Translate


Sunday, May 22, 2011

Obama Speaks Before AIPAC



Code Pink and other assorted loons demonstrate for the Palestinians




Below is the text of President Obama's speech today before AIPAC.


"Good morning! Thank you, Rosy, for your very kind introduction. But even more, thank you for your many years friendship. Back in Chicago, when I was just getting started in national politics, I reached out to a lot of people for advice and counsel, and Rosy was one of the very first. When I made my first visit to Israel, after entering the Senate, Rosy - you were at my side every step of that very meaningful journey through the Holy Land. And I want to thank you for your enduring friendship, your leadership and for your warm welcome today.

Thank you to David Victor, Howard Kohr and all the Board of Directors. And let me say that it's wonderful to look out and see so many great friends, including Alan Solow, Howard Green and a very large delegation from Chicago.

I want to thank the members of Congress who are joining you today-who do so much to sustain the bonds between the United States and Israel-including Eric Cantor, Steny Hoyer, and the tireless leader I was proud to appoint as the new chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

We're joined by Israel's representative to the United States, Ambassador Michael Oren. As well as one of my top advisors on Israel and the Middle East for the past four years, and who I know is going to be an outstanding ambassador to Israel-Dan Shapiro. Dan has always been a close and trusted advisor, and I know he'll do a terrific job.

And at a time when so many young people around the world are standing up and making their voices heard, I also want to acknowledge all the college students from across the country who are here today. No one has a greater stake in the outcome of events that are unfolding today than your generation, and it's inspiring to see you devote your time and energy to help shape the future.

Now, I'm not here to subject you to a long policy speech. I gave one on Thursday in which I said that the United States sees the historic changes sweeping the Middle East and North Africa as a moment of great challenge, but also a moment of opportunity for greater peace and security for the entire region, including the State of Israel.

On Friday, I was joined at the White House by Prime Minister Netanyahu, and we reaffirmed that fundamental truth that has guided our presidents and prime ministers for more than 60 years-that, even while we may at times disagree, as friends sometimes will, the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad.

A strong and secure Israel is in the national security interest of United States not simply because we share strategic interests, although we do both seek a region where families and their children can live free from the threat of violence. It's not simply because we face common dangers, although there can be no denying that terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons are grave threats to both our nations.

America's commitment to Israel's security also flows from a deeper place -and that's the values we share. As two people who struggled to win our freedom against overwhelming odds, we understand that preserving the security for which our forefathers fought must be the work of every generation. As two vibrant democracies, we recognize that the liberties and freedom we cherish must be constantly nurtured. And as the nation that recognized the State of Israel moments after its independence, we have a profound commitment to its survival as a strong, secure homeland of the Jewish people.

We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel in a tough neighborhood. I've seen it firsthand. When I touched my hand against the Western Wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, I thought of all the centuries that the children of Israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland. When I went to Sderot, I saw the daily struggle to survive in the eyes of an eight-year old boy who lost his leg to a Hamas rocket. And when I walked among the Hall of Names at Yad Vashem, I grasped the existential fear of Israelis when a modern dictator seeks nuclear weapons and threatens to wipe Israel off the map.

Because we understand the challenges Israel faces, I and my administration have made the security of Israel a priority. It's why we've increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels. It's why we're making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies. And it's why, despite tough fiscal times, we've increased foreign military financing to record levels.

That includes additional support - beyond regular military aid - for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system. This is a powerful example of American-Israel cooperation which has already intercepted rockets from Gaza and helped saved innocent Israeli lives. So make no mistake, we will maintain Israel's qualitative military edge.

You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Here in the U.S., we've imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime. At the United Nations, we've secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime, which have been joined by allies and partners around the world. Today, Iran is virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system, and we are going to keep up the pressure. So let me be absolutely clear - we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Its illicit nuclear program is just one challenge that Iran poses. As I said on Thursday, the Iranian government has shown its hypocrisy by claiming to support the rights of protesters while treating its own people with brutality. Moreover, Iran continues to support terrorism across the region, including providing weapons and funds to terrorist organizations. So we will continue to work to prevent these actions, and will stand up to groups like Hezbollah who exercise political assassination, and seek to impose their will through rockets and car bombs.

You also see our commitment to Israel's security in our steadfast opposition to any attempt to de-legitimize the State of Israel. As I said at the United Nation's last year, "Israel's existence must not be a subject for debate," and "efforts to chip away at Israel's legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States."

So when the Durban Review Conference advanced anti-Israel sentiment, we withdrew. In the wake of the Goldstone Report, we stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself. When an effort was made to insert the United Nations into matters that should be resolved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, we vetoed it.

And so, in both word and deed, we have been unwavering in our support of Israel's security. And it is precisely because of our commitment to Israel's long-term security that we have worked to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Now, I have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties. And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel's right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements. And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years.

And yet, no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under the current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. The status quo is unsustainable. That is why, on Thursday, I stated publicly the principles that the United States believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict and all claims - the broad outlines of which have been known for many years, and have been the template for discussions between the United States, Israelis, and Palestinians since at least the Clinton Administration.

I know that stating these principles - on the issues of territory and security - generated some controversy over the past few days. I was not entirely surprised. I know very well that the easy thing to do, particularly for a President preparing for reelection, is to avoid any controversy. But as I said to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I believe that the current situation in the Middle East does not allow for procrastination. I also believe that real friends talk openly and honestly with one another. And so I want to share with you some of what I said to the Prime Minister.

Here are the facts we all must confront. First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories. This will make it harder and harder - without a peace deal - to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.

Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace.

And third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region. A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders. Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained.

Just as the context has changed in the Middle East, so too has it been changing in the international community over the last several years. There is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process - or the absence of one. Not just in the Arab World, but in Latin America, in Europe, and in Asia. That impatience is growing, and is already manifesting itself in capitols around the world.

These are the facts. I firmly believe, and repeated on Thursday, that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state. And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the UN or in any international forum. Because Israel's legitimacy is not a matter for debate.

Moreover, we know that peace demands a partner - which is why I said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist, and we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric.

But the march to isolate Israel internationally - and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations - will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. For us to have leverage with the Palestinians, with the Arab States, and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success. So, in advance of a five day trip to Europe in which the Middle East will be a topic of acute interest, I chose to speak about what peace will require.

There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations. But since questions have been raised, let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday.

I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself - by itself - against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

That is what I said. Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion's share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" means.

By definition, it means that the parties themselves - Israelis and Palestinians - will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

If there's a controversy, then, it's not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I have done so because we cannot afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades, to achieve peace. The world is moving too fast. The extraordinary challenges facing Israel would only grow. Delay will undermine Israel's security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve.

I know that some of you will disagree with this assessment. I respect that. And as fellow Americans and friends of Israel, I know that we can have this discussion.

Ultimately, however, it is the right and responsibility of the Israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed. And as a friend of Israel, I am committed to doing our part to see that this goal is realized, while calling not just on Israel, but on the Palestinians, the Arab States, and the international community to join us in that effort. Because the burden of making hard choices must not be Israel's alone.

Even as we do all that's necessary to ensure Israel's security; even as we are clear-eyed about the difficult challenges before us; and even as we pledge to stand by Israel through whatever tough days lie ahead - I hope we do not give up on that vision of peace. For if history teaches us anything-if the story of Israel teaches us anything-it is that with courage and resolve, progress is possible. Peace is possible.

The Talmud teaches us that so long as a person still has life, they should never abandon faith. And that lesson seems especially fitting today,

For so long as there are those, across the Middle East and beyond, who are standing up for the legitimate rights and freedoms which have been denied by their governments, the United States will never abandon our support for those rights that are universal.

And so long as there are those who long for a better future, we will never abandon our pursuit of a just and lasting peace that ends this conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. This is not idealism or naivete. It's a hard-headed recognition that a genuine peace is the only path that will ultimately provide for a peaceful Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and a Jewish state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless Israel, and God bless the United States of America."


Here's my question: How do you create a "contiguous" Palestinian state (connecting Gaza and the West Bank) without cutting Israel in half?


(Video from Holger Awakens)

18 comments:

Squid said...

I could say alot about Code Pinko and Jody Evans, the premiere bundler for Obama's 2008 election and anti-Israel, anti-Semite. She is just one of many anti-Israel fans that belong to the Obama camp. Hope she does not enjoy her up coming Mediterranean cruise with Ayers and Dorhn.
It is Obama's Israel-Palestinian speech which is more important. Just as Ceasar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC, and stated, "The die is cast", Obama's die has been cast. Because of his casting Israel's security under the bus, his "Ides of March' will come in 2012. Yes, Obama crossed the Rubicon river and will now face a winter of defeat. The election is in the Winter.
The freeze is already coming as Mayor Koch and New York News paper publisher, Mort Zuckerman have mentioned their diminished support for Obama.

Squid

Squid said...

OK, before everyone decides to have calamari, there is an error in my statement. I said " The election is in the Winter". What I wanted to say is: The election will be his Winter.

Squid

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Aside from the minimal hazard posed by the pathetic pantheon of Republican wannabes, President Obama is doing a good job and will no doubt be re-elected.

He gave a good speech to AIPAC, considering that he knows by and large it is made up of people more prepared to support Netanyahu than his current policy does, but he wants to focus on common ground that really does exist.

So, Gary, you are always highlighting every missile that comes from Gaza into Israel. President Obama highlighted an area of technical cooperation that has developed an effective intercept system. No intercept system is perfect, but it seems this would have saved some lives. Credit where credit is due?

Regarding the contiguous Palestinian state: I believe other references provide for a corridor across Israel on which Palestinians may travel freely, once a framework for peaceful relations is hammered out. Its not the best geopolitical option, ever. Remember the Danzig Corridor? But, it may be the best that anyone can do right now.

Gary Fouse said...

Siarlys,

So who do you think Israel should negotiate with?

Hamas?

Read the Hamas Charter.

The PA? They just reconciled with Hamas.

Hizbollah?

Syria?

Iran?

Forget that Egypt peace treaty when the Muslim Brotherhood takes power.

Darn those Poles when they refused to negotiate a treaty with Hitler!

Miggie said...

Here is one problem with his position: "By definition, it means that the parties themselves - Israelis and Palestinians - will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation."


Since the 1967 War began on June 5th, he means the pre-war borders! Until now, Israel was going to negotiate a border out of the West Bank territory conquered in exchange for a peace treaty, as is customary at the conclusion of all other wars. Now it appears that any land swap will come out of Israel proper... which is obviously unacceptable to Israel.
,

Miggie said...

Here is another problem in the speech: "I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine."

This reads, to me, that Palestine gets permanent borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt but Israel only gets borders with Palestine. Does that mean it will no longer have a border with Syria, Egypt, and Jordan and that it will be completely surrounded by Palestine?

I hope the Arabs don't read it like that.

Obama says that the Palestinians have a right to a contiguous state but nothing about Israel having a right to a contiguous state.

He does not make renunciation of terrorism, recognition of the State of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements as a precondition for talks. In other words, Israel is expected, once again to give up territorial concessions in exchange for Palestinian promises. In the past, every one of them has been broken.

It will be a continuing unmitigated disaster, domestically and in foreign affairs, if Obama is re-elected. If the election turns on a referendum on him and his policies, he is toast. And good riddance.
If the Democrats pay off their various constituencies sufficiently he may get re-elected ... to the great detriment to the country as a whole.
.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Miggie, any land swap was ALWAYS going to be territory of Israel proper for territory of the non-Israeli (occupied) West Bank. Nobody in the world but you has ever suggested otherwise. How do you swap one piece of occupied territory for another piece of occupied territory? Its all occupied! Letting part go, and keeping the rest, is not a "swap." It's annexation of the part not let go.

There are some corners of Israel proper which sit to the east of the occupied territory. Something there could be swapped for a thicker territory just east of Tel Aviv, the nine miles Bibi highlighted. The rest of the swaps are to let some of the illegal settlements in the West Bank remain, and become part of Israel, in exchange for equivalent land that is less critical for Israel.

Gary, if you read the charter of the African National Congress, the Republic of South Africa should be a socialist commonwealth by now, instead of a budding plutocracy. I don't care what the Hamas charter says. I care what Hamas puts up with or signs off on. I haven't heard anyone suggest that Israel should disarm after the treaty is signed.

Miggie said...

It is NOT occupied land. It is disputed land.

Formally, the 1967 line in the West Bank should properly be called the 1949 Armistice Line. Looking back to that period, on the Egyptian and Syrian fronts there had been a history of international boundaries between British Mandate and its neighbors. But along the Jordanian front what created the armistice line was solely where Israeli and Arab forces stopped at the end of the War of Independence, with some added adjustments in certain sectors. As a result, the 1949 line, that came to be known also as the 1967 border, was really only a military line.


In fact, Article II of the Armistice with the Jordanians explicitly specified that the agreement did not compromise any future territorial claims of the parties, since it had been "dictated by exclusively by military considerations." In other words, the old Armistice Line was not a recognized international border. It had no finality. As a result, the Jordanians reserved the right after 1949 to demand territories inside Israel, for the Arab side. It was noteworthy that on May 31, 1967, the Jordanian ambassador to the UN made this very point to the UN Security Council just days before the Six-Day War, by stressing that the old armistice agreement "did not fix boundaries".


After the Six-Day War, the architects of UN Security Council Resolution 242 insisted that the old armistice line had to be replaced with a new border. Thus Lord Caradon, the British ambassador to the UN admitted at the time: "I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where the troops had to stop." He concluded: "it is not a permanent border." His U.S. counterpart, Ambassador Arthur Goldberg, added that "historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area"; he then added that the armistice lines did not answer that description.

For the British and American ambassadors, at the time, Resolution 242, that they drafted involved creating a completely new boundary that could be described as "secure and recognized," instead of going back to the lines from which the conflict erupted. President Lyndon Johnson made this very point in September 1968: "It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders." It is for this reason that Resolution 242 did not call for a full withdrawal from all the territories that Israel captured in the Six Day War; the 1949 Armistice lines were no longer to be a reference point for a future peace process.
.

Miggie said...

For all the appalling things Obama said, however, the worst was what he didn’t say. In the greater scheme of things, borders are a subordinate issue, and they’d be a trivial one were it not for Israel’s existential security problems. Many rival countries have territorial disputes, but they either live with them or settle them because they do not question each other’s right to exist as sovereign nations. The Palestinians, by contrast, do not accept Israel’s existence. They do not want peace and they will not renounce terror. And why would they? Terror is serving them quite well, the “international community” having embraced the terrorists while making pariahs of the region’s only true democracy and beacon of human rights.

An American president who really wanted to outline the only worthy settlement of this intractable conflict could have given a very short speech. The Palestinians must accept Israel, they must convincingly renounce terrorism (none of this “resistance” legerdemain), and they must drop the ludicrous demand for a right of return that would effectively overrun Israel. If they did those three things, the territorial boundaries would take care of themselves, and Obama could go back to not worrying about America’s borders.
.

Anonymous said...

Siarly's penned:
"I don't care what the Hamas charter says. I care what Hamas puts up with or signs off on. I haven't heard anyone suggest that Israel should disarm after the treaty is signed."

Well, they've unilaterally put up over ten thousand rocket and mortar rounds over the last 8 years, which more than constitutes an act of war.

Israel should invade and destroy Gaza. You and the Islamofascists can whine elsewhere.

Gary Fouse said...

Siarlys,

You are completely naive about Hamas et al. This isn't really about land, its about religion.

Squid said...

Gary,

This is about "Political Islam", not religion. Islam is more than a religion. As far as Obama, "the die is cast" and Brutus awaits him on the Senate steps.

Squid

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Gary, you are ignoring a great deal of history to arrive at a desired conclusion. Unlike Anonymous, at least you are thinking about it.

Originally, the conflict between the large number of Jewish immigrants to the British Mandate of Palestine and the various Arabic-speaking groups in the vicinity was all about land, not religion. Most of the Zionists were socialist secular Jews, who spoke respectfully of Islam -- and it got them somewhere in the pre-1947 days with their closest Arab neighbors.

Even the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a feudal autocrat who used a nominally religious position for self-aggrandizement in wealth, power, and land. Nasser suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood as hard as Sadat or Mubarak, if not harder. Saddam Hussein "disappeared" women who wore religious garb, particularly to school or college. After 1948, until well after 1973, the primary terrorist operatives acted under the banner of some sort of Marxist rhetoric, not Islam.

Yes, Hamas has added a religious focus, as have the jihadists Ronald Reagan called "freedom fighters" without thinking about what they might do to Israel when they got finished with the Red Army. But Hamas has popular support because a fair number of people think their approach might get the land back. Hamas can't deliver on that implied promise. Whatever they put in their charter, sooner or later they have to face that. They will try to save face in doing so.

People also voted for Hamas because Al Fatah had degenerated into gangs of kleptocratic feudal baronies. But the worst of that was in Gaza, and in the West Bank, the PA proceeded to build the rudiments of a functional economy and a competent police force. Hamas wants to be sure that IF there is a deal with Israel, they get their cut, just as much as they want to lead the final assault to "liberate Palestine" if there is a chance to do so.

None of this is unusual in politics, diplomacy, or warfare, anywhere. Do you think the German officers who tried to assassinate Hitler in 1944 were fervent democrats? They were German nationalists who decided to cut their losses, not to mention, Der Feuhrer was getting even loonier than usual as defeat loomed on the horizon. The government of Northern Ireland is run by TWO gangs of former terrorists, who used to shoot at each other.

Israel should not disarm for a moment. Nor should it agree to several tank divisions "peacefully" assembling on the border with the new Palestinian state. But it should take the opportunity offered by current PA policy. Right now, I suspect that the PA has concluded they could use Hamas playing bad cop on Israel, because the PA being good cop hasn't gotten a deal.

Anonymous said...

Siarly's posited:

"Gary, you are ignoring a great deal of history to arrive at a desired conclusion. Unlike Anonymous, at least you are thinking about it."

I note you don't have much to say about the ten thousand mortar rounds and rockets fired into Israel, unilaterally, by the Islamofascists in Gaza. I'd also like to add they fired an ANTI-TANK missile into a clearly-marked SCHOOLBUS. You also evaded the fact the charters of Hamas and Fatah both call for the complete destruction of Israel.

I guess "thinking" about some things just isn't worth your time is it?

Miggie said...

Anonymous, you have to understand. If Siarlys hasn't "heard anyone suggest that Israel should disarm after the treaty is signed." then it didn't happen. If he speaks to a Catholic or a Jew and they tell him something then that to him is what the Catholics or the Jews believe.

It is the world according to Siarlys.

His knowledge of the universe is complete in all respects. It's called a Napoleon complex.
.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Miggie, you are the cast iron pot calling the stainless steel black -- and I don't even claim to be impeccably untarnished. You and your cowardly friend sit in the corner spluttering characterizations without ever offering a fact of your own.

Well, this time Anony Mouse did make reference to a detail or two.

That mortar rounds and rockets have been fired into Israel is beyond doubt. The political motivations vary. Some have been fired by little groups Hamas is trying to wipe out. They fire them more to show that Hamas can't stop them, or to recruit on the basis that they are more militant than Hamas, than anything else.

To people who care about the survival of Israel, rather than scoring brownie points in cyberspace, such distinctions have tactical and strategic uses. Applying labels like "Islamofascist" because you like the sound of it doesn't help Israel, or anyone else. It must give you an ego boost though, because you do it so often.

Gary has explicitly pointed out what the charters say, and I have explicitly responded to him. If you can offer a coherent argument why I am wrong, try to present it, but don't expect to be credible saying I evaded the fact. You appear to be having a conversation with yourself, in public, without even the excuse that there is a cell phone hanging around your neck. Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Siarly's ranted:

"That mortar rounds and rockets have been fired into Israel is beyond doubt. The political motivations vary. Some have been fired by little groups Hamas is trying to wipe out. They fire them more to show that Hamas can't stop them, or to recruit on the basis that they are more militant than Hamas, than anything else."

Gee, if the Islamofascists are unable or unwilling to stop the firing of Grad and Kassam rockets as well as mortar rounds and anti-tank missiles from Gaza then I guess Israel will have to do it for them.

Your lame excuses for the firing of more than ten thousand such devices is pitiful and pathetic.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Poor child, you can't even distinguish an excuse from a cold hard analysis of the disposition of enemy forces. Miggie is a gentleman and a scholar compared to Anony Mouse. He does know some history, and in between spluttering ad hominem remarks,he manages to offer some exposition of it, however incomplete or misunderstood.