« The Surge | Main | Hit and Run »

The Dark Side

Dave's guest is Jane Mayer author of The Dark Side. How did it happen that we abandoned our principles and chose the dark side. I liked Jane's answer, "it took special lawyers with special answers," and of course that evil fuck, Dick Cheney. Dick fits Dr. Gustav Gilbert's definition of evil to a tee. Gustav said, "Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy."

Quicktime Video 18.5 MB | Duration: 12'07

Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Late Show w/David Letterman



The important thing is to start the Bush War Crimes Trial _before he leaves the country for South America. It can happen when the leadership changes to Obama. Bush can also be arrested overseas, if not right here in the U.S.

Bush won't be going to South America or any other hide out. He will do just as so many of the other criminals have and join the private sector to cash in on the obscene profits being made by his policies. We already see that none of the the leading "opposition" party members are serious about holding anyone accountable outside of low ranking soldiers. And thanks to amnesty, pardons, obstruction and stacked courts there is almost no recourse for private citizens to hold them accountable either.

If you want to see an example of what happens to the worst war criminals in America just take a look at Oliver North and Bush Sr.

It is quite noticeable the way that Ms. Mayer (like Glenn Greenwald) resist what must be a huge temptation - to call Cheney and his coterie evil (fucks :). I think this is very smart for people in their position: They stick with factually supportable descriptions: lawbreakers, criminals - even if not convicted, torturers, incompetents, liars, propagandists, etc.

As for you, Norm, go for it!

Let's not forget the role Rumsfeld and his underlings (Wolfowitz, Feith, et al) played in the incompetant execution of the war & occupation. Notice how those crooks and liars are nowhere near the Pentagon today? Feith was on 60 Minutes recently, aleady shaping his pre-emptive mea culpa before he gets ripped to shreds by historians for his role in this mess.

And all the talk these days about the "success" of the Surge seems blind to the immense cost and toll it has inflicted on America to spend 5 years invading and occupying a country that was absolutely NO threat to the peace and security of the United States or our allies. Nor did Iraq have--as Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al claimed--weapons of mass destruction, nor had it any substantive ties to the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. In the end, the notion of "liberating" Iraq from itself as the sole reason we invaded is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

Is it our duty to "liberate" every country ruled by despots? Does this mean we're invading Sudan next? North Korea? How many American lives and how much of our treasure should we expend to "save" the world?

So why, I ask, was Iraq so lucky to have American soldiers fight and die for them in particular, and why then aren't we fighting and dying for the Sudanese, or North Koreans, or anyone else living under a repressive regime?

So was spending untold hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives worth it in Iraq? For what net gain, I ask? Once we leave, how long will it be before Iraq plummets back into one depsotic form of government or another? Anyone want to bet me on this?

The answer was it wasn't worth invading before we invaded, and it still isn't worth it five years later. Moreover, I am sick of right-wing idiots still trying to rationalize this shitty and unnecessary mess of a war. Make all the lemonade you want from this giant pile of lemons, right-wingers, but the fact remains your lemonade is flavored with a shit sludge that cannot be filtered out by any rational means.

So should we invade Pakistan mat? Rumor has it Bin Laden moved there.

Go right ahead, Cory. You can walk point and be the first combatant to cross into its border.

Go right ahead, Cory. You can walk point and be the first combatant to cross into its border.

I do so love that all you have to do is let a liberal talk, and they'll reveal their true motivation.

The primary motivator behind the left-wing model of foreign policy is cowardice; the primary justification is the cartoonish cast of anybody who disagrees with them as 'evil'.

So now we see that you have no desire to pursue and prosecute the mastermind of a terror attack against your own country, because you are scared. You don't think the nation should take a hardline stance against brutal dictatorships, even if they arm themselves with nuclear weapons and threaten allies ... because you're scared.

Exactly how much are you willing to give to save your own skin?

So should we invade Pakistan mat? Rumor has it Bin Laden moved there.

This is hilarious! Even the war supporters don't know what they are supporting.

One thing I do know from business - if you want success - you need to focus on your objectives and your strategy and then tactics fall out from that.

Is our objective to get Bin Laden? I believe his Royal Highness Bush told us we didn't care about that anymore. That means our objective is not to get the perpetrators of 9/11 - that was apparently just a strategy to get us to go to war.

Is the surge a success? Well, what was the objective? To demonstrate that we need more troops on the ground? Well, seems like everyone said that BUT the Bush administration so...I don't think anyone would disagree. To cool down one area so that what? As soon as troops leave that area heats up again? Was it all a political morale booster for the Bush-supporters who have to defend the most incompetent president ever? Then maybe it was a success - at the cost of lives? dollars? (Awww...but can you really put a price on helping political morale?)

The smart thing here is - if you never have clear objectives - you can always claim success. Of course, if you did this in the real world you would be fired but, if you're President, you can get a whole bunch of naive people to say you're doing a good job and let's elect another one just like you...!!!

Exactly how much are you willing to give to save your own skin?

Gosh, "calligraph," I served in the Army for 8 years, so I guess quite a lot. I served to save your skin too.

I suppose we should ask YOU this question, Mr. Tough Talk.

We know the answer. You've never been anywhere near a military uniform, nor have you ever sacrificed jack shit for your country or anyone else. For all your pro-America bluster and patriotic babbling, you've never actually practiced what you preach. So calling a military veteran a coward is fairly ridiculous and proves how much bullshit hubris you seem to have.

Where were the nukes in Iraq, by the way? We've been occupying the place for 5 years now and nary a nuke has been found. How curious.

So please explain again why we invaded?

Your calling anyone a coward is utterly hilarious. Your idea of having courage of conviction is flinging knee-jerk invectives--ANONYMOUSLY--on some web site.

What a hero.

Anyone care to defend this moronic troll and his laughably specious political outlook?

Also: I find it hilarious that some screeching crybaby like this calls others "cowards" because we don't see the rational sense in wasting so many lives and national treasure waging wars in, and then occupying, countries that do not pose even one iota of a threat to our security.

YOU seem like the 'fraidy-cat, calligraph. If I thought Iraq was a clear and present danger to America in 2003, I would have re-enlisted in the Army and joined the fight. A couple of my old Army buddies actually did do this, and one served two tours. Not only had he been out of the Army for 10 years, but he also quit a $150,000/yr job to re-enlist because his conviction was so strong. He and I disagreed about the threat Iraq posed, but I certainly respected his choice.

So, tell us again, dear sir, what exactly have you, Mr. NOT-A-COWARD done in this Global War on Terror? Dazzle us with your courageous stories of self-scarifice and military glory.

Please spare us your opinion of us if you yourself are a flaming chickenshit of the highest order.

ROFL - nice job, mat.

Well, calligraph, you just can't help yourself, can you? You're a hypocritical "my relatives are military" chickenhawk. Now might be time to move on to your next name - from what I gather you've been "Average Joe", "TeaForTheTillerman", and "calligraph". Why not save time next time and just use "chickenhawk"?

Well, that didn't go quite as I had expected. I think invading Pakistan would be insane mat. I expected you to agree (you might, but it was hard to decipher because of all the chest pounding). Are you aware of Obama's position on Pakistan?

Full disclosure: I have never served in the military (unless the Sea Cadets counts). I was rejected by the Navy because of asthma. The Marine recruiter insisted he could get me in, but my best friend's dad - a major in the Army told me that would be a big mistake.

Cory, I am not saying people who are for the war have to have served in the military to hold their views or advocate them with as much gusto as they can muster.

It does, however, warrant discussion that the current generation has so many pro-war cheerleaders for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but so few volunteers for the war effort. Far too many servicemebers were forced, involuntarily, to serve longer and even extra tours in the war zones because of the recruiting shortages. One friend of mine had been retired for two years from the Army when he was called up to serve 15 months in Iraq because they couldn't get enough recruits in his MOS. (If you think I am bullshitting, just go to my weblog and read the "Kelly, Hero" essay linked on the left side.)

Even then I can understand why so few would volunteer, even the loudest loudmouth cheerleaders. They are shitty wars and the danger of getting killed or maimed is quite high.

It takes a special kind of courage to serve today, and few in this current generation have that kind of fortitude or sense of self-sacrifice.

Even then I wouldn't call someone a "chickenhawk" just because they support the war. However, the arrogance of these pro-war, non-serving jerks--like our favorite troll, "calligraph"--does warrant further discussion.

It is one thing to cheer on a war you won't serve--deliberately or because you cannot qualify to serve--and quite another to cast aspersions on the patriotism and courage level of those opposed to a very controversial war with extremely shaky logic supporting the reasons for waging it. That pretty much makes you an asshole and a loudmouthed coward.

No one is saying such loudmouthed assholes cannot expess themselves, but in return I for one will certainly call them out and fling all kinds of pejoratives and invectives back at them, and with great gusto.

Frankly, I am tired of doing that these days. These two wars keep dragging on, with no end in sight, and I'm through calling out this generation of swine for their arrogant hypocrisy.

But "calligraph" is an specially repugnant idiot worthy of any and all admonishment.

No one is saying the "calligraphs" of the world cannot express their ridiculous views. I think I speak for the majority when I say that his stupidity and goofball Manichean logic are rather entertaining, so I for one encourage him to keep flinging out his puerile viewpoints, and with great gusto.

But calling people cowards, especially since he's not exactly Sergeant Rock himself? That's worthy of a face slapping, rhetorically speaking.

In your case I was joking.

I don't comment much on onegoodmove these days, but I don't mind coming out of my shell once in a while to unleash my vitriol at jerks like "calligraph."

blu-bluh ya de di dah, sk-dip dip arawnnk rawnnk

damn, that should have been "arawnnk-rawnnk". sorry about that.

mat_scheck1 said:

So why, I ask, was Iraq so lucky to have American soldiers fight and die for them in particular, and why then aren't we fighting and dying for the Sudanese, or North Koreans, or anyone else living under a repressive regime?

The answer is "oil."

The answer is "oil."

Of course. But you can't get neocons to say that.

Good mat, now that you've got that off your chest, what do you think about President Obama invading Pakistan? Try to keep Cali and Dubya out of this and and just tell me. Would he have your support?

Syn: For context....

"I understand that (Pakistan) President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Notice, Obama does not say he will "invade" Pakistan. he does not say he will overthrow the leadership in Pakistan. You're strategically thinking like Bush. I imagine, in real world scenario, it would go something like this.

1) We get intelligence that Osama is in the mountainous region on the border of Pakistan in the tribal regions.

2) Obama contacts Musharraf to work out a joint strike force to go in and take him out, since you know, they are our "friends" and all.

3) In the Hypothetical situation, Musharraf disagrees and says that no, america cannot go into that region and Pakistan won't help.

4) So Obama attacks the tribal region of Pakistan taking out Al-Q, and possibly Bin Laden

Now, Syngas, are you asking if that's an acceptable position for a presidential candidate to have?

Honestly, as someone who opposes a lot of wars, it's hard for me to say that such an action would be "wrong". There's a lot of hypothetical built into that situation. Could America try to build a coalition to help "muster support" to override a sovereign nation's stance to protect a lawbreaker? Not really, since if they did that, The intelligence becomes useless. So that option is off the table.

I think that an attack on the region, with a full admittance to what you did afterwords would probably work. A lot like israel's strike on that "site" a few weeks back. You'll have a hard time finding the world community getting too upset about the specific, targeted, destruction of a possible Nuclear site, honestly. If america proved that Al-Q was being led out of that region, and a major strike there would do a lot of damage to this specific terrorist group, I think most of the world would support you.

However, if we start building bases stock full of McDonalds and Burger Kings along the border after "shock and Awe"ing the hell out of it, then we'll talk about "invading Pakistan"

Gee caligraph, you're the toughest, bravest man/woman in the whole comments section. Please spare us all of your post 9/11 patriotism and bravado. I, for one, am sick of the chickenhawks telling me I'm a coward.

The fact remains, the war in Iraq is a mess and has ruined our economy and is dragging most of the world's economy down with it into the sewer (unless you happen to be in the oil biz). How can we ever call Iraq a success after what it has already cost us in lives and money (not to mention how it has compromised our ideals)? Especially since we had no real reason to invade in the first place.

I think that for the greater good of the nation, after the election both Bush and Cheney should allow themselves to be put on trial for war crimes. No kidding. Take one for the team, so to speak. They should answer for everything they did during their administration and accept any punishment, should they be found guilty. We shouldn't let these two just walk away from all of this.

What a loaded question.

If you are asking me if I think the US should go after Bin Laden et al. in Pakistan, the answer is no. If you think the resistance to our occupation in Iraq was suprisingly fierce, imagine for a moment how much worse it would be in western Pakistan, where the religious fananticism and anti-American hatred are much more intense. And Pakistan is a country with more than five times the population of Iraq. Plus the terrain in western Pakistan is murderous and would bog down our forces.

It would be placing our military in great peril for little gain. We'd have to send in 10 brigades just to protect ourselves even in a limited campaign. We don't have 10 brigades to spare at the moment.

Plus it would cause even more political instability in a country already teetering on the brink of chaos as it is. And that has nuclear weapons.

I don't think either McCain or Obama would be quite that stupid.

I suppose we'll find out soon enough:

Oh yes I can

Doh! I meant to use this one:

Change you can Believe In!

I wonder how fast China can move it's forces to the border of Pakistan.

That doesn't mean he will and I am quite certain he won't, for the reasons I have stated above.

If McCain or Obama as President did something that stupid, of course I would oppose it.

I hope your remember this conversation next year.

see, the problem with arguing with mat is his fire-all-of-your-guns-at-once strategy. it's like being shit on, but i'm going to expose myself to this sad, boring possibility because there are two things i can't take anymore :mat scheck's puffed-up pontificating while hiding behind his military "service", and the way my lefty/intellectual/sceptical/pacifictic bretheren and my gentle, openminded, rationalistic, feel-guilty-they-didn't-join-the-army right wing cousins (syngas...) suck up to this kind of kind of treatment.

his constant implicaton that military experience on it's own makes his opinions more valuable and, insultingly, the reverse, is bad enough. but the level and mean-spirited quality of the ad hominum in many of his posts, the simple and obvious joy he takes in tearing someone down with words (for lack of an m-16, ay, soldier boy?) is so disturbing to me, as a pacifist, i've decided to emulate it. :)jk mostly

full disclosure: i've tangled with mat before. i think he's an essentially sensitive, insecure windbag of offensive proportions, who desperately wants to be unique and powerful but paradoxically identifies most strongly as a member of an organization that literally tells you when you can take a shit. and he thinks i'm deranged, childish, ill-informed and essentially unworthy of his massive warrior intellect.

so, anyway, i'd like to bend your ears for a moment on the subject of military "service", and what it means, has meant, and should mean. i think we're all pretty much "against war", here, is that fair enough? as far as what that actually means, i bet even mat would agree that war, in general, is to be avoided at all costs, shouldn't be supported or encouraged, except in the most dire of defensive circumstances. wars shouldn't be fought, for instance, over honor, treasure, women, (don't laugh, it's happened often enough),greed, conquest, etc. is joining the army supporting the idea of war? yes. sorry about that, but it's pretty simple. so when SHOULD you join the army? simple. when you have to. either the ideology- the meta-strategy- is so compelling you have no choice but to join or spend the rest of your life feeling like a hypocrite, or, you get DRAFTED.

and this is what i wanted to say, and let me be clear because, unless i am pointedly ignored by mr. scheck (a pleasant possibility) i will have a huge, stinky, drippy shit taken on my head by the excitable fellow.

military SERVICE is when you get drafted. to be on the safe side, try to get drafted to fight in a defensive war, preferably with the front lines being the border of your own country, or close to it. or, conversely, join a fight that is so ideologically compelling that, for your own self-respect, you must. but if you join outside of these circumstances,

you are an adventurer, perhaps. a seeker of glory, perhaps. a "brotherhood junkie", perhaps. a person whose life circumstances presented the military as the best available option, perhaps. in other words, a mercenary. not, god forbid, a bad person, that's not what i'm saying at all. in fact i think i understand something about both romance and desperation as they relate to an elite group of warriors and their bonds. even the lowliest pencil pusher in a military organizaton of volunteers shares (just a bit) in this pride. and why not? it's an ancient and occaisionally mind-bogglingly honorable form of human endeavor.

but, those of you who have ultimately fought for george bushes crazed messianism and iron-willed greed, or to line bill and hill's pockets or (sadly, i know, given military salaries) your own, and especially, and, essentially, to further the goals of a surprisingly small group of very rich men, don't- DON'T, i say- use your experiences, which are your own and for your own purposes- to justify yourselves, to raise yourselves above your bretheren, saying "we have sacrificed for you!"

it's an insult to those who have, actually, SERVED.

mat's constant implicaton that military experience on it's own makes his opinions more valuable

Funny, that seems to be McCain's campaign Slogan.


You've written a nice screed here. I am honestly touched you'd step into this discussion and add your comments with some substance and clarity, even if these comments are negatively directed at me. As I like to say, if I want to dish it out, I'd better be able to take it. So I reap what I sow. (Two trite cliches in one paragraph; I'm on a roll. [THREE!]).

Your last three paragraphs sound a bit like what I wrote last year, and for which I basically lost a couple of close, in fact very dear, friends over what I wrote. I think you and I think exactly alike on that subject.

The rest of what you said--it's water under the bridge. I find blog comments threads to be a place where the give-and-take between perfect stranges often gets acrimonious and personal, and, honestly, it can be fun at times, but ultimately it's tedious.

Read this if you feel up to it.

I hope your remember this conversation next year.

You betcha.

Are you really a "gentle, openminded, rationalistic, feel-guilty-they-didn't-join-the-army right winger"?

That sounds kind of icky.

I guess I'm a muscular, vicious, mean, bullying, arrogant, ad-hominem-flinging, haughty, anti-war lefty. Oh, and an urban, latte-sipping, East-coast, intellectual elitist. I am that too.

At least I can fall back on my good looks. Oh, wait...

yeah, but my friends just call me icky ;-)

Have a great weekend fellas. I'm gonna try to catch some fish.

I find blog comments threads to be a place where the give-and-take between perfect stranges often gets acrimonious and personal, and, honestly, it can be fun at times, but ultimately it's tedious.

that's about the most disingenous thing i've ever heard. but civility demands civility from the civil. :)

you write a pretty good screed yourself, mat. your "rant" was obviously truthful, heartfelt and poetic. i think you were trying to connect the value of your service to hardships endured. i totally hear this. it's not the same as being drafted, however, or defending hearth and home. i just can't see a member of the praetorian gaurd or the roman 10th legion talking about his "service" or "sacrifice", except perhaps in a pissing contest with his similarly- employed buddies, or when trying to justify himself in front of someone who chose a more peaceful life path who dares to express an opinion about military matters.

it is this last occurance i am protesting, in the hopes of promoting dialogue without fear.

i like your writing. you just need to pull back a bit from the "words-as-weapons" thing. you could work on being more subtle with it and come back with knives a-flashin' instead of big, noisy guns a-blazin. you could kick ass as a knife fighter.

sorry, just setting up my own personal 1gm computer game.

oh, i wanted to say: judging by what you wrote there, you obviously understand everything i said in my "screed" above and have even devoted considerable thought to these issues. one thing i wouldn't accuse you of is shallowness. so why do you do it? why do you pull that "you weren't there in the trenches, buddy" schtick? i'd really like to know.

so why do you do it? why do you pull that "you weren't there in the trenches, buddy" schtick?

I don't believe, in the context of my tirade vis-a-vis calligraph, that I was "justifying" myself. I was merely pointing out his hypocrisy. He did call me a coward and asked what I'd to "to save my own skin"; so I replied. If I sounded mean or vicious, oh well, it's not like I was addressing Bambi or a poor, weak, and helpless little wallfower. Calligraph loves to play the heroic, name-calling, right-wing advocate, so as I said, he reaps what he sows.

I guess, by your logic, it is acceptable to choose a peaceful life path and yet scream for war publicly (that others fight), and ALSO call others cowards because they oppose the war? This kind of hypocrisy shouldn't be pointed out?

How can we have this peace you desire when we wage wars without asking for responsibility of, and to, the citizenry? Maybe we do need the draft. That might have made millions of Americans less warmongering towards Iraq if they might get called up to go fight there. An army of draftees is more democratic, in my opinion, than an all-volunteer military.

As I said in my essay (and which you stated quite brilliantly), we now have a mercenary army, not a citizen army, and worse is that the President is largely unaccountable to the people in how he uses that army. Congress--even with Democrats now in charge--largely gave up even trying to exert authority here, let alone exercize it's Constitutionally-granted powers of check & balance.

Our President now has almost absolute power to wage war much like the kings of old. That was exactly NOT what Jefferson, Madison et, al. ever wanted when they designed our Constitution.

So waving a white feather at loud, vocal, and arrogrant pro-war warmongers who won't serve isn't exactly uncalled for, let alone rude, at least in my opinion. Nor is it a "you weren' in the trenches" kind of thing as you imply. I think it's necessary if one truly is, in fact, anti-war as I am, to point out the hypocrisy of (AND even publicly shame), the most vocal pro-war hypocrites.

Because, after all, people are dying in these wars. We're not just playing games in these wars like we're playing in these comments threads. I think you should re-read my comments too, because it doesn't seem you comprehended the gist of what I was saying.

I guess, by your logic, it is acceptable to choose a peaceful life path and yet scream for war publicly (that others fight), and ALSO call others cowards because they oppose the war?

um, yes, actually. i think anyone should be allowed to have their arguments judged on merit rather than life experience. i don't think, for instance, that someone who has had a lobotomy should be considered a better source of information about lobotomies, or a better philosopher about the essence and meaning of lobotomization, or a better strategist regarding how to avoid or conduct lobotomies.


But a doctor who performs lobotomies would be a much more knowledgable source about brain surgery than, say, a toilet scrubber or a fry cook, right?

Just so you know, I believe I clarified all my comments above about Calligraph with the following:

1 - Cory, I am not saying people who are for the war have to have served in the military to hold their views or advocate them with as much gusto as they can muster.

2 - Even then I wouldn't call someone a "chickenhawk" just because they support the war. (And don't serve.)

So I ask, Jonathan: did you miss these statements?

Have you used selective perception? I am bored reading you accusing me of things I have not done.

just to clarify, you're a, uh, 2001 hyundai 4-door with racing stripes and a dodgy headlight, mat. but don't get me wrong, i would never call anyone a 2002 hyundai 4-door with racing stripes and a dodgy headlight, it's against my sense of morals and ethics.

does that answer your question?

and please stop pretending this is about your recent exchange with calligraph who i could care less about except in an entertainment sense. we've both been hanging around here for quite awhile, you longer than i. you know i'm talking about a long established pattern. but if you want to play innocent, that's fine with me. let's see how long you can keep it up.

I'm sorry, but after your loopy logic with the lobotomy analogy, you're growing harder and harder to understand.

Which leads me to think you're not too keen at reading comprehension either, since your logic is so squirrelly and strange and just downright, well, illogical.

You seem like a very funny and jovial and likeable person. So you have that going for you.

I must say, I think it is much more moral and eththical to be right and just than to be nice or civil.

I must say, I think it is much more moral and eththical to be right and just than to be nice or civil.

right, i got that. no disagreements there. a match made in heaven!

having grown up in west virginia, this phrase trips naturally from my tongue:

" whatsa matta, you don't like squirrel?"

I will say this: your take on the modern military was dead-on correct. The fact what you said was so close to what I wrote last year is uncanny.

So you're a decent fellow, Jonathan, even if your shift key is broken and your pose all looks like an ee cummings poem.

What is your aversion to capitalization rules?

(Hypcorite me: look at my tagline.)

Hypocrite. Ugh. Time to go home.

Thanks for the conversation, Jonathan. It was interesting.

sure thing, cap'n america. anytime. (wipes away tear).

and now to prove that i'm really bored and have insomnia and too much spare time:

my "cap'n america" reference sums up my entire take on what just happened here. for those of you who remember "doonsbury" in it's earliest incarnation (or who are willing to look it up- brilliant stuff), b.d. was the captain of the football team. zonker, his stoner nemesis/wide reciever, referred to him , mostly but not entirely tongue in cheek, as "cap'n america". there was, in spite of their very different views, a certain hostile affection between them.

interestingly, b.d. evolves into the disabled iraq war vet, spokesman for the resiliance, earthy intelligence and black humor of the combat soldier who was sold a bill of goods, a position he still maintains in the strip.

zonker... remains zonker.

and now to prove that i'm really bored and have insomnia and too much spare time

I too am attempting to prove how bored that I am. Posting here is not evidence of spare time though. It's evidence of way too much time on one's hand, huh? ;)


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives