My Photo

« Some Things Defy Excerpting | Main | More Swedish Triumphalism! »

September 26, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e200d834b5fa2a53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference We Can All Be Enemy Combatants!:

Comments

In my opinion, it should still be filibustered.

Well that certainly qualifies as a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.

Off with your head!

In my opinion, it should still be filibustered.

Voiceover: My opponent, Osama bin Democrat, refused to allow Congress to give our military and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to fight terror. Osama bin Democrat would weaken America and embolden the terrorists. The choice is clear. This November, vote for a strong America. Vote Republican.

"Hi, I'm Demagogue J. Republican, and I approve this message"

a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces)
They complain about courts interpreting the laws, and then they write ambiguously. Does the parenthetical phrase refer to "a lawful enemy combatant" or "a person ... combatant"? I thought the Taliban were supposed to be treated as prisoners of war, so why are they in the same list with al Qaeda?

"And whose fault is that, exactly?"

Well, the Founding Fathers. For scheduling elections every two Novembers. Plus the stipulation that there shall be 90 days of demagoguery proceeding such events. Then, there is, of course, the improvement to year-round demagoguery provided us since that November in 2000.

Wait a minute. If they grab you (U.S. citizen) off the street a render you to Tajikistan, you become an alien in U.S. custody. Could this kind of nonsense (the bill, not my raving) come under the heading of "giving them enough rope to hang themselves"?

Jimbo: If they grab you (U.S. citizen) off the street a render you to Tajikistan, you become an alien in U.S. custody. Could this kind of nonsense (the bill, not my raving) come under the heading of "giving them enough rope to hang themselves"?

Jose Padilla says no.

I'd direct you to where you could buy my "Enemy Combatant" t-shirts but I'm afraid that would be sufficient "cause" for the gummint to rendition my butt and inflict some of those old/new supplemental interrogation techniques on my old bones...

"The point is not that I believe that this retired administration official's rhetorical excesses might actually be turned into explicit policy."

Bilal Hussein, Pulitzer Prize Journalist, Held Without Trial ...Beyerstein of Majikthise

There is no doubt in my mind that the US is one or two events away from...however you would wish to characterize political opponents and journalists disappearing.

Leahy is quoted at Eschaton as making a good stand on this, but he seems to think the habeas-stripping applies only to non-citizens.

There is no doubt in my mind that the US is one or two events away from...however you would wish to characterize political opponents and journalists disappearing.

Well, that's just it, isn't it?

Say that the feds had grabbed James Risen or Dana Priest as an "enemy combatant."

PowerLine et al. would've immediately concluded that they were working with terrorists & that's how they got their info, or something to that effect.

Cheney would go on TV and imply as much.

And without habeas, that would really be the end of it, unless and until the feds changed their minds, or a new sheriff entered the White House.

A law that enables such things, on its face, is CRAZY. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Okay, I officially give up. This is like the stampeded, process-shredding method by which the Patriot Act was pushed through.

Here's where the language the Post story focuses on and that hilzoy's studying is tucked away, according to commenter cboldt at Balkinization:

The revised text is before the Senate in the form of Frist's S.Amdt. 5036, with the actual text at this Thomas location. The amendment and Military Commissions Act of 2006 is being handled in the context of H.R.6061 - The Secure Fence Act. Senator Specter has until 2:30 to file 1st degree amendments out of the Judiciary Committee - well, all Senators have until 2:30 PM to do so. Amazing. Text formally filed Monday evening, concurrently with a cloture motion, and review and proposing of amendment is to take place within a period of about 20 hours.

Amazing, except for the fact that we've seen it all before, so it shouldn't amaze us. In the face of this kind of maneuvering, the only responsible position is to filibuster, to refuse to deal with these issues until there's time to deal with them honestly. (Of course, that should have been the position two months ago when we could all see this coming, but that donkey's been beaten to death here, so I'll not say any more on that.)

It's now after 5:00, so presumably, whatever habeas-saving amendment is going to be filed has been filed. Unless the dictatorship-facilitating Frist and McConnell decide to scrap that bill and push one of the others they have in their back pocket.

ETA for our official transition to the dual state: Saturday morning about 2 am.

Oh, wait: It won't become official until the dictator signs it (along with a signing statement that repudiates whatever faint limitations the eventual legislation might put on him).

Anderson: as I read the bill, at least the version I downloaded from Balkinization this morning ;), only "aliens" are stripped of habeas rights. The "enemy combatant" definition is (imho) unacceptably broad, but the habeas-stripping part is limited to alien enemy combatants.

The idea of passing something like this as an amendment to the fence bill is beyond absurd.

The idea of passing something like this as an amendment to the fence bill is beyond absurd.

What are you talking about? Those two things are completely related. It says right here in Robert's Rules of Order under the definition of "germane," to wit "closely or significantly related, or, in the case of torture, the same as a border fence."

Anderson--I think hilzoy and Leahy have it right.

Did that fence move actually work? Obama's intern/staffer referred to it in the past tense to me....

Even Obama's phone guys are too charming, I ended up being much nicer than I had intended to be.

I'm not a huge fan of Atrios (not a huge antifan either), but I think he has it right on Obama:

There's a certain senator who is often labelled a rock star. He's gotten nothing but good treatment from the press. He's been building up his centrist credibility, Joe Lieberman style, to appeal to the Broders and Finemans of the world. He's given speeches about faith and values, giving himself moral authority as well. If he runs to a microphone, the camera will be there.
The guy needs to speak up this week. What does he have to lose?

"...but the habeas-stripping part is limited to alien enemy combatants."

1)My comment of 4:13 does not mention nationality nor does it mention legality.

2) Stuff written and deleted after re-re-reading hilzoy's post. At this time, I do not need to get more negative than what was written.

Lederman also points out that the habeas-stripping applies to all aliens claimed to be enemy combatants, not just illegal combatants:

It is worth noting one thing about the breadth of the habeas-stripping provision, both in the new draft and in last week's version, that has thus far received inadequate attention in the public debate. That provision would eliminate the right to petition for habeas for all alleged alien enemy combatants, whether or not the detainee has been determined to be an "unlawful" combatant -- indeed, even if the detainee is deemed a lawful combatant (e.g., a POW) -- and no matter where they are detained, including in the United States.

The provision therefore would appear to overrule not only the recent Rasul decision, which recognized habeas rights for detainees at Guantanamo, but also the holdings in the World War II cases of Quirin and Yamashita, which dealt with alien detainees in the U.S. and in an occupied insular possession, respectively.

Also, as far as the "alien" restriction goes, hasn't there been talk of the ability to strip people of their US citizenship?

Where have von and Charles gotten to lately?

Not trying to be snarky, I'm actually interested to hear what they have to say.

KC, I thought that was Biden Atrios was referring to, though now that you mention it, it probably is Obama.

Who labeled Joe Biden a rock star? (Maybe Joe Biden...)

Biden a rock star, LJ? I guess things really are different in Japan.

I dunno; Biden could possibly be the Tom Jones or Engelbert Humperdinck of the Senate...

Well, here, rock star generally means pre-pubescent 'idoru'. I'm taking the Rolling Stones as sort of a prototype for over there.

"...but the habeas-stripping part is limited to alien enemy combatants."

Ah--first good news I've heard this week. Tho I was getting excited that the statute would be struck down by SCOTUS. Thanks, y'all.

Uggh, the Daily Show's Moment of Zen had Laura Ingraham saying that the popularity of "24" was a referendum on torture (I think she said "agressive tactics").

And I'm still a bit boggled about Pervez Musharraf as the guest.

"...but the habeas-stripping part is limited to alien enemy combatants."

Imagine Giving

Oops! Marty Lederman says maybe not

Yeah, I saw that, Bob, & left a question in comments. I see that Hilzoy was asking the same question at Balkin's "spineless Dems" post.

IIRC, the Administration still hasn't conceded that the President's Article II powers don't allow him to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen who's an "enemy combatant" (Padilla). They turned Padilla over to the courts rather than have that question resolved.

And as noted upthread, it would be very Yooish to conclude that being an enemy combatant renounces one's citizenship, thus making oneself an alien.

But it does seem as if Marty Lederman has something else in mind, which I hope he'll explain.

There is a clarification at Marty Lederman's site, seemingly replying to hilzoy's post over there as well. The essence is a loose wording in the unlawful enemy combatant definition on page 4 of the draft; definition (i) specifies aliens; but in definition (ii) the writer left out citizenship or locale; it could be anyone the secretary of defense wanted to arrest.

There was a thoughtful examination of the various parts of the draft law as well at the Georgetown law faculty site by John Mikhail two days ago now. Mikhail is helpful on understanding the Bybee language in the draft law; that was predictable, given, as Berenson highlighted early in the week at the committee hearing, the current draft is a restatement of the DTA from December 2005, as well.

I think there are two distinct issues. One: can the President detain any enemy combatant indefinitely? If so, then it's hugely important that the definition of 'enemy combatant' that these idiots are proposing to write into law with the barest gesture at debate is so vague and capacious, and one part of that is: it's important that it includes citizens. (Myself, I don't see the fact that 'enemy combatants' includes citizens as itself the bad part; it's what we do with that designation that makes it bad. But surely a citizen can be an enemy combatant. Think John Walker Lindh.)

Two: does the habeas-stripping part, in particular, apply to citizens, or only to aliens? This is my question. But Marty's clarification covers (1), not (2), while Jack Balkin, Kevin Drum, and others assert (2) that citizens could have their habeas rights stripped.

I don't see that, but the reason could be as simple as: there's a new draft that Jack Balkin has and I don't.

I don't see that, but the reason could be as simple as: there's a new draft that Jack Balkin has and I don't.

If he had it, he'd post it--that's the only thing I can say with any confidence.

This is a bit of synchronicity. If you aren't familiar with the story of Tokyo Rose, it might be a good time to get up to speed, as she was an American citizen trapped in Japan who was forced to do propaganda broadcasts by the Japanese, and due to perjury, was stripped of her citizenship.

From the FBI link that LJ provides:

a series of American-speaking women

Isn't that George W. Bush's second language?

Leahy is going a good floor speech right now on c-span2.

Leahy is going a good floor speech right now on c-span2.

Well, let's hope he's persuasive 'cause I don't think a floor speech has changed anyone's mind since Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (and maybe not even then). He could be Atticus Finch and it wouldn't matter.

Yes, a floor speech is only a tip of an iceberg. Are you streaming it, Ugh?

Yes, a floor speech is only a tip of an iceberg.

Sometimes, an ice floe is just an ice floe.

But, as always, I would love the Democrats to live up to CC's faith in them.

Sometimes, an ice floe is just an ice floe.

Granted.

My representatives in both houses are going to vote to uphold the rule of law. I'm sorry that other people are sending representatives to Congress who won't do so.

Btw, torture opponents, Eugene Volokh is linking to Jonathan Rauch's defense of torture as "much worth reading even if you disagree with him." What is it with EV and torture, anyway?

Are you streaming it, Ugh?

Sadly, no, ObWi is distracting enough.

Anderson,

I am willing to read VC on legal matters, but when it comes to politics, my motto is Never Mind the Volokhs. Just another example of bloggers going outside their area of expertise.

They're voting now on Levin's amendment which would undo the changes made by the Admin last night. I suppose the Specter/Leahy amendment will be next.

Lost Levin amendment on nearly a party line vote. Now Specter is introducing the Specter-Leahy-Dodd-Dorgan Amendment, which strikes habeas stripping. He's discussing the Suspension question right now -- we'll see if he's been able to get anyone to go with him. (Chaffee went with Levin on the prior amendment, offset by Landrieu).

I think I'm glad, for a change, to not have cable tv.

I can't bear to watch good voted down, and evil voted for.

When it happens, I'll read the text.

I can't bear to watch good voted down, and evil voted for.

Evil's "in" this year.

Evil -- it's the new good!

(Taking off from the Josie & the Pussycats movie, of course, not Milton.)

I don't have cable TV either. But I can stream the audio.

Anyway, they're going to vote tomorrow. So we get another shot at the Senators tonight.

So we get another shot at the Senators tonight.

Hey, buddy, if I were going to take a shot at anybody, it wouldn't be a senator, it'd be --

Oh wait. You meant that figuratively, didn't you. So did I!

Anyway, they're going to vote tomorrow. So we get another shot at the Senators tonight.

Here's hoping there's some good left in the world, or at least the senate.

I would love the Democrats to live up to CC's faith in them

As previously noted, my problem isn't so much 'the Democrats' who by a vast majority have been in the right on these issues. It's the Mississipians, Texans, Coloradoans, and, yes, Virginians, who keep sending people to Congress who vote wrong, and support evil, who are the real problem. People from such places who think I, or, more to the point, Sen. Obama, can change their culture are going to have their faith disappointed every time.

It's the Mississipians, Texans, Coloradoans, and, yes, Virginians, who keep sending people to Congress who vote wrong, and support evil, who are the real problem.

Yep. And the Dems' efforts to educate these people, in the instance of the torture issue for ex, amount to ... what?

The astonishing ignorance even of the supposedly educated (see the Volokh thread I linked above) on the subject of torture and coercion, is just amazing. If the Dems can't take a loud, shot-heard-'round-the-world stand on THAT issue ... then what?

Mississippians don't want to hear from Yankee liberals. IMO.

Charley, besides Landrieu, Ben Nelson (Nebraska) also voted with the Republicans against the Levin amendment.

Did they vote on Specter's amendment, or is that put off until tomorrow too?

Mississippians don't want to hear from Yankee liberals. IMO.

Well, that goes to the Dean/Emanuel debate, I suppose. One could certainly tailor an anti-torture method to the average American. "We're America, we're better than the Nazis and the Commies, there are some things we just don't do," etc. It writes itself.

Levin lost 54-43. I was trying to listen to the vote, but people kept coming in trying to talk to me about legal business. Sorry I missed Nelson.

They did not vote on Specter -- who gave good account of himself, I think, in fighting off Graham, Kyl, and Warner. I think there's something like 40 minutes of debate time left, but it might be 30.

There's rumor that another amendment might be introduced if Specter fails -- send me an email KC, and I'll tell you what I know offline.

It writes itself.

Yep. And that's pretty much what was said. And what our folks have been saying for weeks. And what the numerous distinguished letter writers (retired generals, retired diplomats, law professors,retired judges) have said. the argument on the other side is 'they're not like us, and they don't deserve what we have.'

Or we could
v

Yep. And that's pretty much what was said. And what our folks have been saying for weeks.

CC, people who attend to the news sources that you and I do, are well aware of that. But were we talking about 1% of the population?

Or we could
v

Gary, it's futile, but it's not *that* futile. (Y'all go to his blog & check his link on the "176 lines from Star Wars most improved by substituting the word 'pants.'" Much needed on this grim day.)

Evil -- it's the new good!

Sadly, Good is the new pink :/

[And that's a fantastic movie, Anderson. More people should watch it!]

Also, since I was teaching all day: what the heck ended up happening? Where do we stand? Which bills are on the floor, have been voted down, still need opposing?

Anarch, the Military Commissions bill is pending, and there will be a couple more attempts to amend it. Most of the 2 hours alotted for debate on the Specter-Leahy-Dodd-Dorgan amendment, which strikes the section stripping habeas, was had this afternoon, but there's a little time left over for tomorrow. They'll vote on it after that.

'they're not like us, and they don't deserve what we have.'

The split here is a classic cultural divide. I have no idea what you think Sen. Reid, or Sen. Obama, or Sen. Clinton can say that would move Mississippians from approving of this view, as espoused by, for example, Sen. Lott. Or Sen. Warner, who presents with gravitas Trent Lott cannot even dream to achieve.

The only shot here has been to appeal to the consciences of Republicans who have them. Have Specter (and his allies)* won enough votes? We'll find out in the morning. I'm not holding my breath -- and think we'll have to win this on Suspension grounds.

* If you know anyone in Maine, call them tonight.

Why are the Maine Senators key? Is that just how the alliance is shaking down?

They may have declared themselves and I just don't know it. They're a better bet than Mississippi's senators, even if they have declared.

And I'm sure that your Sen. Feingold is all the way on board, and think Kohl probably is as well.

They're a better bet than Mississippi's senators, even if they have declared.

Writing to Lott on the habeas issue, I extolled his vote on the McCain amendment of yesteryear. Cochran ... well, not so easy.

"It's the Mississipians, Texans, Coloradoans, and, yes, Virginians, who keep sending people to Congress who vote wrong, and support evil, who are the real problem. People from such places who think I, or, more to the point, Sen. Obama, can change their culture are going to have their faith disappointed every time."

I let the first one go.

Okay, so this is my fault as a Dallasite for not changing the hearts and minds of Tom DeLay and George Bush and oh, maybe 5-10 million other Texans in order to not merely get Democrats elected, but liberal Democrats elected from Texas. How much grace time do I have, Charlie? 5 years? Ten? None?

Have I already failed? Should I move to a swing state, although that would really solidify the right wing hold on Texas? Hey, why don't you move down thisaways, every Democrat helps.

Well, at least we got a plan. I am on top of it. I'll work on the Hispanic vote, etc. Give me a generation or two, even though the problem is centuries old. We got some new voters in from Katrina. Meanwhile it's all my fault. I honestly will grant you whatever comfort you need.

Or maybe you can stop saying "you Texans sent" the animals to Washington. I mean, Molly is on her third bout of cancer.

Bob, I'm not blaming you personally. Any more than I take your comments about my positions personally. I think it is a cultural thing, though, and as long as Texas (and other 'similar' places) stays in the cultural place it is in right now, there's nothing any of us Yankees can really do about it.

We can't fix your politics. Our efforts to do so over the last 40 years have made things worse, because Texans are a prickly and independent lot. They hate being lectured by people who act like they think they are morally superior, and, imo, hate it so much they'll vote against interest.

I was going to say something about a possible lesson, in that 20-30 percent of the nation can get their way, so "Blues" could keep that as a strategy...but the "Red" think that they are obstructed by a minority. The "Reds" aren't getting everything they want, by a long shot. Just too much for my tastes.

We just keep chewing on each other, generation after generation. What a country.

Thank you, Bob. Charley, you may not mean to offend with your remark, but you have.

Eyes on the prize, folks. We're all tired and frustrated (and in my case scared sh**less this bill will pass) but let's take it out on those who deserve it, not each other.

In the spirit of comity and mild tipsiness: no matter what happens tomorrow (I am not optimistic) thanks to everyone who read, cared, and tried to do what they could. It means...well, probably not much to the prisoners who are and will be harmed by this. But it means a lot to me.

Ditto. But unlike Katherine, I get to thank Katherine ;)

And let me thank Katherine, hilzoy, CharleyC, and everyone else who's taken action on this.

Me, I'm a slug (and still at work to boot), but will happily join bob's campaign should it come to pass.

Katherine and Charleycarp, you made this personal.

It hurts like hell.

Thank you.

We can't fix your politics.

That'll work out, then, because we don't want you fixing our politics. We're working on it ourselves.

What I want is for the leaders of my party in the Senate to stop slowing down the fixing process by kicking in the gut the people doing the fixing.

There was no reason to accept that legislation had to be passed before the recess. Reid, Durbin, Levin, and Leahy could have been saying from August on that they wouldn't be stampeded into a vote on torture or detainee process before the election recess.

Leahy's floor speech today called it for the stunt it is, and very effectively. But why wait until the day before the vote? Was that even considered as the way to go at it from the beginning?

There's a lot more than "culture" involved in who ends up sitting in Senate seats.

Nell, I'm not sure how much Leahy could have done.

I think it's important to recognize the differentiation within the Democratic caucus on this. There are Markeys and Meehans and Nadlers and Leahys as well as Nelsons and Landrieus.

(I am disappointed in Durbin, though from what I hear he made a damn good speech today).

I keep meaning to do a post on Ed Markey--my Congressman for two more days--but I've not had time.

Sorry for not achieving comity yet with that last, but felt I had to make one try at explaining why Charley's remark stung.

I'm very, very grateful for the information and time Charley's put into discussion here. ObWi readers are privileged to have the benefit of his expertise. And Katherine's, and Hilzoy's. The grief and dread I feel wouldn't be so intense but for the understanding of the issue you've instilled.

Thanks.

hz, Marty Lederman basically is agreeing with you on your citizen concern.

The Center for Constitutional Rights has a comment that seems to agree, as well.

Interesting. Trying to do the right thing, but very much feeling his way.

I could've written a better one. ;)

I know you are working hard at fixing Virginia politics, Nell, and wish you all the best. I do not think that this one would have come out any different no matter what Specter, Leahy, Levin et al had said in August, because I don't think the people who voted with the government (and will vote with the government tomorrow) would have been moved by anything that could likely have followed in their constituencies. It's a long term project and, I think, has to arise from within much more than look like it is being imposed from without. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.

I'm sorry to have offended anyone. I don't think I tossed the first stone (looking back over a longer period than this thread), but it doesn't matter in the least. We all look forward to the day that you all are not complaining about how my representatives are too cowardly to protect you (and all of the rest of us) from the folly of your representatives. I know that you guys want this even more than I do, and that's why I don't mean it personally. Again, sorry for the hurt.

And Bob, I had to run out of the office in the middle of writing my last, and so didn't wish you the best of luck with the cancer.

John, I certainly don't agree with that CCR press release.

I could've written a better one. ;)

You already have, any number of times. ;)

"I could've written a better one. ;)"

I am probably unlikely to be able to vote for you, but I predict today that I'm going to say I knew you before you were in Congress (and so take my calls, darnit!).

And the place will be much improved when you're there. (So say we all!)

"And Bob, I had to run out of the office in the middle of writing my last, and so didn't wish you the best of luck with the cancer."

Cancer?? Are you talking to me? Or about Texas? 11:05 may have been misinterpreted, but I will leave it.

I will take much of the blame for any ill-feeling. I started it. I have repeatedly seemingly devalued other's deepest values and efforts, but it is not because I do not consider those efforts very valuable, or other people's work heroic. I do.

One Degree ...via Dymaxion World today

"Further global warming of 1 °C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know."...

Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and is within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes." ...Jim Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York

I believe this. If we got the politics right in ten years, in twenty years millions upon millions will die anyway. And I haven't a clue as to how to get the politics right. I may be wrong, but I believe this, and other more proximate disasters.

So I am staring at the Apocalypse. I should be doing more, and feel guilty and hypocritical. I lose my perspective, and forget that all and any acts of kindness remain valuable. I shouldn't force my priorities on others, if they are even my own priorities. Cause I walk my dogs in the woods, and hug the lady, and sweep the leaves, and stay up late watching Kung-Fu movies, and cry a lot.

Who am I to judge anybody. I am so sorry if I judged you or Katherine or hilzoy. I think I have hurt my betters when they have needed help. Not good.
...
PS. No cancer. None in the family, and I would never let it happen. The diagnosis would be answered with a request for a lot of pills. I have seen long lingering progressive diseases, and I won't do that to those around me.

OTOH, a cousin this week had a quad bypass with two grafts. All my older male relatives went before they were sixty, after bypasses. I am 56, a heavy smoker, overweight, and I hope I don't wake up one morning. Get lost in a dream. Soon please.

CharlieC; CCR's bulletin seemed like one attorney's reactions to denial of access to a client. I could understand that exclusion's motivating a reporter to write about the experience as portent for the future if SB3930, the commissions bill, were to pass. Even the NYT article in the morning paper today is addressing the lax language about citizens and nationality in draft SB3930 in terms very similar to CCR's polarized article. If the vote on the Levin amendment is a guideline, if we were to see Snowe and Inouye vote instead of being absent, all that would be needed then to halt passage of the bill, in a very close vote would be three more senators. Besides Snowe and Inouye not voting, McCain also did not vote. Actually, Leahy though he voted Yea, withheld reservations regarding Levin's compromise on the habeas issue. I appreciate that you folks are following developments closely.

Gary, I believe Bob was referring to Molly Ivins, not anything in his personal life.

KC, I think that was CharleyCarp, not Gary. (I was tempted to put some other name in there for KC, just to keep the string alive)

D'oh! How'd I do that? Apologies as necessary to both Charley and Gary.

"Gary, I believe Bob was referring to Molly Ivins, not anything in his personal life."

Ahhhh. Now I get it. Yes, as another example of a beleagured Texas liberal.

I always have more context in my mind than gets on the page.

Hm, I thought CharleyCarp was just tweaking me as the Mississippian hereabouts, as on past occasions.

One of the nice things about being from Mississippi is that when someone says, "your state sucks!" you can just nod & say "yup."

Also an advantage I have in following Miss. State football.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast