|
Friday Sep 25, 2009
Rosner's Domain: Can big egos handle the "bottom up" process?Posted by SHMUEL ROSNER
Comments: 56      Follow Rosner's Domain on Twitter! / Join me on Facebook! From analysis I wrote for the Jewish Chronicle: This American mediator now has a problem. Israelis are suspicious of him because of his battles with their government. Palestinians are disappointed since they did not get what they want. As special envoy George Mitchell goes back to the drawing board, he will have to scale back expectations - and start where Israelis (and some Palestinians) think he has the best chance for success: the so-called "bottom up" building of Palestinian institutions. Some Washington insiders already whisper that such a mission - rather than the heroic if futile attempt to produce a "final status" agreement - does not really fit Mr Mitchell's temper and ego. But the ego most worrisome for Israeli officials is not Mr Mitchell's - it is Mr Obama's.
1 | Sally - U.S.A., Friday Sep 25, 2009
Here is the problem in a nutshell: Obama is trying to blackmail Israel into conceding to its wishes. Namely, accepting Obama's predesigned image of a Palestinian state or else face a nuclear weapon Iran & face the goldstone report going to the UN security council/or ICC. With all due respect to Mr. Rosner, the facts are too glaring to ignore. First Obama is meeting with Iran although Iran already told him that they will not discuss their nuclear program. Obama's UN security council resolution is worthless - it is only recommendations. Hence, Obama is letting Iran develop its nuclear program
2 | Sally - U.S.A., Friday Sep 25, 2009
while Obama "talks" things out. Second, Obama at the sideline summit accepted Israel's restraint on settlement growth, but then threw Israel under the bus in his UN general assembly speech - declaring continued settlements as not legitimate. (Of course right after this grand speech Abbas once again would not met & negotiate with Israel.) Third, Obama simultaneously had the whitehouse declare that it "misspoke" about burying the Goldstone report. Therefore, the report (under the great leadership of Samatha Powers proponent of the false Jenin Masacre) could go to the ICC or UNSC.
3 | andy, Friday Sep 25, 2009
well you know the saying "pride goesbefore a fall" and I well remember mitchell during the troubles in northern ireland .He wasn't much of a negotiator then and i doubt him or obama will have much pride left when it comes to Israel, by trying to negoiate with them to give up any more land to the palistinian terrorists.You only needed to have watched the farce of the so called [laughable] u.n. summit yesterday to see that.
4 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Friday Sep 25, 2009
I haven't seen Obama "negotiate' yet. I've seen him let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid craft an unpalatable health care bill, and then try to sell it with misrepresentations and what he considers his personal charm and charisma. All he's accomplished is a resurgence of the Republican Party while alienating Indepandants and Seniors. Good luck to him if he can win in 2010 with only the union rank and file. He's already letting Sarkozi and Brown take the lead on getting tough with Iran, so he can be dragged into the process. His already failing strategies don't have a hope in hell in the Middle East. The last thing the region needs is an unsuccessful snake oil salesman.
5 | Daran, UK, Saturday Sep 26, 2009
Sally you seem to paint situations in such a light that, I for one am convinced, many of your comments seem agenda driven rather than a critique of events. Obama did'nt shift US policy to call for Palestinian state, that was the position of both previous admins for some years now. Its not Obama "throwing Israel under a bus" its the continuation of the illegitimate settlement expansion contrary to previous agreements which does that by itself. The idea that US could "bury" the goldstone report is also misleading given its public domain. Perhaps you mean welcomed restraint rather than accept?
6 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Saturday Sep 26, 2009
Daran. Abbas was quite content to negotiate without pre-conditions before Obama made the Cairo speech. In fact he negotiated what will likely be the best deal he'll ever see with Olmert, before rejecting it. Arafat negotialted with Barak without pre-conditions to the point where Bill Clinton was shocked when Arafat walked away from the deal. Therefore, its fruitless for you to refer to previous deals. All deals are off the table. It is aslo a matter of opinon (yours vs. mine) as to whether or not the settlements are illegal. I could say that Arab construction in Jerusalem is illegal. CONT
7 | Mile Feldman, Canada, Saturday Sep 26, 2009
Daran. CONT. Obama has a really bad habit of alienating allies while coddling adversaries. There is a less than zero pay off in his strategy. Fortunately, for Israelis his political capital and crediblity are dissapating rapidly, and if not now, he will soon be to weak to tell any foreign country what to do. He already had to back off his settlement demand. I believe in the near future he wlll be further weakened by his inablity to handle Iran. The peace process would have a better chance (slim), if he knew how to stay out of the way.
8 | Tom, US, Sunday Sep 27, 2009
7 | Mile Feldman - George Bush holds the world record as president for alienating allies while coddling adversaries. Such as that rogue state called Israel that is currently accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. So unlike the neocons who wanted the US to invade all of Israel's enemies, Obama is taking a far better approach regarding foreign policy in the middle east. While Bush and the neocons came close to starting the cold war all over again, because of the statesmanship of Obama the US and Russia are once again on a sane path in to the future.
9 | Daran, UK, Sunday Sep 27, 2009
Mike which allies has Obama alienated? not Nato not OAS not asia/pact ? so in the end you mean Israel alone is "alienated" funny that Bibi did'nt mention that in "summit" communique? Perhaps because those with insight know that Israel simply could not reject America. Also Tom your not debating with me about the illegitimate nature of the settlements but with UN EU and ICJ and you lost some time ago. Obama is seeking to tell countries what to do? if he were he could order Israel to withdraw given the extent of american support needed by Israel to function. I support Israel.
10 | Daran, UK, Sunday Sep 27, 2009
Mike which allies has Obama alienated? not Nato not OAS not asia/pact ? so in the end you mean Israel alone is "alienated" funny that Bibi did'nt mention that in "summit" communique? Perhaps because those with insight know that Israel simply could not reject America. Also Tom your not debating with me about the illegitimate nature of the settlements but with UN EU and ICJ and you lost some time ago. Obama is seeking to tell countries what to do? if he were he could order Israel to withdraw given the extent of american support needed by Israel to function. I support Israel.
11 | GOLDEN NUGGET, Sunday Sep 27, 2009
MIKE..."palestinians" have "big egos" trying to pretend that Jewish land is theirs..#8 referred to as Tomidiot assumes the "bottom up" position when he prays with them on his prayer mat where they give him the "handle" ...THERE you have the answer to the question:- can big ego palestinians handle Tomidiot's "bottom up"...yep..they sure can...
12 | Mike Feldman Canada, Sunday Sep 27, 2009
Daran. Some debates do not follow to a conclusion based on the merits of one posters opinions. I, for one, do not believe that America's European Allies are as pleased with Obama as you assert. I see Britain and France telling Iran that the game is over, whle Obama is talking about opening a dialogue. Maybe you don't think of the Poles and the Czechs as US allies, but I can assure you they're feeling betrayed by Obama. I stated before that the Palesinians were very willing to meet the Israelis without pre-conditions before Obama's speech. Israel can maintain relations with the US while Palestinian intransigence assures there is no peace agreement.
13 | Sally - U.S.A., Sunday Sep 27, 2009
He has alienated Honduras, Japan, South Korea,Thailand, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Poland, India, and Israel, just to name a few. Additionally, China is ticked offed about the US monetizing its debt & the 35% tarriff on its tires - so that may start a trade war. France & Britain are ticked that the US didn't tell them about the second Iranian nuclear plant near Qom & now they have egg on their faces.
14 | Daran, UK, Sunday Sep 27, 2009
What nonsense about Polish and Czechs as being betrayed. Both are NATO members any attack on them is an attack on us all (nato members). Those missiles would have nothing to offer in the way of protection to either the Poles or Czechs given their nature. Those disaffect by this decision are chiefly angered by loss of face at home given they sold this to countrymen knowing it didn't enhance defense of those nations. Also the demand for a settlement freeze was in place long before the Obama speech. Remember Bush calling continued settlement obstacle to peace? I do .
15 | Mike Feldman Canada, Monday Sep 28, 2009
Daran. As I mentioned the opinions of a poster are just that. Who are you to call the feelings of the Czechs and Poles nonsense? I have seen their diplomats interviewed and I have heard their words. An attack on them is an attack on all NATO members. Yipdee do. It OK for Obama to cause political leaders to "loose face" at home. Is this how you forge alliances? Is it good politics to put pressure on Israel by calling them out in a speech in Cairo? There have been many "demand's" in place on the Palestinians, none of which have been met. Did Obama tell them what they had to do? Finally, we'll have to disagree on the legitamacy of the settlements.
16 | Daran, UK, Monday Sep 28, 2009
Mike "but I can assure you they're feeling betrayed by Obama" apparently my comments are opinions (so be it) but yours are assurances. I have to freely admit I find no reassurance in your comments given their lack of source, how do you know? because fox news told you? could provide links to these malcontents? there will disappointment about the sweeteners 20 billion$. Perhaps the savings from building this untried and untested system will allow the Americans some leeway to featherbed this with some military aid$ . As I point out ^ your disagreement is not just with me but every Israeli ally
17 | Daran, UK, Monday Sep 28, 2009
Sally given the nature of the defacto gov in Honduras alienation seems no bad thing. Could you provide one link for those other gov's you mention confirming their "disaffection and alienation"? Again you seek to use language in such a way which is so far from an accurate descriptor than one is forced to consider that your motives are not to enlighten others but rather to mislead . I have no doubt you hold passionate views, your continued characterisations maligning the US admin just lack truth.
18 | Sally - U.S.A., Monday Sep 28, 2009
Daran, it would kind of help out in a discussion if you would bother to read the news. (not just the bits and pieces the comply with your ideology.)
19 | Sally - U.S.A., Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
Daran, ad hominem attacks are not proof of your arguments; so, why don't you try refuting (with proof not your opinion) what I say instead of personally attacking me. As for truth, try reading the Wallstreet Journal, the Jerusalem Post, Commentary,
the Washington Post & other major, credible news outlets. Oh by the way, Zelayda, now says that he is being bombarded with radiation by Israelis. So much for your view (& Obama's) that he should be reinstalled as president of Honduras.
20 | Daran, Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
Sally indeed a wide ranging of sources is never a bad thing. I do regularly read the WP though not MH, That I read the JP is self evident. I hope you accept that my "ad hominem attacks" are directed at your contentions and methodology rather than you as a person. Perhaps you could take your own advice about Zelaya, could you provide a direct quote about "radiation waves" as opposed to questions about the nature of communication equipment Zelaya claims his supporters recovered near to the Brazilian emb. ?
21 | Sally - U.S.A., Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
Wallstreet Journal & Commentary Contentions & realclearpolitics. Also, when you parse words with me when you argue a point with me that only proves that you are incorrect. So, just admit it. Also, on another post you have attacked me personally; furthermore, if you were attacking my methodology, you would be able to state the type of argument or method that is incorrect, which you haven't been able to do. Also, it is not self evident that you read the J'Post because you refute many items that I take directly from the Jerusalem Post. (which are also many times in other major news outlets.)
22 | Sally - U.S.A., Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
Also, you have not refuted my examples that I gave in #13. Also, Obama did change policy when he when from "restraint" on Tuesday to questioning the legitamacy of settlements altogether on Wednesday. Also, Reagan specifically said settlements were not illegal. Also, Obama reneged on settlement agreement that US had with Israel - see J'Post & Washington Post Olment article. Also, you did not refute my claim, in Contentions, JTA, WSJ, J'Post, that Obama changed his policy concerning the Goldstone report.
23 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
Daran. Dancing With the Stars was on American T.V. last night. I was surprised to not see you there. In the twists and turns of your recent blogs, I've lost track of where you claim to be coming from. For the moment, please set your epee down, and state if you are in favour of any solutions or resoltuions to tensions in the Middle East, and the methodogy you favour to achieve these results.
24 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
Daran. Is this your "technique"? If somene doesn't share your views discredit their sources. In your #16 you have asked if I know because Fox News told me. Fox News has the highest cable news viewership in the U.S. Are you inferring that their viewers are, like me, misinformed? Would I be better informed if I sat before CNN, or the mainstream networks that are in the tank for Obama. Notwithstanding the news sources other than Fox, 56% of Americans recently polled are against the health care reform Obama has been hawking in his recent speeches and appearances. Wanna know why? Because they don't believe him. Lack of credibilty begins at home, but is very portable.
25 | Daran, UK, Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
Sally I thought I had provided examples from WP in form of former ambassador to Israel article about lack of agreements around settlements. Also quotes from E Abrams and Dov Weissglass about their "being no written formula" ect. As I said Olmert might say he demanded such an agreement, if so then it would be in the minutes of State dept. meetings would it not? As for examples, have you provided one link or reference to the "alienation and disaffection" ? Tommy Vietor is the name of the person who I can name as articulating US policy. Can you in all honesty given a name for source?
26 | Daran, UK, Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
Mike, I'm not suggesting that FOX news is not viewed by millions just that it should not be. Every news organisation especially those in commercial markets have bias toward their intended viewer/reader/listener. Fox news however goes beyond reportage and critical analysis into scaremongering and sensationalism. If your opinion/worldview was formed around the around the FOX news agenda then I would have no reservations in saying you or anyone else is ill informed and often misinformed. So yes you would be better informed by adding CNN or almost any other media outlet
27 | Sally - U.S.A., Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
Daran, first, please stop putting things in the form of a question to act as fact. That is not an argument, but begging the question. Second, you are misstating your question from last time as you said "minutes leading up to." If you have specific minutes from a state department meeting to the annopolis accords, as you claim this time, please provide it & the website. Third, I am glad that the very person who signed an agreement (Olmert), you wish to discount. That is certainly not a show of "great methodology" nor is it proving your point.
28 | Mike Feldman Canada, Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
Daran I take it from your response in #26, that as a minimum you believe that you are better equiped than millions of viewers in judging what are the most credible sources of their news. Fox News is not my exclusive source of reportage, however your are unquestionalbly an elitist that believes his views, and his sources, whether substantiated or not, carry more credence than those who do not agree with you. This, in my case, would preclude any further reason to exchange views with you. However, as one who previously did not consider myself an ideologue, must state that in my (no quotable source) opinon, you definately are one Too bad, because your early posts seemed to show promise for an interesting exchange of ideas.
29 | Sally - U.S.A., Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
Fourth, yes I did give sources - Reagan (see #22) and Olmert (Former Prime Minister of Israel), Wallstreet Journal, Washington Post, etc... see #21 &22. Fifth, you have not refuted my examples that I gave in #13. Sixth, you have not shown a difference between Obama's comment on Tuesday as Israel showing "restraint" as opposed to his markedly about face by questioning the legitamacy of settlements altogether on Wednesday of last week. Seventh, you have not refuted Obama's about face concerning the Goldstone report (see JTA & Contentions (Jennifer Rubin)
30 | Sally - U.S.A., Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
Eighth, what policy are you having Tommy Vietor articulate? You have only mentioned his name in #25 without saying what policy you are referring to that you claim he articulated. Nineth, no, you did not quote acurately E. Abrams. You specifically had said E. Abrahams & you took everything out of context. But as I said, Olmert signed the annapolis accords so it does not matter what underlings say nor "minutes leading up to" an agreement.
31 | Daran, UK, Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
Sally as you asked I will try to point out what I see as "problems" with your methodology. Your being taken for a ride by by article in the MH is fair example, as I see it.Did Zelaya say he was being poisoned or that Israeli's where directing radiation at him or does F Robeles , read the article again. select only that which is quotation marks ""Israeli mercenaries'' , "We are being threatened with death,'' ""I prefer to march on my feet than to live on my knees before a military dictatorship,''. I myself think it likely this interview was conducted in spainish so even these need questioned.
32 | Mike Feldman Canada, Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
To cut through all the machinations, my view, unsupported by impecable sources, is that the simplest, smartest move Barak Obama or George Mitchell could make would be to get tacit agreement from the Palestinians that they are agreeable to the offer that Olmert made to Abbas and then see if they can apply pressure to Netanyahu to accept the deal. There is no better deal, and the methods currently being employed are not likely to even get the parties back to the deal Abbas turned down. That is not to say that I favour the deal, it is only to say that I believe that would be the best U.S. strategy.
33 | Daran, UK, Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
Sally I cant disprove false positives, if you provide examples of the alienation and disaffected you claim I will seek to show recent direct quotations and policy statements by the parties involved which undermine that position and by examining the reportage which you say makes that claim. I brought up minutes of meetings because the Sec. Of State said not scrap of paper could be found outlining said agreement, my reading of that is no such notes or minutes exist. I will use an extreme example to highlight my meaning surrounding our disagreement about "restraint" if allowed .cont.
34 | Daran, UK, Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
Sally, if one nation was raining bombs down on another, wrongly in your opinion. and that nation announced it would only drop halve the amount of bombs it had been, could you welcome such "restraint" ? oh and by the way the ? are really intended to elicit a response and rarely used rhetorically. the no formula quote I gave was Dov Weisglass rather than E Abrams but he also has said no written text exists and could find that direct quote if you wish. Tommy Vietor is the named official who corrected the "impression" that JTA reported an unamed"top official" had given about Goldstone report.
35 | Daran, UK, Wednesday Sep 30, 2009
Mike, glad and sad. Glad your not precluding other sources of news/info/opinion than Fox, note I never said you or millions of Americans do. The Fox jibe, I freely admit its not my politest moment, was aimed sources for feelings of betrayal and alienation. Sad you feel you must refrain from any further exchange, I find the rigor of exposing your own views to those with differing opinions helps understanding and is self correcting. I was stung by your charge of elitism and reminded of a quote by Churchill "Mr Attlee is a humble man....(I refer to myself of course)
36 | Sally - U.S.A., Wednesday Sep 30, 2009
Daran,1. I never cite an MH - so why are you saying that I did & then procede to discount it? 2.There are no minutes of the annapolis accords; moreover, first you say in a previous post that the minutes "are leading up to" the accords, but then you are saying minutes of the accords & then you say no minutes exist. Make up you mind. The main point is Olmert said what the actual aggreement was & he signed it; so, he should know. Not you. But of course, you will never concede that you are incorrect & will only disparage other people while totally not proving your disparagement.
37 | Sally - U.S.A., Wednesday Sep 30, 2009
Daran, 3. You are also miss quoting Obama. He said "restraint" towards building in the settlements, not about Gaza. 4.For those interested, contentions (Jennifer Rubin) on 9/29/09 gave a good, acurate account of how Obama had said he would quash the Goldstone report; then reneged on it. 5. Your methodology Daran is to miss quote, parse words, change what you say from one post to the next, mistate names, think of some reason not to answer a question. I think if anyone has a methodology problem Daran, it is you.
38 | Sally - U.S.A., Wednesday Sep 30, 2009
Daran, 6. Not that you will be able to refute me, you will only invent things, but the WSJ has had excellent articles, which you can google, on China going after the US for its spending, its monetizing its debt & its 35% tarriff on Chinese tires. Also, both France & to a lesser extent Britain, has been going after Obama about Iran. See WSJ, Contentions, the new republic. The asian nations have been very upset about North Korea. The US is trying to soothe things over & there is an article in the WSJ about this soothing with SKorea. Also, the asian nations were meeting to discuss NKorea - they
39 | Sally - U.S.A., Wednesday Sep 30, 2009
did not want just meetings between Obama & NKorea (because that is how NKorea got a bomb to start with - thanks to Clinton & Carter); they want multi-national meetings. So Obama has had to concede. (See WSJ; the J'Post, Contentions.) As these examples point out, there has been substantial friction. Also, see NYT, WSJ about how H Clinton offended India - the nation with the second largest population in the world which also has the cow as a sacrid animal, doesn't want to be lectured about carbon. Also, the US gave something like 900 million in military to Pakistan, & they put it on the Kashmir
40 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Wednesday Sep 30, 2009
Right on Daran. My views are exposed in assisting you to foster understanding. Like all far-left pseudo-intellectualls you have trouble abiding to the simple truth that is is not necessary to follow your lead and your truths to be right. Your Churchill quote is a red flag helping reveal your true character. The simple fact is that your too smug and too full of puffery to sustain a daily blog. The best bloggers on this, or any site, are the ones that can check their egos at the door.
41 | Sally - U.S.A., Wednesday Sep 30, 2009
boarder when it was suppose to be used to fight the Taliban. Also, see WSJ, NYT, WashPost, etc... about Georgia & the long term missiles that the US was going to put in places like the Czech Republic & Poland & is now reneging on.
42 | andy, Wednesday Sep 30, 2009
as far as I'm concerned this colume seems to be about who seems the most inteligent of you all GO AND GET REAL.
43 | Sally - U.S.A., Wednesday Sep 30, 2009
excuse me, long term missile defense for post #41. Also, Unless you personally interviewed Zelayda, why are you discounting the interview? That is another problem - if something does not agree with your "ideology," you consider it wrong & disparage it & then since you disparage it, you (and that is only you because no one agrees with you) think it is no longer fact or proof.
44 | Daran, UK, Thursday Oct 01, 2009
Sally I was wrong to say you cite MH its just looking into those reports in other media that report was published there first and others picked it up.Sally the example was just that, an hypothetical nation. not a reference to Gaza. My point is Obama welcomed restraint building settlements, any restraint is better than none. He did not as you intimated "accept" that level of settlements building. I'm really thrown by your statements about the Nkoreans preferring multi party talks rather than direct meetings one on one with the US, I thought the position was the exact opposite. cont
45 | Daran, UK, Thursday Oct 01, 2009
Sally, cont. I'm just not aware of the "cow" story. I note you now characterise these difficulties differently than alienation and disaffection. Which was what brought me in, Not that I'm sure I accept, for instance, that military aid used by Pakistan has the policies of Obama to blame. You might want to check the types of arms purchased using aid under Bush and their possible uses regarding low tech insurgency the taliban poses. To renege on an agreement you must first have one (where we heard this before) .
46 | Michael USA, Thursday Oct 01, 2009
Whoa! What was the original topic here? Seems to me that in trying to convince each other that your methodology is correct & the other person is wrong the topic under discussion is being lost in the mists of obfuscation! Let's get back on track, OK? The original topic is: "Can big egos handle the "bottom up" process?" I don't think Obama can handle that kind of arrangement. He is sold on his intelligence & ability to control the world whilst he continuously stumbles and falls. Hilary has proven she is a loose cannon on a short leash, temper wise. The US is falling short in the world court!
47 | Sally - U.S.A., Thursday Oct 01, 2009
Daran, with all due respect, everything that you say is completely bizarre. Can't you read? I specifically said the Asian nations that met to discuss (i.e. talk about) NKorea want multi-national talks; I did not say NKorea wanted mult-national talks. In any case, this just proves my point about your outlandish comments about other reader's comments.
48 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Thursday Oct 01, 2009
Michael USA. I think the words "Can big egos" is what drew Daran into the debate. I think Daran is practicing for a position that requires excellent double-speak skills.
49 | Sally - U.S.A., Thursday Oct 01, 2009
Thanks Mike
50 | Daran.UK, Thursday Oct 01, 2009
Sally, my apologies for misreading your Nkorean comments. and I'm sorry there has be a but, But Obama hasn't conceded anything. From the WSJ 29/9 "The way to get at this issue is through the six-party talks and to return to the commitments they made in 2005 and 2007" US Skorean amb.
51 | Michael USA, Friday Oct 02, 2009
48 | Mike Feldman, Canada~~ Perhaps you're right. There are many people who use words just to hear their own voices (in this case to see it in print) & impress themselves with their own glibness and sophistry! This seems to be the case here with many of the commentators. You add a streak of sanity to an otherwise manic course of interchange. He he he! ( I can use big words also ;-)) I detest ppl like daran, tom, lydiot, & others who sprinkle their essays with garbage & rhetoric & ignore the reality of the situation. I'm very tired of all the racism I encounter in comments on various articles
52 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Saturday Oct 03, 2009
#51. With a name like yours, you're bound to be an intelligent guy.
53 | Michael USA, Saturday Oct 03, 2009
#52~~ Thank you Mike, from one intelligent guy to another :-)
54 | lydia, Sunday Oct 04, 2009
52 Mike, see you have taken up Nugget's hobby and started playing with yourself Mate. Your life must be so dearth of good deeds that you need your handle Michael #48 to pay you compliments. What happened to 'AfroAmerican" and "Nahum" and the others, aren't they too expected to come out and say what a smart intelligent little Chapie you are? Mate, it's a sad state of affairs when such a tricky little jew like yourself have to use his many aliases to stroke his ego.
55 | Mike Feldman Canada, Sunday Oct 04, 2009
54 Your desperate.
56 | GOLDEN NUGGET, Monday Oct 05, 2009
Mike..Lydiot plays with HERSELF with her mongrel brother's "several tongues"..you know those several tongues she boasts he possesses..thats why she calls him "Hun" aka "Honey" while
he "applies" his "talented tongues" in the service of his mongrel sister..thats what happens to
his garbled posts when he talks with his mouth full...
|
 |
Search this blog
The Israel Factor, Sep. 2009: Obama is rapidly losing favor with panel of Israeli experts
Tags:
Blogroll |
Post your own comment
