First Barack Obama wanted to be seen as an incarnation of Abraham Lincoln and FDR rolled into one. Now he is channeling Harry Truman, having lifted one of Truman’s most notable lines in his latest speech on the botched Christmas Day terrorist attack, proclaiming that “the buck stops here.”
Presumably, the comment was supposed to make Americans feel all warm and cuddly inside, knowing that their leader is a man of principles—someone who is willing to take his medicine when the system goes down on his watch. That view might not ring quite so hollow if Obama hadn’t spent every day of his administration previous to this one whining about the “mess he inherited” and blaming FOX News Channel or certain pollsters for his falling approval ratings.
But whether Obama’s self-recrimination is credible is really beside the point. The more important issue about the sentiment is what does he mean by it? In the same speech, Obama allowed as how “America’s first line of defense is timely, accurate intelligence that is shared, integrated, analyzed, and acted upon quickly and effectively.” But taking quick and decisive action in the face of accurate intelligence is precisely the opposite of he ordered done when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was seized by authorities. Rather than grill the Nigerian for information on who had trained him, where he had acquired the explosive materials used in the would-be attack, and whether, where, and when other attacks were imminent, Obama’s security team read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights and allowed him to lawyer up.
Obama also gave assurances in his speech—or at least the impression thereof—that he understood the enemy we as a nation are up against. He described al Qaeda as “a far-reaching network of violence and hatred … that offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of misery and death … while the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress.” As Charles Krauthammer has noted, this views is disingenuous for many reasons. Chief among these is that al Qaeda is not out for justice or progress. On the contrary, they deplore both, which is what they despise the West. When Osama bin Laden or other Islamofascist leaders speak, they wax nostalgic about a worldwide caliphate; they pine for the glory that was Andalusia, the Latinized version of the name Al-Andalus that Muslims gave Spain in the Middle Ages, when the entire Iberian peninsula was under Islamic control.
A second problem with Obama’s statement is his identity of al Qaeda as the enemy. Indeed al Qaeda is an enemy and perhaps a prominent one. But they are not alone in the desire to bring death and destruction to the West. There are countless other sects and splinter groups dedicated to the same fanatic ideology, which is religious in nature. In short, we are at war with worldwide jihadism. Obama’s continuing to go out of his way to excuse Islam, as he did again in this speech, is to dismiss the problem, which is squarely grounded in Islamic doctrine.
Ultimately, this speech, like virtually every other one Obama has given, reveals a man who is more interested in appearances than he is in substance. The problem we as a nation face going forward with Barack Obama as our leader is that when you peel away the layers of fluff and bravado, there may be little inside.
Cross-posted at Manhattan Conservative Examiner
Comments 54
Too grumpy, Howard, and not consistent.
You run into a problem when you 1) hit Obama for complaining about the inherited mess and 2) hit him again for identifying AQ as the enemy, instead of painting the enemy with a broader brush.
You’re failing to recognize that it’s been the policy of our government to speak of the government of Saudi Arabia as our friends, despite the fact that the Saudis were ass-deep in exporting reactionary Islamic doctrine
January 8th, 2010 at 7:31 am
The speech along with the declassified report on the matter, was not surprisingly not very impressive. Milli Vannilli could probably better lipsynch the boiler plate. The Dec 22nd principals meeting was left
out, as was the NSA intercepts on “The Nigerian” Not only the Pres. but Leiter, Panetta, Kappes, his deputy were all on vacation, at one time or another, and don’t sound like they have gotten back yet.
Napolitano’s obliviousness on the determination of AQ, plumbs new
depths, a solid C- I’ll say
January 8th, 2010 at 7:35 am
“You’re failing to recognize that it’s been the policy of our government to speak of the government of Saudi Arabia as our friends, despite the fact that the Saudis were ass-deep in exporting reactionary Islamic doctrine”
Let’s also include Egypt,Lybia(Who actually killed Americans over Lockerbie and got a pass anyway)Kuwait,Egypt,Pakistan,and Iraq(included in the “no Fly” list) in the mix./list is not complete.
” Indeed al Qaeda is an enemy and perhaps a prominent one. But they are not alone in the desire to bring death and destruction to the West. There are countless other sects and splinter groups dedicated to the same fanatic ideology, which is religious in nature. In short, we are at war with worldwide jihadism.”
Please explain how we can be at war with Jihadism without being at war with Islam as a whole. Can we win a all out war against Islamism?,our experiences in Mesopotamia indicate that the only way to defeat a billion enemies is to use thermonuclear weapons on them. I think you have to realize that World War 4,(NPOD’s Concept) is just that,it’s a war against a billion Islamists as well as the nations that house those enemies. To wage war in a piecemeal manner is the equivilant of fighting a war in Vietnam,witout the ability to attack Cambodia,Thailand,Laos,and China,and without the ability to occupy North Vietnam,such a war won’t be won. And then there’s good ole Korea. Talk to Macarthur about that one. Howard, do you really think a Bankrupt Superpower should be taking on WW4 at this time? Maybe,but if we do,we need to fight it like an Empire,not a Wimpy,”exceptional” major power.
January 8th, 2010 at 8:47 am
To repeat what Bob Beckel said, he can’t tell appearance from reality. It is pure magical thinking. Don’t know if this degree of pathology is congenitally peculiar to his psyche or an occupational hazard exacerbated by his zealous hangers-on.
Apropos this, I’d love to see if/how the do-it-yourselfers from Wasilla handle communications differently.
January 8th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Well, the fact that we set up Gitmo as a holding pen for a whole coffee clatch of mostly Saudi, Yemeni and Kuwaiti jihadists belies that
understanding of friendship. AS we have come to find out, it is much
safer for them to be in the hated Gitmo. that returning to their exploits
in Morocco, Arabia, Chechnya, what have you
January 8th, 2010 at 8:57 am
@Seth;
Well these remarks I assume are still operative, subject to further revision:
This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word “victory” except when he’s talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed … when the roar of the crowd fades away … when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot – what exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger … take more of your money … give you more orders from Washington … and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it.
Victory in Iraq is finally in sight … he wants to forfeit.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
Click Here!
Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay … he wants to meet them without preconditions.
Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights? Government is too big … he wants to grow it.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:08 am
@ fuster:
That’s me, all right, Grumpy Gus. I might say Harried Howard for the alliteration, but it reminds me too much of the soon-to-be-former Senate Majority Leader whose bony ass is on its way out the door. As to my opinion of the WGL, yep, he’s doin’ a bangup job as prex. Can’t wait for his next excellent adventure—which I hope is in the company of the soon-to-be-former Senate Majority Leader whose bony, etc.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Oh, and isn’t anyone going to comment on that fairly swell picture Mr. Photoshop and I worked so hard to give you?
January 8th, 2010 at 9:11 am
AS we have come to find out, it is much
safer for them to be in the hated Gitmo.
If we’re at War,Victory is the goal,not safety. Those that support WW4 never discuss the nature of victory in the WOT,or is it just an era of never ending skirmishes that will continue indefinitely,that’s the kind of war our enemies could win,wear us down piece meal. Also.that kind of war is very expensive in this sense. Try to estimate the # of terrorists we’ve killed since 9/11,divide what we spent by the # killed:we’re spending a fortune to kill one terrorist. If True Victory is our goal,the cost for killing a terrorist goes way down. Just applying principles of Capitalism to War. Macnamara tried to do that,but he had a mistaken premise of “Victory” for his war. So do we. Unless we can define it,we can’t achieve it. In WW2 in was “Unconditional Surrender” everybody understood what that meant.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:12 am
“This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word “victory” except when he’s talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed … when the roar of the crowd fades away.”
The previous Master of War could talk Victory,but what he achieved was quite marginal. He fought a very small war,in the Concept of WW4,which is a very large war. I’m aligned with Macarthur on this point,regarding WAR,Win it big,and as fast as possible,or avoid it like the plague.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Well the problem with MacArthur’s formulation is what do you do when you are confronted by wars on the Asian continent. Vietnam was not
the optimum battlefield to chose, the same people who muddled through the Bay of Pigs and subsequent events (Mongoose/Cuban Missile Crisis) would expand the problem there, (OPLAN 40, Marine deployment) and the whole project was undermined by the Diem assasination.
As for Afghanistan and Iraq, there was confronting AQ, but almost as importantly incircling Iran, at some point someone lost sight of that.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:34 am
There’s been enough time since 9/11 to make some historical assessments. I see it as “Too Little,Too Early”. 9/11 gave us a Pearl Harbor opportunity to clear up our problems with the Muslim World,and change the Economic Dynamics which led to our Bankruptcy. Instead we responded to 9/11 with a “limited-War-Police Action” Veitnam-Korean War type mentality. And the citizens went shopping,unfortunately they used Debt to shop,and they bought everything from the Near East,China,and Japan,thus the US,,as a whole,went Belly Up. Either,we change this Paradigm,or go the way of Rome,see Raspail’s novel,The Camp of the Saints,written 3 decades ago,ON THE MONEY.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Well you forget we had a democratic majority, we had Sen. Rockefeller leaking our details to all the right countries, the Times putting the warplans on our front pages. I know maybe wartime censorship rules would work, but maybe not. If we had gone into a garrison economy, complete with conscription, you know what the complainrs would have been
January 8th, 2010 at 9:54 am
@ Howard Portnoy:
Sorry, Howard, but no Grumpy Gus for you here.
CK has already garnered Grumpy Grandpa (from Barbara IIRC).
Howard Hotspur?
January 8th, 2010 at 10:01 am
@ fuster:
Too close to Harry Hotspur (or Coldspur), whose bony ass…
January 8th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Dear Narciso, The Neo-Cons need to ad a new page to their script. The fundamental cause for world instability for four decades has been:(1)The fact that Moslems control the world’s energy supplies (2)we went on a Fiat money system that values our currency based on the value(Subjective) of other currencies. Our policies as the world’s Superpower SHOULD be to control the world’s energy resources,(we are the good guys,right,and Moslems are either directly or indirectly in favor of the diminuation of our SuperPower status),and we SHOULD have the World’s strongest money. Instead we borrow $500Billion a year to pay our energy bills,we are Bankrupt,and we have the world’s worst currency. Somebody screwed up,and that includes the Big “W” as well as everyone since 1971.
January 8th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Why do we lock up our own natural resources, making us more dependent on those same factions. I would say and 1969, is the right fulcrum point, the Esso Santa Barbara oil spill, leading to Earth Day
, giving OPEC the leverage to blackmail us in ’73, 79, 90, 00, et al.
The predominance of the left faction of the Democrats, typified by Carter, Clinton and Obama, an oppressive regulatory regimen that drives businesses offshore, those are just some of the symptoms
of the problem
January 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am
@ narciso:
Look further back, narc. Our policy is based on petroleum products being a vital resource for war.
The idea is that we hold back the use of our own until all other supplies are exhausted.
January 8th, 2010 at 10:42 am
narciso wrote:
Why do we lock up our own natural resources, making us more dependent on those same factions. I would say and 1969, is the right fulcrum point, the Esso Santa Barbara oil spill, leading to Earth Day
, giving OPEC the leverage to blackmail us in ‘73, 79, 90, 00, et al.
The predominance of the left faction of the Democrats, typified by Carter, Clinton and Obama, an oppressive regulatory regimen that drives businesses offshore, those are just some of the symptoms
of the problem
Here’s an analogy. The Indian Nations controlled huge amounts of land,we saw that land as the future of our Country and made the decision to sieze it. Moslem nations control the World’s energy supplies,and we can’t connect the Dots. The fact that the Moslems/Moslem nations are at War with us(WW4),doesn’t provide us with the rationale to defang them? OR is this whole WW4 concept pure Mythology?/Is it just a criminal nuisance trumped up to be a war to justify someone’s domestic political agenda.
BTW,I just picked up a book,THE FORTY YEARS WAR,that claims to be a history of Neo-Conism,The Rise and Fall of the Neo-Cons From NIXON to OBAMA. It’s Ironic that NeoCon influence according to the title is consistent with my thesis that American Bankruptcy started with Nixon. You must admit that Macro-economics is not the Forte of the Neo-Con movement.
January 8th, 2010 at 11:28 am
@ fuster:
There was thinking along that line that led to the Naval Petroleum Reserve before it was realized just how large our oil resources were (and are considering the shale and tar sands oil that wasn’t considered workable back then). But it’s a stretch to say it was that “idea” that led to our current situation of enormous tracts containing resources being off limits. Environmentalism, and especially its Luddite wing actually caused that situation.
In practice, though, what has occurred is a situation where we still have that oil in the ground for exploitation now that the cheapest “punch a hole” portion of the Saudi and other Gulf oil is beginning to taper off.
January 8th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
@ Sully:
do our reserves match those that would be available to Russia should she push through Iran and into the Gulf?
that was the thinking.
after the end of the war, Stalin was supposed to withdraw Russian troops from Iran. He balked.
January 8th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Right now yes I think they are. We find more reserves all the time. I understand peak oil, just don’t buy it yet. Yeah, and those damn Russians are the other problem – again. China not so much. Without us to buy their crap they crater pretty quickly. No real force projection yet. Ask me 20 years and we will see if they have grown up (and if we have gotten sicker).
January 8th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Without us to buy their crap they crater pretty quickly.
Without them to buy our debt(PURE CRAP),we crater pretty quickly. YIN & YANG
January 8th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
@ fuster:
Good point reminding me about Stalin and Iran; but I’m not disputing that there were strategists who thought they had good reasons for preserving U.S. oil resources “just in case.”
I’m disputing the effectiveness of those strategists in actually putting their ideas and recommendations into effect. Next to what the environmentalists achieved in getting areas put out of reach for oil eploration the strategy folks were pikers.
January 8th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Is this why one has to read between the lines of Leslie Gelb’s sophisticated column today? He says we can not and should not fight a war against radical Islam on our own. He states that only moderate Islam can do this, and asks, where is it, where are they?
This leaves me wondering if we could have even a Republican government which could effectively read the riot act to our so called friends in their glorious uniforms, turbans and robes.
Can we continue to wait until our corrupt so called allies and fair weather friends in Arabia and Egypt and Pakistan are replaced with leaders who can defeat radical Islam?
I do not think so. We should embark on a crash program, led by private industry to vastly improve our energy reserves and to create the most efficient energy delivery system and infrastructure on earth. This would be a great platform to get America back to work, don’t you think?
Imagine a popular president standing up, asking the world to chose freedom if they want to have a relationship with us! I think he/she would have to back it up with a due date, a deadline, after which we would no longer trade with them or host their students. Our present course requires us to whistle past our own graves and to pretend we do not know that the oligarchs in China and Russia are thrilled that we and not they are the focus of Islamic wrath. After the Islamists and our enemies within sap our strength, they think they will know what to do. Remember Chechnia?
January 8th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Seeing that neocons really only reached critical mass in the Defense Department in the 00s, the premise seems mistaken. There was Abrams and Wolfowitz, and Perle, but they were in third tier positions, I guess you could add Fukuyama at planning, although he seems to have repudiated that aspect
January 8th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
narciso wrote:
Seeing that neocons really only reached critical mass in the Defense Department in the 00s, the premise seems mistaken. There was Abrams and Wolfowitz, and Perle, but they were in third tier positions, I guess you could add Fukuyama at planning, although he seems to have repudiated that aspect
Read the First Chapter,your premise seems to be mistaken. It’s about a guy named Fritz Kraemer and his relationship with Henry kissinger.
January 8th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
@ scientific socialist:
Do you think the new energy delivery will be as efficient and effective as the State Department’s rigorous visa issuance and management system? Will it be as effective as the INS in tracking and accounting for illegal visa overstayers? Will it be as effective as Medicare in controlling health care costs?
I suspect it will be planned and managed (and exploited by special interests) about as well as last year’s “stimulus” program and this year’s “Health Care” bill.
The government can’t effectively handle the things it already has on its plate. Giving it more to do hardly seems logical.
January 8th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
@ scientific socialist:
Of course, acting and speaking in an insane manner might not get us to where we wish to go.
If wishing for reasonable government in other places worked, or if ignoring the present unreasonable governments worked, we wouldn’t be where we are, would we?
January 8th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
New York Times
November 19, 2003
Fritz Kraemer, 95, Tutor to U.S. Generals and Kissinger, Dies
By MICHAEL T. KAUFMAN
Fritz Kraemer, a refugee from Nazi Germany who tutored generations of America’s leading generals in historical and geopolitical thinking, died in Washington on Sept. 8. He was 95.
http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%20Notes/Fritz%20Kraemer%20obituary.html
January 8th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
How is Kraemer, a neocon, both he and his thesis advisor, William Yandell Elliot were realists, concerned with balance of power and the like. If you put it that way, TR, was the first neocon, in the Navy
Department, for his ambitions in Cuba and the Phillipines
January 8th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
narciso wrote:
How is Kraemer, a neocon, both he and his thesis advisor, William Yandell Elliot were realists*
, concerned with balance of power and the like. If you put it that way, TR, was the first neocon, in the Navy
Department, for his ambitions in Cuba and the Phillipines
I give that honor to Woodrow Wilson making the world safe for Democracy.
*The Authors of this book woould debate that with you;I’m just reading about a subject that is interesting to me. I assume you believe you are better informed than the authors who spent the last five years researching and writing their treatise.
January 8th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
@ Sully:
The government just needs to get out of the way, reducing taxes and restrictions on drilling, pipeline right of ways, and new coal, gas, thermal, nuclear, etc. power plants. Accelerated depreciation on grid improvements, new plants, etc would also help to encourage investment. If we are ever going to tell the Saudi Royals to take a flying fluck, we’d better have our own Plan B well underway.
If we were clearer about who we truly are at our very best, wouldn’t the people of energy rich nations south of here want to join us in being who they truly are at their very best?
Europe could decide whether to join us or to slowly become Russia’s energy vassels. The crony capitalists at GE, Golden Slacks and other big corporations would have to let go of their worst habits, a dicey task, to say the least. The real question is if Americans in sufficient numbers could embrace this as a restoration of the true calling of our once great nation.
January 8th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
@ Zoltan Newberry:
Zolt, which country supplies more of our imports than any other?
The dependence on ME oil is mostly that of our friends in Europe and Japan.
January 8th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
@ fuster:
Probably Canada, with Mexico & Venezuela way up there too. Europe & Japan have already embraced nuclear power much better than we have. They need to find a way to let the nasty, corrupt and brutal Russkys drown in their oil.
January 8th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
If we are ever going to tell the Saudi Royals to take a flying fluck, we’d better have our own Plan B well underway.
Plan B is of no interest to American big business;they would rather pay 1 penny less for a unit of energy than be involved in America’s need for energy “independence”. If Exxon,for example, was interested in developing domestic drilling, pipelines, new coal, gas, thermal, nuclear,and power plants,they would have done so decades ago. None of the above,gives them the margins that business as usual gives them or could ever give them. They like buying oil from OPEC at whatever price it is,and marking up the cost of gasoline to cover their import costs,that’s the American way,and Exxon is the “free” market.
January 8th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
@ Zoltan Newberry:
You’re right about our energy suppliers.
But you’ll have to understand that the Europeans put us in a position where we can’t let go. Europe is pulling from the Saudis and/or the Russians and, last I checked, growing more dependent.
January 8th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
fuster wrote:
@ Zoltan Newberry:
Zolt, which country supplies more of our imports than any other?
The dependence on ME oil is mostly that of our friends in Europe and Japan.
Canada is our biggest direct energy supplier.
January 8th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
@ Rex Caruthers:
Yup. The Canadian and Mexican Islamic radical governments are our 1 and 2.
January 8th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
In a nice, friendly way, do you think we could let Japan and Europe know that they’ll have to make a hard choice pretty soon, a choice in favor of freedom and independence, or form their own great navies to keep their oil lanes open?
January 8th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
@ Rex Caruthers:
If the Sierra Club idiots were to stick to the wonderful cause of conservation, Exxon would be happy to develop our own resources right here.
January 8th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
@ fuster:
We put ourselves in the position where we can’t let go by raising up the Europeans as spoiled children, in to spoiled adolescence and now into dependent adulthood. As Zoltan implies above, we need to tell the Euros and the Japanese that Uncle Sugar is no longer going to be guaranteeing the security of the milkshake or the straws leading from it for free.
There is a certain resonance to the left’s cry of “No blood for oil” even though it is screamed disengenuously; but it actually should be “No blood for European and Japanese oil.”
@ Zoltan Newberry:
I totally agree with you. The free market could develop that oil, and under stringent environmental restraints, if “environmentalists” were environmentalists and not anti-growth, anti-American Luddites.
The left celebrates Europe as environmentally conscious. The whole continent has been made over, the way primitive indians made over the Amazon and indigenous Americans managed and extended the prairies with fire.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:54 am
@ Sully:
That came about because we decided that we would prefer that the silly little Europeans didn’t start any more world wars.
January 9th, 2010 at 11:17 am
@ fuster:
There’s a difference between setting up things so the Euros play nice and have enough snacks in their sandbox, and setting up things so they grow up generations of progeny who believe the sandbox exists in a magic world where Great Granddad will always keep them safe even if they regularly spit in his eye.
January 9th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
@ Sully:
I’m actually proud of what our country did in Europe. It seems like the longest period between European wars in modern times.
And it doesn’t look like another is going to pop up anytime soon.
Old grumps always think the kids are spoiled, lazy and dumb, Sully.
That song has been sung for the last three thousand years.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
@ fuster:
I have no problem with the Marshall Plan putting Europe back on its feet. And it is something to be proud of, being almost unique behavior by a victor in the history of civilization. My problem is what came after. We permanently infantilized them.
There was a time when we had the resources to keep them safe; but it was predictable that we would eventually tire of the task and find ourselves overextended.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Until Bosnia showed how totally useless they were to keep the piece, a few weeks of airstrikes, beat three years of useless peacekeeping, and rest assured in a generation or less, they’ll be asking us to liberate
them from the Islamists who will be be conquering them, at that point we’ll probably say pass
January 9th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
@ narciso:
That prediction is not very likely.
The Europeans have, collectively, an enormous amount of experience both with Islam and with harshly dealing with rebellious minorities (even peaceful minorities).
What Bosnia showed was that the Europeans weren’t all that interested in expending much effort to prevent Serbian Christian criminality.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
No, they were quite willing to let the Serbs do their own things, which
interestingly enough, was a very significant recruiting pitch for AQ, as Moussaoui, Al Midhar, Al Hazmi, and even Zawahiri showed
January 9th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
@ narciso:
So stop thinking that the Europeans are too tolerant of their Islamic “guests”. They’re a great deal less open and trusting than we are.
January 9th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
@ fuster:
So does this accurately describe your position re the ethical position of the leaders who are driving European (and American) open borders immigration policies?
“We liberals don’t have to worry about the implications of our oh, so politically correct advocacy of importing a bunch of unassimilable people who’s religion explicitly tells them to kill us. We can bask in our ethical glory because we can always turn power over to the nasty xenophobes who will dispose of them if that becomes necessary. Then our children can write ethical tracts decrying the killers “
January 10th, 2010 at 7:39 am
@ Sully:
Except for the part in between the quotation marks, that’s about right.
and I like ethical tractors
January 10th, 2010 at 9:25 am
@ fuster:
It’s always good to achieve a meeting of minds even if only qualified.
January 10th, 2010 at 9:44 am
And this was a meeting that you attended without the compulsion of a court order!
January 10th, 2010 at 10:28 am