Article

2004-04-12 Home Front: WoT

Tony Blair so gets it! And..... heâs coming to keep Bush from "going wobbling"

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sherry 2004-04-12 1:00:36 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Good post, Sherry! Tony is a wordsmith (wordsmythe?) of the first rank, but this was probably very easy for him as it was obviously both heartfelt and true to its very root. Kudos!

Now what's this kerfuffle about a "wobbly" Bush? Lol! Whomever falls for the notion that Dubya is wobbly must be skeered of the dark or somethin'! Hey, The Bush Doctrine and the decisions to invade Afgofuckistan and Iwakirack didn't come out of a Cracker Jacks box! Lol! Yer jes' funnin' with us, huh? Tony speeks reelly purty!

Posted by .com 2004-04-12 1:27:13 AM|| 2004-04-12 1:27:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 It would really help if Bush would pen an op-ed piece like this. I'm pretty sure WaPo would run it. Even better, it'd force Kerry to respond, and I'd love to get Kerry on paper as to what his plans would be.

Posted by Steve White 2004-04-12 1:34:36 AM|| 2004-04-12 1:34:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Hey com .. Bush go wobbly? No, I was just remembering Margaret Thatcher telling W's dad before GWI, "Now George, don't go wobbly on us."

And Steve, I, too wish Kerry would in someway respond other than "Bush is all wrong." Something, other than words that tells our guys and gals fighting this thing, "well you're CIC is all wrong."

Understand, that if Kerry gets elected, we may have to instate the draft, so many guys and gals will not reup!

Posted by Sherry 2004-04-12 1:44:23 AM|| 2004-04-12 1:44:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Funny. Blair did not have a pair of balls or a stiffened spine when billy bin clinton was President. What did they do in '98 when Saddam sorely offended -- lob cruise missiles into Iraq proper. Blair is a man today owing to the MANLINESS of President Bush.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-04-12 2:24:38 AM|| 2004-04-12 2:24:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Tony could back his flowery rhetoric with an additional 30 or 40 thousand troops. Assuming, of course, he believes the words he pens to be true.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-04-12 2:30:33 AM|| 2004-04-12 2:30:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Thank you, Sherry. This is something that all free people should read.

Posted by Zenster 2004-04-12 2:39:21 AM|| 2004-04-12 2:39:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Whoa there hoss, Prez Bush don't know wobbly so he don't do wobbly.Chine

Posted by Chiner 2004-04-12 4:36:08 AM|| 2004-04-12 4:36:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Blair isn't talking to Bush--that would be like preaching to the choir--but rather he is talking to his Leftist "peacenik" critics at home like Clare Short, Robin Cook and "Red Ken."
Blair indeed so gets the WOT, but he doesn't get the inanity of other things like having Britain sign the EU Constitution which would, inter alia, prevent the UK from sending troops "unilaterally" to a war like that in Iraq which EU kingpins France and Germany opposed.

Posted by Jen 2004-04-12 5:11:54 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-04-12 5:11:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 LOL! Jen, you just can't leave Aris alone can't you.

Posted by Rafael 2004-04-12 5:33:23 AM|| 2004-04-12 5:33:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 I don't see Blair as keeping Bush from going wobbly; not at all. "Wobbly" is not the problem with Bush: the problem is he's one of the worst public speakers I've seen in all my 55 years. Bush has a terrible time conveying a coherent thought in impromptu speech; what often comes out is a just a rush of jumbled thoughts that scarcely make sense.

This is a real weakness, and it's a particularly troublesome one right now when we are at war not just abroad, but at home as well. Bush needs to do a far better job explaining what we are up to in Iraq and why it's important that we succeed, and he needs to do it often so people won't forget or get distracted by the continual flow of bullshit from the Left.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-04-12 6:04:51 AM|| 2004-04-12 6:04:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 To each his own, Dave.
I find President Bush a wonderful and, most of the time, inspiring speaker.
I like his conviction, his plain talk and his clear intent.
Tony Blair can say things with that English eloquence and almost poetry that that country is famous for.

Rafael, is Katsaris an admirer of "Red Ken" and Clare Short?
That figures.

Posted by Jen 2004-04-12 6:09:32 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-04-12 6:09:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Jen: the key word in what I wrote above is "impromptu."

When Bush has had time to prepare and organize what he wants to say, as in a major address to the nation, he is absolutely outstanding; he is, in my opinion, among the very best of the best.

But he shares one characteristic with a lot of other competent, intelligent executives whose primary need or function is to get to the essence of one problem after another in rapid succession and act on them quickly and effectively: having taken in a large amount of information about a problem, analyzing it, and then arriving at a plan of action, the "raw data" are put away in a mental filing cabinet.

People whose responsibility is to act develop this mental habit out of necessity. People whose job is to think, or dream great dreams, or argue and debate, do not. Bill Clinton was a thinker and a debater. It has been said of him that he could argue a two-sided issue from all five sides, and do it all day long. But he could not act.

But the problem with that mental "filing cabinet" executives create is that it takes a bit of work to retrieve its contents, something that is very difficult to do in the heat of a debate or in an impromptu speech with dozens of microphones shoved in one's face.

Bush is a doer, not a debater, and at times like these our nations's very survival may hinge on whether or not he can get his ideas across eloquently. And that ain't easy for him.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-04-12 7:38:20 AM|| 2004-04-12 7:38:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 I agree with Jen. That Bush is a "terrible speaker" is just over-hyped. While he may not be a Ronald Reagan, and he may not pump up the crowds - the context of his words, IMHO makes up for the sometimes lackluster delivery.

Posted by B 2004-04-12 7:44:39 AM|| 2004-04-12 7:44:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Seafarious here incognito...I am very concerned that AQ will attempt an attack in UK while Tony is visiting Bush. Every time Sharon visits the US, a bus in Jerusalem is boomed.

Posted by Anonymous4118 2004-04-12 8:57:43 AM|| 2004-04-12 8:57:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 I really do not care that GW is not rhetorical wizard! He is a President who believes in using the office of the Presidency to change things. His respect for the office directly contradicts the "boomers" in Europe and in the US. Blair is very articulate and for those who can't get out the bone in their throat concerning GW and get "it"...these "boomers" will lead this nation to the pits in no time. Blair is an honest broker from the opposite political party in great Britain...HELLO! This should cut through all the foolishness in the debate with the wild eyed leftist and Pat Buchanon's of the world.

Brien

Posted by Brien 2004-04-12 9:14:27 AM|| 2004-04-12 9:14:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Jen> "Rafael, is Katsaris an admirer of "Red Ken" and Clare Short?"

I don't even know who "Red Ken" and "Clare Short" are.

"would, inter alia, prevent the UK from sending troops "unilaterally" "

No, it wouldn't. You either lie or have simply fallen prey to the usual false anti-EU propaganda. Cheers.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-12 9:33:36 AM|| 2004-04-12 9:33:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 I agree that President Bush's set-piece speeches are very good, especially when he's talking about America's place in the world and the importance of promoting freedom. I also agree that contemporaneous remarks are not usually his strong suit. (As an exception, I point to his 9/14/01 remarks to the rescue workers at the WTC site.) Along these lines, here is an e-mail I sent to the White House today that I titled "Unsolicited Communications Advice from a Supporter":

I fully support the U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan (and hopefully in Syria and Iran), and I think the President and the U.S. military are doing a great job. I also wish the media would report more honestly on what's going on over there and on what's at stake. However, comments such as this from the President will not help (from CNN.com):

""It was a tough week last week, and my prayers and thoughts are with those who pay the ultimate price for our security," the president said."
The sentiment is appropriate, but to say "pay the ultimate price" puts a negative spin on what the soldiers and Marines are doing over there. It suggests that the soldiers and Marines are "PAYING the ultimate price" rather than "MAKING the ultimate sacrifice" or "GIVING their lives in defense of America and freedom." I know it's somewhat Clintonian, but tone does matter sometimes.

Posted by Tibor 2004-04-12 11:14:08 AM|| 2004-04-12 11:14:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 By the way, there is zero chance that Bush will go wobbly on Iraq, IMO.

Posted by Tibor 2004-04-12 11:14:51 AM|| 2004-04-12 11:14:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Steve, Kerry has already stated his position on Iraq:

"Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made."

What part of that don't you understand? (And talk about a bad public speaker...)

Posted by Matt 2004-04-12 11:32:23 AM|| 2004-04-12 11:32:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Antiwar TROLL 2004-04-12 11:35:42 AM|| 2004-04-12 11:35:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 Tony Blair: a great educator!

War On Terror 101 / Iraq: (notes)

1.) Our greatest threat, apart from the immediate one of terrorism, is our complacency.

2.) When some ascribe, as they do, the upsurge in Islamic extremism to (the war in ) Iraq, do they really forget who killed whom on 11 September 2001?

3.) When they call on us to bring the troops home, do they seriously think that this would slake the thirst of these extremists, to say nothing of what it would do to the Iraqis? Or if we scorned our American allies and told them to go and fight on their own, that somehow we would be spared?

4.) One thing is for sure: they (our enemies) have faith in our weakness just as they have faith in their own religious fanaticism. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us.

5.) It is not easy to persuade people of all this . . . to tell people what they donât want to hear; that, in a world in which we in the West enjoy all the pleasures, profound and trivial, of modern existence, we are in grave danger.

In view of the excellent points elucidated above (which should be reprinted in their entirely on the front-page of every newspaper in the civilized world) and in view of the incredible danger posed by lack of public access to credible and accurate information precisely because of the political agendas of the owners of the media sources, and in view of the fact that time is running out to make the case against Islamofacism, if this thread turns into an Aris-led diatribe, I'm going to barf.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-04-12 12:58:44 PM|| 2004-04-12 12:58:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 I find it amusing, antiwar, that someone such as yourself, who is not a good thinker, by any means, actually deems yourself fit to be a critic of rhetorical abilities of United States Presidents.

But we are not surprised that you don't find Bush to be a good speaker. Especially since you consider the ultimate rhetorical argument to consist of one word,

"whatever".

I know it's difficult for you to follow Mr. Bush when he gets to word #2. But that's ok, hon. You'll get to the bigger words soon.

Posted by B 2004-04-12 1:08:03 PM|| 2004-04-12 1:08:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Antiwar TROLL 2004-04-12 1:18:06 PM|| 2004-04-12 1:18:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 It is really quite hard to figure who backs what dog in this fight. Ya'll need excuse me fa' two things, the first and I am certain most egregious, is I am one of those"fith column" (whatever the hell that means) "libruls"(spoken like a dirty word), and the second, I agree with Blair, but prob'ly not fo' the reasons, ya'll think. Alert to security: infiltration breach?
Blair's piece and prose becomes a rorsarch of expectation I suppose, as to how there might be a concurrence of views?
What I do know is Iraq can not be allowed to become a failed state, and I don't believe libs yearn that result. Kerry despite the damning speculative rhetoric has never endorsed pulling forces out unilaterally, he's recommended shared responsibilities, that it seems Blair, on pricipal, also agrees with.
I think I read more in the piece than some do, in the language of abandoning the rhetoric of hate, for the dialogue of moderation. Whereas you all reduce the debate into an either /or proposition, if I'm reading your polit-speak correctly.
There has to be an ample incentive and mechanisms in place, for moderate Arabs to weather the radicals and shun the humiliations of being seen as complicit with the occupation. Those mechanisms need to be shown as a moderates' victory over both the fanatics and the coalition's authority, for it to be viewed by the common Iraqis as a viable alternative to either wholesale capitulation or jihadist resistance.
This doesn't seem terribly complicated by even one un-versed in the mechanisms of intrigue, give Sistani a stunning victory over the Americans, one seen as embarrassing to Americans, however one might be engineered, and you leave the radical clerics recruitments to violence null and void, or at the very least defused . The shutdown of the paper was the catylist for this breach and whoever's brilliant idea that was, needs be sent to the back of the tactical bus.
Final note on Blair keeping Bush from going off "wobbly" , somone said it was Bush Manliness that bolters Blair. Bush Manliness?
What a joke!!
He doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to testify to the 9-11 commisioners without professional flak Cheney to "hod his po wido hand."
What, Jamie Gorelick (pun intended) might ask him a *hard* question?
One must imagine those gonads diminuitively. And this passes as Manliness?

Posted by Anonymous4119 2004-04-12 1:18:08 PM|| 2004-04-12 1:18:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 the issue is not about speaking abilities but about finishing a war started in 1979.

it is very easy figue out who backs what dog in this fight. iran is the mover and shacker here.

He doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to testify to the 9-11 commisioners
Annonymous4119 - who the hell are you? Tell me why a sitting pres should be forced to testify publically? Have you heard anything about seperation and executive privalege? Your an ingrate - your hatred of Bush clouds your reasoning. Tell why doesn't clinton testify publically (the main reason for 9-11)? Do you really understand about the 9-11 commision? The only time someone has to publically testify is when two witnesses contradicts each other in private. That dumbass clarke did not give a 100% accruate account which contradicted Rice's private testimony. Clarke has been shown as not giving a throughly accruate account and it seems to be financially motivate!

Just remember if the west is left to people like anitwar or this anonymous4119 idiot (very typical of a leftwinger with a narrow view) we are all doomed. This war is not about Bush or Clinton, we did not ask for this war and we should not change 50 years of policy because this war was brought upon us. We need to procecute this war all the way to tehran and reduce the terrorist threat to a bunch of ragheads with no head.

Posted by Dan 2004-04-12 1:49:26 PM|| 2004-04-12 1:49:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Anonymous4119:

1) The push for Bush to testify to the commission is a smokescreen, set up to create accusations that help the democratic party (i.e. Bush is "on trial" for 911! Oooh. Aaaah. Conspiracy!). It's an absolutely brilliant piece of "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" strategy, on their part. Since I used to be a lib Dem, I know from experience that that's all it is--and it's a classic. Unhappily, it's very much like what the terrorist extremists do now (or what Hitler--I'm serious--did in his day) -- keep telling the lie long enough, and people will believe it. Standard policy. The Dems should try to win based on arguments of merit.

2) The closing of the paper (because of constant incitements toward violence against coalition troops) wasn't a catalyst for the "breach" (violence) as you call it--they were headed that way anyway, and forcing their hand simply gave us the initiative. (Besides, the Iranians are getting their hands in the soup to protect their mullah-state--they don't want to be next, and the students in Iran are getting restless.)

3) The bad guys in Iraq won't stop if Sistani is victorious. Allowing an early "coup" is a very bad idea--the opposition will use it to deligitimize Sistani completely. The radical elements will not be "null," "void," or "defused." A legitmate election must occur, backed by world opinion, for there to be even the slightest chance of stabilty. I have found libs love the "quick fix," "try it and see" approach to complex problems.

4) There is no "rhetoric of hate" except on the side of terror. (Your descriptive that there is somehow a "rhetoric of hate" from the present adminstration demonstrates lib irrationality at it's best.)

5) There are ample incentives for Iraqi moderates to "weather the radicals" and shun the view of cooperating with "occupation" forces, but patience is needed to shore up what would be an untried, fledgling democracy. The terrorists and totalitarian interests are playing on the imperative of time, and are trying to incite "revolution" to stop democracy.

6) "What I do know is Iraq cannot be allowed to become a failed state." You are ahead of many of your "like-minded" liberal nay-sayers, on that, and I congratulate you. But I wonder if you realize that Iraq cannot afford to become a social "experiment"--it is an either/or situation, and stability through force must be achieved, or there will be no stability.

7) You are not informed if you seriously think Kerry offers a viable solution, or if you believe he can handle the WOT. I refer you to the Dem-run Vietnam War, and his personal failures in that war, for reference, if you cannot piece through his current double-speak. He also has NEVER supported a strong defense, and hasn't said he's changed his mind now, or given explantation as to why he didn't before. A strong defense is necessary to protect ourselves against Islamic extremism.

8) I have found it is the libs that generally don't have the "intestinal fortitude" for the truth, and that they invent an enemy, where none exists, in order to "feel" better in one way or another. (see above--answer)

Bottom line: if you agree with Tony, you agree with GWB, on the WOT.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-04-12 2:19:10 PM|| 2004-04-12 2:19:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 I love the optimism of the "kerry hasn't said he would pull out the troops".

BTW, would you please give me your bank account and cc number? I've got a deal for you. Oh sure, you have ever reason to believe that I'll rip you off, but I've never said that I would do that, now have I???

So..please there is absolutely no reason that you should not send me your bank account number immediately.

Thanks.

Posted by B 2004-04-12 2:31:59 PM|| 2004-04-12 2:31:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 im feeling your pane Antiwuz, nodoby hear like me either.
if i had my bong i'd give you a hit

Posted by HalfEmpty 2004-04-12 4:34:27 PM|| 2004-04-12 4:34:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 To Anonymous4119: Prominent Democrats campaigning on behalf of Kerry are saying he'll "bring the boys home." (For example: Ted Kennedy). I have not heard any disavowals of Kennedy from the Kerry campaign. It sounds like "pulling out the troops" to me.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-04-12 7:00:08 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-04-12 7:00:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Katsaris, you're a liar and a dissembler.
I don't know whether you're Greek or where you're actually posting from, but too often you take the stance of being for the IslamoFacists and certainly you always come down against the United States.
I most certainly have not fallen for "anti-EU" propaganda.
The EU is a Socialist nightmare and will be the end of Western Europe.
Tony Blair will be voted out on the issue of the EU referendum.
The majority of the British people are against the UK signing the EU Constitution and against chucking the British pound for the EUro.
Should they sign the EU Constitution, Britain would be bound to honor Common EU foreign and defense policy, under the newly constituted EU Army that Chirac, Schroeder and Blair have discussed.
Chirac and De Vulpine know well that this would forbid our Coalition allies like Britain, Italy and Poland to deploy their own troops unilaterally and that is a large reason they are so keen on it.
In the eyes of the Franco-German Axis, the whole purpose of a French-German led EU is to thwart US power.
(Where a unified EU with an army will leave NATO is anyone's guess. Chirac and Schroeder say that nothing will change, but I know they're lying.)
As you, too, are pretty keen on thwarting US power yourself, I'd say that it's you, Katsaris, who have fallen for the pro-EU propaganda perhaps in the vain hope that full EU membership will revive the moribund Greek economy.
Full EU membership is wrong for Britain, however and Blair will go down to Howard and the Tories should he keep trying to ram it through Parliament.

Posted by Jen 2004-04-12 7:55:36 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-04-12 7:55:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 "Katsaris, you're a liar and a dissembler."

Jen, are you sure you are not .com? You are as prone to paranoid delusions as he is. And like he did yesterday, when caught at an error, instead of accepting it when corrected you choose to refuse correction and thus turn your possibly genuine mistake into a LIE, and also accuse *me* of lying instead.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

--
"under the newly constituted EU Army that Chirac, Schroeder and Blair have discussed"

You mean the newly constituted EU Army that isn't actually mentioned anywhere in the constitution?

"too often you take the stance of being for the IslamoFacist"

I dare you to name even one time I supported the Islamofascists. I double-dog-dare you.

You moronic liar and slanderous freak of nature. You dare accuse *me* of supporting the Islamofascists?

"certainly you *always* come down against the United States"

Oh, really? How is that? Because I don't accept that invading Iraq was a good idea? Oh, yeah I'm *always* coming down against the United States. I'm always coming down against Greece also. And against the UK. And against Russia. And against Iran and Syria.

--

As for the rest of your babble it's quite irrelevant and repetitious. Yeah, yeah, the EU is the tool of the devil, etc, etc, Britain is better out than in, etc, etc.

How many times do I need to repeat that I would also be quite glad to see the UK leave the union? Yes, the majority of the British people are against this and that and the other. DID I EVER SAY I WANTED THE UK IN THE UNION?

Fuck you, Jen! You've slandered and you've slandered and you've kept on slandering. If you don't show me a single post where I defended the Islamofascists, accept your name "slanderer Jen" from now on.

You moron.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-12 9:28:07 PM|| 2004-04-12 9:28:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Not a slanderer, just calling a spade a spade.
You attack each post here at Rantburg with so much wishy-washy quasi-Communist garbage that has obviously become a veritable tossed salad of crack-pot theories, ideas and ideology in your cranium that you must, indeed, be an actual EU Parliamentary representative!
God knows what you're "for," but we here at RB know you're against everything and you remind us of that on each and every post.
While discussion is encouraged here, what you consider "reasoned discourse" is bawling everyone out--just like you just did me--and reminding us how full of shit we are here in the United States (where I dare say you reside also).
Most of here are pro-Bush and pro-USA and everything that that stands for, including the rightness of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The US took 18 months to "rush to war" in Iraq: it was called for by the President and voted on by the Congress long before a bullet was fired.
Why you insist on posting your ravings here, I have no idea, except to be an irritant or perhaps you're a paid seminar poster for the Marxists.
(Your raves and rants do have the inscrutability of Das Kapital or the confessions of Zanoviev and Kamenev before they were executed in the Lubiyanka.)
I dare say there are many more blogs on the Left where you would be among friends and they might be able to figure out what the hell you're ranting about--you're all over the place about the war, the EU, events in Europe, ad nauseum.
Meaningful "discussion" is meaninglesss with an insane troll like you who has just enough knowledge to be dangerous and too much of a "Greek" temper to engage in the exchange of real ideas and I, for one, am through with you.

Posted by Jen 2004-04-12 10:08:19 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-04-12 10:08:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 When you are so delusional as to keep on thinking that for some reason I'm residing in the US, (didn't you once imply that I was residing in Russia btw?) all evidence that I'm residing in Greece to the contrary, then what exactly is the point of speaking further? My main email account is that of a greek mail provider. My Usenet posts show that my IP originates in Greece. I could give you my postgrad university account email (grad0473@di.uoa.gr), in the University of Athens. I could show you photos and even videoclips. If nothing else, doesn't it tell you anything that I know even minutia of Greek politics and pretty much nothing about American internal politics?

It probably wouldn't convince a fanatic like yourself. You are an expert in constructing your own fictions.

Most of you people, with few exceptions, use pseudonyms. I'm one of the very few people here who use his real name. Exactly because I don't like the idea of people pretending someone they aren't. No offense to the rest of you who use pseudonyms, since I also understand the desire for privacy, but the point remains that I'm Aris Katsaris, and Aris Katsaris I remain throughout.

I think that your real problem, Jen, is that you can't withstand that much honesty. You want to believe that every person that disagrees with you is a lying deceiver. You can't even *conceive* that someone may think that invading Iraq was a fool's game and nonetheless still hope that you be successful there, no matter how few chances for that exist.

"I dare say there are many more blogs on the Left where you would be among friends".

Perhaps I would be, though I'd probably find few people in leftist blogs supporting invasions of Syria. But more importantly, I don't visit Rantburg in order to find friends, nor in order to join some wank-circle where everyone pats everyone else on the back. I joined it because so far it's the most convenient collection of "War on Terror" newsitems I've found.

USA stands for the rightness of Operation Iraqi Freedom? I must have missed the reference to Operation Iraqi Freedom in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, the two documents I thought defined what USA stood for.

And you've still not found a single post of mine where I defended Islamofascists, you bastard liar and slanderer.

Not sure what your reference to "rush to war" is about, but I very much doubt that I ever used that expression. My guess is that it's yet another of your delusions.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-13 8:50:38 AM|| 2004-04-13 8:50:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 Yeah, Aris doesn't back the Islamists. He backs the French Imperialists!

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-04-13 9:47:07 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-04-13 9:47:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#35 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Antiwar 2004-04-12 11:35:42 AM|| 2004-04-12 11:35:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#36 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Antiwar 2004-04-12 1:18:06 PM|| 2004-04-12 1:18:06 PM|| Front Page Top

21:28 chrisper
21:33 B
21:25 chrisper
00:12 therien
09:57 geoffg
22:55 chrisper
14:21 Frank G
14:05 Kathy K
13:57 Kathy K
13:54 Kathy K
07:00 Captain Wrath
15:48 Robert Crawford
15:27 B
10:40 Zenster
09:47 Robert Crawford
08:50 Aris Katsaris
07:02 Shipman
06:58 Shipman
06:57 Shipman
04:36 Phil B
03:39 Zenster
03:23 Zenster
02:04 Jen
02:00 Jen