Tuesday, October 31, 2006

"If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

“Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard and do your homework and you make an effort to be smart you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
Senator John F. Kerry

"The suggestion that only the least educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq is an insult to every soldier serving in combat today."
Senator John McCain

Senator Kerry, you have insulted my Marine grandfather, my WWII Navy father, my oldest son, a career, special operations soldier and, me, a drafted Vietnam-era veteran.

On behalf of all veterans, past, present, future and four generations of my family, I request that you pull your head out of your rear end, so that we may all put our collective boot in its place.

Senator McCain, thank you!

Happy Halloween!

Monday, October 30, 2006

I wonder if he needs a campaign manager?

About a week ago I proposed Duncan Hunter for President and now, I see, he is considering my suggestion.
Rep. Hunter exploring presidential run
By ELLIOT SPAGAT, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
SAN DIEGO - Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), known in the military's echelon for his congressional role but hardly a national name, said Monday he was taking the initial step in a 2008 presidential bid.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Greater love hath no man than this,

that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13

I can say no more than the above bible passage or the story below. Rest in Peace Warrior!

CORONADO, Calif. - A Navy SEAL sacrificed his life to save his comrades by throwing himself on top of a grenade Iraqi insurgents tossed into their sniper hideout, fellow members of the elite force said.
Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor had been near the only door to the rooftop structure Sept. 29 when the grenade hit him in the chest and bounced to the floor, said four SEALs who spoke to The Associated Press this week on condition of anonymity because their work requires their identities to remain secret.
"He never took his eye off the grenade, his only movement was down toward it," said a 28-year-old lieutenant who sustained shrapnel wounds to both legs that day. "He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs' lives, and we owe him."
Monsoor, a 25-year-old gunner, was killed in the explosion in Ramadi, west of Baghdad. He was only the second SEAL to die in Iraq since the war began.
Two SEALs next to Monsoor were injured; another who was 10 to 15 feet from the blast was unhurt. The four had been working with Iraqi soldiers providing sniper security while U.S. and Iraqi forces conducted missions in the area.
In an interview at the SEALs' West Coast headquarters in Coronado, four members of the special force remembered "Mikey" as a loyal friend and a quiet, dedicated professional.
"He was just a fun-loving guy," said a 26-year-old petty officer 2nd class who went through the grueling 29-week SEAL training with Monsoor. "Always got something funny to say, always got a little mischievous look on his face."
Other SEALS described the Garden Grove, Calif., native as a modest and humble man who drew strength from his family and his faith. His father and brother are former Marines, said a 31-year-old petty officer 2nd class.
Prior to his death, Monsoor had already demonstrated courage under fire. He has been posthumously awarded the Silver Star for his actions May 9 in Ramadi, when he and another SEAL pulled a team member shot in the leg to safety while bullets pinged off the ground around them.
Monsoor's funeral was held Thursday at Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery in San Diego. He has also been submitted for an award for his actions the day he died.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Cheney Tears Into CNN

But, it wasn't Dick this time. It was Lynne Cheney who tore CNN and Wolf Blizter a new one. She had believed that an interview with Blitzer would be about her new children's book, Our 50 States. Instead Blizter spent about ten minutes, of the fifteen minute interview, asking Mrs. Cheney questions about her husband.
Mrs. Cheney turned the ambush back on Blitzer, asking him, ""what is CNN doing running tapes of terrorists shooting Americans. Do you want us to win?"
I couldn't be more proud of her.

Monday, October 23, 2006

Putting Things in Perspective

(I received this in an e-mail:)

You're angry because your class ran five minutes over.
He's told he will be held over an extra two months.

You call your girlfriend and set a date for tonight.
He waits for the mail to see if there is a letter from home.

You hug and kiss your girlfriend, like you do everyday.
He holds his letter close and smells his love's perfume.

You roll your eyes as a baby cries.
He gets a letter with pictures of his new child, and wonders if they'll ever meet

You criticize your government, and say that war never solves anything.
He sees the innocent tortured and killed by their own people and remembers why he is fighting.

You hear the jokes about the war, and make fun of men like him.
He hears the gunfire, bombs and screams of the wounded.

You see only what the media wants you to see.
He sees the broken bodies lying around him.

You are asked to go to the store by your parents. You don't.
He does exactly what he is told.

You stay at home and watch TV.
He takes whatever time he is given to call, write home, sleep, and eat.

You crawl into your soft bed, with down pillows, and get comfortable.
He crawls under a tank for shade and a 5 minute nap, only to be woken by gunfire.

You sit there and judge him, saying the world is probably a worse place because of men like him.
If only there were more men like him!

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American G.I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Rep. Duncan Hunter for President

I agree with Duncan Hunter and the two other California lawmakers mentioned in the story below. They feel that CNN "has become a publicist for an enemy propaganda film".
But, then CNN was given exclusive rights to news in Iraq by Saddam, in exchange for publicising only good news (as, in approved by Saddam) on Iraq.
CNN's comment that their "goal is to present the unvarnished truth as best we can", is, for lack of a better expression, bullsh!t.
What they have done, is not only in very poor taste and insensitive to the American soldiers and their families, it has been done with the deliberate intention of effecting the upcoming elections.
For what purpose? Why would they do this, in collusion with a terrorist 'spokesman'?
Whatever the reason, it smacks of treason to me.
By Tony Perry, Times Staff Writer (Los Angeles Times)
October 21, 2006
SAN DIEGO — CNN has become "the publicist for an enemy propaganda film" by broadcasting a video showing an insurgent sniper in Iraq apparently killing an American soldier, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said here Friday.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon) called for the Pentagon to oust any CNN reporter embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq.
"I think Americans like to think we're all in this together," Hunter said. "The average American Marine or soldier has concluded after seeing that film that CNN is not on their side."
CNN said it broadcast the brief video to show the threat that insurgent snipers posed to U.S. troops.
"Whether or not you agree with us in this case, our goal, as always, is to present the unvarnished truth as best we can," CNN producer David Doss wrote in a blog on the network's website.
Tony Snow, President Bush's press secretary, said the insurgents were hoping to "break the will of the American people" by giving the video to CNN.
The footage was shown first on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" program, of which Doss is executive producer, and then on several news shows. It remained on CNN's website Friday.
Doss said CNN Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware received the video after communicating — through intermediaries — with Ibrahim Shammari, a spokesman for the Islamic Army.
Doss said the decision to broadcast the video came after hours of "intense editorial debate."
He said one compromise was made: The moment when the bullet hits the soldier's head is blacked out. The soldier's face and unit patches were not clear, so identifying him was impossible, CNN said.
Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Carlsbad), who with Hunter and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) sent a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, called the film "nothing short of a terrorist snuff film."
Snow, at his regular news briefing in Washington, said the video was misleading because it made it appear that Americans were "sitting ducks" and that insurgents were winning the war. In truth, he said, insurgents "are dying in much greater numbers and suffering much greater damage."
The Pentagon had no comment on the video.
Embedded reporters sign pledges not to show the faces of dead American troops until their families are notified, but nothing prohibits the use of pictures in which identities are not discernible.

Friday, October 20, 2006

How The Iraqi Terrorists Can Win the War

I have copied and pasted the following interview to illustrate how the Iraqi insurgent thugs and al-Qaida terrorists believe that they can win the war. They expect to influence American politcal elections and win with the help of a sympathetic american media and weak politicians, just as the North Vietnamese did. The 'cut and run' policy of the Clinton administration in Somalia emboldened Osama bin-Laden and that legacy emboldens the Iraqi terrorists today.
It is no wonder then, that three weeks before major United States elections, that attacks in Iraq on American soldiers has increased.
Our enemies have learned their lessons, the ones that we taught them. Why have we not learned anything, at all, ourselves?
You can vote as they want you to or you can vote as you should, to keep our country strong and our enemies weak. To vote Democrat would be to reverse that thought and would keep our country weak and our enemies strong.
I don't want to hear the asinine statement that "you can be against the war and still support the trrops". That's hogwash! Read the interview and see if there aren't distinct parallels between the past and the present.

How North Vietnam Won The War
Colonel Bui Tin Interviewed by Stephen Young
What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement? What was the purpose of the Tet Offensive? How could the U.S. have been more successful in fighting the Vietnam War? Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist [in The Wall Street Journal, 3 August 1995]. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.

Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,
"We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy.
Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable.
Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.
Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
A: Keenly.
Q: Why?
A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

Q: How could the Americans have won the war?
A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

Q: Anything else?
A: Train South Vietnam's generals. The junior South Vietnamese officers were good, competent and courageous, but the commanding general officers were inept.

Q: Did Hanoi expect that the National Liberation Front would win power in South Vietnam?
A: No. Gen. [Vo Nguyen] Giap [commander of the North Vietnamese army] believed that guerrilla warfare was important but not sufficient for victory. Regular military divisions with artillery and armor would be needed. The Chinese believed in fighting only with guerrillas, but we had a different approach. The Chinese were reluctant to help us. Soviet aid made the war possible. Le Duan [secretary general of the Vietnamese Communist Party] once told Mao Tse-tung that if you help us, we are sure to win; if you don't, we will still win, but we will have to sacrifice one or two million more soldiers to do so.

Q: Was the National Liberation Front an independent political movement of South Vietnamese?
A: No. It was set up by our Communist Party to implement a decision of the Third Party Congress of September 1960. We always said there was only one party, only one army in the war to liberate the South and unify the nation. At all times there was only one party commissar in command of the South.

Q: Why was the Ho Chi Minh trail so important?
A: It was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort, involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units.

Q: What of American bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail?
A: Not very effective. Our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom. Bombing by smaller planes rarely hit significant targets.

Q: What of American bombing of North Vietnam?
A: If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of times to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest were damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us.

Q: What was the purpose of the 1968 Tet Offensive?
A: To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.

Q: What about Gen. Westmoreland's strategy and tactics caused you concern?
A: Our senior commander in the South, Gen. Nguyen Chi Thanh, knew that we were losing base areas, control of the rural population and that his main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam. He also worried that Westmoreland might receive permission to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
In January 1967, after discussions with Le Duan, Thanh proposed the Tet Offensive. Thanh was the senior member of the Politburo in South Vietnam. He supervised the entire war effort. Thanh's struggle philosophy was that "America is wealthy but not resolute," and "squeeze tight to the American chest and attack." He was invited up to Hanoi for further discussions. He went on commercial flights with a false passport from Cambodia to Hong Kong and then to Hanoi. Only in July was his plan adopted by the leadership. Then Johnson had rejected Westmoreland's request for 200,000 more troops. We realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war. Vietnam was not sufficiently important for the United States to call up its reserves. We had stretched American power to a breaking point. When more frustration set in, all the Americans could do would be to withdraw; they had no more troops to send over.
Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam's major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids. [looks like a re-writing of history with the benefit of hindsight]

Q: What about the results?
A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.

Q: What of Nixon?
A: Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. Pham Van Dong [prime minister of North Vietnam] said of Gerald Ford, the new president, "he's the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn't elect him; even if you gave him candy, he doesn't dare to intervene in Vietnam again."
We tested Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long in January 1975. When Ford kept American B-52's in their hangers, our leadership decided on a big offensive against South Vietnam.

Q: What else?
A: We had the impression that
American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Ancient Democrat Remains Discovered

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY : Oldest Democrat Remains Discovered

A team of scientists from the University of California, Berkeley, recently reported that they have found a skull in an un-named Blue State, that is the oldest Democrat fossil ever discovered.

The research team included some paleontologists, scientists who study bones, who have estimated the skull to be about 10,000 years old.

The skull found by the Berkeley scientists is exciting to researchers because it is the oldest Democrat fossil with almost human features. There has been a gap in the fossil record between modern Democrat fossils, which often have thicker bones, more pronounced brows and protruding jaws, and Republicans, who have bigger foreheads and flatter faces.

The skulls found in the un-named Blue state have the thicker skull bones of modern Democrats, but lack some of the features of modern Democrats (narrow vision and smaller brain cavity) , leading some scientists to believe they represent part of the transition from ancient to modern Democrats.

The researchers have declared the fossils a subspecies of Democrat that they have named Homo sapiens headupitsass.

The scientists found other interesting things at the site, including stone tools and Pork bones believed to be leftovers from the ancient Democrats' dinner.

Friday, October 13, 2006

And the Band Played On

This story struck me as very funny. A Republican candidate, Raj Bhakta, who is running for the U.S. House of Representatives seat in Eastern Pennsylvania, decided to make a point about the porousness of our borders by hiring a six piece mariachi band and three elephants to cross the Rio Grande.
Said Bhakta, “If I can get an elephant led by a mariachi band into this country, I think Osama bin Laden could get across with all the weapons of mass destruction he could get into this country.” The mariachi band was not immediately available for comment.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Rush's view on the Harry Reid shady land deal.

I am glad that Rush Limbaugh took the time to talk about this story. I am a firm believer in the 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' philosophy. Democrats seem to be casting a lot of stones lately.They should think carefully before tossing the next stone.
For background here is the scripture that references to casting the first stone:

"And early in the morning He came again into the Temple , and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them."

"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto Him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou?"

"This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him."

"But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not. So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground."

"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst."

"When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?"
"She said, No man, Lord."

"And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

(John 8:2-11 KJV)

I mean, this is absurd. They're still trying to get Hastert to quit, and everybody's, "Well, Dingy Harry, he has amended his filings, and he's submitted it, it was transparent as it could be." Yeah, to who? Organized crime? He submitted his amended filings to the ethics committee, and he's now awaiting word from them (ha-ha-ha) of what's going to happen. You gotta hear a couple audio sound bites. Jerry Bodlander of AP interviewing Dingy Harry about the story that came out yesterday from Associated Press, and Dingy Harry hung up on Bodlander. We have a little clip of that.
BODLANDER: Back in 1998, you were in a land deal with your friend, Jay Brown, involving a pair of properties in Clark County. Now, in 2001, you transferred that land to a limited liability company formed by --
REID: (Hangs up phone)
BODLANDER: -- Mr. Brown --
RUSH: That's Dingy Harry hanging up, just hung up the phone on an ally, an AP reporter. Late yesterday at a press conference, Dingy Harry was asked about his land deal and said this.
REID: If a technical change needs to be made on reporting, I'll be happy to do that. But this is a very, very simple land deal.
RUSH: Look, folks, we can laugh at this -- and we've all done that -- and we can poke fun at Dingy Harry and all this, but I want to put some of this in context. Where is Brian Ross? ABC's embedded reporter on the Mark Foley case, where is Brian Ross? Where is all the investigative detail follow-up? AP has shown the way. The Associated Press has uncovered the web, the tangled web of deceit. Where's the follow-up from a curious Drive-By Media who is so concerned about corruption in high places? I mean, if we're going to tell Hastert he has to quit, and if we're going to say to anybody that had any knowledge of anything going on about what Foley did, has to quit, then it seems to me that Dingy Harry has to resign.
While I'm quoting scripture, here is one for all polticians:
"Blessed are they that do His Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."
(Revelation 22:14-15 KJV)
Oh, and here is one more and now, I'll quit preaching:
" Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and fail to notice the plank in your own? "
(Matthew 7:3-5 Modern English)

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Just when you thought that the Democrats were the only politcians who could be trusted,....

.... this story hits the news (barely). It makes better news when a Republican is the subject. Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that the MSN is biased. Anyway, here's the gist of the story: a certain Senate Minority Leader (Harry Reid) has profited from a questionable land sale that involves a a longtime friend who has been the subject of prior organized crime investigations.

The AP says that Reid hung up when they called him on the deal. I'll bet that he didn't hang up when he was asked about Congressman Foley.

I wonder if Reid will check into rehab.

Link here quick, before the MSN makes the story go away.

I'm all for free speech, but,.....

......what this guy said is f*&king stupid (how's that for a free speech statement). A part-time instructor for the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Kevin Barrett, who doubts 9/11, has compared President Bush to Hitler and neocons to the Nazis.

Says Barrett:

"Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the Nazis inaugurated their new era by destroying an architectural monument and blaming its destruction on their designated enemies. That's not comparing them as people, that's comparing the Reichstag fire to the demolition of the World Trade Center, and that's an accurate comparison that I would stand by. Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler."

Says I:

Mr. Barrett, it could be said that by comparing the book, that your essay appears in, to Mein Kampf would be "an insult to Hitler" and that "Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points" on you. Not that I would say that. I couldn't say that, for in doing so, I would be giving you more credit than you are due.

The Rest of the Story

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Flag of My Father

Variety has given Clint Eastwood's 'Flags of Our Fathers' an excellent review and I am glad! The flag that the Marines raised on Iwo Jima was, also, the flag of my father, a WWII Navy Seabee. So, from a personal point of view, I see Eastwood's movie as a tribute to my father.

Thanks Clint.

Thanks Dad.

From the review:

Ambitiously tackling his biggest canvas to date, Clint Eastwood continues to defy and triumph over the customary expectations for a film career in "Flags of Our Fathers." A pointed exploration of heroism -- in its actual and in its trumped-up, officially useful forms -- the picture welds a powerful account of the battle of Iwo Jima, the bloodiest single engagement the United States fought in World War II, with an ironic and ultimately sad look at its aftermath for three key survivors. This domestic Paramount release looks to parlay critical acclaim and its director's ever-increasing eminence into strong B.O. returns through the autumn and probably beyond.

Conventional wisdom suggests directors slow down as they reach a certain age (Eastwood is now 76), become more cautious, recycle old ideas, fall out of step with contemporary tastes, look a bit stodgy. Eastwood has impertinently ignored these options not only by undertaking by far his most expensive and logistically daunting picture, but by creating back-to-back bookend features offering contrasting perspectives on the same topic; the Japanese-language "Letters From Iwo Jima," showing the Japanese side in intimate terms, will be released by Warner Bros. next year.

One way to think about "Flags" is as "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" of this generation. That 1962 John Ford Western is famous for its central maxim, "When the truth becomes legend, print the legend," and "Flags" resonantly holds the notion up to the light. It is also a film about the so-called Greatest Generation that considers why its members are, or were, reticent to speak much about what they did in the war, to boast or consider themselves heroes.


I found the photo on a website called The bin-Laden Times. They had nominated Ted for 'Traitor of the Day'. That was October of 2001. Maybe they limited themselves too narrowly, when they used the word, 'Day'. Maybe 'Traitor of the Century' or 'Traitor of the Millenium'.
How can anyone be ambivalent on choosing between terrorists on all of the rest of us? I guess only Ted, The Poster Child of Terrorism and ex-Husband of The Traitor of the Vietnam War, knows the answer to that question.
I sleep peacefully at night, because, I know that so many others know which side they should choose.

They chose family and friends. They chose their fellow Americans. They chose me.

They chose you!

And, Ted doesn't know which side to choose?

Here was his last choice:

Oh My God!

Babs, I didn't know that you had such a potty mouth! I thought that you were the Funny Girl. Says Babs, last night, after a skit that poked fun at President George W. Bush, and a man yelled taunts at her, "Shut the -- -- up if you can't take a joke," and then offered to return his money.

Previous List Random Join Next Grunt's Military Site