Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
John Piper on the power-restraints of America
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court made a controversial decision concerning the rights of foreign terrorism suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay, which went against the wishes of our country’s chief executive. While in Rome, President Bush reacted to the court’s decision: “We’ll abide by the court’s decision. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.” On his blog yesterday, John Piper reflected on these words with wonder and gratitude:
Here is the most powerful leader in the world standing in public in the middle of Europe and saying for the whole world to hear that some of his decisions are nullified and his authority is curtailed and that he will submit to it.
Imagine such a thing in Myanmar or North Korea or China or Vietnam or in a half a dozen African regimes. Unthinkable.
What an incredible privilege we have to live in a land where human power is checked.
back to top57 Comments to “John Piper on the power-restraints of America”
Quite a contrast with the arrogant response of EU leaders to Ireland’s turning down of the EU referendum.
The EU folks merely sneer and say the Irish just couldn’t understand what they were voting on and the EU juggernaut will proceed as planned.
Report comment to moderator
“What five members of the Supreme Court say the law is may be something vastly different from what Congress intended the law to be.” (Benjamin F. Fairless) Even so, President Bush has done his duty. This is an amazing country.
Report comment to moderator
And despite this freedom we have there are some in the US who can’t be proud of their country….
This mindless hatred, and unthinking point of view just boggles the mind. The US is one of the most free and prosperous countries in the history of the world, and yet these people still attack it like it’s a third world dictatorship that’s been known to harshly oppress it’s citizens and threaten it’s neighbors with a takeover.
And when you see this kind of news, you see that it just ain’t so Jack.
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man (3): The US is one of the most free and prosperous countries in the history of the world, and yet these people still attack it like it’s a third world dictatorship that’s been known to harshly oppress it’s citizens and threaten it’s neighbors with a takeover.
And when you see this kind of news, you see that it just ain’t so Jack.
Frank: The often amazing workings of our tripartite form of government are not necessarily mutually exclusive of the international manifestations of our will to power.
Joel Mark asserted a couple of days ago the same non sequitur you’ve just asserted: “We can’t be an empire, because we have freedom.” The fact that we enjoy a great deal of freedom is not proof that America doesn’t manifest imperial bahviors. For the answer to that question, simply consider the freedoms many people enjoyed under the British empire.
And yet, imperial behavior quite often results in the loss of freedoms for some of the empire’s subjects. Example: Were the people of Hawaii free to resist the American overthrow of their Christian monarch?
The apostle Paul was a subject of the Roman empire. Because of this, he was able to appeal to the Roman law system as a citizen.
And yet, they executed him unjustly.
Quite a paradox, huh?
Report comment to moderator
Frank, is America a Christian nation? Was it founded as a Christian nation?
Report comment to moderator
The men held at Guantanamo Bay may not have been terrorists when they went in there but they will be, if and when, they are released.
Let’s be honest, Americans don’t care what is going on at Guantanamo Bay because the prisoners are Islamic.
How can we demand other countries obey the Geneva Convention for POWs’ when Bush and his minions act the way they do?
Report comment to moderator
Frank, I’ll just quote NJLawyer as a response:
“Frank has to reach back to Hawaii, well over a hundred years, to find an American “empire” all the while calling us a Christian nation. I’m with Joel Mark. There ain’t no empire, there ain’t gonna be no empire.”
You’re just making noise bro’
Report comment to moderator
Good post Mickey McLean.
This is exhibit 4607 on why the USA is NOT an “imperial” nations. It is a rash and unjustified claim to make. The communists in the 60s used to say were were “imperialists” and they were lying to try to distract people from seeing that they indeed were the imperialists.
Report comment to moderator
Iraq today is a lot more free with us there helping them to stabilize and rebuild than they were under Saddam or than they would be if we just deposed Saddam and then split. This is the effect America has internationally. We help other countries make progress toward freedom and we do not make them our subjects.
Report comment to moderator
To Joel
If we have done such wonderful things in Iraq I have a suggestion.
Let Bush walk through the streets of Baghdad and have people throw roses from the balconies while he is kissing babies.
If my memory is correct the last two times Bush went to Iraq (the country he “liberated”) he flew in under total secrecy and he stayed a few hours.
Just long enough before the people of Iraq realized he was there.
Report comment to moderator
In Frank’s “defense,” he’s found a new professor with an idea (Bacavich, was it?) and he wants to share. The guy’s wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, one can always cherry pick the pages of American history and come up with a Hawaiian monarch who was unfairly treated. This, of course, hardly refutes John Piper’s point that we Americans are most fortunate to live in a country well rooted in the rule of law.
That rule of law by the way allows you to be a severe critic of American policy in Iraq without the slightest personal consequence.
One grows weary of your of your unbalanced, corrosive, and constant whining about the evil of American power.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer (5): Frank, is America a Christian nation?
Frank: I would say that, as a people, we are nominally and culturally Christian. We are not officially Christian.
NJLawyer (5): Was it founded as a Christian nation?
Frank: No.
And your point is … ?
Report comment to moderator
To Frank and NJ Lawyer
Why can’t there be a Christian nation? Every other ethnic, racial, religious etc. group on this planet looks out strictly and without apology for themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Piper has a good point about how the Supremes can put the quietus on presidential brawlers.
But to me, a much clearer picture of our democracy was apparent from watching the old videos of Bob Hope. When invited to the White House Hope would skewer and mock every president from FDR to Ronald Reagan.
And in the old footage you see the one laughing loudest is the president.
Can’t imagine comedians making jokes about Castro in front of Castro.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt (12): Frank, one can always cherry pick the pages of American history and come up with a Hawaiian monarch who was unfairly treated. This, of course, hardly refutes John Piper’s point that we Americans are most fortunate to live in a country well rooted in the rule of law.
Frank: Which is part of what I said at (4).
I wasn’t trying to refute Piper at all. I was trying to refute those who seem to say that, because we enjoy many freedoms — the vestiges of Christian culture and Constitutional government — we are, therefore, not an empire.
Report comment to moderator
Nick H. Peters (14): Why can’t there be a Christian nation?
Frank: That wasn’t NJL’s Q. She asked “Is America a Christian nation?,” and “Was it founded as a Christian nation?”
There can, should, and will be Christian nations. See the Great Commission. But that isn’t the same thing as you described next …
Nick H. Peters (14): Every other ethnic, racial, religious etc. group on this planet looks out strictly and without apology for themselves.
Frank: A genuinely Christian nation would exist first and foremost to promote the spread of the Gospel and the glory of God — not to look out strictly and without apology for the well being of Christians over and against unbelievers.
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man (7): Frank, I’ll just quote NJLawyer as a response:
“Frank has to reach back to Hawaii, well over a hundred years, to find an American “empire” all the while calling us a Christian nation. …”
Frank: Au contraire. I am reaching back over a hundred years simply to point to the time when our will to international/imperial power apparently began to cut its teeth.
Consider Kinzer’s entire list of the regime changes we effected from Hawaii in 1893 to Iraq in 2003. Hawaii was but our first baby steps.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer (76): June 30th is coming! I hope Frank does better on the Second Amendment case.
Frank: ??? Please elaborate?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer (11): In Frank’s “defense,” he’s found a new professor with an idea (Bacavich, was it?) and he wants to share.
Frank: Prof. Andrew Bacevich (a retired USA Colonel — I mistakenly called him a Lt. Col. recently — my apologies) has evidently been writing about foreign affairs, etc. since for over a decade. He is currently a professor of international relations at Boston University, and was formerly director of its Center for International Relations.
He is a conservative of Catholic conviction, a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran.
And yes, NJL, I discovered him fairly recently — about 2 years ago. But I only cite him frequently here because I think he has wisdom and credibility in this area, and also to refute the idea of the llamas and Joel Marks that only “60s liberals” and “lefties” criticize “alleged” American imperialism.
Report comment to moderator
In other words she doesn’t think you did very well with your first argument. I don’t think you did very well with your subsequent rebuttal either. You’re quite some ways from establishing the US as an empire…
Report comment to moderator
Next up for consideration (Lord willing), Cuba and Puerto Rico, 1898 …
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man (21): In other words she doesn’t think you did very well with your first argument. I don’t think you did very well with your subsequent rebuttal either. You’re quite some ways from establishing the US as an empire…
Frank: Thanks for trying, but that didn’t clarify a thing for me.
Please, NJL, what did you mean about the 30 June Second Amendment case?
Report comment to moderator
Was America founded as a Christian nation?
Yes, absolutely; but with a secular government. There was and hopefully will always be much more to us than our government. This does not mean we will always be a Christian nation, but we were planted and founded as such — but with a secular government to protect our liberties, even the liberty to not be a Christian personally).
Our founders beleived that our rights and liberties were ultimately from our Creator (God) and not just from the documents they wrote in setting up our secular government.
Report comment to moderator
Was America founded as a Christian nation?
Yes, absolutely; but with a secular government.
OK, explain that. I don’t understand how you can talk about a nation’s “founding” while excluding government.
BTW, I think you’re dead wrong. I’m no historian, but I place a lot of stock in people like Jon Rowe who have spent many years studying the issue.
Report comment to moderator
Well, it seems that Frank’s definition of ‘Empire’ has been dumbed down to be totally useless today and would include everything and anything. According to his definition, using his Iraq notion, then the US’s Empire would still include Western Europe twice since we liberated it twice, the Philippines, Panama, Grenada, Japan, Mexico, England (since we whipped them in the Revolution and the war of 1812, Saipan, Okinawa, Russia without firing a shot, The Solomon Islands, Guam, The Marianas, and who know who else we have liberated over the years.
I guess we can not claim to Vietnam in our little Empire today since we lost that war.
Pay no attention to folks who dumb down definitions to suit their purposes. Gays have done the same thing with marriage.
I don’t know what Frank’ or intentions or purpose was but if he is trying to upset people and display his anti Americanism he is doing great a that
If Frank was right then Colin Powell was wrong when he said that America will fight to free you and all we will ask for is a little plot of land to bury our dead. We don’t even ask for that now.
But, there was a time long ago when America was tempted to become Imperialist and create an Empire but these thoughts and tentative actions soon faded into history.
Report comment to moderator
My point is, Frank, that your professor and you used the word “Christian” in discussing the empire in the other thread. It seems when it suits people, we’re a Christian nation. I felt that using Christianity as a basis for political decisions was unfair. We’ve never done that.
The decisions about Hawaii, WW I and II, all sorts of things weren’t made with any religion reason in mind. I’m thinking we wanted Hawaii for the sugar cane and because we didn’t want anyone else to have a foothold so close to our shores as with Guam and the Marianas. If we wanted an empire, shouldn’t we have gone after Cuba? Sorry, but the world has been “discovered” and no one needs colonies anymore. If you want to talk about empires, perhaps you should be visting bin Laden in his cave. He’s the one planning a new caliphate.
That was my point. And that was MIM’s, too. Loved #21. Frank, you really are a long way from proving the US an imperial nation, with all due respect to the Colonel. What “colonies” do we have? Puerto Rico? Guam?
(Yes, I’m thinking about the gun case. You stand a better chance at having the 2nd Am interpreted as an individual right than you do in establishing the US as imperialist.)
Report comment to moderator
Frank confuses America’s legitimate interests in defending liberal democracy with classic imperialism. From the beginning America has been a dangerous nation to the assorted autocracies around the world that have seriously threatened American interests. Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein found this out. Should Iran and North Korea persist in their nefarious activities, they too will find this out.
Essentially Frank and other paleo-conservative isolationists want America to hide behind its ocean moats so that somehow these dangerous rogue nations will go away from us. These isolationists tried in the thirties to avoid the Nazis until the nation woke up at Pearl Harbor, much the same way that we woke up to the radical Islamist threat on 9/11.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer (27): My point is, Frank, that your professor and you used the word “Christian” in discussing the empire in the other thread.
Frank: For the recors, I’d like to point out that “my professor” did not use the word “Christian”; I and Queen Liliuokalani did.
And with reference to the US, note that I put the word in quotes, to indicate “so-called” or “nominal” or “supposed.”
NJLawyer (27): It seems when it suits people, we’re a Christian nation. I felt that using Christianity as a basis for political decisions was unfair. We’ve never done that.
Frank: 1) Forgive me for being unclear, for my that was not my point. I was simply trying to point out that while we often (though not always) couch our foreign intervention and regime change in terms of benefiting the people there, our actual motives usually have more to do with national economic or political self-interest.
And in the case of our deposing the queen of Hawaii, while I am not aware of any such claim of humanitarian justification on our part, I also find it very interesting that she publicly and unsahamedly appealed as a Christian to God Almighty, while our nation acted wickedly against her and her people.
All of which is to say, I was not that America used Christianity as a basis against Hawaii, merely that we acted unchristianly in deposing the monarchy. I.e., we unjustifiably acted aggressively in acquiring territory.
(Incidentally, it is worth considering that the reason Queen Liliuokalani acquiesced to her overthrowers was that she knew her people would be slaughtered if she tried to mount a forcible resistance. She counted the cost of battle as did the king in Jesus’ parable at Luke 14:31-32.)
2) I also agree with you that we have never “using Christianity as a basis for [foreign] political decisions” — but we sure do like to borrow Christian language by appealing to some political (as opposed to biblical) understanding of “good and evil.”
Our national religion is Denocracy. We believe that voting is the solution to the evils of tyranny and terrorism.
And we believe it is our nation’s role to rid the world of those evils:
Just in case it escapes you, that is the unabashed language of national messianism.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt (28): Frank confuses America’s legitimate interests in defending liberal democracy with classic imperialism. From the beginning America has been a dangerous nation to the assorted autocracies around the world that have seriously threatened American interests. Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein found this out. Should Iran and North Korea persist in their nefarious activities, they too will find this out.
Frank: Tell me again, Peter: How did Saddam Hussein “seriously threaten American interests”?
Or maybe you can back things up a little bit and explain how “American interests” were “seriously threatened” in Hawaii in 1893, or in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines at the turn of the century?
Or how “American interests” were “seriously threatened” by Mohammad Mossedegh when we engineered regime in Iran in 1953 — for which we have paid a price ever since?
Report comment to moderator
In this thread and the similar “Frank Wants to Talk” entry (what a condescending title and intro by HSK, by the way), none of Frank’s arguments have been substantively disproved, and their dismissal out of hand is more telling of the other posters here than of Frank. Actually, the problem may be that some folks misunderstand what Frank’s argument is; similar to those who cry “1st Amendment!” when someone simply voices objection to the content of another’s speech.
Report comment to moderator
NICK H. PETERS: The men held at Guantanamo Bay may not have been terrorists when they went in there but they will be, if and when, they are released.
A McClatchy investigation has found that top Bush officials knew almost right away that many Guantanamo prisoners were not “the worst of the worst.” Former secretary of the army Thomas White said at least a third of the population didn’t belong there.
The government has two reasons for not releasing innocent captives. NICK states the first — mistreatment has given the prisoners cause to seek revenge against us and made them dangerous. The second reason is to keep the prisoners away from McClatchy reporters.
Report comment to moderator
Frank: Tell me again, Peter: How did Saddam Hussein “seriously threaten American interests”?
Saddam had an active WMD program; his intelligence agency trained thousands of terrorists; he threatened the interests of our friends in the region including the provision of $25,000 to families Palestinian suicide bombers who attacked Israel, let alone attacking Kurds and Shias with chemical weapons; each of these activities were in violation of U.N Security Council Resolutions which he ignored.
Pres. Bush and his administration tried many ways of dealing with these issues diplomatically before finally and carefully concluding that war wa was necessary.
Report comment to moderator
To Peter
Hussein gassed his people under Bush’s father’s watch. Why did George #43 say about it while it was happening?
So Saddam trained “thousands” of terrorists. What specific terrorists acts(sanctioned by Iraq) did they commit?
Do you know what country has violated more U.N. Security Resolutions than Hussein? That’s right that paragon of virtue, Israel.
How would you explain to the Islamic world (on terms they will accept) that Israel can have WMDs’ but they cannot?
Report comment to moderator
Frank (30): Tell me again, Peter: How did Saddam Hussein “seriously threaten American interests”?
Peter Leavitt (33): Saddam … threatened the interests of our friends in the region including the provision of $25,000 to families Palestinian suicide bombers who attacked Israel …
Frank: That’s what I thought you said:
He didn’t seriously threaten us (I.e., America or Americans), but “our friends interests” — meaning Israel’s.
Peter Leavitt (33): Pres. Bush and his administration tried many ways of dealing with these issues diplomatically before finally and carefully concluding that war was necessary.
Frank: 1) Contrary to the US Constitution, which says it is Congress’ responsibility to decide “war is necessary” by declaring war.
2) Bush had Saddam in his sights since he was still Gov. Bush and campaigning for President(and long before 9/11 “changed everything”):
The invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam was about politics, not defending America or Americans.
Report comment to moderator
Saddam had an active WMD program.
There were no WMD in Iraq. The reason not, is that there were no places to keep WMD, no storage, no transport, no maintenance and warehouse workers. There were no places for WMD to come from, no factories, no work in progress, no factory workers. There were no places for WMD to be designed, no laboratories, no technicians and scientists. There were no WMD in Iraq because there had been no work on WMD since the Gulf War. Nothing was left from the former “WMD program” except items that escaped destruction by war, by Clinton, or by Iraq itself, and those residuals had themselves been destroyed by time which had left nothing but traces of the former materials.
Saddam had no working connection with Al Qaeda and would not have armed terrorists to attack the US.
The entire Arab world provided humanitarian assistance to Palestinian families whose homes were razed by the Israelis. That is not “material support for terrorism” against the United States.
Report comment to moderator
Graceland, #25,
I did not “exclude government.” I just said that there is more to the USA than just our government. The role that our secular gov’t was to play in this Christian nation was to protect religious liberty so that neither our gov’t nor any other could interfere with our Christian character and expression. If we lost that Christian character, the Founders did not want it to be because congress passed laws to lead to that loss. Many of our Founders did not think we could survive well without moral convictions rooted in religion.
Report comment to moderator
What an incredible privilege we have to live in a land where human power is checked.
And how fragile the privilege, when American fascists come within one vote of making the Great Writ optional.
Report comment to moderator
Graceland, I realize that you ruled out my view even before listening to it, but I still thank you for asking.
Report comment to moderator
Can a secular nation act in an “unChristian” manner? I don’t think so.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth: There were no WMD in Iraq.
From Douglas Feith’s book War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War aginst Terrorism
Misconception 8
IS IT TRUE that “no WMD was found” in Iraq?
IN FACT:
The Iraq Survey Group found that Saddam Hussein retained both the intention and the capability to revive bio-chemical weapons programs after sanctions were ended.
The reports we had from U.S. intelligence officials on Iraqi WMD painted essentially the same picture that those officials had presented to the Clinton Administration. The CIA declared that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles. The stockpiles catalogued by the UN weapons inspectors in 1999 were still unaccounted for, and were therefore presumed to exist. (p. 224)
[T]he Iraq Survey Group team concluded that Saddam had retained the ability to produce chemical and biological weapons rapidly (within a month or two). In the 1990s he had shut down factories dedicated solely to making such weapons, replacing them with “dual-use” facilities capable of producing both civilian products and chemical or biological weapons. That gave him deniability if inspections ever started up again, as Saddam evidently expected they would. (p. 327)
The Iraq Survey Group also found that Saddam had the intention to revive Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs once the sanctions were ended. He had preserved the necessary teams of technicians, who would be the key to reviving the programs quickly. (p. 327)
The public’s impression of the Duelfer Report on these matters was shaped by news media headlines to the effect that “nothing was found.” Those headlines were misleading (one might even say fundamentally false), because the ISG found substantial WMD capabilities in Iraq, including personnel, materiel, facilities, and intentions-but not the stockpiles of the weapons themselves. (p. 328)
In the end, there are only three possible explanations for the failure to find the WMD materiel that had been catalogued in detail by UNSCOM. Saddam might have destroyed it, he might have hidden it in Iraq, or he might have transferred it out of Iraq. To this day, we do not know for sure which explanation is correct. (p. 330)
Scroop Moth: Saddam had no working connection with Al Qaeda and would not have armed terrorists to attack the US.
Another set of comments from Feith’s book regarding CIA director Tenet’s letter to Sen. Graham, Chairman of the Senbate Intelligence committee:
Tenet’s account was provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee in a letter dated October 7, 2002:
* “We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa’ida going back a decade.”
* “Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa’ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.”
* “Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa’ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.”
* “We have credible reporting that al-Qa’ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa’ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.”
* “Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al- Qa’ida, suggest that Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military action.” 1
[Feith's comment on above] Tenet’s account was influential in the Bush administration. Officials from every agency – including myself – accepted it. It had special credibility – at least as far as it went – because CIA and DIA analysts tended to deny or downplay information about Iraq-al Qaida connections. They favored a theory that the secular Baathists of the Saddam Hussein regime would not want links of any kind with the religious extremists of al Qaida. They would not acknowledge such links if they could possibly find a way to dismiss the underlying information. So the Tenet letter was seen as a grudging admission by those CIA and DIA analysts.
Feith by the way was Under Secretary for Policy Planning under Rumsfeld. His remarkable book, which I’m now reading, explodes many of the conventional myths about the Iraq War.
Report comment to moderator
MIM: It’s like you said. It’s just noise. Frank never made an honest comment here to save his life. It’s comical.
Report comment to moderator
Nick Peters – THe Geneva COnvention does not cover unlawful combatants (i.e. non-uniformed fighters or non-national actors) like the Guantanamo detainees. Their treatment can’t violate the Geneva Conventions if they aren’t covered by them.
Report comment to moderator
Good informative post Peter Leavitt. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Well gee whiz… And that’s just what happened by golly…
I keep forgetting about that though… I guess it’s because I keep being “reminded” that the war “is all Bush’s fault”.
I also seem to recall that GWB wasn’t the only one who drew up plans for going to war with Iraq. Seems one of his predecessors did also, and it wasn’t his daddy…
But I keep forgetting that too, because I keep being “reminded” that the war “is all Bush’s fault”.
Eh well. Might’s well just blame Bush too. It’s what everyone is doing. Just follow along like sheep y’all.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt (33): Pres. Bush and his administration tried many ways of dealing with these issues diplomatically before finally and carefully concluding that war was necessary.
Frank in Phoenix (35): 1) Contrary to the US Constitution, which says it is Congress’ responsibility to decide “war is necessary” by declaring war.
Make it Man (45): Well gee whiz… And that’s just what happened by golly…
Frank: I have no problem at all repeating this historical fact for you:
Congress did not declare war against Iraq. They authorized the president to use force in Iraq if he saw fit.
The two are not the same.
Constitutionally, the President executes the war once it has been declared by the representatives of the people.
Congress may no more delegate its constitutional powers to the President than the President may delegate his constitutional powers to the Supreme Court. It just doesn’t work that way.
Report comment to moderator
Ah yes revisionism. Sure haven’t seen that before.
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr.,
Revise this (all emphases mine):
Words mean things, Fyne. Jr.
Words like “Declaration of War.”
And even words like “revisionism,” in which you and the rest of the apologistas here are engaging — with a vengeance.
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr. -
Rather than sitting ringside and flapping your jowls, how about you jump in and engage?
Explain for the class just how Congress rejecting making a declaration of war constitutes their having made a declaration of war.
Go ahead, I’ll wait …
Report comment to moderator
And Make It Man,
Feel free to assist. FJ’s gonna need some help …
Report comment to moderator
Franky girl. I’ll get to it when I get to it. Now pipe down will ya?
Report comment to moderator
“Franky girl”?
As I said: sitting ringside, flapping your jowls …
Report comment to moderator
And as I said Franky girl, pipe down. You squandered the right to demand any answers from me.
Report comment to moderator
Douglas Feith is an opportunist who’s colossal failings make him irrelevant. Peter Leavitt should cut-paste somebody who is influential on this subject, the prescient Richard Clarke.
Report comment to moderator
Whyne Jr.,
A quick recapitulation of our brief engagement will show all present that I haven’t demanded any answers from you. Rather,
1) you accused me of “revising” the record on whether or not Congress declared war; and
2) when I called on you to back your claim, the very best you could muster was to call me a girl and back off.
I don’t “demand” things from li’l pups I suspect won’t deliver.
But if you can’t run with the big dogs, why don’t you just stay up on the porch?
Report comment to moderator
Maybe after ya pipe down Franky girl.
Report comment to moderator
Whyne Jr.,
Go pound sand. You got nuthin’.
(Besides sex confusion, maybe … )
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!