News-Record.com

Those countries like IRAQ need to unite and rid themselves of the terrorists, and just maybe the world could be a safer place.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5240808.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5990883,00.html

Now add In Zion we Trust

http://hashmonean.com/2006/08/02/ground-assault-map-idf-pounding-hezbollah/

to the front pages of Allah's press

http://www.bahraintribune.com/Category.asp
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E321437F-1300-4959-85D6-6EDB10C1CE91.htm
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=8/3/2006&Cat=2&Num=33

and we face "incalculable consequences for regional and world security".

"Here we go again, as Ronald Reagan used to say"

IIRC, the famous Reagan phrase was "There you go again", said by Reagan to Jimmy Carter during one of the 1980 Presidential debates.

Speaking of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, perhaps if they had dealt with Iran more assertively 30+ years ago, then maybe we wouldn't be facing some of the problems in that region now. Iran is now, or soon will be, out biggest problem. We should have dealt with them before, and certainly before they get nuclear weapons.

ORR, how should they have been dealt with and how to you propose we prevent them from getting nuclear weapons now?

As I said a few days ago, I'd just like for us to be consistent. If we are going to be involved in humanitarian missions, then there is none more urgent than Darfur. If we're not, then we can't use excuses like "Saddam was evil" to invade Iraq. The glaring disparity is embarrassing.

Likewise, we've surrendered moral high ground when we invade a nation that has not provoked us, so we cannot chastise another country for its actions if we do the same. And that is a decision that I think will be thrown in our faces for decades.

And, perhaps as an aside, where do we get the nerve to try to enforce nuclear programs when we have probably 90% of the world's nuclear weapons, and as recently as two months ago were talking about using one on Iran? Can anyone explain that one for me?

"Likewise, we've surrendered moral high ground when we invade a nation that has not provoked us...."

Would you have said the same thing in Gulf War I ? Saddam should have been taken out then.

As for the nuclear weapons Howie...playbook material. America is the real threat to the world right? Btw, where did you get the 90%? References please. Would you rather Iran have 90% of the world's nuclear weapons?

I hope we do have more nukes than anyone else, especially Iran and other terrorist nations.

Carol,

I admit that I don't have all of the answers, because I'd be president, if I did. I just know that we dealt poorly with Iran about 25 years ago, allowing Iran to spit in our face. Jimmy Carter allowed them to takeover our embassy and hold Americans hostage for many months. Ronald Reagan pulled our marines out of Lebanon after Iran-backed Hezbollah bombed the marines' barracks killing 200+ of our marines. We've not confronted Iran when we should have done so.

How we do it now is a very difficult question, but I can tell you that watching that country's leaders actions and listening to their rhetoric tells me that we will have to deal with them some day, we will have no choice. If it's after they get nuclear weapons, which could be as soon as tomorrow by buying them from North Korea, then we have a huge problem. Certainly, one that we will not be able to ignore. Ignoring them will not alleviate the problem. Hezbollah exists all around the world, including in our own country. We've been thinking that Al Quida is our enenmy, and we've been unaware that Hezbollah and Iran pose the most deadly threat to our freedom and very survival. They will try to take us out as a world power. We are living in a very dangerous and unstable world these days. Confrontation is a given, it's just a question of when. I just hope that when it does happen that we our country's leadership is up to the task that has been left to them. It is that important to us.

Syria is the key to isolating Iran. Without Syria, Iran can be quarantined from being a "player". Their alliance is unnatural and it would be a great stroke of diplomacy, if Condi went to the "evil" country or if we even restored a Diplomat there. As long as the U.S. is hated by both Syria and Iran, they will be friends--but again, they are NOT natural allies, but rather they have a marriage of convenience. I'm not saying become bosom buddies, but we can offer an olive branch to them to stop the flow of arms to the current crop of Hizbollah and Hamas fighters.

Surely the administration is smart enough to realize opportunity when it presents itself?

Dan,

Don't twist my words around. I just said we need to be consistent. We cannot claim to be a nation of peace at the same time we are launching an unprovoked attack. So if Russia bombs Chechnya, if China blasts Taiwan, if Israel bombs Saudi Arabia, we have lost the moral authority to do anything about it. As for Gulf War I, we were defending an ally who had been attacked. Nowhere near the same thing.

And I'm not saying that we're a threat, so again, if you have an issue with this playbook you're talking about, then address its author. If you want to address my point (which was not planted by Michael Moore or Karl Marx), the point was that I struggle to see how we can enforce nuclear weapons creation and use, when we talked about using a nuke on Iran just a couple of months ago, and I guarantee we are looking for ways to build better nuclear weapons. I never said that I'd prefer they were in the hands of others -- especially the lunatic in Iran -- so if you're going to challenge my arguments, please make sure they are my arguments.

And as for the nukes, I spaced and didn't think about Russia. We have about 46% according to Wikepedia, and it was irresponsible and lazy of me to guess. You are absolutely right to call me on it.

Demon,

I agree with your analysis to the extent that it relates to the current conflict in Lebanon. Syria is the conduit of arms and support to Hezbollah in their conflict with Israel. Syria is Arab and Iran is Persian, so their alliance is not natural. Iran is essentially using Syria as a proxy to help them wage war with Israel. Iran probably hates the Arabs as much as the Jew and Gentile. Iran is still a wannabe "playa" throughout the world, as noted with their recent coziness with North Korea. Hebollah is essentially an armed militia wing of the Iranian Army. Iran and Hezbollah pose a great danger to us. A nuclear Iran is a deadly danger, especially if they chose to provide nuclear weapons to their "resident" Hezbollah cells throughout the world, including right here in teh good ole USA. They've been entering and settling in the country for years.

I'm not sure what kind of "olive branch" that we could offer Syria to drive them away from Iran. Syria is also a wannabe playa. What could we offer Syria that would be meaningful? Syria is not really a danger on their own. They have poorly trained army that could easily be defeated.

Howie,

Do you think that all of the nuclear weapons in the world are fully accounted-for? There seems to be some concern that after the break-up of the USSR, not all of the nuclear weapons were accounted-for. Ukraine had an ample supply. Were all of them returned to Russia or did some of them find their way onto the black market. If some of them found their way to rogue nations or terorists, that could be a problem.

It bothers me that we are still trying to be a "nation of peace" when we are living in a dangerous world that would like to destroy us. We just might need to focus upon doing what is right and best for our own country than trying to be liked and respected around the world, because all the like and respect won't do us any good when push comes to shove, which it will sooner than later. I want a leader of this country that has the best interests of our citizens in the forefront, not being liked by the world. I see too many politicians that would like to be our leader that want to be liked.

To ORR's point, I have no problem with Syria and Iran divorcing, and maybe we should help facilitate it, but the price might be too high. Can anyone recall scenarios in the middle east where we helped regimes get to a position of power then it back-fired on us? I can think of a couple, and ten years down the road I'd hate to be worried that the Syrian power we'd emboldened would be our greatest threat.

I am not sure the we, meaning USA, can offer Syria anything to get them to stop playing with Iran, but I feel rather confident that Israel can offer them something they can't refuse. Israel need only tell Damascus that the next rocket from Hezbollah to hit Israel will mean an Israeli rocket hitting Damascus. See then how fast they stop being a bridge then. Is there a risk of Israel going to war with Syria with that “promise (Israel doesn’t make threats)/ No I don’t think so. Syria has had its nose bloodied by Israel before and isn’t likely to give it another try. And, as has been mentioned, Syria and Iran really are not loyal playmates. It is just that Iran is paying Syria well for the use of its roads, and as an added bonus allowing Iran to arm the Hezbollah in Lebanon to harass Israel is a safe slap at Israel for past ignominies.

As for the original message of this letter: I have heard the same people who ask "why doesn't the government do something about" this or that also yell the loudest after the government does something and the involment takes a bit more time than a week or two, a few "innocent' civilians are killed or US soldiers are brought home in coffins. Why is that I wonder? Anyhow, it is best just to ignore theses fools unless they are blocking traffic on Constitution Ave.

ORR,

I seriously doubt that the nukes from the former USSR were all accounted for. Likewise, I'm very concerned about where they are stored, how they are maintained, and how they are prevented from falling into the wrong hands. And I don't think we've invested enough in securing them (I think John McCain or another Repub is really big on this, and I agree with him).

As for the nation of peace angle, you may be right again, and I may be naive in hoping that we can still be. However, that wasn't really my point. My point is that we need to be honest in how we justify our actions, not to the world, but to our citizens. I don't want our leader stringing together a series of false premises as justification for attacking a country. If we want to be the nation you describe, then our leaders should announce that in their candidacy and we should decide whether we agree with them. If they are elected based on that premise, then go forward. If the other guys win, we follow their lead. But don't tell me that we are doing the right thing in Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy. Tell me the truth and let's all make decisions based on the truth.

and now they have their eye on cuba......what idiots!

"Speaking of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, perhaps if they had dealt with Iran more assertively 30+ years ago, then maybe we wouldn't be facing some of the problems in that region now."

Agreed, but the the USSR was player back then and the rules of engagment had to be weighed in a different light than today.

Howie G.,
I just caught some testimony from Rummy before Congressional committee. He is such a broken record--McNamara all over again.
Interestingly enough, the talking head Generals at MSNBC backed up the Senators' questioning and pointed out where Rumsfeld was blowing smoke up the rear ends of the Senators. Pretty interesting to see Peter Pace sit there listening to Rumsfeld claim that he was giving the military leaders whatever they asked for. Pace did not look real happy with Rummy's characterization of boots on the ground.

Like you, I am sick of our government "lying" about situation--"dead enders", "last throes", "slam dunk", etc.

Seems like the public has gotten wise to the doublespeak. Let's hope so.

Howie,

With all due respect, I think that was one of the big reasons that John Kerry lost the last presidential election. When he made the comment that we would need to pass a global test before we defended outselves in the event of attack, he sealed the doom of his failed candidacy in many minds. Many people decided that they trusted George Bush more than John Kerry to do what was right and good for our country. You and others may disagree with that, but that was the dynamic that directed much of the vote. A majority of people in this country will vote in a presidential election for the person that they beleive will best ensure our security.

Hugh, I understand your point about Russia's influence and presence affecting how we dealt with Iran 25 years ago, but it doesn't change the fact that not dealing with Iran then has led to much of our security problems now. I guess the issue is that there will always be world threats to be considered, but we need leaders who will do the right and good thing for America now and in the future. History shows us that it is never easy, and we always need leaders with foresight and courage, foregoing political correctness, both locally and global.

Seems that the first olive branch we could extend to Syria would be diplomatic talks.....sending Condi to Damascus or even putting an ambassador back in there would be a start. Who knows what we could accomplish by opening up a dialogue with those folks---it obviously has not been tried by current administration.

INSANITY: Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

ORR:

I do not disagree that we will have to deal with Iran some day ... but here's a suggestion, after a quick tangent.

Every watch a kung-fu master? They take the energy of the aggressor and re-direct it so it hurst the aggressor. Grasshopper does a quick well-timed twist and the bad guy splats to the ground.

Let me suggest there must be a way we can do that too - If "Confrontation is a given, it's just a question of when", we can do it like dualinb Boxers - get up in the their face and bash it out - or we can be a clever.

Now I confess to not currently knowing how to fully "be clever" - but dukin' it out seems the worst option.

ORR,

"With all due respect, I think that was one of the big reasons that John Kerry lost the last presidential election. When he made the comment that we would need to pass a global test before we defended outselves in the event of attack, he sealed the doom of his failed candidacy in many minds."

I couldn't agree more that he chose poorly with those words; it played right to the criticism of him being more interested in the world's opinion of us than our own opinion of us. Then his follow-up declaration was even worse "I will never cede power to any nation". He even repeated it. I don't think a lot of people knew what "cede" meant, so it didn't carry near the impact he had hoped. One of many missteps that cost him the election (though I believe not squashing the Swiftboat crap was his biggest mistake).

"A majority of people in this country will vote in a presidential election for the person that they beleive will best ensure our security."

And that many people still believe that GWB is the person is one of the great mysteries of my life. How can anyone decide that we are more safe now than we were in 2001?

Now let me take issue with another statement:

"We've been thinking that Al Qaida is our enemy, and we've been unaware that Hezbollah and Iran pose the most deadly threat to our freedom and very survival."

To quote an old joke (ask & I'll tell the whole thing), "What do you mean "WE", Paleface.

As discussed too many times in this board, some of us have not taken Bush at bold face. Some of us have read independent sources of information and challanged the assumptions and been told "Shut Up UnPatriot, cause Bush Won."

It's not "They will try to take us out as a world power." Tt's they are making progress taking us out as a world power - if we're currently winning, I don't see it.

"SOME" have been lulled into security, believing the "Insurgency is in its last throes", etc., but "SOME" have been calling for a smarter approach, only to be told to shut-up.

I'm really not pickin' on ya ORR, but this is a serious matter and frankly, while our Military has done an outstanding job given the direction indicated, the "leadership" in DC has seriously mucked this up, and I don't see them getting better ...

I too hope our country's leadership is up to the task ... but the current batch has has seriously mucked this up, and I don't see them getting better ... (it was worth repeating).

" .. we need leaders who will do the right and good thing for America now and in the future. History shows us that it is never easy, and we always need leaders with foresight and courage, foregoing political correctness, both locally and global."

A freaking men

" .. John Kerry lost the last presidential election .. [w]hen he made the comment that we would need to pass a global test before we defended ourselves in the event of attack."

Kerry was not the best man for the nomination, and I agree that "sealed the doom of his failed candidacy", but only because - regardless of what he really meant (as I recall, Kerry never detailed his intent), Rove quickly twisted that into a Weakness, a concept reinforced by Fox news, and AM radio and all the other powerful sources of misinformation.

In fact that is the right approach. A "Global Test" would included being aware that "Hezbollah and Iran pose the most deadly threat to our freedom and very survival." It is leadership to do the right and good thing for America now and in the future. It is foresight and courage, foregoing political correctness, both locally and global.

This is the BS that has corrupted America. There are no debates over direction, only mutual mud slinging and un-informed voters and uninvolved non-voters.

I don't think it took Rove, Fox News or anyone else to twist what John Kerry said into weakness. I heard what he said when it came out of his mouth, before any analysis or spin, and I came away thinking that John Kerry was going to be a spineless UN follower who would ask permission from the global community before doing anything.

The reinforcement came from the way he ran his campaign. Spineless, wishy-washy, unfocused and almost like he needed to ask permission to form an opinion, and then change it, and then change it back.

You're right. The guy was a loser. It was totally surprising to me and most other folks in the country that Kerry was the guy who received the nomination. My thoughts were: where the heck did that come from. I thought John Edwards could have been a black horse due to his youth, good lucks, and outsider status.

Quite frankly, however, it was Kerry's ambiguity and wishy washiness that kept the race close. If he had been a strongly opinionated democrat of the Howard Dean mode, Bush would have blown him out of the water. Because, get this, most of the country doesn't agree with the far-left agenda that is pushed by those controlling the Democratic party. Of course, Kerry has a pretty liberal record but he never really put that forth in the campaign. Guess he was trying to be a uniter, not a divider.

All I can say is if you're hoping for a democrat winning the presidency in 2008, it better be someone who REALLY is a voice for middle-america and not a voice for the far-left liberal fringe.

nitpicker,

I agree. What I saw and heard from John Kerry's Global Test was just what it seemed to be. John Kerry is a strong supporter of the UN, and I fully believe that he would have turned our security over to the UN. Be that as it may, I believe that was the dagger that he stuck in his own heart with many voters. It only reinforced many voters' views of Kerry developed through his past actions and words.

As far as 2008, I truly don't see anyone right now, in either party, that has "foresight and courage, foregoing political correctness, both locally and global" sufficiently to face the challenges that will exist, and that frightens me. What I see, though, is a rush to the far left in the Democratic Party because that is where the campaign money is. Hillary is wobbling now trying to play to the center and getting bashed by the far left. She will have to make a decision to run to the center as Bill did successfully to get elected and forego far left support or give-in and go to the left. In either event, I don't think that she can win; not enough funds in the center, not enough voters to the far left. As a result, I don't think that she will even get the nomination.

I'd feel much better about the candidacy of any Democrat for president in 2008, if I saw a clear plan for the future that actually addresses our global challenges. Right now, all I am seeing out of the party is that "We aren't Bush". For me, that's not good enough. Give me some details. It's like John Kerry's campaign in 2004. He said he had a plan that he would reveal when he got elected. Well, no plan ever seemed to emerge, then or now.

And, in fairness, I am not sure that any Republican candidates have any strong ideas or plans, either. Hopefully, we'll see some emerge from both candidates in the days to come.

NP - I agree (except that you'll have trouble convincing me that Rove and his built in amplifiers on Fox News and AM radio are good for America).

For the record, I was not defending Kerry, only my interpertation of "Global Test" as being the best approach, i.e, look carefully around the world and weigh all scenarios before rushing into an aledged slam dunk.

For the record, I'm pissed about this whole thing too.

ORR,

There is no way Kerry would have turned over our security to the UN, and the suggestion doesn't even make any sense. The global test thing meant that if we go it alone with shaky justification, (and maybe with a "coalition of the bribed"), as we did in Iraq, our diplomatic efforts elsewhere in the world will suffer. In retrospect, our vigilante approach has done just that. Our real threats have gotten stronger, and we have created thousands more terrorists whose sole target is the US. Who looks smarter now? Kerry all the way, and I wasn't even crazy about the guy.

As for the next election, the people on the left (and not just the "far" left) are so angry at being ignored and marginalized, that Hillary probably doesn't stand a chance. The next candidate will not get away with being a centrist (her flag burning drivel is maddening to me), because Bush has pushed the whole party left. After the next election, we may sway back toward a centrist, but not this next time. But take heart, as I said a few weeks ago, I think the next president will be a Dem, but he'll (or "she'll") buckle under the weight of the deficit left by Bush and be swept out of office for rolling back the millionaires' tax break. Guiliani in '12. You heard it here first.

Anyone paying attention to Connecticut?
The anti war feeling is palpable and it is not just in Connecticut. It's not because we are weak kneed, it is because we are damn tired of seeing incompetence being paraded about as patriotism. It is because Joe and Sally America want accountability, not hollow rhetoric. My guess is that if George W. Bush had to run again, he couldn't even get to 35% of his own party. Sure, the nutcakes would support him, as they have NEVER left him, but the real day to day American has had it up to their necks.
A war that cost the American taxpayer dearly, and for what? What is the excuse du jour? Freedom? Regime change? WMD?
Did anyone catch the Don Rumsfeld Comedy hour today? The Generals said Civil War was very possible, meaning we are already seeing it. Rumsfeld, as he usually does, just tried to confuse the issue.

"Slam Dunk"
"Last Throes"
"Dead Enders"
"Mission Accomplished"

Those are some of the phrases used by this administration to mask the charade they have been playing called, Iraq.

The American people are now saying, "Don't pee in my face and tell me it's raining"!
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

DD, heard part of the hearings on NPR. So they think Iraq is headed toward a civil war...what do they call what is happening now??? Also heard the pregnant pause when the General was asked if this was forseen a year ago. Pitiful and scary as can be.

The lte is correct. Might I add that we have caused a massive problem...now we are going to send money to Cuban resistance groups. Will it ever end???

Carol,
We will be cleaning up W's mess for many years to come.
The hearings today were amazing. The Generals seemed to paint the opposite picture that Rummy painted.

This is the post I tried to make yesterday but IE crapped out on me. (Working remotely on dial-up) Never could get back on the net yesterday.

Not only should we stay out of any more wars (unless we are attacked), we should withdraw any support for those going on now, imho. This Israel/Lebanon/Palestine war (active or inactive) has spanned hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Getting involved militarily will not change the course for them; it will only serve to weaken us.

We need to take care of internal problems that are tearing the US apart. Our actions thus far have been tantamount to the psychiatrist who condemns a patient for beating his wife, then goes home, beats his own wife, children and kicks the dog.

We have spent trillions of dollars we didn't have (that we have borrowed from China), killed and maimed untold thousands of innocent Iraqis, sacrificed tens of thousands of our own soldiers to death and injury, squandered the good will of many nations and are stuck in quicksand up to our necks. For what?

It makes me think of Dr. Phil's line about stupidity, "So how's that working for you?" Or another of his famous lines, "If you keep doing what you have always done, you are going to keep getting the results you've always gotten. To expect anything different is ludicrous."

When are our leaders going to figure that simple equation out? 2008?

After reading all your responses, I have only a few comments. Howie G, you got it going on, dude. This subject seems to be right up your ally. Couldn't agree more about our current vigilante approach. Hasn't worked, not going to work.

DD, Think a diplomat is an excellent idea. But not Condi. We should not expect a woman to make a difference in an area where women are given so little respect and are treated so shabbily. No woman would ever hold the position in that area that Condi does in the states.

Hugh, You are right about the USSR being a major player 25 years ago. It makes no sense to take the circumstances then and apply them to present day. What was was and we need to learn to do things differently based on what is the situation today.

JDR, While I thought Kerry was not the best democratic nomination, he won the spot. And between Bush and Kerry, I think Kerry was the best choice. At least he had served our country in combat (while GWB hid out somewhere). Also, he had the intelligence and diplomacy Bush lacked.

Had intelligence and diplomacy been the first consideration rather than no consideration, perhaps we would not find ourselves in the current situation. Going into war half cocked and with little to no planning WAS NOT in the best interest of the US.

Diplomacy with Syria? Good idea but unfortunately Syria the question is, would Syria be a willing partner in these discussions due to the ties with Iran? We tried it in 1998 and we , the US, didn't get anywhere. However we allowed Turkey to be the go between and Syria listened. Perhaps it would work again.
In a column titled, " For Peace,Cut off the Road to Damascus" the author encouraged the diplomatic talks with Syria but also suggested that the Turks be the ones talking "turkey" to the Syrians. It certainly would work if the Turks were to offer Syria a deal they could not refuse. For more on that here is a link to paste into your browser to read the entire article.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19997743-7583,00.html

Why do we have to worry if Syria would participate when we have not even TRIED? This is the problem with the current idiot in chief. He cannot think outside his box. Yvonne, your point about Condi is so true. We are dealing in an area of the world where women are devalued and have no role in "official" life. Heck, why not send George Bush, Sr. to Damascus. He spent his life building coalitions with countries who today are ignored by his son. If "little Enos" could act more like "Big Enos" we would be in better shape worldwide.

James,

I'd never try to convince you that Rove and the other talking heads are good for America.

And, quite frankly, if Kerry would have explained his 'global test' with as much intelligence as you and Howie G showed in your responses, perhaps we'd be seeing anti-Kerry letters now instead of anti-Bush ones.

Just to clarify, I'm not any happier with the right-wing fringe than that of the left-wingers.

I also agree that Hillary will not be the nomination. However, I disagree that the dems are going to pick some far-left candidate either. Remember Howard Dean? I think the very reason they blew his pep rally 'episode' way out of proportion was so they could avoid him being the nomination. I think the majority of dems were terrified that Dean would be the nomination. I think the media purposefully went after him with the same type of bias that Fox News used when reporting on the 2000 election.

np, I'm pretty much in agreement with everything you said. I didn't mean to imply that the next candidate will be far left, though he/she better say something about environment, jobs, healthcare, etc. It will be someone halfway between H Clinton and Dennis Kucinich. Biden's got a good perspective on the middle east (imho), but he's got too long a record in the senate. Those guys never win. I don't know who will get the nom, I just hope it's not Hillary.

Listen Ditto Dummy no one said we shouldn't try. I said we attempted it once and it didn't work but nowhere did I say that we should not attempt it again. I asked the question, for all to read that can and will, given the ties with Iran would Syria listen? That was to invoke some thought on the situation but evidently that is beyond you and all you can do is deride anyone with the intelligence to offer something to the blog.There is a heap of difference in asking a question and making a statement but you evidently can't comprehend anything that is not suited to your thinking. I believe my thinking outside the box exceeds you ability to even think. It certainly is evidently you are entrapped and in the darkness of some kind of box when it comes to most situations. It appears it has affected your gray matter or stirred the muddy water even muddier. I suggest you read and re-read until you get some comprehension, if that is possible since in the last year you haven't shown any ability to do such and then commment.
Better yet, go back to your failed website and spread your misinformation to those who think as you do. But evidently there were few of those since you closed the site due to lack of interest.

Howie, JDR, Nitpicker etc,

I don't know what bee has gotten in old Mr. Produce's bonnet, but he is losing it. I have never had a blog, never wanted a blog, and will not have a blog--that I know of. Once again, he has made up something and is calling it a "fact".
I'm going to start ignoring him as his name calling just seems to get worse. I think he's housebound, so I'll lay off.

What you so worried about ditto dummy. You sure got your pants in a wad on the other thread wanting to know just who the folks are that know. If it's no big deal why do you let it bother you. Only reason I can think of is you got something to hide. Perhaps it would not be a good thing if it got out about who you really are given your attitude and off the wall rants. Ya reckon? Made up? No not this time ditto, too many involved for me to have made it up and I didn't even instigate it.

Crawl into your "wayback machine" and enter another dimension---you are delusional! LOL!

did that ridiculous LOL sorta squeeze out of a tightened up gut ditto? Folks like you usually start in with the calling folks delusional when you start getting nervous. I find it hilarious! Just got an e-mail from one of those in the know and they are really enjoying you squirming. Have a good weekend ditto!

Mr. Produce:

Look up "Walter Mitty" on your favorite site, Wikipedia. It is a description of you.

I'm laughing out loud at your LACK of backup on your extremely weirder by the day posts!

I am loving your dodging of the issue.

WHERE IS THE PROOF MR. PRODUCE? YOU ACCUSE SOMEONE OF SOMETHING THAT IS NOT TRUE AND PROMISE THAT YOU HAVE PROOF. HERE'S YOUR CHANCE TO SHOW THE WORLD THE GREAT THINGS YOU KNOW THAT NO ONE ELSE KNOWS!!

LOLOLOLOLOL!!