"Why the Feds Fear Thinkers Like Howard Zinn"

[bloodyminded]

First, let's get the sourcing out of the way:

Yes, "Truthdig" is an unabashedly leftist source.

Yes, author Chris Hedges is a breed of radical left Christian.

Yes, the subject, Howard Zinn, is a famous leftist.

However, the other subject--the FBI--are not exactly notorious leftists; I imagine we can all agree that far. (Well, maybe lictor would disagree. ).

The point here, for me, is not the political views of Hedges or of Zinn.

It's the FBI files on the long, long investigation of a political thinker (and constant, avowed non-violent protester).

Anyone who supports this type of extremist security apparatus is a de facto supporter of the notion of a police state.

If you support freedom, including freedom of speech, you side with Zinn on this matter....or you do not support freedom of speech.

An excerpt from the article:

The power of Zinn’s scholarship—which I have watched over the past few weeks open the eyes of young, mostly African-Americans to their own history and the structures that perpetuate misery for the poor and gluttony and privilege for the elite—explains why the FBI, which released its 423-page file on Zinn on July 30, saw him as a threat.

Zinn, who died in January at the age of 87, did not advocate violence or support the overthrow of the government, something he told FBI interrogators on several occasions. He was rather an example of how genuine intellectual thought is always subversive. It always challenges prevailing assumptions as well as political and economic structures. It is based on a fierce moral autonomy and personal courage and it is uniformly branded by the power elite as “political.” Zinn was a threat not because he was a violent revolutionary or a communist but because he was fearless and told the truth.

The cold, dead pages of the FBI file stretch from 1948 to 1974. At one point five agents are assigned to follow Zinn. Agents make repeated phone calls to employers, colleagues and landlords seeking information. The FBI, although Zinn is never suspected of carrying out a crime, eventually labels Zinn a high security risk. J. Edgar Hoover, who took a personal interest in Zinn’s activities, on Jan. 10, 1964, drew up a memo to include Zinn “in Reserve Index, Section A,” a classification that permitted agents to immediately arrest and detain Zinn if there was a national emergency. Muslim activists, from Dr. Sami Al-Arian to Fahad Hashmi, can tell you that nothing has changed.

Advertisement

The file exposes the absurdity, waste and pettiness of our national security state. And it seems to indicate that our security agencies prefer to hire those with mediocre or stunted intelligence, dubious morality and little common sense. Take for example this gem of a letter, complete with misspellings, mailed by an informant to then FBI Director Hoover about something Zinn wrote.

“While I was visiting my dentist in Michigan City, Indiana,” the informant wrote. “This pamphlet was left in my car, and I am mailing it to you, I know is a DOVE call, and not a HOCK call. We have had a number of ethnic groups move into our area in the last few years. We are in a war! And it doesn’t look like this pamphlet will help our Government objectives.”

Or how about the meeting between an agent and someone identified as Doris Zinn. Doris Zinn, who the agent says is Zinn’s sister, is interviewed “under a suitable pretext.” She admits that her brother is “employed at the American Labor Party Headquarters in Brooklyn.” That is all the useful information that is reported. The fact that Zinn did not have a sister gives a window into the quality of the investigations and the caliber of the agents who carried them out.

FBI agents in November 1953 wrote up an account of a clumsy attempt to recruit Zinn as an informant, an attempt in which they admitted that Zinn “would not volunteer information” and that “additional interviews with ZINN would not turn him from his current attitude.” A year later, after another interrogation, an agent wrote that Zinn “concluded the interview by stating he would not under any circumstances testify or furnish information concerning the political opinions of others.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_the_feds_fear_thinkers_like_howard_zinn_20100801/

[Shady]

I don't doubt at all that the FBI carried on this type of activity towards Zinn. Especially during that time period. I remember reading that Martin Luther King was also in the minds of the FBI as well.

[bloodyminded]

I don't doubt at all that the FBI carried on this type of activity towards Zinn. Especially during that time period. I remember reading that Martin Luther King was also in the minds of the FBI as well.

I've heard this too, and I think it's insane. I have no problem with investigations of people who unambiguously promote violence. But MLK? Zinn? they continually preached non-violence; agree with their views or not, non-violence was their basic premise.

Apparently Canada's Feds have been up to similar shenanigans, though my (very limited) research on this hasn't yielded anything concrete. As for the UK, or France, etc, there's no question about it.

Free countries shouldn't have Political Police.

[Shwa]

Free countries shouldn't have Political Police.

Unless they are free enough to do so...

This is an iffy subject isn't it? Why investigate advocates of peaceful change? Perhaps the fear of the wolf-in-lambs-clothing ethic drives our political apparatus more than we care to admit.

The problem might not be the actual leaders of these movements, but the leadership that is the main focus of concern. So if you believe a shred of 'power corrupts' then there is potential for an increasing amount of power to have a corrupting influence on the cadre of certain political movements causing them to eventually abandon their peace-first attitudes and move on to something less peaceful.

So in this way, I would question the overall context of the article in that Zinn did not exist without the ability to influence on several fronts. What I would ask for is were there FBI dossiers on some of those groups or movements or their leadship - that Zinn had influence on? Was he considered a 'hub' of influence on one or more groups that did not espouse his virtues of peaceful change?

That is - even with a thick FBI dossier - Zinn did not live by (or in) a neatly categorized vacuum sealed definition.

OK, this is hardly satisfactory to justify a police state, but unless there are clear methods to mitigate these sorts of blind threats, some form of investigation is reasonable. The article states that the file stretches to 1974. Did they somehow conclude that he was not a threat afterall and leave him alone or is there a second dossier about his last 35 years sitting around waiting to be released?

[eyeball]

Free countries shouldn't have Political Police.

Yes they should, except they should be tasked with policing politicians.

As I've said many times before, the entire notion and apparatus of Big Brother needs to be turned completely around so that it is looking the other way, inward that is.

Edited August 3, 2010 by eyeball

[bloodyminded]

Unless they are free enough to do so...

This is an iffy subject isn't it? Why investigate advocates of peaceful change? Perhaps the fear of the wolf-in-lambs-clothing ethic drives our political apparatus more than we care to admit.

The problem might not be the actual leaders of these movements, but the leadership that is the main focus of concern. So if you believe a shred of 'power corrupts' then there is potential for an increasing amount of power to have a corrupting influence on the cadre of certain political movements causing them to eventually abandon their peace-first attitudes and move on to something less peaceful.

So in this way, I would question the overall context of the article in that Zinn did not exist without the ability to influence on several fronts. What I would ask for is were there FBI dossiers on some of those groups or movements or their leadship - that Zinn had influence on? Was he considered a 'hub' of influence on one or more groups that did not espouse his virtues of peaceful change?

That is - even with a thick FBI dossier - Zinn did not live by (or in) a neatly categorized vacuum sealed definition.

OK, this is hardly satisfactory to justify a police state, but unless there are clear methods to mitigate these sorts of blind threats, some form of investigation is reasonable. The article states that the file stretches to 1974. Did they somehow conclude that he was not a threat afterall and leave him alone or is there a second dossier about his last 35 years sitting around waiting to be released?

But essentially, all you've said here is that "the FBI had their reasons." And of course this is true; everybody has reasons for everything. We could ask the most infamously brutal and horrible people about this, if we chose. There is no such thing as motiveless evil.

In my view, they were way, way out of line. The national police investigating somebody precisely because he is exercising his full legal rights. Even secretly questioning friends and family. And on that note: Also, and this is a somewhat separate issue but also a fairly important part of the article, their incompetence appears quite staggering. And such incompetence, while on the surface sounds better for the aggrieved, innocent party, can be dangerous.

Still, to me, this incompetence--interviewing his sister, when he had no sister, etc--are not the scariest part. Hell, they conducted interviews with him as well; sheer politicized intimidation tactics.

Let's not forget that the FBI ran the COINTELPRO project, which included such niceties as political assassinations.

While Zinn was a peaceful man, and everything he ever said or wrote attested to this....the men investigating him had some history of lawlessness, roguery, and even murder.

The violent criminals were investigating the non-violent man who protested just their type of criminality...this is "reasonable"?

Edited August 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

But essentially, all you've said here is that "the FBI had their reasons." And of course this is true; everybody has reasons for everything. We could ask the most infamously brutal and horrible people about this, if we chose. There is no such thing as motiveless evil.

Nope. What I did say was: some form of investigation is reasonable. The FBI did not have the benefit of our modern enlightenment with regard to the subject, his activities or associates or the final outcomes in the case such as we do. However, such enlightenment has allowed us (or, at least, Hedges) to view this dossier.

In my view, they were way, way out of line. The national police investigating somebody precisely because he is exercising his full legal rights. Even secretly questioning friends and family. And on that note: Also, and this is a somewhat separate issue but also a fairly important part of the article, their incompetence appears quite staggering. And such incompetence, while on the surface sounds better for the aggrieved, innocent party, can be dangerous.

This is where the article kind of loses it and doesn't place this subject in any sort of context outside of the fear mongering anti-communism fervor back in the day. Well hindisght is 20/20, so what else is new? It really doesn't inform us of much. Besides, you have neatly side-stepped the possibilty that Zinn was investigated in conjunction with other associates or targeted groups. The FBI were obviously looking to detect something, which appears to have been dropped in 1974. But this is very important and informative context that was missing from the article.

Still, to me, this incompetence--interviewing his sister, when he had no sister, etc--are not the scariest part. Hell, they conducted interviews with him as well; sheer politicized intimidation tactics.

And do you know what the dossier says about the final disposition of the phantom-sister testimony?

Let's not forget that the FBI ran the COINTELPRO project, which included such niceties as political assassinations.

While Zinn was a peaceful man, and everything he ever said or wrote attested to this....the men investigating him had some history of lawlessness, roguery, and even murder.

You mean everything he ever said or wrote after he dropped bombs on people from the relatively removed confines of a B-17 during WWII?

I am not going to defend some of the FBI's tactics nor question the public character of Howard Zinn because it simply isn't a matter of selecting sides for freedom of speech. As a historical piece - and that is all this article can ever hope to aspire to - it is profoundly lacking in important detail that was likely left out for some constraint of time, article length or ideology.

[bloodyminded]

Nope. What I did say was: some form of investigation is reasonable. The FBI did not have the benefit of our modern enlightenment with regard to the subject, his activities or associates or the final outcomes in the case such as we do. However, such enlightenment has allowed us (or, at least, Hedges) to view this dossier.

"Modern enlightenment"? Now compared to 1974?

This is where the article kind of loses it and doesn't place this subject in any sort of context outside of the fear mongering anti-communism fervor back in the day.

Yes, it does; the article explicitly links the abuses of power with surveillance activities directed towards people today, noticeably Muslims.

Well hindisght is 20/20, so what else is new?

??? What a cavalier way to say exactly zero about the subject.

To what 20/20 hindsight are you referring?

It really doesn't inform us of much. Besides, you have neatly side-stepped the possibilty that Zinn was investigated in conjunction with other associates or targeted groups. The FBI were obviously looking to detect something, which appears to have been dropped in 1974. But this is very important and informative context that was missing from the article.

I haven't side-stepped it; I thought you weren't quite serious, and so didn't directly respond. But ok, you are serious:

Shwa, all of us--without a single exception--are in some way involved with criminal elements, whether we know it or not. We all have "associations."

Zinn was targeted because he was criticizing establishment power...or, more accurately, because people were lsitening to his criticisms of establishment power.

And do you know what the dossier says about the final disposition of the phantom-sister testimony?

The point is that they thought he had a sister--which he didn't, and never claimed to. Such information was not difficult to come by, even in the Jurassic era of 1974. Thnat suggests that he was being investigated not only for perfectly reasonable political views...but also by drooling morons.

You mean everything he ever said or wrote after he dropped bombs on people from the relatively removed confines of a B-17 during WWII?

Yes, that's what I mean, and this is an odd little dig, presumably meant to imply hypocrisy. The fact that he was WW2 bomber, and that he came to consider what he did was horrible, is perhaps the central matter that affected his political beliefs...particularly since such military behaviour is held in such esteem.

It's the people who retain a lifelong joy at their act of dropping bmbs on human beings who are the hypocrites, and degenerate little losers. (Though to be fair, a bigoted and indoctrinated society will always buttress their glorious self-image.)

I am not going to defend some of the FBI's tactics nor question the public character of Howard Zinn because it simply isn't a matter of selecting sides for freedom of speech.

Selecting sides?

Zinn was exercising freedom of speech. The FBI investigating him is not an equivalent matter of "freedom of speech."

As a historical piece - and that is all this article can ever hope to aspire to - it is profoundly lacking in important detail that was likely left out for some constraint of time, article length or ideology.

There is no article of equal length on any large subject that is not similarly lacking in some way or another. None. (Can you name one?)

What you really mean (or should) is that all articles of similar size, on matters of the individual or the state, are "profoundly lacking in important detail."

Every single one of them.

But that certainly wasn't the point you were making, was it? It's rather as if you unaccountably accused me of having human attributes...as if this especially belonged to me, in some particular way, while everyone else is strangely ommitted.

Edited August 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

....It's the people who retain a lifelong joy at their act of dropping bmbs on human beings who are the hypocrites, and degenerate little losers. (Though to be fair, a bigoted and indoctrinated society will always buttress their glorious self-image.)

No, it is the "hypocrites" who live and thrive in the resulting preservation and growth of that "society", only to denounce those who did the heavy lifting before.

[bloodyminded]

No, it is the "hypocrites" who live and thrive in the resulting preservation and growth of that "society", only to denounce those who did the heavy lifting before.

"Why, O why can't y'all just support the troops?"

The politically correct lament.

[bush_cheney2004]

"Why, O why can't y'all just support the troops?"

The politically correct lament.

...and more honorable than your spitting and urination on them.

[bloodyminded]

...and more honorable than your spitting and urination on them.

As you'd know if you'd read posts, rather than mining them for points of insult and attack, that I was talking--unambiguously--not of people in the military as a whole, but rather those who might retain a liflong joy at the idea of killing people.

Moral degenerates and pathetic losers, in other words.

I forgot how delicate are your quaint little sensibilities. Also, that you did not learn to read properly during your education.

Edited August 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

As you'd know if you'd read posts, rather than mining them for points of insult and attack, that I was talking--unambiguously--not of people in the military as a whole, but rather those who might retain a liflong joy at the idea of killing people.

LOL! Your insults and attacks are plain to see....no "mining" required. Killing people and breaking things is what a military does....but the concepts of "duty, honor, country" are foreign to you...a man without a country. Much easier to insult the service of others from the safe place they provided.

Moral degenerates and pathetic losers, in other words.

...but don't forget "dainty" as well...your favorite!

I forgot how delicate are your quaint little sensibilities. Also, that you did not learn to read properly during your education.

No insult or attack there....ROTFLMAO!

[bloodyminded]

LOL! Your insults and attacks are plain to see....no "mining" required. Killing people and breaking things is what a military does....but the concepts of "duty, honor, country" are foreign to you...a man without a country. Much easier to insult the service of others from the safe place they provided.

Yet again--after it was painstakingly explained to you (since you remain unable to scroll back and look at my words themselves)--your inability to understand basic English insists upon itself.

Your political correctness is making you numb.

Edited August 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Yet again--after it was painstakingly explained to you (since you remain unable to scroll back and look at my words themselves)--your inability to understand basic English insists upon itself.

Whenever you place your tits in the wringer, I am happy to turn the crank, especially when it comes to shitting on those who have served in the armed forces. Do you really think that your assessment of their attitudes with or without remorse means a damn thing?

The only hypocrite here is you....unless you plan to move soon.

[bloodyminded]

Whenever you place your tits in the wringer, I am happy to turn the crank,

throwing a politically-correct tantrum is "turn[ing] the crank"?

especially when it comes to shitting on those who have served in the armed forces.

Mr. "morality doesn't matter" suddenly changes course. Again. Political correctness ruling your opinions and sensibilities.

Do you really think that your assessment of their attitudes with or without remorse means a damn thing?

Why would I give a shit?

The only hypocrite here is you....unless you plan to move soon.

Poor little fella, aren't you?

Edited August 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

throwing a politically-correct tantrum is "turn[ing] the crank"?

No...watching you try to squirm out is turning the crank.

Mr. "morality doesn't matter" suddenly changes course. Again.

No mention of morality...especially when it comes to placing ordnance on target.

Why would I give a shit?

Beats me....you have decided to shit on all of them if they don't feel guilty about their service.

Poor little fella, aren't you?

Neither little or poor....makes it easier to spot hypocrite tits in clothes wringers! LOL!

[bloodyminded]

No...watching you try to squirm out is turning the crank.

you're the squirmer, pc-boy.

No mention of morality...especially when it comes to placing ordnance on target.

Oh, you were feeling genuine moral outrage. Pathetic and sad, but real. See? You are the one squirming.

Beats me....you have decided to shit on all of them if they don't feel guilty about their service.

You still haven't managed to comprehend the English expressed in the post in question?

What's taking you so long?

Neither little or poor....makes it easier to spot hypocrite tits in clothes wringers! LOL!

The little support-the-troops PC pussy thinks he's got wit. How cute.

Edited August 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

you're the squirmer, pc-boy.

Anybody reading this thread can see otherwise...you stepped in it big time.

Oh, you were feeling genuine moral outrage. Pathetic and sad, but real. See? You are the one squirming.

No, I was engaging a pissant who wants to degrade the service of others from his non-country.

You still haven't managed to comprehend the English expressed in the post in question?

No hablo ingles....

What's taking you so long?

It takes a while to clean your urine and feces off of the military grave markers.

The little support-the-troops PC pussy thinks he's got wit. How cute.

Your predictable retreat...."pussy"....kinda makes sense now.

[Shwa]

"Modern enlightenment"? Now compared to 1974?

To anytime when we claim discovery in light of hindsight. Which the FBI lacked when fulfilling their mandate back yonder.

Yes, it does; the article explicitly links the abuses of power with surveillance activities directed towards people today, noticeably Muslims.

That isn't the context I am referring to, which deals more with the power structures that were in place during the active phase of the investigation. So let's tie in surveillance activities with say, Belle Boyd. Damned Reb spies! How tenuous a context does that sound like? Well there were plenty of abuses of powers when it comes to surveillance. No one said intelligence gathering was a picnic.

??? What a cavalier way to say exactly zero about the subject.

To what 20/20 hindsight are you referring?

The context of the anti-communist fervor which was rampant at the time the dossier on Zinn was opened and continued for the next 26 years. That is too neat isn't it? Nevermind the fact that the article doesn't touch any possible reasons why the FBI were investigating him outside of what he said or wrote, it was all anti-communist fervor.

And it might have been, but I doubt it. But certainly can't find out from the article can we?

I haven't side-stepped it; I thought you weren't quite serious, and so didn't directly respond. But ok, you are serious:

Shwa, all of us--without a single exception--are in some way involved with criminal elements, whether we know it or not. We all have "associations."

Zinn was targeted because he was criticizing establishment power...or, more accurately, because people were lsitening to his criticisms of establishment power.

FBI agents in November 1953 wrote up an account of a clumsy attempt to recruit Zinn as an informant, an attempt in which they admitted that Zinn “would not volunteer information” and that “additional interviews with ZINN would not turn him from his current attitude.” A year later, after another interrogation, an agent wrote that Zinn “concluded the interview by stating he would not under any circumstances testify or furnish information concerning the political opinions of others.”

Sounds like Zinn was also targeted for whom he knew. And, despite the investigations over all those years, what was the effect on Zinn's career? Many careers went up in smoke because of the anti-communist fervor, but despite all the innuendo, and a 423 page file, Zinn seemed to escape unscathed. And why is that when the FBI described "Zinn as a former member of the Communist Party?" Doesn't that sort of equation not quite add up and imply more?

The point is that they thought he had a sister--which he didn't, and never claimed to. Such information was not difficult to come by, even in the Jurassic era of 1974. Thnat suggests that he was being investigated not only for perfectly reasonable political views...but also by drooling morons.

An equally plausible explanation is that some junior agent was placed on the x-files and told to be thorough with the relatively unimportant Zinn dossier. The point is that the final disposition of the testimony is of utmost important for a disinterested view. For instance, did they decide that the data from the phantom-sister was useless or phoney. Or did Hedges discover that? Or did Hedges discover that in the actual dossier.

Yes, that's what I mean, and this is an odd little dig, presumably meant to imply hypocrisy. The fact that he was WW2 bomber, and that he came to consider what he did was horrible, is perhaps the central matter that affected his political beliefs...particularly since such military behaviour is held in such esteem.

It's not a dig meant to imply hypocrisy. It is an illustration that "...Zinn was a peaceful man, and everything he ever said or wrote attested to this..." is not quite a true statement.

Selecting sides?

Anyone who supports this type of extremist security apparatus is a de facto supporter of the notion of a police state.

If you support freedom, including freedom of speech, you side with Zinn on this matter....or you do not support freedom of speech.

Zinn was exercising freedom of speech. The FBI investigating him is not an equivalent matter of "freedom of speech."

Who said that they FBI were investigating him for exercising his freedom of speech? That is, where does that information come from?

There is no article of equal length on any large subject that is not similarly lacking in some way or another. None. (Can you name one?)

What you really mean (or should) is that all articles of similar size, on matters of the individual or the state, are "profoundly lacking in important detail."

Every single one of them.

But that certainly wasn't the point you were making, was it? It's rather as if you unaccountably accused me of having human attributes...as if this especially belonged to me, in some particular way, while everyone else is strangely ommitted.

But we aren't talking about "them" or you. We are talking about this specific article that lacks important detail which, when omitted, plays on the credibility of the historicity of the opinion.

Hey, I understand the constraint of ideology on articles such as this, and you did state that "Yes, author Chris Hedges is a breed of radical left Christian." So why should I complain? Because I think the article brings up more questions than answers, and those questions - for me - have nothing to do with 'why Zinn,' but more about 'why Hedges.'

[bloodyminded]

That isn't the context I am referring to, which deals more with the power structures that were in place during the active phase of the investigation. So let's tie in surveillance activities with say, Belle Boyd. Damned Reb spies! How tenuous a context does that sound like? Well there were plenty of abuses of powers when it comes to surveillance. No one said intelligence gathering was a picnic.

So what? the onus to justify power and authority always rests on the powers and authorities themselves. The responsibilty is not of the critics to sya why specific uses of power are wrong; the responsibility is on the powerful to justify why it's right.

The context of the anti-communist fervor which was rampant at the time the dossier on Zinn was opened and continued for the next 26 years. That is too neat isn't it? Nevermind the fact that the article doesn't touch any possible reasons why the FBI were investigating him outside of what he said or wrote, it was all anti-communist fervor.

And it might have been, but I doubt it. But certainly can't find out from the article can we?

We certainly can't find out from the authorities, can we?

A much more important consideration.

But of course, critics of power are generally held to a much higher standard than the purveyors and supporters of power. Which is telling indeed.

Sounds like Zinn was also targeted for whom he knew. And, despite the investigations over all those years, what was the effect on Zinn's career? Many careers went up in smoke because of the anti-communist fervor, but despite all the innuendo, and a 423 page file, Zinn seemed to escape unscathed. And why is that when the FBI described "Zinn as a former member of the Communist Party?" Doesn't that sort of equation not quite add up and imply more?

No...not unless you take it as a given that the FBI were honest and competent, and that Zinn and every one of his many, many friends were all liars.

Zinn said he was never a member; no record of his membership has been forthcoming from anyone making the charges (the onus is on them, rather than on those supposed to prove a negative).

Why do you think Zinn was a member of the Communist Party? You think its "implied" because the FBI say so? Then why drop the investigation?

It's not a dig meant to imply hypocrisy. It is an illustration that "...Zinn was a peaceful man, and everything he ever said or wrote attested to this..." is not quite a true statement.

Please. This type of hair-splitting is the phenomenon that is both literally true--but dishonest to the spirit of what was meant. Surely you know that.

Who said that they FBI were investigating him for exercising his freedom of speech? That is, where does that information come from?

But that certainly wasn't the point you were making, was it? It's rather as if you unaccountably accused me of having human attributes...as if this especially belonged to me, in some particular way, while everyone else is strangely ommitted.

But we aren't talking about "them" or you. We are talking about this specific article that lacks important detail which, when omitted, plays on the credibility of the historicity of the opinion.

Hey, I understand the constraint of ideology on articles such as this, and you did state that "Yes, author Chris Hedges is a breed of radical left Christian." So why should I complain? Because I think the article brings up more questions than answers, and those questions - for me - have nothing to do with 'why Zinn,' but more about 'why Hedges.'

Edited August 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Anybody reading this thread can see otherwise...you stepped in it big time.

Still haven't read my comments? Strange, since you keep remarking about things I didn't say....

No, I was engaging a pissant who wants to degrade the service of others from his non-country.

Boo hoo hoo.

No hablo ingles....

i know. That's why you insist on misrepresenting my words.

Which begs the question: if your appraisal is so clearly incorrect, why do you retain your politically-correct outrage over something not said?

You're losing it, little guy....

It takes a while to clean your urine and feces off of the military grave markers.

Whiny whiny whiny.

Edited August 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Still haven't read my comments? Strange, since you keep remarking about things I didn't say....

Your comments degrade the service of others defending your right to do so. Pathetic.....

[bloodyminded]

Your comments degrade the service of others defending your right to do so. Pathetic.....

You still whining?

[bush_cheney2004]

You still whining?

Tits getting sore?