« Stem Cell Update | Main | Greenwald Fouls One Off »

August 28, 2006

Comments

Cattle mutilations are up.

But, we're American soldiers, and we've been kickin' butt for 200 years. We're ten and one!

1812 was less than 200 years ago, so I'm wondering whether the "and one" referes to Vietnam or 1812?

If I may quote the lyrics of that proud old Canadian song "The War of 1812" by the group Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie:

Oh, come back, proud Canadians
To before you had TV,
No hockey night in Canada,
There was no CBC (Oh, my God!).
In 1812, Madison was mad,
He was the president, you know
Well, he thought he’d tell the British where they ought to go
He thought he’d invade Canada,
He thought that he was tough
Instead we went to Washington....
And burned down all his stuff!

And the White House burned, burned, burned,
And we’re the one’s that did it!
It burned, burned, burned,
While the president ran and cried.
It burned, burned, burned,
And things were very historical.
And the Americans ran and cried like a bunch of little babies
Waa waa waah!
In the War of 1812!

mandatory extended work hours (including Saturdays) for salaried employees: good or bad.

Don't make me quote Battle of New Orleans.

Don't make me quote Battle of New Orleans.

Two weeks aftter a peace treaty was signed, so it doesn't count.

Alright, let's call it a draw.

I'll have a steak sandwich and ... a steak sandwich.

Oh, and f*ck Dick Cheney.

Korea? Draw.
Vietnam? Loss.
Gulf War? Draw.
Somalia? Loss.
Beirut? Draw.

If you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at? Have at it.

This is summarised as "Yeah, and we're still that stupid...":

Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled,
Scots, wham Bruce has aften led,
Welcome to your gory bed,
Or to Victorie!
Now's the day, and now's the hour:
See the front o' battle lour,
See approach proud Edward's power -
Chains and Slaverie!
Wha will be a traitor knave?
Wha will fill a coward's grave?
Wha sae base as be a slave?
Let him turn and flee!
Wha, for Scotland's King and Law,
Freedom's sword will strongly draw,
Freeman stand, or Freeman fa',
Let him on wi' me!
By Oppression's woes and pains!
By your sons in servile chains!
We will drain our dearest veins,
But they shall be free!
Lay the proud usurpers low!
Tyrants fall in every foe!
Liberty's in every blow! -
Let us do or die!

(Possibly the only national anthem whose author cautiously said: "let them insert it as a thing they have met with by accident, & unknown to me.")

K. Drum:

    it's foolish to paint Wal-Mart or the broader business community as "evil." They aren't, any more than ordinary human beings are evil. It's just that, left to their own devices, both humans and corporations tend to act solely in their own self-interest. That's why we have laws to control human behavior, and it's why we need laws and regulations to control corporate behavior.

Dick Cheney

You'll never find a more wretched purveyor of scum and villainy.

I don't know how seriously to take 10-1; presumably he's counting the American Revolution, 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, and Korea as wins and Vietnam as a loss (admittedly several of those are debatable, but I think if you're going to count only one war as a loss, it has to be Vietnam). But that only gets me to 8-1. This was 1981, so you can't count Panama or the first Gulf War, so I'm not sure what else he's counting. But I suspect there wasn't a lot of research put into the line. It's just humorous.

cleek: Just because the vast mass of people aren't evil doesn't mean that no individuals are; and I'd say that Wal-Mart could definitely count as "evil" under some definitions (if such even makes sense when referring to corporations).

maybe his wording is a little soft, but i don't think Drum was implying that nobody is evil - at least i didn't read it that way.

You'll never find a more wretched purveyor of scum and villainy.

We must be cautious.

Korea? Draw.
Vietnam? Loss.
Gulf War? Draw.
Somalia? Loss.
Beirut? Draw.

WWII (Pacific)? Win.
WWII (Europe)? Sat back and loet the Russians do the hard work, and then had a spasm of activity near the end so the Reds wouldn't overrun *all* of Europe.

Tell that to the families of the 300k dead, PIATOR. Tell that to those who fought and lived to tell about it.

WWII (Pacific)? Win

ever played Civilization? Throwing atomic bombs doesn't really count ...

But I give you WW2 EU wholeheartedly, love Band of Brothers and will be eternally grateful.

WWII (Europe)? Sat back and loet the Russians do the hard work, and then had a spasm of activity near the end so the Reds wouldn't overrun *all* of Europe.

Hardly. Without western assistance, Russia would have lost. They very nearly did anyhow; the Soviets strongly considered abandoning Leningrad and making a deal with the Nazis until Hitler turned Army Group Center south, giving the Soviet Army the breathing room it needed.

F*ck Katherine Harris, too.

Throwing atomic bombs doesn't really count ...

Ummm...in the real world, as opposed to a computer game, the war in the Pacific was a brutal struggle that saw a devastating number of casualties on both sides.

I bet you didn't think this open thread would lead to a refight of WWII, eh?

I bet you didn't think this open thread would lead to a refight of WWII, eh?

If there is one thing I have learned since my arrival here, it is that attempting to predict the commentariat's responses to anything is well beyond my ability.

But on the plus side, the Army trained me to refight WWII, so I'm good with that kind of conflict. ;)

What was the toll for Saipan, alone? 3500 dead; 15,000 wounded?

Just a stroll around the block, really. Then there was Iwo Jima. Piece of cake.

I bet you didn't think this open thread would lead to a refight of WWII, eh?

Well I tried to get things off to a good start with random movie quotes, but that obviously didn't work (not that my "f*ck Dick Cheney" comment didn't contribute to the general malaise).

nobody's denying individual soldier's suffering and loss, but if you want to play numbers games, the millions of dead russian soldiers kinda put things in perspective

Without western assistance, Russia would have lost.

While I don't think the allies "sat back", I think a Soviet loss without western assistance is pretty debatable. Why do you think so, Andrew?

I'm not trying to denigrate the immense suffering endured by the Russians during WWII, only to point out that the West wasn't just a spectator during that period.

I think PIATOR's version of the numbers game might just get you caned unconscious by a bunch of VFW octogenarians, were you to voice it within earshot. Just to introduce another perspective.

...only to point out that the West wasn't just a spectator during that period.

Sure. But the tide turned for the Soviets at Stalingrad, and by that time they had set up their factories well beyond the reach of the Germans, so I'm not sure either how they could have lost unless they received western allied assistance, unless you think that Hitler's push south was a direct consequence of the entry of the US into the war. But they would have likely done that anyway.

Without lend-lease, the Soviets wouldn't have had the materiel to turn back the German invasion. While Wikipedia has its problems, I think this piece gives a pretty good overview of how important the West was to the USSR's eventual victory over the Nazis.

I read PIATOR's comment as one about the mechanics of playing Civilization, not on any sort of realworld aspects (for the record, I played a lot of S&T games as a kid, but never got into Civilization)

Thanks, Andrew. I had heard that the supplies were far less than that, but those statements were probably based on shipment of actual weaponry. The locomotives, railway cars, and truck figures are pretty impressive, and probably allowed Soviet industry to concentrate on producing T-34s.

Off topic-- whatever the topic is--but thanks, Andrew, for joining Obwi. I enjoy your posts.

I read PIATOR's comment as one about the mechanics of playing Civilization

Oh, sorry; hadn't noticed that gameplaying had made an appearance in the thread at that point.

Sorry, got confused, novkant was the Civ reference, PIOTR suggested that Pacific was a win.

Well, CharleyCarp may not want to cite "the Battle of New Orleans" - but I will! The tune is catchier than that Canadian thing, anyway.....

Well, in eighteen and fourteen we took a little trip
along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans,
And we caught the bloody British near the town of New Orleans.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

Well, I see'd Mars Jackson walkin down the street
talkin' to a pirate by the name of Jean Lafayette [pronounced La-feet]
He gave Jean a drink that he brung from Tennessee
and the pirate said he'd help us drive the British in the sea.

The French said Andrew, you'd better run,
for Packingham's a comin' with a bullet in his gun.
Old Hickory said he didn't give a dang,
he's gonna whip the britches off of Colonel Packingham.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

Well, we looked down the river and we see'd the British come,
and there must have been a hundred of 'em beatin' on the drum.
They stepped so high and they made their bugles ring
while we stood by our cotton bales and didn't say a thing.

Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
if we didn't fire a musket til we looked 'em in the eyes.
We held our fire til we see'd their faces well,
then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave a yell.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

Well, we fired our cannon til the barrel melted down,
so we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round.
We filled his head with cannon balls and powdered his behind,
and when they tetched the powder off, the gator lost his mind.

We'll march back home but we'll never be content
till we make Old Hickory the people's President.
And every time we think about the bacon and the beans,
we'll think about the fun we had way down in New Orleans.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin,
But there wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

Well, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast the hounds couldn't catch 'em
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
But there wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

The tune is catchier than that Canadian thing, anyway.....

Like I said, two weeks too late, doesn't count.

Besides, how can you compare that biased account with anything by a group called "Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie?"

Hardly. Without western assistance, Russia would have lost.

Nope - did some checking once. The high point of the German campaign was the grab at Moscow - this failed a week before Lend Lease support reached Moscow. Everything after that, the slow grind back over the Ukraine and into Germany, was preordained as the Soviets drowned Germany in superior manpower.

Let me stress that - the US support certainly helped the Soviets, but the Germans lost the war before it kicked in.

Tell that to the families of the 300k dead, PIATOR.

The US lost slightly over 400,000 men. Although I'm unable to quickly find a breakdown, the vast majority of these would have been in the Pacific campaign. I'd estimate 100,000-120,000 fighting the Germans - feel free to provide a correction if you can.

The Russians, on the other hand, lost about 11 million in the armed forces and another 11 million civilians.

The US lost about 0..3% of its population as military casualties. My own country lost 0.7%. The Russians, bless their bloodthirsty little hearts, lost 6.4% as military casualties and a further 6.8% as civilian casualties.

The Commonwealth was fighting against Germany from 1939. The US got involved in North Africa, late 1942.

The Russians, on the other hand, lost about 11 million in the armed forces and another 11 million civilians.

Fighting a war on your own soil can do that. I think you've suitably demonstrated that the Russians had it lots worse than we did (which point was never in contention, note, so I'm wondering why you bothered) but not quite gotten around to explaining how having spent over a hundred thousand lives in Europe equates to letting others do the drudge work.

300k or 400k; I won't quibble over that. Every source I've seen on the Internet says 300k, but 400k wouldn't surprise me. If by definition losing less than one percent of Russia makes us loafers, loafers we are. I just don't agree with that conclusion, though.

I think it's rather pernicious to try and figure out who 'won', but I pass on this point, the civilian casualties for Stalingrad were 1.5 million, which is greater than the combined military casualties of the US and the Commonwealth combined.

On another tack, I just want to point out this bipartisan effort toward a more transparent government.

Note to self: write to Mel Martinez about this today.

Thank you, lily.

"Hardly. Without western assistance, Russia would have lost."

"Nope - did some checking once. The high point of the German campaign was the grab at Moscow - this failed a week before Lend Lease support reached Moscow. Everything after that, the slow grind back over the Ukraine and into Germany, was preordained as the Soviets drowned Germany in superior manpower."

Err, I disagree. They may have stopped the Germans in front of Moscow at the end of 1941 before significant amounts of lendlease arrived; but there is a good chance that the Red Army would have bled itself white before taking Berlin without lend lease. Yes the Soviets had superior numbers, but even with lend lease the Red Army of 1945 was smaller than the one in 1943-44. Without those trucks, locomotives and other supplies, they would have had to bleed even more to manage that advance and imho, the Red Army would probably have bled out on the way.

Note, this is not in any way shape or form meant to diminish the Russian achievement. The comparison that most impressed me was was an estimate that the casualties in Leningrad exceeded the total United States deaths in all the wars in its history


Following a different point, Wikipedia gives US combat dread by theater as 182,070 for Europe-Atlantic and 106,207 for Asia-Pacific. This is reasonable because the bulk of the dead were suffered by the Army, and most of the Army was fighting in Europe. As big as it was, the entire Pacific War was essentially a side show to Europe (the production split was app 70/30 between Europe and the Pacific).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties see footnote 53

Donald

there is a good chance that the Red Army would have bled itself white before taking Berlin

Indeed. The Red Army was just about at the end of its rope by the time it took Berlin. Remove lend lease and Allied actions in North Africa, Italy and France from the equation, and the Soviets would likely have sued for peace.

For PIATOR and the others who somehow think that your effectiveness in a war is measured in how much woe the enemy manages to inflict on you, you really need to get a clue. Letting someone else do all the dying (which anyway is not what happened at all) is a splendid example of effectiveness according to an expert like Sun Zi. What do you think war is, some kind of sport? Success in war is not measured by how big your sacrifice is. Your sacrifice is a measure of failure. Playing up how much you have been hurt is a ploy in the battered-spouse pity game, not war.

For PIATOR and the others who somehow think that your effectiveness in a war is measured in how much woe the enemy manages to inflict on you, you really need to get a clue.

I try to assume that everyone chatting here already has a clue. Of course, part of that may be me trying not to appear arrogant by claiming that others don't have a clue, which also would imply that I think myself chock-full of clues, or that I want to make sure that everyone here know that I'm clue-filled to bursting.

I think it's pretty clear that the Russians almost lost and that lend lease was integral in turning the war around. It's also clear that had the Russians lost, there would have been no way for the allies to win the war.

No way overstates the case. Had the USSR made a separate peace, however, the war in Europe would have ended with atomic weapons.

Hmm...well, it's not as if we had any spares, at the time.

Since the agreement with the British was Europe first, Fat Man and Little Boy would have gone to Europe rather than Japan.

Hmm...well, it's not as if we had any spares, at the time.

John Toland mentions in The Rising Sun that there more more nukes in the pipeline, and targets selected. I think Tokyo was to be number five.

Andrew, are you telling us that that had Hitler controlled the Soviet Union (he wouldn't have been interested in peace) the allies could have won the war? Even the nuclear option would have been ineffective then (well, unless you would have wanted to flatten half of Europe maybe), given the psychology exhibited by the German leadership towards the end of WW2.

novakant,

When I say the USSR would have sued for a separate peace, I do not mean that the USSR would have been a wholly-occupied subsidiary of Germany. They would still have been a lesser threat on Greater Germany's eastern border. Further, the Allies didn't show a great deal of concern about bombing German cities with conventional explosives. I see little reason to believe they would have hesitated to turn every major German city into radioactive slag if that was what it took.

Andrew,
Possibly of interest (if you haven't seen it) would be Alperovitz's book _The decision to use the atomic bomb_ Discussion of the book occured on several of the H-net lists and the points are quite well summarized here.

Since the agreement with the British was Europe first, Fat Man and Little Boy would have gone to Europe rather than Japan.

Yes, I figured that. If Hitler had decent intel and was relatively sane, he'd have known we only had the two bombs.

And sure, we had some "in the pipeline", so to speak, but how far back? How many more cities would we be prepared to nuke?

But did Hitler have that level of intel? I don't know the answers to those questions, but I think the answer is we'd be willing to drop as many as necessary. It would have been ugly, however, and we should all be glad that the USSR did hang in there and suffer as it did to soak up a majority of the Wehrmacht's attention.

And sure, we had some "in the pipeline", so to speak, but how far back? How many more cities would we be prepared to nuke?

The list went to five, if I recall correctly. And nuking Tokyo would have reduced the ability of the country to surrender, IMO.

FYI, Wikipedia states that after Hiroshima, three bomb assemblies were at Tinian, the base from which the Nagasaki bombing raid was launched, and I suspect that more were in transit at the time.

Well, Heisenberg and the other German atomic scientists were being held in a house that was filled with recording bugs, and when they found out about the bombing of Hiroshima, they were stunned that the US had progressed to the level of creating a workable device.

One also has to wonder if the US (with the UK, France, and the other Occupied territories's proximity) would have nuked a German city. Japan's distance, both physically and psychologically reduced the problems with that decision.

Did anyone understand the risks of fallout, etc., from the bombing? As I understood it, the bomb was initially treated as little more than a really big bomb.

One also has to wonder if the US (with the UK, France, and the other Occupied territories's proximity) would have nuked a German city.

Dresden.

Well, Trinity offered lessons in fallout, if anyone had bothered to pay attention. Which they hadn't, as evidenced by the deaths of John Wayne, Agnes Moorehead and lots of others from assorted cancers due to casting a movie in the fallout path.

That could be urban legend, but I swear I saw a PBS special on that. Well, here's something.

I seem to recall quite a bit less spare fissionable material in inventory at the time we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I suppose I should reread.

Guess that wasn't Trinity, though. So: I'd conclude that although physicists may have been aware of the fallout issue, the government either didn't understand it or chose to ignore it. Or, even more sinister, allowed people to be exposed to it in order to evaluate aftereffects.

None of the above would surprise me.

Yes, but after Dresden, there was some reevaluation about the tactics, especially when the Germans utilized it for propaganda purposes.

Wikipedia notes Churchill's withdrawn memo, which was replaced by this

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so called 'area-bombing' of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our allies… We must see to it that our attacks do no more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy's war effort.

However, even after such hesitancy in the European theatres, the tactics were being refined for use against the Japanese. I think, given the research effort, there would have been greater understanding of the effects if the war had been prolonged by a Russian truce, and there would have been some hesitancy. Perhaps it would not have been enough to stop the Allies from reducing a German city to radioactive slag, but assuming that it would happen would seem to assume there were no difference between our perceptions of Germans and Japanese, which I don't think is the case.

In regard to ten wars won, 1 lost as of 1981--

Revolutionary War (Won)
Quasi War with France (sort of Won)
War with Tripoli (sort of Won)
War of 1812 (effectively a tie)
Mexican War (Won)
Civil War (Won by Union)
Spanish-American War (Won)
Phillipines Revolt (Won)
World War I (Won)
World War II (Won)
Korea (Tie)
Vietnam (Loss)

This leaves out Indian Wars, which would massively increase the 'won' total.

If you count 1812, the Quasi-War, and the War with Tripoli as wins, then you get 10-1-1 as of 1981.

Excuse me, but the Canadians pretty much shut down the American goals of the war of 1812. Result: Canadian victory.

Too bad we lost the Pig War of 1859.

Indeed. The Red Army was just about at the end of its rope by the time it took Berlin. Remove lend lease and Allied actions in North Africa, Italy and France from the equation, and the Soviets would likely have sued for peace.

Now we've gone from military judgement to political judgement, and I don't think I agree, for two reasons:
1)I think that the Red Army, however worn down, would've proven superior to the Germans, and Stalin would not have allowed Germany to survive. He was a thorough and bloody-minded human being. Plus, I cannot see upside for the Russians in ending the war prematurely- with Germany possibly able to make a peace in the West & then rearm. Perhaps he would even suspect that this was the West's aim (& reason for hypothetically staying their hand), that Germany might survive and be aimed again at Russia.
2)I don't know how much longer the German government would've held up past '45, with a protracted losing campaign in the East. It was a pretty unstable structure by '45.
And I think a peace with Russia might've destroyed it without the necessity of nuking Munich. When the Priest-King who was to lead the nation to eternal glory falls, he falls a long way...

it's strange - nobody seems to want to entertain the plausible thought that Germany could actually have won the war in Europe;
I think it is vital to consider this possibility to get an understanding of the motivations at the time and I don't see how hindsight conclusively proves the contrary;
as for nukes, I'm with liberal japonicus in that there were certain cultural factors, or let's just call it racism, that allowed that facilitated the use in Japan but would have made it very hard to drop them in Europe; and even given that possibility the effectiveness would have to be questioned, if the 3rd reich had stretched from Spain to Wladivostok

"Indeed. The Red Army was just about at the end of its rope by the time it took Berlin. Remove lend lease and Allied actions in North Africa, Italy and France from the equation, and the Soviets would likely have sued for peace."

"Now we've gone from military judgement to political judgement, and I don't think I agree, for two reasons:
1)I think that the Red Army, however worn down, would've proven superior to the Germans, and Stalin would not have allowed Germany to survive. He was a thorough and bloody-minded human being. Plus, I cannot see upside for the Russians in ending the war prematurely- with Germany possibly able to make a peace in the West & then rearm. Perhaps he would even suspect that this was the West's aim (& reason for hypothetically staying their hand), that Germany might survive and be aimed again at Russia.
2)I don't know how much longer the German government would've held up past '45, with a protracted losing campaign in the East. It was a pretty unstable structure by '45.
And I think a peace with Russia might've destroyed it without the necessity of nuking Munich. When the Priest-King who was to lead the nation to eternal glory falls, he falls a long way..."

I think I disagree, but I need to clarify. If you are saying that the Soviet Union could have defeated the Germans without lendlease, that is arguable. I tend to disagree, but it is arguable. If you are saying the Soviets could have defeated Germany if the Western Allies stayed neutral or pursued a phony war while going full bore against Japan; that is highly unlikely.

The main reasons are that in addition to Soviet forces being weakened by needing to produce their own trucks and locomotives the Germans would have been strengthened by not having to put up with the West. In particular, the Soviets would have probably never gained the air superiority thay had by 1944-45 because the Luftwaffe would not have been worn down by the bomber campaign.
While the air war did not prevent German production from increasing, it certainly took a chunk out of its potential increase. Losing on the Eastern Front would have served to concentrated their minds and bring in Speer the way the bomber offensive did historically. German production might well have exceeded Russian production, except for the bombers.

In addition, while the bulk of German forces were already committed to the east, the additional forces that could be freed up from the West would have been very useful. For another example of these forces, think of the effects of another 1000+ 88s and 200-300,000 men on the eastern front. These would have also been available without the bomber offensive, sinnce German home flak defenses could have been much lighter (note, the actual manpower involved with flak was more like 500,000, but much of them were not fit for frontline combat).

Note, I am not saying the Germans would have completely conquered the Soviet Union. I think they could have conquered European Russia up to the Urals and the portion east of the Urals would have sued for peace.

Donald

Possibly interesting">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washington/30armitage.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26eiQ3D5094Q26enQ3D8147a124a4926c40Q26hpQ3DQ26exQ3D1156910400Q26partnerQ3DhomepageQ26pagewantedQ3Dprint&OP=551acf29Q2FQ239SEQ23MpQ5DPkppnQ3CQ23Q3CAAQ3EQ23ArQ23RAQ239UPLQ7D(Q22np(Q23RAUkzQ7DnUQ22SOLnz-">interesting development in the Plame case.

For PIATOR and the others who somehow think that your effectiveness in a war is measured in how much woe the enemy manages to inflict on you, you really need to get a clue.

I was under the impression everyone knew 80% of Germany's casualties were suffered against the Russians.

I think it's pretty clear that the Russians almost lost and that lend lease was integral in turning the war around.

No, I don't think it's clear at all. I'd need to see a better analysis of it than has been presented here.

Russia did not win the war. Germany lost the war, and it did so by running out of men and resources (mainly oil).

Possibly interesting development in the Plame case.

Not nearly as interesting as the continuing development that Karl Rove still has his job in the White House.

Today, it's 1150 days since Karl Rove violated his security clearance agreement by discussing Valerie Plame's identity with reporters - the Cheney/Rove/Libby leak to traduce Joseph Wilson, that predated Armitage's separate leak.

George W. Bush claimed that anyone responsible for leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent would be dealt with. Yet, Karl Rove, absolutely responsible, is still working for Bush - 1150 days later.

Interesting, that.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad