Captain's Quarters -

Reid must resign.

No, he should be impeached, so the Democrats can see the guilt all over the TV for themselves. Then Pelosi, then any other crooks (Democrat or Republican).

Of course, I've had a plan for firing all five-hundred-thirty-five of them anyway. It's called voluntary taxes.

And the minimum wage law should not just be vetoed, it should be repealed. It's a drag on our economy, and the meat that attracts and holds illegal aliens. It is against the very principles of free enterprise, and should be abolished along with property taxes.

"the disaster will belong to the party of defeat and retreat"

I'm not sure that the above isn't wishful thinking. The Bush administration continues to do an absolutely terrible job of emphasizing what's at stake, and the rest of the Republican party, except for John McCain, is absent from the field of battle. With the media on their team, and no immediately visible threat to the U.S. , the Democrats are betting that they can pull off a Presidential win in 2008. The truly sad part is that Democrat politicians have no concerns beyond the next election.

Good grief.

Now I understand why David Obey didn't want any TV cameras in this bill proceedings!

And pardon the duncehat I seem to be wearing, but I am confused (and hope someone can put me on the right track here). Does this "bill" replace the original Supplemental bill (if it does get approved by both House and Senate)?

I guess what I'm unclear of is this - is this a totally new bill or is it the "modified" version of the original one that just hadn't been sent up to President Bush yet?

We shouldn't kid ourselves, those manouvers are being carefully watched by all our enemies, both present and future. And this is how America slowly loses yet another war.
But what may be more important, than to kick the President?

I note that the filthy dems added extra money for troop training and equipment and for veteran's care. Normally, I would applaud such additions. However, I feel very certain that they were added NOT because the quislings in the Vichy Party give a damn about the troops or vets, but rather to give themselves some political cover if the president actually makes a stink:

"Well, WE actually wanted to spend more money that he did, because We Support the Troops(TM)!"

Oh, for the days of Preston Brooks! There are several Benedict Arnolds in the Congress who deserve a good caning (at the least), but I'm sorry to say that there isn't a man left in the GOP to do it.

DocJim, like almost every other bill (almost?) each item added is added to increase the number of people who will vote for it. It's simply a matter of mathematics.

"Patty Murray, who once lauded Osama bin Laden for his sponsorship of schools"
She did not laud Osama, she merely described what made him popular in some countries. What you say is a cheap and irrational smear. BTW, the same thing is true about Hamas: they are more popular that Fatah largely because of their populist politics. Just a bit of reality.
"said that the Democratic strategy of withdrawal "sets us on a path with the best chance of achieving success in Iraq," without explaining how surrendering equates to success"
Very simple. A large number of Iraqi political factions say that the withdrawal timetable is a prerequisite for them engaging in any sort of political compromise. Since it's a common knowledge that the military success is nothing without political solution, announcing timetable might be the only possible way to success.

It's extremely naive that Iraqis would start compromising for real when they don't even have any slightest idea about their future, would there be American soldiers around in three years or not, would there be permanent military bases or not, what is the biggest embassy in the world doing there etc. Having Americans leave is a shared goal for every political party in Iraq (they only differ in how soon they want it to happen), there's no way they would seriously engage in politics when they are not sure it's going to happen at all.

The uncertainty of the open-ended commitment only encourages corruption (steal while you can). It's funny one has to say those trivial and obvious things.

Nikolay- When we withdraw so precipitously, those so-called "Iraqi political factions" (read Al Qaida types, Iranian and Syrian terrorists) will quickly fill the vacuum left by US forces, creating the same situation you had in Vietnam after 1975. And all the terrorist organizations in the world will soon flock to Iraq as their staging area, confident that they will have free reign since the US would have no stomach to even drop a single bomb there again. If and when this forced pullout happens, you can have this blood on your conscience, pal. Unless I'm being presumptuous and you have no conscience at all.

"those so-called "Iraqi political factions" (read Al Qaida types, Iranian and Syrian terrorists)"
Well, unfortunately, you deal with the political factions you have not with the political factions you wish you had. They won't be any different (only more radical) no matter how long you wait, be it three years or fifteen years. Do you propose a permanent occupation? What would you do when the American army just gets voted out in the Iraqi parliament? It almost happened a couple of times, you know.

"And all the terrorist organizations in the world will soon flock to Iraq as their staging area, confident that they will have free reign since the US would have no stomach to even drop a single bomb there again."
Have you read about insurgents fighting Al-Qaeda? Do you understand that _terrorists_ are minority amongst minority there? A bloodbath is a possibility after the withdrawal, but "safe haven for terrorists" -- no way.
And what does "no stomach to drop a bomb" nonsense mean? As long as you don't have all your pilots patrolling the streets, dropping bombs will never be a problem.

"If and when this forced pullout happens, you can have this blood on your conscience, pal. Unless I'm being presumptuous and you have no conscience at all."

Well, as long as your position is not permanent occupation (if it's permanent, there's no way it would be "liberation" or whatever you want to call it), there _will_ be pullout . There are good reasons to suspect that the longer US stays in Iraq, the worse it will be when it gets out. So this blood will be on _your_ conscience. And if Iran gets a nuke (confronting it is much harder as long as you're stuck in Iraq) and bombs Israel, the second Holocaust would also be on _your_ conscience.

This is really pathetic. Your crowd has spent many years fighting the war with staggering incompetence, pretending that everything is going great and scoring cheap political points at Democrat's expense. Now you still play the same games even when confronted with the possibility of all hell breaking lose.
What can you say about Bush saying that "Democrats will cause the extensions of tours, and this is unacceptable to everyone", and, the next day, Gates declaring, after the leak, that the tours will, indeed, be extended.

I hate to throw a wet blanket on Ed's analysis, but unless there is considerable expansion of new media--blogs, television stations, television production, movie production--Reid and Pelosi might indeed succeed in blaming it on someone else. There isn't any rational explanation for them getting this far, other than the considerable media bias from the old media. There are two fronts in this war, analagous to Germany and Japan. The first is the terrorists themselves (nations included) and the second is the media. The Bush administration has chosen not to fight the second front and look at the consequences.

Nikolay said, "A large number of Iraqi political factions..." I've only heard one, Sadr. Iran and Syria have his back.

My question to Nikolay and others who support his position, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, etc. - what if you're all wrong. What kind of responsibility will you bear if the predicted blood bath occurs once the Dems force our surrender? I'll tell you what kind - none. Democrats forced our surrender from Vietnam by cutting the funds. Mass murder ensued. It's obvious American voters learned nothing from this history, because here we are repeating it.

Here's an informative article on why we are where we are today. Disengaged voters:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg24apr24,0,4137142.column?coll=la-home-commentary

"HUGE NUMBERS of Americans don't know jack about their government or politics. According to a Pew Research Center survey released last week, 31% of Americans don't know who the vice president is, fewer than half are aware that Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the House, a mere 29% can identify "Scooter" Libby as the convicted former chief of staff of the vice president, and only 15% can name Harry Reid when asked who is the Senate majority leader.

Also last week, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that two-thirds of Americans believe that Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales' firing of eight U.S. attorneys was "politically motivated."

So, we are supposed to believe that two-thirds of Americans have studied the details of the U.S. attorney firings and come to an informed conclusion that they were politically motivated — even when Senate Democrats agree that there is no actual evidence that Gonzales did anything improper. Are these the same people who couldn't pick Pelosi out of a lineup?

Another way to read this?

Gas for your auto's tank is going up a buck.

Expect the prices of gas to go to $4 per gallon, shortly.

Once up, it doesn't go down, either.
'
But the government is trying to fund ways for some people to pay this. Even if it's to handle increased bus fares.

How do markets work?

Drudge, today, is showing that the stock exchange is pushing into 13,000. As soon as I saw the headline, I knew. Real estate prices have hit their limits.

It's like baseball giving way to football. Different seasons.

But sports are sports.

And, straight talk is about the last thing you get from cheating husbands and politicians.

"Nikolay said, "A large number of Iraqi political factions..." I've only heard one, Sadr. Iran and Syria have his back."
Well, this means you're not paying attention. Every single party in Iraq says that US must go and that there's no way they want permanent military bases. The "pro-American" side (if you can call Hezbollah supporters pro-American) says "of course they must go, but it's not time yet". Nobody in his right mind says "we want them indefinitely".

Speaking about Sadr, he's probably the least pro-Iranian of Shia politicians. The idea that he's totally in Iran's pocket is Al-Qaeda's propaganda (funny that you buy it) -- their favorite way of insulting people is calling them "Persians".

The line about Syria is even more ridiculous. Syria is ruled by the Shia sect, while the population is majority Sunni. Every month some 50.000 refugees cross the border in the Syria's direction, and a couple hundreds of Sunni terrorists in the Iraq's direction. Sunni fundamentalists are the enemies of Syria regime as well, and there's, naturally, not much they can do about them. I'm sure the number of terrorists that come from Saudi Arabia is much larger.

"What kind of responsibility will you bear if the predicted blood bath occurs once the Dems force our surrender? I'll tell you what kind - none."
OK, what kind of responsibility will you bear for prolonging the occupation which makes things worse (of course, there's tactical progress, but political dynamic is mostly negative)? What kind of responsibility will you bear for Bremer's decision to divide the power in Iraq based on sectarian basis? For US supporting Sharia constitution that screws Sunnis? For empowerment of Iran? For the support of the "moderate" mullahs with their little quirky ideas like killing all the gays? What would you say the day Israel is wiped off the map to the cheers of Iraq's "democratic powers"?
You would blame Democrats, of course.

Now, the choice is likely this: either you try to delay the inevitable while draining American power and influence or start to responsibly disengage. The second option means 1) quite a lot of blood, 2) demise of Al-Qaeda. If you believe in the GWOT, and given the fact that you just can't do anything with 1), only make it worse by staying longer, the second option doesn't seem so bad, after all.

The bad thing is, Democrats can't force Bush to responsibly disengage, they can only cut funding, and that's definitely a very bad idea. So it will all go Bush's way no matter what.

"It's obvious American voters learned nothing from this history, because here we are repeating it."
Wait a moment. You could argue about Democrat's responsibility after they _do something_ all you want. But so far their influence on the actual Iraq policy is _zero_. All the things that went wrong in Iraq _so far_ are 100% GOP's fault. Can you at least acknowledge _this_? Can you acknowledge that it's actually bad there?
Or would you rather talk all the silly things about the way Democrats 'discourage' soldiers and 'encourage' terrorists? This is rather insulting thing to say about soldiers. The soldiers' job is to do the mission, they are not the sissies to worry about politicians -- whether it's Republicans saying far more outrageous things about Clinton's war in Kosovo or Democrats saying that troops should be brought back.
And all that stuff about terrorists carefully following US's internal politics is especially absurd a week after they made one of the biggest terrorist attack at the day when nobody paid attention because of VA Tech.

It's exceedingly simple. Every time Harry Reid opens his mouth on Iraq, every GOP candidate running in 2008 will gain a percentage point.

There is no way any bill with a timetable will pass by a veto-proof margin. Therefore it's meaningless to talk about withdrawal right now as a serious option. It is however very pertinent to talk about why the Democrats want us to lose in Iraq.

Every Democrat in Congress needs to be asked "Do you want us to win in Iraq, and if so, why are you supporting withdrawal?" They cannot coexist. Democrats are already on the record saying "We have declared Al-Qaeda the winner in Iraq."

Well, unfortunately, you deal with the political factions you have not with the political factions you wish you had.

Not necessarily. Furthermore, the method for "dealing" can vary with the faction. Carrot and stick with the allies and moderates. Annihilation and isolation of the extremists. As long as some groups are a tangible threat, and they are a dwindling minority (perhaps of a minority), then dealing with them with the destructive end of an M16 is a proper engagement. Letting extremists know that there will be no retreat from that position may harden them. So what? Does anyone honestly believe that Al Qaeda and its fringe groups are at all interested in compromising at any point? So how would dealing with them do anything but weaken our own (and allied/moderate factions') position? The only resolution to such debate is that the extremists surrender... or die. Do we get to determine "extremists"? Yes, a conditional earned by our being the one authority to have risked so much physical, economic, humanitarian, moral, and geopolitical capital such that a large population could experience the chance, just the chance, of a self-determining livelihood bereft of torture and oppression at the hands of a sadistic few.

They won't be any different (only more radical) no matter how long you wait, be it three years or fifteen years.

How can you know this? Emperor Hirohito was once considered a god. The Land of the Rising Sun was pretty radical in its day during conflict, but the answer was not retreat on the part of the Allied Powers. The people would have (and did) follow this man's lead just as they followed previous emperors as had been their history for generations. When the public was convinced that their war was lost and that Hirohito was just a man, then the paradigm shifted. History is loaded with such conversions, and it wasn't retreat from the winning side that got the vanquished to see the light - at least the light that doesn't desire global conquest. Japan is now a trusted ally because stalwart men/woman refused to back down from an existential fight. We are in one now though we wage it in a much more controlled and humane (perhaps ultimately detrimentally to ourselves) manner. A truism: one does not accede to the demands of Islamic extremists... ever. Dhimmitude at best will follow. Ignominious death at worst.

Do you propose a permanent occupation?

Yes, to some degree. See post WWII. But I'd be willing to endorse a plan that moves troops from some of our traditional depots (say Germany, for example) to Kurdistan or other stabilized Iraqi zones to alleviate your concerns of American troops that have overstayed their welcome in foreign lands.

What would you do when the American army just gets voted out in the Iraqi parliament? It almost happened a couple of times, you know.

If the Iraqi parliament votes us out and we deem that WMD or acute threats to our interests are absent, then I'd be agreeable to moving on to other regions with the expressed caveat that should things devolve and coalition interests be threated/attacked again, our response will not be compassionate foot soldiers and humanitarian reconstruction... it will be MOABs or glass-making 101. As far as getting voted out goes, however, most have come to realize that we protect the oppressed, and the minorities know that our exit would threaten their survival. The majorities also know that we will not purge anyone who behaves responsibly, so their ability to pull our chain and ethnically cleanse by proxy is limited. See Al Sadr (majority "party" leader) and his current status as mud.

I'll stop here at this point so as not to rehash ad naseum.

But to Ed's point about Democrat's kitchen sink and passive-aggressive approach to corner the President into accepting loss in Iraq, there's nothing that Democrats can do to avoid the fact that they own defeat. Yes, the MSM has done yeoman's work to shield their Democrat brethren, but with the disingenuous antics and politicking so well-documented and exposed, Americans and history know who to blame if Iraq really goes south. Let's hope that it isn't history that has to reflect back on our actions of today and say "the Democrats recreated the travesty of Viet Nam in Iraq/ME when they had the opportunity to recreate a lasting victory via a smaller scale Marshall Plan." If only the Democrats had a statesman who could step up, signify a united front against a real enemy as opposed to a boogyman they've contrived out of GW Bush, and shake the world into the realization that we will not back down to those who threaten us even if it means commitment persists through more than two election cycles.

An earlier generation got to experience such fortitude. I fear the Democrats won't let us see it again. Right now, they own defeat.

AnonymousDrivel said:

Yes, the MSM has done yeoman's work to shield their Democrat brethren, but with the disingenuous antics and politicking so well-documented and exposed, Americans and history know who to blame if Iraq really goes south.

That assumes that Republicans will grow a spine and actually try to hold the MSM accountable. It is far more likely that they will do what they have done so well for the last two years - a whole lotta nothing. Rolling over and playing dead for the MSM and their Democrat pets is the Stupid Party's favorite trick.

Now if the president will call an 8PM (1 hr) press conference and pull out all of the dumb stuff in the 'war funding' bill and display it to the American people millions of them will wake up and abandon the surrender party.

He should put on a dog and pony show the likes that have never been seen before. Bury them in their own BS.

Nikolay is kicking EVERY wingers behind tonight. I'd make some comment but it would pale with how articulate Nikolay has been on the Iraq Fiasco. When wingers are being toasted with logic on any topic, they immediately pull out "old reliable" the MSM. Would that be the number one rated cable news network.....FOX NEWS.....or the 2 top rated talk radio shows in the country....... Rush and Hannitty, oh, I guess they don't count as the evil MSM. Funny how that works.

CD:

I guess the more Kool-Aid you and your fellows consume, the more reliable the MSM looks. You know - it's the same as the old saying: "The more beers you have had, the prettier she looks."

Well, that concludes my turn at troll patrol.

I have not been on this web site for about a year...but I see the drivel continues.
Although I must admit, that the Captains is finally starting to bash the president now that it has become obvious to all that the war in Iraq is a total disaster.

It was based on lies, was poorly executed, and even now the final hail mary surge pass is likely destined for failure. Not because it is not a good idea, but its too little too late. The quarterback himself in his own book states that to be successful he needs more troops then what the President is sending. But like the hail mary, it is all we have left after 4 quarters (4-years) of poor planning and execution. If it fails, we can always blame the Dems for not providing the resources to throw the hail maey all the way to the end zone!

At one time the republican party stood for accountability. But no more! Someone in a previous post noted that if Pelosi was in his company he would fire her. Well, how about the Presidents performance? Would he hire George Bush to run his company?

The President screwed up the war, was incompetent in dealing with Katrina, and has built the largest budget deficit in the history of the country...with the support of a Congress controlled by republicans.

Now the commenters on this site are trying to tie the failure in Iraq to the democratic party. The party of surrender they like to call the Dems..as if this will somehow absolve them of their guilt for supporting a President and policy that was seriously flawed from the start.

If you truly think that their is a military solution to the Iraq problem then sign up may mates. Its time for the Captains Crew to put up or shut up.

I believe the military will still take you if you are under 40 (but I could be wrong). You too can be fighting in Iraq by this fall....all you have to do is leave the safety of your quarters!

"I have not been on this web site for about a year...but I see the drivel continues."
Funny that. You're back. The drivel continues. Almost like one had something to do with the other.

"Although I must admit, that the Captains is finally starting to bash the president now that it has become obvious to all"
Democrats and leftists

"that the war in Iraq is a total disaster."
For the Democrats, Al Qaeda, Saddam, The Taliban, Iran, and a few others.

"It was based on lies"
And four years later, you still can't name one, I'm betting.

"was poorly executed"
Rumsfeld, now excoriated for such a horrible job, kicked Saddam's ass in a matter of weeks. The fourth largest military, with known (yes, we found them, leftover from the first gulf war, deny it if you want, but LaLaLa is YOUR theme song, not ours) chemical and biological weapons, fell to the IDIOT Rumsfeld in weeks, but you guys insisted he botched it somehow, without ever showing us ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT that ever won a war and brought the troops home since Wilson. Hurts, don't it?

"and even now the final hail mary surge pass is likely destined for failure."
In your expert opinion. But really, it's not an opinion as much as a prayer, a hope.

"Not because it is not a good idea"
Not what was said before it happened.

"but its too little too late"
Right, after the Dems tried to make it as small as possible, delay it as long as possible, then complain that it's "too little too late". Sort of like shooting your parents then asking for leniency because you're an orphan.

"The quarterback himself in his own book states that to be successful he needs more troops then what the President is sending."
uh, the President IS the quarterback. And he's limited by what he can get approved by the Democrats and Rinos, and since you guys are stopping everything you can, I'd say it's YOUR fault if it's coming up short. So does your comment mean you'll be demanding that Reid and Pelosin immediately increase funding for the war? I thought not. Have you checked the word HYPOCRITE out in the dictionary? I thought not.

"But like the hail mary, it is all we have left after 4 quarters (4-years)"
as if there's anything the same here, except the number four. We are no more in the "first" quarter than we are in the "fourth" quarter anymore than we are in the "ninth" quarter. When using analogies, try to make them relevant.

"of poor planning and execution"
Show me one battle in history where the battle plan survived the first major engagment. It is the duty, the responsibility, of every commander at every level to adapt to the changing conditions on the field. The one trait that MUST be exhibited by ALL commanders to be successful, and you want to BERATE them for it? Well, guess that's why YOU aren't in charge of writing their performance reports. Thank God for small favors.

"If it fails, we can always blame the Dems for not providing the resources to throw the hail maey all the way to the end zone!"
And this would be incorrect, how, exactly, assuming, for the moment, that we let your weak analogy stand, just to show your point? By dragging their feet, delaying everything possible; by concentrating on Gonzales for no crime instead of passing bills with funding for the troops; by downgrading the military by saying the war is lost, as though any force, anywhere in the world had a chance in HELL of defeating even a small part of one branch of our vast military power; and by telling only the bad from Iraq, never the good, trying to convince everyone in America how bad we are for being there, they have done everything humanly possible to support our enemies with their words and deeds. Any other time, they would be convicted of treason.

"At one time the republican party stood for accountability."
And still does.

"But no more! Someone in a previous post noted that if Pelosi was in his company he would fire her. Well, how about the Presidents performance? Would he hire George Bush to run his company?"
There's no equivocation between George Bush and Nancy Pelosi. She's breaking laws, specifically, I believe, the Logan Act. Not to mention her attempted micromanagement of the war, a power delegated SPECIFICALLY to the president and the president alone. Name the constitutional breach by George Bush, and we'll talk about it.

"The President screwed up the war"
Sorry, unless you can show specifically where he did something wrong, you can't just CLAIM incompetence. Wars are messy things, and the aftermath of wars are messier still. You expect way too much of anyone, much less George Bush, if you think it was supposed to be a walk in the park. We told you it wouldn't be, but here you are, acting like it's in your Union contract with whatever you think is God.

"was incompetent in dealing with Katrina"
sorry, but again, without specific charges, I can't answer them. However, let's just say this. Brownie was villified for nothing. Never in the history of this country had any Federal Agency begun responding in the size and scope that FEMA did prior to Katrina. And the rest of what you blame him for boils down to two things. Some silly emails that are none of your damn business, frankly, and the fact that he allowed a little thing like constitutional authority to stop him from sending aid faster. You see, Blanco, as Governor, Nagin, as Mayor, and Landreau, as Senator, hold a big part of the responsibility since they stopped him and the National Guard from coming in when they were ready. See those three for the lack of response, since it turns out those are the guys who either held it up, or told them not to deliver it to the Superdome, or whatever.

"and has built the largest budget deficit in the history of the country"
Gee, relative to the value of money in the past, it's nothing. Not only that, but even with the profligate spending of both parties, remove the cost of the war, and we're back to running surplusses, thanks to tax cuts YOUR side wants to do away with because they just can't stand prosperity.

"...with the support of a Congress controlled by republicans."
Uh, let's see. I'm counting forty five Republicans, five to six RINO's, and forty nine Democrats. When did we EVER have control?

"Now the commenters on this site are trying to tie the failure in Iraq to the democratic party."
No, they are noting for the record that the lack of support and the badmouthing comes from the Democrats. Called stating the truth.

"The party of surrender they like to call the Dems"
Let's see, you said earlier the Surge was too little, too late, but when did the Dems ever advocate larger, sooner? Never. They advocated smaller, later, or not at all. They advocate removing the troops from the battlefield. They want to stop the fighting without winning. In history, find me one instance where losing intentionally was not called surrender.

"..as if this will somehow absolve them of their guilt for supporting a President and policy that was seriously flawed from the start."
Flawed, but only in your opinion. And since when has any policy been perfect? For any president? But that's now a reason to do what? Bill Clinton had a policy of lying under oath, but you didn't think THAT was worth convincting him, much less removing him from office, but military decisions you have no qualifications whatsoever to judge are suddenly impeachable offenses?

"If you truly think that their is a military solution to the Iraq problem then sign up may mates."
Like every war, the military part of it is only part of the solution. ALL SOLUTIONS TO WAR REQUIRE THE MILITARY TO BE SOLVED FIRST. You can't vote while you're being shot at. Funny how that drives poll attendance figures down.

"Its time for the Captains Crew to put up or shut up."
Luckily, your side doesn't rule the day, so you are still free to spout whatever diatribe you wish. Please thank the next soldier you see for that privilege.

"I believe the military will still take you if you are under 40 (but I could be wrong)."
And the internet is just RIGHT there. But you'd rather spout and be wrong.

"You too can be fighting in Iraq by this fall....all you have to do is leave the safety of your quarters!"
No, actually, we couldn't. Thanks to you, the idiots are in charge, and we aren't allowed to send more troops, so even if we all joined up today, we'd just be in the way. What a moronic argument this is. On the one hand, don't send more troops. On the other hand, if you support it, then YOU go fight it. Dude, I did, would do so again. But of course, you have never been in the military, and wouldn't dare risk your life for all the rights you think GOD (oops, forgot, you're probably an atheist, too, right? Just WHO do you think gives you THESE rights, anyway? Here's a clue, since you seem to be fresh out...they aren't given to any other country in the world like they're given here) or somebody gave you. But go ahead and whine, because in America, you're allowed to twist the truth, and I'm allowed to call you on it.

Posted by: The Man at April 24, 2007 10:06 PM