Patterico's Pontifications

12/17/2007

Keith Dopelermann Again Exposed As An Idiot

Filed under: General — WLS @ 6:27 pm



Last week I started googling around on a subject raised by Dopelermann during IQCountdown after hearing this on the show on Wednesday:

OLBERMANN: A murky position echoed by the attorney general himself who is still reviewing memos to figure out whether waterboarding is, in his opinion, torture. Despite all the precedent set by U.S. law before the bush administration and despite the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which specifically states, “No person in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by or listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

In the Field Manual under the heading, “If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations, prohibited actions include but are not limited to waterboarding.”

In black and white, according to U.S. law, waterboarding specifically is illegal……

Joined now by Rachel Maddow, the host of “The Rachel Maddow Show” on Air American Radio. Thanks for your time tonight, Rachel.

RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA RADIO: Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: There is no question about this. This is not an opinion ….. It‘s torture. The head of the Zubaydah interrogation, even while extolling it says it‘s torture….. It‘s illegal. How is the right wing managing to extend this debate as if there were a debate, persuading people that this was somehow murky?

MADDOW: In any rational universe this would be recognized torture now as clearly as it was recognized as torture when we, as you mentioned, prosecuted those Japanese officials in World War II for having done it. When the Khmer Rouge did it. When it was done in Algeria. When it was done in the Spanish Inquisition. All of these times it‘s been recognized clearly as torture. There has never been a question about that. If anything is torture, this is torture.

It‘s also very clear that torture is illegal. In order for nobody to go to jail, we have to go down—we have to go through the looking glass. We have to go down the rabbit hole in all of this and somehow decide that waterboarding isn‘t torture.

We just need to undefine it in a way that‘s rationally been defined for centuries.

OLBERMANN: The administration rejoinder to abiding by the Geneva Conventions is that the Military Conventions Act of 2000 which stated – let me read it exactly, “The president has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions.” Does he likewise have the right to interpret United States law as he sees fit?

MADDOW: No. He doesn‘t have that right to interpret law as he sees fit, although he has claimed that right. When I think of the most under covered Washington stories of the past week or so was when Sheldon Whitehouse stood up on the floor of the Senate within the last few days and said that he had reviewed the Office of Legal Counsel memoranda by which the White House – the administration explains to itself what it thinks is legal.

And according to his readings of classified Office of Legal Counsel documents the White House—the administration not only believes that the Bush administration and the president, specifically, get to decide every grounds on which every action of the president‘s is constitutional. But every executive agency is then bound by what the president has decided he can legally do. So they are claiming the right for the president to define all U.S. law according to his own terms.

 Leaving aside for a moment the idea of having Rachel Madcow as the guest for this particular segment, I was struck by stupidity of this particular exchange. I know she has a degree from Stanford, was a Rhodes Scholar and got a PhD from Oxford, but I see no particular expertise on her part in this area beyond what she reads in leftwing blogs.

But, I didn’t have a lot of time to pursue information that I was confident would reveal Dopelermann to be wrong, and ended up not writing anything about his comment.

But, today Stuart Taylor comes along with a nice little piece  in National Journal and does all my work for me:

….a rider that the House-Senate conference committee added to the annual intelligence authorization bill…. would bar the CIA from using any interrogation practice not authorized in the Army field manual’s rules for military interrogators. This would mean prohibiting almost all forms of coercive interrogation, including many potentially effective techniques that come nowhere near torture and are now clearly legal.

The mostly Democratic sponsors of the proposed legislation unpersuasively suggest that it is necessary to prevent torture. They also hide behind the fantasy that coercion never leads to good information. But there is substantial (if anecdotal) evidence that in some cases, at least, coercive interrogation methods far short of torture may well extract information that could save lives…..

It does make a great deal of sense to prohibit military interrogators from using even those coercive methods that are clearly allowed by criminal and international law. But it makes little sense to impose the same restrictions on the CIA.

The military holds tens of thousands of prisoners in occupied Iraq and in Afghanistan. Most are small-fry with little or no useful information… low-ranking personnel, who have much less professional training and supervision than CIA interrogators, are often the ones who conduct military interrogations. This helps explain the catastrophic breakdown of discipline exposed by the Abu Ghraib torture photos.

These are among the reasons why the military has traditionally imposed elaborate restraints on its interrogators and why, after intense internal debate, Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes approved amendments to the Army field manual in September 2006 that made these restraints more exacting than ever before.

The CIA, on the other hand, has a small cadre of highly trained professional interrogators operating far from combat zones and under close supervision. These attributes provide some insurance against the admittedly grave danger that individual interrogators will get carried away and, for example, freeze a detainee nearly to death when they had been authorized only to keep him uncomfortably cold during a two-hour session.

That’s why the CIA gets custody of only the relatively small number of terrorist leaders, none of them POWs, who seem most likely to have potentially lifesaving information. Since 9/11, for example, the CIA has used “enhanced” interrogation techniques on only about 30 detainees.

The expectation that the CIA would handle tough interrogations of high-value captives informed both the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in which Congress codified the Army field manual’s restrictions on military interrogations while imposing much looser, and vaguer, restrictions on the CIA.

On Madcow’s last point, and to show you how little a PhD can be worth when the person with its strays beyond their expertise – she needs to read Jack Goldstein’s book, The Terror Presidency. Mr. Goldstein was the head of the DOJ Office that wrote those memos that Sheldon Whitehouse was complaining about – though the memos in question were written by Goldstein’s predecessor in office, and Goldstein was responsible for withdrawing two of them.

Madcow’s lame and ignorant comment that “the administration not only believes that the Bush administration and the president, specifically, get to decide every grounds on which every action of the president‘s is constitutional. But every executive agency is then bound by what the president has decided he can legally do” – this reflects the lack of even a basic level of understanding about what those memos are, who drafts them, why they are necessary, and what impact they have on the operations of government.

One extended passage from Goldstein’s book is quite enlightening on this point. The following quotes are taken from pages 31-37 on the point Madcow exposes herself (figuratively speaking):

[A] few hours after the Attorney General had sworn me in to office, I received a telephone call from White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales…. “Jack … we need you to decide whether the Fourth Geneva Convention protects terrorists in Iraq. We need the answer as soon as possible, no later than the end of next week.”

Gonzales’s query about the legal status of terrorists in Iraq was typical OLC fare… AQ fighters were engaged in increasingly deadly attacks on US soldiers in Iraq… My job was to determine how far the US military and the CIA could go in fighting the insurgency, consistent with the law.

It may seem odd that an obscure government office of two dozen Justice Department lawyers rather than a court was deciding so momentous a question. But in fact most legal issues of executive branch conduct related to war and intelligence never reach a court, or do so only years after the executive has acted. In these situations, the executive branch determines for itself what the law requires, and whether its actions are legal. In theory, The President himself must construe the law as part of his constitutional duty to “faithfully execute” the law, for he must know what the law requires before he can enforce it. But the President and Congress have always delegated this power to the Attorney General … and since the middle of the twentieth century, an increasingly busy AG has delegated his legal advisory function to OLC (Office of Legal Counsel).

It is crucial to the proper running of our government that OLC exercise this power wisely, and well…. When the executive branch acts outside the reach of the courts, however, it is both law interpreter and law enforcer, and runs the danger …. of interpreting the law opportunistically to serve its own ends…. OLC is, and views itself as, the frontline institution responsible for ensuring that the executive branch charged with executing the law is itself bound by law.

The danger, of course, is that OLC lives inside a very political executive branch, is subject to few real rules to guide its actions, and has little or no oversight or public accountability…. [T]he office has developed powerful cultural norms about the importance of providing the President with detached, apolitical legal advice, as if OLC were an independent court inside the executive branch….

Philosophical attunement with the administration is legitimate because OLC “serves both the institution of the presidency and a particular incumbent, democratically elected President in whom the Constitution vests the Executive power” in the words of Clinton OLC veterans whit whom I agree …. Having the political dimension in view means the OLC is not entirely neutral to the President’s agenda. Especially on matters of national security, I would work hard to find a way for the President to achieve his ends.

I also came to believe that the President should receive what Robert Jackson, one of Franklin Roosevelt’s Attorneys General, described as “the benefit of a reasonable doubt as to the law.” The Attorney General should not “act as a judge and foreclose the Administration from making reasonable contentions,” Jackson said….

OLC also needn’t look at legal problems the way courts do. Most Americans … think the law is what courts say it is, and they implicitly equate legal interpretation with judicial interpretation. But the executive branch does not have the same institutional constraints as courts, especially on national security issues where the President’s superior information and quite different responsibilities foster a unique perspective. In addition, for many issues of presidential power there are no controlling judicial precedents. The Supreme Court has never resolved whether the President can use force abroad unilaterally without congressional authorization … or many other fundamental questions of presidential authority. What Robert Jackson said fifty-five years ago was still true during my time in office: “a judge, like an executive adviser, may e surprised as the poverty of really useful and unambiguous authority applicable to concrete problems of executive power as they present themselves.

When OLC writes its legal opinions supporting broad presidential authority in these contexts – as OLCs of both parties have consistently done – they cite executive branch precedents (including Attorney General and OLC opinions) as often as court opinions. These executive branch precedents are “law” for the executive branch even though they are never scrutinized or approved by courts.”

So, the Executive Branch must often decide for itself in the first instance where the boundaries are between legal and illegal activity.  And there is a particular DOJ office with some of the very brightest legal talent in the country whose job it is to explore those very questions.  But they don’t run down to the federal courthouse and interrupt some judge — who might be in the middle of conducting a very important illegal re-entry trial, or a felon-in-possession of ammuntion trial — to get his blessing. 

Article II has meaning.  The President can, consistent with his constitutional obligation to faithfully carry out the laws — including the constitutional obligations under Article II — define for purposes of Executive Branch action what those laws require and allow.   

30 Responses to “Keith Dopelermann Again Exposed As An Idiot”

  1. I have a confession to make. I find Keith Olbermann of MSNBC’s “Countdown” highly amusing. I thought he was great on Sports Center with Dan Patrick. He is bright, articulate and very witty. I get a kick whenever he throws his papers in the air as he goes to a commercial. The finish to his “Worst Person in the World” piece is funny. The problem is, Keith is biased to the point of sheer hatred toward George Bush and all things Republican/conservative. Not only is his “Worst Person in the World” uniformly a conservative or Republican, but he can’t put two sentences together without crucifying his enemies.

    Once you get past Keith’s partisan rhetoric, the next thing you notice about him is that he has a regular stable of left-wing commentators, many of whom are on his show almost every night. Folks like Rachel Maddow of Air America and Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post must sleep at the MSNBC studio. Other regulars are Lawrence O’Donnell, Dana Milbank (Washington Post) Howard Kurtz and Jonathan Alter, smug liberals all. Tonight he even had on Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos for some “impartial” analysis.

    Sometimes, Keith gets so emotionally involved with his editorial pieces, usually calling Bush every name in the book that doesn’t have 4 letters, that one fears he is about to put a gun to his head and declare,”I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!” It wouldn’t surprise me if someday Keith walks into the MSNBC studio and takes hostages.

    If you look into Olbermann’s bio, it seems he has a habit of burning bridges, such as he did with the Sports Center Show. The man comes across as angry, with a host of issues. He also seems to relish collecting enemies. The most prominent is undoubtedly, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly (no shrinking violet himself), who Keith now attacks on an almost nightly basis. O’Reilly must hold the record for most “Worst Person in the World” awards. As for his part, O’Reilly treats Olbermann as a non-person, never mentioning his name-perhaps out of deference to Keith’s non-existent ratings.

    To be fair, Fox News has its Hannity’s America show, which gives a one-sided conservative viewpoint (with which I agree). Olbermann, however, mixes his humor with genuine anger toward those with whom he disagrees.

    I am not trying to make the point that Olbermann should balance his show with more conservative viewpoints. MSNBC is what it is. It is completely liberal, and I am not arguing for a fairness doctrine. We conservatives have our Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys, and we will defend their right to say what they want on the airwaves. Olbermann can say what he wants about whomever he wants. That is his right. It is also my right to critique him. In my view, this is a pretty poor example of news analysis.

    In addition, I have one final observation that both liberals and conservatives should consider. Keith Olbermann was the moderator on a recent MSNBC-held Democratic debate. Could we all not agree that such moderators at least have a modicum of impartiality? Keith Olbermann hardly fits that bill.

    But I have to give credit to Olbermann. When I grow up, I want to be his “Worst Person in the Wooorld”.

    gary fouse
    fousesquawk

    fouse, gary c (0598c8)

  2. And, I’ll admit the opposite…I don’t watch him, and when Dan Patrick was on ESPN Radio, when he put KO on, I stopped listening, because not only did his liberal-speak come out, he would often be simply wrong on points about sports too….

    And, now, with that thought in mind, I have trouble watching NBC Sunday Night Football, because he is there….

    But, again, if I read this right, and I think I did, KO was arguing a point of law from the perspective of a law that had not been passed yet…

    And, he gets away with that….which really sucks…

    reff (99666d)

  3. “In black and white, according to U.S. law, waterboarding specifically is illegal……”

    Not according to his own cite, when the subject is not “under the control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility“.

    “This is not an opinion ….. It‘s torture”.

    Just because waterboarding is not allowed per the Army Field Manual does not mean that waterboarding is by definition torture.

    Yeah, I know I’m pulling a Clinton, but if it were up to me, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because I’d willingly give our forces a lot of room to use waterboarding and other ‘coercive interrogation techniques’ as needed in order to obtain information to save American lives. Olbermann’s concern for the physical and psychological well-being of foreign terrorists, at the expense of the American lives which could be saved from information garnered from the tactics he deplores, more than qualifies him for an award of his own, the Terrorist’s Favorite American

    stevesturm (d3e296)

  4. And let’s not forget about the case and controversy requirement to get into court.

    Also Army FM’s are “a way” to do things. I have not read the Army interrogation FM’s but I would doubt the language re water boarding is specific enough to be adequately referred to by legislation.

    Note too the proferred language would allow the Army to redefine what is acceptable simply by editing the Interrogation Manual.

    This is mostly people talking about things they know little about for political points.

    Badger 6 (4147c5)

  5. “He is bright, articulate and very witty.” Should read, “He think’s he is bright, articulate and very witty.” Fixed that for you.

    “Keith Dopelermann Again Exposed As An Idiot”
    Nonsense. That’s his default position.

    buzz (e09efa)

  6. What is it with sportscasters and liberalism? Olberman, that idiot Jim Lampley (who makes Olberman look almost sane), and amazingly ignorant assclown Rich Moratta on KFI. It seems like there is a pretty big lefty bent to a lot of these public eye type sports types. I’m almost always amazed at just how ignorant many of them are, I’m not talking about ignorance, like a person who just isn’t informed, but ignorance to the point of self delusion and abject denial.

    Gabriel (4ced83)

  7. Add Doug Krikorian of the Long Beach Press Telegram to the list of lefty sports people. The ever shrinking (not opinion wise, of course) Joe McDonnell qualifies as well.

    cts22 (e43eda)

  8. And Steve Hartmann and Vic Jacobs on KLAC — two more moronic lefties sorely in need of a clue.

    JVW (477e5a)

  9. call me old fashioned, but if dumping a little water on someones head gets them to cough up info that will save American or Allied lives, i don’t have a problem with it. we aren’t interested in killing them, since you can’t info from a corpse, so the rest of this is bs. don’t want that to happen to ya, don’t go on Jihad.

    you never hear this sort of outrage over the treatment of American prisoners, military or civilian from KO and his ilk, so they can FO.

    redc1c4 (dcc4d4)

  10. “They also hide behind the fantasy that coercion never leads to good information. But there is substantial (if anecdotal) evidence that in some cases, at least, coercive interrogation methods far short of torture may well extract information that could save lives…..

    “fantasy”

    “substantial”

    “anecdotal”

    Past time that Stuart got waterboarded.

    David Ehrenstein (5f9866)

  11. Waterboarding someone you disagree with politically = fine

    Waterboarding people who actively want to kill us = evil

    Just making sure…

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  12. I think that as a matter of general policy in routine matters- waterboarding is torture.
    However, if I knew that someone in custody had info on a hidden, dirty bomb about to go off, I would not only allow waterboarding, I’d rip his frikken fingernails off in order to stop the bomb. Any Presidential candidate who wouldn’t do the same is not fit to be President.

    John425 (eae6ea)

  13. However, if I knew that someone in custody had info on a hidden, dirty bomb about to go off, I would not only allow waterboarding, I’d rip his frikken fingernails off in order to stop the bomb. Any Presidential candidate who wouldn’t do the same is not fit to be President.

    Why limit the use of torture to such extreme circumstances if it is a reliable way to extract information? Presumably the measure of torture required to extract such secrets is directly related to the importance of the information, so you’d have to torture small-time suspects very little to extract information less vital than, say, the location of a nuclear bomb in New York.

    CliveStaples (b21847)

  14. I don’t know how Keith can do Sunday Night Football. How much time does it take away from finding out new ways to declare Bill O’Riely the “Worst Person In The World”.

    Techie (ed20d9)

  15. Olbermann is the only reason why I would like to see Hiliary as President.
    I fully expect Bill to continue to do stupid things and put the whole Hiliary Administration up to it’s neck in political trouble. Olbermann had no taste for any of this back in 1998, and a repeat would probably put him over the edge (and finally take those hostages at MSNBC).

    If Hiliary were to win next year, I will have the joy of knowing that it’s just a matter of time before she and her enemies cause Olbermann to explode. About that time, I would put MSNBC back on my TVs for the joy of watching Olbermann self destruct, but in the meanwhile MSNBC is removed from all the TVs in my house.

    Neo (3649d1)

  16. CliveStaples — bad logic.

    By that reasoning, if jail time works to stop murders, it must also work to stop jaywalkers and should be applied there if it is applied anywhere.

    Going off of the folks I know who went through SEER school, water boarding isn’t torture. It’s bloody unpleasant, and it needs to have experts to use it, but it’s not torture. (This is coming from someone with mild claustrophobia and a fear of drowning, so I am very, very aware of how horrible it would be– but nasty doesn’t make torture.)

    Foxfier (c8e3db)

  17. Do american special forces soldiers get water boarded as a form of training? If so, then it can hardly be equated as chopping of fingers and such. If we are doing it to our own how bad can it be? Uncomfortable, very uncomfortable maybe, but hardly torture if we do it to our own best military personell for resistance training.

    Brett King (f6bf92)

  18. By that reasoning, if jail time works to stop murders, it must also work to stop jaywalkers and should be applied there if it is applied anywhere.

    I was simply asking someone to draw that line for torture. Is it really only appropriate in ticking-time bomb scenarios? I was serious when I asked why limit the use of torture to such extreme circumstances.

    Going off of the folks I know who went through SEER school, water boarding isn’t torture. It’s bloody unpleasant, and it needs to have experts to use it, but it’s not torture. (This is coming from someone with mild claustrophobia and a fear of drowning, so I am very, very aware of how horrible it would be– but nasty doesn’t make torture.)

    Bloody unpleasant? So it’s about at the level of having to deal with inlaws?

    I think it just skirts the definition of torture. I also think that the empirical data suggests that torture works, in limited circumstances. I’d just like to have someone present a cogent argument for why torture should only ever be used in the most serious of circumstances if it is a reliable way of extracting information–other than saying “that logical inference isn’t necessarily true for other arguments”.

    CliveStaples (b21847)

  19. Foxfier #16…
    Actually, every motorist should be allowed to run over (free of charge) one jay-walker per year(unless you live in one of the 10 largest cities, then it would be one/month).

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  20. CliveStaples– If you meant “were do we draw the line for torture” you should’ve said so, rather than claiming that using it in one case means it MUST be used in another.

    If your inlaws are on the level of SEER school, you should’ve married better.

    Another Drew– ….that is so tempting….

    Foxfier (c8e3db)

  21. CliveStaples– If you meant “were do we draw the line for torture” you should’ve said so, rather than claiming that using it in one case means it MUST be used in another.

    Look at what I wrote:

    Why limit the use of torture to such extreme circumstances if it is a reliable way to extract information?

    I don’t think it MUST be used in another. I think that if torture is an effective way of extracting information, then why limit its use to extreme situations? Why not use it for less extreme but still important circumstances?

    It may be the case that torture is such a morally repugnant act that its use is only acceptable in extreme circumstances. Or it may not be. I’m just looking for someone to provide some framework for understanding when and where torture may be used.

    CliveStaples (b21847)

  22. With regard to Olbermann’s infamous idiocy, and that desplayed often by certain unnamed gleeful inciters on this string, I would offer one of my father’s favorite quips:

    “Fools names and fools faces are always seen in public places.”

    EHeavenlyGads (17aca7)

  23. All of you seem to accept the notion that the greater the chance that a detainee really knows something about impending explosions or poisonings, the greater the torture that must be allowed. First, you rarely know that the detainee knows anything in particular. Second, you rarely know in advance about the precise nature of the impending terror. So, as much as you would like to be hero interrogators ripping off fingernails, the action movie scenario just isn’t that realistic. But most importantly, if you listen to yourselves, you must realize that you have no bright lines – no limits. You like torture. You think it is a good idea. You only quibble about the degree and the frequency. Bush and Cheney have their power because our country really doesn’t have standards or morals any longer. We are a nation of nut jobs that really want (on some level) to apply the electrodes to the scrotums of people we despise (but don’t really know or understand or care to understand).
    We are becoming a spoiled nation of weanies that have suffered nothing and have no empathy. No empathy eventually equals no morality. That is actually the boiled down ethos of the religion that many of you subscribe to. You just don’t believe it or practice it.

    Robert Conley (c949f7)

  24. Robert Conley, thanks for coming here and revealing your inner lunacy. For what it’s worth, the left “likes” (to use your term) cutting up little babies after in their moms’ utereses.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  25. Robert, I don’t want to see you suffer…therefore, I have empathy if you are suffering.

    I also want my children to live, so, if someone is trying to kill me, or my children, I don’t have empathy for them. I want them to die first so that I and my children may live.

    That not only proves I have empathy, but a moral compass as well.

    reff (bff229)

  26. Coleman said reports of Abu Zubaida’s statements during his early, traditional interrogation were “consistent with who he was and what he would possibly know.” He and other officials said that materials seized from Abu Zubaida’s house and other locations, including names, telephone numbers and computer laptops, provided crucial information about al-Qaeda and its network.
    But, Coleman and other law enforcement officials said, CIA officials concluded to the contrary that Abu Zubaida was a major player, and they saw any lack of information as evidence that he was resisting interrogation. Much of the threat information provided by Abu Zubaida, Coleman said, “was crap.”

    “There’s an agency mind-set that there was always some sort of golden apple out there, but there just isn’t, especially with guys like him,” Coleman said.

    And from another article

    [The interrogation of Zubaydah] sparked an internal battle within the U.S. intelligence community after FBI agents angrily protested the aggressive methods that were used. In addition to waterboarding, Zubaydah was subjected to sleep deprivation and bombarded with blaring rock music by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. One agent was so offended he threatened to arrest the CIA interrogators, according to two former government officials directly familiar with the dispute.

    And another: “We tortured an insane man”

    All linked here http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004931.php

    reff by your logic paranoia is rational.
    It isn’t.

    blah (fb88b3)

  27. Salon and Muckraker, two sources of utterly unbiased information with no agenda at all!

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  28. And the Washington post too. And the FBI
    Everything is biased
    except what you want to believe.

    “Retired FBI agent Daniel Coleman, “who led an examination of documents after Abu Zubaida’s capture in early 2002 and worked on the case,” responded that Zubaydah was talking before he was waterboarded, but the CIA agents couldn’t believe that he knew so little.
    Coleman, in fact, emerges as an effective foil to Kiriakou (who, incidentally, participated in the capture of Zubaydah but wasn’t present during the torture) in the piece. Coleman says that Zubaydah was a “safehouse keeper” for Al Qaeda who had suffered a serious head injury years earlier.”

    blah (fb88b3)

  29. Robert, you are simply not a serious person. Thanks for making that clear so you can be ignored in the future.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  30. WLS – The headline said about all that was needed for me on this post. You really didn’t need to write anything perhaps except that he was on the air again. He exposes himself as terminally stupid each time PMSNBC airs his show. Doesn’t he have to get a license for that to be out in public to avoid being committed?

    daleyrocks (906622)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2683 secs.