government leads to people so poor, that a lot of girls end up sold as sex slaves to the very arabs that are Iranian "allies"

Sickening, the lot of it. But I'm digressing, my points, it easy to consume form:

*Iran could use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, It would make sense for them to.
*The clerics are indeed probably working for nuclear weapons.
*Their mismanagement of the Iranian government coupled with their penchant for supporting hezbollah makes them a joint problem for both us and the Iranians themselves.
*The answer? Internal rebellion.(which potentinally could be achived with a several step plan) It's easier said than done, for sure, but it's the only way, in my estimation, to facilitate meaningful longterm change for the better.
 
2006-11-04 02:07:06 PM  
PatMcCroch:

Looks like the real heros aka the insurgents are winning. Good work iraqis drive the invaders out.

No worries on that. The irony of the situation is that the U.S. presence is the primary thing keeping the insurgency active and alive, due to some restraint being placed on the Shias to currently dominate the government and military and who have a great deal of support waiting in the wings from Iran.

The majority of the insurgents attacking U.S. forces and Iraqi government forces are Sunnis. Moqtada Al Sadr's Mahdi Army and various Shia militias would be quite happy to have the leash off to deal with the Sunni insurgency, as well as the even more disliked foreign fighter Al Qaeda types, again most of whom are Sunnis.

If we want the insurgency to be handled, here are at least three ways to do it:

1) Increase troop size in Iraq. If real resolve rather than rhetorical talk-and-no-walk resolve were to be employed - plus a real desire to take care of a problem pragmatically - Bush would reinstitute a draft, build up several hundred thousand to a million troops over a year, and send them all over there to quell things. A massive troop presence has always been an option, and the main thing holding it back (other than the political/popular slant) has been that the available military forces to build it up much more than it is are simply not there.

2) Pull out. Let the Shias handle things with Iran's help. Watch the Sunni insurgency disappear as folks who are both highly motivated as well as not particularly keen on using kid gloves handle the problem.

3) Make good with Iran, admit they're going to be the dominant influence in Iraq, and encourage them and a few other key neighboring nations to build a large peacekeeping force in Iraq.

Obviously, none of these solutions are particularly desirable from the administration's point of view. That's why stalemates happen and are maintained for so long.
 
2006-11-04 02:28:26 PM  
www.washingtonpost.com
 
2006-11-04 02:30:24 PM  
CappyGoat: Obviously, none of these solutions are particularly desirable from the administration's point of view. That's why stalemates happen and are maintained for so long.



The administration never gave any consideration to anything that wasn't their own plan. That's the problem.
 
2006-11-04 02:45:21 PM  
Here is the text of the Army Times editorial
(from here: http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/11/fire_rumsfeld_n.html )

Time for Rumsfeld to go

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.
 
2006-11-04 02:47:29 PM  
Just to clear things up, the Coast Guard is, in fact, a military organization.

From wikipedia:
"The legal basis for the Coast Guard is 14 U.S.C. § 1 which states: "The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times."

During times of war, when directed by the POTUS, the CG can be under the Department of the Navy.
 
2006-11-04 03:35:31 PM  
heavymetal:

[editorial cartoon]

Honestly, the image that came to mind when reading that was of the president shouting "LEEEEEROY JENKIIIIINS!"
 
2006-11-04 03:48:12 PM  
There were WMD's, but they were moved to Syria prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq (imho). The war was justified, but unwise and very poorly waged in many ways after the first few months. Rumsfeld screwed the pooch, he has no more street cred and needs to be workin' on his golf game. He and O.J. should get together and spend quality time.
 
2006-11-04 03:58:04 PM  
You people need to see that this is the beginning of Martial Law for the US. The President always says that he listens to his generals. He'll fire Rumsfield. Then, the generals will recommend that they patrol US cities to keep us safe from the terrorists, since we can't do it in Iraq. The presedient will "agree".

This is all staged to help the PNAC members (even Rummy, he's just taking the blame but will be rich from all this) keep power just long enough to enact Martial Law.
 
2006-11-04 04:37:01 PM  
i82.photobucket.com
 
2006-11-04 04:39:23 PM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2006-11-04 04:46:43 PM  
2006-11-04 04:39:23 PM CHAZZZ

Holy shiat... I laughed so hard I nearly coughed up a lung.
 
2006-11-04 05:46:39 PM  
knobmaker: I used to be a huge fan, back when they did useful work. Now if you get into trouble offshore, they call a private company to rescue you, so as not to be distracted from their new primary mission: raising the profitability of illegal drugs in America.

There are a lot of situations people get themselves into that we simply don't have the means to assit them. When the M/V Cougar Ace was listing to 60+ degrees, the best we could do was keep a 378' cutter standing by. At the moment, we don't even HAVE a 378' cutter stationed in Alaska, we had to involve two cutters that were engaged in other operations to hang out on scene (because protecting US rookeries is actually an important mission). The Cougar Ace was well over 600 feet long. We worked with the Air Force to medevac the crew that was stranded on the side of the bridge, then yes, we employed contracters to work out the issues with the ballast sytem (in which one of the contracters died because it was so dangerous). It was eventually towed into port, and not by us. We're a life-saving service, but our resources have limits.

My job is part of a 24-hour radio distress watch. If you don't need us to come get you, we're probably not. Out of gas? Suck it, your mistake, you're not in mortal peril and you can wait for commercial assistance. Engines busted? Again, not in distress. Taking on water faster than you can bail it? Boat on fire? Someone was seriously injured? That'd be distress, and we launch immediately (weather permitting -- 100NM winds = no aircraft, and thick, low-lying fog makes searching almost pointless).

We do good work for what we have available to us.
 
2006-11-04 06:03:19 PM  
Semper Gumby, are you an OS?
 
2006-11-04 06:05:10 PM  
Belay that, I just checked you're profile. Im in Petaluma right now for SK school.
 
2006-11-04 06:19:20 PM  
if there were a Coast Guard Times, and I was a writer for it, it would call for the firing of more than just Rumsfeld!

and don't we have a "the Coast Guard isn't a real military branch" discussion on a monthly basis now? wtf, over.
 
2006-11-04 06:21:11 PM  
LarsThorwald:

the Coast Guard has been and continues to be, regardless of which government department it operates under, and armed branch of the United States military. to claim anything else is to publicly display your own ignorance on the subject, or at least runs counter to the very words spoken by President Woodrow Wilson in 1915.

don't take mw word for it. . . http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/faqs/when.html
 
2006-11-04 06:31:55 PM  
This is starting to sound like the last war a Texas President got us into. With the Iraqi "Army" playing the role of the ARVNs and Rummy playing the role of Robert Strange MacNamara.
 
2006-11-04 07:46:25 PM  
Bob Pinciotti approves this thread....after all...he's almost a veteran.....
 
2006-11-04 08:28:30 PM  
The magazine I publish, "Welfare Times", came out last week for the dismantling of the welfare system and the sterilization of crack whores but for some reason the media didn't report it.
 
2006-11-04 09:10:30 PM  
Irregardless: Is there anyone in this thread that is in uniform and can comment on what this kind of article being sent to the troops on the front lines might mean to them or do to their morale?

I'm a disabled veteran and this story is definitely improving my morale. people like you always lowered my morale, to think I was risking my life to give freedom to someone who doesn't want it or like it.
 
2006-11-04 09:15:32 PM  
PatMcCroch: Hehe even the military is turning on bush. This is soo cool, soon nobody will have the will to fight in iraq.

Looks like the real heros aka the insurgents are winning. Good work iraqis drive the invaders out. Most american support you now


ha ha!

you got nothin

why is it that conservatives lack the creativity of my pit bull? i mean this biatch can sniff out food, make a plan, and execute that plan with such originality I almost think she has an acomplice.
 
2006-11-04 09:18:18 PM  
timmy_the_tooth: why is it that conservatives lack the creativity of my pit bull? i mean this biatch can sniff out food, make a plan, and execute that plan with such originality I almost think she has an acomplice.

While all the humans bicker and fight over politics, the cats and dogs, viewed as enemies for centuries, are actually working on their plans for a furry rebellion.
 
2006-11-04 09:27:17 PM  
shotglasss: The election results will still be the same.

img205.imageshack.us
 
2006-11-04 10:16:32 PM  
Semper Gumby: Don't join if you want to stay close to home, or if you're afraid of being stationed somewhere.

Hahaha want to stay close to home she says. :)

I'll join fast enough to leave a vapor trail.

/have local concerns limiting my options at the moment.
 
2006-11-06 01:04:19 AM  
The biggest reason one cannot compare Hitler and Bush, is that while criminally insane, Hitler was highly intelligent. The same cannot be said of Bush. At best, he is... "bright".

Maybe.
 
2006-11-06 01:13:43 AM  
Lagaidh: Hitler was highly intelligent.

img.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 46 of 296 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report