« A Garden | Main | So Much For The Rule Of Law... »

May 01, 2006

Comments

So you're in favor of political assasinations, but not the death penalty handed down by judge and jury?

How is killing the head of a terrorist organization a political assassination?

I think hindsight is generally better in judgement than the options presented to those who have to make decisions. Probably hilzoy would not have made the decision to kill either Tucker or Zarqawi at the time, because of the ethical dilemmas involved. If for instance, the current admin attempts to kill Al Zawahiri and fails to do so, but does kill 3 other AQ members but also 8 innocents, is that a bad thing or a sort of good thing or what?

This is what divides me from most of the other folks here. I want my president to make the decisions to do things that may turn out bad, if it is for the good of the country. Every president we've ever had has been responsible for people's deaths and is probably going to burn in hell for that.

A deeply sarcastic post that writes itself describes how Zarqawi was a politician to whom we accorded state honors, but these scofflaw liberals, thinking that just because Abu was no longer considered a good guy, now want him eliminated with extreme prejudice, which just goes to show you how hypocritical and slimy us liberals are. However, the conservatives, for whom a friend is a friend is a friend, are going to stick up for the Z man, even if his recent policy decisions have been less than helpful for us. Principle over politics, that is their motto. Honestly, these posts practically write themselves.

Any minute now, someone will be along to say that we only have Tucker Carlson's word for Bush's mockery of Karla Faye Tucker. Maybe Sebastian; I seem to remember him taking that line in a thread long ago. Maybe it was Macallan.

I'm not a big fan of assassinations myself. Legitimizing them just increases the chances you'll end up knowing a target someday.

It's really cute when the Left pretend that they want to kill terrorists.

lj, here's something closer to my analogy

Note last graph:

Arab and European nations condemned the killing of Sheik Yassin. Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, said the attack was "contrary to international law." Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, called it "unacceptable" and "very unlikely to achieve its objectives."

DaveC, do you think, then, that assassination is always unacceptable?

If so, I think we're fairly close - I can't agree that Bush ought to have assassinated Zarqawi, though given Bush has no objection to assassination per se (see his reaction to Pat Robertson's call to have Hugo Chavez assassinated) if his motivation for not having Zarqawi assassinated was that Zarqawi's presence in Iraq meant Bush and his administration could claim that al-Qaeda was active in Iraq, that's both contemptible and stupid.

It does not, however, have any parallel to the routine assassination by Israel of Palestinian political leaders in order to stir up trouble.

Ah, something Bush and Clinton had in common. Will wonders never cease?

"Because it was more important to try to get the French on board for our invasion of Iraq."

I don't necessarily believe Scheuer on the reason we didn't take out Zarqawi. The article even contains two. Scheuer does not source his explanation in any way. Scheuer could be lying, or somebody lying to Scheuer.

This is how stuff like "the hearts and flowers" and "cakewalk" explanations become conventional wisdom and very hard to dispute. Speculation treated as fact.

Ah, something Bush and Clinton had in common.

A little pre-coffee snark, eh? Well, go back and have some. Whatever Clinton's mistakes, he didn't fail to act because he was more interested in fomenting war-on-the-cheap elsewhere

Ah, something Bush and Clinton had in common.

when doubt, tu quoque your way out!

Nope, but he did fail to act because he had a pressing game of golf to attend to.

It ain't snark. If you want more neutral sources on how Clinton also dropped the ball, you can look here or here. I don't look upon dropped balls by either President with any sort of approval, but neither do I think that either President were possessed of a time machine. You know: "Hey, this guy is going to behead Nick Berg in another couple of years, so maybe we ought to take him out now?" or "This bin Laden guy might just organize an attack that will kill a few thousand Americans and cause heavy damage our morale and economy; let's take him out now."

I am still confused about whether Zarqawi is a real force to be reckoned with, or simply a paper tiger ginned up by the American propaganda machine.

Nope, but he did fail to act because he had a pressing game of golf to attend to.

*shrug* Or so this Clinton-basher alleges in his book - allegations denied by Sandy Berger.

The former national security advisor, Sandy Berger, said: "At no time during my years at the White House was I unable to reach Mr Clinton for timely decisions on military action or national security. The two incidents described in this book that involve me, regarding Iraq and bin Laden, simply are false."

So, yeah - pre-coffee snark is about it, Slarti.

If Berger could even recall important events from earlier in the same day, I'd grant that has some merit.

Slarti is right that one can find missed chances and bad decisions by any President. However, people should be willing to acknowledge patterns.
Bush didn't just screw up a little here and a little there. As a matter of fact, the Republican party leadership has not messed up just a little here and a little there. There is a well documented, well established pattern not only of mistakes but of malefeasance and extremism.
This information fits with the imprisonment of innocents, the torture, the criticisms of the generals, the K Street project, the manipulation of intelligence, the Republican war on science, the cronyism and resulting mismangement of all federal agencies, the out-of-control budget, the abuse of executive power, the failure to provide leadership on global warming while using the government to micromanage people's sex lives.....it is a pattern, damn it! Even if this incident in and of itself isn't all that much, the pattern is there and it is high time that Bush's apologists stopped pretending it isn't.

Slarti: what lily said. As I recall the Clinton things, in one case there was a real question about whether or not the royal family of I forget which Arab emirate was also there, in which case striking the place where they were all (I think) hunting might have had a lot of other consequences. And in general, he was reluctant to order people killed.

In Bush's case, you don't need the time machine to know that terrorists are a very very very serious problem. But Bush did not take steps to secure Russian loose nukes or to keep North Korea from getting nuclear weapons, despite the obvious danger of al Qaeda getting nuclear weapons; his administration asked the military leadership to start intensive planning for Iraq just weeks after the invasion of Afghanistan, and before Tora Bora, when we should have been focussed on catching bin Laden and finishing Afghanistan; and -- well, I could go on and list one after another case of subordinating the fight against actual terrorists either to political considerations, to some ideological thingo (like the administration's aversion to negotiation of any kind, which had a lot to do with N. Korea), or to their fixation with Iraq.

Clinton was at least serious about bin Laden. Bush talks as if he were, but he has never acted accordingly.

Clinton was at least serious about bin Laden.

No, he wasn't. Everything else you've said has merit except this statement. Clinton was serious about bin Laden to the extent that anyone was keeping tabs on him at all, and exerted a teeny amount of effort in neutralizing him.

As for the rest of lily's laundry list, I agree with much of it, and it is (for the most part) why Republicans like John Cole and I are running screaming (at varying volume levels) from the party.

Here is a coherent moral position:

1. I can't agree that Bush ought to have assassinated Zarqawi,

2. Gratuitous expression of disapproval of what is termed (in reference to the assassination of Sheikh Yassin, a mass murderer):

the routine assassination by Israel of Palestinian political leaders in order to stir up trouble.

3. Silence as to:

"The settlers always have to be targeted," Sheikh Yassin told me. "If we don't target them it means we accept the occupation."

Slarti, I find this hard to say, but I agree fully with your last comment. Clinton was serious about bin Laden only by comparison with the current President.

He definitely could have done more.

In terms of the second half, since I wasn't in the party in the first place (except for campaigning for Nixon in 1960), I don't have to run away from it. Neither do I think you do.

A Republican Party with leadership with the same values as yourself would be a Republican Party I could respect, even though disgreeing with much of it.

Unfortunately, I think the only way that type of Party can emerge is by making sure most of the worst of the worst of the current leadership lose. Only then can people such as yourself gain control.

Mr Scheuer claims that a July 2002 plan to destroy the camp lapsed because "it was more important not to give the Europeans the impression we were gunslingers".

"Mr Bush had Zarqawi in his sights almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq and he didn't shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq," he told Four Corners.

Are we now criticizing Bush because he was taking a thoughtful multilateral approach?

Something about this post stinks, but the smell isn't coming from Bush.

Bernard, I decline to continue DaveC's threadjack: if you want there to be a thread on Israel/Palestine, e-mail the kitty and ask for one.

Slarti, for heaven's sake, have your coffee: your snark will improve.

John: Unfortunately, I think the only way that type of Party can emerge is by making sure most of the worst of the worst of the current leadership lose. Only then can people such as yourself gain control.

Unfortunately, as Slarti's pre-coffee values include refusing to admit that the Republican party is in dire need of significant reformation (how long can Republicans go on tiredly claiming that Clinton was "just as bad"?) it would appear that Republican reform must begin with free Starbucks vouchers for 4-shot espresso.

ttlr: Are we now criticizing Bush because he was taking a thoughtful multilateral approach?

*snorts coffee*

Thanks for that - I needed a laugh.

No, he wasn't.

I'm not sure how you can make a statement about how serious someone was or why you would want to argue about it, given that there is really no way to ascertain those facts. However, if you do want to argue over that (and I admit, it certainly changes the focus from the current administration), that Clinton was serious about Bin Laden could be seen from the attention given to him prior to 9-11. It may have been, as the article says, that the stricture of capturing him alive rather than killing him was the deal breaker, but that is a far different proposition than saying that Clinton was unserious about OBL. Furthermore, I would not be surprised if pre 9-11, concerns about how the targeted assassination might be viewed by the Saudis or other ME countries outweighed the benefit of killing him. Remember that after the Sudan cruise missiles, many Republicans accused Clinton of playing 'wag the dog'. Fortunately, the current president doesn't seem to pay any attention to poll numbers, so I am sure that he is doing what he thinks is best, regardless of what advice he is getting.

jes,

I am not trying to make this an I/P thread. I was simply reacting to your comment, which as I understood it addressed the question of when killing is justified.

I do not think it is reasonable for you to expect that the statement you made concerning Yassin's assassination should be accepted unchallenged.

I am not trying to make this an I/P thread. I was simply reacting to your comment, which as I understood it addressed the question of when killing is justified.

DaveC initially brought up the issue of whether killing Sheik Yassin was justified, not me: I responded to his comment pointing out that these were hardly parallel situations.

I'd still like to know how killing Zarqawi constitutes a political assassination.

it's probably safe to say that W misunderestimated Zarqawi's potential for destructiveness. and remember, invading Iraq was supposed to prove to the entire world just how tough the US is; Bush might have thought Zarqawi would flee in a panic (or change his evil ways) after seeing the mighty US military crush the Iraqi army (they (only) respect power, doncha know). so, maybe Bush felt comfortable letting Zarqawi linger there until we could scare him into good behavior.

yes, i make the generous assumption that Bush put at least that much thought into the invasion and its consequences. i wonder if W's any good at chess?

I've been saying for months that one of the most disturbing and insidious things about the putative 'war powers' claimed by the 'unitary executive' is the perverse incentives it gives at times.

If you have certain powers until a goal is achieved, and can do all kinds of cool, yet unrelated, things with those powers in the interim, it doesn't exactly motivate you to accomplish the 'goal'. My standard example was OBL, but Zarqawi will certainly do.

Did that happen here? Who knows, but it at least makes me think.

Where to start?

"So you're in favor of political assassinations, but not the death penalty handed down by judge and jury?"

I think Saul Bellow pointed out that hypocrisy is like the starch in potatoes -- it's evenly distributed throughout the population. I believe there are some conservatives out there who are against the death penalty in all cases but, like Slim Pickens, would like to ride the bomb down that hits Zarqawi in the left eyebrow. Of course, they'll also use Terry Schiavo as an example of distant learning and the sanctity of life -- unless she happens to protest with Palestinians and gets backed over by a bulldozer, in which case, their reaction is "Geez, I bet that smarts!"

That was easy. But misses the point of Tucker Carlson's experience with GWB. Carlson, who in his doughy, bow-tied, smarmy shallowness (he combines the worst of George Will and the gooey goodness of the Pillsbury Doughboy), was the perfect guy to catch Governor Bush at his smirky best. Because it takes one to know one. After all, Tucker Carlson's momentary lapse into ultra-revealing journalism only happened because he shared a name with Karla Faye.

The flash of white light shown on punk GWB's small, crabbed, peevish, petulant character and his utter obliviousness to the sober gravitas required by a leader (not an effing decider)to carry out the law's awful responsibilites was the revelatory point of Carlson's interview.

Look, leave aside what anyone thinks about Harry Truman's decision to nuke Hiroshima. He at least didn't announce that piece of tragedy and then do his Mr. Moto impression with the big, crooked teeth. He was a leader, not a punk.

The rape scene in "A Clockwork Orange" was brutal enough, but Kubrick's (and Burgess'?) genius was to add "Singing In The Rain". Which makes Bush a punk and a blithe genius. I always underestimate him.

I'm not certain of my absolute position on the death penalty (though I don't see why if government can carry that out, the same government can't, for example, also strengthen CAFE standards), but I draw the drawn absolutely at having the leader of the lynch mob pinning the sheriff's badge on and horsing around with a noose (tongue sticking out to the delight of shrieking mobs at vote recounts in Florida), but I guess if the majority likes that s--- better than a few blowjobs in the Oval Office, such are the sad comforts of a democracy.

The punch line is implicit in this sentence: "Every President we've ever had has been responsible for people's deaths and is probably going to burn in hell for that."

Until now. The other 42 Presidents had a little doubt in their hearts about which direction they were going, and made the tough decisions anyway. This guy had special dispensation from the source from the get-go.

I won't address the question of Hilzoy's ethical sensibilities, nor the question of whether 8 dead innocents is the place to draw the line, but I want all to know that I attended a Yankees game two years ago and during the 7th inning stretch when they pan the Jumbotron across the bleachers to highlight a fan or two, they caught Osama Bin Laden on camera momentarily. He looked up, saw his image, dropped his beer and popcorn, and exited, stage right, turban left hovering over his box seat. I considered calling in an airstrike via my connections at NORAD, but realized the game was close and was afraid Derek Jeter might get hurt. The Yankees won, but I felt bad for awhile, until I got to the parking lot. I assuaged my ethical conundrum by hopping in the Hummer, filled it with premium gas, and went shopping.

a: "It's really cute when the Left pretend they want to kill terrorists."

Such is our role in the passion play. We pretend to want to kill terrorists, while you pretend there was no memo warning of terrorists, unless you need to scare the crap out of us with bright red terrorist warnings from Homeland Security (which you pretend was not created to bust public employee unions and destroy FEMA) leading up to elections, which the Supreme Court pretends you win, which is a position I pretend to hold. Then you continue to pretend to not want to eliminate Medicare.

Who says there can't be two trolls under every bridge?

Enough.

No, wait. I was once ambivalent about political assassinations myself until I noticed what good shots the other side was when they took out the Kennedys and Martin Luther King when all we leftist pretenders had was Squeaky Fromme. So, I lost my taste for it. Now I pretend, like the Kitty.


An assassination is "Murder committed by a perpetrator without the personal provocation of the victim, who is usually a government official."

Setting out to kill Zarq

The Bush administration wanted to justify invading and occupying Iraq, and used Zarqawi's presence in Iraq (in a part not under Saddam's control, but they evidently assumed no one would notice). Had they instead launched a military attack against Zarqawi's camps, I don't see how anyone could call that an assassination: but had they tried to kill Zarqawi personally, along with innocent bystanders who simply happened to be standing next to him, that would have been an assassination. (See the attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein by bombing a Baghdad restaurant - which successfully killed the restaurant staff and anyone unlucky enough to be dining there or living nearby, but missed Saddam Hussein himself.)

The rape scene in "A Clockwork Orange" was brutal enough, but Kubrick's (and Burgess'?) genius was to add "Singing In The Rain".

Just Kubrick - I once scripted a reading from the actual novel by Anthony Burgess, performed by the v. v. talented Malcolm McDowell. No song in the book (the "lads" are wearing masks of Great English Poets). During the evening McDowell also spoke about the making of the movie. "Singing in the Rain" was Kubrick's idea and he got the rights w/o telling whoever held them how the song would be used. McDowell added that Gene Kelly refused to speak to him, ever, even though McDowell hadn't, of course, made the call.

Okay, having contributed as usual to the pop-culture side of the conversation ... Hilzoy, I really would be interested to know more about your POV on extra-judicial assassinations - who gets to make the determination, and on what grounds? My responses tend to be emotional - so that, for example, I've always understood, at gut level, what Mossad was up to when they tracked down and killed the Munich killers. But as Stephen Colbert pointed out during his razors' edge performance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner on Saturday night, we don't think with our guts. ... I mean, if I try, I can understand at gut level what John Wilkes Booth was thinking, too, and I don't like it. Is it possible to accept some but not all such killings?

I responded to his comment pointing out that these were hardly parallel situations.

Because Israel only did it "to stir up trouble," in your view, and not for any reason connected with Hamas terrorism? Bizarre.

So you're in favor of political assasinations, but not the death penalty handed down by judge and jury?

I doubt that I am the only one who thinks that when you have an enemy as thoroughly under your power as a death-row inmate is, killing him or her is somewhat gratuitous, and even if you believe it necessary, not an occasion for mirth.

In contrast, I wouldn't say that I am "in favor" of assassination of people like Zarqawi, but if a bloody and costly war could be avoided thereby, I think it would be the better option.

Killing an enemy who is fighting back is different from killing someone when you have your figurative boot on his metaphorical neck. This is why I also wouldn't have a problem with a laser-guided bomb for Zarq, but if he strolled up to the nearest Army unit and surrendered, I would consider killing him to be wrong.

I think something that is being missed here is the obvious hypocrisy of this administration.

All of what was mentioned in the post came after Bush's declarations about going after terrorists wherever they are. They knew where he was, knew that they could take him and most of his group out with little to no collateral damage, and they didn't.

In effect, since per Bush, we were at war against terrorists, this would be a little like the US knowing where several members of the German High Command were during WWII and choisng to ignore it.

Another thing I find interesting is the wine and dine France thing. It's like they didn't want to offend France so they chose not to go after Zarqwai. In other words, they were in effect letting France determine their policy and actions.

I seem to remember something being said about that type of thinking during the 2004 campaign.

I don't look upon dropped balls by either President with any sort of approval, but neither do I think that either President were possessed of a time machine.

It's a rare sort of prescience that's required to see Zarqawi as the #2 man in an organization that's already committed its magnum opus of terrorism...

First, I find the report troubling for liberals. If anybody was pushing for international cooperation, it was the left side of the aisle. Does anybody think the antiwar crowd would not have screamed bloody murder if this air strike had taken place? Secondly, it mentions anthrax and ricin, I presume in small quantities, even though it was not under Saddam's control. It undermines the claim that al-Qaeda could not get their hands on WMD.

Cheney's push to legitimize torture and Bush's blatant imperial power grabs are all the proof I need to reveal their moral standing. Any further examples have no effect.

"they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq"

That just seems crazy to me. Chirac was voted into office by people who literally wore gloves on their hands and clothespins on their noses to drop in their ballots. Some 80% of the French populace was dead-set against the invasion of Iraq. No amount of wining and dining would have been sufficient for him to assist the US invade Iraq in the winter of 2002-3; le peuple de Paris--all of them (except maybe the 16th)--would have shut down the city until he resigned.

So maybe Scheuer was talking about trying to convince France not to use its veto, or about trying to get Germany on board, or something.

"Does anybody think the antiwar crowd would not have screamed bloody murder if this air strike had taken place?"

Yes. And who cares?

"Secondly, it mentions anthrax [...]"

Let me guess, they found a sick sheep.

no, but an overcooked leg of lamb, which they ate and donated to the National Trust.

Gosh: I go off to work, and there are all these things to comment on when I get back. DaveC: as John Thullen said, what bugs me about the Carla Faye Tucker incident is the ugliness of making fun of someone pleading for her life. I'm against capital punishment, I think, though I haven't thought about the question whether I'm opposed to it in principle in a while, since it seems so clear that whatever I think of it in principle, in practice innocent people are being executed, which is plainly wrong.

I do not think that hitting a terrorist training camp is the same. I don't think it's even assassination: according to Scheuer, this is what we would have hit: "It was a terrorist training camp . . . experimenting with ricin and anthrax . . . any collateral damage there would have been terrorists." Knocking out a terrorist training camp in which biological weapons were being prepared, after 9/11, is not just targeted assassination.

Step2: "It undermines the claim that al-Qaeda could not get their hands on WMD." -- Who exactly has made this claim? I, for one, have been complaining about this administration's failure to address all sorts of potential sources from which al Qaeda might get WMD since I started blogging here. (North Korea, Russian loose nukes, etc.) I didn't think there was any significant chance that al Qaeda would get WMD from Saddam Hussein in particular, but nothing in this story contradicts that.

"If anybody was pushing for international cooperation, it was the left side of the aisle." -- Correct. But it does not follow from this that we favor doing literally anything that might possibly be motivated by a desire for international cooperation. I would not, for instance, favor handing back the Louisiana Purchase to curry favor with the French. And, strange to say, I would not favor letting terrorists with WMD run around unmolested to curry favor with them either.

Besides, as Jackmormon said, it was incredibly unlikely to work. And at the same time that we were, according to Scheuer, not taking out this training camp, we were also gratuitously insulting them for no reason at all (e.g., Rumsfeld's "old Europe" comment.) So it's not as though we valued cooperation with the French enough to get Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to stop insulting them; we "just" cared enough not to do anything about Zarqawi. That's a very peculiar set of priorities. I would much rather have not insulted them gratuitously and bombed Ansar al-Islam's training camp than the reverse.

JFTR while I would guess the Tucker comment was correctly reported, as far as I know it is single-sourced and Bush has never acknowledged it.

I would take Scheuer with a grain of salt, by the way. I'm not aware of him ever making up factual charges, but his interpretation of the same facts can be so erratic that it's hard to rely on him.

no, but an overcooked leg of lamb, which they ate and donated to the National Trust.

Donated after they ate it? That's bullshit.

Bernard: Because Israel only did it "to stir up trouble," in your view, and not for any reason connected with Hamas terrorism?

DaveC claimed a parallel.

Israel assassinated a revered political leader while he was leaving morning prayer. The means used to kill the sheikh meant four of his escorts were also killed, and four unrelated bystanders, and fifteen others were wounded. Israel knew that the assassination, and the death of innocent bystanders, would cause trouble: they could not have believed (after so many years) that killing one Hamas leader would do anything to discourage or prevent Palestinian terrorism: they knew, indeed, that killing him would only stir up trouble, not calm it. But, at a time when the Israeli government was talking of withdrawing some settlements from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, killing a Hamas leader would have looked like they were still "tough on terrorism" - and would have stirred up trouble, enabling the IDF to make reprisal raids, looking still tougher.

I see no parallel between that and a military attack on an al-Qaeda camp in Iraq.

That's bullshit.

lambsh!t, more accurately. on a window pane.

cleek being warm brings me happiness

..cause don't you know that .....

Hey, a group sing (to go with the hug).

There's a lot of potential here... "half of what I say is meaningless..."

..but I say it just to reach you ....

Actually, Yogi Berra said half of what I say is 90% meaningless.

I'm picturing myself at a fork in the road with the Buddha. My mind is clearly wandering.

"I'm picturing myself at a fork in the road with the Buddha."

But if any piece of silverware were to be associated with him, it would be the Buddha knife.

JFTR while I would guess the Tucker comment was correctly reported, as far as I know it is single-sourced and Bush has never acknowledged it.

It's trivially true that it is single-sourced, but by that standard, most interviews, and the very best news stories, those where the reporter goes to the story and reports what he or she sees, are. In a case like this, where Carlson is reporting what he claims George Bush told him, "single-sourced" doesn't seem to be quite the right description. "Single-sourced" implies, to me anyway, a "source" distinct from the reporter.

My problem with this scenario is that it has a tinge of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" to it. As much as I dislike this administration, pushing them into a corner where they are going to be hounded no matter what choice they make is not a favorite argument tactic.

I suppose I have been disputing the Iraq/al-Qaeda/WMD connection so long that it surprised me to read that they were working on WMD in Iraq, even if it was outside official channels. So I retract my poorly conceived statement from before.

Shooter and Rummy were not made to be diplomats, so I agree with that point completely. BTW, if you are serious about not currying the favor of the French, I think it is okay to question your liberal credentials.

'"single-sourced" doesn't seem to be quite the right description.'

Happy to have a better one. I just meant that before I conclude Bush is evil or soulless or a complete idiot based on this reported incident alone, I'd want to develop some familiarity with and confidence in Carlson. 100-1 it happened as he said, but that standard isn't quite enough for the level of feeling involved.

step2: it's not just 'outside official channels', it's in a part of Iraq that Saddam did not control. (In the north, in the Kurdish zone, though the Kurds had been fighting Ansar al-Islam, and had no love for them at all.)

lambsh!t, more accurately. on a window pane.

I was so hoping someone else would make that joke, because while going there directly myself would have been tacky -- and I'm nothing if not suave (pronounced SWA-vey, in keeping with an erstwhile bandmate's suave speech) -- it needed to be done. Thanks, cleek!

Window pane?

like a lizard on a.

which is like the girl who doesn't miss much and is well acquainted with the touch of the velvet hand.

ral:

Your mind: it stopped wandering.

Fix that hole, cause the rains getting in.


One for Carlson.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad