Malooga,
While I wouldn’t question the presence of black ops personnel (probably not current Hereford Hooligans but very likely past members now working for the private sector) I’d rather that you and billmon didn’t lump all Brits in together on this. The bulk of Brits are against the Iraq adventure. Gross generalisations are to be expected from bigoted right-wingers so I’m disappointed to see it in this forum and on the pages of the Whiskey Bar. After all, if a Brit condemned all Americans on the actions of Bush and his string-pullers I’m sure there’d be more than a few complaints here.
And for what it’s worth, according to the TV news here in Australia tonight, the captured Brits had already been handed over by the Iraqi police to the local militia. Given that knowledge it’s no surprise that a rescue op was carried out. This wasn’t a feel-good-filmed-for-domestic-tv-consumption Jessica Lynch moment…
EtNR

Posted by: Ethelred the Nearly Ready | Sep 20 2005 12:33 utc | 4

Feel free to generalise about your own nation. Your writing is better than most so I was saddened to see a wholesale condemnation of “Brits”.
As for the story at hand, some more detail is available from the Telegraph (not noted Blairites):

The SAS men are thought to have been on a close observation patrol when they were stopped at a checkpoint. They apparently identified themselves but shots were fired when the police tried to arrest them.
“A policeman approached them, then one of these guys fired at him,” said a Basra official, Mohammed al-Abadi. “The police managed to capture them but they refused to say what their mission was and suggested that we ask their commander.”

Early reports implied that it was some kind of assassination mission but that seems not to be the case. Also this:

Soldiers have been told not to stop if challenged while working under-cover, as insurgents often masquerade as police officers.
Despite the violence on the streets, many Iraqis in Basra said they supported the British military presence. One, Haider Samad, said: “Locals are angry with what is happening today.”

It’s hardly comparable with say, the [former] residents of Fallujah and their attitude to Bush’s boys and girls.
Now if you really want to take a pop at Blair then I’d suggest either this, this, this, or this…far more deserving of your attention and talents.

Posted by: Ethelred the Nearly Ready | Sep 20 2005 14:37 utc | 6

@ nearly, please don’t get all sensitive on us. of course we remember the million plus that showed up to protest the war in london. now , if only we could produce some new whistleblowers aka dsm w/regards to NO/fema/bushco

Posted by: annie | Sep 20 2005 15:07 utc | 8

[comment by annie moved from the EPA thread]
i love a good laugh in the morn. thanks for the jellyfish billmon.
yesterday i was astonished to read this quote from a popular blogger “It’s not as if the commission would find anything to make things even worse for their failed president. ” i think it’s becoming abundantly clear an investigation could make things much much worse for the president. we are just beginning to scratch the surface.

Posted by: b | Sep 20 2005 16:11 utc | 10

I’m pretty open about my dislike of the idea of lumping people together as a nation and then blaming everyone in that nation for the sins of their government.
However I do feel that the Brits have had a pretty free ride up until now. They have been in a let’s have our cake and eat it too situation with Iraq.
Yes they did send a big mob of protesters out in the streets prior to the invasion but it didn’t do jackshit. Now that’s the way the cookie crumbles, but when they got an opportunity to vote on this they backed Tony Blair in a way that wasn’t too different to the way US voters returned Bush. That is despite the fact that their government was involved in the slaughter of 100,000 Iraqi civilians in their name; when they had the chance to put an end to it they put their own selfish needs ie Labour’s public spending ahead of that of the Iraqi’s whose situation was far more dire than their own.
One could hazard a guess at the origin of the term perfidious Albion.
The real issue though is the way that the British media have applied almost exactly the same brown-nosing jingoism to this story that the US MSM have to their coverage of Iraq.
For example many of the Brit stories failed to mention that an Iraqi policeman had been shot and died during the initial firefight. Those that did simply skated over it by terming it an allegation. Similarly with Ethelred’s contention that the squaddies had been handed over to the militia.
It seems to me that this was done to prevent the brits from storming into the jail and freeing two men that the Iraqis wanted to investigate for an unlawful killing.
Al the way through the disturbance the Brits appeared to be the ones upping the ante, taking the conflict to the next level.
I have no doubt that the locals are getting very pissed off with the weak kneed response that the brit army gives when unlawful killings and assaults by their troops are reported to them.
Secondly while the quislings cowering up in the Green Zone ‘ordered’ that these spies be released; as we have discussed many times in these pages those fellas appear to have more to do with providing the invaders with a thin coat of legitimacy than actually governing Iraq.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 21 2005 0:46 utc | 12

Why jj? Because the Brits, like the Americans since Negreponte visited, have been running their own Black Ops teams. These are guys who run around killing civilians while pretending to be Muslim insurgents. This is supposed to suppress the insurgents popular support.
This form of murder is called “counter-insurgency.”
Ethelred, it matters not at all what I think of the Brits. It matters what the Iraqis think. The easy days for the Brits in Basrah seem to be about over. I think that burning tank with the poor fool leaping out in flames may be the foretaste.

Posted by: Gaianne | Sep 21 2005 3:48 utc | 14

HOLY SHIT SHERLOCK…Lookie here what I found, hiding in plain site on CNN…Son of a sewer rat..
An Iraqi official, who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity, said the soldiers’ arrests stemmed from an incident earlier in the day.
The official said two unknown gunmen in full Arabic dress began firing on civilians in central Basra, wounding several, including a traffic police officer. There were no fatalities, the official said.
The two gunmen fled the scene but were captured and taken in for questioning, admitting they were British Marines carrying out a “special security task,” the official said.link(Nice photo of demolished jail as added bonus.)
Stirring up Civil War by Brit. Blackops guys, just like we said. W/car packed w/explosives they were doubtless on their way to plant bombs after that.

Posted by: jj | Sep 21 2005 6:22 utc | 16

Thank you, jj, this perfectly proves my earlier point about us not knowing the full story yet.
CNN say they were Marines – not the same as the SAS that everyone else has reported – and also that no Iraqis were killed – as everyone else has reported. So which version of the story do you believe (or want to believe?). Maybe you want it both ways.
Also try this for size:

In a statement, Brig Lorimer said that under Iraqi law the soldiers should have been handed over to coalition authorities, but this failed to happen despite repeated requests.

So what would you do in that situation, jj? Let them be handed over to terrorists or do everything possible to get them back? Well, the evil Brits tried the correct path first of all:

On Monday afternoon the Ministry of Defence said British forces were negotiating for the release of the two soldiers. Under Iraqi law, the pair should have been handed over to the coalition forces. At one point, the Iraqi interior minister, Bayan Jabr, is understood to have demanded their release, but the police refused.

As I said in my first post, I have little doubt about black ops going on but you’re going to have to come up with something more than wishful thinking in this case.
One thing no one here has managed to answer yet; if these were a a pair of assassins why didn’t they manage to shoot their way out of the situation but instead let themselves be arrested? Hardly the way of some evil black ops types, eh? I’m sorry but there is more to this story than meets the eye and premature ejaculation journalism is not the way to find out or foster well-reasoned debate.

Posted by: Ethelred the Nearly Ready | Sep 21 2005 8:32 utc | 18

@ nearly
“Under Iraqi law, the pair should have been handed over to the coalition forces”
oh, you mean the iraqi law we shoved down their throats
if these were a a pair of assassins why didn’t they manage to shoot their way out of the situation but instead let themselves be arrested?
maybe because they were outmatched,da.’let’ themselves be arrested??? surely you are at the wrong bar, we don’t serve whatever kool aid you are drinking

Posted by: annie | Sep 21 2005 14:46 utc | 20

I’m a brit, a european, a human… Choose your favourite. It is pointless using group designators unless there is some factual basis. It seems. I think. “Americans are…” is code for “The Americans I am thinking of are…” Someone mentioned using Amerikan to specify certain people–from the states. Robert Anton Wilson wondered how many jews Hitler actually met. A hundred, two hundred?
I voted Lib Dem, we ended up with a labour councillor coz in our area the vote split Lib Dem 11,000, green 9,000, Labour 19,000 (or somesuch). The Lib Dems had a tax policy which sounded shakier the more journalists asked questions about it. May be next time.
Some people are just SO sensitive! Including me, of course. But I think it is a virus. The over-reaction is a disease which, when bred among stupid violent people leads to… Remember Bill Hicks, saying when a newspaper called George Bush a “pussy” for not taking out Sadaam, “That guy was so mad, you know? He was, ‘Hold me back, hold me back!’ Call me a pussy, eh? We’ll see about that.”
Mind you, the flavour of a bar is set by the residents; they’re allowed to shout at new-comers, if they want and the barman don’t mind.
Whisky sour, please.
Argh!
Re: the soldiers. A friend of mine has all his docs for joining the police, but is having second thoughts. Since Blair of the police bent the truth painfully after the shooting in London of an innocent Brazillian (too far from terror, too close to “could have been anyone”), well. The truly cynical word on the street is that MI5 can and will do whatever they want. John Le Carre, Permanent Friends. I enjoyed it.
I suppose a political point might be that the squaddies are following orders, but they are in a position where if they only follow orders, nutters from black ops (or whatever) will make idiots of them.
Or something completely different. Just thought I’d perk up a moment. Back to my drink. Shlurp. Puff.

Posted by: Argh | Sep 21 2005 15:50 utc | 22

it has been clear & is clear that counterinsurgency operations existed in iraq even before the criminal & immoral invasion
it is also clear – that for all the dumb & exceptionally venal forms of mythology about the men pf special operations – they piss & shit their pants like the rest of us – when confronted by the other side of violence
those tankers get what they deserve – no more no less – they are nopt victims – they are perpetrators – whatever way you want to look at it – even if you want to pasolini-ise the sons & daughters of the poor who choose this form of service to the state
i feel not an ounce of sympathy – not at all – power can & is articulated by courageous & inventive individuals – who can resist being or becoming a ‘good german’
this wave of murder that has flooded the people of iraq – in the form of a criminal invasion & occupation – needs to be dealt with & i for one don’t care how it is dealt with – at this point – even the mad funadamentalists have my respect because of their courage & willingness to enter into battle with the monster
i will not listen to thhe sobstories of soldiers who have committed & are committing criminal actions each & every day – they deserve justice & if that comes in the form of a crowd & some molotov cocktails – then so be it
i don’t give a flying fuck about little kenny form lancashire or wherever these creeps come from – they are a species of criçminal only the 20th century could invent
these sas, delta, seals – whatever – they are monsters so trahic in their proportions they would be like richard lll & all the fluency of that diseased imagination
today & in the coming days this most civil face of the occupation will be decked as if they were hit by the great sonny liston

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 21 2005 23:06 utc | 24

R’giap,
Ditto you comments about the soldiers who suddenly find themselves in serious strife in the split-second when you realise that the all Andy McNab scenarios that you reveled in are exposed as crap.

Posted by: theodor | Sep 21 2005 23:51 utc | 26

sorry about the online redrafting…

Posted by: theodor | Sep 21 2005 23:56 utc | 28

theodor
yes their little fright – not to be compared to the shame of the sas murders of three unarmed ira members in gilbraltar
their little narratives of supermen against the arab hordes fianly had a little moment of satori at least until – general command – also shat its pants & called in everything & forgetting of quite quaint notions like sovereignty – for example – in any case as they would say back at the club – what would these arabs know of sovereignty – we taught it to them for goodsakes harald

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 22 2005 0:04 utc | 30

& it would seem as if nature itself is creating its own form of insurgency

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 22 2005 0:38 utc | 32

jj,
I don’t get the Galloway-worship in the US. He’s a loud Stalinist dolt. He browbeat Hitchens in the debate because he’s good at the stump speech and playing to the audience. Hitchens crumpled under the volume. He’s considered a clown in UK–and not just by the Blairites. His fawnings over the Saddam’s and Assad’s of this world simply can’t be excused. His ‘anti-imperialist’ tirades sound just like the ones you used to hear on Radio Moscow circa 1979 when Afghanistan was just kicking off.

Posted by: theodor | Sep 22 2005 1:47 utc | 34

Groucho,
If that is the best you can manage you really are wasting your time. I wasn’t even addressing you my friend. ‘Proud’? Get a life.

Posted by: theodor | Sep 22 2005 3:02 utc | 36

I don’t know that it’s Galloway worship. He’s the only legislator in UK or DC who has been on the mark from Day 1 about Iraq. He may be a Stalinist, but have you heard any American legislators?
Similarly I’m sure I would disagree w/virtually all of Paul Craig Roberts’ ideas on economics, the good society, etc., but he’s writing some excellent critiques of Am. military & economic policy at the moment.
Happily, in neither case, do we have to confront them ascending to positions of power, so I don’t see what harm their influence can do, whatever the rest of their baggage.

Posted by: jj | Sep 22 2005 3:31 utc | 38

Heres one to get em railed up….
“What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out . . . and those people who were impoverished died.” —
Ted Kennedy – on Hurricane Katrina
“Ditto” — Mary Jo Kopechne

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 22 2005 3:32 utc | 40

i for one was really excited by the cajons on mr galloway. if only we had a few dems in the senate who could spew like him.
the way he did his thing w/ congress that day , loverly
Now, senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life’s blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time.
I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.
I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaida. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on September 11 2001.
I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives – 1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies, 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac, who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today.
Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq’s wealth.
Have a look at the real oil-for-food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq’s wealth went missing on your watch.
Have a look at Haliburton and the other American corporations that stole not only Iraq’s money but the money of the American taxpayer.
Have a look at the oil that you didn’t even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where.
Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.
Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own government.

Posted by: annie | Sep 22 2005 3:50 utc | 42

While drinking, how about watching Godfather w/no horse’s head in the bed. Censored in the Name of the Lord

Posted by: jj | Sep 22 2005 4:44 utc | 44

Maybe this was the point of the British military exercise in Basra the other day – Chimpy Definitely didn’t want Blair to withdraw the troops, but he was under domestic political pressure, so send the boys into town to shoot the place up, maybe place a few bombs, let it explode & you have yr. ready made excuse…
Plans to withdraw substantial numbers of British troops from Iraq next month have been abandoned after the explosion of violence in Basra on Monday night. The decision has dismayed military commanders, who are concerned about growing pressure on their soldiers.
“We are not planning a withdrawal,” a senior defense source said yesterday, referring to a plan to hand over control of two southern provinces to the Iraqis.
link

Posted by: jj | Sep 22 2005 4:53 utc | 46

Whenever we fall for the crock that the people who espouse the ideas we support have to be whiter than white purer than a nun marrying her little jesus we hand control of our own agenda over to hypocrites well used to using selective morality to line their pockets.
George Galloway is a human being who, being a politician, has the usual flaws of hubris and ego-centricity. So what? Does that make his speeches any less to the point.
On the other hand Oona King that darling of the new left made it clear she knew which side her bread was buttered on by supporting Blair’s invasion of Iraq and furthering her political career. She’s not a bad person she’s a VICTIM. She’s been voted out because of racism and anti semitism, not because she took a position completely at odds with her Muslim voters’ wishes.
But Galloway isn’t a woman from a minority; he’s a male and a whitefella at that, so it doesn’t matter what he says if he takes on a victim he’s got to be either a Nazi or a Stalinist. Judging by Theodor’s post both at the same time.
It’s pitiful really. Why do we keep doing this? I don’t give a flying fuck what Galloway does to get his rocks off because he’s one of the few people in a position of power anywhere in the world that is speaking out of concern for Hassan or Abdul or Zarina.
Everyone else is kicking em in the guts to get votes.
Of course he’s doing it for self aggrandizement. He’s a politician! I don’t really think we need any more spokespeople for the oppressed apologising for their ‘extreme’ views to the usual mob of hustlers, god botherers and scumbags that fill up the airwaves with their anti-Arab vitriol.
If Galloway had gone into Congress that day with the attitude we consider ‘appropriate’ those smarmy shit eating senators would have handed him his head. He didn’t so they couldn’t.
Not only is he meant to slay the dragon he has to do it without any thought for himself at all.
You know I’ve never met anybody that has the self-confidence to take on the rampant evil in the world but never forgets to lift his hat and apologise for breaking wind.
Do such people exist? Or are they just an impossible idol created by the bad buggers to ensure that every time people find a voice, that voice can be shown to have feet of clay.
Old Ted Kennedy was an asshole around women so that means he can’t be correct about the immorality of leaving poor people to drown in their shit? I don’t see the connection. Enlighten me someone.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 22 2005 9:00 utc | 48

I don’t really think we need any more spokespeople for the oppressed apologising for their ‘extreme’ views
anyone who is outspoken is either a radical, a liberal, a hippie,ego centric,spewing,complaining,whatever happened to just plain ol’ communist??and exactly WHO is ever an appropriate spokesperson? sheehan has a following because a.she has a good excuse, her son died. b. she doesn’t look like a radical. i don’t give a FF what a persons faults are if they speak the truth.60% want out. they can’t paint all of us purple

Posted by: annie | Sep 22 2005 14:34 utc | 50

theodor
i”m afraid i’m with debs on this – according to that ancient dialectic – whoever is the enemy of my enemy

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 22 2005 23:51 utc | 52

I think we agree Debs, both on (most) of what Galloway says and what he is. But vis a vis his contretemps with Hitchens, it was all theatre. They both agree on much of the issues except one. G thinks it is all one dastardly scheme to further US imperialism, and H sees it as a single-issue debate i.e. that Saddam has gone and those involved now need to work with what they are confronted with. No-one wants the Baathists back in power except for a radicalised section of the Sunni minority. They (and if you believe an article in last week’s Guardian) and ‘Al Qaida in Iraq’ want to forment civil war with the Shia. What do we do about this? Continue whingeing about neocon projects and who was to blame for getting into this mess (the Galloway way)? Or think about how the US and the rest of the occupation force can get out quickly and leaving behind a moderately peaceful and moderately uncorrupt administration that can organise its economy and society in the ways that they want. I for one think they should abrogate all Bremmer’s decrees as a first act and take it from there. I don’t give a fuck about Islam or Judaism or Christianity, but if ‘democrats’ can work out ways in which the reality of these dogmas actually interact with each other in ways that are peaceful then a start can be made. This is going to take decades and the ‘troops out’ bellowing fro the pseudo-left would only led us into a deeper downward spiral.

Posted by: theodor | Sep 23 2005 1:51 utc | 54

No-one wants the Baathists back in power except for a radicalised section of the Sunni minority.
exsqueeze me. and what about the iranian backed shia and their loverly plans for fundi/islamtizing iraq? are you even suggesting we didn’t accomplish what years of iraq/iran war couldn’t. shall we all just pretend that once the sunni’s are domesticated everything will run swimmingly.
leaving behind a moderately peaceful and moderately uncorrupt administration that can organise its economy and society in the ways that they want.
where ever you get your water i want some…are you out of your everluvinmind?there is no ‘they want’ dude. we wrote the friggin constitution and paid thru the nose for it. your head is in the clouds . once again i will suggest, a different bar perhaps!

Posted by: annie | Sep 23 2005 3:49 utc | 56

Woke up this morning
Had the snitchens blues
felt like drinking Gordon’s
my Orwellian muse
Oh hate them islamofascists
whoever they are
time for a serious talk
with the underside of the bar
We’ve got to bring those wogs some learning
it needs a serious think
bomb ’em or shot ’em
God, I need a drink
People ask why I love W
He’s my soul-mate son
We’re both in denial
about Alco-Anon

Posted by: citizen k | Sep 23 2005 4:00 utc | 58

Love it citizen k; this I can understand, and its different.

Posted by: theodor | Sep 23 2005 4:25 utc | 60

you are in way over your head.
You just read from the autocue, ranting and flaming at the slightest line that is not wholly predictable. You sound like one of those types who wallow in self-righteousness. You secretly love what is going on in Iraq, you feel above it all and have all the answers.I’ve met dozens just like you when I was in socialist organisations, usually they were fleeing from cults of from christians. Does this find an echo? I was going to use the cliche ‘prolier than thou’, but I suspect you are just a middle-class pain in the arse who was a head-girl in a nice school and brooked no dissent at mealtimes and wish you were back there.

Posted by: theodor | Sep 23 2005 4:45 utc | 62

gee the tone seems kind of acrimonious around here this evening… whazzup? everyone stressing out over NOLA, Rita, or what?

Posted by: DeAnander | Sep 23 2005 5:06 utc | 64

The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It,
I also come here for the clever humour. And I think I agree with what you say. It’s late Friday afternoon here. Time for a strawberry spritzer.

Posted by: theodor | Sep 23 2005 5:36 utc | 66

theodor,
I for one think they should abrogate all Bremmer’s decrees as a first act and take it from there. I don’t give a fuck about Islam or Judaism or Christianity, but if ‘democrats’ can work out ways in which the reality of these dogmas actually interact with each other in ways that are peaceful then a start can be made. This is going to take decades and the ‘troops out’ bellowing fro the pseudo-left would only led us into a deeper downward spiral.
………………………..
On this part you are correct theodor. Problem is the US will not relinquish Bremmers edicts, nor will they abandon the bases. So under this non-negotiable demand — this obvious RNA viral neo colonial attempt to change the “Iraqi mind” into a complicit political drone, not unlike the Sha of Iran — what is to be salvaged morally for “staying the course”? Are we not talking an equivelants game here? I remember Carter calling the Shas regime ” the beacon of democracy in the middle east”. That of course was a joke, that not unlike the present circumstances, set the forces of real democracy back decades, through resistance by (the only) common denominator sure to work, the culture of Islam. So while your abhorence of Saddam, or the Baath party, may seem worth the price of US occupation and might indicate, as Hitchens would say, a need to untangle and placate the sectarian forces unleashed by the invasion — I ask you first, is there any indication that this is being accomplished, and why won’t the US agree to drop Bremmers edicts or the bases? Can you imagine the US would drop such demands, and be satisfied with no self interest other than a stable and independent Iraq. Think of how much smoother the constitutional process would be without the complications of writing US interests into it. See, the US has’nt now or ever had any material or real interest in doing such an idealistic thing, its always been about controling the resources of the middle east via Iraq. And in the end, I respect your vitrolic hatred of Saddam and the murderous oppression of his people. But, you must also acknowledge the parallel of indulgence by the US in its murderous occupation in that the CONTINUANCE of such occupation and murder is at best, on par with Saddams justification, and means of oppression — to bring civility to chaos. Yes, the longer the US remains in Iraq, the greater the likelyhood of it being seen in retrospect, as being worse than Saddam.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 23 2005 9:19 utc | 68

@ citizen k:
Do you think Genghis Khan will run in 2008?
I’m really tired of this pussy-footin around crap.

Posted by: Groucho | Sep 24 2005 1:10 utc | 70

Groucho: I’m sure you have read Senator Leahy’s statement on Mr. Kahn’s nomination to be Surgeon General.
After much deliberation, I will vote “yes” on Mr. Kahn’s nomination, and I promise to roll over, grovel, and bark like a pekinese, or offer up whatever of my internal or external organs still remain for vivisection, whenever Mr. Kahn or the President request.
I’m moved to tears by such patriotic bleating and senatorial dignity.

Posted by: citizen k | Sep 24 2005 3:25 utc | 72

“Han Fei” ? For the love of god Montressor, do you think that our NeoCons would stray from the architectonic spires of Greek philosophy as epitomized by Platos Retreat and Aristotle Onnasis for some wog philosopher who never even heard of the University of Chicago? Good golly, man, once you’ve experienced the heights, the bright lights of serious imperial policy in Arch-Viceroy Bremmer, why would a yen-ante Chinese potentate appeal to you. Besides the Ch’in appealed to Mao and our neo-cons are Trots. I’ve never heard of such

Posted by: citizen k | Sep 24 2005 3:38 utc | 74

groucho, somehow i missed your comment when i was scrolling upward. i actually did quite alot of fretting about this thread last night. i know i shouldn’t let this stuff get under my skin but it did. actually wrote a bunch of pathetic crap trying to defend myself and thank goodness thought better of it. wish i had the chops of some of the posters here . so thanks for the advice, i actually did quite a bit of flower smelling/nose picking today.
for what its worth, thank you.

Posted by: annie | Sep 24 2005 4:04 utc | 76