Jobber of the Week

Have we ever seen a Saddam double? I don't understand how that works. I mean, plastic surgery? How far can you go with that? You can make people less ugly. You know, do a Greta Van Sustern job on them. But you can't make Greta Van Sustern look like Diane Sawyer, if you know what I mean. You can't make someone look exactly like someone else. Where are the doubles? Are they hiding in spider holes, too? Are we going to see in 16 months a body double come out of a hole and pretend to be Saddam after we've already got the real one? I don't know about you, but I'd hate to be a Saddam body double since the Sunnis want to kick the guy in the balls and kill him. If I was a body double coming out of the hole, I'd be all "ATTENTION! I AM NOT THE REAL SADDAM! I AM JUST A DOUBLE!" Although it wouldn't help. The Sunnis would probably STILL hang me from the nearest tree.

I didn't laugh at it either but, like him I suppose, I also wanted to roll my eyes when the ad he's parodying talked about people trying to stop the President from fighting "the terrorists." He was doing pretty well until he veered course from Al-Qaeda.

I guess you just didn't read the rest where I was talking about how the the SS has every right to make a safety bubble around the President, but everything outside that bubble should be open, not the reverse. I don't care about the stupid suit and that the ACLU jumped on it. I'm not interested in people getting photo op's. I'm talking about the civil liberties behind the whole principle.

First off, I'm not familiar with the guy involved here, but seeing that he was one of the "No blood for oil" people, I'm probably not the most supportive of his causes. It's the principle of free-speech zones I'm against. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/04/...ain586959.shtml Again, I'm not going to make a commentary on the ACLU's case to have the zones moved closer to the President. I'm more shocked that we have "Free Speech Zones" in this country in the first place. Should the Secret Service be able to keep a bubble around the President empty for the his safety? Of course. But literally setting aside certain locations for dissent and saying that your constitutional right to free speech is exempt outside of it leaves me speechless. Uh, okay... But I was talking about invasion here, not obliteration.

The Vatican cardinal who commented on the Saddam story says he is feeling pity for Saddam and said we're treating him like a cow. Way to sharply disagree with the rest of the world.

Right, but looking beyond what justifies invading a country, if we have a NEED to invade a country, we can't. Our hands are tied unless we can get some more assistance.

How do you know this? We kept having our Terror Alerts bumped to Orange in the past few years, with the government swearing honest to God there could be a terrorist attack sometime soon. It never happened, but who's to say it couldn't have? It's also sad that you no-sold everything else I said from the cutting & spending to the Free Speech Zones. I don't know if it's because you have nothing to say about this or you simply prefer to keep gushing about what a hero George W is. So let me continue along those lines and show you why the Democrats are right that we need to hand more over to allies and the Iraqis. I believe what I'm saying here is factually correct, but since you're the person with the Defense Department hookup, you can correct me if what I'm saying is dated or wrong: The US Army has 31 brigades. The government usually likes to have 1/3rd of the brigades in battle, 1/3rd on standby, and 1/3rd resting. We are currently using 21 of the brigades in the war on terror. Okay, now I'm done with that. What happens if a North Korea or some other country attacks us? We don't have the resources. We don't have the troops to fight that.

I can see it now. "Hi, I'd like the Saddam figure, oh that's so funny." "Okay, that'll be $30." (in a hushed voice) "And... Uh.. Get the S&M gear, too." When Barbie is feelin' dirty, she goes for S&M Hussein.

Unfortunately, I don't have the whole article, but this is an NYTimes article from a little over a year ago: Unfortunately, it ends there and shills you to buy a subscription. Meh.

By the way, regarding the idea that the media is biased to wanting to see Bush fail: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-analysis_x.htm This sounds like one would expect Dean to NOT be happy that Saddam was captured. Like he'd say "Damn! He got captured! I was hoping he got away!" The writing here actually makes Dean sound like a terrorist supporter.

We did not. We did, however, continue to assist them when we KNEW they had chemical weapons.

And again, the idea that it won't happen and can't happen under a Bush term is just something you're telling yourself for comfort. You probably thought it wouldn't have happened the first time, either. This isn't a world coming together and doing something about it's dictators and scum like it should be. Like it could have been*. This has been an operation that's very clearly directed by the US served in a "our way or the highway 'cause you can't do anything about it" attitude that neoconservatives have thought should have been happening a long time ago, but is diplomatically destructive. * And I'm not saying that we needed to woo governments that were obviously out to see us fail in the first place, such as France. And at the same time, some of our current "allies" which are here to score brownie points should be properly identified as part of the problem (i.e. Saudis.) What I'm saying is that it's difficult to talk about a "coalition of the willing" while at the same time declaring anyone who doesn't commit to be aiding terrorism.

I love you, too.

These people are stupid and petty. There's plenty of logical political ammo to be lobbied at the Bush administration. The deep fear among those of us who aren't like that is that important, real issues will be completely forgotten among the general public because the simple call of "We caught Saddam" could bury it in today's political landscape were soundbytes carry much more weight than actual debate.

I like how you bold stuff he says like: Without providing proof. I also got a good bit of this: when only longshots have made comments suggetsing we need to pull out and go home. The ones with most the points have said that President Bush has made a commitment on behalf of the country, and we have no choice but to stick with it. I also like: Because BUSH = PATRIOTISM = GOOD and obviously if you criticize the man on the top you criticize all the troops under him.

I don't understand where you guys somehow came to a conclusion that liberals believe this is better than the NRA looking to buy a TV station. It's all stupid. Every bit of it. Congratulations McCain-Feingold. You've plugged the crack in the dam with your finger and now the water is gushing out your ears.

I find it similar to choosing between Colin Powell and that General Boykin fella who sat and told his church that "our God" is stronger than theirs and how we're fighting Satan, etc etc etc. Do I want the more cautious guy, or the hardheaded determined guy? I don't agree with the determined guys ideology on the issue, but he'll probably get it over with faster. In the end though, it's like that old line... "You're a loose cannon!" "But I get results!" I don't agree with Bush's financial policies. I don't agree with his social policies. I don't agree with the high amounts of secrecy in which he shrouds himself with and I especially don't like doing it at the expense of turning US relations with various countries back 15 years. I don't like buggering with Canada just because their government isn't so involved in the process of marriage and they won't make people rot in jail for trying weed. I don't like increasing spending and cutting taxes at the same time. And I'm not exactly hard to please here. I'm not asking for universal health care or Socialism. Interior conservatism has it's place but conservatism is nearly dead in the rest of the western world (OMG KOMMUNIST EUROPE~!**!*~*~), and neoconservatism foreign policy has resulted in the rest of the world claiming America is a bully. And I'm not just talking about France here. It's pretty sad when Americans are told their constitutional rights are not valid beyond "free speech zones" ON US SOIL because there's so many people who disagree with the man so vehemently that they'll appear and voice their displeasure. If I have to gamble the end of these situations against the infintessimal possibility another 9/11 might happen (and I think it exists under a Bush administration as well, we're just telling each other it doesn't until we believe it), then I'm willing to take that bet.

"Stone Cold Steve Austin is 6'4, 260, and will never say 'I quit.'" -JR, WM13

The war with Iran went on until about 1987 or so. In 1988, right after the war ended, Saddam gassed a Kurdish town. Shortly after that he invaded Kuwait. If you think all our weapons went to the proper purposes, then you're wrong. Geneva Convention laws may apply depending if the guy is an enemy combatant or a prisoner of war. He resigned when found (despite years of talk about wanting to be a martyr and die for his people, etc, but all these dictators are like that) and they should just go ahead and grant him the rights of a Prisoner of War, which isn't very much.

I think he's labeled as a Prisoner Of War, not an enemy combatant. Geneva Convention is regarding enemy combatants. Of course, this will just come back and bite us in the ass if kept up too much. I'm not too thrilled with parading Saddam and showing the doctor checking for lice in his hair on TV, as if it goes too far the Arab people could genuinely see it as humiliating. And I'll be honest, I don't agree with GW on almost anything except the Do Not Call list, but if another country captured him and had him humiliated on TV, I'd be absolutely furious.

Hey now, I liked the bounty storyline. It just didn't go as far as it should have.

Bah, there's so many good Foley quotes you passed over. "On my best evening, I could beat you on your worst morning to mid-afternoon! It takes a good man to beat Mankind, but not for very long!" Also, Nash's comment about taking a sex change before going to WCW also qualifies here.

If "booking him right" means letting the whole universe revolve around him, why don't people get in their heads and realize that WCW essentially booked him incorrectly? They booked him in a method that made great short-term gain but exploited the gullibility of their fans. His matches have gotten BETTER since he's been forced to sell and take a beating before dishing out his usual offense.

FUCK OFF, GOLDBERG

It's like the tender, loving, caring version of a Jack Chick tract.