President Obama advocated for a Bush/Chaney war crimes trial?

Well fuck me backwards, i missed that one. Hmm, figured there would have been more of an uproar. Silly me.


[Edited on September 1, 2010 at 9:25 PM. Reason : .]

9/1/2010 9:21:39 PM

yeah i also seemed to have missed Obama Administration doing that.

but of course, along with being a "secret Muslim", Obama is also a "secret warcrimes prosecutor"

that, and every single thing ever uttered by each and every democratic shill ever to get 10 seconds on-air is part and parcel of the collective Obama Administration platform.



i sure wish i could participate in this constant conservative circle jerk. it looks so gratifying.

9/2/2010 7:01:24 PM

^^ and ^ That's because you don't know what the hell's going on and you never have.

Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" potential of crimes in Bush White House
April 28, 2008

Quote :

"I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated."

Quote :

"So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies."

--Barack Obama

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html

Obama May Be Required to Prosecute Bush Officials for War Crimes
Jan. 19, 2009

Quote :

"The consensus seems to be growing that, despite his oft-repeated desire to 'look forward rather than backward' when it comes to the Bush administration's authorization of the use of torture on detainees in American custody, President-elect Barack Obama is going to have to open some sort of official investigation of Bush-era war crimes once he takes office."

http://washingtonindependent.com/26162/obama-may-be-required-to-prosecute-bush-officials-for-war-crimes

And Obama and Holder left the possibility--spurred on by far-left loons--that Bush and Cheney would be investigated hanging out there for months. Basically, it was until about the time the CIA interrogators were cleared (I think this was sometime around April of 2009).

Leahy: Investigate Bush Now
February 9, 2009

Quote :

"The Senator [Leahy] also stated that Attorney General Eric Holder never gave assurances to Republican Senators that he would not prosecute Bush administration officials who may have been involved in illegalities such as authorizing torture or warrantless wiretapping."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/09/leahy-investigate-bush-no_n_165227.html

And if you just dismiss this, then I'll know that you're not interested in an honest discussion of the facts at all.

9/3/2010 3:52:53 AM

Oh, so candidate Obama would have supported investigating potential crimes if his AG decided it was prudent.

Got it.

Also, the other shit has nothing to do with President Obama advocating for war crimes trials. Better luck next time.

9/3/2010 11:05:42 AM

i think the point was that as president he hasn't said anything like this or acted on anything like this. It's an important distinction too because the claim was that presidents don't talk bad about former presidents and we can all acknowledge that presidential candidates almost always talk bad about presidents.

9/3/2010 11:06:21 AM

^exactly right.

But, as we all know, we can't expect hooksaw to take note of that distinction, or even acknowledge President Obama's own actions are statements regarding the matter.

9/3/2010 11:09:01 AM

There is certainly honor among thieves.

9/3/2010 11:24:56 AM

It appears as though hooksaw failed to comprehend what he read. Again. And in doing so is arguing against a reality he constructed for himself that is divorced from the one the rest of us enjoy.

9/3/2010 12:08:20 PM

hi, hooksaw.

let's look at your "examples", shall we?


April 28, 2008 -- Senator Obama made the vague statement that if crimes were committed they should be investigated. And still, even as a Senator campaigning against a highly unpopular incumbent President, he makes sure to leave wide latitude that could conclude how alleged crimes might merely be "bad policies".


Jan. 19, 2009 -- the "Washington Insider" (who?) claimed a "growing consensus" (who?) that wanted then-President-Elect Obama to investigate Bush-Cheney's decision to torture people. All this despite Obama's "oft-repeated" insistence that he was not interested in digging up past events. And said position of Obama, which you conveniently forget or ignore, pissed a lot of people off at the time who wanted Bush, Cheney, et. al. to pay for what they perceived as crimes against humanity.

And so the so-called "growing consensus" could want in one hand and shit in the other, for all Obama apparently cared.


February 9, 2009 -- Senator Leahy makes a statement about something or other. In other news, some partisans on the interwebs attempt to make it appear as if Senator Leahy is the mouthpiece for the newly-inaugurated President Obama.



i mean, come on dude... are you really so bad at this? I understand from PSY 101 that 'concrete thinking' is superseded by an ability to think abstractly and generalize by the time children become teenagers. Certainly this can not still be an issue for you, so i must conclude that you are willfully attempting to divert and deceive. All for what purpose, i can only imagine.




[Edited on September 3, 2010 at 2:22 PM. Reason : ]

9/3/2010 2:17:17 PM

^ Obama wanted to have it both ways--as usual. Many of his constituents--probably including you and some of your cohorts here--wanted to see Bush and Cheney prosecuted for "war crimes." Obama left the possibility of an investigation that many thought would include Bush and Cheney hanging out there for months--if there had been a stomach for such an investigation in the country, Obama would've done it.

If some of you don't remember this, either you have a very short memory or you're simply revising history. Either way, you ignore the reality of events as they actually transpired.

9/3/2010 3:33:35 PM

No, we remember it all quite well as joe_schmoe has just articulated for us, its just that we aren't choosing like you are to craft an alternate reality so as to make our point valid.

9/3/2010 3:43:20 PM

^ Opinions vary, Chance.

9/3/2010 3:45:17 PM

Quote :

"Obama wanted to have it both ways ... Obama left the possibility of an investigation ... hanging out there for months"

Obama did nothing to fuel the desire or hope for an investigation of war crimes, this started the day Bush opened Guantanamo to avoid Geneva Conventions and bloomed into a fully fleshed out movement long before Obama had the Democratic nod in 2008.

Obama never once committed to instigating or even supporting such a plan, and did in fact always speak of leaving the past behind. still many people remained hopeful that the overwhelming evidence would force such an investigation in the future, despite the fact that Obama's very words precluded his involvment.

the reality is that such an investigation would and could only be instigated by Congress. if anyone failed the people who wanted such an investigation, it was the Democratic-controlled congress.

Quote :

"if there had been a stomach for such an investigation in the country, Obama would've done it."

oh, bullshit. this doesn't even make sense. quit being so disingenuous. there was "a stomach" for an investigation by a huge number of people. But there was no stomach for it in congress. Obama, true to his word, made no effort to become involved in digging up the past to build any sort of case against his predecessor.

if anything, Obama has proved to be much more of Centrist than many of his supporters (or opponents) ever imagined him to be. He's gone out of his way to placate the conservatives by including them on a variety of policy initiatives.

This is in my opinion his fatal flaw. the conservatives are never going acknowledge his bipartisan efforts, are never going to accept his overtures in good faith, and he's only going to continue to lose enthusiasm from the left-progressives and squelch their morale.

Here for two years now Obama has had a Dem majority in all houses, yet squandered what was considered a "mandate from heaven" by the republicans when GWB had the same thing. All in a futile attempt at bipartisanship. at this rate Obama is consigning himself to a one-term presidency of the same historical stature as Jimmy Carter.






[Edited on September 3, 2010 at 4:16 PM. Reason : ]

9/3/2010 4:10:31 PM

Wow. Must've struck another nerve by the looks of that diatribe.

Let's see, where to begin. . . .

Quote :

"Obama did nothing to fuel the desire or hope for an investigation of war crimes. . . ."

Except leave the possibility of an investigation of Bush and Cheney hanging out there for months--just as I indicated.

Quote :

"Obama never once committed to instigating or even supporting such a plan, and did in fact always speak of leaving the past behind."

Obama never completely ruled it out either, now did he?

Quote :

"[S]till many people remained hopeful that the overwhelming evidence would force such an investigation in the future. . . ."

Including you, right? The "tolerant" guy who posted here that someone should put a bullet in Bush's head.

Quote :

"[T]he reality is that such an investigation would and could only be instigated by Congress."

Actually, that's incorrect. A special counsel could have been appointed by the attorney general--the United States Office of Special Counsel is tasked to do this very thing: investigate the executive branch.

Congress, of course, could have conducted such an investigation. The Democrats had control--why didn't they? Let me guess: mean old Republicans again?

Quote :

"[T]here was 'a stomach' for an investigation by a huge number of people. But there was no stomach for it in congress."

Congress, in theory, at least, is a representative body. Why didn't they have the stomach for it? And the "huge number of people" you referred to that wanted a nation-dividing investigation of Bush and Cheney was dwarfed by an even larger number of people that didn't want it--and Obama knew this much, at least.

Quote :

"[I]f anything, Obama has proved to be much more of Centrist than many of his supporters (or opponents) ever imagined him to be."

Yeah, Obama's not as much of a leftist as the far-left loons wanted him to be--but that's not where most of the damned country is! Obama's "opponents" aren't surprised that he's a leftist, but they sure as hell know he's no centrist. If anything, the upcoming midterm elections will actually moderate Obama--just like they did Clinton. Some say it was the best thing that ever happened to Clinton and it allowed him to be re-elected.

Quote :

"He's gone out of his way to placate the conservatives by including them on a variety of policy initiatives."

This is farcical--you mean, when he's not lecturing or blaming conservatives for everything, including goddamned gingivitis? Obama has "gone out of his way" to appear to cooperate with conservatives, but he has really done nothing of the sort--and he's pleased almost nobody on either side or the middle in the process.

Quote :

"This is in my opinion his fatal flaw. the conservatives are never going acknowledge his bipartisan efforts, are never going to accept his overtures in good faith. . . ."

You mean, the way Democrats acknowledged Bush's "bipartisan efforts" and "overtures in good faith"? What a joke--and don't give me any of that "We supported Bush in the early days" nonsense. That's largely liberal myth.

Quote :

"[A]nd he's only going to continue to lose enthusiasm from the left-progressives and squelch their morale."

Robert Gibbs actually had it right. Some of those loons wouldn't be happy if Dennis Kucinich were president--their Utopian collective pipe dreams know no bounds. For the most part, the liberals' vision never was going to happen anyway.

Quote :

"Here for two years now Obama has had a Dem majority in all houses, yet squandered [it]. . . ."

If by "squandered" you mean he didn't accomplish his leftist vision, then, yeah. Obama's done quite a bit of damage, though.

Quote :

"[A]t this rate Obama is consigning himself to a one-term presidency of the same historical stature as Jimmy Carter."

On this, we agree.

9/4/2010 2:43:57 AM

Tony Blair defends Iraq invasion and praises Bush's 'simplicity'
Sept. 5, 2010

Quote :

"Blair also praised the former U.S. administration. He said George W. Bush possessed a 'simplicity' that enabled decisive leadership. 'A decision like the surge in Iraq, you know, I can't think of many people who would have had the courage to take that decision in the way that he did.'"

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/117265-tony-blair-defends-iraq-invasion

[Edited on September 6, 2010 at 1:20 AM. Reason : BLAIR = BUSH'S LAPDOG, AMIRITE?! RAWR!!!1]

9/6/2010 1:18:32 AM

Blair still supports Bush on Iraq.

Well.

That was entirely unexpected.

I'm just at a loss for words.

9/6/2010 1:57:25 AM

LAPDOG!!!1

[Edited on September 6, 2010 at 2:02 AM. Reason : And it was more that Blair was praising Bush's decision-making ability.]

9/6/2010 2:01:13 AM

I'd bank a lot less on it being at all his decision-making ability, and more on the feeling I get that Bush was just more of one to opt to not think things through too far.

Simplicity is definitely closer, I'd say. I'm not sure there was any real ability to do much of anything.

Here's where I tell you politico extremists that I also don't agree with much of anything Obama's done thus far, either.

OMG WHAT AM I SAYING DID I JUST SLAM BUSH AND OBAMA?!?!?

9/6/2010 2:08:29 AM

no, no... i understand ... it's breaking news: Tony Blair praises George W. Bush.

and while i may appear underwhelmed, please understand that i'm really jumping up and down and turning somersaults.

9/6/2010 2:10:42 AM

Quote :

" PRAISES BUSH'S 'SIMPLICITY' "

9/6/2010 2:18:44 AM

^^^ You're so uber alles, WJ.

^^ Your sarcasm is noted. I think you're aware that I disagreed with Bush about a number of things, but I don't care what anybody says, he was never the evil dumbass that many made him out to be.

[Edited on September 6, 2010 at 2:24 AM. Reason : History will favor Bush much more than the present day.]

9/6/2010 2:22:59 AM

HOW'S SEX AFTER 50?

11/9/2010 8:04:26 AM

Delusion Points

Quote :

"In anticipation of tomorrow's release of Bush's memoir, Decision Points, this line of thinking is reinforcing one of the Beltway press corps' favorite rituals: the "was he really that bad?" nostalgia for a president that the same reporters and analysts were happily pummeling only two years ago. Don't believe a word of it. George W. Bush's presidency really was that bad -- and the fact that Obama has largely followed the same course is less a measure of Bush's wisdom than a reminder of the depth of the hole he dug his country into, as well as the institutionalized groupthink that dominates the U.S. foreign-policy establishment. Decision Points has 14 chapters, each one pivoting around a key decision that Bush made in his adult life. So, in honor of America's newly published ex-president, here's my own list of 14 decisions that Bush made"

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/08/delusion_points?page=full

Quote :

"8. Iraq. The Iraq war was a screw-up of such colossal magnitude that it's easy to forget how many discrete screw-ups went into the making of it. There were the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and the nonexistent links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. There's the humiliating spectacle of Secretary of State Colin Powell presenting hours of bogus testimony to the U.N. Security Council. There was Paul Wolfowitz's bizarre claim that the war would pay for itself, when the real price tag is now in excess of $1 trillion. And let us not forget the 4,000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, more than 30,000 American soldiers wounded, and several million Iraqi refugees forced to flee their homes. A strategy that was supposed to bring U.S.-friendly democracy to the Middle East instead produced an empowered Iran and a more fragile balance of power in the region. The only thing more astonishing than the scope of these blunders is the fact that the former president does not regret his decision, even now."

A-fucking-men


Most of these are on point, though I vehemently disagree that 14 can be blamed on GWB. The blame for the economy can be spread thick and deep. He takes his fair share of the blame, but really isn't even near the center of gravity for that crisis.

11/9/2010 10:27:42 AM

I just wanted to add

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20101109/ts_dailybeast/10876_thestrangebushfetussecretbarbarabushshowsgeorgewbushtheresultsofhermiscarriageinajar_1

Quote :

"Undoubtedly the most startling moment in Matt Lauer's conversation with George W. Bush came in the first five minutes of the interview, when Bush recounted his mother's miscarriage—and how she had showed him the fetus in a jar. "She says to her teenage kid, 'Here's a fetus,'" Bush recounted to Lauer, referring to himself in the third person. "There's no question that it affected me," Bush added. "

because it is the damned wierdest thing I have read in a while.

11/9/2010 10:46:52 AM

How is that weird?

11/9/2010 12:36:39 PM

11/9/2010 12:54:23 PM

^^I might be way off, but showing your teenage son the fetus you just miscarried IN A JAR is wierd in my book.

11/9/2010 1:06:40 PM

^wierd? Its fucking sick.

11/9/2010 4:12:05 PM

hahaha what in the fuck?

11/9/2010 4:49:37 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/18/political.circus/index.html

Quote :

"USA Today reports that the infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner which found its way onto the USS Lincoln during former President George W. Bush's speech on the war in Iraq, has found a home: At Bush's presidential library. Alan Lowe, the director of the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum, told the paper that the banner "now sits in storage and will become part of the library's collection." A decision on how or whether to display the red-white-and-blue banner hasn't been made, said Lowe."

11/18/2010 3:22:28 PM

From the Sal Guinta thread: (http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=605080

Quote :

"The fact is, it was a policy of the Bush administration. Rumsfeld as SECDEF wanted to downplay the violence of the GWOT and suppressed high level medals."

JCASHFAN

Quote :

"Oh lawd. The number of awards of the MOA have steadily gone down from World War II to its current level of roughly 1 award for every 1,000,000 service members. There is certainly a case to be made for more MOAs to be given, but the fact remains that it's an incredibly high hurdle to get an act considered for one. . . . In short, I think the talk of the conspiracy theory stuff is utter bullshit, go beat off to Mel Gibson's movie for a little while and take those ideas with you."

BoondockSt


Just for the record, I'm not the only one who thinks this:

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/03/military_medal_of_honor_032509w/

Quote :

"Although numbers don’t tell the whole story, America’s 20th-century wars produced highly consistent rates of Medal of Honor heroism. From World War I through Vietnam, the rate of Medal of Honor recipients per 100,000 service members stayed between 2.3 (Korea) and 2.9 (World War II). But since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, only five Medals of Honor have been awarded, a rate of 0.1 per 100,000 — one in a million. A similar disparity occurs on the second tier of valor awards: Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross and Air Force Cross. Throughout the 20th century, the rate of service cross recipients per 100,000 troops ranged from a low of 19 in Korea to a high of 167 in World War I. But for the post-9/11 wars, it’s only one per 100,000. Why? A politicized process? “All of us are a little concerned about the fact that people aren’t being recognized,” said Army Reserve Col. Jay Duquette, who recently retired as deputy director of operations at Headquarters, 9th Regional Support Command, Fort Shafter, Hawaii. “There’s a perception that somehow the political process has at the Defense Department or wherever created some sort of limitation on higher-level decorations,” Duquette said. “I don’t know if that is true. But that is a perception that exists among the lower-level officer corps.” Former Marine Joseph Kinney, a Vietnam veteran who has advocated for greater recognition of heroism in combat, is convinced that’s true. The military awards system, he said, is “broken.” Kinney testified before the House Armed Services Committee in 2006, urging the Pentagon to be more consistent in applying award criteria and to speed the review process for Medal of Honor nominees. In an interview, Kinney noted how much longer award reviews took in the George W. Bush years versus the Clinton administration. It took just 6½ months for the Clinton administration to posthumously award Medals of Honor to Army Master Sgt. Gary Gordon and Army Sgt. 1st Class Randall Shughart for heroic action in Somalia on Oct. 3, 1993. By contrast, during the Bush years, the speediest Medal of Honor approval took 18 months. One took as long as three years. “The system has failed because of this inordinate fear that somebody is going to get the Medal of Honor [and] be an embarrassment,” Kinney said. “They decided that the Medal of Honor should go not only to people who are brave, but pure.” After Sgt. Rafael Peralta was denied the Medal of Honor in 2008 — a case that drew heavy scrutiny, including use of forensic evidence — questions were raised about whether Peralta’s onetime status as an illegal immigrant played a part in the decision."

My personal opinion is that Donald Rumsfeld is one of the worst SECDEFs of all time, if not the worst and if he ran a corporation as poorly as he ran DoD he'd probably be liable for criminal negligence. The fact is, from the get go, the GWB administration wanted to downplay the severity of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan because they didn't know how to deal with a narriative that was getting beyond their control. The Iraq and Afghanistan campaign ribbons were resisted for no other reason than the political impression that there was not one unified war effort (and in fact, there never was). This isn't speculation, this was covered extensively in the Military Times family of newspapers (which isn't exactly a bastion of liberal thought).

a few numbers from the article:

Quote :

"From World War I through Vietnam, the rate of Medal of Honor recipients per 100,000 service members stayed between 2.3 (Korea) and 2.9 (World War II). But since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, only five Medals of Honor have been awarded, a rate of 0.1 per 100,000 — one in a million. A similar disparity occurs on the second tier of valor awards: Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross and Air Force Cross. Throughout the 20th century, the rate of service cross recipients per 100,000 troops ranged from a low of 19 in Korea to a high of 167 in World War I."

Furthermore, the disparity between casualty rates, specifically KIA rates has been examined: http://www.slate.com/id/2111432/ and there is no evidence that Iraq or Afghanistan are significantly less violent than their predecessors. The exponential improvement in medical care has aided significantly in the survival rates of veterans but I don't know that this means their level of bravery is any less. If anything, we should have more living recipients of the Medal of Honor instead of less.

11/19/2010 12:02:38 PM

Because I simply believe that pressure should never be let up on this man:

Quote :

"Dan Froomkin in the Huffington Post provides one of the better descriptions of how former President George W. Bush has been propagating a big lie regarding the war in Iraq that his administration initiated over seven years ago. The lie in question does not concern specific evidence used to justify the war, or even spurious assertions that were part of the selling of the war, such as about a supposed alliance between a regime and a terrorist group. Misrepresentation in the sales campaign involved outright falsehoods less than it entailed rhetorical artifices that got Americans to make just enough of a perceptual leap to believe what the administration wanted them to believe. The lie instead is Bush's contention—which he continues to make, most recently in his memoir—that the launching of the war was the product of a long and careful deliberation which considered all the relevant evidence and all the available alternatives to an invasion."

http://nationalinterest.org/node/4473

11/24/2010 8:24:33 AM

bump

11/29/2010 11:59:42 AM

A war criminal.

5/5/2011 7:11:18 PM

With Bin Laden's death and Bush still keeping quiet, the pressure may be off him.

5/5/2011 7:26:38 PM

saw these two stories about Bush today

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/24/cnn-poll-how-will-history-remember-george-w-bush/?hpt=hp_t3

Quote :

"Fifty-five percent of those questioned say Bush's presidency was a failure, down 13 percentage points since a CNN poll conducted in January, 2009, during his final days in office. Forty-two percent now say Bush's presidency was a success, up 11 points from when he left the White House."

http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

Quote :

"You are quite an intelligent group. Don’t take it personally, but President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you. Were he a student here today, he would consistently get “HP” (High Pass) grades without having to work hard, and he’d get an “H” (High, the top grade) in any class where he wanted to put in the effort. For more than six years it was my job to help educate President Bush about complex economic policy issues and to get decisions from him on impossibly hard policy choices. In meetings and in the briefing materials we gave him in advance we covered issues in far more depth than I have been discussing with you this quarter because we needed to do so for him to make decisions. President Bush is extremely smart by any traditional standard. He’s highly analytical and was incredibly quick to be able to discern the core question he needed to answer. It was occasionally a little embarrassing when he would jump ahead of one of his Cabinet secretaries in a policy discussion and the advisor would struggle to catch up. He would sometimes force us to accelerate through policy presentations because he so quickly grasped what we were presenting."

i have yet to form an opinion about the second article, so i merely present it for your consideration regardless i guess

[Edited on April 24, 2013 at 9:40 PM. Reason : .]

4/24/2013 9:22:35 PM

I'm not really impressed when someone tells me someone else is smarter than a bunch of business majors.

4/24/2013 9:41:01 PM

I prefer to see him how Josh Brolin played him. I don't dislike him as nearly as much as I used to, I kinda feel sorry for the guy. I recently saw a clip of him bumbling through a response to a reporter's question and i chuckled and thought "I kinda miss that guy, a little bit"

4/24/2013 9:47:44 PM

In a CNN article Bush says he feels he helped "better the human condition". I didn't know taking us into a decade long war based on false information would qualify under that but ok.

4/25/2013 11:18:57 AM

^3

if don't realize how smart stanford business school students are, then i fell sorry for you.

4/25/2013 11:50:03 AM

Quote :

"if don't realize how smart stanford business school students are, then i fell sorry for you."

HA

[Edited on April 25, 2013 at 12:30 PM. Reason : ]

4/25/2013 12:30:13 PM

Quote :

"I didn't know taking us into a decade long war based on false information would qualify under that but ok."

but Saddam Hussein.

4/25/2013 1:07:50 PM

4/25/2013 11:37:48 PM

I really miss the good ol' days when I could commiserate with my bros about this fucker. Nobody gives a shit about what's wrong with the current fucker.

4/26/2013 12:14:47 AM

I blame the liberal media.

seriously though, I was never a huge fan of GWB because he wasn't conservative enough, but compared to obama he was the best thing to happen to america.

4/26/2013 8:33:39 AM

right, because the current admin is soooo liberal!!

4/26/2013 10:11:30 AM

...

4/26/2013 1:23:53 PM

Smath's butthole must be under his nose because a lot of the things he says come straight from his ass.

4/26/2013 3:14:53 PM

It's comforting knowing that we have such critical thinkers such as himself teaching the next generation.

4/26/2013 3:49:31 PM

I have never once looked at Smath74's photo gallery, but I know for certain that he is overweight and has a goatee. Probably also a shaved head or very short buzz cut.

4/26/2013 4:52:27 PM