State of the Bush Campaign: Part II
Here is part two of my reaction to Bush’s State of the Union speech.
Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible — and no one can now doubt the word of America.
This claim is ludicrous, but expected. It did not take just 9 months to get Libya to give up their WMD; that simply demarcates a more recent round of talks, among many over the past decade or more. And Libya did not give up their WMD because they were afraid of a U.S. invasion; the U.S. made no threats, nor were we in any position, militarily, diplomatically or economically, to do so. Had we started a military buildup against Libya and threatened to invade over their paltry WMD holdings, it would have provoked worldwide outrage and protests at home, and any action would far overextend our already stretched-thin resources.
Libya gave up the WMD as part of a long-term process of trying to come in out of the cold and get sanctions lifted, a process which 
had the first public results with the Lockerbie settlement, where Libya handed over the suspects and started agreements to pay–under the Clinton administration.
I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all. They view terrorism more as a crime — a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments.
A common Bush tactic: mischaracterization. Terrorism is, in a rational light, a political cause taken to violence by groups which are not governments. They are no more a threat now than they were before, no less a threat ten years ago than they are now. Clinton did not respond mainly with indictments, as Bush claims–he reacted militarily as well, at one point trying to take out bin Laden in Afghanistan with a missile strike–a move that was actually criticized by Republicans at the time, who were more obsessed with Monica Lewinsky.
After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted, tried, convicted and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans.
Again, a petty swipe at Democrats–and again, ignoring the fact that Clinton handed Bush a fully-formed strategy to deal with al Qaeda, one which Bush promptly dropped and ignored because it was inconvenient for their plans to spend trillions on a missile shield. Clinton did far more than indict, and at least he got that far with al Qaeda–while Bush is still fumbling to find bin Laden.
But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We are seeking all the facts — already the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations.
“Mass destruction-related program activities“?? First it was WMD. Then, when WMD were not found, it was “WMD programs.” Now, with not even a program found, it is “WMD-related program activities”? What the hell does that even mean? They found trailers, but they were not for WMD. They found storage facilities several times that they thought were WMD-related, but they were not. Is Bush referring to the small, more-than-decade-old stash of a few nuclear equipment parts buried in the garden of an Iraqi scientist? Though I suppose with such a general term as “related program activities” almost anything could qualify. And yet again, Bush tries to snow the American people into believing we actually found something.
Had we failed to act, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.
What programs? He just said we found only “related activities”! What, Saddam would have called that scientist and asked him to keep the parts buried another ten years? Saddam had no program to continue, meaning he was far less a current threat than North Korea, Libya, or a dozen other countries we don’t like.
Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world.
Which is exactly what Bush claimed they were–he can’t have it both ways. Not to mention that Israel has had a slew of UNSC resolutions and condemnations aimed at them–should we invade? What gall Bush has to use the U.N. as an excuse for his war when he so totally dismissed and belittled them?
Iraq’s torture chambers would still be filled with victims — terrified and innocent.
Where he kicked puppies and orphans, no doubt. Not to defend Saddam, but Bush overstates the case (remember the fake stories from Kuwait to make us angry?). Sure, Saddam was a tyrant and tortured his political enemies. But Bush is hypocritical, because it is crystal clear that he cared not a whit for those people being tortured.
This is further exemplified by the case of Maher Arar, the Canadian software engineer who was detained by U.S. officials in N.Y., who then deliberately sent him to Syria so he could be put into a torture chamber, innocent and afraid. Bush put him there, not Saddam. Bush could care less about people in torture chambers, he sends them there himself. Taking Iraq was not a humanitarian mission, it’s only belatedly characterized as one since the initial fictitious reasons were proven so completely false for the world to see.
For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein’s regime is a better and safer place.
The real question is, was it worth it? The world is not that much safer, nor are the people of Iraq truly free, nor will they be soon. And we have paid for it with the lives of 500 more Americans, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the loss of respect for America worldwide. All to swat a relatively harmless tin-pot dictator. The world would be safer if we invaded a dozen other dictators around the planet, where dictators just as vile and violent torture the innocent and plot to acquire WMD. Saddam was a major focus of ours, but he was a dime-a-dozen thug.
Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq.
Yes, no effort is international until El Salvador is in on it. This bit got a big rise out of the Republican side, which rose to cheer as Bush spoke. But if Bush were only to include those nations that gave troops, it would have been a damned short list (nine countries including the U.S.), even shorter to mention those that had troops during major combat (three–the U.S., Great Britain, and Australia).
And the 17 other countries Bush mentioned, which of course he decided not to list, included such luminaries as Palau, Lithuania, Slovenia, Albania, Rwanda, Latvia, Eritrea, and Costa Rica. Wow! What a list! And hey, you can’t make a move without Costa Rica! Especially since they have no military!
And let’s not forget that even in the countries that signed on, almost all had populations strongly opposed to the war–Spain, one of Bush’s major allies, had 90% of its population disapproving (I was there during the Iraq war, and they were pissed), similar to Japan, whose people objected strongly to sending troops in non-combat roles.
Those who were against the war outnumbered the “coalition of the willing” (what a pathetic name) by 57 to 37. Those against included China, Russia, Canada, France, Germany, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Greece, India, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, and many more–indisputably a much more impressive list.
In summary, an “international” cause is more than just three countries sending troops with a dozen more saying “go get ’em”! The Gulf War, by contrast, included troops from 34 countries, and had the support of most of the world.
As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners or dismiss their sacrifices.
Does he mean like the time he went to Australia and attended a memorial of a dead Aussie soldier–and refused to allow the man’s wife to even attend because it might have embarrassed him?
There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting to the objections of a few.
The count was 37 for, 57 against, and 93 abstaining. This is an outright lie.
America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.
This was one of the most popular lines from the script, and of course was also an outrageous and arrogant mischaracterization. There is a difference between using diplomatic skill to garner international support–something his father did with skill, but Junior completely botched–and asking submissively for permission. This line exemplifies Bush’s crass disregard for diplomacy: he has always been far more concerned about scoring political points at home than being a statesman and not pissing off the rest of the world. Bush himself said during his campaign in 2000, ” if we are an arrogant nation [foreign countries] will view us that way, but if we’re a humble nation they’ll respect us.”
He is arrogant, dismissive, and condescending to the world. Is it any wonder the star of the United States has fallen internationally since Bush started his watch?
More commentary coming soon.
A great commentary — can’t tell you how much I enjoy reading the site! =)
He has “changed the tone,” all right…Washington is now more about petty partisan politics than it ever was. I heard from a friend in Australia that in news reports about this speech they were outright laughing at him.
And I would like to thank you for your readership and the many comments, which I do not respond to often enough. It is very encouraging to get such feedback. Thanks!
“It did not take just 9 months to get Libya to give up their WMD; that simply demarcates a more recent round of talks, among many over the past decade or more. And Libya did not give up their WMD because they were afraid of a U.S. invasion; the U.S. made no threats, nor were we in any position, militarily, diplomatically or economically, to do so.”
This statement ignores that Libya continued to covertly maintain its WMD program after it invited inspectors in and said it would give them up. It’s pretty clear (and has been reported by persons within the Libyan government) that the change was due to the understanding that things are just different now with the removal of Saddam in Iraq.
“Clinton did not respond mainly with indictments, as Bush claims–he reacted militarily as well, at one point trying to take out bin Laden in Afghanistan with a missile strike–a move that was actually criticized by Republicans at the time, who were more obsessed with Monica Lewinsky.”
I’m sure the Republicans and a majority of reporters would have taken Clinton’s bombing of Afghanistan (with cruise missles), Sudan (an asprin factory), and Iraq (declaring regime change to be the official U.S. policy) if his timing weren’t so dang coincidental: Afghanistan and Sudan to concur with the very hours of Lewinsky testimony, and Irag to begin and end almost precisely with the schedule of the House impeachment.
It seems to me that Ken Star and the House Republicans can take as much credit for Clinton’s military backbone as anyone in the whole Clinton administration can.
“Yes, no effort is international until El Salvador is in on it…But if Bush were only to include those nations that gave troops, it would have been a damned short list (nine countries including the U.S.), even shorter to mention those that had troops during major combat (three–the U.S., Great Britain, and Australia).”
Well, according to some, no effort is international if it doesn’t include France and Germany. Why are they, and particularly France, never faulted for being unilaterally against the war?
I guess Spain and Italy are less significant nations than France?
Finally, the fact is that only Britain is militarily advanced enough to fight along side the U.S. without being an impedance. The other nations are involved to a lesser extent because their militaries are not competent to do more.
Here’s a fairly complete list of everyone’s involvement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq
“The count was 37 for, 57 against, and 93 abstaining. [Saying that the US is leading a coalition of many nations rather than submitting to the objections of a few] is an outright lie.”
Actually, at least 45 nations have publically identified themselves as “willing” to in support of the invasion. The US (at one time) claimed to have received notice of support from up to 49 nations (not all are publicizing their support).
There would have been even more third-level nations backing the war if France had not campaigned, bribed, and threatened against it. (And before you present U.S.’ actions as equivalent to France’s in campaigning to have Saddam removed, I’ll say there is a difference between campaigning (or marching in the streets) to protect stability of a stalinist dictator ~ just to stick it in the U.S.’s eye (they’re supposed to be on our side right?)~ and actively campaigning to have one removed.)
I think its disingenuous to complain about the President listing El Salvador as supporting the war, if you’re going to count Camaroon and North Korea as against it.
“There is a difference between using diplomatic skill to garner international support–something his father did with skill, but Junior completely botched–and asking submissively for permission.”
This is the sort of argument that really annoys me. All during the 1992 election and whenever Clinton had a problem with Iraq, Clinton’s supporters faulted Bush 41 for not “finishing the job” in Iraq, and leaving the problem for the Clinton administration. Now Democrats think Bush 41 was a genious?
The fact is that the reason we didn’t “finish the job” was because that would have broken the precious U.N. coalition Bush 41 crafted. For that same reason we didn’t support the Kurds in their rebellion against Saddam. It is an unpleasant truth that the U.N. is largely composed of dictatorial regimes. That’s why the Clinton adminstration bypassed the U.N. (gasp!) in order to bomb Serbia into the stoneage and out of Kosovo.
“The real question is, was it worth it? The world is not that much safer, nor are the people of Iraq truly free, nor will they be soon. ”
Oops! I missed this one. This statement is so dispicable, so obviously false, that I don’t know where to begin with it. Kurds, Shia, Suni, and Christians are now free to worship as they please. Iraqi’s don’t not have to fear speaking their minds even in their own homes for fear of ending up dead the next day. The markets are filled with independent newspapers. Hell, even the Communist Party has an office now with its flag openly flying out front.
“It’s pretty clear (and has been reported by persons within the Libyan government) that the change was due to the understanding that things are just different now with the removal of Saddam in Iraq.”
Baloney. If Qadhafi thought that he was in danger of being invaded by us, then he was an absolute fool. As I pointed out in the essay, for us to invade ANY country on the charge they have WMD is militarily, diplomatically or economically impossible. Militarily because Bush already has us spread too thin and our reserves practically depleted. Diplomatically because after Iraq, no one would trust us on a charge of WMD nor would they join a coalition unless Bush ACTUALLY went through the process of letting the U.N. do its thing. And economically, because Bush has already drained us to the tune of $750 billion, has generated a $500 billion+ deficit, and could never afford to rack up even more debt. Libya wasn’t even in the “axis of evil.” Any references to sources in Libya talking about post-Saddam conditions are either (a) fiction, or (b) somebody sucking up, like they’ve been doing for some time. But afraid of an invasion? Nonsense.
“Actually, at least 45 nations have publically identified themselves as “willing” to in support of the invasion. The US (at one time) claimed to have received notice of support from up to 49 nations (not all are publicizing their support).”
Read the page you cited in Wikipedia:
“A list of countries among the willing include, accurate as of March 28, 2003…” –and then lists a “Total: 37 confirmed; 10 not confirmed.” More may have added later, but when the war started, there were only 37 confirmed.
“I think its disingenuous to complain about the President listing El Salvador as supporting the war, if you’re going to count Camaroon and North Korea as against it.”
The point about El Salvador, aside from comic effect, was to show that Bush specifically named them. I did not name North Korea or Camaroon. Your comments on this and above, in any case, are petty evasions, ignoring the main point that far more important nations were against us than were with us, and if Bush had to specifically name countries like El Salvador as “participants” then his cooalition was pretty damn weak.
This is the sort of argument that really annoys me. All during the 1992 election and whenever Clinton had a problem with Iraq, Clinton’s supporters faulted Bush 41 for not “finishing the job” in Iraq, and leaving the problem for the Clinton administration. Now Democrats think Bush 41 was a genious?”
No, Bush Sr. crafted a coalition with skill, and those who say so are not the same people who faulted Bush Sr. for leaving Saddam in power. The people who grant bush the skill in building the coalition instead fault him for the shoddy job of allowing Saddam to go so far in the first place–had Bush Sr. been watching, he could have prevented Saddam from invading Kuwait in the first place. I have addressed this elsewhere, noting that we never should have supported Saddam in the first place, and he was a raving killer when Bush Sr. called him our friend.
However, it is possible to say both–building the Gulf War coalition was managed with skill, and leaving Saddam in power after, if you posit that had Bush Sr. been even more skilled, he could have done it all–but he did what he could, which was skilled, but clearly not skilled enough.
Or are you trying to knock Democrats for trying to say something good about a Republican? Tut, tut.
“This statement is so dispicable, so obviously false, that I don’t know where to begin with it.”
There are levels of freedom. Bush’s people are busy drafting a constitution that will keep Iraq in line with where the U.S. wants it–not true freedom. Were there true democracy, then the Shiites would take over.
And the world is definitely not any safer, especially now that we have made Pakistan our new friend–all set up to become the new Iraq. And a thousand other things.
** And be more civil. I accept dissenting views here, but you start calling participants in this blog names or using insulting language like that and you will be IP banned.
“Your comments on this and above, in any case, are petty evasions, ignoring the main point that far more important nations were against us than were with us, and if Bush had to specifically name countries like El Salvador as “participants” then his cooalition was pretty damn weak.”
“Important”? The Soviet Union was against everything we did for 45 years, that doesn’t make their dissent “important.” One should not count those like France that typically stand against us or support us begrudgingly whatever we do. Among the “important” nations: Britain, Austrailia, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and the Netherlands stand with us. So do the former Eastern Block nations. Many leaders saw the validity in the US’s actions in spite of the differing opinions of their constituencies. I think the President mentioned El Salvador to show that we value the partnership of those who stand in the right; not self-important nations.
The coalition was every bit as strong as it always is because it is always the US and Britain that does the heavy lifting in military endeavors. If many more nations joined us after the invasion was seen as a success, then that only shows the weakness of the ‘coalition’ (just France and Germany really) arrayed against us.
“If Qadhafi thought that he was in danger of being invaded by us, then he was an absolute fool.”
I didnt’ say he thought he was going to be invaded, and neither has anyone else whose opinions matter that I know of. This is a straw man. The report was that “the change was due to the understanding that things are just different now with the removal of Saddam in Iraq”. In other words, that having WMDs and threatening your neighbors would bring more unwelcomed attention than any benefits in the way of respect. It wasn’t a decision made out of fear but one of recognizing a sea change in the future of the Mideast.
“…Those who say so are not the same people who faulted Bush Sr. for leaving Saddam in power
This is simply not true, which you implicitly admit when you say the following:
“However, it is possible to say both–building the Gulf War coalition was managed with skill, and leaving Saddam in power after, if you posit that had Bush Sr. been even more skilled, he could have done it all–but he did what he could, which was skilled, but clearly not skilled enough. Or are you trying to knock Democrats for trying to say something good about a Republican? Tut, tut.”
I will, with difficulty, take this argument at face value and say that one must make choices. Once you choose to drink, you may no longer choose to be dry no matter how skillfully you drink. Once Bush 41 chose the UN rout, the mortar and foundation of which was the promise that we did not seek regime change, no diplomatic skill in the world could have permitted him then make it about regime change. US would have truely become an outlaw nation and every country in the area would have united (possibly militarily) against us. If the medium cool guerilla fighting we’re experiencing in Iraq now makes you think of Vietnam, then there is no analogy for the open warfare we would have faced if we had had our tanks continue to drive toward Baghdad.
I suppose you would say then that the Clinton Administration had *no* diplomatic skill because they didn’t even take the Kosovo war before the UN, because they knew it would fail. Maybe if they had been more skilled diplomatically…Or maybe if W. Bush had been more skilled diplomatically he could have convinced Saddam to step down and institute democracy of his own accord? This is dreaming. All things, whatever the stipulations, are not possible.
As for the nice things Democrats have to say about Bush 41? I’d say its a little too late to start singing his praises on the handling of the Gulf War. Even if you are John Kerry.
“There are levels of freedom. Bush’s people are busy drafting a constitution that will keep Iraq in line with where the U.S. wants it–not true freedom. Were there true democracy, then the Shiites would take over.”
A)You said the Iraqi “were not truly free”; nothing about “levels of freedom” here.
B)To say the Iraqis are not truly free for this reason is to say that Western Germany in the Cold war wasn’t truly free, not really freer than Eastern Germany, because we de-Nazified the place. Or that Japan isn’t free because we imposed representational government. It’s ludicrous to say that Iraq is not truely free because we’re imposing a workable democracy and civil freedoms.
C)To say that “true democracy” would entail the Shiites taking over would be like saying that “true democracy” in the US could only occur if Anglo-Saxon Protestants ran every level of government. True sustainable democracy will entail everyone having the same rights regardless of their religion or nationality ~ not replacing the Sunis with the Shiites.
D) If there are levels of freedom, then Iraq has moved so far up the ladder to freedom that to discount it in the way you did, in my opinion, is to ******* [rest of post deleted due to offensive content].
“Important”? The Soviet Union was against everything we did for 45 years, that doesn’t make their dissent “important.”
Umm? There is no “Soviet Union” anymore. I presume you mean “Russia,” and they are a different country now.
One should not count those like France that typically stand against us or support us begrudgingly whatever we do.Okay, another history point: France has traditionally been our ally since the Revolution. They were with us in the first Gulf War, in Korea, WWII, WWI, etc. etc. They offered support in Vietnam, but did not join the fighting because they had been through that already. When have they stood against us before now? And what do you mean by “begrudgingly,” and how exactly does that mean a country should not be counted? Spain was part of the coalition, and yet 90% of the population was against us and against the Iraq War–I know, I was there last April. So were they “begrudging”? Should we really count them as “with” us if such a huge majority of the population is against us?
Among the “important” nations: Britain, Austrailia, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and the Netherlands stand with us. And France, Germany, Russia, China, Canada, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and India were among the nations against us. Considering that in many of the “willing” nations the people against us were in the majority, and that the countries against us were more significant, I stand by my assessment. Unless you would count Italy more important than China, Portugal more important than Germany, or Australia more important than Russia.
I think the President mentioned El Salvador to show that we value the partnership of those who stand in the right; not self-important nations.That is an incredibly subjective statement, and hardly factual. Bush sent us to Iraq on the idea that their WMD were a threat to us; he was not “right,” and in the way he acted, it is very easy to call him “self-important”–he dismissed and belittled nations that disagreed with him, and acted as if America had the right to act in whatever way it–that is, he–judged proper, even to the point of invading a country preemptively. That’s far more based on fact than your statement.
I didnt’ say he thought he was going to be invaded, and neither has anyone else whose opinions matter that I know of. This is a straw man. The report was that “the change was due to the understanding that things are just different now with the removal of Saddam in Iraq”. In other words, that having WMDs and threatening your neighbors would bring more unwelcomed attention than any benefits in the way of respect. It wasn’t a decision made out of fear but one of recognizing a sea change in the future of the Mideast.That was not a straw man, merely the most direct interpretation of your statement–you were simply unclear in your statement. But this version is hardly any more believable. OK, so you say “with the removal of Saddam” that “having WMDs and threatening your neighbors would bring more unwelcome attention than any benefits in the way of respect.” are you seriously saying that before the removal of Saddam that it was any less unwelcome? That other nations were more comfortable with WMD, that it brought more respect? Whatever changes, if any, came in the area of “attention” and “respect” are negligible; your implication that Bush brought this about by invading Iraq are weak at the very best.
Once Bush 41 chose the UN rout, the mortar and foundation of which was the promise that we did not seek regime change, no diplomatic skill in the world could have permitted him then make it about regime change.The meaning was that if he were more skilled, he could have made it about regime change. Saddam had invaded Iran before, and was a sore spot for the Middle East and the world. Part of what weakened Bush’s influence in demanding regime change was the fact that up until a few months before, we had been supporting him, despite his most vile actions. That severely weakened our position in demanding he be removed. Had we not supported him in his invasion of Iran to grab oil fields, had we not fostered his WMD programs, had we not stuck behind him right up to the point where his massed forces charged over the border into Kuwait, we would have had more moral authority to demand the case be prosecuted to the point of regime change. But since we had supported him in every vile action he had undertaken until Kuwait, we could hardly bring those up so soon as reasons to unseat him–we had given explicit as well as tacit support and approval up until that time. That was Bush’s error, and Reagan’s before him (and is Bush 43’s error with Pakistan right now).
I suppose you would say then that the Clinton Administration had *no* diplomatic skill because they didn’t even take the Kosovo war before the UN, because they knew it would fail. Maybe if they had been more skilled diplomatically…Not *no* skill–knowing when to avoid a diplomatic fight is a skill in itself. But certainly Clinton had less skill than Bush 41, though more skill than Bush 43.
Or maybe if W. Bush had been more skilled diplomatically he could have convinced Saddam to step down and institute democracy of his own accord? This is dreaming. Now who’s using a straw man?
A)You said the Iraqi “were not truly free”; nothing about “levels of freedom” here.”Not truly free” directly implies levels of freedom–it implies “free,” “not free,” and “not truly free” at least, which is three levels. Count ’em.
B) To say the Iraqis are not truly free for this reason is to say that Western Germany in the Cold war wasn’t truly free, not really freer than Eastern Germany, because we de-Nazified the place. Or that Japan isn’t free because we imposed representational government.Exactly. We conquered them in a war. You think that just because they were American puppets instead of Soviet puppets that they were “truly free”? Get real. Their autonomy grew with time, but they were not truly free as long as we were controlling and manipulating them. Iraqis may become free in 30 or 40 years, but not sooner unless we let them loose–and that’s an even darker prospect, with a nation standing on the edge of becoming a hard-line Islamic state full of people who resent us.
It’s ludicrous to say that Iraq is not truely free because we’re imposing a workable democracy and civil freedoms. They do not have the freedom to choose the government they please. The fact that, as you say, we are imposing government and social forms on them is a stellar example of how not free they are. Freedom, by definition, cannot be “imposed,” it can only be allowed.
C)To say that “true democracy” would entail the Shiites taking over would be like saying that “true democracy” in the US could only occur if Anglo-Saxon Protestants ran every level of government.Guess what.
D) If there are levels of freedom, then Iraq has moved so far up the ladder to freedom that to discount it in the way you did, in my opinion, is to ******* [rest of post deleted due to offensive content]. It demonstrates two things:
One: your spelling errors, turgid political stance, and IP Address expose you as none other than “John L” from the Ornery discussion boards, who for some reason chose to hide his name and email address so he could follow me here and harass me since I left the boards in part to escape from his relentless stupidity and pestering.
And two: you just violated the civil norms I warned you in my last comment reply that would get you banned, just as OrneryMod has deleted so many of your messages for offensive comments–and apparently has banned you from there as well, as your incessant posting suddenly and jarringly stopped a few days before you suddenly popped up here.
You will not be allowed to track your insulting, sarcastic and offensive prose here simply because you have no where else to go.
Off you go, gnat. Buzz somewhere else.