Spelling, Ace.

disagree and fighting.
delete this comment later

ahem.... Ace.... can I at least get a link out of it?

Yes, well, when I saw your URL named "More than Loans" I sorta thought it was the name of your home-refinancing business.

Seriously, I didn't think it was a blog-name. I thought it was your business name.

Spelling, Ace.

disagree and fighting.
delete this comment later

Delete it?
Why that was your best post in a long time, Lauraw.

Tony B, what was your second choice for a blog name?

...they're just people who disagree with you...

And the crushing of dissent continues!

I think the answer to Chris Matthews question is no. In a combat situation, an enemy fighter who is apparently "playing possum" is still a threat. And threats get eliminated. This is not the same as shooting a surrendering combatant. This is not the same as shooting an unarmed non combatant. And, hard as it would be to see, if there was a tape showing an "insurgent", during a stand-up firefight, put an extra slug into a downed American who still had his weapon, I'd want to kill that s.o.b. "insurgent" personally, but I would not consider what he did a war crime.

I don't know how you guys have patience for folks like Matthews. What the hell *did* he mean?

Meanwhile, the Iraqis want us out. And no, I'm not talking about the dead-enders, the insurgents, or the foreign terrorists.

Kinda bad for Dick Cheney's timing, eh?

Doesn't Cheney have a pacemaker to take care of his timing? Just keep him away from microwaves and his timing will be fine.

I had considered "Weeping Sores" and "It's In Remission" but I didn't want something to hit so close to home.

I didn't even check. Are those blogs?

Well, in that case, More Than Loans was a good choice.

You must be related to the guy who named the hamburger chain, Fudruckers.

From the Iraq story:

Shiite leaders have long maintained that a pullout should be done according to milestones, and not before Iraqi security forces are fully operational. The closing statement upheld the Sunni demand, but did not specify when a withdrawal should begin, making it more of a symbolic gesture than a concrete demand that would be followed up by the Iraqi government.

Yea. So, that is exactly what Bush has been saying. He wants a pullout as fast as possible -- as long as we don't forfeit Iraq in the process. And, he has repeatedly statedd that we won't leave before the Iraqi security forces are sufficiently capable of maintaining order and security.

Like Ace said before, pull the troops out as quickly as possible ...as long as it is consistent with victory.

Meanwhile, the Iraqis want us out. And no, I'm not talking about the dead-enders, the insurgents, or the foreign terrorists.

Kinda bad for Dick Cheney's timing, eh?

Is it? From the Times article:

Shiite leaders have long maintained that a pullout should be done according to milestones, and not before Iraqi security forces are fully operational. The closing statement upheld the Sunni demand, but did not specify when a withdrawal should begin, making it more of a symbolic gesture than a concrete demand that would be followed up by the Iraqi government....

Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said American-led foreign forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, noting that the one-year extension of the mandate for multinational force in Iraq by the United Nations Security Council earlier this month could be the last.

"By mid next year, we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready," he told Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab broadcast news channel and Web service.

Not quite the Jack Murtha plan, is it?

tubby would like us to think 100 Iraqis are the voice of all Iraqis. He would also like us not to notice in the same article he linked:

"Shiite leaders have long maintained that a pullout should be done according to milestones, and not before Iraqi security forces are fully operational"

Hey! That sounds like Bush's plan! Go figure.

Its obvious Lamont Cranston, Allah, and yours truly have spotted the holes in tubby's current meme about the Iraqi vox populi

Michelle Malkin delivers a slapdown to the buffoonish blowhard: http://michellemalkin.com/. But then, Malkin has good reason to dislike Little Chrissy after the Swiftboat ambush interview last year.

Once again, it seems reading comprehension is not tubino's strong suit. Perhaps he's French Canadian.

Tubby's Canadian?

We should leave the poor bastard alone, then. Fucker's got enough problems.

Gee, are you guys saying one of tubby's citations didn't say what he claimed? I noticed that too. I'm still recovering from the shock.

Its obvious Lamont Cranston, Allah, and yours truly have spotted the holes in tubby's current meme about the Iraqi vox populi

Those aren't the only holes. He neglected to mention this, too:

The statement, while condemning the wave of terrorism that has engulfed Iraq, also broadly acknowledged a general right to resist foreign occupation. This was another effort to compromise with Sunnis who have sought to legitimize the insurgency. The statement condemned terror attacks and religious backing for it, and it demanded the release of innocent prisoners.

Sounds to me like Shiite backing for a timetable was a quid pro quo for Sunni condemnation of violent "resistance." If that condemnation pays dividends -- if, in fact, the terror starts to abate -- then a timetable is perfectly fine. Tubino seems to think we hawks are categorically opposed to timetables and immediate withdrawals regardless of the circumstances. Tain't so. If the terrorism disappears tomorrow, then by all means, let's have a re-vote on the Murtha plan. The goal isn't to stay as long as we want; the goal is to leave as soon as we can. When the situation calms down, be it next year or next month or next week, then we're good to go.

Watch and see how quickly the Shiites distance themselves from this resolution if the security situation doesn't improve. As the article said, for the moment at least, it's strictly a symbolic gesture.

"From a marine in Da Nang..."Chris Matthews sucks the sweat off a dead man's balls." I have no idea what that means, sir, but it seems very negative to me."
- P.F.C. Edward Garlick

Tubby's Canadian?

Ah Geez!

Say it ain't say.

I'm Canadian, and it's all I can do to tolerate the loons when they babble on up here. Surely you have enough of the home-grown variety there that you don't need to import ours to toss in their wit and wisdom as well.

But he does represent the thinking here, I'll give him that.

Sigh

Surely you have enough of the home-grown variety there that you don't need to import ours

After the last election, we were sort of hoping to do some exporting. Can't trust lefties to do anything they say.

Last week Matthews was having a love-in with Senator Feingold. Matthews sadi something like, "[The American people] were led to believe Iraq was behind 9/11."

Feingold, with a fake disappointed look on his face, nodded his head in agreement.

Matthews continued with, "They think Iraqis were in those planes."

Feingold again nodded in agreement. Feingold is a piece of shit, but to sit there and agree with an egregious lie is beyond the pale. Beyond, I say.

Matthews has been slipping into the fringe in the last three years, now he has taken the plunge into full fledged moonbattery. I was used to Matthews being an Liberal agitator, but that remark stunned me.

Wow, you guys are remarkably quick to attribute all kinds of stuff to me, solely to then "disprove" it. Lot of time on your hands?

So it's Bush's plan, is it? Same old thing, is it? Who's got reading problems now? I've added emphasis.

For the first time, Iraq's political factions collectively called today for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces, in a moment of consensus that comes as the Bush administration battles pressure at home to commit to a pullout schedule.

About 100 Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders, many of whom will run in the election in December, signed a closing memorandum on today that "demands a withdrawal of foreign troops on a specified timetable, together with an immediate national program for rebuilding the security forces," the statement said.

While the wording stopped short of condoning armed resistance to the occupation, it broadly acknowledged that "national resistance is a right of all nations."

You can spin and spin this, but it IS important.

It is only consistent with Bush-Cheney's plan if they are looking for an excuse (they asked us to leave!) to get out of their disaster without admitting it.

You know, it's late and I'm tired.

Tubby, you look stupid when you ignore valid criticism of your sourcing.

"Get out of their disaster without admitting it..." How the fuck do you keep a straight face while writing this shit?

By the way, Ace - getting some error messages while trying to post.

"Tubby, you look stupid..."

You could've stopped right there and saved yourself some typing.

Have I mentioned that I want the US to lose?
Have I mentioned I'm rooting for the terrorists?
Have I mentioned that Baghdad Bob is my hero?

See how I added "their disaster" to show you morons that you have already lost.

O Great Fitz, where art Thou?

Matthews graduated to my "Weapons grade crazy" list.

Have I mentioned that I want the US to lose?
Have I mentioned I'm rooting for the terrorists?--Toobeano

And there sits the exact problem with Tubie's 'analysis'. He quotes some meaningless boiler plate declaration from an essentially 'let's at least try to talk about things' conference, and then spins it to demonstrate that the US is staying in Iraq against the wishes of the Iraqi population and implying that the Iraqis WANT a firm timetable but the US is refusing.

Might I inquire why the US would be refusing to set a timetable if the Iraqis were really demanding one? Qui bono, tubie?

As Iraq The Model (a well known CIA stooge) says, this is basically a meaningless statement and mirrors 'demands' outlined by the Shiite alliance before the elections in January. Surprisingly almost as soon as they assumed office the Shiites suddenly discovered that the Coaltion could not possibly leave NOW, and indeed the whole idea of a timetable was ridiculous.

There is no split between Coaltion and Iraqi Government thinking on this issue as much as Tubie would prefer to discern one. Now some of the Sunnis would prefer that the US leaves ASAP, but methinks they might have an 'agenda' in making that demand.
Something about trying to reimpose Baathist control in Iraq.

Not going to happen.

I think that 2006 will see the end of large scale US operations in Iraq and the withdrawl of a BIG chunk of the current force there. But it will be in co-operation with a willing Iraqi Government, not a unilateral withdrawl and not the result of an unexpected demand from an ungrateful Iraqi regime.

Sorry Tubie. Same results. Different reasons.

Tubby, you look stupid when you ignore valid criticism of your sourcing.

Can someone explain what kind of idiocy this is?

No one above criticizes the source, that I noticed. Instead, I see a lot of people assuming that I meant anything and everything.

I provided the link. You can read for yourself. If you want to criticize the source, go right ahead.

I can't explain why pointing out unpleasant facts means you support those facts. If that were true, then ACE would "support" that Zarqawi is alive, simply for reporting it.

James Fallows' piece in the Atlantic quotes a Marine officer: "We can lose in Iraq and destroy our Army, or we can just lose."

The point is that the US cannot support the current trend with the military beyond a year or two.

You can scream insults, shoot the messenger, go berserk any number of ways, but it won't change reality.

I have a house, a family, kids, and a pretty nice life. I don't want to lose any of it. I don't know any liberals who want to lose anything to terrorists, at all.

This on-going stupidity here at Ace of Spades that equates criticism of failed policies with approval of terrorism is truly embarrassing.

It's sub-moronic. Anyone capable of typing is capable of better.

I can't believe you find it so fascinating to attribute all kinds of silly stuff to me.

I give a link and you guys start spinning about what I must have meant. You are getting so desperate to be right about something, that you have a cottage industry in straw men.

Anyone want to take any bets, or are you just too busy wanking away to stand for anything?

Remember all your tough talk about deLay's indictment being trumped up? Read the news about Scanlon today?

Remember how I predicted that in a month you'd all forget about the supposed investigation into the leak about secret prisons? I was wrong -- it only took two weeks.

Still looking for takers on further indictments from Fitz.

If you don't want to be a phat target, don't be a flagrant idiot.

"Still looking for takers on further indictments from Fitz."

OMG, you mean. . .

Fitzmas is ANNUAL? I question the greeting card industry!

I can't explain why pointing out unpleasant facts means you support those facts.

And I can't believe you're playing yourself off as some kind of dispassionate "messenger." You gave us the link to the Times article, and then followed it up with this:

Kinda bad for Dick Cheney's timing, eh?

Because bad news from Iraq is all about snarkin' on the Cheney, baby! And you wonder why people question your commitment to victory. If we lose, it just means more chimp jokes for you, right?

When Ace runs a Zarqawi-death-watch item and punctuates it with some half-assed crack like, "About time, special ops," let me know.

As for this:

I provided the link. You can read for yourself. If you want to criticize the source, go right ahead.

you're full of shit. You didn't just "provide the link." You provided the link and then made a disingenuous assertion about what the timetable resolution supposedly proves. As the article makes clear, all it proves is that the Shiites are willing to make -- and I quote -- "symbolic gestures" to bring the Sunnis into the political process. Naturally, you neglected to mention that, just like you neglected to note that having the Sunnis engaging the Shia at the bargaining table is a big step forward. Just like you neglected to mention that the resolution also condemns violent "resistance."

Bad faith, see?

Allah... I don't want to sound queer or nothin', but I think you pretty much kick ass.

Allah - it's unlikely that you'll hear back from Little Tube. He evaporates once you get him pinned down.

so after this I wonder if anyone will start calling or writing msnbc to complain bill mahr lost his show for less

it's unlikely that you'll hear back from Little Tube. He evaporates once you get him pinned down.

Unless he manages to change the subject ("Hey, Did ya read the latest on Scanlon?") and hijack the thread. Don't worry, though. He'll be reposting as fact the same crap that just got refuted, just on another thread and another day.

Our diety must be kindly disposed toward trolls. He feeds them generously while knowing in his omniscience how they respond.

I do believe that mathews is a terrorist
just working on a tv station in america.

Okay, after being reminded of Matthews's earlier comments, I now longer give him the benefit of the doubt. My opinion of him has dropped considerably.

Er, I meant no longer give him the benefit of the doubt.

Okay, listen up REAL CLOSE. Allah, are you listening?

I pointed this out already, but some of you need it upside the head with a 2x4:

Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.

The final communique, hammered out at the end of three days of negotiations at a preparatory reconciliation conference under the auspices of the Arab League, condemned terrorism, but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

Got it? Iraqi leaders say that insurgents have the legitimate right to kill US soldiers.

Nitpicker got it: In other words, Iraq's leaders just painted a bullseye on the backs of American soldiers and said they're fair game.

Allah calls me out for acting in bad faith, because I only mentioned Cheney, gave you the link to the full article, and didn't explicate the whole thing for you. Then he provides this gem:

Just like you neglected to mention that the resolution also condemns violent "resistance."

Gosh, let's just take a look at that wording:

``Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships,'' the document said.

The final communique also stressed participants' commitment to Iraq's unity and called for the release of all ``innocent detainees'' who have not been convicted by courts. It asked that allegations of torture against prisoners be investigated and those responsible be held accountable.

The statement also demanded ``an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order.''

(my emphasis) So Allah's claim is completely misleading, as the document does NOT condemn resistance, it defines resistance as NOT terror, and affirms a right of resistance. I hope you understand the significance of the other parts in bold?

NOW who's been acting in bad faith, Allah?

Note that your whole bunch of bad faith started when, instead of beating you all over the head with this, I just merely mention that Cheney's timing is not too good. Which is the understatement of the year.

Then you had to go off and try to create a whole lot of other stuff and attribute to me because I didn't say it. Then you want to lecture me on bad faith?

So now Iraqi leaders have declared a right to kill US soldiers.

And you tell me this is consistent with Bush's plan.

Right.

OH -- agreed of course that there is no means of enforcement of this document, and that it is largely symbolic. No question about that.

But the symbolism is very important here:

``Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. "

The Iraqi leaders are saying that the insurgency against US forces is not part of any GWOT, and allegations of torture must be investigated. See where Cheney's timing is not so good?

Before you blow up and claim that the allegations of torture must refer only to the ones by Iraqis... read up.

Our Guys

Some see U.S.-backed Iraqi guards as death squads

Salvadoran Option II

Tubino:

Now you're cheating - everything Allah said was correct as it pertained to first article you posted, and your 4-word summary of the article 'Iraqis want us out,' certainly over-represented the article's contents. Then you pull out a second article that gives more detail on what the delegates meant by 'resistance,' quoting it twice to claim that Allah is being disingenuous. That's not legit.

You're also ignoring the contentious context of the conference, with Shiite and Kurdish delegates walking out after the Sunnis acused them of 'selling out to America.' This is likely to be the reason that:

... the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional.

Before you blow up and claim that the allegations of torture must refer only to the ones by Iraqis... read up.

I skimmed the three 'torture' links - they all say that US-trained Iraqi paramilitary forces may be committing abuses against Sunnis. Could be true, but the link to US guilt is tenuous at best. But overall, resolving to investigate torture and unnecessary detentions is pretty non-controversial - I say more power to 'em.

geoff,

Think about what you are saying. I said almost NOTHING about the article ( 4 words) and provide a link so folks can decide.

Then Allah and others take me to task for not explaining in detail the meaning (which would of course have been hijacking the thread), and take the worst possible view of my not going on in detail.

For that I am called acting in bad faith, and in fact I'm told I'm supporting the terrorists. Please. I'm CHEATING?

Yes, a little more digging shows that Allah's claim about resistance vs. terrorism is wrong. But I still don't see how you need to do any digging to see he's overstepping with this claim:

Just like you neglected to mention that the resolution also condemns violent "resistance."

I don't see that in the NTY article. Do you? It sure isn't a fair representation of the document in any case. If I'm cheating to point that out by actually, you know, CITING the words of the document, then I'm guilty.

Allah, if you were acting in good faith, based on your reading of the one article I linked, then okay, I accept that, and retract accusations of bad faith.

Honestly I don't care all that much about which particular news org had which spin, though it wouldn't surprise me if on close reading the NYT article glossed over the worst aspects of the document. The Guardian seems more complete, but in a day or two there will be more detail. Juan Cole probably has it up, though I haven't checked there yet.

In any case, I continue to believe this is a very important symbolic step. I suspect we're seeing the first public display of what has been a private (Iraqi leaders to US) communication for months.

For Cheney to take the stance he has against Murtha's proposal -- if Iraqi leaders are starting to make noise about the US getting out -- is only very very generously called "bad timing."

geoff says, "I skimmed the three 'torture' links - they all say that US-trained Iraqi paramilitary forces may be committing abuses against Sunnis. Could be true, but the link to US guilt is tenuous at best. But overall, resolving to investigate torture and unnecessary detentions is pretty non-controversial - I say more power to 'em."

They say a lot more than that, and they give plenty of reason to think you're naive to think there will be any due process here. (It woudl take a Truth Commission.) They point out that the "Salvador option" (US-backed death squads) was floated months ago, and a key player in the Central American death squads is now apparently doing the same thing in Iraq.

There are reasons I keep referring to the history of the US in Central America in the 80s. Much is being repeated. This is from the nomoremister link above.

In the past year, the U.S. military has helped build up the commandos under guidance from James Steele, a former Army Special Forces officer who led U.S. counterinsurgency efforts in El Salvador in the 1980s. Salvadoran army units trained by Steele's team were accused of a pattern of atrocities.

In a May article for The Nation, David Corn, citing this New York Times Magazine article, told us a bit more about Steele:

The [Times] article, by Peter Maass, noted that Steele "honed his tactics leading a Special Forces mission in El Salvador during that country's brutal civil war in the 1980s." And, as Maass reminded his readers, that civil war resulted in the deaths of 70,000 people, mostly civilians, and "[m]ost of the killing and torturing was done by the army and right-wing death squads affiliated with it." The army that did all that killing in El Salvador was supported by the United States and US military officials such as Steele, who was head of the US military assistance group in El Salvador for two years in the mid-1980s. (A 1993 UN truth commission, which examined 22,000 atrocities that occurred during the twelve-year civil war in El Salvador, attributed 85 percent of the abuses to the US-backed El Salvador military and its death-squad allies.)

Maass reported that the Special Forces advisers in El Salvador led by Steele "trained front-line battalions that were accused of significant human rights abuses."

Just go read them.

Why do we keep getting drawn into arguments with this guy?

Dammit to hell! I propose an early New Year's resolution - no more feeding this fucking troll.

Allah, if you were acting in good faith, based on your reading of the one article I linked, then okay, I accept that, and retract accusations of bad faith.

I'm just going to let it rest right there.

Here's the question for you, though: "what would you have wanted the communique to have said?"

[Oh, and please don't bother telling us what Juan Cole thinks - it would be like us using jihadwatch as a definitive source for you]

+----------+
| PLEASE |
| DO NOT |
| FEED THE |
| TROLLS |
+----------+
| |
| |
.\|.||/..

Sigh...

*Takes the paddle off the wall-hook*

Geoff, you know the one rule of the 'Club that Keeps Breaking its Own One Rule.'

Turn around, big guy. Here's a kleenex if you need it.

You earned it but good this time.
I'm beginning to think you just joined for the paddlin.'

Here's the question for you, though: "what would you have wanted the communique to have said?"

I'm not sure why everything has to be personal around here, but okay. Do you mean the document from the Cairo conference? Or the coverage?

If the former, I think for Iraq to develop as a democracy with liberal human rights and respect for all religions with enforcement of none, the best I could hope for is that it be as representative of the Iraqi position(s) as possible.

If that means a document asking the US to stay, so be it. If that means a document asking the US to leave, so be it.

I took very seriously the indications over the past months that a very significant portion of the Iraqi population feels attacks on the US forces are justified.

What would YOU have wanted it to say?

I'm trying here, but I have to say that this whole what-would-you-want approach to be kinda ... limited. I'm just a citizen with no impact on foreign policy. Doesn't it matter a lot more what the document SAYS than what I wish?

But maybe I just don't get this blog thing.

They point out that the "Salvador option" (US-backed death squads) was floated months ago, and a key player in the Central American death squads is now apparently doing the same thing in Iraq.

Worth looking into, but the Newsweek article is so unsourced that its credibility is questionable. In the first paragraph they talk about going on offense against the insurgents, and the authors immediately link that to this 'death squad' strategy. Of course, we've had many conventional offensives in the past 6 months, which would completely fulfill the desires expressed in the first paragraph.

Again, the resolutions resulting from the conference are a no-brainer.

What would YOU have wanted it to say?

I think calls to: lay down arms, reject Syrian and Iranian interference, expel foreign insurgents, and establish a timetable for US troop withdrawal would have pleased me greatly. The point being that I want an orderly, peaceful, democratic, kind-of-secular, prosperous country sitting in the middle of the Middle East. So that my children won't have to listen to news reports every night of their life talking about 'Tensions in the Middle East' and 'Unrest in the Middle East.' Like I have.

Geoff, you know the one rule of the 'Club that Keeps Breaking its Own One Rule.'

I'm booooooooored. Bored, bored, bored. Boringly bored. I'm running these 45 minute heat transfer cases, which are inherently boring, and now they're taking forever, as well. So I'm bored.

And last night I did a little googlin' and pretty much pieced together Tubino's life story (well, parts at least). And, I don't know, it humanized him. In a Viking-like way.

So I figured I'd entertain myself this morning and just respond to anything he put up. No matter how off topic or how over-stated the claims. So there.

Yeah, OK, whatever.

You may want to try using tiger balm on your ass when I'm done.

*rolling up sleeves*
*makes a few practice swats in the air*

The point being that I want an orderly, peaceful, democratic, kind-of-secular, prosperous country sitting in the middle of the Middle East.

Yeah, me too. I never from day one thought this gang in charge was sharing that goal, or even if it was, it was going about it in a way almost guaranteed to get the opposite result.

But even I never thought that in such a short time we'd have a president claiming --falsely -- that the US doesn't torture, and at the same time arguing that the US must be legally unconstrained by torture restrictions.

And, I don't know, it humanized him. In a Viking-like way.

I've long considered myself a member of the human species, and made no secret of it. I'm completely confounded by the Viking reference though.

On Powerline, Chris Matthews claims to have made radically different remarks than the touchy-feely, equivalency remarks reported. He emailed the Powerline guys, saying:

"I told the students that the way to deal with terrorists is the way Golda Meir did after the attack on the Israeli Olympic athletes: hunt them down and kill them one at a time and be rough about it.

Every person in that room heard my say this. I don't know why the reporter chose to conflate my remarks about our need to get behind the forces in the Muslim world into my approach on how to deal with terrorists.

Feel free to check with the University of Toronto students who invited me to speak."

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012353.php

Moonbat)One: RE; Chris Mathews on "opposition fighters"

A CAnandian Press Article in the Edmonton Sun supported what Power Line reported, not what Mathews e-mail response to Powerline contained

Oops, apparently the link didn't post: http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2005/11/21/1316384-sun.html

To Whom it May Concern: Chris Matthews makes statements such as this one constantly. Anyone that wants to take the punishment, go read the last 3 years of transcripts of Hardball at MSNBC.

Actually, this does not even raise my eyebrow because he says this and more all the time. HE FEELS THEIR PAIN. I have watched him because it is the show the DNC defines their message, creates their quotes, etc. HE MEANS IT.

Was Chris shining a laser on the WTC to target it? Those Americans who believe Iraqis were in the WTC planes believe that, too.