114 comments on “My New all purpose response to Bushies”
Posted by Craig J. Ries at March 5, 2006 12:55 PM
Bill Myers –
I believe it is useful and important to draw a distinction between the two.
Probably so, but Bush certainly is leaning toward the Dark Side with his disregard for the law, warmongering, and outright attempts to destroy the checks and balances of our branches of government, among other things.
***************************
Bush’s assertions of executive power are not without historical precedent. Abraham Lincoln, for example, suspended Habeas Corpus during the U.S. Civil War. Habeas Corpus is a right enshrined in the very U.S. Constitution.
Throughout history, presidents have during times of war suspended certain civil liberties, which were later restored when the war concluded. The walls between the branches of government did not come tumbling down and the U.S. Constitution remains intact.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at March 5, 2006 12:55 PM
That said, many people probably view Bush as evil already, because he has directly affected their lives (such as in Iraq), where bin Laden has not.
***********************
I don’t think that’s a good yardstick by which to judge what is or is not evil. The hideous genocide in Rwanda did not affect me directly, not one little whit. Are you going to tell me, therefore, that it was less evil than things that are right in front of my face? I’d beg to differ with you if you did.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at March 5, 2006 12:55 PM
Which is a fair claim, imo, because others are allowed their own perspectives and opinions as well.
*********************
It’s true that everyone is entitled to an opinion. But the mere fact that you are entitled to an opinion doesn’t inherently make your views well-reasoned. I think it’s best to let available facts guide you in forming your opinions, rather than simply having a viewpoint and justifying it by saying, “It’s my viewpoint and I have a right to it.”
Mind you, you do have a right to your viewpoint. And you even have a right to form such a viewpoint in a way that I would consider unreasonable. But, if you’re going to form opinions based on emotion and flawed premises, be prepared to have that pointed out to you.
I oughtta know. I have to constantly work to separate what I feel from what I actually know. And I often falter, publicly. But I try to recognize when I do.
And reasonable people can still draw different conclusions. As I’ve said, Bill Mulligan and I see things rather differently. While I disagree with some of his arguments, I believe they are well-reasoned.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 5, 2006 10:58 AM
Anyway, thank you for the kind words. You’ve made some great points yourself and your courtesy toward those you are in disagreement with is indicative of someone who has real confidence in their arguments (and was probably raised right!)
*****************
Dammit, such civility is intolerable on the Internet! You, therefore, are a pee-pee head, Bill Mulligan!
Bill Myers – Throughout history, presidents have during times of war suspended certain civil liberties, which were later restored when the war concluded.
The US Civil War was not a war without end. The World Wars were not wars without end.
Everybody knew this.
But the war on terror? This Administration has already said there is no timetable, there is no limits.
That makes it very dangerous compared to past precedents, because there is no “well, we’ll change this back when the war is over”, because this is a war that may not end.
And now, with much of the Patriot Act being made permanent, with nowhere near enough people with the gall to say “this is wrong”, we’re certainly heading down that road where we may never look back.
I think it will be very interesting to see what happens with our next president (assuming Bush isn’t coronated first ;)).
If the Republicans are still in control of the Senate, and it’s a Democrat in the White House, I see a great restricting of presidential powers, just because Congress will want to show who’s in charge. Which would just go to show how little Congress cares about checks and balances as well (as if some of them hadn’t pìššëd enough on the concept already lately).
Hëll, it might happen whoever is in office, but it’ll be a mess.
I don’t think that’s a good yardstick by which to judge what is or is not evil.
And I don’t think merely using a body count is a good way to judge either.
Are you going to tell me, therefore, that it was less evil than things that are right in front of my face?
No, it just means that we all have different ways of looking at things. It also means that, by the definition of some, Bush is just as evil as bin Laden.
Just because you or I don’t agree with them shouldn’t automatically make their opinion worth less than our own. If anything, we’re obviously very biased one way or the other in our views of Bush & bin Laden because we’ve been affected by them and their actions.
If somebody in Brazil says “bin Laden killed innocent people, he’s evil; Bush started two wars that have killed lots of innocent people, he’s evil two”, I don’t think you can sit there and disregard their opinion outright just because you disagree with how they reached that opinion.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 5, 2006 02:17 PM
Bill Myers –
Throughout history, presidents have during times of war suspended certain civil liberties, which were later restored when the war concluded.
The US Civil War was not a war without end. The World Wars were not wars without end.
*********************
You and I are somewhat in agreement on this issue. I believe the open-ended nature of the war on terror presents a significant risk that incursions into civil liberties will not be reversed.
Nevertheless, it’s still worthwhile to point out that Bush’s actions in this area are not without precedent. I don’t believe the question is, “Are dramatic steps needed to fight the war on terror?” I believe it is self-evident that dramatic steps are needed. I believe the real questions are: what steps, how drastic and how can we take those steps in such a way that our fundamental liberties are not trodden upon and eventually forgotten? I don’t think it’s an either-or question.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 5, 2006 02:17 PM
And I don’t think merely using a body count is a good way to judge either.
************************
Agreed. But, if you’re offering that in response to my arguments about why bin Laden is evil while W. is merely bad, it strikes me as something of a non-sequitur. I never said “using a body count is a good way to judge” what is or isn’t evil. If I did, I’d have to believe that George W. Bush is more evil than Osama bin Laden, because W.’s body count is higher. But I don’t believe that. As I said in prior posts, I believe Bush’s invasion of Iraq is not the equivalent of bin Laden’s terrorist schemes because Bush carried out the war on Iraq in a far different manner than bin Laden carried out his attacks on us.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 5, 2006 02:17 PM
No, it just means that we all have different ways of looking at things. It also means that, by the definition of some, Bush is just as evil as bin Laden.
*************************
We’re probably straying into “arguing in circles” territory so I’ll probably make this my last attempt to articulate this particular point. Again, I agree that people have different ways of looking at things. And I agree that they have a right to that. But having a right to an opinion does not necessarily make it well-supported. I could be of the opinion that you are evil, Craig, and justify it by saying, “Different people have different views.” But given that I have no evidence to base it, it’s not much of an opinion, is it?
Granted, we can all disagree on what is or is not a well-supported and well-informed opinion. But as I said earlier, if all you want to base an opinion on is, “It’s my opinion and I have a right to see things any way I choose,” people are gonna take you to task for it.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 5, 2006 02:17 PM
Just because you or I don’t agree with them shouldn’t automatically make their opinion worth less than our own.
******************************
I never said otherwise. I guess I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Do you believe that by disagreeing with you, I’m belittling you?
Debate and disagreement are healthy, in my view. In joining debates, many of them online, I’ve learned things and in some cases even been persuaded to change my opinion by a superior argument. I believe debating is a worthwhile activity. I mean, we could all avoid stating disagreements about important issues like U.S. foreign policy because we don’t want to hurt each other’s feelings. But then ideas won’t be exchanged, and everyone will probably become more polarized than we already are.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 5, 2006 02:17 PM
If somebody in Brazil says “bin Laden killed innocent people, he’s evil; Bush started two wars that have killed lots of innocent people, he’s evil two”, I don’t think you can sit there and disregard their opinion outright just because you disagree with how they reached that opinion.
****************************
Actually, I can and should. Logic is our best tool for rising above our personal biases and feelings and arriving at conclusions that are truly justified. What you’ve said is a bit like saying, “Just because someone ran a red light, I don’t think you can disregard their personal style of driving.”
That said, I’ve acknowledged that the question of what is or isn’t logical is not cut-and-dried. And I’m not disregarding an opinion just by disagreeing with it. I’d be disregarding it if I ignored it as being too far beneath me to discuss. And I’m not doing that.
I am a very, very emotional person. I’ve learned to live with that. And it’s not an entirely bad thing. It helps make me creative and has given me the passion to try some creative endeavors. But emotion is no way to make judgments about important issues like U.S. foreign policy. We’re entitled to our individual feelings, and I think it behooves us to acknowledge and live with our emotions. But I think it’s self-aggrandizing to believe our individual feelings are worth discussing in the context of issues of global importance. I believe logic should win the day there. If more of our world leaders believed that, we’d have less war and more prosperity for all.
I don’t really have anything to add as far as the above; I just wanted to point out that the bunny has a pancake on his head.
(We now return you to your usual geo-political discourse)
Bush also preyed on our fears (which, again, shouldn’t surprise anybody now; see: Dubai port deal).
I don’t think the Dubai port deal is a particularly good idea but I don’t see how it could be an example of BUSH preying on our fears when it is his opponents who seized on it to envision the specter of nuclear bombs being towed into port. If anything, Bush is getting criticized for downplaying concerns.
I think you did, or at least somebody did. It is as incorrect now as it was back then. Even the wikipedia article says: “Werwolf was principally a war stratagem of the Nazi government. It withered by the month after German surrender; the German people were tired of war.” There’s nothing else in the wikipedia article to show there was any insurgency after WWII, either.
Er, I didn’t think I was giving the impression that the werwolf movement was a particularly successful one. It clearly wasn’t. It had a few minor successes but the best that can be said for it is that it diverted resources away from the front based on the Allied fears of a much more successful operation than it was.
It’s interesting to speculate on what could have become one of the bloodiest insurgencies ever–if the Southern armies had, as some (including Jefferson Davis) urged, switched to a guerrilla style combat when the war was lost. I recall reading that Lee was urged to consider such a maneuver but wisely decided it would be catastrophic. Looking at the effectiveness of Quantrill’s Raiders, Champ Ferguson, John Brown (during his days as an anti-slavery terrorist), and John Singleton Mosby, I suspect that such a movement, though ultimately doomed, would have been a ferociously bloody one.
Again though, the cost of the war in terms of life and property probably discouraged such an insurgency from arising.
I am a very, very emotional person. I’ve learned to live with that. And it’s not an entirely bad thing. It helps make me creative and has given me the passion to try some creative endeavors.
That kind of surprises me since you do such a great job of making points logically and without falling into easy emotional arguments. If you’ve successfully found a balance between emotion and reason you are probably way way ahead of most of us.
Posted by: Micha at March 4, 2006 01:29 PM
Islamic organizations are involved in charity work for Muslims.
****************************
I’m sorry. I should have given more information. The Hamas does charity work in Gaza in the West Bank according to Islamic tradition. That is one of the reasons why they won the elections.
I’m not writing this to defend them or make them look good. It is just part of the political reality in the area.
I suspect other Islamic party also practice charity. I believe the term is Dawa, but I could be wrong.
———–
I think the KKK was a southern guerilla movement after the civil war.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 5, 2006 04:12 PM
If you’ve successfully found a balance between emotion and reason you are probably way way ahead of most of us.
*************************
Thanks, but you’re giving me far too much credit. There’s a difference between knowing what the right path is and where it is, and actually walking it. I take a lot of wrong turns.
Posted by Joe Nazzaro at March 5, 2006 03:20 PM
I don’t really have anything to add as far as the above; I just wanted to point out that the bunny has a pancake on his head.
********************
Um, I thought it was a new kind of hat. And since it’s on the World Wide Web, I saw it and thought I should do exactly what the bunny is doing. Because otherwise I’d be uncool.
Now I feel just stupid sitting here with a pancake on my head. Joe, I wish you’d spoken up sooner.
I don’t think the Dubai port deal is a particularly good idea but I don’t see how it could be an example of BUSH preying on our fears when it is his opponents who seized on it to envision the specter of nuclear bombs being towed into port.
My point was that because this Administration has created a greater sense of fear about Muslims, Arabs, and Middle Eastern nations, it should be no surprise whatsoever that there’s suddenly a backlash against a Middle Eastern company.
And Bush can’t understand why there would be such a backlash.
Um, I thought it was a new kind of hat. And since it’s on the World Wide Web, I saw it and thought I should do exactly what the bunny is doing. Because otherwise I’d be uncool.
Now I feel just stupid sitting here with a pancake on my head. Joe, I wish you’d spoken up sooner.
That’s ok, as long as you keep pretending to be Darth Maul while using a field hockey stick and singing the Numa Numa song you’ll be ok.
Well it figures,
Bush and Rumisfeld and Cheny are all F*&*& Morans
I happen to know the person who owned that rabbit and created that picture. The rabbit’s been dead for a few years now.
Thanks for the link to Oolong’s short but interesting life’s history. I had no idea of the background of the photo; I just saw it on a website that Kath was cruising, started laughing hysterically, and then asked if there was any way we could toss the picture over here. The result was the posting above.
PAD
You’re welcome! And, if you ever wanna give dorayaki a try…actually, I don’t know if I could actually mail those, so I’d need to check on that first.
• 
Posted by Craig J. Ries at March 5, 2006 12:55 PM
Bill Myers –
I believe it is useful and important to draw a distinction between the two.
Probably so, but Bush certainly is leaning toward the Dark Side with his disregard for the law, warmongering, and outright attempts to destroy the checks and balances of our branches of government, among other things.
***************************
Bush’s assertions of executive power are not without historical precedent. Abraham Lincoln, for example, suspended Habeas Corpus during the U.S. Civil War. Habeas Corpus is a right enshrined in the very U.S. Constitution.
Throughout history, presidents have during times of war suspended certain civil liberties, which were later restored when the war concluded. The walls between the branches of government did not come tumbling down and the U.S. Constitution remains intact.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at March 5, 2006 12:55 PM
That said, many people probably view Bush as evil already, because he has directly affected their lives (such as in Iraq), where bin Laden has not.
***********************
I don’t think that’s a good yardstick by which to judge what is or is not evil. The hideous genocide in Rwanda did not affect me directly, not one little whit. Are you going to tell me, therefore, that it was less evil than things that are right in front of my face? I’d beg to differ with you if you did.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at March 5, 2006 12:55 PM
Which is a fair claim, imo, because others are allowed their own perspectives and opinions as well.
*********************
It’s true that everyone is entitled to an opinion. But the mere fact that you are entitled to an opinion doesn’t inherently make your views well-reasoned. I think it’s best to let available facts guide you in forming your opinions, rather than simply having a viewpoint and justifying it by saying, “It’s my viewpoint and I have a right to it.”
Mind you, you do have a right to your viewpoint. And you even have a right to form such a viewpoint in a way that I would consider unreasonable. But, if you’re going to form opinions based on emotion and flawed premises, be prepared to have that pointed out to you.
I oughtta know. I have to constantly work to separate what I feel from what I actually know. And I often falter, publicly. But I try to recognize when I do.
And reasonable people can still draw different conclusions. As I’ve said, Bill Mulligan and I see things rather differently. While I disagree with some of his arguments, I believe they are well-reasoned.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 5, 2006 10:58 AM
Anyway, thank you for the kind words. You’ve made some great points yourself and your courtesy toward those you are in disagreement with is indicative of someone who has real confidence in their arguments (and was probably raised right!)
*****************
Dammit, such civility is intolerable on the Internet! You, therefore, are a pee-pee head, Bill Mulligan!
Bill Myers –
Throughout history, presidents have during times of war suspended certain civil liberties, which were later restored when the war concluded.
The US Civil War was not a war without end. The World Wars were not wars without end.
Everybody knew this.
But the war on terror? This Administration has already said there is no timetable, there is no limits.
That makes it very dangerous compared to past precedents, because there is no “well, we’ll change this back when the war is over”, because this is a war that may not end.
And now, with much of the Patriot Act being made permanent, with nowhere near enough people with the gall to say “this is wrong”, we’re certainly heading down that road where we may never look back.
I think it will be very interesting to see what happens with our next president (assuming Bush isn’t coronated first ;)).
If the Republicans are still in control of the Senate, and it’s a Democrat in the White House, I see a great restricting of presidential powers, just because Congress will want to show who’s in charge. Which would just go to show how little Congress cares about checks and balances as well (as if some of them hadn’t pìššëd enough on the concept already lately).
Hëll, it might happen whoever is in office, but it’ll be a mess.
I don’t think that’s a good yardstick by which to judge what is or is not evil.
And I don’t think merely using a body count is a good way to judge either.
Are you going to tell me, therefore, that it was less evil than things that are right in front of my face?
No, it just means that we all have different ways of looking at things. It also means that, by the definition of some, Bush is just as evil as bin Laden.
Just because you or I don’t agree with them shouldn’t automatically make their opinion worth less than our own. If anything, we’re obviously very biased one way or the other in our views of Bush & bin Laden because we’ve been affected by them and their actions.
If somebody in Brazil says “bin Laden killed innocent people, he’s evil; Bush started two wars that have killed lots of innocent people, he’s evil two”, I don’t think you can sit there and disregard their opinion outright just because you disagree with how they reached that opinion.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 5, 2006 02:17 PM
Bill Myers –
Throughout history, presidents have during times of war suspended certain civil liberties, which were later restored when the war concluded.
The US Civil War was not a war without end. The World Wars were not wars without end.
*********************
You and I are somewhat in agreement on this issue. I believe the open-ended nature of the war on terror presents a significant risk that incursions into civil liberties will not be reversed.
Nevertheless, it’s still worthwhile to point out that Bush’s actions in this area are not without precedent. I don’t believe the question is, “Are dramatic steps needed to fight the war on terror?” I believe it is self-evident that dramatic steps are needed. I believe the real questions are: what steps, how drastic and how can we take those steps in such a way that our fundamental liberties are not trodden upon and eventually forgotten? I don’t think it’s an either-or question.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 5, 2006 02:17 PM
And I don’t think merely using a body count is a good way to judge either.
************************
Agreed. But, if you’re offering that in response to my arguments about why bin Laden is evil while W. is merely bad, it strikes me as something of a non-sequitur. I never said “using a body count is a good way to judge” what is or isn’t evil. If I did, I’d have to believe that George W. Bush is more evil than Osama bin Laden, because W.’s body count is higher. But I don’t believe that. As I said in prior posts, I believe Bush’s invasion of Iraq is not the equivalent of bin Laden’s terrorist schemes because Bush carried out the war on Iraq in a far different manner than bin Laden carried out his attacks on us.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 5, 2006 02:17 PM
No, it just means that we all have different ways of looking at things. It also means that, by the definition of some, Bush is just as evil as bin Laden.
*************************
We’re probably straying into “arguing in circles” territory so I’ll probably make this my last attempt to articulate this particular point. Again, I agree that people have different ways of looking at things. And I agree that they have a right to that. But having a right to an opinion does not necessarily make it well-supported. I could be of the opinion that you are evil, Craig, and justify it by saying, “Different people have different views.” But given that I have no evidence to base it, it’s not much of an opinion, is it?
Granted, we can all disagree on what is or is not a well-supported and well-informed opinion. But as I said earlier, if all you want to base an opinion on is, “It’s my opinion and I have a right to see things any way I choose,” people are gonna take you to task for it.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 5, 2006 02:17 PM
Just because you or I don’t agree with them shouldn’t automatically make their opinion worth less than our own.
******************************
I never said otherwise. I guess I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Do you believe that by disagreeing with you, I’m belittling you?
Debate and disagreement are healthy, in my view. In joining debates, many of them online, I’ve learned things and in some cases even been persuaded to change my opinion by a superior argument. I believe debating is a worthwhile activity. I mean, we could all avoid stating disagreements about important issues like U.S. foreign policy because we don’t want to hurt each other’s feelings. But then ideas won’t be exchanged, and everyone will probably become more polarized than we already are.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 5, 2006 02:17 PM
If somebody in Brazil says “bin Laden killed innocent people, he’s evil; Bush started two wars that have killed lots of innocent people, he’s evil two”, I don’t think you can sit there and disregard their opinion outright just because you disagree with how they reached that opinion.
****************************
Actually, I can and should. Logic is our best tool for rising above our personal biases and feelings and arriving at conclusions that are truly justified. What you’ve said is a bit like saying, “Just because someone ran a red light, I don’t think you can disregard their personal style of driving.”
That said, I’ve acknowledged that the question of what is or isn’t logical is not cut-and-dried. And I’m not disregarding an opinion just by disagreeing with it. I’d be disregarding it if I ignored it as being too far beneath me to discuss. And I’m not doing that.
I am a very, very emotional person. I’ve learned to live with that. And it’s not an entirely bad thing. It helps make me creative and has given me the passion to try some creative endeavors. But emotion is no way to make judgments about important issues like U.S. foreign policy. We’re entitled to our individual feelings, and I think it behooves us to acknowledge and live with our emotions. But I think it’s self-aggrandizing to believe our individual feelings are worth discussing in the context of issues of global importance. I believe logic should win the day there. If more of our world leaders believed that, we’d have less war and more prosperity for all.
I don’t really have anything to add as far as the above; I just wanted to point out that the bunny has a pancake on his head.
(We now return you to your usual geo-political discourse)
Bush also preyed on our fears (which, again, shouldn’t surprise anybody now; see: Dubai port deal).
I don’t think the Dubai port deal is a particularly good idea but I don’t see how it could be an example of BUSH preying on our fears when it is his opponents who seized on it to envision the specter of nuclear bombs being towed into port. If anything, Bush is getting criticized for downplaying concerns.
I think you did, or at least somebody did. It is as incorrect now as it was back then. Even the wikipedia article says: “Werwolf was principally a war stratagem of the Nazi government. It withered by the month after German surrender; the German people were tired of war.” There’s nothing else in the wikipedia article to show there was any insurgency after WWII, either.
Er, I didn’t think I was giving the impression that the werwolf movement was a particularly successful one. It clearly wasn’t. It had a few minor successes but the best that can be said for it is that it diverted resources away from the front based on the Allied fears of a much more successful operation than it was.
It’s interesting to speculate on what could have become one of the bloodiest insurgencies ever–if the Southern armies had, as some (including Jefferson Davis) urged, switched to a guerrilla style combat when the war was lost. I recall reading that Lee was urged to consider such a maneuver but wisely decided it would be catastrophic. Looking at the effectiveness of Quantrill’s Raiders, Champ Ferguson, John Brown (during his days as an anti-slavery terrorist), and John Singleton Mosby, I suspect that such a movement, though ultimately doomed, would have been a ferociously bloody one.
Again though, the cost of the war in terms of life and property probably discouraged such an insurgency from arising.
I am a very, very emotional person. I’ve learned to live with that. And it’s not an entirely bad thing. It helps make me creative and has given me the passion to try some creative endeavors.
That kind of surprises me since you do such a great job of making points logically and without falling into easy emotional arguments. If you’ve successfully found a balance between emotion and reason you are probably way way ahead of most of us.
Posted by: Micha at March 4, 2006 01:29 PM
Islamic organizations are involved in charity work for Muslims.
****************************
I’m sorry. I should have given more information. The Hamas does charity work in Gaza in the West Bank according to Islamic tradition. That is one of the reasons why they won the elections.
I’m not writing this to defend them or make them look good. It is just part of the political reality in the area.
I suspect other Islamic party also practice charity. I believe the term is Dawa, but I could be wrong.
———–
I think the KKK was a southern guerilla movement after the civil war.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 5, 2006 04:12 PM
If you’ve successfully found a balance between emotion and reason you are probably way way ahead of most of us.
*************************
Thanks, but you’re giving me far too much credit. There’s a difference between knowing what the right path is and where it is, and actually walking it. I take a lot of wrong turns.
Posted by Joe Nazzaro at March 5, 2006 03:20 PM
I don’t really have anything to add as far as the above; I just wanted to point out that the bunny has a pancake on his head.
********************
Um, I thought it was a new kind of hat. And since it’s on the World Wide Web, I saw it and thought I should do exactly what the bunny is doing. Because otherwise I’d be uncool.
Now I feel just stupid sitting here with a pancake on my head. Joe, I wish you’d spoken up sooner.
I don’t think the Dubai port deal is a particularly good idea but I don’t see how it could be an example of BUSH preying on our fears when it is his opponents who seized on it to envision the specter of nuclear bombs being towed into port.
My point was that because this Administration has created a greater sense of fear about Muslims, Arabs, and Middle Eastern nations, it should be no surprise whatsoever that there’s suddenly a backlash against a Middle Eastern company.
And Bush can’t understand why there would be such a backlash.
Um, I thought it was a new kind of hat. And since it’s on the World Wide Web, I saw it and thought I should do exactly what the bunny is doing. Because otherwise I’d be uncool.
Now I feel just stupid sitting here with a pancake on my head. Joe, I wish you’d spoken up sooner.
That’s ok, as long as you keep pretending to be Darth Maul while using a field hockey stick and singing the Numa Numa song you’ll be ok.
Well it figures,
Bush and Rumisfeld and Cheny are all F*&*& Morans
I happen to know the person who owned that rabbit and created that picture. The rabbit’s been dead for a few years now.
Thanks for the link to Oolong’s short but interesting life’s history. I had no idea of the background of the photo; I just saw it on a website that Kath was cruising, started laughing hysterically, and then asked if there was any way we could toss the picture over here. The result was the posting above.
PAD
You’re welcome! And, if you ever wanna give dorayaki a try…actually, I don’t know if I could actually mail those, so I’d need to check on that first.
Oh, well.