posted November 05, 2006 02:59 AM              

Neocons turn on Bush over Iraqi war

by Anwaar Hussain

11/4/06

Crashing on the rocks of hubris, the

SHIP NEOCON is finally going down and small little furry creatures, commonly known as rats but which once acted onboard like Goliaths, are falling over each other in their mad scurry to jump the ship!

The Neocon propped Bush Administration is preparing to cut and run from Iraq.

The most convincing sign of this came when it emerged that Bechtel Corp, one of the biggest construction firms in the world, was leaving the country for good with no new contract to continue the job.

As America prepares to slink out of Iraq, leaving behind legions of demons let lose on Iraqi streets

and more than half a million corpses,

the discredited Neocons too are jumping the ship taking along with them their myopic vision of U.S. foreign policy that they had used to steer not just America but the whole world into perilous waters.

The stampede was started by William F. Buckley, Jr., that diehard conservative and the pied piper for the American establishments. In a February 2006 piece in his Right wing’s mouth piece journal, National Review, he conceded;

"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. … Our
mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans."

But the real impetus came from Francis Fukuyama, a diehard Neocon himself, who wrote the fateful obituary on Neocons in his book ‘After the Neocons: America at the Crossroads’ in March of this year.

Fukuyama was once at the core of a pro-war cabal that had among its members people like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, Richard Perle and Bill Kristol.

Fukuyama did a complete U-turn by openly condemning the ideology of the very people that he once supped with.

He declared neo-conservatism to have "evolved into something I can no longer support"

and that the doctrine, which has demonstrated "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes ... is now in shambles," and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy.

He wanted the Neocon dream to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Those who promoted that dream, he said, are Leninists of a kind:

“They believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will.

Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version and it has returned as farce when practiced by the U.S.”

He warned that history will not look sympathetically on the Iraq war or its consequences;

"…..it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention itself or the ideas animating it kindly.

By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy:

Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet,

a training ground and an operational base for jihadist terrorists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at. "

In the face of a looming disaster, however, the stampede is only now getting to a feverish pitch in the Neocons’ pack.

Several other high-flying neoconservatives have now turned on George Bush days before the decisive midterm elections, attacking his administration for ineptitude in the handling of Iraq war and questioning the very invasion they were rather helpful in sponsoring.

Just three days before the Tuesday’s battle for the control of congress in which Iraq war is an essential issue, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, Michael Rubin and David Frum have all disavowed their earlier stances on Iraq war, according to early excerpts of an article in Vanity Fair magazine.

One recalls that the first
two gentlemen were both Pentagon advisers before the war, while Michael Rubin is a former senior official in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, and David Frum a former Bush speechwriter.

In an ironic turnabout, Richard Perle, a hawkish member of the influential Defense Policy Board that advised the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, in the run-up to Iraq war, has bluntly condemned the conduct of the war and blamed "dysfunction" in the Bush administration for the present predicament.

The decisions did not get made that should have been.

They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly," said Perle. "At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible", he twists the knife further.

Asked if he would still have pressed for war knowing what he knows now, Perle said: "I think if I had been Delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?', I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists'."

Kenneth Adelman of the “cakewalk war” fame now says he enormously overestimated the abilities of the Bush team.

"I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent."

"They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era.

Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional." Adelman adds.

He too recants his public urging for military action, in light of the administration's performance.

"I guess that's what I would have said: that Bush's arguments are absolutely right, but you know what, you just have to put them in the drawer marked 'can't do'. And that's very different from 'let's go'."

Adelman also stated his particular dissatisfaction of Donald Rumsfeld.

"I'm crushed by his performance," he said.

"Did he change, or were we wrong in the past?

Or is it that he was never really challenged before?

I don't know.

He certainly fooled me." More ominously, Kenneth Adelman said the guiding principle behind neo-conservatism, "the idea of using our power for moral good in the world", had been killed off for a generation at least.

After Iraq, he told Vanity Fair, "it's not going to sell."

Likewise, Michael Rubin accused President George Bush of giving up on Iraqi reformers.

The president's actions, Rubin said, had been "not much different from what his father did on February 15 1991, when he called the Iraqi people to rise up and then had second thoughts and didn't do anything once they did."

Not to be left behind is David Frum who as a White House speechwriter helped coin the phrase "axis of evil" in 2002.

He said failure in Iraq might be inescapable, because "the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them."

The blame, according to Frum, lies with "failure at the center,"" beginning with the president.

As the ship Neocon goes down and the blame game heats up further,

not only will we witness further shameless renouncements from more
furry creatures emerging from the vaults but also the enormity of the smallness of these pseudo giants whom we had allowed to grow larger than life.

While it is up to the Americans what they want done with these apparitions that blew into smithereens the shrine of American idealism at the altar of their twisted egos, the scribe cannot help but end the piece with a stanza from Rudyard Kipling;

And the end of the fight,
Is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear,
‘A fool lies here
Who tried to hustle the East'
http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2006/11/neocon-ship-down.html

posted November 05, 2006 03:17 AM              

------------------
"WHATEVER the soul longs for, WILL be attained by the spirit"-Khalil Gibran

posted November 05, 2006 11:25 AM              

Very true what you say, Dulce Luna. No place in the world more than Africa and what is taking place there proves beyond doubt that using our power for the good of the world is not now nor was it ever the motive and intention of the Iraq invasion by America and Great Britain. Money and greed and corporate world power is the only motivation.

posted November 05, 2006 01:43 PM            

Further, these leftist bast@rds broke their word to those they interviewed by publishing their remarks before the November elections.

This is exactly what anyone can expect from the lying radical left and a prime reason no one should so much as answer their phone when one of these radical leftist rags is on the other end.

It is interesting to note Vanity Fair's advertising pages were down 15% this year after falling about 9% the previous year.

This is exactly what the rest of the leftist fishwrappers are experiencing as they continue the bombardment of America with leftist bullsh*t.

Vanity Unfair
A response to Vanity Fair.
An NRO Symposium

Editor's Note: On Friday, Vanity Fair issued a press release highlighting excerpts of a piece in their January issue on “neoconservative” supporters of the war in Iraq who today, unsurprisingly, have some negative things to say about how the war is going and how the Bush administration has been handling it.

In the wake of the press release – which has gotten considerable play on the Internet – some of those “neoconservatives” highlighted in the article have responded to the excerpts and its misrepresentations, in some cases, of what they said. We collect some of those reactions — including from Eliot Cohen, David Frum, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, and Michael Rubin — below.

Eliot A. Cohen
Being neither Republican nor Democrat, and thinking the government's conduct of the Iraq war an entirely appropriate subject of political debate I do not think anyone should have kept mum in an interview of this kind until an election had passed. That said, I had assumed that the interview would not be published until January, and find the timing of this release of excerpts tendentious, to say the least.

I stand by what I said, however, which is no different from what I have said in other venues, including in articles in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal as well a in a variety of print and television interviews over several years. Indeed, insofar as I have any personal regrets as I look back on my public statements about the war, it is for not having spoken up even more often and forcefully than I already have. I believed in 2003 that the war was just and appropriate, and have been deeply distressed at its conduct. There is no public service, however, in misleading ourselves about the situation in which we find ourselves, or in softening critiques which are necessary if we are to do better in the future.

— Eliot A. Cohen is Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins SAIS.

David Frum
There has been a lot of talk this season about deceptive campaign ads, but the most dishonest document I have seen is this press release from Vanity Fair, highlighted on the Drudge Report . Headlined “Now They Tell Us,” it purports to offer an “exclusive” access to “remorseful” former supporters of the Iraq war who will now “play the blame game” with “shocking frankness.”

It cites not only myself as one of these remorseful supporters, but also Richard Perle, Ken Adelman, and others.

I can speak only for myself. Obviously I wish the war had gone better. It’s true I fear that there is a real danger that the US will lose in Iraq. And yes I do blame a lot that has gone wrong on failures of US policy.

I have made these points literally thousands of times since 2004, beginning in An End to Evil and most recently in my 22-part commentary on Bob Woodward’s State of Denial (start here and find the remainder here.) I have argued them on radio and on television and on public lectern, usually in exactly the same words that are quoted in the press release.

“[T]he insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them.”

“I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything.”

And finally that the errors in Iraq are explained by “failures at the center.”

Nothing exclusive there, nothing shocking, and believe me, nothing remorseful.

My most fundamental views on the war in Iraq remain as they were in 2003: The war was right, victory is essential, and defeat would be calamitous.

And that to my knowledge is the view of everybody quoted in the release and the piece: Adelman, Cohen, Ledeen, Perle, Pletka, Rubin, and all the others.

(Not that it matters, but this fight is very personal for many of those people. Cohen and Ledeen have both had children serve in Iraq, Cohen’s in the Tenth Mountain Division, Ledeen’s daughter in the civil administration and his elder son in the Marines. As a civilian adviser in Iraq, Rubin displayed impressive personal courage living solo for long periods of time in the Shiite zones of east Baghdad.)

Vanity Fair then set my words in its own context in its press release. They added words outside the quote marks to change the plain meaning of quotations.

When I talk in the third quotation above about failures “at the center,” for example, I did not mean the president. If I had, I would have said so. At that point in the conversation, I was discussing the National Security Council, whose counter-productive interactions produced bad results.

And when I talked in the second quotation about “persuading the president,” I was repeating this point, advanced here last month. In past administrations, the battle for the president’s words was a battle for administration policy. But because Bush’s National Security Council malfunctioned so badly, the president could say things without action following - because the mechanism for enforcing his words upon the bureaucracy had broken.

In short, Vanity Fair transformed a Washington debate over “how to correct course and win the war” to advance obsessions all their own.

How was this done?

The author of the piece touted by the press release is David Rose, a British journalist well known as a critic of the Saddam Hussein regime and supporter of the Iraq war. (See here and here for just two instances out of a lengthy bibliography.)

Rose has earned a reputation as a truth teller. The same unfortunately cannot be said for the editors and publicists at Vanity Fair. They have repackaged truths that a war-fighting country needs to hear into lies intended to achieve a shabby partisan purpose.

— David Frum is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. This originally appeared on “David Frum’s Diary” on NRO.

Michael Ledeen
My experience with Vanity Fair is even more extensive than David Frum ‘s, having been the subject of a 30,000 word screed that ends with the author’s bland confession “there is no evidence for any of this.” So I am not at all surprised to see the editors yank words from me, David, and others out of context and totally misdescribe what we think, do and feel. I do not feel “remorseful,” since I had and have no involvement with our Iraq policy. I opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place and I advocated — as I still do — support for political revolution in Iran as the logical and necessary first step in the war against the terror masters.

Readers of NRO know well how disappointed I have been with our failure to address Iran, which was, and remains, the central issue, and it has been particularly maddening to live through extended periods when our children were in battle zones where Iranian-supported terrorists were using Iranian-made weapons against Americans, Iraqis and Afghans. I have been expressing my discontent for more than three years. So much for a change of heart dictated by developments on the ground.

So it is totally misleading for Vanity Fair to suggest that I have had second thoughts about our Iraq policy. But then one shouldn’t be surprised. No one ever bothered to check any of the lies in the first screed, and obviously no fact-checker was involved in the latest “promotion.” I actually wrote to David Rose, the author of the article-to-come, a person for whom I have considerable respect. He confirmed that words attributed to me in the promo had been taken out of context.

— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.
This originally appeared in NRO’s The Corner.

Richard Perle
Vanity Fair has rushed to publish a few sound bites from a lengthy discussion with David Rose. Concerned that anything I might say could be used to influence the public debate on Iraq just prior to Tuesday’s election, I had been promised that my remarks would not be published before the election.

I should have known better than to trust the editors at Vanity Fair who lied to me and to others who spoke with Mr. Rose. Moreover, in condensing and characterizing my views for their own partisan political purposes, they have distorted my opinion about the situation in Iraq and what I believe to be in the best interest of our country.

I believe it would be a catastrophic mistake to leave Iraq, as some are demanding, before the Iraqis are able to defend their elected government. As I told Mr. Rose, the terrorist threat to our country, which is real, would be made much worse if we were to make an ignominious withdrawal from Iraq.

I told Mr. Rose that as a nation we had waited too long before dealing with Osama bin Laden. We could have destroyed his operation in Afghanistan before 9/11.

I believed we should not repeat that mistake with Saddam Hussein, that we could not responsibly ignore the threat that he might make weapons of mass destruction available to terrorists who would use them to kill Americans. I favored removing his regime. And despite the current difficulties, I believed, and told Mr. Rose, that “if we had left Saddam in place, and he had shared nerve gas with al Qaeda, or some other terrorist organization, how would we compare what we’re experiencing now with that?”

I believe the president is now doing what he can to help the Iraqis get to the point where we can honorably leave. We are on the right path.

— Richard Perle is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He has served as chairman of the Defense Department’s Defense Policy Board during this administration.

Michael Rubin
Some people interviewed for the piece are annoyed because they granted interviews on the condition that the article not appear before the election. Vanity Fair is spinning a series of long interviews detailing the introspection and debate that occurs among responsible policymakers every day into a pre-election hit job. Who doesn’t constantly question and reassess? Vanity Fair’s agenda was a pre-election hit job, and I guess some of us quoted are at fault for believing too much in integrity. What the article seeks to do is push square pegs into round holes. Readers will see that the content of the piece does not match the sensational headlines. Were people gathered around the author gripping about Bush? No. Were people identifying faults in the implementation? Yes. Are people sick of the autodafe whereby pundits demand “neocon” confessions to fit their own silly conspiracy theories? Yes. Have those interviewed changed their mind about the war? I have not, no matter how self-serving partisan pundits or lazy journalists want to spin it. I can’t speak for others. Again, despite the punditry out there, the so-called neocons are not Borg.

Now, for my own quote: I absolutely stand by what I said. Too many people in Washington treat foreign policy as a game. Many Washington-types who speak about Iraq care not about the U.S. servicemen or about the Iraqis, but rather focus on U.S. electoral politics. I am a Republican, but whether the Republicans or Democrats are in power, Washington’s word must mean something. Leadership is about responsibility, not just politics. We cannot go around the world betraying our allies — in this case Iraqis who believed in us or allied with us — just because of short-term political expediency. This is not just about Iraq: If we abandon Iraq, we will not only prove correct all of Osama Bin Laden’s rhetoric about the US being a paper tiger, but we will also demonstrate — as James Baker and George H. W. Bush did in 1991 — that listening to the White House and alliance with the United States is a fool’s decision. We can expect no allies anywhere, be they in Asia, Africa, or Latin America, if we continue to sacrifice principles to short-term realist calculations. It’s not enough to have an attention span of two years, when the rest of the world thinks in decades if not centuries.

— Michael Rubin is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and editor of The Middle East Quarterly. He served in Iraq as a political adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority from 2003-2004. This originally appeared on NRO’s The Corner.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzgxYzUzYmRlNjhmNzMyNjI2MDM4YmRjNTFhODA4MGQ=

posted November 05, 2006 06:47 PM              

------------------
"WHATEVER the soul longs for, WILL be attained by the spirit"-Khalil Gibran

posted November 06, 2006 02:22 PM            

quote:

---

The Dems are in reality calling for a timetable to be set for turning the country over to the Iraqi people leaving entirely only when that government is well trained and established

---

Thank you for clearing that up Mirandee, and this I also agree with....

quote:

---

What the Bush administration has there now is an an inept puppet government

---

posted November 06, 2006 02:43 PM            

Rainbow and Mirandee, do you even know what a Neo Conservative is, how they came to be and what ideology they hold is?

I think you actually like to use that term because it invokes a bitter taste in some people's mouths, but the actual ideology held by a NeoCon is quite extensive.

posted November 06, 2006 11:44 PM              

quote:

---

Rainbow and Mirandee, do you even know what a Neo Conservative is, how they came to be and what ideology they hold is?

---

.....and I say to her....
Pid,do YOU even know how to use the English language?

I can't believe she ACTUALLY said,"Do you even know what idealogy they hold is?")

OMG! LMAO

Talk about murdering the Queen's

English!

eeeeeeee

It's typical Barney Fife behavior, though.

I can just see him now, speaking to a group

rying so friggin' hard to impress people with his importance.......but then mucking up up his speech

with embarrassingly bad grammar...therebydefeating his own purpose....

posted November 07, 2006 12:25 AM              

My uncle knows in person a Caucasian linguistics professor from Chicago , IL who went to Sudan ten years ago for this mission.

The US will get involved. But now is not the time; it will when it needs those resources.

posted November 07, 2006 01:37 PM            

So, but concentrating on my leaving in the word "is" (since you never have typos, mis-spellings or grammer errors) you side-stepped the actual question and instead made much ado about nothing.

LMAO... you're a riot---how funny!!! You call people Neo-Cons yet you don't even know what one is do you?

OMG....that is too funny.. Hey, maybe we should play a game and I should go through all of your posts and find your errors? I'll bet there is an infinite number of errors to be found in your posts considering your intellect.

LMAO..... concentrating on the word "is"..(sounds like a former cheating President we all know of) hee hee..... maybe next time you can answer the question that was asked of you oh "self appointed queen of grammer".

PS Rainbow - just because someone vindictively started a thread attacking me does not mean it is open season. If you read through that thread there was more backlash that support and it turned out to be ugly.

Resorting to the following;

Rainbow~
Knowflake
Posts: 5826
From:
Registered: Jan 2002
posted November 06, 2006 11:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pid asks (or maybe I should say "tries to ask " )

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainbow and Mirandee, do you even know what a Neo Conservative is, how they came to be and what ideology they hold is?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.....and I say to her....
Pid,do YOU even know how to use the English language?

I can't believe she ACTUALLY said,"Do you even know what idealogy they hold is?")

OMG! LMAO

Talk about murdering the Queen's

English!

eeeeeeee

It's typical Barney Fife behavior, though.

I can just see him now, speaking to a group

rying so friggin' hard to impress people with his importance.......but then mucking up up his speech

with embarrassingly bad grammar...therebydefeating his own purpose...."

___________________________
....indicates just how inept you are in having an intelligent conversation. You may want to take a look at your own grammer and spelling. Last time I check the word "trying" had a "T" and "therebydefeating" is two words not one.

Calling me Barney Fife again not only dates you in age, since most of us here have no clue other than it had to have been before color TV was invented, but it proves your jealousy, hate and bitterness is out of this word. Then again, you are one of only a few people here that actually started an attack thread of your own.. LOL.... smart girl Rainbow (that was meant sarcastically in case you didn't understand).

posted November 07, 2006 02:27 PM              

if you are referring to the thread i started regarding your personal issues, i will state again, as i did repeatedly, that it was not an attack. it was a legitimate attempt to direct your personal bitterness and contempt for me due to disagreement away from legitimate topics.

i agreed that your name should not have been in the thread -- it was however about your personal issues, and it was not an attack.

that it generated negative focus on you was a source of concern for me. hence my request that Randall delete it. i have asked him several times to do so. that he hasn't is good, as its presence proves that it was not an attack.

the people displeased with it were people who always disagree with the opinions that i present in this forum. not one of them provided an answer upon my asking how the thread was an attack. mirandee had the graciousness to say that your name in the title made it appear that way, and as i stated, it would be fine with me to rename the thread 'the personal issues thread.'

other than your name being in the title, and as the thread was about your personal issues, which is in no way an insult (and if anyone should know about insults, it should be you), that's understandable.

if i were you, i'd like that whole issue to be forgotten. but as you continue bringing it up, it is obviously not 'water under the bridge,' as you stated in your reply to my apology.

Rainbow made one comment in that thread, essentially requesting an end to the chaos it seemed to generate. she said nothing personal about you. so there is no call whatsoever to bring it up here at all.

please re-read the thread, for more complete understanding. if you wish to discuss your personal issues with me, including the thread itself, which was not an attack, but which you have chosen now to run about whining about, i invite you to email me and try to resolve them in private, without further polluting this board with such redundant ill will.

i did not intend for the thread to be a spotlight on you, i intended it to be a place where i could more completely focus on the numerous and endless accusations and personal questions you fill pages and pages with in several threads towards me. again, i will say that perhaps those should be resolved in private email.

here is the thread itself, for clarification ~

posted November 07, 2006 02:39 PM            

I was referring to Rainbow and some of the people that jumped onto the attack Pidaua train.

The fact that you started that thread with my name in the title along with "and her personal issues" is a total blitz attack any way you want to look at it. It is demonstrative of what lurks within the person that has the audacity to even THINK that posting something like that is anything less than an attack.

IF you wanted to start a "personal issue" thread you; 1) would not have listed my name in the title 2) would not have centered the nature of the post around me and 3) would not have defended yourself to the extent that you did when several people posted against you.

What you did was wrong. It is wrong here at Lindaland and as far as ethics is concerned - well, yours are questionable.

Rainbow, DayDreamer and Mirandee jumped on the band wagon as they are always looking for a way to attack me. What separates me from people like you and them? Had someone started a thread like that geared towards you (and trust me- there is enough evidence of the vile accusations and posts all four of you are guilty of, that it would make it easy for someone to single you out in a thread) I would have been the first person to call it an attack and ask for it to be deleted or at the very least I would have had harsh words for the person that started it.

Several of us have been on the brunt of such attacks - being accused of altering articles (false) being singled out and called a racist (false) and having two hateful people start posts to attack ME on a personal level.

What you did, didn't hurt me. I laughed at you and how you had the nerve to think that it was proper or somehow justified. You and the other three henchwomen proved the kind of people you are by your posts.

In retrospect, I should thank you. Thank you for showing all of us here what the four of you are truly like.

BTW: I have the right to bring it up since there were several people (which was twice- Once to Mirandee and once to Rainbow) that attacked me on that thread. Using the word "continually" to describe the two times I brought it up is incorrect.

posted November 07, 2006 02:46 PM            

Had I not said that, you can bet several other people would have posted on there on my behalf and against how you lowered yourself.

posted November 07, 2006 02:52 PM              

should you wish to read my replies, please go to the thread where i re-direct them.

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002904.html

posted November 07, 2006 02:54 PM              

Looking back on the threads here, one can see that Somehow you find it "insulting" or "degrading."
in some way....

So it's a good thing you took the initiative to "delve extensively" into exactly what a neocon is....

Perhaps NOW you won't jump out of your skin when someone makes a reference to them....

Oh btw, I wasn't making much ado about nothing (it was yourself, doing that- jumping headlong over all your words with that "neo-con" comment )

What I was doing, was merely pointing out that in your zest to MAKE Mirandee and me look like we knew nothing about neo-cons You showed that you KNEW NOTHING about the English language!

That's all I was doing, in case you didn't get it....(I'm kinda spiteful that way! )

Also wanted to let you know that I don't care if calling you Barney Fife dates me in age...(whatever made you think that I'd care about something like that?)

I LOVED THAT SHOW AND HOW SILLY the puffed- up BARNEY LOOKED WEEK AFTER WEEK....

The way in which you and Barney differ, though, is that Barney was was a lovable cuss.

People couldn't help but love him in spite of him thinking himself a "big-deal."

That's not always true about those who suffer from "the Barney Fife Syndrome."

Yup, that's an old show alright, one of my favorites and it still is; it can be caught on cable's TVLAND reruns daily.......They have a huge viewing audience

Bet you can't find anyone who doesn't know who Barney Fife is....

Oh PId, wanted to say that I think it's very considerate of you to be concerned about me keeping up with my meds....

.

You can be sure I do, Sweetie, since i'm diabetic and have hypertension...

Nope would not want to miss out on taking my meds....

Don't bother your little head with concern for me, though....

Thank you for asking, nonetheless....

Oh incidentally Pid.....it's GRAMMAR and NOT GRAMMER....

posted November 07, 2006 02:58 PM            

You are not in control of the threads, the forum or the website and I will be damned if you censor my speech or anyone else's because you do not like where it is posted.

You have really shown who and what you are salome and for all of your accusations to me, it is you that have been proven guilty of hate and bitterness.

If you would like to bring back up the "Pidaua's issues" thread, be my guest. Ask people what you asked me- for them to prove how it was an attack.

posted November 07, 2006 03:02 PM            

Maybe you can get off your soap box of hate and answer the question. If you know how to or if you know what one is.. LOL.. maybe you can use google and search Neo Conservative and then you will realize the error in your label.