NEVER AGAIN!!!

“Having considered the declaration made by the General Assembly of the United Nations … The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide … is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.”

The quoted text is taken from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (Convention), which the United Nations adopted in 1948. Under President Ronald Reagan, America’s signature was added to the Convention, representing a promise by the American people that we will actively combat any occurrence of genocide wherever it may be found. Throughout the international community, similar promises have been made; throughout the international community, similar promises have been broken.

Sudan

Upon assuming office, President Bush is said to have been extremely interested in the Rwandan genocide that occurred some six years prior. He called on his National Security Council for a detailed analysis of the former Administration's failure to prevent the tragedy. After carefully reviewing the document, President Bush scribbled a promise in the margins: "NOT ON MY WATCH."

The first signs of genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan came in early 2003. At the time, two rebel groups, representing the black Africans of Western Sudan, became active in response to the ongoing neglect they were suffering at the hands of the Arab-dominated government. The Sudanese government responded by arming Arab militias, known as Janjaweed, or "evil men on horseback," so as to quell the uprising. The Janjaweed began terrorizing, raping, and brutally murdering civilians while bombing entire villages. The Sudanese government continues to support these militias.

Today, estimates of the death toll ranges anywhere from 50,000 to 300,000 black villagers; some 1.2 million have been successfully cleansed from the region. Several experts fear that the death toll will eventually surpass that of the Rwandan genocide.

The Language of Genocide

According to Article II of the Convention, genocide is defined as:

"The intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."

The inclusion of "intent" has been the primary source of controversy surrounding the language of the Convention. Many argue that the intent to commit genocide cannot be proven until (long) after the fact. Thus, countries that would normally be obliged to take action are instead given a reason not to.

Some observers of the Darfur tragedy have argued that the actions taken by the Sudanese government do not, in fact, constitute genocide, but rather ethnic cleansing is the real crime that the Sudanese government is committing. Those same experts, however, add a “so what” after making their point, insisting that action must be taken immediately regardless of which crime is being committed.

Nevertheless, new evidence has surfaced that supports the charge of genocide:

"Since the beginning of the year, militias backed by the Sudanese government are crossing over almost daily into neighboring Chad and freely attacking Darfur refugees and Chadian civilians in villages along the lengthy, desolate border." Mercury News

If ethnic cleansing was the goal of the Sudanese government there would be no justification for going beyond their borders to kill refugees. Their actions to the contrary expose their true agenda: kill them all.

America’s Role

By 2004, the concern that surrounded the Darfur tragedy was quickly escalating to fear. Americans were convinced that genocide was taking place; they did not want to see the mistakes of the former Administration repeated.

President Bush assembled a team of experts and sent them to interview 1,136 victims of the violence in Darfur. After careful assessment, the Administration leveled an unequivocal accusation against the Sudanese government, claiming that their actions did, in fact, constitute genocide.

President Bush's bold accusation took America and the international community into unchartered territory. Never before has an active government accused another of engaging in genocide since the UN adopted the Convention in 1948. More importantly, under the rules of the Convention, President Bush's accusation is tantamount to a call for action in both military and diplomatic terms. Unfortunately, the ongoing war in Iraq has been a credible — though insufficient — excuse for the United states not to physically intervene.


The International Community

In accusing the Sudanese government of engaging in genocide, President Bush brought the issue to international attention while placing other signatories to the Convention in a very uncomfortable position. During the Rwandan tragedy, the Clinton Administration actively conspired with their counterparts at the UN to avert responsibility; they decided together that labeling it genocide, which they knew it to be, would be against their collective interests. President Bush, on the other hand, acted alone when he labeled it genocide, unmoved by the interests of other UN members.

Before long, the collective voice of the UN member states — minus America — sang a familiar tune: they denied that the Sudanese government had engaged in genocide. In a single breath, the integrity of the Convention was shattered and the world's willingness to live through yet another Holocaust was confirmed.

On the ashes of the Holocaust the UN was found, and by more ashes will the UN be survived.

The Solution

America has done more for the victims of this ongoing genocide than any other nation in the world, though it is not nearly enough. Indeed, with each passing deadline that the Sudanese government fails to meet, thousands more innocent people are dying. We have a duty to humankind to protect life wherever it is threatened and if no other nation is willing to act, then we must act alone.

The African Union has proven its incompetence in handling this crisis; the AU is not the solution.

The United Nations has proven that the importance of self-interest trumps the importance of human life; the UN is not the solution.

The solution rests in America's devotion to freedom, democracy, and the rights of all people to life and liberty. The time has come for President Bush to inform the Sudanese government that we will no longer stand by while they continue in their genocidal campaign. President Bush must threaten the Sudanese government with the iron fist of America's military forces. We must let the entire world know that America will NEVER AGAIN just stand by. We must bring meaning back to those powerful words. NEVER AGAIN!

Posted by Dr Politico at May 24, 2006 7:07 PM
Comments
Comment #151043

Methinks you doth give Bush too much credit. You make it sound as if he brought the genocide to the world’s attention. Nothing could be further from the truth. The World Press had been making this story global news long before Bush even contemplated sending a research team. It was in fact, the world that brought the matter to Bush’s attention. And Bush ran smack into his opportunity cost for invading Iraq, no resources to do anything else.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 24, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #151081

Methinks you are a dolt David. It doesn’t matter if Bush didn’t report the genocide because he is not a reporter and that is not his job. What is relevant is that Bush was the only leader to publically denounce the government of Sudan even though everyone knew it was genocide. I agree that the Iraq War has prevented Bush from sending in troops to quell the genocide, however he has done more than any other world leader to help the issue out. The Democrats say he hasn’t done his job at keeping America’s promise because he hasn’t stopped the genocide. If he had sent troops in without UN help, however, democrats would jump on his case for issolation America by going into another war without the UN’s approval (see the Iraq War). I think that as we draw troops out of Iraq, whether done by a republican controlled congress or not, Bush will do more to push for American military intervention in the Sudan region. On a different note, Dr Politico, congrats on what i consider one of the best written articles I’ve read on this site.

Posted by: Jewmonger at May 24, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #151099

Yep, denouncing it sure helps when someone is raping you and hacking off your head. Real profile in courage there.

Posted by: gergle at May 24, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #151100

Better than pretending it isn’t happening so you don’t have to feel guilty about not doing anything, especially for countries that aren’t using a tremendous amount of resources fighting a large war already.

Posted by: jewmonger at May 24, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #151104

Never Again, two words for Integrity. Integrity means doing what is right, regardless who is watching or not watching.

You got it right! Never Again!

Posted by: George Van Valkenburg at May 25, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #151107

Funny. It was was Liberal Hollywood who was at the forefront of this. Did I hear any praise coming from the rightwingnuts?

Posted by: Aldous at May 25, 2006 12:47 AM
Comment #151110

I don’t base my opinions on what the politicians that I am most likely to vote for say; I do it based on what I believe should be done from the facts that I have seen. For example, When either Boxer or Pelosi, I can’t remember which is which, started the investigation into a fellow democrat recently, I came onto a site similar to this and said she did a wonderful job. If the liberal Hollywood people brought attention to this, than they deserve a congrats, but that doesn’t take away from the president carrying it one step further. The only thing more stupid than a person who believes everything a republican says without looking at the facts on their own, is a person who believes what a democrat says without looking at the facts.

Posted by: jewmonger at May 25, 2006 1:02 AM
Comment #151111

“Funny. It was was Liberal Hollywood who was at the forefront of this.”

If you’re not joking, then I worry about you, Aldous.

David Remer,

I did not intend to give the impression that before President Bush called it genocide, nobody was the wiser. I meant that by calling it genocide he focused the international agenda, vis-a-vis the UN, on the genocide.

Also, by calling it by its real name, genocide, President Bush put more pressure on the international community to take action than has ever been done in the past.

Nevertheless, I am EXTREMELY dissapointed with the Bush Administration and the American government in general for not yet taking any real (physical) action. No one believes that the UN will resolve this. The UN has long since proven to be impotent when it matters most.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 25, 2006 1:07 AM
Comment #151113

Hmm, denouncing Sudan, backing warlords in where? Oh yeah, Somalia. Can you say Osama II? Didn’t we already do this dance? I wonder if they might shoot down any blackhawks. Curiouser and Curiouser said Curious George.

Posted by: gergle at May 25, 2006 1:12 AM
Comment #151115

I wonder when the UN critics will get it. The UN only has the power to observe, unless backed by a military coalition….like say in… Kosovo. The UN is not a military power…duh!!! It’s intent is to talk, not fight. That why they call them security and observers. There isn’t a U.N. Army. Sending five guys with AR-15’s against a military power is well… kind of stupid. Thanks for all the brilliant armchair generals here. These kind of statements just make me wonder what orifice your head is up.

Posted by: gergle at May 25, 2006 1:25 AM
Comment #151116


50,000 to 300,000 dead. Several experts fear that the death toll will eventually surpass that of the Rwandan genocide.

What exactly does “NOT ON MY WATCH” mean.

I’m not going to be like Clinton. I am going to accuse the Sudanese government of genocide. That will stop the rapes and murders.

Isn’t it wonderful to have a president that is so magnanimous.

Posted by: jlw at May 25, 2006 1:31 AM
Comment #151117

gergle,

The UN, like you sort of say, is dependent on its member states for all actions, military and otherwise. When I critique the UN, I am speaking of its failure to reach consensus on even the simplest of issues. Here’s an example: genocide in Darfur. Now, consider China and Russia’s veto power and perhaps you’ll understand why consensus cannot be reached. Not getting it? China has over $11 billion dollars invested in Sudan’s oil industry thanks to its good relations with the Sudanese government. Russia…is this even necessary?

The UN is a collection of countries with widely diverse interests and none of which relate to the “greater good.” Ironically, the UN was founded on the idea of promoting the “greater good.” Are you getting it?

UN sympathizers like yourself need to examine your own orifices, though I don’t know how that would help.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 25, 2006 1:39 AM
Comment #151119

BTW gergle,

Clinton went around the UN on the Kosovo issue because he too realized that consensus could not be reached. Again, it was Russia that would have blocked action.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 25, 2006 1:41 AM
Comment #151120

Gergle is right about the role of the UN. If the peacekeepers were meant to be more than a roadblock for unruly natives, they wouldn’t wear those white gloves (like the Japanese military in the Godzilla movies). It would only be truth in advertising to put all the peacekeepers in red shirts so that they could cleverly indicate trouble spots by dying quick or being taken hostage.

The US can only help the UN so much because we won’t have our troops led by those boobs. Also, the other peacekeepers VietNam era battle gear and weaponry is incompatible with equipment that doesn’t use a card punch for programming. The divided loyalyties and sticky fingers that characterize the UN prevent providing funds or upgrading the equipment.

So we are left with:
Help! Godzirra’s coming!!!!

But rest assured that the UN will be certain to write a very firm letter outlining how they are very upset with anyone involved in slaughtering, capturing or frightening away the peacekeepers.

And because the UN is a toothless tiger is the exact reason why the US and Britain are the most active military powers today. Other nations either lack the military capacity to aid the situation or the benefisance to donate other capital - their sister is having an operation and the light bill is due. But if we go into a situation risking our soldiers and spending our money, we have a right to demand that the goal is more than a temporary pacification of the bad guys and this is where the US gets kicked in the nuts by the coalition of the unwilling that composes the bulk of UN membership.

No sooner than we pursue definitive victories than we are accused being the unfair bullies who just want to be the Worlds Police. The UN loves the status quo as long as the body count of innocents isn’t too noticeable.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 25, 2006 1:56 AM
Comment #151122

Sorry. Forgot my soapbox.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 25, 2006 2:00 AM
Comment #151143

Goodkingned, May I borrow your soapbox? Dr. Politico wants me to examine my orifices and I cannot reach them. Some Dr. I was expecting him to examine mine while he was at it, and because he hung out his shingle.

The problem with the perception of the UN as savior to the world ignores it’s basic history and foundation. WWI was caused by basic miscommunication and miscalculation, at least, in part. WWIIs situation, while probably notlikely to have been helped by the UN, would have possibly allowed Europe, the Soviets and the US to unify much more quickly.

It’s not ideal, but neither is the world. I defy calling myself an apologist for the UN. I just don’t have idealistic, unrealistic expectations of it.

The real problem in Darfur is that it is in the throws of civil war. There are fighting rebel factions that would continue even if you resolved the Janjeweeds problem. Which faction are you going to back?

Posted by: gergle at May 25, 2006 5:20 AM
Comment #151144

Editor’s note: see the future of Iraq

Posted by: gergle at May 25, 2006 5:22 AM
Comment #151154

gergle:

The UN only has the power to observe, unless backed by a military coalition….like say in… Kosovo. The UN is not a military power…duh!!! It’s intent is to talk, not fight.

I’d suggest that you’ve hit the UN’s problems squarely on the head. Hammer, meet nail. Their intent is to talk, but they don’t reach consensus, so all the talk is just that….talk. Until they are able to walk the walk, they will not achieve success in their efforts. They are doing much more these days, but accomplishing less.

You mention Kosovo—-even there, the UN failed to the point that Clinton went around the UN to NATO in order to actually do something other than talk the issue to death. While diplomats sit in cushioned chairs in air-conditioned halls, people in Kosovo, or Rwanda or Darfur, are dying.

If the UN is incapable of more than just talk, then they risk being irrelevant. Until they can bring about consensus that leads to action from the member nations, they achieve nothing.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 25, 2006 7:38 AM
Comment #151159

Simple. How about starting by protecting refugees in Chad? Civil war gives you no rights to invade someone elses borders to commit genocide. Why must every discussion become lib vs con? dem vs gop? Of course this is the republican/conservative blog. If you disagree with everything here go to the liberal blog. Or are you here just to argue? This is not the UN.

“The real problem in Darfur is that it is in the throws of civil war.”

I am sure Hitler would have said something similar about Germany. Ya know the Nazis were killing millions of Jews because of a civil war. They were only killing the “evil” Jews in territories they controlled.

It is apparent any article posted here will be contested by most dem, not based on merit but based I hate rep and conserv. You are so quick to bash Bush, but tell me something. Ronald Reagan was such a lousy president, after eight years of his crap we elected his vice-president into office. Billy was such a great president that after eight years of his supreme leadership we elected his vice, no wait we didn’t. When was the last time the dems controlled congress?

Is Bush prefect? No. Is he the devil, for those of you who believe in the devil? Not even close. Did he speak out in a politically correct world where no government says anything bad about another govenment? Yes, he did. If he sent troops to the Sudan tomorrrow, would he be bashed by you? Yes, he would, just as you bash him for doing nothing. So tell me, which way do you want it? I already know. We need to form a committee and talk about it for years and do nothing, just like the UN.

Posted by: lllplus2 at May 25, 2006 9:02 AM
Comment #151161

The left wants “world consensus” until the issue is one they feel deeply about, then it’s the fault of the Bush administration for not acting unilaterally. Rwanda was ignored by Clinton, he later lamented he wished he had done something, now thats leadership! When world politics and politicos’ demand that the Cowboy Bush not be a bully while at the same time calling him a moral coward for not championing their cause what are we to make of it? Libs send in the troops to act as meals on wheels, (see Somalia), giving strict orders to not shoot at the enemy while he murders innocent civilians - only shoot back if they shoot at you - while at the same time working to slowly dismantle the military to save precious dollars for “social programs”. As the miltary is dismantled, enemies become emboldened and the cycle of violence begins again. You lefties hate Bush because he doesn’t bow down to your socialist worldview, then you cry out for help, pleading for the very object of your hatred to do something, anything for your cause of the day. What pray tell would your poster boy John Kerry have done? NOTHING! He hates the miltary as much as you all do, but, that would be OK, he’s one of you. Your whining is both morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest. As you’re led around in circles by your moral relativism, hating this - loving that - as circumstances and events of the day change your mind, (todays statements are “operable truths” vs yesterdays), the UN fails. Why? If you leave the protection of the innocent to a handful of thug dictators who look down on the poor of the world with disdain, just another mouth to feed, another loss of their personal wealth, you have your beloved UN and genocide. Bush is too fast to act, Bush is to slow to act, Bush hates minorities, Bush isn’t,doesn’t,won’t,didn’t,did,could,should,would,hasn’t,will - what is it you want?

Posted by: JR at May 25, 2006 9:28 AM
Comment #151177

If the Mexican military and citizens can invade the USA then why can’t Sudanese military personnel invade Chad? No difference. Protesters from Mexico on US soil carrying banners saying they are here to reconquer.

Posted by: tomh at May 25, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #151180

Joebagodonuts,

Granted, the UN frequently is irrelevent. It’s not unlike how the police are often irrelevent when someone has a gun to your head. My only point was the mythical belief that somehow world order is the role of the UN.

lllplus2 and JR,

I want Americans to defend this country, not be political pawns. Kosovo was not entered until stability in eastern europe seemed at risk. The troops in Greece and Macedonia were a trigger point.

Bush wont get involved in the region directly, just like Clinton didn’t in Rwanda because it isn’t in our strategic interest. This is classic conservatism and historical US policy.
We can all argue the merits of stopping genocide, but it isn’t in interest of the US to get involved in every tragic conflict. It is politically expedient to rant about it, whether to drum someone up as a hero or to codemn them as cruel and uncaring.

I worry most when we begin involving the CIA in disputes with unclear outcomes and blowback that results in severe economic consequences and often military involvement. Sudan/Darfur/Chad and Somalia are two such places. While Iraq showed at least potential for reasonable strategic interest for the US, the planning and execution seem to have been rather incompetent. There are long range consequences to all this. It seems to me perhaps our best mid-east policy might be to ween ourselves from oil altogether. Let the Chinese and Indians fight it out there. Then use the money we save and they spend to defend ourselves economically from these to upcoming giants.

Posted by: gergle at May 25, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #151181

JR,

“When world politics and politicos…”

I take offense to that :)

gergle,

you’re correct about the Civil War but only insofar as it makes it less likely for outside governments to act on the genocide. These are two distinct conflicts, genocide in the West, Darfur region and Civil War in the South which has been waging for years. The international community enjoyed a hollow victory recently by reaching agreements between the two sides of the civil war. As a result, they didn’t want to condemn the government based on their genocidal campaign, as this might undermine the agreements.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 25, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #151226

Doc,

If the world community can’t/won’t act to stop “world” problems like this, it cannot expect America to solve them either.

JR,

Somalia was dumped into Clinton’s lap by George1. The dismantling of the military was initiated by Cheney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#Budgetary_practices

“Over Cheney’s four years as secretary of defense, encompassing budgets for fiscal years 1990-93, Do D’s total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291.3 billion to $269.9 billion. Except for FY 1991, when the TOA budget increased by 1.7 percent, the Cheney budgets showed negative real growth: -2.9 percent in 1990, -9.8 percent in 1992, and -8.1 percent in 1993. During this same period total military personnel declined by 19.4 percent, from 2.202 million in FY 1989 to 1.776 million in FY 1993. The Army took the largest cut, from 770,000 to 572,000-25.8 percent of its strength. The Air Force declined by 22.3 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 9.7 percent.”

The “world’s” reaction to Rwanda was despicable. Clinton called it “The greatest failure of his Presidency”.

Posted by: Rocky at May 25, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #151228
You mention Kosovo—-even there, the UN failed to the point that Clinton went around the UN to NATO in order to actually do something other than talk the issue to death.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Clinton went as part of a permanent regional alliance. The UN — and Russia — granted the action legitimacy after the fact.

If President Bush were half the President Clinton was, he’d occupy Sudan under cover of the African Union and stop the genocide. That’s what the UN is waiting for. It’s a bitch being the world’s only superpower, ain’t it.

BTW, how many of you guys have written your representatives and demanded that we put boots on the ground in Sudan? Very few, I suspect, since all the Congresspeople I’ve heard interviewed say Sudan isn’t even on their radar screens.

It’s easy to bitch and moan and blame others. Why don’t you guys start writing letters, emails, and op-eds?

Posted by: American Pundit at May 25, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #151229

“If the world community can’t/won’t act to stop “world” problems like this, it cannot expect America to solve them either.”

First, the world community can stop this tragedy, but they won’t.

Second, I’m not saying that they expect America to solve it; I expect us to stop it, as should every American.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 25, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #151243

Doc,

“Second, I’m not saying that they expect America to solve it; I expect us to stop it, as should every American.”

We can’t even get an agreement on why we are in Iraq.

Rush Limbaugh actively campaigned against us going to Rwanda because it wasn’t in America’s strategic interests.
Some how I don’t think you’re going to change the 25 million “ditto head’s” collective mind about that when it concerns Darfur.


JR,

Concerning your “physic” powers on what Kerry would or wouldn’t have done, could you let me in on who will win the NBA Finals?

Posted by: Rocky at May 25, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #151249

Rocky,

I agree with you 100%.

“Some how I don’t think you’re going to change the 25 million “ditto head’s” collective mind about that when it concerns Darfur.”

Perhaps that is the real tragedy. Then again, who cares? They’re just Africans.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 25, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #151257

Doc,

Maybe Limbaugh thinks the “private sector” could handle the job better.

Posted by: Rocky at May 25, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #151259

The UN needs to go the way of the league of nations. It has brought the same amount of relevance that the league did. That is none. I am sadden that the US has not done more. I am pleased that we seem to be the only country to officially recognize it for what it is. This is a step in the right direction albeit small. I think with the way things are going in the world we should implement the draft. This way we are able to handle matters like this and Iran if need be. We could make it a minimal draft using a lottery system (to be fair).

I am conservative but as I have stated elsewhere on this site I believe that in order for us to stay a healthy and free nation we need to expand freedom where ever we are able to do so. I also think we need to do the Teddy thing. Speak softly and carry a big stick. We can not allow the spread of radical islam nor can we allow genocide. We seem to be the only country with the ability to even publically see it and I am sure we are the only country with the brass to do anything about it I sincerely hope we do.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 25, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #151260


America will solve the problem (as usual), it will come at the expense of (our own) Americans and the corrupt countries in the UN complainning that “We caused it” on a 24/7 bases; yet, what else is new?!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 25, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #151274

Rocky,
Kerry told us when or after he voted for the war/before he voted against it that it was his plan to get the troops home, (I read it as abandon), no psychic powers needed when they tell you ahead of time. I am always amazed at the power the left assigns to Dick Cheney, I guess his gravitas makes him responsible for everything. Am I crazy or is there a congressional committee that oversees the military budget? What party was the majority at the time of Somolia? Dems! Dems who don’t let the military be the military - just let them serve meals when the warlords let them. Sorry, Dems on the hill demanded response in Somolia, Bush 1 goes in under the restrictions placed on him by the “world community” Clinton takes over and retreats at the first sign of a shooting war. Kosovo was OK for Bill, why? was it because he was saving white eastern europeans instead of africans? The Democratic platform was and is a smaller military, bigger social programs - until there appears on the horizon a crisis that only the military can overcome, then the cries of “where were you?” fly fast and furious. Like I stated before, what is it you want?

Posted by: JR at May 25, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #151276

JR,

“Kosovo was OK for Bill, why? was it because he was saving white eastern europeans instead of africans?”

Wasn’t WW1 started in the Balkans?

Posted by: Rocky at May 25, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #151306

JR,
“Kosovo was OK for Bill, why? was it because he was saving white eastern europeans instead of africans?”

No. Willy did it to stand up for the muslims; he would never take them on, so he joined them. That’s why he was ok with dropping bombs on the Christians.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 25, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #151311

I think Clinton was waging a distraction campaign in Kosovo to avert eyes from his embarrassing domestic scandals.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 25, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #151336

goodkingned, Memories pressed between the pages of my mind,memories sweetened thru the ages just like wine, memories, memories sweet memories.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 25, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #151423

I wonder why Clinton was more popular than the greatest president is.

Posted by: jlw at May 25, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #151457

Was Lincoln popular?

Posted by: gergle at May 26, 2006 12:22 AM
Comment #151460

Mind you, I’m not comparing Lincoln with GW…at all.

Posted by: gergle at May 26, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #151471

Who didn’t like Ike?

Posted by: goodkingned at May 26, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #151792

Checkers.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 26, 2006 9:22 PM
Post a comment