August 25, 2005

Italians Treating Wounded Terrorists

It's not that I'm against doctors treating wounded terrorists--not to do so would be a violation of their oath--it's just that after you treat the wounded terrorist you're supposed to turn them in. You will recall our extensive coverage on the two Italians who worked for A Bridge to Baghdad held hostage in Iraq. At least three groups had claimed to have been involved in the kidnapping of Simona Pari and Simona Torretta, one of which had threatened to behead the pair.

AP

Italy's Red Cross treated four Iraqi insurgents and hid them from U.S. forces in exchange for the freedom of two Italian aid workers kidnapped last year in Baghdad, an official said in an interview published Thursday.

Maurizio Scelli, the outgoing chief of the Italian Red Cross, told La Stampa newspaper that he kept the deal secret from U.S. officials, complying with "a nonnegotiable condition" imposed by Iraqi mediators who helped him secure the release of Simona Pari and Simona Torretta, who were abducted on Sept. 7 and freed Sept. 28.

"The mediators asked us to save the lives of four alleged terrorists wanted by the Americans who were wounded in combat," Scelli was quoted as saying. "We hid them and brought them to Red Cross doctors, who operated on them."

They took the wounded insurgents to a Baghdad hospital in a jeep and in an ambulance, smuggling them through two U.S. checkpoints by hiding them under blankets and boxes of medicine, Scelli reportedly said.

Via Captain Ed who notes rightly that Berlusconi owes the United States an apology and the Italian Red Cross should immediately get decertified in Iraq. Indeed.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:31 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

Cindy Sheehan: "My sons killers were freedom fighters."

Holy schneike, I wish I was making this stuff up. Cindy Sheehan, speaking of the men who killed her son in Iraq:

"Freedom Fighters from other countries are going in."
Don't believe me? Watch the video here.

Because nothing says I'm just grieving for my son's death more than calling the men who killed him freedom fighters.

Hat tip: Patterico

Posted by: Rusty at 03:21 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

Fights I'd pay to see...

Bambi vs. Godzilla, Auburn vs. USC Arianna Huffington vs. Victor Davis Hanson.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:01 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Michael Yon's Latest

Some relevant pragmatic wisdom from Michael Yon's latest dispatch, Gates of Fire:

Although the situation in Mosul is better, our troops still fight here every day. This may not be the war some folks had in mind a few years ago. But once the shooting starts, a plan is just a guess in a party dress.
UPDATE from Rusty. You MUST read this:
Prosser had beaten the terrorist in the head three times with his fist and was gripping his throat, choking him. But Prosser's gloves were slippery with blood so he couldn't hold on well. At the same time, the terrorist was trying to bite Prosser's wrist, but instead he bit onto the face of Prosser's watch. (Prosser wears his watch with the face turned inward.) The terrorist had a mouthful of watch but he somehow also managed to punch Prosser in the face. When I shot the propane canister, Prosser had nearly strangled the guy, but my shots made Prosser think bad guys were coming, so he released the terrorist's throat and snatched out the pistol from his holster, just as SSG Konkol, Lewis, Devereaux and Muse swarmed the shop. But the shots and the propane fiasco also had brought the terrorist back to life, so Prosser quickly reholstered his pistol and subdued him by smashing his face into the concrete.
And here is an image of the terrorist that Yon snapped.

These are the kinds of images we need to see more of out of Iraq.

Posted by: Demosophist at 02:04 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

War Protestors Target Wounded Soldiers

This is how the Left "supports the troops". From Cybercast News Service:

Washington (CNSNews.com) - The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."

The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.

Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.

Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.

Of course, these shameful exhibitions are ignored by the mainstream media, which is reluctant to show the true face of the Left: dishonest, traitorous, and anxious to spit on our servicepeople. The Dread Pundit Bluto sees little difference between these contemptible jackasses and the notorious Michael Crook.

Thanks to friend and TDPB reader Jan Z, aka, "The Dutchman".

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

UPDATE: Chris Short also posted on this yesterday here at The Jawa Report. Yes, we're that far ahead of the curve. Chris also provides us a link to the video here.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:29 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

About Lance and EPO

OK, I've been commenting on a lot of blogs about the Lance Armstrong/EPO accusations, and figured it's about time to put my thoughts into a blog post. First of all Daily Pundit can get you caught up on the all-important minutia of the controversy: whether the EPO test is definitive; what a "B sample" is; what the specific accusations are and who's making them; and what kind of things strike people as suspicious about choices made by L’Equipe. Go get caught up.

Now it's my turn.

more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:35 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 383 words, total size 2 kb.

Gold Star Mothers For Cowardice

Heh. My son went to Iraq to die for the Neocon-Zionist-Halliburton Conspiracy and all I got was this lousy shirt.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Hippies Lied, Millions Died

Confederate Yankee has an interesting analysis where he comes up with a ratio of the number of people liberated divided by the number of American soldiers killed in various U.S. wars. America's wars, though, are not fought to liberate other peoples--it is just a side-effect that we leave freedom in our wake--our wars are fought to protect our national security. That is the ultimate measure I am interested in.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:13 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Islamic Leader: Jews Responsible for 9/11

I'm not sure why this is 'news' any more, but it is scary:

Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal [Pakistani Jamat-e-Islami] President Qazi Hussain Ahmed has said he did not believe that Osama Bin Laden was capable of carrying out the sophisticated September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. “The Zionists must be behind the attacks as they were the only beneficiaries of the September 11 incident,” he said in an interview with BBC’s Hardtalk programme.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:23 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

Should we put flowers in their cells too?

Knowing your enemy is one of the most important parts of waging any war. If you don't know anything about the person you are fighting, they can get away with nearly anything because everything they do will be a surprise. Good knowledge of their personalities as well as their tactics can lead to easily won battles and shorten the necessary combat time.

Lack of knowledge can also lead to fatal mistakes when dealing with your enemy. Two New York Times writers are asking the United States to make just such a fatal mistake. Scott Gerwher and Nina Hachigian have said that in Iraqi prisons, maybe we should "try a little tenderness." By this, they are referring to the practice, during the Viet Nam war, of "turning" prisoners by offering them better and more rations, freedoms and other rewards for information and good behavior. At that time, the system was successful in converting some prisoners and obtaining information from others. As I haven't had time to look it up, I don't know exactly how successful it was, though.

But to propose the same treatment for terrorist POWs is not only wrong, but horribly dangerous. We are simply dealing with a completely different class of people here. While some communist fighters (I use some loosely because I'm not currently aware of the exact figures) were hardcore ideologues, others were just soldiers. And still others were conscripts who had no wish to be there fighting at all. Muslim terrorists, however, are by definition, complete zealots. All of them are so committed to their cause that they are ready to blow themselves up or participate in other types of suicidal attacks in order to kill or injure a few Americans. They aren't just fighting against us because their "generals" ordered them to. They are, each and every one, radically committed to our complete annihilation. That's not to say that the entire Muslim world feels this way. Obviously they don't or we wouldn't be in Iraq to begin with.

This isn't an army that we're dealing with. At least not in any conventional sense of the word. It's a loose confederation of extremists who share the same goal. When they are captured, they continue to be as hostile as possible. Attempting to turn them will not only not work, but will put our troops in unnecessarily dangerous situations as these prisoners attempt to use their newfound kindness against our troops.

As the writers continue to explain about this tactic and the history behind it, they provide, unknowingly, one of the prime reasons that it would fail in Iraq.

So what does this have to do with Iraq? While Chieu Hoi was geared to counter a Communist threat, it was based on universal principles of counterinsurgency that could easily be applied to the current struggle. In fact, Chieu Hoi was something of an import in its own right: it was the brainchild of three men with long experience battling rebels.

We are not fighting a counterinsurgency. The men we are fighting are not rebels. Not in the traditional sense of the word. To label this as an insurgency would indicate that the terrorists we are fighting have some sort of legitimate claim on the Iraqi government or at least some claim to even be in Iraq. But that is not the case. The majority of the terrorists we are fighting are coming from other countries. Their reasons for fighting have nothing to do with insurgency or rebellion.

They designed Chieu Hoi to focus on changing the underlying attitudes of the subjects, not simply on trying to control their behavior. Empirical research in social psychology reveals that efforts to directly control behavior through coercion or bribery usually leave underlying attitudes intact, or even harden them. Thus putting a gun to a man's head and instructing him to support a particular political ideology will work only as long as the gun is present and he is being watched. The preferred method for long-term change is instilling sincere belief in the new political ideology, making the gun and monitoring unnecessary.

Once again, there are numerous problems with the statements above. First and foremost, we are not fighting a political ideology. We are fighting a religious ideology. Regardless what you would like to think, fighting with the terrorists is strictly a religious war. They believe that their religion demands our complete destruction and they are not going to stop at anything short of that.

Which brings us back around to my original point. You can't "deprogram" these people. Religious fanaticism is one of the strongest psychological forces known. Why else would hundreds of people drink poisoned kool-aid?

In addition, running our prisons under the Chieu Hoi model could help reverse the terrible propaganda defeat suffered with the revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib. Nongovernmental groups like the International Red Cross and Amnesty International would praise America, bringing more international support.

I don't buy that for a second. International "aid" groups are not going to praise us no matter what we do. And the whole point in being in Iraq isn't get get a pat on the head from Amnesty International. If that's our motivation, then we need some serious self-evaluation.

The whole idea of "deprogramming" the Iraqi prisoners is, to me, laughable enough that I don't know why a major paper is even taking it seriously enough to run it. But considering the Times hasn't even bothered to run a correction for Krugman's lies of the past two weeks, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I'm just thankful that they aren't the ones making policy decisions.

Posted by: Drew at 08:49 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 952 words, total size 6 kb.

Report: Bin Laden Injured by Spanish Troops

Islmic websites have began circulating a rumor that Osama bin Laden was injured. Yesterday afternoon The Jawa Report began to get bombarded with Google traffic looking for 'bin Laden rumor'. I could not locate any relevant information, though, until this morning. If true, which cannot be confirmed at this time, then we know Osama bin Laden's location and that he is still actively engaged in the fight to return the Taliban to power.

ADNKI:

Osama bin Laden has been wounded in Afghanistan, according to two different reports carried by various Islamic websites. Referring to the al-Qaeda leader as Abu Abdullah, the second message, which appeared on Wednesday, said: "Mullah Ahmadi, military leader of the Badr brigades, which form part of the al-Qaeda organisation in Afghanistan, has confirmed that Sheikh Abu Abdullah has been injured in his left leg."

It follows a previous message on several Islamic websites saying the fugitive terrorist leader was injured while taking part in an attack on a Spanish military base in Afghanistan.

The second message relaying the news is titled "Confirmation of the injury of Sheikh Abu Abdullah in the Al-Khulud expedition" and adds other details, specifying that the injury was to the left leg and claiming it was sustained "when the Sheikh went out onto the battlefield to lead the expedition during which the Spanish base was attacked and which was named the Al-Khulud expedition."

"The source has promised to broadcast soon a video of the expedition, which lasted four hours," the message continues, before concluding: "Therefore we ask Allah to heal the Sheikh and make him well again. Don't be miserly in praying for him."

Is it just me, or does it seem odd that Osama bin Laden is actually participating in attacks on NATO forces? If the report has any basis in reality, isn't it much more likely that bin Laden was hit in his camp than that he was injured while leading an assault on Spanish troops?

UPDATE: Mac Powell also notices the story and is equally skeptical of claim bin Laden leading attack. And as Mike Pechar says, these things have turned out to be wrong in the past.

UPDATE II: Speculation: 10Snooker, in the comments, makes the keep observation that this could be the set up for an announcement that bin Laden is dead. It's just a lot sexier to say he died of battle wounds than from kydney failure, I guess.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:27 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.

August 24, 2005

Veterans Beat Down by Thugs in Seattle

I'm sure the left is proud of three suspects in Seattle who groped two women and then proceeded to beat the bejesus out of two soldiers who had just returned from Iraq.

Pictures of the suspects can be seen here:
Police Need Your Help In Capturing Beating Suspects

Hat Tip: Ace of Spades HQ and Michelle Malkin
Cross Posted from Conservative Thinking

Posted by: Chris Short at 10:28 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

UN to UK: "Terrorists Are People, Too"

A United Nations official has said that Great Britain will be cited for "human rights violations" if the UK goes ahead with plans to deport renegade clerics and terrorist sympathizers. From the Guardian (UK):

A senior UN representative last night threatened to cite the British government for violation of human rights over its planned deportations of alleged terrorist sympathisers.

Manfred Novak, the UN human rights commission's special investigator on torture, told the Guardian he is seeking permission through the Foreign Office to visit Britain to discuss the issue with the home secretary, Charles Clarke.

In a statement on Tuesday night, Prof Novak said that the government's intention to return radical preachers to their countries of origin, even though some of those countries have a track record of human rights abuses, "reflects a tendency in Europe to circumvent the international obligation not to deport anybody if there is a serious risk that he or she might be subjected to torture".

Pardon me while I go barf.

The Dread Pundit Bluto thinks it's time and past time for the US Justice Department to prosecute the UN under the RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:24 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

"Little Democracy" Seizes the Day

The current Kos strategy of "divide for the hell of it" reflects the view of a segment of the Democratic Party who believe that the politics of unreason will serve them well. (The link is to Iowahawk's cut and paste of the Kos post, because who in their right mind would give another link to Kos if they didn't have to? Much better to give the link to Iowahawk.)

In November of 2003 I posted a lengthy piece refuting a similar claim made on Daily Kos that had the adult-children in the Dean Campaign breathless. I'll reproduce that article below, with a few edits. The bottom line is that it's not enough to feel secure that the strategy, repeatedly promoted by the "petulant wing of the Democrat Party," wouldn't win elections, or even a nomination (a fact that I accurately predicted back in 2003). The point is that win or lose the strategy is simply bad for the country. Which is to say, in no uncertain terms, that it's pretty much boneheadedly anti-American, or even anti-democracy, for that matter, since it's probably not good for any country. With good reason Christopher Hitchens calls these folks "domestic masochists."

Read "Centrifugal Politics"!

Posted by: Demosophist at 06:54 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

Australia Warns Muslims to Accept Western Values or Get Out

Cajones: Tony Blair and John Howard have them, George W. Bush does not.

Josh sends along this The Age article (subscription):

EDUCATION Minister Brendan Nelson has bluntly told Islamists who do not want to accept and teach Australian values that they should "clear off".

And John Howard has warned that mosques, prayer halls and Muslim schools will be watched "to the extent necessary" to ensure they do not give comfort to terrorism.

A day after the Prime Minister's summit with Muslim leaders, the Government stepped up its push to get "Australian values" — epitomised, it says, by the Anzac story of Simpson and his donkey — taught comprehensively to Muslim children.

On Tuesday Treasurer Peter Costello said people thinking of coming to Australia who did not like Australian values and preferred a society that practised sharia law should go elsewhere...

We want them to understand our history and our culture, the extent to which we believe in mateship and giving another person a hand up and a fair go. And basically, if people don't want to be Australians and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well basically they can clear off."

When are our elected leaders going to be brave enough to say the same?

Posted by: Rusty at 04:45 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

WTW Combat Rock

Sheriff donÂ’t like it. Rock Utah Rock Utah.

Or

You can still rock in America... Well maybe notÂ…..

Little sisterÂ’s got a record machine.
She's all excited cause she's sweet sixteen.
She going out she's gonna bop tonight.
Gonna shake it make it last all night.

Utah Sheriff's rifle is ready to roll.
Grabs some tear gas as he heads for the show.
He's gonna knockheads, knockheads, knockheads!!!!!

or

Rock & Roll Over on your stomach and place your arms out cross your legs.

Well come on now. If you got to go to places like that well the cops are going to show sooner or later. DonÂ’t stop, just expect it. If you want to rock some days you are going to get rolled. ItÂ’s just part of it. I remember when Kiss was going to be the end of civilization. Now theyÂ’re all respectable and stuff. Even that lizard Paul McCartney is respectable these days. Nightranger caused teenage pregnancy, thank god. Everyone kept a chick album or two.

Speaking of teenage pregnancy. The Timken Trojans don't use em.

Here are your bloggers

Wunderkraut missed us and wants a link. Here you go.

As you can tell from the musical refrences here I'm a bit beyond my party years. However a good friend of mine had a rock & roll dive bar band. I went quite a bit. Yep there was always a fight or cops or whatever.

Updated: OMG no Clash link Horridly rude of me.


Posted by: Howie at 02:19 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

Palestinian Kidnappers Free French Journalist

(Gaza City) Here's a followup to previous reports (here and here) regarding the kidnapping of French television journalist Muhammed Ouathi.

From the Khaleej Times:

A French television journalist abducted by Palestinian gunmen in Gaza a week ago was freed unharmed on Monday, witnesses said.

The kidnapping of Mohammad Ouathi, a soundman for France 3 television, was the longest in a series of abductions of foreign journalists and aid workers in Gaza. No group claimed responsibility. Ouathi is a Frenchman of Algerian origin.

His release was announced by the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC), an umbrella group of Palestinian militants that said it helped mediate an end to the abduction.

No details concerning Ouathi's release were disclosed. My guess would be that a ransom was paid.

Interestingly, the PRC, which is dominated by Fatah gunmen, claimed it helped free Ouathi. It's believed by others that the PRC was directly responsible for the kidnapping.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 01:58 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 2 kb.

Mu.nu back in business!!!

Somehow I feel responsible for the mu.nu site going down. Nah, forget it. I blame Bushitlermchimpyhaliburton! Because of the hypocricy!

Posted by: Rusty at 01:34 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Roll Over Gutenberg

This post, by Jeff Jarvis, describes the parameters of the "Information Reformation" that's taking place:

The war is over and the army that wasn't even fighting - the army of all of us, the ones who weren't in charge, the ones without the arms - won. The big guys who owned the big guns still don't know it. But they lost.

In our media 2.0, web 2.0, post-media, post-scarcity, small-is-the-new-big, open-source, gift-economy world of the empowered and connected individual, the value is no longer in maintaining an exclusive hold on things. The value is no longer in owning content or distribution.

The value is in relationships. The value is in trust.

And this post, by Donald Sensing, lays out the case for a wartime Civilian Intelligence System, although he doesn't actually use that term:

Yet a scandal can race around the world while good news and success stories are still tying their shoes. The Bush administration has allowed the information status quo of the war to be maintained too long in the public eye. The information agenda has been set by the mainstream media (MSM), attenuated to a significant but not large degree by bloggers. I think the administration should begin immediately a vigorous domestic-information program to do these things:

-remind the American people "why we fight."

-inform the public of successes achieved.

-educate the public of the national objectives being sought, and how.

I have no grand plan on exactly how such a program should be carried out, but its success would depend on sidestepping the mainstream media. None of this information has been unavailable in the public arena. The MSM could have been reporting such stories objectively all along but have deliberately avoided doing so.

What I've had trouble understanding is why, if Jeff is right, we need to await a government lead-out in order to establish this new Civilian Intelligence System? (h/t: Winds of Change)

Read the rest!

Posted by: Demosophist at 01:23 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 3 kb.

August 23, 2005

Pat Robertson is Right, Let's Kill Hugo Chavez

When I heard that Pat Robertson said that maybe we might want to assassinate Hugo Chavez, my first reaction was, Wow, did he say that out loud? You see, I think Pat Robertson is right, we really ought to assassinate Hugo Chavez. He said what a lot of us think all the time.

What makes Robertsons statememt foolish is not that it's a bad idea, but that Pat Robertson is a public figure. Since I don't really qualify as a public figure, I'll go ahead and second Robertsons motion. Hugo Chavez must die. While we're at it, I hope the CIA saves a bullet for Fidel Castro. No, I don't think the CIA will actually kill the pair, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

Why is political assassination such a bad idea? Only those who view the world from an international law paradigm could make such a case. Political assassinations, it is argued, destabilize the international legal system. Besides, they say, if you begin to justify the political assassination of that two-bit dictator, what is to stop our enemies from justifying assassinating our President?

Good point. But

a) There is no such thing as an international legal system. International law is a fiction slightly less believable than the notion that Sasqatch communicates with a woman in a double-wide trailor on the edges of Boggy Creek, LA. Where there is no force there is no law. When the U.N. can begin to enforce its will, come back and then we'll talk. Just because you wish there was such a thing as international law does not make it so.

b) If you believe all nations are essentially equal, then you and I have a major disagreement. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. What is the difference, for instance, between the U.S. having a nuclear warhead and Iran? If you cannot see the difference between the U.S. and Iran than you are an idiot. Just because many in the world are blind to these differences, does not make the differences any less real.

This may sound simplistic, but we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. I want the good guys to prevail.

All nations are not equal and neither are their leaders. If you wish to put your faith in an international system which equivocates between the King of Denmark and the King of Saudi Arabia, be my guest. I don't buy it.

c) I am an American. Ultimately, what is good for America's national interest is the highest moral metric that I am interested in. This may not be a popular position to hold these days, but it is one that I believe in wholeheartedly. This does not mean that I wish national interest to trump moral concerns whenever the two are at odds, but some times what is in our interests must trump what is good. If you wish our leaders to always do the moral thing rather than the right thing, I suggest electing a slate of Buddhist monks to Congress.

Fortunately, I believe that what is usually in America's national interests is also what is usually moral. The spread of democracy, captalism, and liberalism are both moral and in our national interest.

I certainly don't wish to set aside America's national interests for the sake of some false sense of morality which rests upon the baseless equivocation the U.N. makes between nations and their leaders. If the U.S. could have taken out Saddam Hussein with a single bullet, breaking international law in the process, I would lose no sleep.

In the shootout at the O.K. Corral, which is the international stage, I, for one, root for Wyatt Earp to win. I really could care less that the Clantons and McLaurys were deputized: they were the bad guys. When the law begins to equivocate between the good and the bad, then that law has no legitimacy in my eyes.

So, if any policy makers are reading this post, and I doubt if they are, then do us all a favor and take out a few of our enemies. Only, if you do it right, make sure that it looks like another one of our enemies did it. If there's anything The Godfather taught me about life, it is that it is always a good thing to make one enemy look bad while taking out another one.

Oh, but keep your traps shut. Thinking, planning, and executing the political assassinations of America's enemies is not necessarily bad. Talking about it, though, is.

UPDATE: Jeff from The Shape of Days agrees. Check out his post in which he recounts the crimes of Hugo Chavez. Even though Jeff makes the claim to fame that he was first since he wrote his post eight ago, I'm going to have to remind you that my server was down. I thought this post up nine hours ago. I swear. No I can't prove it.......

UPDATE II: Brian B. makes an excellent point here.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:58 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 855 words, total size 5 kb.

<< Page 140 of 284 >>
176kb generated in CPU 0.0844, elapsed 0.2953 seconds.
136 queries taking 0.2423 seconds, 486 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy



Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Sample link

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 171153
  • Files: 428
  • Bytes: 1851.0M
  • CPU Time: 283:10
  • Queries: 17443387

Content

  • Posts: 5690
  • Comments: 76627

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0