« The Straits of Hormuz, by Bablefish | Main | Civility - 3 May 2015 »

02 May 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

turcopolier

All

I have never found her to be attractive, but then, I have known some really good looking women. pl

Babak Makkinejad

"It is the goat that ought like the grass." as the Persian saying goes.

Or as the French say: "Chacun a son gout."

William R. Cumming

Sorry Richard but on October 17th, 1992, Bill Clinton not yet President and his finger elsewhere than on a trigger.

Richard Sale

Thanks for catching a real stupidity. The year was 1998.

Richard Sale

The year was 1998.

The Beaver

WRC

Me thinks It was October 17 1998, a couple of week before the Iraq Liberation Act and 2 months before Operation Desert Fox ( with the Brits as allies)

Laguerre

OK, Judith Miller is discredited. But she has many successors, who are ready to do the same thing. Elizabeth Sly, for example.

AndrewW

“Nobody is driven in to war by ignorance, and no one who thinks he will gain anything from it is deterred by fear.” - Hermocrates of Syracuse


I'm not inclined to believe the self-serving rationalizations of ambitious individuals. People like Judith Miller don't have a problem with the original decision to invade Iraq. They just don't like how it turned out and wish to avoid any responsibility for the fallout their actions have wrought.


Oh well. Just another day in a collapsing empire.

Allen Thomson


An excellent article, which I will save. But could I suggest a bit of copy editing? That's a pain, but it does help.

bth

For what she did to my family. For what she did to my country. Damn her. She knew what she was doing and she did it anyway.

Laguerre

A woman should not be judged on her appearance. That should be left to women,who judge their own.

Haralambos

Richard and anyone knowledgeable,
Thank you for this. I was struck by this interview and the comments: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13754

In the comments, several folks contend that the US knew there were no WMDs and that is why they could go in without the risk of triggering them or hitting sites with them thereby exposing the region to the various types of fallout. I had not entertained that thought back in the day as I wondered what we were risking with all the bombing. My thoughts at the time included one that we were unleashing terror with Shock and Awe, almost a perfect translation for Aristotle's definition of the effect tragedy in the spectacle of the Greek theater of the day.

walrus

Thank you for your penetrating essay Mr. Sale. My Father, an old intelligence hand, observed that he hoped that the U.S. had better (secret) evidence than what they presented to the world before the invasion because it certainly didn't convince him.

As for Judith Miller, I suspect you are being too kind to her. She had the tools, intelligence and experience to produce a credible analysis yet she chose, as Col. Boyd is quoted on another thread, to choose the the path to fame, rather than truth, at the crossroads.

Babak Makkinejad

Richard Sale:

Was is the path of fame that she chose or was it partisanship for a policy that was intended to advance the interests of the State of Israel?

Do you know?

turcopolier

bth

Some here do not know that you lost a son in Iraq. Miller is unique among the neocons in that she paid for her crimes against the American people and humanity. her writing partner, Michael Gordon, still prospers at the NY Times. James Wolsey, Bolton, Frum, Ledeen, Wolfowitz and many, many more are doing very well and are signed up in depth as ME advisers to all the major 2016 campaigns. I may support Bernie Sanders. pl

MRW

Seems impossible that Miller would have missed this Steve Hedges article from the Chicago Tribune in 2002:
"U.S. pays PR guru to make its points"
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-05-12/news/0205120237_1_pentagon-work-rendon-group-office-of-strategic-influence

Or John MacArthur's book, "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War," which I read in the mid-90s, and which knocked my socks off. It as a devastating read. Upon checking for the full name on Amazon, I see that MacArthur reissued the book in 2004 with a new preface on the 2nd Iraq War. How could she not know what was going on?
http://www.amazon.com/Second-Front-Censorship-Propaganda-1991/dp/0520242319
A review for the first book listed on Amazon is "Nothing less than an indictment of the American news media for dereliction of duty under fire." -- New York Newsday. And that referred to Operation Desert Storm (1990-1991).

You have more of a stomach than I have. I couldn't even watch her on The Daily Show. I wasn't about to give her a hit in addition to listening to tripe to sell her book.

Larry Kart

It's been brought up before, but perhaps not often enough: One key factor in Miller's dire journalistic behavior back then and in the Times' editorial hierarchy permitting/encouraging what Miller and Michael Gordon were doing was how frightened the Times was of being left behind at the station, so to speak, by the New Dominant Reality of the Bush administration. As Karl Rove has explained, stoking and exploiting this fear on the part of Times that it would be labeled once and for all as a debased liberal organ in a world were liberalism was on the run was definitively on the run was a carefully calculated strategy on the part of the administration; and Times editor Bill Keller went belly up for it, as did publisher Arthur Sulzberger, whose window into this brave new neo-con world was his good friend Tom Friedman. These guys just didn't want to be run over by what they believed was the juggernaut of History, especially when they saw a place for themselves alongside the driver's seat -- it's about as simple and ugly as that.

MRW

One of my all-time favorite books (not for the faint-hearted) is Robert Bechtold Heilman's "Tragedy and Melodrama."

In it Heilman describes the difference between the melodramatic and tragic casts-of mind, which he says defines a society or civilization. He says these perspectives define a man's thinking as well as the society at large.

Twenty years before George W Bush, he described the melodramatic cast-of-mind as one in which the [main character] perceives himself as completely whole, wholly good, and that everything that happens to him (or it) comes from without, whether that is good or evil. The melodramatic cast-of-mind sees the world as us against them, good vs evil, either for us or against us. A melodramatic society--this is not a pejorative, but descriptive, which Heiman takes 150 pages to explore---is young, unsophisticated, incapable of greatness in its decisions or undertakings, and its literature reflects that. Comedy is a melodramatic form as well, one that makes us laugh. Present day Israel embraces the melodramatic cast-of-mind.

The tragic cast-of-mind requires the attainment of self-knowledge, self-awareness, and eventual responsibility for one's actions. Always. Hellman laments in the early part of his book the common misuse of the word "tragedy" to describe catastrophic accidents or disastrous natural events: 'Tragedy on Highway 40', or 'Tragic Indian Earthquake Kills All Village Children'. He says it couldn't have been a tragedy because we have no way of knowing if the guy who died in the car accident was aware of what he did that led to his demise. Ditto the natural event no one saw coming. But the best part of this book is his description of how a society cannot accept tragic literature from its writers until it has matured and become advanced. It cannot become a great civilization without self-realization and responsibility. I don't do Heilman's arguments justice here. He makes a comment somewhere in the book that the day we can accept a Broadway play in which a Nazi guard becomes a sympathetic main character (a tragic character) will be the day we will have advanced as a society.

Alī Bābā

Mr. Sale, LTG Tom McInerney (USAF ret) when asked why Iraq back in early-November 2001? He said "Unfinished conventional military business"...

It had zero to do with WMDs..

Mr.Sale, ask Tom why he and Brit Hume did the Fox News program " Target Iraq" using 1992 weapons storage locations?

MRW

Sanders hired the brilliant Stephanie Kelton as Chief Economist for the Senate Finance Committee this past January. If he wins, and she goes with him into a position that has real teeth, the US will change overnight, and I am not being hyperbolic. To know who she is search for her talks on youtube. Effing brilliant, logical, and able to reduce complex macro- and micro-economic principles to simple analogies Joe Q Public can understand.

MRW

"Some here do not know that you lost a son in Iraq."

What a heartbreak, bth. What an unfillable hole has been driven through your life.

turcopolier

All

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2014/06/drinking-the-koolaid-w-patrick-lang.html

pl

Jack

Mr. Sale

It should be repeated many times that our mainstream media would put the Soviets Pravda to shame in the quality of their deceit. It also should not be forgotten that the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent destabilization of Iraq that has led to ISIS was a bipartisan project. The current sole Democrat in the presidential nomination stakes was an enthusiastic supporter of the invasion. Obama has continued that tradition. And every Republican candidate will do the same.

It's easy point fingers at neocons, likudniks, or other groups but the reality is that the majority of Americans were in on the project. Let's face it we want to believe fantasies and our hubris knows no bounds.

Ex-PFC Chuck

Couldn't agree more re Stephanie Kelton. And the whole Econ Dept. at UMKC, for that matter..

Ishmael Zechariah

bth,

My deepest condolences. I know words can do nothing for such a loss.

Ishmael Zechariah

Tidewater

Tidewater comments to Richard Sale,

Judith Miller is named for Judith of Bethulia. In the great StoryBook the character of Judith of Bethulia, using brilliant deception, killed and decapitated Holofernes. She is a famous figure in Jewish culture. And the subject of many Renaissance paintings. Like the character of Esther Judith of Bethulia represents an extreme form of violent, Jewish nationalism. Judith Miller knew exactly what she was doing. She won.

William R. Cumming

IMO WAR FEVER out of journalistic boredom.

MRW

✔✔✔. And it may have been the Minority US Senate Budget Committee, not the Senate Finance Committee. Didn't google it.

Richard Sale

I wrote in passion. I apologize.

Richard Sale

Me too.

Richard Sale

Richard Sale

I send mine as well.

Richard Sale

Richard Sale

that is superbly said!

Richard Sale

Haralambos

Thank you for this, MRW.

Mongoose

That's one way to read the "Book of Judith" I guess but there are other readings as well. I find it interesting that the BoJ is not found in the Torah nor the Old Testament. Why is it not in the Torah? Why is it part of the larger "apocrypha" of books not found in these sacred texts? Perhaps it might have something to do with a generalized masculine fear of the feminine--especially that the story recounts how Judith succeeded in saving her village (and by implication a larger Jewish community) when the village men folk had resigned themselves to defeat at sunrise the next day. Her feminine wiles were the means by which she defeated and sent scurrying the army of Holofernes to the shame and consternation of the men in the village. I may be mistaken but I doubt many Israeli Jews--either nationalist or hyper-nationalist--routinely invoke the figure of Judith when beating their chests.

Obviously it is a rich text that can support many different readings but for you to privilege yours over all others seems to be a very narrow and stilted reading at best.

The Beaver

All

Anyone ever watched or seen the movie Green Zone?
Doesn't the character Lawrie Dayne reflect the true story of Judith Miller?

Anyway, another picture of Judith Miller:

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/

[quote]There’s an important difference in reportorial style between Miller and her colleagues. Risen and Bergman are diggers, excavating documents and sources hidden deep in the bureaucracy. Miller, on the other hand, relies on her well-placed, carefully tended-to connections to nab her stories. In February, on the public-radio show “The Connection,” she said, “My job was not to collect information and analyze it independently as an intelligence agency; my job was to tell readers of the New York Times, as best as I could figure out, what people inside the governments, who had very high security clearances, who were not supposed to talk to me, were saying to one another about what they thought Iraq had and did not have in the area of weapons of mass destruction.”[eoq]

Charles I

aah, I'm just a steno, don't shoot me,

Jim Basile

A question. I ask this not to further an agenda, but out of genuine curiosity. I have read that the British, French and Russian intel agencies all also believed that Saddam had WMDs. Is this true? And if so, how were they all so wrong?

MRW

Thank you. High praise coming from you.

MRW

De nada y gracias, Haralambos

MRW

That's a keeper.

rjj

Are you sure? Miller's mom was Irish Catholic.

MRW

"It's easy point fingers at neocons, likudniks, or other groups but the reality is that the majority of Americans were in on the project."

Precisely. I remember all the whoop-ass at the bars back then. Until I went into a sports bar one night after work where a 32-year-old buff and black vet was tending bar. He'd just ended a tour of duty and earning extra money before he went back. It was a couple of weeks after Bush declared Mission Accomplished on the aircraft carrier. One of the giant-screen TVs was FOX News, and Hannity on Hannity & Colmes couldn't spew enough praise for Bush. I asked the bartender what he thought about all the reactions around us.

I don't remember his response exactly--which I'm normally able to do--because it was so bracing, so sobering. He talked about the unnecessary killing of American soldiers for a lie, the waste of US lives and those of Iraqis, how the American public had lost its humanity and ability to judge real risk, real threats. He said he was proud to serve his country, "but not for this." There was a lethal eloquence to his words as he wiped the counter in front of me, and he didn't stick around to hear what I had to say. It was one of those conversations that stay with you. I still think of that guy.

MRW

"My job was not to collect information ... weapons of mass destruction."

The classic definition of stenography.

walrus

@Jim Basile, Other intelligence services knew that America was lying. At least the British and Australian analysis was that there were no WMD's. The British analyst "suicided" when his concerns were made public. The Australian analyst resigned in disgust - his conclusion was that if Saddam had any chemical WMD, they were left over from 1991, seriously degraded and more danger to an Iraqi potential user than any target.

He is now a member of Parliament:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wilkie

Charles I

I think often these courses of action are as psychological as anything else, there's no wagoneer like a band-wagoneer, and there is some payoff in being on the front bench of such a noisy congregation.

A huge element of my anti-social, anti-authoritarian and recently anti-Zionist fervour is a function of birth order - refighting the elder brother who wished to kill me, apparently from my age of four, and the parents needed to control us as they had been controlled.

Patrick Bahzad

I don't know about the others but I'm being told the French intelligence agency never believed Saddam had any WMD capabilities left in 2002-2003. They went as far as to debunk a fake report that US proxies had asked the Italian Intel to draft about alleged yellow cake from Niger and passed on their findings on US counterparts.
They even double checked their results sending operatives to verify all the ins and outs of that story which turned out to be BS. Nonetheless the false findings found a lot of echo in the US press and ended ambassador Wilson's career and led to the outing of his wife Valerie Plame as CIA agent.
And then there is all the crap that "curveball" fed the Germans who relayed it also to the U.S. but stated clearly that his allegations could not be verified and were likely to be false. Again this fake Intel found its way to the U.S. press and all the way to the top of US gobergent agencies.
The culminating point of this campaign of systematic disinformation was secretary of state Powell's speech at the UN in February 2003. A culminating point in his career as well as he should never recover from it. One more victim of the campaign of lies and deception that was orchestrated from within the US.
So in short, nobody was wrong except those who deliberately chose to be wrong in order to foster their political agenda. I'm surprised this basic truth still hasn't made its way into some people's heads !

Babak Makkinejad

I do not know but I also have heard that many countries depend on US for their intelligence - including EU states.

alba etie

Jim Basile.,
The real question is why did Bushcheney insist on starting the bombs dropping even while the UN weapons inspectors were still on the ground in Iraq ? IMO it is because Bushcheney knew that there were no viable WMD programs ongoing in Saddam's Iraq. Judith Miller was just a cog in a huge information campaign perpetrated on the US public - The neocons sold us a bill of goods with malice aforethought to have These United States go to war with Saddam .

turcopolier

Jim Basile

You are among the duped. Whether or not the French believed the BS is a matter of debate. It is now very self serving for them to say that they did not believe. The same thing is true for the British. All of these "bush league" intelligence agencies were without the collection means of the Americans and under pressure from their governments to follow the American lead as they always did. Careers were at stake if they could not justify their non acceptance of opinions generated by the WH and Rumsfeld's OSP. For the neocons to claim that intelligence agencies across the world believed the crap about WMD is merely another example of their mendaciousness. And, you bought this, colonel? pl

Charlie Wilson

I think she is very doable. My standards however are notoriously low.

Charlie

YT

Sir, I am sorry for you Loss...

Patrick Bahzad

PL,

I'm not sure you're aware to what length we went in order to accomodate US requests for intel backing up information they allegedly had received from other sources and asked us to counter-check. Unfortunately, the "charges" didn't stick and we forwarded those conclusions (twice) to D.C.
We didn't believe the stories then and we proved them wrong. What we did not know exactly at the time, was that the people in charge were not the heads of the US intelligence community, but a group of ideologues working out of the OSP who had taken over and were cherry picking.
That's how it went down in my experience and that's also what Col. Wilkerson said in written and oral testimony. I fully subscribe to his description.

Patrick Bahzad

BM,

It's a two way road you know ...

confusedponderer

"Whether or not the French believed the BS is a matter of debate. It is now very self serving for them to say that they did not believe."

I have the same problem with Schröder und Fischer IMO. I cannot tell whether their proclamations of disbelief were caused by polls (an overwhelming majority in Germany was opposed the Iraq war) or by an assessment that the WMD allegations were BS.

I have always felt that, when they dissented on the Iraq war, they did the right thing for all the wrong reasons.

confusedponderer

"The classic definition of stenography" ... and here's the perfect illustration:

http://tinyurl.com/47aql4

Back in the day, everything was better - propaganda was still propaganda and recognisable as such, even the stenographers were prettier. I'd certainly rather want to date her than Judith Miller.

confusedponderer

"The Jon Stewart Show is the favorite of all the shows my wife and I watch. Stewart’s view of life: his determination to reverence the facts, his intense desire to be free of cant or popular falsehoods, his determination to be free of fad, his suspicion of the fashionable and the current, his determination to be truthful, no matter what the cost, make him a special delight for us."

... and to me Richard. IMO Stewart and Colbert, who gets at the same things in his own way, are US national treasures.

confusedponderer

Thanks for the intriguing comment.

turcopolier

PB

You have special knowledge in the matter of whether or not France was actually deceived. If you say you were not I accept that, but that position actually reinforces my point that the neocon talking point concerning the general opinion of the world intelligence community (if there can be said to be such a thing)is false and was always false. It cannot be stressed too much that with the apparent exception of France the great majority of intelligence bodies serving states across the world take their message (or did) from the US IC. Why? As I said last night, these countries lack the collection assets (mainly technical) that would be expected to be necessary for sound judgments on obscure and complex questions. As a result the many countries often described as agreeing with drivel like the WMD judgment are under great pressure from their own governments to agree with the Americans even when they, themselves might have doubts or lack enough information to make good "calls" on the matter at hand. To resist that kind of pressure is to risk national disapproval as a troublemaker in international relations. pl

confusedponderer

Pat,
how many countries do you think have the capability to check US assertions and make their own judgement?

Patrick Bahzad

PL,

What happened with regard to US-French cooperation in the years 2002-2003 is actually very close to what you describe in "Drinking the koolaid".
We were asked to corroborate very dubious intel, sometimes even info that had literally been planted not by regular US intel but by groups of people answering to other authorities (you know who I mean), and when it turned out we wouldn't deliver (because the French government decided that time they would stand by our own findings), the relationship cooled down very quickly. It was only at that point that we fully realized what was going on inside US government and intelligence circles. The rest is history.
The story about the "Yellow cake" from Niger is particularly telling in that regard, could be worth a piece on SST.
Regarding independent capabilities of intel collection, the group of Five (US, UK, AUS, NZL and CAN) has always worked very closely together and relied heavily on US infrastructures and means. Same can be said to a lesser degree about Germany, as recent events are now showing. As for Italy's intel agencies, they have been working under a kind a US supervision since their inception.
With regard to France, there has always been a good cooperation, at least since the 1970s, with emphasis more on intel sharing rather than actual cooperation. France had a few things to offer with regard to the Arab world and Africa in particular. And one of the most important moles the West ever had inside the KGB was handled by French intel.
That being said, we're under no illusion, especially regarding SIGINT and COMINT, that cooperation with the US is vital to our security today.

BabelFish

I agree with that, CP. I am going to miss Stewart when he is not on every night, as I miss Colbert now.

William R. Cumming

MRW! Thanks for this informative comment!

William R. Cumming

Respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

turcopolier

CP

"... how many countries do you think have the capability to check US assertions and make their own judgments?" Very few. Russia, the Chinese soon and others have pieces of capabilities or capabilities that have a "niche" quality to them. The Israelis for example have always relied on liaison with the US IC no matter what the BS the Ziocons spread about Israeli capabilities. They now have satellite reconnaissance but compared to the US it is really a minor thing. The French have a great native shrewdness and an attitude of skepticism that is invaluable even though their technical capabilities for collection are not large. They also have a deep insight into the psychology of the peoples in places like Africa and the ME. This is born of long experience. PB is a perfect example. The five bilaterals (US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) are really parts of the same community of interests and capabilities but the non-US parts are not robust enough to be able to withstand US pressure. The Germans are so wedded to the US that they would be part of the bilateral world if history was not in the way. pl

Richard Sale

My wife has nominated herself to be my copy editor. It is obvious, I need her help.

Richard Sale

All of them didn't. They were divided about the subject of WMD just as we americans were.

Richard Sale

Richard Sale

They are indeed. But a sorry state of affairs occurs when the American public gets its most intelligence news from American commedians.

Richard Sale

Babak Makkinejad

I knew US had lase weapons on her ships years ago; I saw it in the second Transformers movie.

Ishmael Zechariah

PB,

Unfortunately for all of us the "freedom fries" crowd is still in power. Their favorite mode of control is through projecting an alternative reality in MSM, and then eliminating/marginalizing those who try to see through the fog, including those who perceive that there is, in fact, a fog. This has driven us, cynics, close to paranoia.

At the rate these wars are going, some folks are going to be bankrupt-Turkey among them. Then there may be a few sequels to the night of long knives...

Ishmael Zechariah

p.s: About five years ago I got an old MAS 49, re-bored to .308. After a bit of trouble I have Monique working right with standard 7.62-51 cartridges. Interesting clip design.

Patrick Bahzad

Oh the "freedom fries" ... Now that still sounds weird, always did actually but that's ok ... I suppose we can live with that ! But the first time I read col. Lang's "drinking the koolaid", I thought that's it exactly !

Regarding MAS 49, did you get the original version or the modified 56 one ?

Ishmael Zechariah

PB,

I have the more common (shorter) one, the 49/56. I like old pieces and this has the original, forged, receiver.

Ishmael Zechariah

Cee

bth,

I'll second you on what she did this my country. She deserves a special place in hell for what she's done to the Iraqi people too.

Plus, she is NOT attractive.

bth

It was Powell's speech that turned me in 03. It wasn't his speech so much as it was him saying it that convinced me there must be fire with all the smoke about Iraq. Of course as the Col. says I drank the Kool-Aid. If Powell had resigned in protest at some later point, he probably would be President today, but he didn't. Powell was always first and foremost for Powell.

bth

You are correct. It is important to keep track of those that betray the public trust. Watch where they go. Who they advise. They are the constant in the changing world.

different clue

Patrick Bahzad,

I am going purely on memory now, but I think I remember reading that Robert Novak wrote two separate stories about Ambassador Wilson and Agent Plame. The first story was done to expose Agent Plame as being an agent in order to destroy that phase of her career and work. The generally accepted motive was political spite by the Cheney(Bush) Administration. But Novak then went on to write another story overtly naming "Brewster-Jennings" as being Agent Plame's proprietary for tracking proliferation with, especially possible Iranian atomic development. When I read that, it occurred to me that Novak (and the people who used Novak to disseminate that information) were motivated by more than spite against Wilson and Plame. They were also motivated by a desire to stop and destroy the anti-proliferation work which was keeping Iran's atomic capacity monitored and contained . . . . in order to create a more nuclearized Iran to brandish as a "credible threat" for hyping the War On Terror.

Is that just so much tinfoil around an empty head? Or might there be something to that theory of why Plame and Brewster-Jennings were both carefully outed by name?

different clue

Richard Sale,

At least the American public has become suspicious enough of the MSM to suspect that their best news source will indeed be two political comedians with TV shows. There is hope in that. When Stewart and Cole-bear are both off the air the public will say . . "now what? Where do we get our news now? We already know we can't go back to the Flagship MSM which we gave up on to begin with."

pdh

I don't buy into Powell being a victim here, or that he was 'duped' somehow by faulty intelligence. He may have felt extremely uncomfortable about having to do this speech, but at the end he fell in line what the US set out to do at any cost, that is to go to war on the basis of faked evidence.
Furthermore, you didn't have to have deep connections in the intel community to understand that that everything about this quest to go to war was very fishy. You didn't exactly need a degree in rocket science to figure that out.
The war drums had started beating in a very orchestrated and recognisable fashion for quite some time. Mainstream media was on board 100%. Going to war had become an exercise in PR rather than journalism. You didn't have to venture into obscure radical left-wing online publications to get a sense of what was going on. Decent independent media in the US, and even to some extent mainstream press in Europe had been quite good in exposing the flimsy basis on which we were asked to go to war. Powell's 'evidence' was nothing new.

It's just not feasible in this context to even consider that Powell was a victim. Of course he knew the rubbish he was trying to sell during that speech. He hadn't been living on an island, or something.

bondo

sorta late. just recently discovered this site.
jon stewart/leibowitz is good on taking down gas bag politicians but he also speaks typical propaganda as if he worked at the state dept: his comments re putin, iran, Libya, n. korea, Venezuela.

a propagandist who has to have some creds for the typical liberal, college student, assorted others.

turcopolier

bondo

Stick to "Zionists," not "Jews." pl

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

June 2019

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