I think Kerry’s point that he intends to decrease the military presence in Iraq by having the world share the burden is an important detail.

But the criticism of this article that equates his position to that of Nixon’s “secret plan” is unfair. Remember a few months ago when Kerry said foreign leaders would rather that he be president than Bush and every one got their panties in a bunch that he was improperly negotiating foreign policy. I think this is just an example of media groping for scandal. Kerry will be damned for whatever he does. But I think this exchange shows that Kerry’s backbone is strengthening.

Posted by: Todd at August 2, 2004 11:57 AM

Todd, there are two questions here: how will Kerry obtain support from countries who have thus far refused? What inducement will Kerry offer?

Next, why is it unfair to compare Kerry’s statements to those of Nixon? What’s essentially wrong with that?

if Kerry has some ideas that he believes will work to improve America’s current situation, he should share them with the electorate. His posturing on this just makes him look foolish. He looked foolish with his “foreign leaders” statement and he looks foolish now.

Posted by: skip at August 2, 2004 12:07 PM

Skip:

Two very valid questions, both of which have multiple possible answers. Here is my estimation:

Kerry will be very successful in obtaining the consent of the world by working with a cooperative, rather than a “my way or the highway” approach. Second, I think he will use everything at his disposal to negotiate, just as Bush did to induce countries to join the “coalition of the willing.” This will vary from country to country and would probably change if Kerry were negotiating today or in January. Therefore, I agree completely with Kerry’s position that he should not commit himself to one strategy or inducement without having the power of the presidency behind him. His point was that he knows how to negotiate in the international arena.

Second, I think the comparison is unfair because the analogy is not completely accurate and the situations are completely different. Remember the criticism Kerry faced for allegedly negotiating with heads of state.

Posted by: Todd at August 2, 2004 12:41 PM

Interesting, considering that the #1 criticism of the current effort in Iraq is that we under-committed.

Besides, if there is another attack on US soil, and it turns out to have been organized and based out of Iraq, it will be particularly interesting to watch Kerry try to worm his way out of this pledge. People criticized Bush, and rightly so I believe, for pledging not to engage in “nation building,” then doing what we’ve done in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A candidate can make all kinds of policy statements, but promising the future is walking on very thin ice, indeed.

Posted by: gus3 at August 2, 2004 12:41 PM

Todd

Could you please give some evidence that the “with us or with the terrorrists strategy” isnt’ working. What vital allies in this fight have we alienated? Would France have joined the cause in any case?

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 2, 2004 12:55 PM

On Kerry’s position.

This is all of his positions, economic policy, foreign relations, ag, you name it. It’s trust me I know better.

Well fella, pony up and give us at least a hint of a plan, cause so far I ain’t buyin.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 2, 2004 01:01 PM

But I think this exchange shows that Kerry’s backbone is strengthening.

Todd,

On your comment above, please tell me HOW you expect to change a “wet noodle” into a backbone ?

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 2, 2004 01:08 PM

Didn’t he say we had too few troops in Iraq? Now he won’t send more?

What is this “by the end of his first term” stuff (four years)? Isn’t Bush planning to reduce US presence sooner with Iraqi elections in January, NATO training of Iraqis forces, and Arab neighbors clamering to deploy troops to secure the borders?

Kerry has no friends in the region (Arabs that he belittles), and his hopes for firm handshakes from the French and Germans wont lead to any troops.

He sure has some ego.

Posted by: Agrippa at August 2, 2004 01:22 PM

Posted by: Todd at July 30, 2004 05:54 PM
“In my response to a request for intellectually rigorous debate, I got a canned spew of RNC talking points. Well done, sir, you can cut and paste.

posted here:
http://www.command-post.org/mt2/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=14069

Pot, meet kettle…

Posted by: Todd at August 2, 2004 12:41 PM
“Kerry will be very successful in obtaining the consent of the world by working with a cooperative, rather than a “my way or the highway” approach. Second, I think he will use everything at his disposal to negotiate, just as Bush did to induce countries to join the “coalition of the willing.” This will vary from country to country and would probably change if Kerry were negotiating today or in January. Therefore, I agree completely with Kerry’s position that he should not commit himself to one strategy or inducement without having the power of the presidency behind him. His point was that he knows how to negotiate in the international arena.
Hmmm, looks AMAZINGLY like this:
“Today, our leadership has walked away from more than a century of American leadership in the world to embrace a new - and dangerously ineffective - American disregard for the world. They bully instead of persuade. They act alone when they could assemble a team. They confuse leadership with going it alone. They fail to understand that real leadership means standing by your principles and rallying others to join you. “

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

Or this:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0430.html

Yes, you are QUITE the bastion of Intellectual Honesty aren’t you Todd. Thankfully, those seem to be the round-point safety scissors and a glue stick you have there.

BTW- Just curious, did they perhaps INJECT said spine at the same time as the Botox?! Maybe they were running a special.

Posted by: DevilDoc at August 2, 2004 01:31 PM

Kerry is full of sh_t!

Posted by: Jim at August 2, 2004 02:40 PM

Obviously, my fisking of your comments on Friday has left you stinging. Fear not, your wounded pride will heal.

Suffice it to say that I don’t accept your indictment. Hardly did I cut and paste. When asked by Skip what Kerry will use for inducements, I explained what I thought Kerry’s position was. Thanks for pointing out how correct I was.

But does it look AMAZINGLY like that which you posted? Well, it has the same tenor, but hardly a cut and paste job. So, sorry. You loose once again. But keep trying.

The level of discourse in this thread is truly stunning. I guess it is true that one should not argue with the feeble-minded, because others may not be able to tell the difference. Excuse me while I go do something more productive.

Posted by: Todd at August 2, 2004 03:06 PM

I’m not sure I’m getting right Todd, are you saying that Kerry will co operate, and some how Bush didn’t?

Are you also saying that Kerry will do the things that Bush did? I’m at a loss here to understand this position of yours.

For example you say that the inducements will vary from country to country. What will Induce France to join us in Iraq?

What would induce France to Join us in Iran?

Who the hell are we really missing here and what could they bring to bear? Let’s take Canada, for Vince’s sake. Kerry says he’ll add 40,000 more troops. That’s just shy of 50% of entire Canadian armed forces. So what allies? What do they have that we need?

Isn’t this really just a straw man that Kerry set up so he could knock it down?

Posted by: skip at August 2, 2004 03:07 PM

there’s really no other place to express my disgust with Doctah Dean. His attempt to blame the terror alert on politics is simply assinine. The man has absolutely no value, none.

Doctah Dean has become a complete liability to the democrat party. I think Kerry needs to be braced about Dean’s statements.

Posted by: skip at August 2, 2004 03:24 PM

Just listen to Kerry’s pompous rhetoric -

“I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops.” Kerry on ABC’s “This Week.”

Kerry: “…when questioned about saying in his acceptance speech, ‘I know what we have to do in Iraq,’ he would not tip his hand.”

Kerry on his VAST experience: “I’ve been involved in this for a long time, longer than George Bush…I’ve spent 20 years negotiating, working, fighting for different kinds of treaties and different relationships around the world.”

“I know that as president there’s huge leverage that will be available to me, enormous cards to play, and I’m not going to play them in public. I’m not going to play them before I’m president.”

What pompous posturing! His statements contain No substance, No specifics. Moreover, he seems to be saying that the national defense and national security interests of this country are matters for negotiation. With whom? What does he intend to bargain with? Whose lives? What is an acceptable risk to him?

If he wants to be president, he must tell the voting public just what he will do or propose to do before he becomes president. He must be specific; he must tell us what he will do that is different and better than the current administration. Other than talking in vague and often conflicting generalities, he has failed to make that case time and again.

If this guy came to you for a job, would you hire him? Bad and/or spotty work record; lukewarm ratings; 20 years of “work experience” omitted or ignored on his resume; conflicting, vague and evasive answers to questions; apparently not much of a team player (note excessive use of the singular personal pronoun, “I”).

I wouldn’t hire him on a bet!

Posted by: Jim at August 2, 2004 03:57 PM

it sounds as if kerry is not interested in weighing the cost against the benefits of having that true coalition. it’s just get them on board regardless of the price. i think the cost of france’s support is going to go from low (since its not much of a marketable commodity anyway) to outrageously high since kerry won’t have the humility or wisdom to say that, as it turns out, it ain’t worth the price.

Posted by: wafflestomper at August 2, 2004 04:06 PM

You know, I try very hard to keep an even keel on what Kerry and the Dems are doing. I know that their supporters are driven by a very high level of personal hatred which, if not contained, sets the stage for the “end justifies the means” activities of desparate organizations. (Which also characterized the Republicans at times under Clinton’s stewardship.)

That being said, I know I heard Kerry just weeks ago pronouce that he would increase troops in Iraq with or without international approval to finish the job. Now he says he’ll bring them home right away? What constituency is this meant for?

Also, from the AP via the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (a liberal leaning Southern newspaper), this piece about Michael Moore:

Newspaper Claims Moore Altered Front Page

BLOOMINGTON, Ill. — Filmmaker Michael Moore’s Bush-bashing documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” has apparently upset more than Republicans. The Pantagraph newspaper in Bloomington said Friday it sent a letter to Moore and the film’s distributor, Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., asking for an apology for using what it said was a doctored front page in his movie.

The paper is seeking $1 in damages.

A scene early in the movie shows newspaper headlines related to the contested 2000 presidential election. It includes a shot of The Pantagraph’s Dec. 19, 2001, front page, with the prominent headline, “Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election.”

The newspaper says that headline never appeared on that day.

The paper said the headline appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001, edition but was not used on the front page. Instead, it was found in much smaller type above a letter to the editor, which the paper says reflects “only the opinions of the letter writer.”

“If (Moore) wants to ‘edit’ The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job,” the paper said.

Neither Lions Gate nor Moore were immediately available for comment Sunday.

___

August 1, 2004 - 6:26 p.m. EDT

Copyright 2004, The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Ah, come on now… was that really necessary by Moore? If he had so much solid evidence, why did he feel the necessity to invent another “fact”?

The more that this type of stuff continues to come out and spill all over Kerry’s plans and new approach (like Howard Dean’s preposterous claim of “politics”) the more the voters will associate Kerry with his rabid anti-Bush supporters. There are only so many die-hard liberals out there who need a reason to vote that might support one making up accusations and falsifying facts to win them over. This stuff only turns off the moderates and energizes the opposing side.

Posted by: steve at August 2, 2004 04:10 PM

Kerry sounds nearly as pompous and condescending as Don who pontificates (usually off topic) quite often. Full of hot air, attempting to be intellectually superior, but possessing no concrete ideas.

I really don’t see where the Kerry campaign thinks statements like this will help - troops cut in 4 years - to the Deaniacs etc., this is ridiculous and President Bush’s plan already calls for reductions beginning in the next year (after elections). Circumstances determine how many and how fast, not political pontification.

Posted by: I collect political items at August 2, 2004 04:30 PM

Posted by: Todd at August 2, 2004 03:06 PM

Obviously, my fisking of your comments on Friday has left you stinging. Fear not, your wounded pride will heal.

Suffice it to say that I don’t accept your indictment. Hardly did I cut and paste. When asked by Skip what Kerry will use for inducements, I explained what I thought Kerry’s position was. Thanks for pointing out how correct I was.
But does it look AMAZINGLY like that which you posted? Well, it has the same tenor, but hardly a cut and paste job. So, sorry. You loose once again. But keep trying.
The level of discourse in this thread is truly stunning. I guess it is true that one should not argue with the feeble-minded, because others may not be able to tell the difference. Excuse me while I go do something more productive.

ROFLMFAO!

Oh yeah…RIGHT. And NEXT you will be shouting: “Merely a flesh wound, come back here and I’ll bite your bloody legs off!” with a bad British accent! (recognizing your feeble intellect, that is from a Monty Python skit). Your pathetic attempts to rebuke me would be akin to Courtney Love giving a thorough scathing to Clinton for lewd and lascivious behavior. I feel certain that he would lose sleep over it as will I. Not.

Suffice to say, it matters not one iota to me whether you accept it or not, seems the shoe fits…it just might not match your purse. To clarify, you NOR Senator Windsock has YET to expatiate what those “inducements” would be that has not yet been offered! SURE, Kerry will “try harder”/”do it better”. Unless of course you mean just pandering (WHICH happens to be Kerry’s strong suit. The ONLY one.), including placing the US military under UN (FRENCH!) control. Sorry, been there/done that and it is NOT what the US needs.

So sorry, being a pompous ass does not an argument make although it is apparently one of the laughable left’s favorite mantra’s. I guess when all else fails…if you have nothing else just act indignant and/or pretentious. Also, I feel compelled to let you know being in Healthcare…they have made great strides in mental illnesses, including Delusions of Grandeur (see DSM IV if you need further clarification).

BTW- Not sure what I am “loose” FROM (and AGAIN even!), however if you mean ‘loose from the bounds of Intellectual Dishonesty and self-aggrandizing’…Yes I have been since I was a child…and hopefully someday (with a LOT of work!) you might be too. I am certain that you are a little overwhelmed in these adult conversations, or perhaps MORE than a little, given the obvious short-comings, but I feel certain that there are local debate clubs that may be more on par (try any middle-school in your area, maybe they will be nicer!).

You are excused…I am SURE that those crayons will all fit neatly back in their box if you try hard enough…and don’t be afraid to ask for help if you need it! Best of luck!!!

Posted by: DevilDoc at August 2, 2004 04:40 PM

If Kerry has “The Solution”, why doesn’t he propose it on the floor of the Senate? You know, that legislative body he happens to be a member of? 48 votes or so would be easy… so he’d have to convince only a couple of people that his way was an improvement to get it out of the Senate.

Posted by: Alan Blue at August 2, 2004 05:03 PM

Kerry’s just such a blow hard. First he says that the time to act is now, they he says he’s not going to share his plans until he’s elected. This guy is just a real package.

Posted by: skip at August 2, 2004 05:23 PM

Quit hearing what you only want to hear, and try using your own brains to fill in the blanks. It’s called common sense, and I believe SKIP has about as much as BUSH. That’d be zero… It’s obvious why Kerry refuses to give details - It would never make it near any GOP thought process, since, right now, everything any Dem says will be lambasted and thrown out. If he has a good plan that is ignored from the start then he could never put it into action when he’s president. Right now, there’s no way in hell any conservative is going to even think anything Kerry says is worthwhile - so it would be shot down before the plan ever left his lips.
Once again, SKIP, just by merely having Bush out of the White House would entice other countries help out in Iraq. Everyone, including Americans believes Bush has been using this as a way to bolster his relationships with his Saudi buddies, and Cheney with Halliburton contracts, etc… If someone, anyone other than Bush were president we would restore that lost-faith from foreign nations. Like it or hate it - Bush has destroyed the image of America, by giving the government contracts to the companies that support his campaign. I just cannot comprehend why so many of you have this blind faith to your “favorite” team. Republican or Democrat - when there’s wrong doing going on, you’d rather defend the wrongs with ignorant rants about “the other guy”, instead of coming clean and admitting the problems we all are faced with because of the horrible decisions these #@&*$’s make.

Posted by: bresin at August 2, 2004 05:56 PM

it’s been awhile since i’ve read a post of this caliber.

Posted by: wafflestomper at August 2, 2004 06:33 PM

“Quit hearing what you only want to hear, and try using your own brains to fill in the blanks. It’s called common sense, and I believe SKIP has about as much as BUSH. That’d be zero…”

Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem…

” It’s obvious why Kerry refuses to give details - It would never make it near any GOP thought process, since, right now, everything any Dem says will be lambasted and thrown out.”

And… Why should it? Prsident Bush is the incumbent, not the Challenger. As I’ve said before, if Kerry wants to make an issue of Iraq, then he’s going to have to differ on how it should be managed any differently. Since he cannot and will not, he will have to suffer the heat. Everything for Everybody? That’s as good as Nothing for Nobody.

“If he has a good plan that is ignored from the start then he could never put it into action when he’s president.”

Would you mind explaining why not? You claim that the President’s plan was/is flawed, so rather than take shots at it, why don’t you encourage your WarHero to come up with something concrete instead of pandering to ‘Values’ which mean next to nothing?

“Right now, there’s no way in hell any conservative is going to even think anything Kerry says is worthwhile - so it would be shot down before the plan ever left his lips.”

Who cares what the Conservatives think? Conservatives ain’t going to elect Kerry are they?

“Once again, SKIP, just by merely having Bush out of the White House would entice other countries help out in Iraq.”

Right. This is the old warn-out ABB argument. Which is just the same as calling Kerry ‘Anybody’. In my book, that’s NOBODY.

“Everyone, including Americans believes Bush has been using this as a way to bolster his relationships with his Saudi buddies, and Cheney with Halliburton contracts, etc…”

Don’t think for a minute that the GoodOl’BuddyNetwork argument is going to fly either. Contractors are held accountable, and within the last couple of weeks, Congress has been examining these ‘CushieDeals’ with a FineToothComb. So far, all that has accomplished is a bunch af wasted air.

“If someone, anyone other than Bush were president we would restore that lost-faith from foreign nations.”

We’re now concerned about ‘LostFaith’ from other Nations? WOW. That really impresses. That ought to be worth about ZeroValue when it comes to getting action out of those nations who have no interest other than themselves. Those folks were quite happy with the StatusQuo. Why would they be interested in participating now?

“Like it or hate it - Bush has destroyed the image of America, by giving the government contracts to the companies that support his campaign.”

Those contracts were not awarded by President Bush, and that’s another huge mistake on your part to even suggest it. Those contracts were let in a bid process which involved the requirement to be able to provide the services required. The successful bidders were successful for a reason.

“I just cannot comprehend why so many of you have this blind faith to your “favorite” team.”

I don’t have a “favorite” team. You apparently do.

“Republican or Democrat - when there’s wrong doing going on, you’d rather defend the wrongs with ignorant rants about “the other guy”, instead of coming clean and admitting the problems we all are faced with because of the horrible decisions these #@&*$’s make.”

Well… I’m good with this ALA the invective at the end applies to ALL of the horrible DecisionMakers - including your WarHero.

The italicized portion Posted by: bresin at August 2, 2004 05:56 PM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at August 2, 2004 06:35 PM

Kerry is so flippin’ funny in so many ways at the same time I can’t get the tears out of my eyes to comment… ROFLMAO!! Hooo hooo ho hoa ahahahaa

Posted by: Max Darkside at August 2, 2004 06:42 PM

Devil Doc.

Well done! You did forgot to call me a poopy head, though.

Posted by: Todd at August 2, 2004 06:47 PM

Incidentally, how is being a pompous ass a mantra?

Man´tra
Noun 1. mantra - a commonly repeated word or phrase.

Posted by: Todd at August 2, 2004 06:50 PM

Saying that he is gonna bring them home in 4 years is not saying much and yet saying too much at the same time. I also agree with whoever said that Dean should shut his mouth. At least Kerry got this part right in distancing himself from Dean’s comment.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 2, 2004 07:12 PM

Can anybody find any treaties that Kerry has negotiated or had a hand in negotiating internationally? Does anybody believe that treaty negotiation is the purview of Congress? If Kerry has no discernible domestic legislative record after 20 years in the Senate, are we to believe that he has an international record that somehow escaped our notice? If Kerry is a member of Congress and interested in working for the good of the U.S., why doesn’t he lay out his ideas? Would not his presentation of a valid and viable plan force us to consider him as a reasonable alternative to GWB? It seems to me that Kerry’s position is give me power … you don’t have to know what I’m going to do when I get it … just give it to me.

Most likely, if ever he gets power, when the electorate challenges him, his response will be “DYKWIA?”

Posted by: caribsea at August 2, 2004 07:41 PM

Furthermore, the last elected official who said “I know how to do this and I know how to do that give me a chance and I’ll do it” (Marion Barry), did nothing. He’d done nothing but smoke crack during his previous tenure, and racked up nothing once he was re-elected after his conviction.

Posted by: caribsea at August 2, 2004 07:42 PM

Posted by: skip at August 2, 2004 03:07 PM:

For example you say that the inducements will vary from country to country. What will Induce France to join us in Iraq?

Hmmm, I’d say three things: 1) Money, 2) Money and 3) Money. Oh yeah, also a 4th thing: Money. The French version of Big Oil had contracts with Saddamist Iraq that were worth billions. One estimate I saw had these contracts worth $100 billion over a 7-10 year period. Of course, these contracts were with Saddam’s government, and thus were contingent on Saddam running the show. With this in mind, is it any wonder that the French did not want Saddam deposed? Saddam may have been a murderous,tyrannical b@stard, but, by god, he was their murderous, tyrannical b@stard. They had an investment to protect. With all the screaming by the Left about Halliburton/Cheney and Iraq, I’ve always wondered why Total/ELF/FINA/Chirac gets a pass. Do they do good charity work or something?

If Kerry is elected, does anyone really think that Chirac is going to throw in 20,000 French troops without being able to reclaim some of this lost investment? No, John Kerry will have to give up something to get French participation, and German and Russian participation as well. I don’t know what it would be, but it will be more than a handshake and a pat on the back.

Isn’t this really just a straw man that Kerry set up so he could knock it down?

Considering all the other nations which are helping out already at levels they can reasonably bear, but never seem to be mentioned (other than the UK), I’d say yes. I don’t know where significant numbers of other troops would come from. Perhaps Russia?

Posted by: djm1992 at August 2, 2004 08:30 PM

Good points Caribsea and djm1992, even if a little over the top in some instances (your points would be even more effective without the name calling.)

I’m still wondering too why the left or Democrats have not decried the whole French Oil for Food bribes. There seems to be more apparaent evidence about this (from other than Republican or Administration sources, like the UN and Iraqis themselves) than about some sort of Cheney/Halliburton deal. It looks like more of a scandal than with anything Cheney might have been involved.

Good point on the competitive bidding. There is a very independent part of the Defense Department inot to mention the GAO and Justice Department that would be able to tear apart any deal that smacked of special priviledge. The truth of the matter, only Halliburton was able to respond sufficiently to the request and difficult requirements to support such rapid and complex support (less than 30 days to deploy and stand up systems, infrastructure, etc.) from the DOD RFPs as I recall. There are special, impartial contracts that pre-qual a number of contractors in advance for such procurements. Obviously, Halliburton was more qualified than the others who bid on this work… and/or other companies did not like the risk reward of such an opportunity.

The only smoke from the Cheney conspiracy thing is not from a smoking gun but from hard to let go fantasy and fiction going up in smoke instead I’m afraid. I have yet to see any GAO or othewise impartial body present any facts whatsoever to the contrary. Even the media, who loves to expose such reported abuse of power, have not gone further than merely repeat what hard-core activists are saying.

What I find most interesting of all is that so soon after their 4 day celebration, the Dems have found themselves on the defensive on several fronts so soon. Historically the party comes of the convention in an offensive show of force. As much as one might not like to admit it… the Republicans seem to be the benefactors of a more experienced poltical team who are quicker on their feet than Kerry’s team just now.

Kerry has been trying overly hard to present himself as a decisive and strong leader recently. The differences in his demeanor and mannerisms since early July (when he backed off his campaign to prepare for the convention) and recently are very evident. For those who support him or the Democrats, they see it as exemplary. To the opposition it appears contrived and coached. Don’t expect any real change of heart here from either of those groups about charges and counter charges. The real impact will be found among those who neither visit such sites as ours nor spend a whole lot of time studying the campaign daily. Whether they see this or not or one way or the other is difficult to tell. Surveys say these truly undecided will not decide until as late as the last week to ten days. The difference this time around is that this group is so much smaller than in the past.

So far, I’ve heard or read alot of accusations against the President but have not seen any significant impartial findings to support the damning charges being made against him… other than calling him stubbon, overly proud, cowboy, etc. There is very little mystery or intrigue to Bush that’s for sure. You see what you get and either you like him or not. Kerry still has a lot of questions surrounding his less than definitive actions and plans.

Should be interesting indeed.

Posted by: steve at August 2, 2004 10:02 PM

gotta love that Bresin post eh?

What I especially admired was his statements of liberal myth as fact. Use of the word “everyone” seriously limits the validity of the entire argument.

All in all it’s just the same old liberal hogwash. Oil, haliburton, the usual suspects. this guy must have seen Michael Moron’s movie too many times.

Thanks to all who rose to my defense, not that much was needed against a low caliber post such as this, but thanks all the same—especially you Cap’n

Posted by: skip at August 3, 2004 01:15 PM