WTF?!?: We Have To Support The Dictator Because His Opponent Was Just Assassinated

[kpete]

Any body else have a problem with this effort by the MSM and talking heads?

How can anybody have KILLED democracy when Mussharof is a DICTATOR?

A DICTATORSHIP Supported By The US Government!!!

[villager]

1. very similar to the points I just made in a GD post... yes...

Now the Bushies get a narrative where we "have" to support Musharraf in order for there to be "stability," and all those critiques about how anti-democratic he is can be politely laid aside in, well, a "time of war," more or less.

An excuse the Bushies and MSM are very comfortable with.

[zonmoy]

5. fascists are always very comfortable with their own kind.

[College Liberal]

81. MSNBC

has a general on now saying that we must support the little dictator behind the scenes, as if the death of Bhutto was a great thing for "DEMOCRACY" in Pakistan. Truly sad....

[havocmom]

Sorta like we had to support bush because of an event that enabled everything PNAC wanted.

Fuck that.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Because as distasteful as Musharraf is, he's all that's standing between

order and complete meltdown, with possibly nuclear consequences? Now is not the time to champion democracy.

[Alexander]

15. You're wrong. Sharif is a far better choice.

Read about Pakistan someday, and then get back to me.

Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case I apologize.

[TwilightGardener]

17. Don't know who Sharif is, and it doesn't matter--we have just seen, with

Bhutto's assassination, that we are pretty ineffective at installing a leader of our choosing in that country. They might still hold their elections, or they might not, and there just isn't much we can do about it.

[Alexander]

25. That's why you speak out of ignorance. You admitted you know nothing.

Sharif is Musharraf's other opponent.

READ and THINK before you post this crap.

[TwilightGardener]

27. ??--I'm baffled at your insults. All I'm saying is that now is not the

time to try and interfere with Pakistan--let Musharraf try to restore some order and let things settle down before deciding which NEW leader to prop up.

[Alexander]

29. You admitted to being ignorant. I'm trying to educate you.

You're not making it easy, though.

If you think being educated is insulting, that's your problem.

And both Bhutto and Sharif accused Musharraf of rigging elections. I doubt he'll do anything but become even more brutal and ruthless.

But, if you insist on speaking out of ignorance, have it your way.

[TwilightGardener]

35. Sorry, it doesn't matter to me if your opinion is that we should push

another leadership option on Pakistan RIGHT NOW--we tried that with Bhutto, it didn't end well, and no, I don't think Musharraf had her killed. We are very limited in this situation, and it's arrogance along the lines of neocon thinking to assume that we can decide what's best for Pakistan--we can only operate on what's best for OUR interests, and right now, our IMMEDIATE interest is NOT democracy in Pakistan, but preventing Islamic extremists from seizing power and getting control of nukes.

[Alexander]

38. Yet another straw man from you, and another ignorant post.

"Sorry, it doesn't matter to me if your opinion is that we should push another leadership option on Pakistan RIGHT NOW"

That is NOT my opinion. Grow the hell up and learn to READ. :eyes:

"right now, our IMMEDIATE interest is NOT democracy in Pakistan, but preventing Islamic extremists from seizing power and getting control of nukes."

Your ignorant statements are regular as clockwork. You really think Musharraf is preventing the "Islamic extremists" from doing anything?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Like I said, if you choose to remain ignorant about Pakistan, have it your way. But don't lash out at DUers who know far more about the political situation there than you ever will.

Reading is your friend. Talking out of your ass only makes enemies.

[TwilightGardener]

45. Where did I lash out at ANYBODY? YOU responded to ME first

by calling me ignorant. Stop projecting. And by the way, I remember you--you're the dimwit who was convinced that Chuck Hagel was going to be the stealth Republican nominee because the BFEE was going to get him into office. Bwhahahahahaaa! Yeah, you're a fucking FONT of reliable knowledge.

[Alexander]

47. I'm sorry you have chosen to learn nothing about Pakistan.

But as I said, that's your problem, not mine.

"Stop projecting."

Projecting? When you don't even know Nawaz Sharif's NAME?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You've clearly got issues, pal.

"And by the way, I remember you--you're the dimwit who was convinced that Chuck Hagel was going to be the stealth Republican nominee because the BFEE was going to get him into office. Bwhahahahahaaa! Yeah, you're a fucking FONT of reliable knowledge."

Now you've been insulting.

And by the way, I make mistakes. I'm human. But I LEARN from them and I don't continue to talk out of my ass, unlike, say, YOU.

You want a dimwit, take a look in the mirror.

Fucking moron.

[TwilightGardener]

50. LOL! Right back atcha, and have a good day!

[Alexander]

51. At least I know who Nawaz Sharif is, idiot.

You're no better than the freepers. I can't believe you support Obama.

[TwilightGardener]

54. I don't know all the individual players. I don't pretend to. But I DO understand

general principles, and a good general principle to follow is: when there's political turmoil and chaos in a foreign Muslim nuclear-armed country, offer aid and advice, but otherwise, STAY THE FUCK OUT OF IT, at least until order is restored.

[Alexander]

60. When did I ever say anything different? Answer: NEVER.

"a good general principle to follow is: when there's political turmoil and chaos in a foreign Muslim nuclear-armed country, offer aid and advice, but otherwise, STAY THE FUCK OUT OF IT, at least until order is restored."

Nowhere did I support invasions of coups or anything besides "aid and advice". You are backpedaling so much in an effort to save face that you are excusing your own ignorance of the situation.

If you bothered to read the news, you'll realize that the disorder caused by Bhutto's assassination is all against Musharraf, and that he is currently LESS popular in Pakistan than even Osama bin Laden!

The people of Pakistan do not want Musharraf. A simple glance at the headlines every now and again would have told you that.

In a volatile situation like this, you'd damn well better "know all the individual players" BEFORE you make ignorant statements. Otherwise you are broadcasting to DU that you know fuck-all about Pakistan and that you prefer it that way.

For example, do you know how Musharraf came to power? He overthrew - wait for it - NAWAZ SHARIF.

A little reading goes a long way.

Before you got all nasty and hostile I was trying to make that point to you.

Now, if you want to learn about Pakistan, I'll be happy to inform you about certain things. But I have a strong bullshit detector and you're in danger of causing it to short-circuit right now.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. WTF? There is NO time NOT to champion democracy.

Did you forget the :sarcasm: smiley?

[TwilightGardener]

28. Uh, no. Unless you're forgetting the disastrous consequences of

eliminating a distasteful dictator in Iraq, under the banner of "democracy". There is a time and place for pushing democracy. In a nuclear nation teetering on the brink of Islamic extremism, I think we can wait a little while for things to calm down. In a chaotic time, we might not like who they elect--best not to try to force things there right now.

[Alexander]

30. Promoting democracy does not mean you "force" democracy.

Yet another ignorant statement from you, and a straw man at that.

Look up Nawaz Sharif and then get back to us. Many DUers here know far more about Pakistan than you, and we'd love to discuss what's going on with you, if only you'd stop talking out of your ass.

[TwilightGardener]

36. WTF is your problem? I will state my opinion, wherever, whenever, and however

I please on DU. I have my take on the situation, you have yours--there's no need for insults or condescension.

[Alexander]

40. My problem is that you talk out of your ass and refuse to learn things.

Like, for example, who Nawaz Sharif is.

As I said, I'm not being insulting. You admitted to being ignorant. I'm trying to educate you. You already admitted you don't know anything about Sharif, and I was trying to enlighten you so that you won't make a total fool of yourself.

Too late for that, I guess.

You are talking out of your ass so much that this is becoming a chore. You want to remain ignorant? Fine.

[TwilightGardener]

46. I'm not making a fool out of myself. You are, by dogging me on every post on this thread.

Get help--you're a little too obsessed with what I think.

[Alexander]

49. You don't even realize that others are calling you on your bullshit.

But go ahead, continue to make a fool of yourself if it makes you feel better.

:eyes:

[Marrah_G]

57. That's probably why ......

.....the poster shows up as "ignored" on my screen.

Still it was amusing to watch you fight the invisible man.

:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

[TwilightGardener]

58. LOL! Good idea.

[Alexander]

61. Of course, in your case "Ignore" means "block people who know more about Pakistan".

By all means, sit in the dark in ignorance if that's what you enjoy.

[lastliberalintexas]

64. Yeah, because that's what we're doing in Iraq- championing democracy

:eye:

[TwilightGardener]

66. I know we're really not doing that, but supposedly, that was one of

our "good intentions" for invading. We can encourage democracy in any given nation, but we shouldn't try to force it, and we shouldn't decide who a nation's leader should be--kind of fuels the very terrorism we're fighting.

[lastliberalintexas]

68. No, we invaded because Hussein had WMDs

Don't fall for their tactics and let them change horses midstream. Promoting democracy only became the meme after we invaded and found that the inspectors were right and Hussein didn't have WMD.


You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth, by the way. In one breath you say that we shouldn't decide the leaders of other countries, but in the next you argue that we should basically prop Musharraf up because he is the only hope for stability in the region. You can't have it both ways.

And if we are going to meddle (which we always do), Sharif would be much better for the people of Pakistan. But then therein lies the problem with him, at least in the eyes of the neocons.

I really don't mean to sound snarky, but you should read up a little about the region and its recent leaders before arguing for Musharraf. Go find out who Sharif is, then formulate an informed opinion. It might be the same one you hold now, but I doubt it.

[TwilightGardener]

72. LOL! Another one. No, we didn't invade Iraq for WMD's--

maybe many in Congress thought so, but the neocons had the correct intel and ignored it, offering instead the cherry-picked BS. We invaded for oil, Israel, defense-contractor/corporate profiteering, and for a strategic foothold in the region. WMD's were an excuse just like democracy was. I didn't say we should "prop Musharraf up"--if you read that into my replies, then you are mistaken. I said we shouldn't attempt to impose our will on Pakistan at this moment in time. Nobody thinks Musharraf is a good guy, but right now, he's what they have--not sure it would be a good idea to back anyone else right now. We did that with Bhutto, openly--tried to broker an arrangement. It didn't work out too well, did it? She was in danger from the git-go--sometimes the American stamp of approval can be deadly in a country that sponsors Muslim extremists that hate us and want us dead. Now there's unrest, and maybe it's best not to insist on elections and withhold aid and whatever else we might want to try. This situation is largely out of our hands for the time being, and it would be rash to insist on a course of action or a new leader until we know all of the facts surrounding Bhutto's death.

[lastliberalintexas]

79. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough

I used the "we invaded because of WMD" in the same way you used the "we invaded to promote democracy" meme. I did not believe it then and do not believe it now. I know we invaded for oil and currency issues, specifically the petrodollar issues.

You did seem to imply that we should get behind Musharraf. I am not the only one who read that in your posts, so it can't simply be that I have poor reading comprehension.

Musharraf is what they have right now *because of our meddling*. We are continuing to provide him with military and financial support even now, so I don't think the US Stamp of Approval was the only thing involved in the murder of Bhutto.

[Truth2Tell]

73. we shouldn't decide who a nation's leader should be ???

But... we have decided who Pakistan's leader should be. When we provide heaps of military, economic and intelligence support to a dictator we are involving ourselves in Pakistan's politics - we are supporting dictatorship against democracy. It's not like we're staying neutral. And as others have pointed out, Sharif is not a "muslim extremist." He's a compromise politician who the muslim community of Pakistan has demonstrated they can live with. When we go and support dictators (in Pakistan and/or elsewhere) who don't have the support of their people, we drive the societies into the hands of the extremists. And when the backlash cometh we have no one to blame but ourselves (for an example see: history of Iran).

[TwilightGardener]

80. On one hand, you're pointing out the consequences of interfering

with another nation's political process, and yet advocating MORE interference despite all those consequences? There is "what should be", and then's there's "where we're at now". We are where we are--there is dangerous instability in Pakistan, and the first order of business is NOT to support further upheaval or butt in and insist on a course of action, but to allow the immediate situation to calm down and allow time for the citizens of Pakistan to regroup and decide the next best course of action.

[Truth2Tell]

83. I propose we interfere less

And when we do interfere, that we advise and pressure Mushie to behave in as democratic a manner as possible, even if it means his power is eroded. We need to let democracy take it's most natural course. I wouldn't suggest that we install anyone to lead Pakistan, but we should make our support of the current regime contingent upon adhering to real democratic principles. If Mushie is replaced it could well be to our long term advantage.

Bear in mind, the Nuke arsenal is under the control of U.S. friendly elements of the Pakistani military that aren't going to change regardless of who takes power. And if new leadership really is uber-extremest - to the point that Pakistani nukes would be in pseudo-terrorist hand - we have contingency plans to take them out. But that scenario is very very unlikely - it's just a Buchco meme used to justify our support for our favorite puppet dictator in the face of opponents that we don't like for other, far less noble reasons.

[Truth2Tell]

70. Now is not the time to champion democracy ??

Let's just wait til later. Maybe til 2015? Or 2050? Or maybe let's just leave it for our grandchildren to to do that democracy championing crap. After all, everyone knows democracies can't be trusted with nuclear weapons, only American puppet dictatorships. Wait a sec... I'm so confused now.... :crazy:

[TwilightGardener]

75. Look how well it's working in Iraq--we took out a dictator who kept the country

stable, and presto! Instant dysfunction, genocide and new threats from Iran! Dictatorship is not the worst that can happen--a completely failed nuclear state full of extremists quite possibly IS. We need to tread lightly here, until things calm down.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. That is a really bad example.

First, 'we took out a dictator' - yes a foreign power invaded a sovereign nation and deposed its leader. Oddly, the people in that nation were not exactly thrilled with that act of imperial arrogance.

Second, we didn't just 'take out a dictator', we wrecked the entire infrastructure of Iraq over a 12 year period culminating in one of the most intense ariel bombardments in the history of warfare. Having destroyed the physical infrastructure of Iraq from the air, we then proceeded to completely dismantle all of the social institutions that could possible function to re-establish order, specifically the army and the civil service. We concurrently openly encouraged widespread looting of all government institutions (except the oil ministry) to complete the destruction. We did everything we could to ensure that Iraq would be unable to re-establish itself as a functional national government.

On the other hand we have the examples of Chile, Argentina, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, the former Czechoslovakia, etc. all of which tossed out their dictators without collapsing into chaos. We have the example of Russia and Ukraine, both of which have or had nuclear weapons, both of which tossed out their dictatorships without launching their weapons.

[Warren Stupidity]

86. Oddly, Bushco is saying the same false noise.

You do understand that it is entirely likely that the Pakistani military and/or intelligence agencies had a hand in the assasination and that Musharraf will use this event, regardless of who did it, to avoid the unpleasantness of democracy for another few years, thanks to people like you echoing this nonsense?

The dictator is always all that is standing between order and chaos, and if there is any doubt of that the dictator will create some chaos just to remind us of why we must submit.

[sentelle]

3. Musharraf is a third world Banana republic 'general' thug

Why should we support a military dictator?

(yes, I know he took off the uniform, makes him no less a generalissmo).

how is he any better than any other tyrant who takes power in a coup and prevents real elections?

[DCKit]

8. Because, with the exception of Putin, THEY don't have "noo-que-lur" weapons. n/t

[sentelle]

59. Many despots have nukes

China, North Korea, do as well.
Are they any less 'thuggish'?

Mushariff is using the US to hold onto his reign of terror. and Quite frankly, he doesn't care about the war on terror....
The ISI is VERY pro Al Qaida (AQ Khan anyone). Do we presume that terrorists can't get nukes?

[global1]

9. What's The Old Saying - "You Can Take The Military Man Out Of His Uniform But......

you cannot take the military out of the man".

[NightWatcher]

4. is bush (or his handler) watching this and taking notes?

just kidding. we all know bush and the uber reich wing wants to give a dem the prez so that they can ditch the failed economy and blame them for the current/upcoming recession, to ensure the rw control for decades more to come after a brief 4 year stint by hillary, edwards, whomever.....

[global1]

11. So That's The Plan - Run The Country Into Such A Hole That When .....

the Dems take over - it hits the fan - and the Dems get blamed and in 2012 the Repugs come back for 100 year reign?

[Marrah_G]

6. Do you know what the alternative is?

Would you have power, nuclear power, handed off to the murderous religious lunatics?

[Alexander]

16. Yes, Nawaz Sharif. A pity DUers like yourself don't know that.

He is about as far from "murderous religious lunatics" as you could get.

[rucky]

24. Does India agree?

that's what I'm worried about more than anything.

[Alexander]

26. Considering the 1999 coup took place because Mushie invaded Kashmir,

I'd say India would welcome Sharif over Musharraf.

[atreides1]

19. It's already close

With the ISI support of Al Que da and the Taliban, the religious fanatics are just one step away. As long as the ISI have the upper hand things will remain the way they are, once the fanatics start thinking that they no longer need the ISI it could get real interesting, real fast!



Democracy when it's convenient, that's the answer? When Democracy becomes a liability then a dictatorship is perfectly acceptable?

[Warren Stupidity]

7. cui prodest scelus is fecit

"for whom the crime advances, he has done it"

[Zynx]

22. Pearl Harbor made money for US shipbuilders and automakers. Did they

do it?

[Warren Stupidity]

39. There is a reasonable theory that in fact we allowed the

attack to succeed in order to justify entering the war, a more or less plausable LIHOP theory for Pearl. However as the Japanese Navy, which came close to wiping out our entire pacific fleet, most directly benefited from the attack, and as in the short run the attack clearly furthered their aims, I'd blame them.

[ButterflyBlood]

42. Try using that argument in a legal trial

It's not alone considered sufficient evidence for a conviction.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. Are we in court?

Of course it is not proof. It is an aid in where to start looking for the evidence. Who has motive?

[Alexander]

10. Even some ignorant DUers are saying it. They forget about Nawaz Sharif.

[rucky]

13. It's a regular whodunnit...

Taliban from the West, Sharif from Kashmir, Musharraf. They all stand to gain from this.

[Alexander]

14. I don't think Sharif did it. Somebody shot at him this morning.

Plus, he doesn't have the power or connections.

[rucky]

12. The people rioting agree...

the heat is on Musharraf.

[tom_paine]

18. The Bushies got a two-fer by killing Bhutto.

Not only her death, which shatters the Liberal Coalition, the only ones who actually believe in democracy, butthey get to wave the bloody flag of their corpse likethey waved Bush Enemy Pat Tillman's Bloody Corpse to further their evil BushTotalitarian aims.

It's a bargain for them, a two-fer. Actually, a three-fer, because it's squirts more fear-juice into the Imperial Subjects of Amerika, which has the effect of driving them like frightened children into Der Fuhrer's waiting arms.

[Zynx]

20. By plunging Pakistan into total and complete turmoil?

This weakens Musharraf intensely. Everyone suspects him even though I doubt he would order it. Far too obvious. If it was a grand conspiracy it was very short sighted. It would merely remind Pakistanis of what they hate about Musharraf.

[tom_paine]

41. You are thinking short-term, not long-term. If Busharraf rides out the storm

the benefits to murdering a Liberal Icon are immense.

Just like when they killed JFK, RFK, and MLK. Sure they had to endure a bunch of sentimentality, sympathy and renamed airports, but they also got Nixon and his band of criminals, which directly lead to HW and his Reagan puppet, with their carnival of High Treasons like Iran-Contra, Iraqgate, and BCCI, to name those we know about.

And THAT lead the the End of the American Republic on 12/12/2000 and our descent into the New Totalitarianism since.

The turmoil ends. If the Bushies ride it out without being arrested, then they win. It's as simple as that, I am afraid.

Watch. Busharraf will survive and prosper. Bushie Power will be maintained in Pakistan, and Bin Laden will remain free (wink, wink) along with the Anthrax Assassin (remember him?).

[lastliberalintexas]

65. Martial law is the more likely occurrence

Although there are no guarantees and the situation could spiral out of Musharraf's control, the more likely scenario is that he imposes stricter controls over the Pakistanis, essentially or in reality a martial law decree of some sort. This will likely serve to reestablish his government rather than weaken it. And the fact that he is a Bush/neocon puppet only makes that even more likely.

A lot of people hated Pol Pot, but that didn't end his rule either.

[Cassandra]

23. Sounds like Cheney logic to me.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. here is my questions: wasnt bhutto also supported by the US govt?

[Alexander]

33. Yes, she was supported by the Clinton administration.

The right wing here hates her. The Wall Street Journal accused her of incompetence and Bush is buddy-buddy with Musharraf.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

34. bhutto had a reputation of being extremely corrupt in india, but i dont know if that is

entirely substantiated.

i know that india-pak relations have improved since mussharaf.

[Alexander]

43. Possibly. Nawaz Sharif refused to invade Kargil and Mushie overthrew him.

So I think Pakistan-India relations will be far better under Sharif.

That is, if he survives long enough to get elected.

[RaleighNCDUer]

82. didn't i read that somebody took a shot at him today, too?

Not in the news, but in some post today.

[fascisthunter]

32. Here's a REAL Dictator for the Rightards Who Don't Know what One Looks Like

pay attention

[killbotfactory]

37. Yes, let's support a dictator because his opponent was assassinated by Al Qaeda

I bet Perez will be cracking down on Al Qaeda any minute now...

[Marrah_G]

44. Is your solution to remove support and allow the Taliban to take control?

Do you REALLY want Al Queda and the Taliban to have control of a nuclear arsenal? That would be bad for the whole world.

[Alexander]

52. How about "support Nawaz Sharif"? That's not a bad position right now.

Both Bhutto and Sharif agreed that they would have secular, open democracies, a far cry from the current situation under Musharraf.

[killbotfactory]

53. Yeah, that's going to happen

The extremists in the border regions will be untouched by Perez, pro democracy demonstrators will be tortured and slaughtered in th name of "maintaining stability".

[lastliberalintexas]

62. Are you really that fucking scared of the boogeyman?

You have been all over this board screaming the al Quaeda did it meme and continually dismissing the idea that Musharraf or the necons of the world had anything to gain by such a murder. Musharraf is already blaming "terrorists" and saying that the fight against those elements must be increased, using it as a rallying cry for support. If that doesn't sound like a New Pearl Harbor to you, then I also have a bridge for sale, real cheap... Though I also have a bridge for sale if you think for one second that Musharraf is going to do anything whatsoever to go after the fundies.

Musharraf and the neocons didn't have to pull the trigger since there are plenty of fundamentalists out there wacky enough to do it for them. But they have certainly fomented the environment in which those wackos are functioning, manipulating the true believers for their own goals. It really can be that both sides are assholes. There really are shades of gray in the world. And al Quaeda really isn't the scariest thing on Earth, unfortunately.

[Alexander]

63. It's okay. Marrah_G likes to ignore anyone who doesn't agree.

Especially those who are more informed.

[Marrah_G]

67. Al Qaeda admitted to doing it. I have yet to scream anything.

If you fail to see the importance of todays events then frankly I don't know what else to say to you. You live in a completely different reality then I do.

There is no boogey man that I am afraid of.

HOWEVER, there are some very scary, radical people out there who I would not want to have access to weaponry that could wipe out millions of people (perhaps in India?) as well as cause massive damage to the environment. If you choose to believe bad people do not exist and that no one is crazy enough to use a nuke then we really are a world apart on how we see things.

[lastliberalintexas]

71. The problem is that those people already have that power

THAT is what you are not seeing. Musharraf is not the last refuge against the terrorists. He is in bed with the fundies, yet people on this board are saying that we must support him as a last ditch effort to keep the fundies from getting nukes. Yep, makes sense to me.


"If you choose to believe bad people do not exist and that no one is crazy enough to use a nuke then we really are a world apart on how we see things."

Where did I say that bad people don't exist? All I said is that al Quaeda isn't the scariest element on Earth- there are people who are far, far worse.

[Marrah_G]

76. Perhaps the divide here is because of my wording

When I say support Musharraf I mean right now. I do not mean supporting him elections. I believe it is vital to help Pakistan remain stable enough to ensure that they do not slide into civil war. I think that would be widely exploited by the Taliban and used to gain control of the government.

[RaleighNCDUer]

84. AQ didn't do it -- I did it!

They just want to grab the headlines!

You know, anybody can claim credit or responsibility for anything - the AQ claim could as easily have been made by the ISI, or the CIA for all we know.

What ever happened to "believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see"?

[antiimperialist]

55. Focus on the real danger: Hugo Chavez, who once shut down one coupist TV station n/t

[Skidmore]

56. Apparently, and we're supposed to select candidates for 2008 who

support endless war too. Guiliani, anyone? Hillary, I guess, becomes a shoe-in.

[sampsonblk]

69. Guilty: Contessa Brewer, MSNBC

I just heard her say essentially the same thing. Jack Jacobs agrees, of course.

Very poor logic.

[SpiralHawk]

74. You need to learn to think like a republicon

not

[College Liberal]

77. Thanks

i thought the same thing

[Blarch]

78. fuck this shit.

she knew this was coming, how the fuck...?

:mad:

[Warren Stupidity]

85. your eloquence is stunning.

I think you left out a few 'fucks' however. How about:

"fuck this fucking shit. She fucking knew this was fucking coming, how the fuck...?"

[spanone]

87. very good point. not only a dictator, a MILITARY DICTATOR.