Obama’s Churchill “torture” quote
Yesterday I wrote a post about President Obama’s recent press conference use of the Churchill quote, “We don’t torture.”
I mentioned that I’d Googled to find the article Obama mentioned, the one he’d been reading “about this,” but could find nothing. In the comments section, several people suggested that it would have been relatively easy for me to have found such a thing, and criticized me for not doing so.
But I now realize what the problem was: I was giving Obama way too much credit. I was doing a search for the Churchill quote itself, figuring that would give me the proper context: when Churchill had said it, and what he might have been talking about.
So my search went something like: “Churchill ‘we don’t torture’ quote,” as well as trying several variations on that theme. All that came up were references to the Obama presser, and the Andrew Sullivan post on which Obama’s remarks may have been was based. There was nothing whatsoever about the origin of the Churchill quote itself, and the Sullivan article didn’t even offer the quote.
That led me to a TimesOnline piece by Ben Macintyre, on which the Sullivan post, in turn, had been based. It’s an article about a single tough but gifted British interrogator named Robin “Tin Eye” Stephens, who didn’t feel that resorting to torture was ever necessary, since he was able to get the information he wanted (from WWII spies) using only his formidable psychological skills (which apparently included every sort of trick and intimidation possible: “Suspects often left the interrogation cells legless with fear after an all-night grilling.”)
But there was nothing whatsoever about Churchill in the Macintyre piece, nor anything about the quote. Obama had not been talking about the subject of the TimesOnline piece, “Tin Eye” Stephens, nor what his particular attitude towards torture was; he was quoting Winston Churchill and making a point about his policy.
Today, however, I’ve learned the reason I could not find anything about the Churchill quote: there was no such animal (gee, I should have thought of that). Noted Churchill scholars cannot locate it, nor can the author of the TimesOnline piece about “Tin Eye.”
Author Macintyre gives Obama a pass on the quote anyway. He thinks that, despite the fact that Churchill never said any such thing and had no official policy on torture, the bogus quote is still close enough to the truth (sound familiar?) because the British “generally” didn’t torture:
Churchill presided over a military machine that generally regarded torture as unnecessary, unethical, unproductive and un-British.
Well, you know what? So do we, and so did the Bush administration. That’s why the so-called “torture memos” so carefully limited alleged “torture” to waterboarding (which was not considered torture), and even that was only allowed under extremely restricted circumstances.
Macintyre goes on to say some rather interesting things about Tin Eye Stephens, however [emphasis mine]:
A brilliant amateur psychologist, Stephens knew that there were far better ways to break a man than pulling out his fingernails: he used every trick to wring information from captured enemy agents, including the very real threat of execution. Some 16 Nazi spies were executed during the war.
But he was determined that interrogators must never resort to violence….[Tin Eye] was not remotely worried about the state of his soul and positively relished the opportunity to break suspected spies by any means short of torture. But any interrogator who resorted to the third degree at Camp 020 was immediately sacked. “Violence is taboo,” he insisted.
Yet Stephens’s methods were psychologically brutal. “Figuratively,” he said, “a spy in war should be at the point of a bayonet.” In the latter stages of the war he was accused of ill-treating prisoners, but was cleared.
To judge by results Stephens’s techniques worked superbly. About 500 spies from 44 countries passed through Camp 020 (almost all picked up thanks to the breaking of the Enigma Code). Under interrogation by Stephens and his MI5 colleagues, most co-operated fully, a few refused and were hanged and dozens were persuaded to become double-agents.
Tin Eye was certainly effective, but I wonder whether his methods are something Obama (or Andrew Sullivan) would like to emulate. I also wonder what the details of his “psychological brutality” were. And I wonder whether, in his day, waterboarding would have been considered to be inflicting violence of a primarily physical nature (“the third degree”), or rather primarily of a psychological nature. I also wonder just Stephens might would have done when dealing with the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the man who beheaded journalist Daniel Pearl, and who possessed information about planned terrorist attacks. We don’t know.
One thing is known, however, and that is the circumstances of Stephens’s trial for the “ill-treatment” of prisoners. Here are some of the details, complete with photos.
It appears that Stephens was in charge of the post-WWII prison camp Bad Nenndorf (the place cited in the article I linked to in the first sentence of my original post on Obama, Churchill, and torture). Back in 2006, photos alleged to document the mistreatment of prisoners there by the British were published in the Guardian under the British Freedom of Information Act.
Considered to be too shocking to be released in their day, the photos were evidence that prisoners (mostly suspected Communist spies) were “systematically starved, as well as beaten, deprived of sleep and exposed to extreme cold.” One had died from his beatings.
Although our old friend Tin Eye Stephens was the head of the camp at the time, the trial resulted in his being “cleared of a charge of ‘disgraceful conduct of a cruel kind'”. I wonder if the verdict would have been the same under present-day conditions and sentiments.
By the way, I am not advocating that we continue to treat prisoners this way just because the British did it. What I am saying is that now I know why my research failed to uncover the original quote from Churchill—and that bogus Churchill quotes do not get us anywhere in dealing with the complex and difficult decisions we face on the correct way to deal with illegal enemy combatant prisoners who are highly likely to have important information about upcoming attacks on innocent civilians.
The “brilliant” Obama was being disingenuous in his press conference by manufacturing the Churchill quote, as well as lazy. At this point, however, that fact should come as no surprise.
[ADDENDUM: A commenter on another thread has offered more documentation of the Brits torturing prisoners of war during WWII.]
For openers, Obama is most certainly not brilliant. The MSM push that meme to try to counter the stereotype of blacks not being too bright. Obama’s not stupid, but he’s far from brilliant.
Second, liberals need to note the key to Stephens’ approach – the very real – and occasionally implemented – threat of execution. Take that off the table, replace it with Christina Aguilera records, and see what happens.
Liberals need to note this because it is also the key to, e.g., dealing with Iran. Once the mullahs know that any grave repercussions are off the table, they lose any motivation to negotiate in good faith. Successful good faith negotiations require a serious downside for each party if the negotiations fail.
Occam’s Beard: Yes, the treat of execution was apparently key. Liberals should take note of that—but I don’t think there’s much chance that they will.
I wonder at the people who profess to find Obama brilliant. OB is probably right that anxiety about race taboos plays a role.
I admit that he possesses a certain cunning, but his methods are the essence of simplicity: smile, speak in platitudes, dissemble, and play the race card if challenged. Claim moderation and act ruthlessly. Make no enemies on the Left.
Neither actual knowledge, nor insight, nor originality, nor synthetic intellect is required.
You don’t have to be a genius to figure out this strategy, and it has enabled him to float pretty high indeed.
Most of the average people in the world get their idea of what spies are and what cia men are by watching movies.
a fundemental thing they dont get, is that a spy is not a foreigner who enters your country, and then blends in. while there are deep cover, and other things, the VAST majority of what real spies are, are traitors.
if i worked for the cia, my job would not be to act like james bond and have doodads and gewgaws and do things like bourne.
no… my job would be to meet and work on people psychologically and get them to do things for me in their own countries. to give up secrets, to drop off packages, to take a few tourist pictures..
this means that the majority of those who we would call spies, are just ordinary disgruntled people who have some weak spot that they exploit. they want some money, they have no morals, they like drugs, women can be fun, perversion might be provides, they are in debt, etc.
is it any wonder that such people would easily cave to a person threatening them? most werent in it for any hard belief, etc. most thought they wouldnt get caugth…and like many in our culture who get in trouble, like the woman that thought it would be fun to climb into the polar bear club, tehy dont get how actually serious the players in this area of reality are.
the ones he had to have executed are probably more likely to be believers (of which being caught confirms their beliefs and everything), or to be sleepers, sent in taking the IDs of dead people (or children). [a husband and wife team were once caught coming over the canadian border]. some are part of the masses of immigrants, and some are black mailed beacuse they have family back home, or they live among the enclaves where others have access to them.
the true believers, the ones trained in camps, and so on are a very different beast. the spy in england was a guy who was offered 10k if he would copy some papers, and all he was trained in is how to use a camera, or something and how not to get caught this time. there was no real other training… but the guys who came here on a mission… they are trained.. to read about the russian spetznaz, or the german groups and how greuling their pain training is, and other things, they are not going to crumble by anything less than something more real.
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
edit that to small neo if you feel like it… i am taking a breather.. i am getting too long again.. sorry guys…
[note from neo-neocon: Done!]
The basis for my statement is the lack of abstract reasoning manifest on his part. (I don’t count vague platitudes written by someone else.) I filter out the prepared speeches of others’ authorship and consequently look to his extemporaneous utterings for the workings of his mind.
In those utterings, evidence of abstract reasoning (e.g., considerations of the sweep of American and/or Islamic history, and their interaction, or the drawing of connections between apparently disjoint events) are notably missing. In its place is populist tub-thumping of the Huey Long genre, hardly a mark of substantial intellect.
Obama is primarily a salesman, and a very good one. Consider, for instance, his speech on the proposed passenger-rail system..the way he remarked on how nice it would be to travel between cities without having to take your shoes off. This kind of direct, sensory image is the kind of thing that good salesmen do instinctively.
Sales skills are generally a good thing: there’s a lot of truth in the old line that “nothing happens until somebody sells something.” But like any skill, they can be misused, and the salesman who is focused on closing the order for a product or service that is useless or harmful is doing exactly that.
An excellent salesman I knew was fond of the phrase “in sales as in medicine, prescription without diagnosis is malpractice.” I don’t think Obama is interested in intellectually-serious analysis of what diagnoses should be made and what the appropriate prescriptions might be: his interest is in selling the prescriptions he learned long ago, without further reflection on their value.
OB, I, too, am waiting for Obama to say something smart, without holding my breath, of course. He might surprise me someday. It could happen. But so far he is only giving us a warmed-over rehash of left-wing bull sessions I remember from college. He and I are of an age, and so there is a distinct feeling of deja vu about it all.
“The “brilliant” Obama was being disingenuous in his press conference by manufacturing the Churchill quote, as well as lazy.”
Obama is a megalomaniac traitor and bait and switch artist in every sense of the word; Much like his ideological comrades and kin such as Hugo Chavez, Raila Odinga, etc., he and his clique test the limits for what can be got away with at any particular time. Typically, the more rope he’s given, the more intent he will become in (literally) hanging the opposition, ie. pursuing trials for Bush era (water-boarding) intelligence participants. But then, “rendition” was long sanctioned by Democrat Party circles when it was politically expedient.
Obama shares the markers of typical lift-wing despots in their early period and climb to power, with growing (intellectual) disrespect and contempt for both the opposition as well as his own constituancy. Obama is in the same league as Al Gore, for whom the complete arctic meltdown was five years in the future, last year, and this year it is again five years in the future, while personally cashing in on the promotion at infancy of “cap and trade”, big time… But the astute know the basis of the real statistics and the unpoliticized scientific reality. The left-wing are, typically, becoming increasingly brazen in their intellectual dishonesty and disrespect of the mainstream’s intelligence. Sloth becomes a common attribute of despots and con artists in their maturity, Obama is in the early stage. Fortunately this is still America, where some pretty smart people have been quietly stocking up on guns and bullets in record numbers.
People who refer to Churchill or quote him (I thought, incidentally, that President Obama was not a great fan) should read Christopher Hitchens’s essay on him. A lot of very interesting information there, all true and much of it unsuspected by those who blithely refer to the old boy.
Much of what the Guardian writes, on the other hand, is suspect.
Helen, I beg to differ, at least somewhat. I’ve read the Hitchen’s essay, and I found several things in it to be untrue, especially the allegations about the extent of Churchill’s drunkenness. Having read both volumes of the Manchester biography, as well as a number of other biographies, I think the best evidence on that score is that Churchill nursed some sort of alcohol throughout the day but that his actual intake was not large at all. Hitchens loves to be iconoclastic; it’s his stock in trade.
I’m way ahead of them on this.
Ah, Helen, that was yesterday. This is today.
“because the British “generally” didn’t torture”
Heh… too funny. But because the US waterboarded three war criminals with info about future attacks on civilians… we do…
We have to stop taking them so seriously and just start laughing at them…
This nonsense is just a distraction so we don’t notice Obama’s crazy economic program (re: what really need a truth commission for is the stimulus package). Well, that and the soft left are a bunch of tools who will parrot anything they’re told to…
Neo, you are one of the best writers I have seen on the net. you might want to take a look at this link below. like Thomass said, the talk about the “torture” thing is to distract us from what they are really up to. Look what is scheduled to happen on May 7th: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/04/23/fcc-anounces-diversity-committee-meeting-chaired-pro-fairness-doctrine
I think Obama’s narcissism prevents whatever cleverness or intelligence he has from developing into wisdom. He obviously senses that qualities like compassion are valued in our society, but being unable to walk in another person’s shoes, he latches on to the platitudes of the college bull session. That’s why he thinks that ACORN can help blacks, that working class whites have no strengths and merely cling, and that frustrated young Muslim men are reacting to the distant political situation rather than to the personal trap their family or society holds them in. His total lack of empathy will not allow him to reach a gut level feeling about the challenges we face. He can only resort to the answer that brings him the most applause.
You cannot honor Lincoln without showing some understanding of Bush’s situation post 9/11. Obama is incapable of either because he cannot begin to feel their burdens.
A few years ago a philosopher professor at Princeton wrote a book called On Bullshit. Unlike liars, he argues, who are at least aware of the truth and to attempt to simulate it, bullshitters just don’t care. Truth, falsity, it’s one to them. Did they say the exact opposite yesterday? Doesn’t matter to them. They just get off on blather. In a sense they don’t even listen to themselves.
I’m still uncertain which Obama is. I’m bewildered why anybody listens to him. During that news conference the other night, I turned to my wife who had voted for him and asked if she understood a word of his interminable gaseous answers. She said she didn’t.
armchair pessimist: did you ask her whether she’d still vote for him if the election were tomorrow? That’s what I’m curious about.
At least they evince good judgment in some context.
Neo,
I’ve learned so much from you and your readers. If I might summarize:
This week, the country became the victim of a most heinious assault. We were assailed by the abyssmal reading comprehension of our President, Barack Obama.
Consider the following quote from that evening:
“I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, “We don’t torture,” when the entire British – all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And then the reason was that Churchill understood – you start taking shortcuts, over time, that corrodes what’s – what’s best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.” ~Obama
The problem is no such “Churchill” quote exists, nor anything close to it. Apparently, our constitutional law scholar President had a hard time digesting the following article: The Atlantic
In this article the Andrew Sullivan of “The Atlantic” wrote: “the British captured over 500 enemy spies operating in Britain and elsewhere” and quoted Colonel Robin ‘Tin Eye’ Stephens, “Never strike a man. It is unintelligent, for the spy will give an answer to please”.
So it wasn’t Churchill, it was ‘Tin Eye’. But, even Sullivan’s assessment of Churchill was completely wrong. Churchill wasn’t in the least adverse to torture (at least not as defined by the ACLU). The Guardian
So what we have is an illiterate sourcing a moron.
Thank you all. ~Vieux Charles
But what if the country is “just plain mean” to begin with?
The question I’d love to ask the Messiah: what does he understand by the term “character?”
Vieux Charles Says:
“The problem is no such “Churchill” quote exists, nor anything close to it. Apparently, our constitutional law scholar President”
It’s sort of related. Progressive Constitutional law scholars just make up everything about Constitutional law too.
Translations:
Living Constitution: It means whatever we need it to mean at the time vs. what the Constitution means.
Rulings based on compassion: It means rulings based on whatever we say compassion means vs. the law.
Just making up quotes is just a hop skip and jump away from it.
“Obama’s Churchill “torture” quote”
Might not that read, “Obama’s tortured Churchill quote?”
Just sayin…..
I understand that this is a mostly anti-Obama forum, so the following question may seem pointless.
However, I found myself more disturbed than usual that Obama would in the course of an important press conference observing the first 100 days of his administration that Obama would falsely attribute a quote to Winston Churchill simply because it served Obama’s purposes.
I know politicians dodge and spin, they get confused, they say stupid things, they renege on campaign promises, they plagiarize, and they even outright lie, but I can’t think of a president or candidate that would be so careless to put words into a historic figure’s mouth to make a key policy point and get it wrong and not even care.
I thought this was a new low, not just for Obama, but for the American presidency. Anyone else?
huxley Says:
“I thought this was a new low, not just for Obama, but for the American presidency. Anyone else?”
I did too… but its just par for the course. The man has gotten away with so much because the press won’t call him on it.
He’s a moderate and you’re crazy for saying otherwise.
We never hear what was in the stimulus bill.
We won’t hear what is in the budget or about the proposed deficits.
Yesterday I heard a reporter introduce a story on him by describing him as a former constitutional law prof… They can’t even get basic facts about his life right / spin in favor of him (re: he lectured for some constitutional law classes… he was never a professor).
So yeah, it’s a new low for the office… but also the press for letting him get away with it.
What is a low point for the Presidency is hard to judge.
I don’t know why anyone should be surprised at this point about Obama (or his speechwriter) making it up to suit his purposes.
Huxley:
I’d suggest that this is much more a “pro truth” forum than an “anti Obama” forum.
Neo,
Did I ask my wife if she’d vote for Obama if the election were heard tomorrow? No, I didn’t because I already know the answer.
She’s a life-long, lukewarm democrat, lukewarm because she dislikes politicians and politics. They’re all crooks and sleazebags to her. She’d bristle at being called life-long, preferring the boomer’s moniker, “an independent”; but in the voting booth which is what counts, she always pulls the democratic lever.
And her luke-warmness, I fear, makes her habit the harder to break. If she were passionate about politics she might be susceptible to disillusionment and conversion, but her very lukewarmness means that little Obama says or does will ever outrage her. OK, Wife beating might do it. One can always hope.
Then, too, she belongs to that generation of white women who have spent so many years following the good auld cause of feminism and minorities. Again if these were hyper-active convictions, she might have burned out on them, but they are so to speak the white liberals’ equivalent to having every saturday night, year in and year out, baked beans and franks.
Ours is a divided household and luckily this section of the red/blue front is more cordial than most. It’s pretty much live and let live, although I am beginning to understand her aversion to Bush as she is my aversion to Obama. But just because we have had to walk in each other’s shoes doesn’t mean there’ll be any meeting of the minds soon.
Hope that answers your question, Neo.
armchair pessimist: Interesting. Your wife sounds very much like many of my friends, who don’t follow politics and don’t like to talk about it much. If I try to give them any details, they’re mostly not interested, and their basic notion is “oh, all politicians are corrupt anyway.” They don’t seem to be interested in making distinctions between one sort of flawed politician and another (after all, the Weimar Republic was far from perfect, but it sure wasn’t Hitler, was it?)
I think the Democratic Party relies very heavily on such people, who are not all that interested but “know” that all the good, kind, intelligent, unbigoted people vote Democratic. So it must be the right thing to do.
The issue of the non existing Churchill quote is what lead me to your site. What a happy discovery. Re why Obama decided to refer Churchill (and make up a quote reference), I believe Obama simply wanted the borrow the burnish of a great and tough statesman and thereby cloak the political motives that drive his actions on the torture issue. These are the actions of a very savvy, but highly unethical politican.
I think the Democratic Party relies very heavily on such people, who are not all that interested but “know” that all the good, kind, intelligent, unbigoted people vote Democratic. So it must be the right thing to do.
Possibly that’s why the Tea Parties got the DP all in a tizzy; “what if our useful idiots started getting uppity too?”
Bush’s every remark or speech was minutely examined from every possible angle, every word sifted, tagged, spun, investigated for any error in logic, knowledge or truth, whipped into a negative froth of nothing and served up daily in the MSM.
As for the MSM, Obama is their child and they dote on him so the facts of history will be overlooked. Their job was to get him elected and now it is to get him re-elected. Mere historical inaccuracies(unless the error is committed by someone they don’t like) are irrelevant to the larger cause.
Obama’s historical gaff is standard fare. Like most of the Progressives he reads or overhears something, never bothers to find out whether it’s actually true and then offers it up as gospel. We’ve all seen exactly the same in some of the comments on this blog. It feels so RIGHT, you see, to have Churchill as a fellow Progressive.
Well, Neo, most people who knew Churchill (and I think William Manchester was not one of them) say he drank rather a lot. So did Pitt the Younger. I am not sure that is an important issue since there were very few occasions when he was seriously the worse for drink. However, other points Hitchens makes about the ordering of bombing, for instance, stand up even to William Manchester’s critique.
Maybe that’s why he returned the Churchill bust, like the widow turning her husband’s picture on the nightstand away.
I don’t think there is a writer good enough, nor profanity strong enough, to describe people who want to clear their throats, cross t’s and dot i’s, and hand out demerits to people who, in a time of national calamity and possible extinction, did the best they could to try to keep our nation safe and also tried to be as civilized as possible while doing it.
The thing that, in a sane society, would prevent the Democrats from showing their faces in public ever again is the obvious fact that, were it not for the Pelosi fingerprints all over the waterboarding adventure there would be an inquisition and criminal prosecutions in short order regardless of the honest, earnest patriots who were ruined by it.
Neo wrote, “Your wife sounds very much like many of my friends, who don’t follow politics and don’t like to talk about it much. ”
Mine too.
My male friends are very conservative (including an African American male). 2 of my male friends went to the tea party in Sacramento with me.
My cube neighbor… she thought it was ridiculous. Why would anybody do such a thing. What was the motive of the organizers? What was the motive of the politicians behind the events? Don’t we understand we ‘need’ government? [duh… there is gray not just black and white. We weren’t calling for no government] I didn’t hear about it. How come I didn’t hear about it? If I didn’t hear about it it must not be important !!!
He that last one cracked me up. I keep letting her know the sources of information she is listening to does a disservice to her. But then again – she thinks Sarah Palin said, “I can see Russia from my house”. Even though I told her 3 times that isn’t true – that’s what Tina Fey said….
Matt Damon made a big deal of Sarah Palin supposedly saying the earth was only 4000 years old. He rode that horse for quite some time. A blogger in Seattle made it up, eventually admitted it, and thought it very funny. Boy he most have felt powerful for a while, eh? I never heard of Damon retracting any of the disparaging things he said about Palin concerning that issue, though. I think less of Damon than he does of Sarah Palin.
Observation #1: After 100 days in office it’s clear that Nobama has been hanging around Joe Biden too much.
Both tend to just make it up as they go, and to hell with facts.
Observation #2: This gaffe, like so many before, will not have legs simply because the MSM will ignore the facts afterwards.
It’s enough in the eyes of the MSM that he made up a quote and derived political benefit from it.
That’s all that mattered, and any refutation of this “quote”, if it occurs at all, will be hidden on page 26B of the local paper between ads for Pontiac and Get Rich Quick Through Real Estate schemes.
Observation #3: Any chance in hell we could get a sip or two of whatever Churchill was drinking down Nobama’s throat?
“I think the Democratic Party relies very heavily on such people, who are not all that interested but “know” that all the good, kind, intelligent, unbigoted people vote Democratic. So it must be the right thing to do.”
The left have taken charge of who promotes what message and they do so through television. You have to be passionate to blog. Even to read them requires a curiosity I think most people lack. Its politics fer chrissakes.
Its easier to sit back and let the talking heads do your political thinking for you, and the talking heads are nearly completely unabashedly liberal. I dont see that situation reversing without there being a serious political and social upheaval in this country. .
Populus vult decipi, decipiatur.
The people wish to be deceived, let them be deceived.
When I came home From Iraq I was diagnosed with PTSD, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, I was told that I am sick that I am not Right. Then I turned on the TV and I see Dick Durbin saying American soldiers are committing acts of torture at places like Abu Grab and Quantico because they had a Al Qaeda terrorist who saws civilians heads off with their hands tied behind their backs, Al Qaeda terrorist who place bombs on three year old children, Al Qaeda terrorist who came in our country when we were at peace and murdered over two thousand American civilians, and they had these terrorist standing on a bar stool with a dunce cap on their head and that’s Torture! Why in the hell didn’t he say a damned thing about Matt Maupin, Shoshana Johnson, Edgar Hernandez, James Riley, Patrick Miller, Joseph Hudson, Jacob N. Fritz, Jonathan B. Chism, Shawn P. Falter, Jonathon M. Millican, or any of the other American soldiers who have been captured during this war! Private Kristian Menchaca of Houston and Private Thomas Tucker of Oregon were captured by terrorists in Iraq , hacked to death, their eyes gouged, their bodies defiled.
In fact it was the American soldiers who have died including all those who have been captured in this war (and I haven’t seen any enemy POW camps but I’ve seen a shit load of bodies that have been tortured to death by these scum that Dick Durbin is defending!) that give Dick Durbin the FREEDOM to call them nazis for putting some Al-Qaida dirt bag on a bar stool with pajamas and a dunce cap!
I might have PTSD but I’m not the one who is sick it’s DICK DURBIN! Are you Really
an AMERICAN DICK?!?! Or just another Communist who hates AMERICA ?
Yah call me a nazi they only murdered 6 million people compared to you communist who murdered over 100 million!
And to top it all off the Communist muslim Traitor Hussein Obama is releasing more terrorist all the while saying nothing of my brothers in arms who have been tortured to death.
They died so that all the communist socialist pro baby murdering, God hater scum can continue to free load off of you and me on more of their worthless lazy bag of shit free hand out programs!
Hey, perhaps it is a bit offf subject but in any case, I’ve been surfing about your blog and it appears to be like really neat. impassioned about your writing. I’m creating a new blog and onerous-pressed to make it seem nice, and provide wonderful articles. I’ve discovered quite a bit on your site and I sit up for extra updates and will be back.