This time it's ABC.

Historical perspective:

The filibuster has been used historically by the minority party, which can't win with a vote count. Democrats have opposed the filibuster before — in the 1960s, they accused Republicans of using it to block civil rights legislation.

According to the Senate Historical Office, the record for the longest individual speech is held by the late Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. To keep the floor, he read some of his wife's recipes and passages from novels out loud.

Not historical perspective, historical revisionism. In 1957 Strom Thurmond was a Democrat. Robert Byrd was at the forefront in pushing for the defeat of the Civil Rights act.

The Republicans joined with northern and western democrats to overcome the attempt of Southern Democrats to defeat this legislation through use of the filibuster . Some notable Democrats spearheading this effort: Al Gore Sr, William Fulbright, Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond. It was Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who had enlisted the Republican votes that made cloture a realistic option.....

Don't be misled by the MSM. It WAS NOT the Republicans who invoked the filibuster to stymie civil rights, it was a regional fight with for the most part Southern Democrats the driving force behind it's usage.

Posted by Traderrob

Update:Thanks to Gordon at Cranky Neocon we discover that ABC pulled this paragraph....

"Democrats have opposed the filibuster before — in the 1960s, they accused Republicans of using it to block civil rights legislation."

Has it ever crossed their mind to be truthful and accurate the FIRST time.

Posted by: Traderrob at 01:41 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

By Demosophist, (while Rusty is living it up in Adams-Morgan and forgetting to tell me where to meet him.)

Well, I'm frankly puzzled by this whole Koran-flushing thing.  I understand how a people steeped in a vengeful literature for a thousand years might get upset when a few red infidels use laser-guided bombs to blow up their neighborhoods while we're liberating them from tyranny.  And I grasp the idea of the shame of a proud people when inferior mongrel troops are sent into a place like Fallujah or Ramadi to uncover baby Auschwitz slaughterhouses with shaky plaintive notes from the victims scrawled on the walls in their own blood, or when we bomb Baghdad in "Shock and Awe" while they stand on their rooftops so as not to miss anything, or when a group of our miscreants discomfit captives guilty of far worse, with the cultural indignities of plebe hazing.  I understand that, and it sorta makes sense.  But why do they wait until they think we might have flushed a [holy] book down the crapper before instigating an Ummah-wide lethal street uprising?  Why now, and not then?

Posted by: Demosophist at 01:33 PM | Comments (45) | Add Comment
Post contains 1185 words, total size 8 kb.

But...but... it's the Republicans who commit fraud and steal elections, Jesse told me so.

King County's absentee-ballot supervisor has testified that she collaborated with her boss when she filled out a report that falsely showed all ballots were accounted for in the November election.

Nicole Way said in a deposition Friday that she and assistant elections superintendent Garth Fell agreed to the misleading report because officials didn't know how many absentee ballots were returned by voters.
The regulations require counties to reconcile the number of absentee ballots returned by voters with the number of ballots accepted or rejected. Way's report showed perfect reconciliation because it simply added the number accepted and rejected to calculate ballots returned.

Elections officials now acknowledge that dozens of absentee ballots were misplaced and the votes not tabulated during the November election. The ballots were never counted as accepted or rejected.

Knowingly falsifying elections records is a felony..... Can you say butt buddy Mr. Fell ?

Posted by Traderrob

Posted by: Traderrob at 08:38 AM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

Like, George-Galloway's-ego huge. It will be honkin' big.

Remember Eason Jordan, the CNN News Director who shot off his mouth at Davos, claiming that US troops were targeting and killing journalists? Yeah, you know the guy, he had absolutely nothing to back that up (of course) and the Immedia began howling for him to release the tape of his remarks to clarify what he said. And the dude resigned rather than give up the tape.

Well, it's happened again. A local TV newsman named Mark Hyman has caught Linda Foley, the International President of the Newspaper Guild, making the same sort of scurrilous charges against our troops that Eason Jordan did. But unlike Jordan or Foley, Mark Hyman has the tape to back it up.

Of course Hyman probably would have just noted this on his local TV station and people would have said "My, that's awful" and that would have been the end of it, but the Immedia has now immortalized the story and is spreading the news right now directly into your brain. The bodacious, the audacious Bryan Preston of Junkyard Blog has the links, the scoop, and the analysis and I see a well-deserved Instalanche in his future. I see a well-deserved act of contrition and an apology to the troops in Ms. Foley's.

Speaking of targeting journalists, Ms. Foley's timing is amazing. Who would have thought the Mainstream Media could put two bullets right through its own foot in such rapid succession?

Posted by: seedubya at 02:38 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

You really have to read to the end.

I am looking forward to his Screed-blog.

UPDATE! Marvin Olasky is On F'n Fire!

The head dude at the (evangelical Christian) World Magazine, has a spot-on column over at Townhall--the syndicated columns are just now working their way through the editing process tonight in the dinosaur media--which is good because it keeps the topic alive after the initial Immedia blitz. Coulter's is worth your time too.

Olasky's column is just a series of devastating rhetorical questions, of which this is my favorite:

-- If Newsweek journalists had been more knowledgeable about the likely reaction, would they still have run the story? The magazine on Oct. 21, 2002, ripped Jerry Falwell's riot-causing depiction of Muhammad as a "terrorist," since "Islamic fundamentalists are having a field day with these comments, which have been played and replayed throughout the Muslim world." Does Newsweek have a similar responsibility not to cry fire in a crowded theater?

Sauce for the goose, Newsweek. Sauce for the goose.

Posted by: seedubya at 01:11 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

1 -- If Newsweek journalists had been more knowledgeable about the likely reaction, would they still have run the story? The magazine on Oct. 21, 2002, ripped Jerry Falwell's riot-causing depiction of Muhammad as a "terrorist," since "Islamic fundamentalists are having a field day with these comments, which have been played and replayed throughout the Muslim world." Does Newsweek have a similar responsibility not to cry fire in a crowded theater? ~~~~~~ I don't get it. Jerry Falwell did something disrespectful towards Islam. (Muhammad as a terrorist) Newsweek reported on something that was disrespectful towards Islam. (Toilet & Quran) How is reporting on something that was disrespectful to Islam the same as doing something disrespectful towards Islam? The Newsweek story is simply an article that shows questionable practices are *still* being continued by US personnal in US Miltary prisons. Even after the scandal of Abu Ghraib. I see the Middle East protests over this indicident as the straw that broke the camel's back.

Posted by: puzzled at May 19, 2005 03:12 AM (moq9v)

2 puzzled, And I am puzzled too. How is blogging on something that is already reported the same as living real life. I don't know. And yet some of these people seem convinced that they are breathing life into stories. It all smacks of "creationism" if you ask me, and you know how some bloggers feel about that.

Posted by: Republican at May 19, 2005 09:40 AM (2jozM)

3 Creationism! Hahaha... Well, the world is flat too, and don't disagree with me or I'll burn a cross on your lawn. Pblththt. Long live the American Taliban!

Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 19, 2005 10:57 AM (WfZ6a)

4 When Newsweek's source admitted that he had misidentified the government document in which he had seen an account of Quran desecration at Guantánamo prison, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita exploded, "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?" Di Rita could have said the same things about his bosses in the Bush administration. Tens of thousands of people are dead in Iraq, including more than 1,600 U.S. soldiers and Marines, because of false allegations made by President George W. Bush and Di Rita's more immediate boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, about Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and equally imaginary active nuclear weapons program. Bush, Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeatedly made unfounded allegations that led to the continuing disaster in Iraq, much of which is now an economic and military no man's land beset by bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and political gridlock.

Posted by: babler, inc. at May 19, 2005 11:25 AM (WfZ6a)

5 False claims babler. First of all, it remains true that Iraq did not account for all of its WMD programs as it was obligated to. The Iraq Survey Group did find a lot of undisclosed facilities, equipment, components and chemical weapons. Not to mention hundreds of tons of undisclosed uranium. The Iraq war was not justified solely on the issue of WMD's.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 19, 2005 12:21 PM (xauGB)

6 And how could we expect Newsweek to know that muslums in the middle east knew what a toilet was?

Posted by: MOG at May 19, 2005 12:32 PM (6FUZj)

7 False claims? Last time I checked the official verdict from our government was: NO WMD FOUND! CASE CLOSED! Then there was the very public joking Bush about the whole matter where he was mocking himself looking for them...I'm sure US soldiers appreciate that crap. As far as invading another country before it attacks us, wrong fucking country people! Maybe Bushie should have been obsessed with N. Korea who is about to start testing new nukes soon? Duuuuuuhbya. Oyster, I never use a real email address in here. Why? I don't like spam and value privacy. If anyone wants to pick a bone with me, do it in here bitches! My fingers aren't in my ears. I always read responses to what I write.

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at May 19, 2005 12:53 PM (WfZ6a)

8 osamabeenvotin: There's a good round-up of the illegal things found, things not found, and holes in our current knowledge at this site: http://www.fishkite.com/notes/iraqiwmds.html Don't know how long it'll stay up. The keeper of that database might flush it with is next blog-restructuring. But it's still an interesting read.

Posted by: karrde at May 19, 2005 01:50 PM (60gek)

9 I'll check that link out. Thanks...

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at May 19, 2005 03:06 PM (WfZ6a)

10 Oyster: Anonymous speech is the cornerstone of free speech. Are you against free speech? Just because someone doesn't want to leave a valid email address doesn't means their comments are garbage. It is the contents of the comments that matter.

Posted by: puzzled at May 20, 2005 03:30 AM (moq9v)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Palestinians use Bible as toilet paper

Think Newsweek will want to do a story on this one?

While Muslims have responded with deadly outrage to the now-retracted report by Newsweek of alleged Quran desecration by U.S. interrogators, there was little outcry three years ago when Islamic terrorists holed up in Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity reportedly used the Bible as toilet paper.

Catholic priests in the church marking the spot where Jesus was believed to have been born said that during the five-week siege, Palestinians tore up some Bibles for toilet paper and removed many valuable sacramental objects, according to a May 15, 2002, report by the Washington Times.

Newsweek is under fire for a report in its May 9 edition that sparked protests and rioting across the Muslim world resulting in 17 dead, scores injured, relief buildings burned down and a setback to years of coalition-building against terrorists.

Posted by: Suzanne at 10:52 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

Since Rusty has given me a key to this thing and hasn't mentioned it yet, I'd like to point out I've launched a new blog today:

Conservative Thinking

For all the juicy details, go here; I think you'll like it. Please don't hesitate to let me know what you think.

Posted by: Chris Short at 10:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

(Note: this posting takes some dramatic license with the facts of what is mostly a true story. But I did confirm it with three sources: me , myself, and I.)

Back in high school, one fine summer day after services, at the First Self-Righteous Church in that Sleepy Little Town of Pascagoula, I was talking to my friend's mom in the foyer when a large spider rappelled down the wall beside us. I reflexively whacked it with what I had in my hand, which was a brown-leather New International Version Bible I'd been given when I was baptized.

My friend's mom looked somewhat disapproving. "It was a Brown Recluse!" I extemporized. "I had to kill it!"

"But with a Bible?" she asked. And then she killed me, and the congregation stuck my head way on top of the steeple as a warning. I sure learned my lesson!

Posted by: seedubya at 07:00 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

Enjoy Star Wars. I'll probably wait till the DVD comes out, myself, but...for those of you nerds who see it on opening night, there's one little thing I'd like you to do for me (UPDATED, minor spoiler at the end):

more...

Posted by: seedubya at 06:47 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been giving this Koran desecration story some thought and I am beginning to feel like some of those who think there is some misplaced outrage being expressed over this fiasco.

Take this statement from the Pakistani Information Minister for example:

"The apology and retraction are not enough," Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told Reuters.

"They should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news which hurt feelings of Muslims."

Put me down for saying that Newsweek acted irresponsibly and did, in fact, damage the reputation of the United States of America without cause. But really, who did the killing here? It wasn't Newsweek. Although, an argument can be made that Newsweek essentially loaded the guns. These terrorists are looking for excuses to attack...Newsweek gave them one. But it is still nothing more than an excuse to kill the innocent.

And that should be causing more outrage than it currently is...

Posted by: MattWMD at 02:43 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah, remember that post awhile back on the Real ID act?

Michelle Malkin says it's even worse than we thought.

VDare:

Be careful what you wish for.

The REAL ID Act, advertised as preventing states from issuing driverÂ’s licenses to illegal aliens, is now the law of the land.

REAL ID has all the right enemies. The Treason Lobby has denounced it as preventing "many drivers" from obtaining licenses.

But this is the truth: the REAL ID Act still contains loopholes big enough to allow truckloads of illegal aliens to get valid temporary state driverÂ’s licenses.

This driverÂ’s license language first surfaced in the former H.R. 10, but was purged from the final 9/11 "Intelligence Reform" bill. The language reappeared as part of the supplemental appropriations bill for the Iraq war that was signed into law by President Bush on May 10.

The federal requirements for state driver’s license and identification cards are scheduled to go into effect three years from now—May 10, 2008.

The final REAL ID bill still contains its most precious much-resisted language: preventing the acceptance of "any foreign document" as a stepping-stone to a state driver’s license. It prohibits the use of the Mexican government’s infamous "Matricula Consular" card…although unfortunately not for three years. So expect a "get ‘em while you can, Amigos" campaign by the Mexican Consulate sometime before the May, 2008 deadline.

Great.

Just great.

Cross-posted at Suzanne's blog

Posted by: Suzanne at 12:57 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

From the Epoch Times:

DUBAI - Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq defended the killing of "innocent Muslims" in suicide bombings against U.S. forces, saying it was legitimate under Islam for the sake of jihad (Holy War), according to an audio tape attributed to him.

"The killing of infidels by any method including martyrdom (suicide) operations has been sanctified by many scholars even if it meant killing innocent Muslims. This legality has been agreed upon ... so as not to disrupt Jihad," Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said on the tape posted on an Islamist Web site on Wednesday.

Posted by: MattWMD at 12:41 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Although we've never met, John Burgess at Crossroads Arabia and the Hyscience crew have been blogging and commenting back and forth for so long that I think of him as a friend, a friend I often disagree with, but one that I enjoy exchanging ideas with and one whose knowledge and ideas I value. However, in his "Rumor & Consequence" as has been the case before, I find much to agree with and almost as much to disagree with. I believe that John's commentary attributes too much blame on gross intolerance and xenophobia while avoiding what I believe is the real issue which I come back to below - the 800 pound gorilla in the living room, not Newsweek's stupid mistake and escape from journalistic standards and reason(and being all too quick and content to discredit our military and the administration) or gross intolerance and xenophobia, but the reaction of the Muslim world to the Newsweek article. The Islamists need to be held accountable for their violence, murder, mindless tantrums, and childish mindset. Like dogs on a leash, they dance to the tune of hate and cleric-instigated violence.

John writes in his piece:

"The atrocities of Abu Ghraib—and those alleged to have taken place at Guantanamo—are just that: atrocities. They are horrors both because of what they were in themselves as well as what they said about our self-image as a country."

I, on the other hand, on the matter of abuse, ask what acts are more barbaric, horrifying, appalling, brutal, wicked, abominable, and cruel(all refer to the quality or state of being atrocious), the kind of acts attributed to Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, or raping women, sawing off heads, and shooting people in the back of the head with their hands tied behind them(all acts committed by Islamic terrorists and insurgents)? Which set of mindless acts indeed rise to the zenith of abuse? Given the choice of having my head sawed off or stripped naked by women, blood smeared on me, pictures taken of me naked and on a leash held by a sick guard(worse things happen in college and even high school hazing rituals every year) I think that I would choose any of the these except having my head sawed off. Which would you choose? And which is more atrocious? But where is the media outcry over the truly attrocious acts conducted by the terrorists and the insurgents? Answer - it's directed at America. more...

Posted by: Richard@hyscience at 11:51 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1269 words, total size 8 kb.

...of Fight Club... (from the SITE Institute)

A past lecture authored by al-Qaeda’s research center, “The Center for Islamic Studies and Research”, also known as al-Neda, has been re-posted to the internet. The message directs Muslims not to "spread any information about the mujahideen which the enemy could benefit from." According to the Center, "It is well known that… America…is making a huge effort to collect information about the jihad and mujahideen from everywhere…the enemy has designated special organizations to analyze information, make links between the [pieces of information], and make conclusions out of [the information]." Thus, "Any Muslim who supports jihad and the mujahideen should not spread any information about the mujahideen…The most dangerous information is information which mentions the names of the mujahideen, times, places, numbers of mujahideen, amounts of supplies and weaponry, and ways of communication."

...is to not talk about Fight Club.

Sounds like the civilian population isn't exactly buying it:

He finishes by asking civilian Muslims to "Â…let the mujahideen manage the information war as they let them manage the military warÂ…"

Posted by: MattWMD at 10:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

Heres a guy who knows how to hit Hanoi Jane and the rest of the left where it counts, in the pocketbook.

The owner of two Kentucky theaters is refusing to show the new Jane Fonda film "Monster-in-Law" because of the actress's pro-communist stand during the Vietnam War.

Photos of a smiling Miss Fonda posing with a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft crew in 1972 were displayed outside an Elizabethtown movie theater to show the disapproval of theater owner Ike Boutwell. The marquee outside Mr. Boutwell's Showtime Cinemas in nearby Radcliff reads: "No Jane Fonda movie in this theater."
"I trained a lot of pilots during the Vietnam conflict," Mr. Boutwell told the Hardin County News-Enterprise, adding that some of those pilots died when their planes were shot down by North Vietnamese gunners.

"To me, Ms. Fonda is a traitor," he explained in a local television interview. "I could not get the picture out of my mind of her cheering the gun crew that had just shot down an American B-52."

Good for you Mr. Boutwell. You can't keep HJ from spewing her America hating communist manifesto, but you can keep her lying traitorous piehole of your movie screens.

Posted by Traderrob

Posted by: Traderrob at 07:03 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "how to hit Hanoi Jane and the rest of the left where it counts, in the pocketbook." Exactly how many communists do you know, Rust? I suppose it'll just be back to the community halls and half drawn blinds and bulk tea and cookies intermission for Jane Fonda then. And a lucky thing too, that way you'll have an extra few cents left for popcorn during Anikan's finale. Either you really don't get it, or you really do.

Posted by: Republican at May 18, 2005 07:23 AM (zLogv)

2 Jane Fonda and J-lo in a movie together. Yeah right, banning this at your theatre is totally going to affect the box office. It will lose $10 of the $100 it will make.

Posted by: LMAO at May 18, 2005 07:27 AM (p5xDI)

3 Mr. Boutwell rocks. Ya ever notice how the chickensh*t's who never had their ass in the grass, are the people who support this traitorous bitch? F*** 'em and feed 'em fishheads. Oh wait? Did I just say that? Please, don't quote me on that. ;-) LMAO, you missed the whole point, as per usual.

Posted by: elliott at May 18, 2005 10:04 AM (N7qaf)

4 Bill O'Reilly was going off about Fonda lastnight! My girl and I were watching, we started laughing about halfway through the interview. I dun even remember who Bill's guest was at that point. Either way it was funny as hell.

Posted by: tyler at May 18, 2005 10:46 AM (Y9Lwb)

5 Republican and LMAO, it's not about the money you pinheads, it's about principle.

Posted by: Dough at May 18, 2005 11:17 AM (wGR0T)

6 Jane Fonda has asked for forgiveness. It would be big of you to accept her apology. The hate in your heart provides Satan an avenue into your soul. Shed it off and replace it with love.

Posted by: greg at May 18, 2005 11:55 AM (/+dAV)

7 Dough.... it may not be money for conservatives, but if you think liberals aren't just as concerned with a buck as anyone, think again

Posted by: traderrob at May 18, 2005 01:18 PM (3al54)

8 I love you too Oyster, sniffle sniffle.

Posted by: greg at May 18, 2005 01:37 PM (/+dAV)

9 greg have you ever attempted a rebuttal without the use of non-sequitur and/or ad hominem?

Posted by: Dough at May 18, 2005 05:07 PM (nlsh3)

10 Dough, just be happy on those occasions he omits the homophobic imagery, scatology and misogyny.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 19, 2005 12:03 AM (xauGB)

11 "Oh, and Republican, Rusty didn't write this post. It was TraderRob." Does it make any diff? Oh wait, sorry, I forgot. We're all supposed to be different people here. And capitalist warmongers. Does anybody really buy this?

Posted by: Republican at May 19, 2005 08:21 AM (2jozM)

12 "greg have you ever attempted a rebuttal without the use of non-sequitur and/or ad hominem?"-Dough I have no idea which post you're talking about. Do tell.

Posted by: greg at May 19, 2005 08:44 AM (/+dAV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The most blatant disrespect the press has shown the White House to date:

Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help --

Q You're pressuring them.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that we would encourage them --

Q It's not pressure?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, this report caused serious damage to the image of the United States abroad. And Newsweek has said that they got it wrong. I think Newsweek recognizes the responsibility they have. We appreciate the step that they took by retracting the story. Now we would encourage them to move forward and do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done by this report. And that's all I'm saying. But, no, you're absolutely right, it's not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report....

Q Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you're saying here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, let me finish my sentence. Our military --

Q You've already said what you're -- I know what -- how it ends.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm coming to your question, and you're not letting me have a chance to respond. But our military goes out of their way to handle the Koran with care and respect. There are policies and practices that are in place. This report was wrong. Newsweek, itself, stated that it was wrong. And so now I think it's incumbent and -- incumbent upon Newsweek to do their part to help repair the damage. And they can do that through ways that they see best, but one way that would be good would be to point out what the policies and practices are in that part of the world, because it's in that region where this report has been exploited and used to cause lasting damage to the image of the United States of America. It has had serious consequences. And so that's all I'm saying, is that we would encourage them to take steps to help repair the damage. And I think that they recognize the importance of doing that. That's all I'm saying.

I'm just really sick of the contempt the media shows for conservatives, Christians, and anyone else who doesn't fit into their haughty regime of elitism. It's not about a government-driven press. I'm completely against that.

Cross-posted at Ze Uzzer blog

Posted by: Suzanne at 10:03 PM | Comments (45) | Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Oh come on...I'm sure Gannon sucked a few dicks and made it all good...

Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 17, 2005 10:21 PM (WfZ6a)

2 The arrogance of the US media is astonishing.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 17, 2005 10:42 PM (xauGB)

3 The arrogance of this administration is astonishing as well! They're all a pack of lying bastards...Bushies and the media.

Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 17, 2005 11:12 PM (WfZ6a)

4 I like how Myers said the rioting wasn't because of the report. Also, I think we should defer to the white house on the subject of causing serious damage to the image of the US abroad.

Posted by: actus at May 17, 2005 11:36 PM (QPrcU)

5 If Bush was everything the Left say he is, Elisabeth would wake up with a horse's head tommorow.

Posted by: Carlos at May 18, 2005 12:47 AM (8e/V4)

6 Smart ass comments like actus' and osama's ass above don't change the reality of the incompetence and bias of Newsweek. Nor do they change the arrogance of the questioners at the White House press briefing. Snarkiness about the Bush administration is all cute but the Bush administration is trying to run the federal government and our foreign policy. The press corps has to figure out how to write english sentences and can't do that very well. Their arrogance is inappropriate.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 18, 2005 12:57 AM (xauGB)

7 To actus and all the other "damn the facts, ad hominem speed" liberals: Do you really, truly believe that would be all flowers and ass-kissing had we elected Kerry or Gore? Hell, Clinton, the most lovable, cuddly American since, well, Benedict Arnold, sent our fighters in to help Serbian Muslims, and they still attacked the USS Cole. If you and Michael Isakoff hate it so much here, why don't y'all move to some enlightened country like France. Or better yet, since the liberals haven't met an Arab or Muslim they didn't love since the Shah was deposed, why don't y'all move to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. In any case, just f*ck off.

Posted by: kbiel at May 18, 2005 01:06 AM (R/ofL)

8 You should vote a sociali st president. We've had three in a row, and they seem to be really good at selecting smart, economically and politically skilled governments that have both sociali sts and centralists in them. Sociali st presidents seem to work best when there is a huge, over 190cm+90kg sociali st/centralist prime minister leading the government, so it looks good to people. (Make sure the sociali st isn't too far on the left, more like a leftie centralist (socialdemocrat)) (In case you have only democratics and republicans and your president is your prime minister as well, then vote a democrat president, and make him pick a quarter-democ, eight-liber, eight-greenparty, half-repub government with no ex-generals or other army leaders)

Posted by: A Finn at May 18, 2005 02:42 AM (cWMi4)

9 Was the story actually retracted? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857407/site/newsweek/page/2/ Newsweek explains in response to Pentagon queries: "On Saturday, Isikoff spoke to his original source, the senior government official, who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur'an, including a toilet incident. But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report." ~~~ So, Newsweek's source isn't actually denying the event happened or that it was fabricated. The senior government offical is merely saying he read about the incident in an investigative report but couldn't be sure which report he saw it in. Doesn't really sound like a retraction to me. Either way, is it really that hard to believe interrogators in Gitmo flushed a Quran? One just as to look at the documented abuse, totured and murder by US hands in Abu Ghraib for an example of prior behavior. As for the arrogance displayed in the exchange between the questioner and Mr. McClellan... I guess it really depends on whether you believe the White House pressured Newsweek or not. If the White House applied pressure or even appeared to have applied pressured, then the media has to take the White House to task to "save face". Its not really news, just a distraction from the looming energy crisis and the ongoing (illegal?)Iraqi War.

Posted by: puzzled at May 18, 2005 04:47 AM (moq9v)

10 Thank you, A Finn, for dictating what you think is best for Americans. We'll take your advice with a grain of salt if you don't mind. The White House corresponent in question here can be none other than the abrasive, accusatory, disrespectful and extremely biased Elisabeth Bumiller of the NY Times. This is par for her usual tactics when "interrogating" a White House spokesman. She nearly always precedes her question with an accusation or derogatory comment. If she were in my house, I'd teach her some manners.

Posted by: Oyster at May 18, 2005 06:29 AM (YudAC)

11 Finn, leftist policies are destroying Western Europe's economies, and whenever we've had a democrat president, we've almost always had an economic recession to follow immediately thereafter. The only exception was Clinton, and that was because he didn't have enough support in Congress to do what he wanted- in his first term. By the end of his second term, the economy was crapped. To be fair, the tech bubble was largely responsible, but the non-tech sectors of the market were hurting as well. It seems that democrats are bad for business. What is Finnland's unemployment rate again? Somewhere around 9% I think isn't it? Ours is about 5%.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 18, 2005 07:10 AM (0yYS2)

12 It seems we have a new troll on the blog. Don't these idiots realize it takes no effort to ignore them? Of course, when you have the mentality of a 6 year old throwing a tantrum, the world looks a bit different than to an adult.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 18, 2005 07:13 AM (0yYS2)

13 Desecration of Koran Had Been Reported Before “Newsweek magazine's now-retracted story that a military guard at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet has sparked angry denunciations by the White House and the Pentagon, which have linked the article to Muslim riots and deaths abroad. But American and international media have widely reported similar allegations from detainees and others of desecration of the Muslim holy book for more than two years.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701315.html Quit your belly aching, the American soldiers do desecrate the Koran.

Posted by: greg at May 18, 2005 08:46 AM (/+dAV)

14 Well, Greg, I'm sure that 4 or 5 of us can make allegations that you chow down on dogshit every evening for dinner. In your world, that would make it true.

Posted by: Mark Flacy at May 18, 2005 09:00 AM (8aYgm)

15 Mark, What's your source on that? Do you REALLY believe with all your heart that American soldiers haven't desecrated the Koran on numerous occasions?

Posted by: greg at May 18, 2005 09:09 AM (/+dAV)

16 "If you and Michael Isakoff hate it so much here, why don't y'all move to some enlightened country like France. " If Isikoff lived in france, he couldn't have made a name for himself attacking clinton. As for me, I don't speak french, and think america is the best country in the world. "Do you really, truly believe that would be all flowers and ass-kissing had we elected Kerry or Gore?" No.

Posted by: actus at May 18, 2005 09:28 AM (Ygl+x)

17 When whoever that fool was who asked "Are we supposed to write about how great the American military is.." I really wish McClellan had loudly snapped back with "Yes, and it would be about goddam time!". The elite media's hatred of the Bush Administration raw and visible to everyone. I'd like to see Bush ditch these idiots and give interviews to Fox and to the blogs.

Posted by: Scott in CA at May 18, 2005 09:39 AM (iNqkc)

18 KARIMOV BOILS PEOPLE ALIVE! http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC Are we using Uzbekistan for extraordinary renditions? Probably.

Posted by: greg at May 18, 2005 10:09 AM (/+dAV)

19 Greg Do you really think soldiers desecrating the Quran is such a big deal? I for one DONT SFW comes to mind. We have more things to worry about more things to do. Bottom line is its not imortant and it doesnt merit even being printed. Look at the trouble its caused. Dont you think that followers of the Koran have desecrated the Bible . Oops forgot I as a Christian am not allowed to get offended by anything Muslims do. my bad Ill just go lie in a corner with my head covered so's not to offend anyone, stupid woman that i am Come on Greg even you have got to admit that sometimes these things are taken too far. A Muslim Burning the Bible, huh, you wouldnt get any news media in Britain printing that story wouldnt be allowed, might upset a muslim.Would show their RELIGION in a bad light and we're only allowed to show Christians (and American Solidiers) in a bad light./ off

Posted by: sparky at May 18, 2005 01:50 PM (F1nba)

20 Come on children...stop your whining. The Bush administration will just use our tax money to hire some 'reporters' or pay off some more radio dj's to make things right! YEEEEEhaaaaaaw! Nothin' like some engineered news!

Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 18, 2005 01:56 PM (WfZ6a)

21 "Do you really think soldiers desecrating the Quran is such a big deal?"-Sparky It's a big deal because it frames the war as a religious war. Bush use of the word Crusade on Sept. 19, 2001 aggravated the situation. He has since backed away from that description. It's a big deal because it evokes such a response from the Muslim community and supposedly we're not at war with Islam. It's easy for you to say that burning a Holy Book is no big deal. I know plenty of Christians who are deeply disturbed when the Bible is desecrated. Would Christians protest in response? I think so. Remember, it was the protestors who were shot dead, they didn't do the killling as some people seem to think. Your question suggests a realization on your part that the Koran has likely been desecrated. It seems this desecration is methodically employed for use on prisoners. "Dont you think that followers of the Koran have desecrated the Bible ."-Sparky It's quite possible. There are bad apples on both sides. "Oops forgot I as a Christian am not allowed to get offended by anything Muslims do."-Sparky Of course you''re allowed to be offended. "Would show their RELIGION in a bad light and we're only allowed to show Christians (and American Solidiers) in a bad light./ off" I don't know about Britain, but here in America Islam is constantly being painted in a bad light because of Islamic extemists who are a minority. Just like American Christians, 90% of muslims are peace loving people. The 2 groups of 90% should clear the way for a reconciliation between Christians and Muslims. Sparky, you're full of hate when you should be full of sugar and spice. Cast it away. You'll feel better.

Posted by: greg at May 18, 2005 02:19 PM (/+dAV)

22 Yeah, I saw that 'Rove engineered this' horseshit being spouted about this story. It's crap, and if you feel otherwise, osamabeenthere, prove it. greg, it doesn't matter one bit what I believe or don't believe, it matters only if the "news" reports can be substantiated with facts. Not that a journalist would recognize a fact these days, mere innuendo and speculation seem to be the rule of the day.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 18, 2005 02:20 PM (jPCiN)

23 No osamabeenthere, the Bush adminstration will use our tax money to "GIVE" (NOT AWARD, AS IN FAIR COMPENTITION) more contracts to Halliburton, so Bush and Cheney can get their kick backs. Let them eat cake. Bush = Louis XVI.

Posted by: Butch at May 18, 2005 02:26 PM (Gqhi9)

24 Butch You out yourself as clueless regarding Halliburton. The type of contracts and their ability to secure them, were granted under the Clinton administration. Nice try though.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 18, 2005 03:01 PM (jPCiN)

25 "The type of contracts and their ability to secure them, were granted under the Clinton administration."-Defense Guy That's Pure Bovine Excrement! nice try though

Posted by: greg at May 18, 2005 03:15 PM (/+dAV)

26 Back it up with facts if you can greg. The type of no bid contract that Halliburton currently has, was granted by Clinton.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 18, 2005 03:35 PM (jPCiN)

27 You back it up, it's your claim.

Posted by: greg at May 18, 2005 03:43 PM (/+dAV)

28 Bill clinton gave halliburton iraq reconstruction contracts?

Posted by: actus at May 18, 2005 03:48 PM (Ygl+x)

29 Fine. Halliburton got the contract again in 2001 after already having it under Clinton. It falls under the LOGCAP program. Here is a link to a good summary of the situation. http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york070903.asp You need to stay away from some of those propoganda sites greg. They cannot be helping your mind.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 18, 2005 03:49 PM (jPCiN)

30 actus What exactly is an 'iraq reconstruction contracts'? Does such a beast exist, or are you just talking out of your ass again.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 18, 2005 03:59 PM (jPCiN)

31 "What exactly is an 'iraq reconstruction contracts'?" There's a country in the middle east. We've invaded it. And now we're reconstructing it. Which takes a sizeable military and government force. This force uses private contractors, in what sometimes are referred to as iraq reconstruction contracts.

Posted by: actus at May 18, 2005 04:04 PM (Ygl+x)

32 Hey Defense Guy, What about the RIO? No Bid. And since you gave me an interesting site to read, I thought I would repay the favor. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121004A.shtml Enjoy you cake.

Posted by: Butch at May 18, 2005 04:07 PM (Gqhi9)

33 "Fine. Halliburton got the contract again in 2001"-Defense Guy Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Chimp was President in 2001.

Posted by: greg at May 18, 2005 04:10 PM (/+dAV)

34 I take it you guys were pissed when these same companies were getting no bid contracts after GW 1 and Kosovo.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 18, 2005 04:12 PM (jPCiN)

35 Defense Guy, I have never been a fan of the GW's. The only good thing about GW becoming President was that Texas was able to get rid of him as Gov.

Posted by: Butch at May 18, 2005 04:30 PM (Gqhi9)

36 C'mon, when the Hell are you Bible thumpin ,conservative ASS-HOLES gonna get off the liberal media bullshit ?? If they were even one iota liberal you clowns wouldn't be in office They may appear liberal because of their (deliberate?)in-eptnes in reporting the news,but only a typically stupid conservative would buy into that bullshit ! But I can't believe you're all really THAT stupid. Of course , I could be wrong.

Posted by: Peter at May 18, 2005 04:51 PM (oGlYR)

37 hahahaha! Greg, actus, Butch, Peter - you can all put your winkies back in your pants now. No one wants to play with you.

Posted by: Oyster at May 18, 2005 05:21 PM (YudAC)

38 If you want to know who was awarded contracts for rebuilding Iraq, take a look here. So next time you open yer yaps, you'll know what you're talking about. The only no-bid part of any contract awards was for Halliburton to take repair the oil wells. yes, they ended up with more than the other companies, but is there really another company in the world on a par with Halliburton? You can't possibly imagine all the things they do. No one is complaining about Bechtel, who has a shady repertoire and contributed more generously to democrats, no, hell no. Everyone's got their panties in a wad because Cheney used to work for Halliburton. I'm leaving now. I'll send someone back to change your diapers.

Posted by: Oyster at May 18, 2005 06:10 PM (YudAC)

39 Greg I am not full of hate at all. Surely youve read more of my posts. I dont hate muslims in fact i have refuted this a number of times i believe in live and let live, I just get so fed up listening to people going on that we shouldnt offend muslims. what about Christians or any other religion for that matter just seems to me, over here in the UK anyway, that everyone has to be tolerant of muslim ways or the Koran. I certainly am. I certainly do not believe anyone should die because of religion and i dont think this is a religious war. Hey I would be the first person to stand up for anyone being persecuted no matter what their religion or colour. My philosphy in life is "Do unto others what you wish for yourself" I dont dismiss that the Koran has been desecreted do i think its right? No, but people have died because of this and the media do have a responsibility. Printing this sort of stuff makes matters worse. I also agree that the actions of the terrorists colour the lines of this war and that all muslims are not terrorists. I have no problem with muslims but i do have a problems with terrorists that mask their actions in the name of Religion. Today I am probably a little more Spice than sugar. You should know me better by now Tempremental we women are, or maybe just mental

Posted by: sparky at May 18, 2005 07:38 PM (F1nba)

40 "What is Finnland's unemployment rate again? Somewhere around 9% I think isn't it? Ours is about 5%." Improbe: It's 9% because of the sexual friggin' equality laws, that demanded unemploymentsupport paychecks for housewives (women who stay at home taking care of their kids and/or house), and we have a lot of those.

Posted by: A Finn at May 19, 2005 02:18 AM (cWMi4)

41 I dont dismiss that the Koran has been desecreted do i think its right? No, but people have died because of this and the media do have a responsibility. Printing this sort of stuff makes matters worse. --Sparky The problem is that it happened in the first place, not that it got reported.

Posted by: puzzled at May 19, 2005 02:58 AM (moq9v)

42 Puzzled, Of course that's a problem. But should the world be told about it over and over? To what end? To constantly re-iterate how eeeevil Americans are? Look at the Netherlands and Hirsi Ali with her film about Islam. Is that not a more overt slap in the face for the Muslim community? What's happening about it? Theo VanGogh got killed over it, more people have been threatened over it, fa twahs have been issued and the media reported on it briefly and immediately got over it. No riots, no "recycling" the news over it, nothing. And where's Hollywood on this one? Not a peep out of Theo VanGoghs colleagues. Now she's doing Part II. Do you think the media cares? Hell no. It's not the eeevil Americans. You know, it's unAmerican if you're not unAmerican over here anymore. We're just sick of the double standards. And A Finn, So we need a sociali st President so we can pay higher unemployment taxes to pay homemakers who want to stay home? Right.

Posted by: Oyster at May 19, 2005 05:43 AM (YudAC)

43 "Printing this sort of stuff makes matters worse."-Sparky Sparky, the day we quit printing these sorts of things is the day our democracy is totally dead.

Posted by: greg at May 19, 2005 08:47 AM (/+dAV)

44 Oyster: No, that crappy arrangement wasn't a byproduct of mild sociali sm, it's because of too many fanatic feminists in bilingual areas around the coast generally.

Posted by: A Finn at May 19, 2005 10:11 AM (lGolT)

45 As I posted at http://www.bigpicweblog.com/exp/index.php/weblog/comments/on_freedom_of_speech/: * A call for laws restricting the press from interviewing supporters of terrorists, is a postition which is dangerous to freedom of speech. * A call for the press, on its own initiative, to stop promoting terrorists -- in Pipes' words, "On their own initiative, [to] exclude the enemy's apologists and advocates" -- is not a danger to freedom of speech -- it is a use of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not guaranteed only to MSM, but to all Americans.

Posted by: Vik at August 19, 2005 11:53 AM (E4aK3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

(Baghdad, Iraq) The Iraqi Ground Forces Headquarters was inaugurated yesterday in a ceremony attended by "a small group" of Iraqi and Coalition dignitaries. The location has not been revealed, obviously for security reasons. According to a statement from Iraqi Ground Forces commander Gen. Abdul Qadir Jassim,

"We are celebrating today a historical event and the rebuilding of the Iraqi army. Having the headquarters of our ground forces here is an indication of the Iraqi army controlling its own destiny."

"Our streets have been covered in blood, and we want to clean this place with the help of our friends the Americans."

"As soon as you feel you are ready, we will hand over operations. And the coalition will return to their own countries."

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 08:44 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

In my previous post on Monday I wrote that I was probably the only one that considered what has happened across the Muslim world over the past few days as the tantrums of a sick culture. My focus in the post was focused on the need for Muslim reform and the fact that the real story in the Newsweek fiasco, the 800 pound gorilla(really big gorilla) in the living room, was not Newsweek's stupid mistake and escape from journalistic standards and reason, but the reaction of the Muslim world to the Newsweek article. As bloggers and other pundits continue to pound on "News-Weak," why isn't more written on the absurd and inappropriate behavior of the Muslim world? Since when did flushing a book down or in a toilet, even if true which it wasn't (sourced to be true), holy or otherwise, rate commiting murder? Where is the uproar over Mulsim culpability and responsibility? Why isn't everyone screaming about the insane madness of the Muslim world's completely inappropriate and disproportionate response to the story? Completely missing from our posts and articles is the element of moral judgement. "To kill people thousands of miles away who had nothing to do with the act, and the fulminate with threats and murder against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged act, is not just disproportionate. It is not just excessive. It is mad."

Well, finally, from Robert Spencer at DhimmiWatch, comes this:

There is no excusing Newsweek's irresponsibility in publishing an explosive story that was false. But establishment conservatives like Marshall and National Review are fighting the last war
if they think this is a story that is solely about media bias. Of course the media is biased, and it's getting worse, but people are waking up to that.

The bigger story here, and the gorilla in the living room that no one wants to notice, is that flushing a Qur'an down the toilet should not be grounds to commit murder. Note the total absence of moral judgment in Marshall's piece, except that which he directs toward Newsweek. His argument is this: Newsweek should have known that this story would lead to deaths. Therefore, they shouldn't have printed it. But he says nothing whatsoever about a culture that condones -- celebrates -- wanton murder of innocent people, mayhem, and destruction in response to the alleged and unproven destruction of a book.

The question here is one of proportionate response. If a Qur'an had
indeed been flushed, Muslims would have justifiably been offended. They may justifiably have considered the perpetrators boors, or barbarians, or hell-bound unbelievers. They may justifiably have issued denunciations accordingly. But that is all. To kill people thousands of miles away who had nothing to do with the act, and the fulminate with threats and murder against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged act, is not just disproportionate. It is not just excessive. It is mad. And every decent person in the world ought to have the courage to stand up and say that it is mad.

Why is it that rule #1 in the establishment (left and right) view of this present conflict is that it has nothing to do with Islam and to bring a moral judgment to bear upon Muslim people, or to explore the ways in which Islam fuels the confict, is therefore absolutely forbidden?

I wrote on Monday:

(...) Sure, Newsweek did what the mainstream media does best in a world that places more importance on getting the story out first than on getting the story out right;  they researched, wrote a piece, trashed the administration and our country, trashed the reputation of our military, and got the story out to the world - wrongly. Subsequently, sparked by a single paragraph in Newsweek alleging that US military interrogators had desecrated the Koran, a wave of anti-American demonstrations swept the Islamic world from the Gaza Strip to the Java Sea. In the past week it was condemned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and by the Arab League, and on Sunday, Afghan Muslim clerics threatened to call for a holy war against the United States. Think about it, this is from a
sub-population of our planet that refers to themselves as peaceful? What does this say about their culture, their thoughtfulness, their mindset, their ability for rational thought and their suitability to join in the rest of mankind in making
our planet a better place to live ?

(...)  Newsweek got it wrong, the Arab press never bothered to verify the alleged toilet episode any more than did Newsweek, and the mindless, tantrum-like violence sparked by the false story showed all of us the true face of the Islamic culture today - a sick and violence-prone society, enveloped and characterized more by hate than by love of God and humanity, and badly in need of reform.

Looking back on Monday's post, my own outcry over the Muslim's reaction failed to go far enough.

To borrow from Robert Spencer, they fall ever deeper into dhimmitude,
National Review, Marshall, other MSM pundits, and especially bloggers are doing the Western world an enormous disservice. The reaction to the Newsweek story in the Muslim world only shows how critical it is that the elements of Islam that give rise to fanaticism and violence be examined and confronted. Lives are at stake. All of us "citizen journalists" and MSM quot;professional" journalists need to step out of the mold; the real story has nothing to do with media bias.

Media bias has always been there, is there, and probably will always be there. It's just the excuse, if it hadn't been the toilet it would have been something else. The real cupablility remains squarely in the lap of Islam.

Cross posted by Hyscience

Posted by: Richard@hyscience at 01:08 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 993 words, total size 7 kb.

This is a great story.

LOS ANGELES, May 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- As Americans continue to celebrate National Military Appreciation Month, a California teenager has accomplished what no other person has been able to do; give one thank you note to every person serving in the United States Armed Forces.

Last year, Shauna Fleming, 16, a sophomore at Lutheran High School in Orange, Ca, convinced her Principal, Gregg Pinick, to have her school be the collection point of her letter campaign that she called "A MILLION THANKS." Her goal was to collect and distribute one million thank you letters and emails to U.S. Service Members, here and overseas.

In October, 2004, Fleming reached her goal and had the millionth letter framed for presentation to President George W. Bush. That presentation occurred in the Oval Office in November, but Fleming was not satisfied with a million.

"I wanted to find a way to thank all of our Service Members, so I decided to continue collecting letters and emails until I reached 1.4 million, the number given to me by the Pentagon, said Fleming. "This week we reached that so I can say, at least symbolically, that A MILLION THANKS has a thank you for every Service Member, " Fleming added.

Gregg Pinick, principal of Lutheran High School, said he is proud of Shauna and all of his students and faculty for reaching a number that is historic.

Fleming said the 1.4 millionth letter will be framed and sent to General Frank B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The teen wrote a book about her experiences, along with some of the letters she received titled, A MILLION THANKS (Doubleday Books). She has even had offers to turn her story into a television movie.

So what's next? "I am planning to charter A MILLION THANKS clubs in high schools, and establish a Foundation to assist wounded soldiers and their families, said Fleming. "Plus, I'd like to reach another million thanks," she added.

Cross-posted at WMD.

Posted by: MattWMD at 10:36 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

I thought I'd point out an interesting article from MSNBC about the science inspired by the movies. Enjoy!

Posted by: MattWMD at 08:17 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.