Leon Panetta, other former Obama subordinates show stunning disloyalty

[n2doc]

Aspiring Republican presidential candidate Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana, scheduled a big Washington speech for Monday to condemn President Obama’s defense policy. But an unexpected competitor beat him to the punch.

Leon Panetta, in an interview with USA Today’s Susan Page published just before Jindal’s speech, criticized Obama in harsh terms that would have been dismissed as partisan sniping — if Panetta weren’t a Democrat who had served as Obama’s CIA director and secretary of defense.

Panetta criticized his former boss for having “lost his way” — allowing the power vacuum in Iraq that created the Islamic State, rejecting Panetta’s and Hillary Clinton’s advice to arm the Syrian rebels and failing to enforce his own “red line” barring Syria’s use of chemical weapons.

The interview was timed with this week’s launch of Panetta’s book, in which he wrote that Obama “avoids the battle, complains, and misses opportunities.” Panetta also wrote of Obama’s “frustrating reticence to engage his opponents and rally support for his cause” and his tendency to rely “on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader.”

more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-leon-panetta-and-other-obama-subordinates-stunning-disloyalty/2014/10/06/c4ae4448-4d95-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html?tid=pm_pop

[el_bryanto]

1. In other news, Panetta likes money and realizes that loyalty just doesn't pay.

A lesson for our times.

Bryant

[flamingdem]

8. You said it

He's a greedy ass.

[2naSalit]

9. ^^THIS^^

[hifiguy]

31. Eeyup. It's as simple as that.

[bullwinkle428]

2. I was about to post my own OP on this. Literally yelling at the radio

while listening to this jackwagon get interviewed by NPR.

1) Despite the interviewer bringing up the agreement SIGNED BY GEORGE BUSH before Obama even took office, Panetta blamed Obama for "not appying enough pressure to Al-Maliki". The fuck?

2) Discussed his support for "enhanced interrogation" (hint-hint, wink-wink, nudge-nudge), and said how it really did lead to the U.S. gaining valuable information in "the war on terror".

Maybe Obama was supposed to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" on Al-Maliki, so he would be willing to allow U.S, troops to stay in Iraq.

[Bobcat]

6. Fact

What? A journalist actually brought up the FACT that it was Pres. Bush who agreed that U.S. forces must be withdrawn by a specific date? That Pres. Obama was simply complying with the Status of Forces in Iraq agreement? Will wonders never cease!

[flamingdem]

10. CNN just had a foaming repuke going on about that talking point

while discussing the book and ME policy. The one thing he was right about was that the Repukes are celebrating these attack books against Obama.

Pathetic. They babble on what we should be doing in Syria, knowing we can't trust the Syrian rebels to say who they are..

[MisterP]

30. heck, Obama tried to undo the SOFA any way he could

(so, yes, DU will soon be praising The Great One for trying to keep us in Iraq)

[TwilightGardener]

18. Along those lines: Panetta's a fucking liar--

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/02/panetta_v_panetta_former_defense_secretarys_conflicting_accounts_of_the_iraq_withdrawal/

Panetta obviously feels differently. Or rather, he feels differently now compared to how he felt three years ago. At the 2011 hearing, Panetta reminded the senators time and again that the U.S. had been negotiating with the sovereign nation of Iraq and had to respect the decisions of its political institutions. “This is about negotiating with a sovereign country, an independent country,” Panetta said. “This was about their needs. This is not about us telling them what we are going to do for them or what they are going to have to do for us.” After a number of Republican senators had pressed him on the residual force, Panetta finally snapped and took out his frustrations on then-Sen. Scott Brown. “I get the impression here that somehow everybody is deciding what we want for Iraq and that that is what should happen,” he said. “But it does not work that way. This is an independent country.”

Now Panetta is saying the exact opposite: that what we wanted for Iraq is what should have happened, and that we could have used our economic leverage to strong-arm the Iraqi government into agreeing to U.S. terms. The fact that Panetta even floated so drastic an option as to completely cut off U.S. development funds is a good indicator of just how much resistance had to be overcome. It also seems unlikely that the U.S. would have followed through on that threat, since much of the reconstruction money sent to Iraq was for training and equipping its security forces.

[H2O Man]

27. Very important post.

Thank you.

[KoKo]

35. Thanks! I thought I remembered him saying that...but

didn't have time to search.. That's why his contradictory statements pushing his book comme across as such a "stab in the back" to the President he served. Doesn't he think anyone will look up what he said? I'm amazed at what our politicos think they can get away with that no one will be able to find the video or quote from the "way back."

But, then...they aren't challenged by any USMainstream Media when they contradict themselves or outright lie. So...what could they care about what some online news group says. Forgetting that that's were the more intelligent seekers and the young are getting their news these days.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Not surprised

I would still be interested in reading his book. I think he DID throw his CIA Operative/Asset - Erik Prince - under the bus and blew his cover . . . and it was deliberate. I want to see what he has to say for himself.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Panetta invited movie producers to a classified briefing and revealed the names of the

Seal Team Six members who did the Bin Laden raid. The movie producers, er, didn't have a security clearance to hear the briefing. Panetta denied ever knowing they were invited, and then basically crushed the investigation of the matter when he took over the Pentagon.

[Octafish]

4. Panetta's with the Program: War is good for the economy.

The Pitfalls of Peace

The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth

Tyler Coswen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014

The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.

An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.

The world just hasn’t had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but today’s casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.

Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.

It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.

War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.

SNIP...

Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you don’t get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but it’s something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0

[OilemFirchen]

33. Oh good!

Didn't have to wait too long for a cite from a Looneytarian.

Never one to disappoint!

[Octafish]

41. Do you think I agree with him?

I've written about him before. I'm not afraid of his ideas.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023658197

[OilemFirchen]

43. Um... yes.

You seem a bit sycophantic, in fact.

[Octafish]

45. Then you don't know me.

I don't like warmongers.

[OilemFirchen]

46. Of course I don't know you.

I do know, however, that in this instance you've cited the work of a man who approaches economics from a Libertarian perspective in order to bolster a ridiculous claim. His ultra-free market approach taints every "analysis" he makes, including the one you've cited.

I also understand that you're terribly, horribly, awfully disappointed in the current President. That explains why you possess no shame when you determine whose works you promote, no matter how reactionary and/or ridiculously flawed.

Did I miss anything?

[Octafish]

50. Let me be clear, then. This President is why America today is run by warmongers and traitors!

First, the guy made it OK to be a racist in America, again.



Just to make sure people got the message of where he was coming from, Reagan declared his candidacy in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi.



President Obama would do well to learn, if not remember, the story from Terrel Bell, Prunefaces's shocked Secretary of Education, who heard White House staff refer to Dr. King as "Martin Lucifer Coon":



After he became one of the one-percent, Pruneface didn't care much for poor people or working people.

The Trickle Down crowd still holds sway in Washington, ask David Stockman or Penny Pritzker.

Then, the Prunefaced sumbitch made some kind of deal with the Ayatollah in order to hold the hostages until after the election.

Then, after the election, and after the Ayatollah blew up the US barracks in Beirut, Reagan did another deal with the Ayatollah to free another batch of hostages and used the profits to finance an illegal war in Central America.

Of course, Poppy Bush pardoned the various conspirators on behalf of the BFEE.

Poppy sort of took charge of things after Reagan, eh, slowed after that almost-assassin's bullet got him.



[font size="1"]In happier days, Detroit, July, 1980.[/font size]

The OP from 2013 but I didn't see that you read it, OilemFirchen.

Hm. Did you see this one?


Know your BFEE: WikiLeaks Stratfor Dump Exposes Continued Secret Government Warmongering

War is big business. It's an insider's game. It's why we have so much secret government.

The last remaining enormous wads of cash in the Treasury are to be had for purchasing today's modern military industrial intel complex.



There's more than a trillion to be grabbed -- just for the Lockheed-Martin F-35.

Now keeping tabs on us -- people interested in using some of the nation's treasure for more peaceful purposes -- are for-hire spies. How do I know this? Julian Assange and Anonymous:

WikiLeaks' Stratfor Dump Lifts Lid on Intelligence-Industrial Complex

WikiLeaks' latest release, of hacked emails from Stratfor, shines light on the murky world of private intelligence-gathering

by Pratap Chatterjee
Published on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 by The Guardian/UK

What price bad intelligence? Some 5m internal emails from Stratfor, an Austin, Texas-based company that brands itself as a "global intelligence" provider, were recently obtained by Anonymous, the hacker collective, and are being released in batches by WikiLeaks, the whistleblowing website, starting Monday.

The most striking revelation from the latest disclosure is not simply the military-industrial complex that conspires to spy on citizens, activists and trouble-causers, but the extremely low quality of the information available to the highest bidder. Clients of the company include Dow Chemical, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, as well as US government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Marines.

SNIP...

Assange notes that Stratfor is also seeking to profit directly from this information by partnering in an apparent hedge-fund venture with Shea Morenz, a former Goldman Sachs managing director. He points to an August 2011 document, marked "DO NOT SHARE OR DISCUSS", from Stratfor CEO George Friedman, which says:

"What StratCap will do is use our Stratfor's intelligence and analysis to trade in a range of geopolitical instruments, particularly government bonds, currencies and the like."

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/28-10?print

If it weren't for Anonymous and WikiLeaks, we probably wouldn't know about any of that.

It's no joke. It's no unimportant story. It's no boring history. Run by insiders, the secret government is key to making the system run on behalf of the few -- the 1-percent of 1-percent. Central to that is intelligence -- economically, politically and military useful information.

Which brings up the nation's purported free press, the only business mentioned by name in the entire United States Constitution, and how the organizations therein have miserably failed to feature prominently the sundry and myriad ways the insiders on Wall Street and their toadies in Washington do the work for Them.

The problem is systemic. The corruption is systemic.

Because it involves oversight of secret organizations -- the Pentagon, Homeland Security, CIA, etc -- Congress and the Administration often have no clue, let alone oversight, to what is happening because the corruption is marked "Top Secret."

Secret government also means We the People can't do our job as citizens, which is to hold them accountable and find the ones responsible in order to vote the crooks out and, it is hoped, the honest ones in.

With no citizen oversight, anything goes. And it doesn't stop.

Remember this fine fellow, US Navy fighter ace Randy "Duke" Cunningham?

Later a member of the United States Congress, he used his position to feather his nest, Big Time.



In his political career, Cunningham was a member of the Appropriations and Intelligence committees, and chaired the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Human Intelligence Analysis and Counterintelligence during the 109th Congress. He was considered a leading Republican expert on national security issues.

Currently, he's in USP Tuscon or another fine facility where he gets three squares, medical and dental.
He's due for release in a year or so. He'll be able to pick up his pension.

"The Duke Cunningham Act, also known as the Federal Pension Forfeiture Act, was introduced by U.S. Senator John F. Kerry in 2006. The bill would have denied pension benefits to any members of Congress convicted of bribery, conspiracy or perjury. The bill died in committee. (Source: The Press Enterprise)

Duke wasn't alone. He really was just one snake in a long line of snakes. Remember Dusty Foggo, Number 3 at CIA and close associate of CIA Director and former Congressman Porter Goss? Swells sitting atop the peak of political and military secrecy and power.

Unfortunately, when it comes to modern governance, no oversight means means the insiders are getting away with murder, and warmongering and treason and all the power that they bring. Appointed pretzeldent George W Bush on Valentine's Day 2007 put it in words: "Money trumps peace."

Secret government warmongering and war profiteering are systemic. Secret government is rotten to the core. What's more, in a democracy that once really was land of the free and home of the brave, secret government poses the greatest threat to true national security.

The OP from 2012

A couple more:

Know your BFEE: 1984 Death of Outstanding Congressional Staffer Buried Poppy-Moon Relationship

Know your BFEE: They kill good soldiers like Col. Ted Westhusing for profit...

The Odd Hypocrite: The NAZI Bush Celebrates the NAZI Defeat

Does that help establish my bona fides? I can go back to about 2003 when I was Oblomov on DU1. I don't want to be mistaken for a warmonger supporter, so I'll be sure to be more clear in the future for you.

[OilemFirchen]

51. I wasn't questioning your bona fides.

I was simply remarking on your choice of sources and said sources' hackneyed missives, borne of a clearly non-progressive political perspective.

I haven't accused you of being anything, I merely noted your tendency (at least in this instance) to grasp for any straw in order to further elucidate your angst over the current administration. I get that you don't like Obama. I don't give a shit. You cited a Libertarian's Libertarian screed explaining, in Libertarian fashion, how peacetime economies don't seek growth. It was bizarre, but apparently useful for you.

No actual harm was done to your reputation. Trust me.

[Octafish]

55. That's why I bothered to answer.

As for what you think of me or my reputation, that's your business. I don't really care.

[bigbrother05]

5. Wasn't he one of the Cabinet officers that advised against the bin Laden raid?

Panetta was an ok bureaucratic administrator, not necessarily the one that should call the shots. Defense and CIA, of course he's completely objective in his critiques.

[librechik]

7. hmm--Panetta would make a fantastic running mate for Hillary.

the inevitable just showed one of its cards.

[TwilightGardener]

14. He's as old as McCain. They could be the geriatric ticket.

[KoKo]

21. I think you are onto something there....

I saw him saying this in book promo somewhere last week. I thought...WTF?

But, thinking it over....I came to your conclusion. The Game is Afoot!

[flamingdem]

11. This kind of thing sucks for the Midterms

[hootinholler]

12. Panetta's a Democrat?

Who knew?

[Robbins]

13. Panetta

Has blamed obama for the isis war.

He has shown great disloyalty and comes off as neocon DINO.

And he may be doing the bidding of the Clintons who he been align with for years.

With so called dems like him who needs republican although Panetta was an admitted republican at one time.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Was there any doubt that this man is just a Hillary toady?

Why Obama gave him any job whatsoever is beyond me. Complete asshole, to come out and say shit like this when it's not able to be proven true and doesn't help the current situation. By the way, he was only at the Pentagon three days a week, everyone knows his deputies ran everything (Ashton Carter) and he was just there to sign shit and greet dignitaries.

[bigwillq]

17. Panetta has always been a fool. Most of Obama's subordinates have been diasters. (nt)

[Tatiana]

19. Well, he never was Obama's guy in the first place.

Last edited Tue Oct 7, 2014, 01:46 PM - Edit history (1)

I wouldn't expect him to be loyal. However, Panetta, along with Clinton (and to some extent Hagel) demonstrate that the whole "Team of Rivals" concept to high-level/cabinet posts may not be the greatest idea.

The only point he makes, I think, is that Obama has, at times, lectured more than he has been a leader. I do believe in such a thing as moral clarity. Would you try to negotiate with terrorists? That's what the Republicans were like -- domestic terrorists who held this country hostage because they refused to let this President get anything resembling a win. He realized too late that these people were not capable of negotiating in good faith at all. This is why some people believed he was weak.

[KoKo]

24. But...

He didn't have any more power than the Party Insiders gave him. He had to dance with the Party that brought him to power.

It's our Party that needs an overhaul. It's gone so far Right that it's embedded with Wall Street/MIC and the Special Interests.

Agree about him lecturing a bit too much. But, then he wasn't running things...so what else could he do. That the Clinton's loyalists are now stabbing him in the back should be noticed. And, that they didn't wait for the Mid-Terms to start it is worth noticing also.

He did manage to keep us out of more war for a long time, though. Until it was decided that "More War is Better" for the Dem Party Ticket in 2016. The caving to Wall Street wasn't decided by him, either. It was all in place at the time of his Election. I think that's why his Inauguration Speech struck many of us here as being sort of a "downer" after his campaign.

And his choices that had us Left Activists in the Party scratching our heads along with Rahm Emmanuel's shot across the bow to us...to butt out.

Anyway....just my 2 cents.

[TwilightGardener]

28. What constitutes a "rival"? Political parties? Just people who hate each other?

Panetta shouldn't be a rival--he is supposedly a Democrat who should want to see Democrats succeed and win. Instead of holding off on his criticism until after the midterms, he's decided to do this now. Why?

[Tatiana]

34. Different political philosophies, mostly.

No, Panetta shouldn't be a party rival. But I think you pick cabinet-level administrators and department heads based on their similarity to your political philosophy. It seems like Obama tried to appease a few people, which really hasn't netted him any political capital. For Panetta to bring up his difference of opinion so close to the midterms is disastrous.

[Nye Bevan]

20. Obama's not running for anything, so criticizing him will not be damaging in any future elections.

It's not like he's criticizing potential future Democratic candidates such as Hillary Clinton.

[n2doc]

29. Some would disagree with you

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/10/no-barack-obama-isnt-on-the-ballot-this-fall-yes-he-is-hurting-democrats-chances/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/08/11/235995_obamas-standing-among-voters-is.html?rh=1


Anyone who helps spread the meme that the President is incompetent is hurting Democrats chances, as the Repubs are selling the fall election as a chance to 'stop Obama".

[karynnj]

47. Are you suggesting that it is less disgusting for a cabinet official to criticize Obama than Hillary

I can't think of many cabinet officials who wrote books that were this damaging while the President was still in office. Note that Bill Clinton was OUTRAGED when Bill Richardson, 8 years after he served in Clinton's cabinet failed to endorse Hillary Clinton. According to any number of accounts, this was disloyalty that could not be forgiven. Yet it was 8 years later and NOT even negative about either Clinton.

Obama clearly made the decision to try to align the Clintons' interests with his own by bringing HRC into the cabinet in the highest position he could have given her. It did work -- and kept the Clintons supportive in 2008 and 2012. The drawback is that they - and the people like Panetta around them were NEVER Obama first - they were Clinton allies. I would have thought that they - and Hillary - would at least have the good grace to wait until at least the midterms before rewriting history to support a Hillary Clinton run.

It is also disturbing that it is pretty clear that they are betting on Obama's foreign policy failing - even if by doing so, it makes that more likely. What I don't get is how the Clintons think that she would NOT be blamed for things that happened under her.

[spanone]

22. he's currently on m$nbc with andrea mitchell...they're having a grand time

slogging Obama

[H2O Man]

23. This may sound like

mere speculation, but : Panetta never worked for President Obama. Rather, Panetta is part of the machine. President Obama has, to a large extent, been forced to rely upon the machine, to complete some of his goals.

The machine is not loyal to President Obama. It is currently attempting to force his hand on military action in the Middle East. This level of "disloyalty" is but a step in that process.

There are numerous areas where I disagree with President Obama. However, I recognize that his attempts to reduce US forces in Iraq and Syria pose difficulties for him. While I am opposed to the air attacks, I still respect Obama's efforts to keep (more) troops from putting "boots on the ground."

[Rex]

25. Who got Osama Bin Laden again? Maybe someone needs to remind Leon.

And WHO created the power vacuum in Iraq again? Gosh, I just can't remember those details...oh wait I can...FUCK OFF LEON!

[valerief]

26. They lean whichever way the money blows. nt

[DavidDvorkin]

32. We don't want government based on loyalty to an individual

Loyalty should be to the country and the Constitution, not to the man in office.

Panetta's moral failings are a separate matter, but I won't attack him or anyone else for "disloyalty" to a president.

[TwilightGardener]

36. He's not in government. His time to express his concerns about

leaving Iraq and arming rebels and pushing red lines has come and gone. He had his chance, twice in the Cabinet. None of that matters now, even if his opinions could somehow be proven true (and how could anyone know how his and Hillary's ideas would have worked?). If he really felt that Obama was wrong and doing something harmful to the country, why didn't he step down? If he held his tongue because he wasn't sure how the policies were going to shake out over time, then be honest and admit that, rather than use current events to try to make yourself look good in retrospect.

[H2O Man]

37. Well said.

[TwilightGardener]

38. Thanks.

[DavidDvorkin]

42. Of course he should have spoken out then, but that's irrelevant

to what I said and what I was responding to.

[karynnj]

48. Exactly and the same goes for Hillary Clinton -- even more

If she agreed on the most fundamental foreign policy issues - Syria and Iraq - why not step down?

[TwilightGardener]

49. Yes--once you decide to go along with something, and agree to promote and defend it

in public, in testimony, in speeches, as both she and Panetta have done at various times--why should you have any credibility later when you come back and say, "Well, I thought we should have done THIS and not done THAT"? It doesn't matter anymore what you thought, you agreed to follow the policy rather than fight harder to get your way, come up with a better argument that would change the President's mind, or quit. So shut up now. It's complete self-serving opportunism to come back later and say, "If everyone had just listened to me, everything would be better." Everybody is going to have minor policy disagreements, minor disagreements on how best to tackle a problem or respond to a crisis. But Panetta and Clinton have taken disloyalty to new levels--Panetta is personally bashing Obama's leadership every day on TV now. Even Bob Gates didn't do that. Just appalling.

[Major Hogwash]

54. By Jove, I think he's got it!

Yeah, so what, Panetta was there long enough to collect some information to write a book about Obama.
But, honestly, was he elected to anything?

I think not!

Obama's response should be "Yeah, well, you know, man, that's just, like, your opinion, man" and move on.

[PragmaticLiberal]

39. First we had Hillary throwing both President Obama & Secretary Kerry under the bus...and now this.

All part of the plan I suspect.

[KamaAina]

40. "The interview was timed with this week’s launch of Panetta’s book"

There you have it.

[MBS]

44. very disappointing lack of class -- on both their parts.

But Panetta used to be my congressman, and I once thought of him as one of the good guys. . oh, well.

[Major Hogwash]

52. "The interview was timed with this week’s launch of Panetta’s book . . ."

Hmmm, that makes this interview seem rather suspicious.
Does it to you, Watson?

Watson?! Who the hell do you think you are, Sherlock Holmes?



Old, unemployed rich white man writes book.

Whoopee-dee-frickin'-do.

[Spazito]

53. He has a book to sell, controversy sells...

non-controversy doesn't.

Bashing Obama is certain to get him on all the shows, praising him wouldn't.

[ucrdem]

56. So much for Chomsky, Hedges, Assange, Scahill, Greenwald and the rest of that lying lot.

Here's to mud in your eye fellas.

[AtomicKitten]

57. ugh whadda douche

[Mister Nightowl]

58. I posted a duplicate of this thread

I apologize, doc, and will now delete said duplicate.

[ucrdem]

59. Looks like this meme has officially crashed and burned. nt