« O! My Prophetic Soul! | Main | NYTimesWatch: The Lynching Of Paul Wolfowitz »

April 24, 2007

Profiles In Courage

nevill.jpg

What a difference a few months makes:

Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader
December, 2006

Sen. Reid (D-NV) on the Iraq Study Group report ...
“The Iraq Study Group has done a tremendous and historic service to the American people and to the troops serving in harm’s way in Iraq. Their report underscores the message the American people sent one month ago: there must be change in Iraq, and there is no time to lose. It is time for the Iraqis to build and secure their nation, and it is time for American combat troops to be redeployed. “Each day the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate. Yesterday, Defense Secretary Nominee Robert Gates said ‘we’re not winning.’ Today, the Iraq Study Group said Iraq is ‘grave and deteriorating.’ Like the Iraq Study Group, I urge the President to change course. He will find Congress ready and willing to work with him. The Senate will do its part next year and conduct strong oversight to ensure the President carries out an effective change in policy. Our troops in Iraq, including hundreds of Nevadans, have sacrificed so much. It is time for President Bush to reward their effort by bringing the country together around a new way forward.”

Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader
April, 2006

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday he plans to continue an aggressive push for an early withdrawal from Iraq and does not particularly care that Republicans will try to paint that position as a lack of support for U.S. forces. “We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war,”

And that Iraq Study Group Report that was such a "tremendous and historic service to the American people and our troops serving in harm's way?

Fuggetaboutit.

The report does not set timetables or deadlines for the removal of troops, as contemplated by the supplemental spending bills the House and Senate passed. In fact, the report specifically opposes that approach. As many military and political leaders told us, an arbitrary deadline would allow the enemy to wait us out and would strengthen the positions of extremists over moderates. A premature American departure from Iraq, we unanimously concluded, would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions in Iraq and possibly other countries.

The goal of the United States should be to help Iraqis achieve national political reconciliation and greater effectiveness of their security forces, the report said, so that Iraqis can assume more of the security mission. This in turn could allow for an orderly departure of U.S. troops. An important way to encourage Iraqis to work together is to hold them to the type of benchmarks that Congress, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have all considered. If the Iraqi government does not meet those benchmarks, the United States "should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government," the report said. But we did not suggest that this be codified into legislation. The report doesn't recommend a firm deadline for troop removal unless America's military leadership believes that the situation warrants it.

Nothing has happened since the report was released that would justify changing that view. Setting a deadline for withdrawal regardless of conditions in Iraq makes even less sense today because there is evidence that the temporary surge is reducing the level of violence in Baghdad. As Baghdad goes, so goes Iraq. The Iraq Study Group said it could support a short-term surge to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up training and equipping of Iraqi soldiers if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines such steps would be effective. Gen. David Petraeus has so determined.

The president announced a "new way forward" on Jan. 10 that supports much of the approach called for by the Iraq Study Group. He has since said that he is moving to embrace our recommendations. The president's plan increases the number of American advisers embedded in Iraqi army units, with the goal that the Iraqi government will assume control of security in all provinces by November. It outlines benchmarks and indicates that the Iraqi government must act to attain them. He has approved ministerial-level meetings of all of Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran; the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council; and other countries.

Photo courtesy of Lex

Posted by Cassandra at April 24, 2007 01:08 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1472

Comments

Let GWB approve the funding legislation with a signing statement saying he'll deal with the withdrawal language as he sees fit. His signing statement would say to the world that HE'S not approving the attempt to impose a withdrawal deadline, so he won't be sending any messages about retreat, defeat, etc. If he's got the cojones, he'd do it, and Congress be damned.

Posted by: Mark In Irvine at April 24, 2007 02:12 PM

I have a better idea. Let Congress send him legislation that does what THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO: IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ISG AND FUND THE TROOPS.

You are quibbling over methods while letting Congress off the hook for their wholesale lies. Congress and the Democrats (Reid included) said they would back the President if he did EXACTLY WHAT HE HAS IN FACT, DONE. THEY SAID THIS ONLY THREE OR FOUR MONTHS AGO AND YOU KNOW IT.

Bush has more "cojones" than anyone in Congress. He has put himself on the line time and time again and has not wavered, unlike some I could name. He has stated clearly what he stood for on the war and has backed it up. But Congress have not.

That, my friend, is cojones.

Posted by: Princess Leia in a Cheese Danish Bikini at April 24, 2007 02:24 PM

No, Princess, that is a leader.

Posted by: Sly2017 at April 24, 2007 02:26 PM

It gets worse. Today Reid said that his statement about losing is "exactly what General Petraeus is telling the troops." Seriously.

And Petraeus is getting pressure from Republican senators to be sure to not insert himself into political matters. But with Reid saying things like that, I don't know how he can do his job and NOT speak up.

I'm just stunned. I keep going back to what Reid say and trying to read it as anything other than intentional lies and distoration that put his party ahead of his country in a more forceful and dangerous way than I can ever recall. I'm starting to think it would be reasonable and effective for Bush to call a primetime press conference and call him on the carpet for it. Truly.

Posted by: FbL at April 24, 2007 02:34 PM

Oops! Messed up the link. Here it is again.

And one more thing: Reid said outright that if Petraeus says we're not losing in Iraq, he won't believe him. I know; re-read that. It's true. Again, I'm appalled. On second thought, there's not words to describe my shock and disgust. I honest don't believe I could be civil to the man if it were required, nor do I think he deserves respect/civility.

Posted by: FbL at April 24, 2007 02:36 PM

What is this recurring nonsense about a "signing agreement?" Does anyone really want this war to be run by the Supreme Court? That is exactly where the issue would end up.

Bush needs to call Congress on its antics and denounce them for the cockroaches they are. Sorry, a straight up funding authorization or pound sand.

Posted by: Mark at April 24, 2007 02:42 PM

Mark is a lawyer.

He knows damned well that there has been an ongoing and vitriolic controversy over George Bush's use of signing statements. In fact, the Democrats have been bitching and moaning, saying, "Why doesn't he just veto legislation instead of using this HORRIBLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL practice ... which of course other Presidents have used too...of SIGNING STATEMENTS??? WAAAHHH!!!!".

Of course now that the President wants to use his veto power (a practice they formerly favored), they have once again moved the goalposts and want him to use the "unconstitutional" powers they were just now objecting to! This way, people like John Conyers who have been itching to launch Chimpeachment proceedings would have all the grounds they needed.

No thanks.

Posted by: Princess Leia in a Cheese Danish Bikini at April 24, 2007 02:47 PM

"What is this recurring nonsense about a 'signing agreement?'"

It's a signing statement, dude - don't you keep up with "current events"?

GWB is the one with the pen, and he can turn on the tap and get the funds flowing, and meet the urgency (which apparently has been trumped up by Turdblossom anyway, but no matter - I say give him the funds) by signing the funding bill. If he chooses to veto it, it will be out of spite (and nothing else) because he doesn't like the challenge to his leadership that the withdrawal language represents. Most importantly, any damage the troops and/or war effort suffer as a result of the veto will be on GWB's head, and not on Reid's or on anyone else's.

Get over yourself, mcgilvra.

Posted by: Mark In Irvine at April 24, 2007 02:54 PM

"Mark is a lawyer."

CASSIE!! You said you wouldn't tell!! Now everybody will hate me!! Oh, I hate you I hate you I hate you.

Bwaahahaha ...

[what is this business about crickets chirping, anyway]

Posted by: Mark In Irvine at April 24, 2007 02:56 PM

"... they have once again moved the goalposts and want him to use the 'unconstitutional' powers they were just now objecting to!"

HEY! This is my idea - nobody else deserves credit for bitching and moaning about the signing statement. [isn't it? i really don't know, or care]

All kidding aside, if GWB and his handlers and Arturo G. and John Yoo, et al., are so convinced about the validity of the signing statements [and you've NEVER heard me gripe about them ...] why the hell can't he just sign and add his statement?

Let him have the f^@&!$g money already and let's get on with it!! Sheesh!

Posted by: Mark In Irvine at April 24, 2007 03:02 PM

Oh come on, Mark. Everybody around here is a lawyer :p They lie thick on the ground... Besides, if I'd had time to write about that Opinion Journal thing you sent me everyone would have known anyway. I meant to. I was just sick.

Posted by: Princess Leia in a Cheese Danish Bikini at April 24, 2007 03:07 PM

"Oh come on, Mark."

I'm just kidding! I know the place here is thick with ... lawyers.

"... that Opinion Journal thing ..."

I don't even remember what that was, now ... the effect of "old timer's disease", maybe.

I'm sorry if you were sick - it sucks - I have a suggestion for a "home remedy" type thing that works for me - I'll tell you about it privately - - it has been working for me for close to 5 years, and except for the lingering putrefaction experienced by Irish skin following too many years in the SoCal sun, I'm as healthy as ... a 23 year-old marine just out of boot camp (and as handsome too - ha ha ha - jk).

Hey - I thought you should take a month off, instead of just a few days. Take some time, go to the Bahamas, drink a margarita or a cosmo, or whatever is your favorite ...

Posted by: Mark In Irvine at April 24, 2007 03:16 PM

No Mark, you've never complained about signing statements but there was a good couple months where they were the injustice du jour that just *proved* Bush was a fascist tyrant like Hitler.

So if Bush uses signing statement we hear from your fellow party members that Bush should be vetoing bills instead of using signing statements, but if Bush does use the veto we hear from you that he should be using signing statements and not vetoes.

So which is it?

Posted by: Masked Menace at April 24, 2007 03:51 PM

Oh please, MM...
goalposts on wheels.

Posted by: Carrie at April 24, 2007 04:00 PM

"So if Bush uses signing statement we hear from your fellow party members that Bush should be vetoing bills instead of using signing statements, but if Bush does use the veto we hear from you that he should be using signing statements and not vetoes.
"So which is it?"

It doesn't really matter, does it? First of all, I have NEVER griped (publicly) about GWB's use of signing statements, and my private comments are protected by the "a man's house is his castle" evidentiary privilege.

Most importantly:

[part 1] If GWB and John Yoo and Arturo Gonzales, et al., are right about the validity of signing statements, then GWB gets his funding and tells the world that Congress can take its withdrawal language and put it where the sun don't shine, and that GWB et al. have no intention to announce in advance any projected withdrawal date.

[part 2] If GWB and John Yoo and Arturo Gonzales, et al., are WRONG about the validity of signing statements, who cares - who's going to test it? Nobody in Congress has had the cojones to challenge the signing statements up to know (except for impotent bitching and moaning for the media, which doesn't count).

[part 3] If somebody DOES challenge GWB on the validity of the signing statement, and somebody thinks that GWB and John Yoo and Arturo Gonzales, et al., are WRONG [and Cassie suggests the challenge would most likely come by way of impeachment], again SO WHAT: the funds would be released and go to where they are needed, and impeachment would come AFTER THE FACT, and NOBODY IS GOING TO CONVICT GWB in a impeachment trial over this ...

I say "sign the damned legislation, append a signing statement, and Congress be damned".

Posted by: LINO In Irvine at April 24, 2007 04:14 PM

"a", "an', whatever ... my bad ...

Posted by: LINO In Irvine at April 24, 2007 04:15 PM

The leftwing Democrat leadership hasn't a chance of successfully impeaching GWB. Conyers can't even spell impeach. Anyway many Democrats are not loons and would not lightly choose to go down that road. Furthermore, Dick Cheney would become President were an impeachment successful.

An Impeachment would become a monumental distraction to a President at war. Signing statements be damned. Use the vetoe and keep the courts out of it.

Posted by: Mark at April 24, 2007 04:23 PM

"Use the vetoe and keep the courts out of it."

don't you mean - "use the veto and send the legislation back to congress for them to drag their feet, and turn this into another political football/hot potato, and be able to blame the democrats for holding up funding"?

Just take the damned money and screw Congress and f*&$ impeachment.

Posted by: LINO In Irvine at April 24, 2007 04:38 PM

It doesn't really matter, does it?

Exactly my point. He'll be wrong either way.

Posted by: Masked Menace at April 24, 2007 04:40 PM

How about the Congress just doing the goddamned right thing?????
You have boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, one of them being my son's high school best friend going to Ramadi, and they want to play political games and Mark wants the Prez to play along too?

Fund the troops, don't handicap them with artifical timelines, don't declare the war lost as you play these games and don't try to play gotcha with the PotUS using them as the bait.

How about that?
I'm through being patient, trying to find the funny and hoping that someone will regain their sanity.

This is not a game. My son, my husband, my friends, my cousin, my friends' husbands are not pawns.
Congress is treating them that way and it is below despicable.
Enough.

Posted by: Carrie at April 24, 2007 04:45 PM

And yes, I now OFFICIALLY QUESTION THEIR PATRIOTISM.

Posted by: Carrie at April 24, 2007 04:49 PM

"Exactly my point. He'll be wrong either way."

So let him get off his ... duff, and sign the gosh-durned legislation.

Posted by: Le Garcon In Irvine at April 24, 2007 05:03 PM

How about giving him legislation that adequately reflects the situation and it's gravity?

How.about.that?

Posted by: Carrie at April 24, 2007 05:07 PM

Or let him Veto it, and get appropriate legislation. It's just as good *and* has the added benefit of making the point that congress needs to accept their proper role. Either fund the war and let the C-in-C run it, or defund it.

Posted by: Masked Menace at April 24, 2007 05:15 PM

Semi-off topic:

Dennis 'the Menace' Kucinich (D-Cleveland) has already stated that VP Cheney should be impeached, and is working to that end.

So if Cheney is on double-secret probation, can he still succeed GW Bush is HE'S impeached and removed from office?

OK, back on topic:
Frankly, signing statements have little weight, and I don't think the Supreme Court can rule on whether the President doesn't follow the express voted wishes of Congress, although the Congress attempted to impeach Andrew Johnson in 1867 on that very premise (and almost succeeded).

So veto, veto early and veto often.

Throw this back onto the lap of the 'Leadership' of Congress and let them decide what they want to do.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at April 24, 2007 05:23 PM

As a lawyer, I believe myself to be supremely qualified to stick my nose in to whatever it is that is being discussed and to defend whomever against whatever it is you are discussing. Commerce Clause is a plus.

Posted by: spd rdr at April 24, 2007 05:38 PM

"Or let him Veto it, and get appropriate legislation."

Well, Congress apparently thinks this [have we even seen it yet?] is appropriate. And legislation is its job, no?

As for a veto, just how much legislation has GWB vetoed in the time he's been in office? [comment on cojones and who has them and who doesn't, deleted out of a sense of decorum and a concern to avoid name-calling, because "it doesn't matter"]

Posted by: The Pot Calling The Kettle Black In Irvine at April 24, 2007 05:41 PM

" ... I believe myself to be supremely qualified ..."

Amen.

Posted by: Mark In Irvine at April 24, 2007 05:43 PM

And legislation is its job, no?

Yes, and when the Pres disagrees as to it's appropriateness, he has the duty to veto it.

Of course all this would be moot with a line-item-veto. :-)

As for his record of using it, you won't get much argument around here that it hasn't been enough. But it's likely not on the same bills you'd prefer.

Posted by: Masked Menace at April 24, 2007 05:53 PM

Oh dear God, don't tell us you are doing Commerce Clause work again mr rdr. Do we detect an incidental and indirect effect on interstate commerce?

Quick! Drive a Pike through its heart!

Posted by: Night Of The Dormant Commerce Clause at April 24, 2007 06:03 PM

"a line-item-veto"

uh, hasn't the Supreme Court decided that the line-item-veto is an unconstitutional attempt by the executive to ursurp the assignment of the legislative power exclusive to the political branch?

Posted by: Mark In Irvine at April 24, 2007 06:08 PM

"But it's likely not on the same bills you'd prefer"

likely not!

Posted by: Mark In Irvine at April 24, 2007 06:10 PM

"...hasn't the Supreme Court decided that the line-item-veto is an unconstitutional attempt by the executive to ursurp the assignment of the legislative power..."

No. They decided it was an unconstitutional attempt by the legislature to delegate its power to the executive. The case was Clinton v. the City of New York.

Posted by: Grim at April 24, 2007 06:22 PM

"Commerce Clause is a plus."

Da#%it! Immediately after I began laughing, I was presented with a deposition by an attorney representing the interests of stand-up comedians nationwide who have suffered financial damage due to my use of humor in and around my dwelling. =8-|

I’m going back to the garage.

Posted by: bthun at April 24, 2007 06:23 PM

"No. They decided it was an unconstitutional attempt by the legislature to delegate its power to the executive. The case was Clinton v. the City of New York."

Oops! My bad. I'll have that briefed for you by the time you come in tomorrow ... NOT! I have one of my slaves do it!

Posted by: A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing In Irvine at April 24, 2007 06:28 PM

I can help that, bthun. After all, it's a free country.

Posted by: spd rdr at April 24, 2007 06:29 PM

By "slaves" I am assuming you mean "associates." N'cest pas?

Posted by: spd rdr at April 24, 2007 06:31 PM

[twisting oily black mustache] bwaaahaha ...

Posted by: Snidely Whiplash In Irvine at April 24, 2007 06:35 PM

Should you so choose, sir, I will have you wearing such "oily black mustache" [sic] as a tight-fitting thong before we're done here.

Posted by: spd rdr at April 24, 2007 06:39 PM

Paging Monsieur spd_rdr,

You have a call on line two from the Solicitor for The Contortionists Guild!

Posted by: bthun at April 24, 2007 06:44 PM

The poor dormant commerce clause doesn't know whether to laugh or cry.

Posted by: Night Of The Dormant Commerce Clause at April 24, 2007 06:49 PM

Put them through to my voice mail, and tell them that "Nancy" did not live up to my expectations.

Posted by: spd rdr at April 24, 2007 06:49 PM

"don't you mean..."

No, I meant exactly what I said. The signing statement is a train wreck waiting to happen. You, Mr. Irvine, damned well know this. Don't be a patronizing wanker. Some anti-Iraq War, anti-Bush twit, or consortium of twits, will go shopping for a federal judge, and, voila! The federal judiciary has inserted itself directly into the conduct of the war. Sound good to you? It sounds like a disaster to me. No thanks.

No one elects the judiciary at this level and the issue really does carry the potential for a Constitutional crisis which could permanently rip the political fabric of this nation.

Carrie asks,"How about the Congress just doing the goddamned right thing?????"

Why not? Pure partisanship and political opportunism without any regard for the nation.

Masked Mennace, the veto is the better method for the reasons I stated above and those you express: "congress needs to accept their proper role. Either fund the war and let the C-in-C run it, or defund it."

Posted by: Mark at April 24, 2007 06:50 PM

That's it, KJ.

spd owes us both a drink. Punk :p

Posted by: Night Of The Dormant Commerce Clause at April 24, 2007 06:54 PM

On me.

Posted by: spd rdr at April 24, 2007 07:00 PM

I relayed that message Mr. Rdr.

I was asked to let you know that "Oily Black Mustache Thong's" are a registered trademark of the Contortionist's Guild aka the Democrat leadership.

BadaBoom!

Posted by: bthun at April 24, 2007 07:02 PM

Further visions, thankfully, escape me.

Posted by: spd rdr at April 24, 2007 07:03 PM

bthun,
I'll take that beer now.......both of them, in fact, in a tall frosted glass, please. Need a torque wrench on that tiller? I just bought a brand new shiny one....half inch drive, digital torque settings.....

Posted by: Sly2017 at April 24, 2007 07:06 PM

Do I sense resignation here? Then I will pounce and feast on your hearts and livers.

After all, that's the law.

Posted by: spd rdr at April 24, 2007 07:10 PM

heheh,

Sly, you got it. Unfortunately nothing in the garage seems to be running =8-| so you'll have to stop by to collect!

My ½ inch torque wrench is a mechanical click to adjust type… Whoa! Maybe that’s why nothing is running!

Posted by: bthun at April 24, 2007 07:12 PM

[Merde - j'ai oublié la lettre "o" du mot "moustache", et maintenant Spud-Rider me croit un imbécile qui ne connaît pas son français. Zut - comment continuer à donner l'apparence d'une intélligence superièure? C'est ça la question de l'heure! Peut-être que si je mets un message en français, Spud-Rider me croira un génie ... ou bien, je suppose que c'est possible qu'il me croira beaucoup plus idiot qu'il ne me croyait auparavant. Merde - je ne peux jamais gagner avec ce type. Il me vaut mieux continuer à employer l'anglais seulement.]

Posted by: Pepe le Pew In Irvine at April 24, 2007 07:28 PM

"I will have you wearing such "oily black mustache" [sic] as a tight-fitting thong before we're done here."

I have the body for it, of course, but I wouldn't want anybody ELSE around here to become envious of me. Ha ha ha.

Posted by: Buff Six Pack In Irvine at April 24, 2007 07:30 PM

Don Brouhaha makes an interesting conjecture:
"...I don't think the Supreme Court can rule on whether the President doesn't follow the express voted wishes of Congress..."

I am not an attorney. My question is who is going to tell the Supreme Court, "NO!" To my knowledge it has never been done. I cannot think of one case in modern times when the Supremes were told to sod off and that it was none of their damned business. With the politicisation of our judiciary and its encroachment into areas never contemplated under the Constitution, this is a major problem.

A Supreme Court justice has never been removed for cause. They are unelected and, frankly no one has ever told them, no.

Posted by: Mark at April 24, 2007 07:35 PM

Actually, if I were the President I would do exactly as he is doing.

If something is really, really important (and this is important) you don't take unnecessary risks. Using a signing statement is a method open to possible challenge in two ways:

1. Chimpeachment, and

2. Judicial review.

Using the veto power, on the otter heiny, is pretty much bulletproof. Why operate from a position of weakness when you can do so from a position of strength? My thought process was exactly the same as Mark's.

Posted by: Night Of The Dormant Commerce Clause at April 24, 2007 07:56 PM

Oh. And damn Grim. You sound like lawyer.

*running like helk*

Posted by: Night Of The Dormant Commerce Clause at April 24, 2007 07:58 PM

Merde - j'ai oublié la lettre "o" du mot "moustache", et maintenant Spud-Rider me croit un imbécile qui ne connaît pas son français.

Actaully I doubt it was so much a slam on your Phrench as a sly jab on your previous nitpicking about his typing.

Considering the number of typos many of us (including your hostess) perpetrate on an unsuspecting blogosphere, why don't we all just stipulate that most of us probably have a pretty good grasp of book larnin' but are too busy (or perhaps just not anal retentive enough) to spell check blog comments?

Posted by: Night Of La Clause Dormante du Commerce at April 24, 2007 08:02 PM

and that was " Actually". Just to prove my point :p

Posted by: Night Of The Dormant Commerce Clause at April 24, 2007 08:07 PM

Whatever.

I win.

Posted by: spd rdr at April 24, 2007 08:54 PM

"Whatever. I win. Posted by: spd rdr at April 24, 2007 08:54 PM"

It ain't over till it's over ... and it ain't over.

Posted by: Buff Six Pack In Irvine at April 24, 2007 09:00 PM

"Actaully I doubt it was so much a slam on your Phrench as a sly jab on your previous nitpicking about his typing."

Zat sneaky Spud Ridair - ee nevair forgetz or forgivz anysing - must remembair to vatch out for eem.

Posted by: Buff Six Pack In Irvine at April 24, 2007 09:03 PM

Zut ... zhose messàges wair from Pepe le Pew, not Bufe Zix Paek.

Posted by: Pepe le Pew In Irvine at April 24, 2007 09:05 PM

It's over, and I win.
Get used to losing, losers.

Posted by: spd rdr at April 24, 2007 09:13 PM

"It's over, and I win.
Get used to losing, losers."

Cass, is Mr. rdr always like this? I nearly collapsed a lung laughing at his earlier posts.

Posted by: Mark at April 24, 2007 09:25 PM

Was he speaking to me?

Posted by: Drive -by Brain Cell at April 24, 2007 09:26 PM

"... your previous nitpicking about his typing ..."

Oh, that. What goes around, comes around. Turnabout is fair play. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.

Posted by: Neville Chameleon at April 24, 2007 09:36 PM

Mr. Brain Cell would like to apologize to Mr. In Irvine for the unfortunate timing of the his most recent post. Mr. Brain Cell did not mean to intimate that Mr. In Irvine was a "loser." That, naturally, is his own affair.

Posted by: spd rdr at April 24, 2007 09:39 PM

Apology accepted; all is forgiven. Tomorrow is another day.

Posted by: Mark In Irvine at April 24, 2007 09:51 PM

Cass, is Mr. rdr always like this? I nearly collapsed a lung laughing at his earlier posts.

Pugnacious? Irrepressible? Ummm... impossible to control?

Encouragable... err...incorrigable?

Ummm... yeah.
Pretty much :p

Posted by: Night Of The Dormant Commerce Clause at April 24, 2007 10:01 PM

Look, Mark, you don't have to agree with me. In fact you'll do yourself a service if you don't listen to me at all and just stop long enough to think. We got off to a bad start, and I'll still eat you for breakfast if you want to get into it with me. But...I don't know...after a little bit of exposure to the genteel ways of Our Hostess, you seem to be reformed. We can always disagree, and do it respectfully. I am one of the worst instigators, God knows, and I don't see any enlightenment at the end of my personal rainbow.

But I will do this: Peace, brother. Let ours be a tumult in the past. Agreed? It's a throw down that you can't refuse, and few have ever been offered.

That's all.

Posted by: Drive-by Knives at April 24, 2007 10:03 PM

Mr. Brain Cell did not mean to intimate...

And do me a favor you two: watch the intimacy in my comments section, OK?

Please, leave me my schoolgirl fantasies.

I have so little in life.

Posted by: Night Of The Dormant Commerce Clause at April 24, 2007 10:06 PM

I don't suppose I could interest everyone in a beer?

Group hug?

Group sex?

Oh well, it was worth a try :p

Good night gentlemen.

Posted by: Night Of The Dormant Commerce Clause at April 24, 2007 10:09 PM

Good night, smartass.

Posted by: spd rdr at April 24, 2007 10:11 PM

:)

Posted by: Ma Walton at April 24, 2007 10:12 PM

NTWMIWTADASIAOMM!!!!!

Damn it.

Posted by: Pile On® at April 24, 2007 10:15 PM

U!!@#$^&*((&**&DS(S*D(*S)(__!!!!!
Yay.

Posted by: spd rdr at April 24, 2007 10:23 PM

"I'll still eat you for breakfast if you want to get into it with me."

Perhaps we shall see one of these days. I don't give up easily; nor do you. I like that in a lawyer, unless one of us is sitting closer to the jury box than the other, in which case ... we can get out our strops and whet stones and prepare ourselves.

Posted by: Mark In Irvine at April 24, 2007 10:29 PM

"I don't suppose I could interest everyone in a beer? Group hug? Group sex? Oh well, it was worth a try :p Good night gentlemen. Posted by: Night Of The Dormant Commerce Clause at April 24, 2007 10:09 PM"

Damn! Sounds like another day in paradise! And me, bein' a bachelor 'n' all for the next few days.

[I must not think bad thoughts]
http://www.xtheband.com/newworld7.html
http://www.xtheband.com/morefun.html

Posted by: Mark In Irvine at April 24, 2007 10:34 PM

"... the genteel ways of Our Hostess ..."

her's is a calming influence ...

Posted by: Mark In Irvine at April 24, 2007 10:37 PM

Mr. Irvine, you never saw the day.

Posted by: Mark at April 24, 2007 11:29 PM

"Mr. Irvine, you never saw the day."

I've seized it many times over, dude.

Posted by: Mark In Irvine at April 24, 2007 11:48 PM

And that, me bucko's, about puts a lid on the whole shebang. Thanks to all who chose to join in this latest fray. The First Amendment to Constitution of the United States (which, until further notice from the Black Nine, represents a living, breathing document, but one currently passed out in the corner of take your pick), is once again safe from our ever-obliging blog hostess. Welcome again to that middle groundling that inhabits us all.

Hey! The best that we can hope for is a "B" next semester. Unless we screw up....

So much for diplomacy.
This is all being recorded, right?

Posted by: spd rdr at April 25, 2007 09:08 PM

Call for Mr. Rdr on line one.

A Mr. Hans Uff, Esq. Says that he is calling on behalf of the Monologue Technician's Guild of The Colbert Report.

And... I think I hear a clicking sound on the line?

Posted by: Ernestine the switchboard operator at April 25, 2007 09:29 PM

Damned Rove.

Posted by: spd rdr at April 25, 2007 09:52 PM

"Dude?" Does anyone over sixteen years or IQ points talk like this?

Posted by: Mark at April 26, 2007 03:24 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)