The numbers appear to be leaked by The White House, 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan.
Some of the buzz from the MSM is that Pres. Obama will present this as a part of a plan for winning in Afghanistan and that we should be out by the end of his first term.
I’ve previously expressed my criticism of the whole concept of “winning” in Afghanistan, namely that it will always be nebulous as there is no concrete finish line. The Taliban can have a resurgence if beaten down as they have shown and the corrupt, dictatorial “democratic” government is a ticking time bomb.
However, in politics, one can either lock their eyes on the context of the current moment in time…or analyze it to determine the subtext, the big scheme and unspoken strategy lying beneath it of which this may only be a part.
This is all hypothetical but let’s consider Pres. Obama’s current position, the political landmines on Afghanistan and actually taking constuctive steps there in an attempt to explore whether this may in fact be a prelude to withdrawal.
In an environment where winning a Nobel Prize and spending a weekend with his family are considered by his foes as outrageous affronts to the American People, how would “We’re pulling out of Afghanistan!” play?
The Repubs would cry, “He made us lose!”, “We’re in danger of being attacked now!”, “He’s too weak on defense to protect us!”, etc. Once Teabaggers removed the obstructions in their mouths, they would scream, “Traitor!”, “Surrendererer!”, “He let the terarists win!”, “If we’re attacked now, it’s his fault!”
And the Dem Party would be painted as weak on defense, palling around with “terarists”, leaving our country open to attack, etc.
So, my proposition is that in order to pull out, Pres. Obama may feel that we first have to go in. There are goals and tactical missions that could be accomplished in a brief period to help the Afghan people and root out any remaining Al Qaeda. We could leave Afghanistan on a strong note of accomplishments which will be good for our relationship with that nation, other nations and of course among the teabag-less majority here at home.
If this was his goal, to settle things down there as the first step of a pull out, he could hardly make that known to anyone. Though he did start whispering something like that in my ear at that WH dinner I crashed but I was elbowed out of the way by this bleached blond who had a copy of “Arianna Huffington’s Guide to Getting Undeserved Attention” in her purse.
No, I am not happy that the 30,000 are being sent even if it is towards the goal of pulling out. Things don’t always go as planned and those troops and more could get bogged down, killed and wounded there for many years to come.
But I do hold out the slim possibility that there could be a silver lining to this unpleasant dark cloud. At least we know, if Bush was still in office or if McCain was, this wouldn’t even have a remote chance of happening.
Only time will tell…
bito
KQµårk 死神
KillgoreTrout
* Americans Elect has officially given up...Time Out for O/T
Caru
BourneID
SueInCa
AdLib
We listened to the speech, we have heard the skeptics, politicians,pundits and read the comments here. What do some of the Afghans think? Seems as mixed as the what we hear here.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/02/afghans-respond-to-surge/
Report comment
Couple observations watching the hearings this morning.
Report comment
1. It is quite different to have both State Dept. and DOD sitting at the same table showing cooperation on the Afghan problem. Under Bush, DOD and State were at each others throats. All Rummy, All the time.
2. There is no bluster on anyone’s part. Tough questions, “no true answers, tough choices”, Not with overwhelming optimism, but with confidence.
3. State has really cut down on large contractors (read:KBR/Halibuton). Close to 75% of the contractors are Afghan, allowing the money to stay in their country.
I like this news about cutting down on contractors. That is an enormous improvement. Probably another reason for sending more troops.
Report comment
I wish I wrote down the numbers the cited. At least Hali-burden isn’t taking all the profits off shore.
Report comment
Gates and Hillary seem to get along quite well.
She seemed remarkably stoic at last night’s speech. I really like her as Sec of State.
Report comment
I saw an hour long interview with the two of them on C-Span. It was remarkable to hear them and how much they were trying to work together on many problems and their understanding of the same goals. Rummy and Powell? Nah. Rummy and Rice? Nah. Cheney any anyone else? Nah.
Report comment
Another sign of a functioning administration. Developments like this are so important and woefully unreported. This would be a good item for our underreported threads. Thanks for the heads up on this — I’m going to go to C-SPAN to find this. Better than listening to the whining on Progressive radio!
Report comment
Having thought about this overnight, the one good thing I get out of this is Obama promising a drawdown in 18 months. I hope McChrystal has a real plan for actually getting something accomplished (I don’t fully trust him; he was involved in the Tillman coverup). If Obama doesn’t follow through, his re-election is seriously on the line.
That being said, I still don’t see how the Taliban can be defeated. I don’t see how we can “win.” maybe a “win” is ensuring longterm stability for Afghanistan, but I don’t see that happening.
Report comment
I don’t think we’re defining “win” any more. We’re defining “success.” That may seem like a semantic difference, but I think it’s an important shift in emphasis. There’s nothing there to “win.” But we can succeed in training Afghani personnel to take responsibility for the problems of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. That’s a big job, and perhaps one we can’t achieve. Which is why I’m glad we have a timeline.
I see this as an 18-month drawdown.
Report comment
I guess I feel a little better about it after Obama’s speech because of the 18-month window. I was pretty distraught yesterday about it.
Report comment
I think Mr. Obama is fairly predictable. He pretty much does what he says he’s going to do. Of course, the Republicans are still talking about “winning.” I wish they would explain exactly what that means. In a way, the president gave them a definition last night by clarifying the mission. But we’re never going to get a “surrender” from the Taliban or from Al Qaeda. It’s not a war in the true sense of the word — we’re not at war with Afghanistan. But we’re still hearing “we will win this war” from the right wingers as if they’re locked back in the 1940s. And maybe they are.
Report comment
The difficult part? Actually believing that the Afghanis are going to get their ducks in a row.
Report comment
I don’t believe Obama anymore. I find him glib and unctuous. The conflating of the Taliban and Al Qoodies was absurd. This one note Johnny America of “let’s keep the MIC going” is a snooze. People in this country are truly suffering. And here we are talking about things that have such a limited impact on the lives of Americans. Unless Obama has some kind of genius “timing” thing going on again, this girl has become a bit cyniQal.
We need a third party.
Report comment
Questinia -
do you have a place for a german 300 pound-gorilla left on your “Cynical Tree”…???
Report comment
Unctuous? You definitely have gone cynical.
I am unsure of what the best way forward is. Afghanistan going down the rat hole would be a bad thing, but how bad? Do we care about the girls having their noses cut off for not wearing a veil?
On the flip side, even if we did stabilize Afghanistan, would not the deranged religious extremists not just find some other place to drink tea and plot against modernism?
But I do know that this is what Obama campaigned on so I don
Report comment
They can plot from anywhere. By localizing it to a place only gives it a symbolic location… and an excellent recruitment tool.
Report comment
I expected a simultaneously parallel process of security and taking care of things (whatever that means) in that part of the world withe the lives of people here. Do the people of Afghanistan REALLY want us there? And what the hell are we still doing in all these other countries with our bases?
That there was as much attention paid to the people of this country and their plights. As it stands, the war has gotten the most real, goal-directed, and thought out consideration. The public option was ridiculous and should have been rolled into Medicare. Someone as intelligent as Obama should know new terms are not embraced by this country. To get support for something real he needed to use what already exists as real and established. I refuse to believe he and his admin are that short-sighted.
I don’t know how to experience him as anything but contrived at this point. The Harvard-Wall St connection is just too marked. I almost think Obama was the perfume to cover up the stench of Bush, to make Bushian policies continue with less offense.
I need to be re-wooed by Mr Obama. Believe me, I am not at all cynical by nature, but whether it be the system or whatever, cynicism as defined as hopeless detachment, is something perpetuated by his administration. He is losing support. He ought to know better. He was all about not fostering cynicism.
He is NOT going before the public and addressing a very real emotional reality brewing for many people. This is something he campaigned on. If he’s beginning to lose me, well, it takes a lot to do that.
Report comment
Questinia, I think we do need to take the time to really hear what you’re saying. I agree with you that people are suffering (you’re right…even dying) terribly right now. In larger numbers than many would imagine. And it is very much under-reported by almost all the media. People are in situations that really cannot wait much longer for relief.
But what I’d like to see more of is an actual calling of the Republican Party to account. They still have clout in this government, as we see every day, while they delay, debate and deny health care. Somehow they seem to be given a pass. Over on HP, you see a lot of RW posters throwing it in liberals’ faces that the Blue Dogs are thwarting reform–the underlying message being: that you can NEVER expect any Repub to break ranks and vote for what is morally right. Why not??
And the very wealthy (pretty much synonymous with the Republican Party) in this country need to be held to account, too. They need to start sharing. They need to start feeding and housing people and getting some jobs programs going. They’re always bleating about how private charity can do more good, more efficiently than the government. Let them put their money where their mouths are.
And all those Goldman Sachs (and other Wall Street) bonuses? They need to be taxed at a 95% rate. No loopholes. No offshore havens. Taxes on the wealthy need to go up and go up by a LOT. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been greater, and it’s time for redistribution of wealth to stop being a taboo phrase and start becoming reality.
I guess what I’m saying is that I share your deep concern, but I blame President Obama not even a fraction of what I blame the right wing and their stooges for what’s wrong. The people who “broke it” need to “own it” now and open their wallets.
(Sorry–have to leave for a while now. Back later, I hope.)
Report comment
Elections are fun. They get you all pumped up, adrenaline flows. You get to wear funny hats and pins. Everyone is working together off the same page with a single mission. Get the candidate elected. Legislation is difficult, time consuming and slow.
That said. Did you miss the speech last night?
How was Obama supposed to “roll medicare in to the public option”? Magic? He is President. 1/3 of the government. The Senate is made up of 100 alpha dogs, all thinking they could be president. Try getting 60 of these critters to all eat out of the same bowel.
He addressed the economy in the speech last night. That is one reason he proposed an exit plan. As he said (last night and in the campaign) he can’t pick and choose 1 topic/problem at a time. All have weight and consequences to them. Many are intertwined. Do you get to enumerate the priorities? Do I? I chose to elect him and to make the right choices. He will serve 4 years, not 11 months.
Report comment
So many points.
What are we doing with seven hundred bases in 70 nations (or what ever it is)? Maintaining our economic hegemony, obviously. I am surprised that you needed to ask.
Do the Afghanis really want us there? Damned if I know. I think that if the previous admin had not been criminally incompetent, then we would have long ago stabilized the nation and reduced our presence to ten or 15 thousand. But they didn’t.
As for the public option vs single payer, you may as well sit down and cry for a pony. It just was not going to happen. There is not one damned thing that Obama was going to be able to do to make it happen. What part of that is remote to you? There was no freaking way that we were going to get single payer.
Why fight a battle that you know you are going to lose and you know the loss is going to cost you, why suit up for that battle? Obama is a politician, not a miracle worker. Single payer is a compromise. That is what happens in politics. Compromise. Half of a half of a half of a loaf.
As for this whole, “there is no difference between Bush and Obama” meme, I just find it tiresome. You clearly are not looking.
Obama is not now nor has he ever been a liberal, in the actual meaning of the word. It is only in the debased political conversation that we have today, using the definitions foisted on us by the asshole reactionaries that call themselves Republicans.
I am actually offended that you insist on belittling Obama by calling him Bush’s water carrier. I really do not think that that is fair to Obama or any Democrat. Look at the assholes on the other side, then make a decision. Perhaps the Greens appeal to you?
Report comment
K7,I second the motion Sir!
Report comment
I know about economic hegemony. It seems like Afghanistan and Iraq for that matter are just part of the next deal. Wouldn’t that make sense?
I don’t care whether he is a liberal. I don’t care what he touts himself as. He is not speaking to the people who need speaking to most. How do I know? Because I’m speaking them. People are truly suffering and they would be the first to hang on to a crumb of hope or at least some sense of a plan. They are losing hope. They are dying. They are impoverished. They are losing their wives to cancer because cobra ran out, coming home to find their belongings out on the street because they’re evicted. These are professional people who have worked their entire lives.
Unless you are actually having the kind of interface with the millions of people in this type of situation it is hard to get. Because it is utterly silent. No one reports on it. If the media is not bringing it up to the consciousness of the American people as a whole then I feel the Presideny ought to do so. the proof is always in the pudding. So far not even gruel.
I’m a pragmatist, perhaps naive, whatever. But I do know that the basic tenets of our country, that our leaders as elites must have the consideration of the populace as paramount. Not hegemony.
Report comment
Obama is not a liberal and has never been a liberal.
He’s always been more of a centrist, but the corporate media and Republicans love calling anyone that’s a Democrat a liberal whether it’s true or not.
I do not understand the depth of the many problems left behind by BushCO, but know that BushCO left behind several messes and understand that the problems cannot be solved in a year, or two years, or even in Obama’s first term, as he stated during his inauguration.
The so-called “liberal” media is not liberal, but corporate owned and they are working with the Republicans on Obama failing and you are falling into the trap.
Take a breath and open your eyes to the politics and corporate interests that Obama faces every single day.
The media and the Republicans are playing you and other ‘liberals’ that feel as you do.
What do you want Obama to do?
Give more feel good, buck up, don’t lose hope speeches?
Can you imagine the fall out from the media and the Republicans if Obama gave more speeches?
Heck, they’re already complaining about the number of speeches he’s given.
They’re already calling him a media-whore and photo-op president.
It’s easy to get discouraged at this time, because we are hurting as a country, but giving up on our president so early is not the solution.
Third party?
Good luck with that, because it’s just not reality.
Report comment
Not until we have instant runoff voting, at any rate.
Report comment
Pragmatism and naivete are opposite concepts.
I agree with you on the hegemony thingy, but that is how it is and that is how it will remain.
As for suffering, hum a few more bars, and I’ll come in on chorus. You have nothing to teach me on that score.
You may think of elected politicians as “leaders”, but I do not. I think of the electorate as the “leaders”. That is how democracy works, yes?
Report comment
I’m surprised by your posts as well. I don’t understand what you think he should be doing that he is not tackling already.
Report comment
He is not addressing the needs of the suffering in this country in a timely fashion. In whatever manner it takes. I know he’s been in for a short period of time. There is a real crisis going on that involves people, who if we let them be the acid test, are losing hope that their lives will amount to anything more than crap.
It is Obama’s responsibility to rally and instill hope in these people. Otherwise he is not only doing a disservice to them but to himself as an agent and facilitator of positive change. In large measure it is psychological. People are truly is stressed out. And that has a direct impact on the physical health and life of our people.
It’s like going to see a charming doctor who forgets you’re in the examining room.
Report comment
Um. He is doing all those things that you demand of him. Apparently you can’t hear it because the reactionary assholes are shouting so loud.
He is only the president. He is not a conjurer. Congress will appropriate and legislate as congress will. Short of lining them up against a wall and shooting them, I am not clear on how he is going to do more.
What, should he ask for prime time once per week? How soon will it be before he has zero credibility? Real soon.
Report comment
There is a din. A President should know how to speak above a din of misbehaving children.
Whatever he is doing is still too far removed from the trenches of everyday life. He needs to address that more.
Otherwise he will run the risk of appearing like a golf-playing photo-op hopper.
I am not idealizing this man. He is someone we can all project onto. There’s a limit to how much I can project onto him.
I need more proof. He’d have my ear if he could…. actually address my ear and the ears pf people I see everyday who are suffering. They are really feeling abandoned.
Just reporting from the field
Report comment
I’m still confused. He is pushing hard for health care reform, and it is stalled in congress by senators. He cannot control the senate.
He is working on jobs creation via the health care bill, the green jobs initiatives, the stimulus. The kind of economic problems we’re having cannot be solved by determination alone — nor are they necessarily responsive to policy.
I’m still not understanding what you’re looking for. “Speaking to” does not describe an action, and I’m wondering what action you expect that you don’t see. It sounds from your post that you’re looking for “happy talk” (I’m guessing that isn’t what you mean at all) but I don’t think that would make people who are out of work feel any better about their situation.
Report comment
I guess I don’t see oratorial role of governing and candidacy as that much different. Both need to persuade people you are able to lead.
He needs to pragmatize the poetry. No one wants poetry.
They want instruction manuals. One that inspires People need to SEE where they are headed so they can work toward it too. I’m not sure Obama’s message is getting through as well as his message as candidate did. People are losing hope in a large way.
I think a President can also inspire .
Report comment
Questinia, he’s done that. Senator Clair McCaskill has said that without the thousands upon thousands of communications from the public to the senate, there would not have been a public option in the senate health care bill at all.
I think you are confusing the oratorial role of a president and a candidate. Mr. Obama is governing, now, not running a campaign. The president has already aligned himself with the people via his agenda. And the town halls he held all summer summoned his audiences to write and call congress. Which we did.
I guess I’m just not understanding what it is you want. More speeches? More poetic oratory? I really don’t understand.
I would only add that the most inspirational speech in the world is useless against the votes in congress if it is not backed up by our phone calls and letters. That is where our focus should be.
Report comment
I thinking “speaking to” IS an action. He is not doing an act of communication. All of his good intentions, and let’s say they are at this point intentions, abstractions until they are put into place.
I’d suspect and hope that if he allied himself closer to the people he’d have more clout to get his agenda pushed through, rather than locking horns with and opposing party. It ends up being a closed circuit system of compromise that allows false representatives have too much power (usually Repubs).
If he wanted to break the circuit of Washington, he needs to include the force of the people by aligning himself with them.
Report comment
Would make him too much of a populist? A President needs to do grassroots as much as s/he can to Valhalla.
Face it. Obama has been president for eleven months and the world is still imperfect.
Change I can believe in? I don’t think so. And I have yet to get my pony. I was promised a pony.
Report comment
Well, I don’t know what happened with your pony. Mine is grazing happily in the back yard.
Report comment
Nellie:
I’m a puzzle.
And a pony is no horse. Horses are OK.
Report comment
Hi javaz — no, the pony in my yard is purely metaphorical, but it is still happy!
And I believe the shoes are needed because of our artificial surfaces, as kesmarn said. Although a friend of mine who owns horses once told me they are much happier with shoes than without, regardless of where they run.
Report comment
Good question, javaz. Is it because we humans take them on paved or gravel roads and their hooves would wear down over time and make them miserable?
And just so I don’t veer too far OT: I missed a good deal of the POTUS’s speech last night, but gathered from this a.m.’s news that there’s a sort of “surge/withdrawal” plan in the works that seems pretty realistic, given the complexity of things there. It’ll be interesting to hear what the kids that AlphaBitch works with think about it.
Report comment
Do you really have a pony?
Off topic question – why do horses need shoes?
I’m serious.
Wild horses don’t wear shoes, so why do pet horses need shoes?
Does it have something to do with the weight of the rider?
Report comment
Keven, I am at a loss to understand why I have any admiration for someone who likes neither dogs nor horses!
Report comment
Can I come around and ride him?
Had a pony once. Meanest motherfucking animal on four legs.
Report comment
If anyone is interested Sec.Clinton,Sec.Gates and Adm. Mullen are in Senate hearings on C-Span -3
Report comment
Just read about Chris Matthews and his comment that Obama appeared at “enemy camp” last night.
WTH?
Was he insinuating that the military has no respect for their Commander in Chief?
Report comment
Aren’t you just weary with the characterization of all progressives as being knee-jerk anti-military, anti-law enforcement, anti-establishment, drugged up hippies? I think that’s the caricature that Matthews (and all of Faux News) consciously or subconsciously was trying to evoke. If the Dem POTUS is at West Point, by golly, he’s in “enemy territory.”
The persons who really showed a serious lack of respect for the military were Bush/Cheney & Co., who sent them into harm’s way in Iraq, for no reason other than to fatten the wallets of Halliburton (et al) stockholders, with shoddy equipment and poor support for them when they came back home.
Oops, pardon my bad manners. Good afternoon, all!
Report comment
Matthews is one gaffe machine, isn’t he?
Report comment
Not only that, but our military people are “the enemy”???
Matthews managed to outrage liberals and conservatives with that one. You’d think he’d get tired of chewing on his toes, but I guess not!
Report comment
Juan Cole has this to say about the Afghanistan policy:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/12/01/afghanistan_surge/index.html
Report comment
I like this journalist and often find myself agreeing with his opinions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/02/barack-obama-speech-churchill-moment
A look from the other side, the military and their families.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_us/us_afghanistan_military_reaction
Report comment
Thanks, Kalima. Two good articles.
Report comment
My pleasure nelli. Good day and good night.
Report comment
Good night, Kalima. Have a good rest.
Until tomorrow.
Report comment
Thanks Kalima – these links are great. The article in the Guardian is really good.
I think it’s important to realize that by announcing a deadline to begin withdrawal, Obama differentiates what is happening in Afghanistan now as opposed to when the British or Soviets were there (or Genghis Khan, or Alexander the Great). I’m not sure a “deadline for withdrawal” was given by any other military presence.
I had suspected – in my “what if” game – that a shortened timeline would be given, and why it is strategically important. Not just for us, but for the Afghan people. It is much shorter than I had anticipated though.
My only wish is that instead of talking even generally about some reconciliation with the Taliban, Obama had spoken of reconciling with the Pashtuns. Most -if not all – Talib are Pashtuns, but not all Pashtuns are Taliban. Bringing the Pashtuns into the mix is critical, since they are the largest ethnic group (and often see themselves as the only “true” Afghans, like Ms. Sarah’s “real Americans”). When we first went in, even the Pashtuns welcomed us. It has soured over time, with civilian casualties, little progress, a reversion to what is the known (Taliban) vs. unknown (occupiers). But I have had the pleasure to meet some really incredible Kandaharis, and I love the Pashtun people that I know. So that is my only “criticism” of his speech. Confusing the ethnic group (think German) with a political ideology (think Nazi) is never a good idea.
Has anyone read Louise Richardson’s book, “What Terrorists Want?” I loved it, and we had her come to talk at our speakers series. Really sets forth in clear terms what we SHOULD be doing, and how to do it successfully.
Thanks for the inspiration. I’ll write again soon, and get a list of suggestions for the guys to address when they write their article.
Report comment
You are welcome AB. I’ve been following Michael Tomasky since your primaries last year and found him always spot on, certainly never afraid to offer his opinions or observation. A breath of fresh air after reading the usual line of criticism day in and day out.
Say hello to your “girls” from all of us, we wish them well.
Report comment
Two great reads Kalima. Definitely worth reading both.
Report comment
Obama was right on one thing in particular:
That the parallel to Vietnam is weak.
Ho Chi Min was not a primitivest. He did not despise America. He admired America.
The N Vietnamese were nationalists first. They were not deranged religious extremists. The communists were very popular in Vietnam.
The obverse is true in Afghanistan.
The terrain in both nations are difficult, but I think the jungle is worse. And both nations had or have corrupt and worthless governments. Those parallels exist, sure.
But Afghanistan is not the new Vietnam. If we fail there, it will be for reasons quite other than those of our failure in Vietnam.
Report comment
Don’t forget the funding is very different in both conflicts as well. The Soviets armed and funded the Vietcong. We never controlled any large NV cities. Hell would could not even think about attacking Hanoi because of the SAM umbrella.
The drug trade is funding what little the Taliban can get their hands on in Afghanistan. The fact is the insurgents that defeated the Soviets were far better armed and trained thanks to the US and Pakistan which are their enemies this time around.
Of course the purists are in hysterical mode over this decision. The purists on the left ignore any part of the speech about withdrawal starting in 18 months and the purist on the right are calling Obama a surrender monkey for even talking about a time line for withdrawal.
Honestly I did not think Obama was going to talk any specifics about a time to withdrawal at all. The implications of the withdrawal are pretty clear to me. It means Obama is not looking at this conflict in terms of winning or losing. The only way to “win” is to occupy the country for another decade or two with a pretty substantial force. He’s looking at it in terms of long term containment instead.
Report comment
I just listened to the speech. What I heard was an 18 month drawdown, so I can live with that.
Good evening everyone. Or good morning. I look forward to more discussion tomorrow.
Report comment
The more I think about it the more I think the addition of troops is really a due diligence effort to set the path for withdrawal. Obviously the first plans the president was presented with contained only troop surges and no time lines for withdrawal so the president made the strategic decision to withdrawal on his own.
Report comment
I missed the first few minutes live on CNN but it sounded that way to me as well. I heard no commitment to dragging it on for another God knows how many years.
Although I doubt it very much, I hope this shuts up the Cheney Family, they really don’t have any legs left to stand on now. Good riddance!
Good night nellie.
Report comment
The Repubs are just a practical joke at this point, everyone knows that they’ll go hysterical whichever side of the issue Obama takes.
Can’t we just send all the Repubs and Teabaggers into Afghanistan to take out their rage on The Taliban…by accusing them of being Nigerian Socialists?
Report comment
The thing that is crazy? They take themselves seriously.
Report comment
Gosh yes, I’ll see if the new ditsy PM will provide the ships to lug them over there, maybe the teabaggers would like to drop off in Kenya first to take some photos of the President’s grandmother.
Report comment
Initial reaction from the Beeb U.K.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/the_commanderinchief_walked_on.html
Report comment
I can see a rationale in that to remove the anti-American leaders would serve to dismantle the anti-American movement. What would the Cuban Revolution have been without Castro and Che? Get bin Laden and his ideologs. It would be cathartic as well.
Report comment
Are our comments upside down or have I put both legs in one pant hole again?
Report comment
BTW, are these your pants?
Report comment
They most certainly are, now give them back please!
Report comment
Hey, they make a great glove for me!
Report comment
My arse is freezing!
Report comment
My hand is so warm!
Report comment
Wild Thing!!
Report comment
Heh! I was fixing the way the comments break into pages and yes, they were upside down and radioactive for a brief time.
Have you found yourself gaining spider-like powers or Hulking out when thinking about Dick Cheney?
Report comment
Still a little inside out but I know you will fix it, you always do.
Well yes, my chest pops out and I grow thick, curly black hairs on it.
Report comment
My friendly neighborhood SpiderKalima!
Report comment
LOL, I’ve been called a lot of things in my lifetime but……..
Report comment
Hulkalima? Wonder Kalima? Bat Kalima?
Report comment
You betcha and for a little sport in between, Ms. Mooseburger parked by the back of her waders on the point at the top of the Empire State Building. I take no prisoners!
Report comment
Bulkalima’s arch enemy would be Anorexianna Barfington.
Report comment
Ok, Hulkalima sounds Hawaiian, nice, but I must warn you that it’s cold here today, so I would go with Bulkalima for now.
Report comment
LOL. At first I didn’t get the comment, but now I do! I thought it odd. Was trying to remember if it’d always been like that.
Report comment
I’ll have a bit of what you’re having, make mine a double.
Report comment
Either I’m still working on things or I shouldn’t have allowed that hallucinogenic-laced frog to hop all around this website!
Report comment