Sunday, February 18, 2007

Don Williams

Williams: It's up to us; do what you can


"Don't count on the Democrats to save you," my friend said as I stepped outside for a leisurely five-miler. He was standing in my driveway in makeshift running gear, and I stifled a laugh. Last time I saw him he had a beer in one hand, a cigarette in the other and could've stood to lose 30 pounds. He still could.

"What are you doing out so early?"

"Saving my life," he said. "I decided it's up to me."

"OK, I'll go easy on you."

"Don't expect me to return the favor." He was peeved.

"What do you mean?"

"Face it, man, you've lost your edge. All that blather in your last column about the Democrats and the environment and how they're stopping the war. A butterfly flaps its wings, and 2007 is better already. Give me a break, dude, the world's in trouble."

"I forgot how you love that doom and gloom stuff," I joked as we began jogging.

"That's not it. It's just that you're spreading false hope. Didn't you tell me that, when you're stuck for an idea, you just write down the single truest thing you know?"

"Well, I try. It was good enough for Papa Hemingway. But now that you bring it up, what's the truest thing YOU know?"

"I told you already," he gasped. "Don't count on the Democrats to save us."

"Why not? They're debating the war, the environment, 9/11 security recommendations ."

"That's last year's news, dude. It's like the neocons brag. While we're debating the last thing they did, they'll do something new, and we'll debate that, too. Give the devils their due; they're always a step ahead of us."

"So what's their next move?"

"They're going to bomb Iran. Bush has a big carrier group in the Persian Gulf and two more on the way. Every day his people beat the drums about Iran's new weapons and how they're killing Americans, without offering a shred of verifiable evidence. Big media reports this. Meanwhile, Democrats debate 'the surge' and nonbonding resolutions. They're paper tigers."

"Well, at least they're debating, for a change."

"Listen. Unless they cut off funds for this war AND the next. Unless they're ready to impeach Bush AND Cheney for shooting holes in the Constitution and breaking a dozen treaties and lying us into a war that's making many of their friends and relatives rich, this world's had it. Nukes, World War III, global warming, you name it. We're heading over a cliff, my friend. You used to warn people. I saw it on the Internet."

"Lighten up," I said. "It's like I wrote last week, Bush has lost Congress, and at least the Democrats have taken their foot off the accelerator."

"They ain't the ones drivin'." He started coughing, one hand held aloft, so I stopped running until he could talk again. Finally he gasped, "I wrote something down for you, something that old guy with the funny name said."

"Oh, that narrows it down."

"You know, it was on C-Span. He's written books, helped set the policy that got the Soviets kicked out of Afghanistan, a real heavyweight." He pulled a scrap of paper from his shorts. "Here it is. Zbigniew Brzezinski told this to the, uh, Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Feb. 1. He called the war in Iraq 'a historic, strategic, and moral calamity driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris.' Not sure what that means, but it sounds bad to me.

"Then he said the war was 'undermining America's global legitimacy' and that 'the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam. Some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S., blamed on Iran will plunge a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.'

"That means World War III, if you ask me, and Congress ain't gonna stop this unless we all raise Cain. If Walter Cronkite was still around, you'd know this already. It's like that woman who died of breast cancer said - you know, Molly Ivins. Just before she died, she wrote, 'It's up you and me, Bubba.' Do what you can."

Don Williams is the founding editor of New Millennium Writings. You may write to him at P.O. Box 2463, Knoxville, TN 37901, e-mail him at or phone him at 865-428-0389.


Hajji said...

Wow! How can you run and talk the same time?

Listen to your fat friend, Don!


DEN said...

On the roadways of ones mind, anything is possible.

Texas State Rep. Warren Chisum has his own theories.


Gerald said...


David B. Benson said...

Den --- Airplanes contribute carbon dioxide (bad) and contrails (good). Well, good to cool the earth ever so slightly.

The worst is burning coal. There is one inefficient chemical factory in south china which produces as much carbon dioxide per year as 25% of America['s automobiles driven 25,000 miles per year.

Saladin --- RealClimate is run by actual climatologists. CO2Climate is run by shills.

The excess carbon dioxide is entirely due to human activities. This is now firmly established and the concensus of over 2500 active particpants in the IPCC AR4. Furthermore, the vast majority of the rest of the climatologists are in agreement. There are always a few holdouts, of course. They are just flat-out wrong.

On RealClimate the GCR hypothesis, for recent dramatic climate changes is ruled out by the data, bith the last 50 years and an 41,000 year old event.

Reading Ruddiman's textbook will improve your knowledge of climate considerably.

Gerald said...

Even though Nazi America is an evil country, I love her. What is there not to love about a country where a BJ is an impeachable act and mass murders and war crimes through lies are not? The vulgarity of Nazi America's evil acts, such as mas murders and war crimes, is embraced by most Nazi Americans.

Shit rises to the top in Nazi America!!!!!

The reason for so many candidates for president is the fact Hitler Bush has proven that anyone can be president, even psychos.

David B. Benson said...

Oops. Hit the wrong button.

coal powered chemical factory

both, not 'bith'.


David B. Benson said...

Saladin --- One more matter. Carbon dioxide in the air heats the earth via the so-called greenhouse effect. This is well established science.

The fact that there are still many mysteries in paleoclimate studies does not alter the fundamental fact that excess carbon dioxide causes excess heat.

You should be worried. Very worried.

Alan said...

There was a good op-ed in today's Houston Chronicle by a professor in geosciences at Texas A&M University.

The Human Element:
Putting a finger on warming

Rising CO2 level is the smoking gun that tells this A&M Earth scientist that global warming is real


You probably heard the latest global warming buzz — before it was replaced in the media maelstrom by the celebrity scandal du jour. Earlier this month the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a carefully worded report saying with "very high confidence" that the evidence shows humans have caused global warming. On television, talking heads debated the issue with dueling sound bites.

I see the debate through a different lens because I am an Earth scientist. My research isn't about global warming, so I have nothing to gain by accepting that it has occurred. Just like you, I like my car and having the lights come on when I throw the switch, so I wish global warming was nothing to worry about. But I fear it is.

Being an Earth scientist, I learn about how the planet works — and that includes climate. The whole case for warming of the planet is circumstantial, but it sure looks to me like "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The smoking gun is carbon dioxide CO2. Records going millions of years back in time imply that global sea levels (and hence temperature) have varied almost in lock step with CO2 concentrations. It is well known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning it traps solar heat. This is not a bad thing because without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be far colder than it is.

The trouble is that humans have put a tremendous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere (the abundance of CO2 has increased by 35 percent since 1850) and the trend seems to be ever upward at an alarming rate. What's more, CO2 data from gas pockets in ice cores indicates that current levels are substantially higher than any time during the last 650,000 years. The predicted greenhouse consequence is simple physics.

Given these facts, I would find it surprising if the Earth were not warming. The evidence seems strong to me that rising CO2 is a major cause for a global shift in the Earth's heat balance.

Naysayers cite uncertainties and the fact that scientists still argue about global warming. They also point out that the effect is small (0.8 degrees Celsius or 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 1800s) and the Earth has seen far greater climate changes in its history.

These contentions are true, but off the mark. Scientists never completely agree on anything. That's how science works. No matter how widely some theory is accepted, there will be scientists doing their darndest to prove it wrong. They keep us honest.

If you were to poll Earth scientists, you'd find that a very high percentage would accept global warming as the best explanation for recent climate trends. It is true that there are many uncertainties. The climate system has many feedbacks and interconnections that are not fully understood. But scientists also know a lot about the factors controlling climate and what is known points to unprecedented change.

The upward trend of globally averaged temperature is well-determined, with 11 of the warmest 12 years on record having occurred in the past 12. The Earth is warming and evidence indicates that we are entering a state that the Earth has not seen for hundreds of thousands of years, if not tens of millions.

It is equally true that the Earth's climate changed far more dramatically in the past. When dinosaurs ruled the Earth, about 100 million years ago, the Earth was much warmer than today and it is likely there were no polar ice caps. CO2 was probably at greater concentration than today. And 20,000 years ago, the Earth was much cooler because of the last ice age. Ice sheets in North America buried most of Canada and the northern tier of the United States.

The trouble with these examples is that virtually all of recorded human history and culture have occurred in the last several thousand years, a period of remarkable climate stability. Many Earth scientists, myself included, worry that even a gentle nudge in the climate balance could lead to catastrophic changes. For example, I think there is reasonable evidence that implies that when sea level rises because of glacial melting, it often does so in spurts. While most computer simulations suggest that sea level will rise modestly in the next century (11-17 inches), such a warming-induced pulse of sea level rise, while it won't happen overnight like in the movies, could nevertheless have devastating effects on sea-level cities such as Miami, Boston, Venice and a host of others.

Furthermore, a warming atmosphere and ocean will likely lead to stronger storms, changes in rainfall patterns, and other alterations to the status quo.

There is much to say and much still to be understood about global warming and I have not done the debate justice in this short column. From where I sit, the evidence looks clear that humans are causing global warming and there are plenty of ways that the related climate changes can cause hardships. I, for one, am ready to hear the debate shift to what we can do about global warming rather than whether it exists.

Sager is a professor in geosciences at Texas A&M University. He can be e-mailed at

Alan said...

ack! I didn't realize it was so long. Sorry 'bout that Den.

David B. Benson said...

Alan --- Thanks! (I did not find the piece to be too long.)

Alan said...

Nah, it wasn't too long for me either (reading), but I usually only post the first graf or two and let ppl hit the link if they wanna read the rest. For that one, each new graf I read seemed important and after adding a couple like that, I couldn't stop! haha So I pasted it all. * shrug *

Micki said...

Alan, re your link to Sager's thoughtful article:

I, for one, am ready to hear the debate shift to what we can do about global warming rather than whether it exists.

Hear! Hear!

Thanks for the link, Alan; and Dr. B, thanks for your input on this topic. I'm a sucker for levelheadedness.

Micki said...

I about fell off my chair when I read that David Broder wrote that bush "regains his footing" and that he is more accessible, responsive, and more "impressive in other ways."

Broder was impressed with bush's performance at his Wednesday presser (that one -- the one where a lot of us thought that bush looked unhinged!)

Gawdalmighty! bush shucks and jives and plays the village idiot at a press conference and Broder gives him High Marks!

Then Victoria Toensing has an opinion piece today in WaPo where she suggests that Fitzgerald and Wilson should be indicted!!

Micki said...

February 18, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times
Oh What a Malleable War

MAYBE the Bush White House can’t conduct a war, but no one has ever impugned its ability to lie about its conduct of a war. Now even that well-earned reputation for flawless fictionalizing is coming undone. Watching the administration try to get its story straight about Iran’s role in Iraq last week was like watching third graders try to sidestep blame for misbehaving while the substitute teacher was on a bathroom break. The team that once sold the country smoking guns in the shape of mushroom clouds has completely lost its mojo.

Surely these guys can do better than this. No sooner did unnamed military officials unveil their melodramatically secretive briefing in Baghdad last Sunday than Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, blew the whole charade. General Pace said he didn’t know about the briefing and couldn’t endorse its contention that the Iranian government’s highest echelons were complicit in anti-American hostilities in Iraq. Public-relations pandemonium ensued as Tony Snow, the State Department and finally the president tried to revise the story line on the fly. Back when Karl Rove ruled, everyone read verbatim from the same script. Last week’s frantic improvisations were vintage Scooter Libby, at best the ur-text for a future perjury trial.

Yet for all the sloppy internal contradictions, the most incriminating indictment of the new White House disinformation campaign is to be found in official assertions made more than a year ago. The press and everyone else seems to have forgotten that the administration has twice sounded the same alarms about Iranian weaponry in Iraq that it did last week.

In August 2005, NBC News, CBS News and The Times cited unnamed military and intelligence officials when reporting, as CBS put it, that “U.S. forces intercepted a shipment from Iran containing professionally made explosive devices specifically designed to penetrate the armor which protects American vehicles.” Then, as now, those devices were the devastating roadside bombs currently called E.F.P.’s (explosively formed penetrators). Then, as now, they were thought to have been brought into Iraq by members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Then, as now, there was no evidence that the Iranian government was directly involved. In February 2006, administration officials delivered the same warning yet again, before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Timing is everything in propaganda, as in all showmanship. So why would the White House pick this particular moment to mount such an extravagant rerun of old news, complete with photos and props reminiscent of Colin Powell’s infamous presentation of prewar intelligence? Yes, the death toll from these bombs is rising, but it has been rising for some time. (Also rising, and more dramatically, is the death toll from attacks on American helicopters.)

After General Pace rendered inoperative the first official rationale for last Sunday’s E.F.P. briefing, President Bush had to find a new explanation for his sudden focus on the Iranian explosives. That’s why he said at Wednesday’s news conference that it no longer mattered whether the Iranian government (as opposed to black marketeers or freelance thugs) had supplied these weapons to Iraqi killers. “What matters is, is that they’re there,” he said. The real point of hyping this inexact intelligence was to justify why he had to take urgent action now, no matter what the E.F.P.’s provenance: “My job is to protect our troops. And when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we’re going to do something about it, pure and simple.”

Darn right! But if the administration has warned about these weapons twice in the past 18 months (and had known “that they’re there,” we now know, since 2003), why is Mr. Bush just stepping up to that job at this late date? Embarrassingly enough, The Washington Post reported on its front page last Monday — the same front page with news of the Baghdad E.F.P. briefing — that there is now a shortfall of “thousands of advanced Humvee armor kits designed to reduce U.S. troop deaths from roadside bombs.” Worse, the full armor upgrade “is not scheduled to be completed until this summer.” So Mr. Bush’s idea of doing something about it, “pure and simple” is itself a lie, since he is doing something about it only after he has knowingly sent a new round of underarmored American troops into battle.

To those who are most suspicious of this White House, the “something” that Mr. Bush really wants to do has little to do with armor in any case. His real aim is to provoke war with Iran, no matter how overstretched and ill-equipped our armed forces may be for that added burden. By this line of thinking, the run-up to the war in Iraq is now repeating itself exactly and Mr. Bush will seize any handy casus belli he can to ignite a conflagration in Iran.

Iran is an unquestionable menace with an Israel-hating fanatic as its president. It is also four times the size of Iraq and a far more dangerous adversary than was Saddam’s regime. Perhaps Mr. Bush is as reckless as his harshest critics claim and will double down on catastrophe. But for those who don’t hold quite so pitch-black a view of his intentions, there’s a less apocalyptic motive to be considered as well.

Let’s not forget that the White House’s stunt of repackaging old, fear-inducing news for public consumption has a long track record. Its reason for doing so is always the same: to distract the public from reality that runs counter to the White House’s political interests. When the Democrats were gaining campaign traction in 2004, John Ashcroft held an urgent news conference to display photos of seven suspected terrorists on the loose. He didn’t bother to explain that six of them had been announced previously, one at a news conference he had held 28 months earlier. Mr. Bush played the same trick last February as newly declassified statistics at a Senate hearing revealed a steady three-year growth in insurgent attacks: he breathlessly announced a thwarted Qaeda plot against the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles that had already been revealed by the administration four months before.

We know what Mr. Bush wants to distract us from this time: Congressional votes against his war policy, the Libby trial, the Pentagon inspector general’s report deploring Douglas Feith’s fictional prewar intelligence, and the new and dire National Intelligence Estimate saying that America is sending troops into the cross-fire of a multifaceted sectarian cataclysm.

That same intelligence estimate also says that Iran is “not likely to be a major driver of violence” in Iraq, but no matter. If the president can now whip up a Feith-style smoke screen of innuendo to imply that Iran is the root of all our woes in the war — and give “the enemy” a single recognizable face (Ahmadinejad as the new Saddam) — then, ipso facto, he is not guilty of sending troops into the middle of a shadowy Sunni-Shiite bloodbath after all.

Oh what a malleable war Iraq has been. First it was waged to vanquish Saddam’s (nonexistent) nuclear arsenal and his (nonexistent) collaboration with Al Qaeda. Then it was going to spread (nonexistent) democracy throughout the Middle East. Now it is being rebranded as a fight against Tehran. Mr. Bush keeps saying that his saber rattling about Iran is not “a pretext for war.” Maybe so, but at the very least it’s a pretext for prolonging the disastrous war we already have.

What makes his spin brazen even by his standards is that Iran is in fact steadily extending its influence in Iraq — thanks to its alliance with the very Iraqi politicians that Mr. Bush himself has endorsed. In December the president welcomed a Shiite leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, to the White House with great fanfare; just three weeks later American forces had to raid Mr. Hakim’s Iraq compound to arrest Iranian operatives suspected of planning attacks against American military forces, possibly with E.F.P.’s. As if that weren’t bad enough, Nuri al-Maliki’s government promptly overruled the American arrests and ordered the operatives’ release so they could escape to Iran. For all his bluster about doing something about it, Mr. Bush did nothing.

It gets worse. This month we learned that yet another Maliki supporter in the Iraqi Parliament, Jamal Jafaar Mohammed Ali Ebrahimi, was convicted more than two decades ago of planning the murderous 1983 attacks on the American and French Embassies in Kuwait. He’s now in Iran, but before leaving, this terrorist served as a security adviser, no less, to the first Iraqi prime minister after the American invasion, Ibrahim al-Jafaari. Mr. Jafaari, hailed by Mr. Bush as “a strong partner for peace and freedom” during his own White House visit in 2005, could be found last week in Tehran, celebrating the anniversary of the 1979 Iranian revolution and criticizing America’s arrest of Iranian officials in Iraq.

Even if the White House still had its touch for spinning fiction, it’s hard to imagine how it could create new lies brilliant enough to top the sorry truth. When you have a president making a big show of berating Iran while simultaneously empowering it, you’ve got another remake of “The Manchurian Candidate,” this time played for keeps.

Micki said...

...above by Frank Rich...long, but worth the read, IMO.

Saladin said...

Mr. Benson, I know who funds that sight, that's why I chose it. I also knew the paragraph I posted would be dismissed out of hand because of it, regardless of whether it was correct or not. Also, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas in comparison with water vapor. As for the vast majority being in agreement, how many times have the maverick minority been right instead? I am worried, but not about CO2 concentration.
Below is a link to Pretty interesting reading list they provide, along with these quotes:

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

"In the United States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."

former President Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations

"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming."

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT) (3)

"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)

"Science should be both compelling and widely accepted before Federal regulations are promulgated."

Dr. David L. Lewis
(27-year veteran of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
critic of the agency's departure from scientific rationale in favor of political agenda)
(in an interview for Nature Magazine, June 27, 1996)

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)

"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.
After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs (4)
he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion "gift"

Earth's Fidgeting Climate: NASA Science News "It may surprise many people that science cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as important as climate change"

Global Warming:
A Chilling Perspective

Don't know why I'm posting this link, no one will look at it anyway. But I believe that geology and paleoclimatology are both very important in understanding climate change in general

Micki said...

The Work Cut Out for Us

If you think things are bad now, they'd be a heck of a lot worse if the New Deal is decimated here in the good ole USA:

The fundamental purpose of American foreign policy has always been to prevent the spread of the New Deal to the developing world. Having largely succeeded there, the business elites are now determined to roll it back at home.


What's possible is up to us. The main lesson of the right-wing ascendancy is: The bastards never give up; or as Yeats put it, rather more elegantly: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity." The best had better get--and stay--off their asses.

Micki said...

I'm reminded of Garry Trudeau's "Belief Tank" -- a think tank without the doubt.

That's quite a revealing description of a modern-day social phenomenon. Wowsers!

Micki said...

Saladin, I have wondered over the months, occasionally that is, what type of geologist your husband, Roger Smith, is. Is he a mineralogist, a petrologist, a structural geologist, a paleontologist, a stratigrapher, a geomorphologist, or just your ordinary round hound?

I know you formulate your own opinions, presumably based on your own research, but being married to a geologist, you must talk about scientific things over dinner or a glass of wine or a beer or while you're at gem shows or doing other things together.

You essentially asked Dr. B the other day what his CV is. So, I'm assuming it's okay for me to ask you what your husband's specialty is in geology, based on the fact that you reference him in your posts, to assist in validating them.

BTW, I did look at your link that you thought no one would look at, which is what prompted me to ask the above question.

Alan said...

good article about the Libby trial...

Washington Post Enables Toensing's Delusions
Larry C Johnson

Congratulations to Victoria Toensing, former Reagan Administration Justice Department official, for plumbing new depths of delusion and crazed fantasies in her latest Washington Post op-ed. Ms. Toensing's piece--Trial in Error--should have been titled, "I Am Ignorant of Basic Facts". She offers up two special gems:
*Valerie Plame was not covert.
*Ambassador Joseph Wilson (Valerie's husband) misled the public about how he was sent to Niger, about the thrust of his March 2003 oral report of that trip, and about his wife's CIA status

Valerie Plame was undercover until the day she was identified in Robert Novak's column. I entered on duty with Valerie in September of 1985. Every single member of our class--which was comprised of Case Officers, Analysts, Scientists, and Admin folks--were undercover. I was an analyst and Valerie was a case officer.
I've always liked the way he writes. Please read the rest of it.

Gerald said...


Just reflect and realize that we have millions upon millions of Victoria Toensings in Nazi America. Treasonous acts are not impeachable acts but BJs are!!!!!

Come on don't you just love this country? The dummying down of Nazi America has been with us for years and it took a dumb person, Hitler Bush, to have all of our dummies come out of the closet. We are so dumb that we glorify murders, torture, war crimes, and the dropping of nuclear bombs to vaporize human flesh.

Nazi Americans, if you have been reading discerning articles, you will know that our covert forces are in Iran and killing Iranians. Hitler Bush can say he's not thinking of attacking Iran but do not believe that bobblehead psycho.

Gerald said...

Praying Each Day: February 19

Gerald said...

Peace Train

Gerald said...

No Bravery

Gerald said...

Support the Troops

Gerald said...


Gerald said...

Shame on Nazi America and the treatment of our military men and women as only cannon fodder!!! As Kissinger(sp)said of our military people, they are just stupid pawns.

Micki said...

Alan - Too bad WaPo didn't give Larry Johnson the same prominent positioning in the paper as they gave to Victoria Toensing. To me, and others, Toensing's article could be construed as an attempt at jury tampering, which makes me wonder about Bob Woodward's role in WaPo's publication of her "Trial in Error" op/ed piece this past weekend.

Here's Woodward, asst. MANAGING EDITOR of WaPo -- the same guy who belittled on a Cable TV barking head show the importance of the Plame Affair and referred to Patrick Fitzgerald as a "junkyard dog." That guys credibility is in the toilet -- done, zero, nada, zippo, fini!

Woodward is a whorish shill for the neocon agenda. cheney and the cabal says jump, and Woodward, the trained animal he is, performs by jumping through the hoops, aiding the neocons in their quest to maintain power at any cost.

Micki said...

Washington State
Freshman State Senator Eric Oemig calls the issue of impeachment a moral imperative for us

...each small step