Reformed Chicks Blabbing

Reformed Chicks Blabbing


Why won’t Obama omit that he was wrong about the surge?

posted by Susan Johnson

That’s the question of this USA Today editorial. The answer is very easy: he would be crucified by the antiwar wing of his party and Nancy Pelois and Reid would have a cow. They’ve been saying all along that the war is lost and we have to get our troops out of Iraq and nothing we do will stop the civil war between the Sunnis and Shia. But here, when faced with the obvious, he has to now do a dance to avoid dissing the troops but attributing the reduction to some other source. It’s all so obvious and amusing.
And I bet he doesn’t want to admit that he got it wrong, it would underline his lack of experience, wisdom and judgment. The result is that he’s being just as stubborn as he claims Bush of being. Didn’t the left harp on Bush to admit he made a mistake? The closest Obama has come to admitting his mistake was scrubbing his website of his objection to the surge and his prediction that it would fail and actually increase the violence. Obviously he wasn’t as knowledgeable about the situation as he thought he was.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(20)
post a comment
Jason

posted July 24, 2008 at 12:47 pm


Obama is unique, he can hold both positions on every issue at the same time. He can tell one group the surge has failed, yet tell another group of people on the same day that the surge has undeniably worked.
He can defend and deny both positions at the same time.
Now thats cool!



report abuse
 

Alicia

posted July 24, 2008 at 1:25 pm


There was a pretty good piece about this in SLATE yesterday, arguing the McCain’s attack on Obama for failing to admit the surge has worked was a very legitimate and successful attack (at the same time, justly criticizing McCain’s ‘silly’ attack ad suggesting that Obama is responsible for high gas prices).
I am in complete agreement that Obama doesn’t want to alienate the Left Wing of the Democratic Party by admitting that the surge has worked. But, he risks looking like a fool to average Americans who are considering who to vote for in November by not being able to admit the obvious.



report abuse
 

RG

posted July 24, 2008 at 1:43 pm


Why won’t the GOP admit they have been wrong about nearly everything?
Keep attacking- nobody’s listening! They’re too busy trying to survive years of Republican rule.
The middle class in this country is on the ropes, and you have NOTHING TO OFFER.
Name a new idea the GOP has had in 30 years, and people may start to listen.



report abuse
 

ZZ

posted July 24, 2008 at 2:30 pm


RG, thanks for admitting defeat by responding with broad, generalized attack rather than specific rebuttal.
And thanks for having the guts to show up and blow your horn when you didn’t even have the decency to wish our host well in her surgery.



report abuse
 

Christopher Taylor

posted July 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm


It’s pretty obvious that he can’t admit it worked because he spent hours explaining how it would be a failure and voting against it. He’d basically be highlighting his gross ignorance and lack of qualification for the job he’s applied for.
Nothing succeeds like success in America. You can make a lot of mistakes, you can stumble and do foolish stuff, but if you win, that absolves you of all the failures before. Pull it off, and all is forgiven, and that’s Senator Obama’s basic problem. We won, and that hurts him more than anything else.
Not just him, the Democrats and their friends in the legacy media. They were banking on, counting on, hoping for failure, misery, and loss in Iraq. They failed and were proven wrong. That’s what they face now: the surge was so successful, Iraq has become so pacified that they cannot deny it any more. Even idiot attempts like Wesley Clark’s “Saudis and Iranians did it” sound like the rantings of a frothing lunatic.
This is their worst nightmare: it worked.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted July 24, 2008 at 6:18 pm


you’re an idiot and a despicable human being if you believe that democrats “were banking on, counting on, hoping for failure, misery, and loss in Iraq.” and if you don’t believe it, then you’re just a troll for saying it. it’s preposterous and insulting, and i think you owe democrats an apology, though i don’t expect one to be coming.
your depiction of his “ignorance and lack of qualification” is unjust and unfair when you don’t apply the same logic to anyone who cannot predict the future (including mccain, bush, michele, et al). of course, obama’s answers on the matter have been more nuanced than most conservatives can understand. he was talking about the broader issue of peace, stability, governmental policy, and so on, not just a fragile lull in violence. yes, obama opposed the surge and voted against it. he also was right to oppose the invasion in the first place. in the light of the growing civil war, he wasn’t convinced that the 20,000 would be enough on its own to change the course in iraq.
when we first invaded iraq, i thought we should hit it with everything we had, with as many troops as we could spare. but after a few years of the messes, the screw ups, and playing whack-a-mole around the desert, even i was very much opposed to the “surge” and for good reason. granted, our military is the best in the world and our soldiers perform to the best of their abilities but even an additional 20,000 wasn’t enough to secure even just the hot spots, let alone the entire country. in the most honest of evaluations, iraq could still be very much worse than it is today had it not been for the sunni insurgents turning their focus from fighting us to fighting against al qaeda in iraq, even with our “surge” troops there. to deny that it took anything less than a lucky convergence of events (anbar awakening, sectarian segregation, mass exodus of civilians, the extra 20,000 u.s. troops, better trained iraqi army) to reduce the level of violence would be brainless and uninformed. as most conservatives here ignore the many other contributing factors to the lull in violence and put all the credit in bush’s “surge” well, then, i guess they’re in that group.
with regard to the troops, obama has given credit where credit is due. but it makes a better story for conservatives if they just ignore that.
here’s what conservatives are dealing with. the war was a mistake, but they can’t face that. so they come up with hundreds of excuses to make it settle with their conscience. fine. but now they say that we’ve “won” and “it worked” and “the surge was so successful, Iraq has become so pacified” and that the iraqi army is leading its own attacks on insurgents and al qaeda in iraq has been decimated. and still they can’t explain why we can’t withdraw our troops without calling such a move “defeat” or “loosing the war.”
obama’s plan to withdraw the troops by 2010 is the right thing to do. we know it, the iraqis know it, but you want us there indefinitely.



report abuse
 

Guy Arthur Thomas

posted July 24, 2008 at 6:56 pm


REINCARNATO the RIDICULOUS
You remain clueless. You have no idea the challenges we face now or did face since we invaded and removed Hussein.
You have no understanding or concept of what is being required of our military in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter.
You claim, clever one, you wanted us to go in and hit them with everything. WHO IS THEM? You don’t even know what you are talking about.
The THEM, you clown, couldn’t be hit with everything. Once Saddam was removed, it would matter what fire power you had, the THEM wasn’t easily identifiable. IT actually required a process. It required EXTENSIVE intelligence gathering that could only occur AFTER we were present to the extent we were. You clown, these were not people in GERMAN UNIFORMS or JAPANESE uniforms, these were for the most part TERRORISTS hidden among the people through intimidation for the most part and cooperation from some.
They have practiced, during and after Saddam and all over the middle east, the method of BLENDING with the population to enable them to remain present for so long. Oh clown of clowns, even countries that can identify their population with a great degree of clarity still have unidentified terrorists in their midst every day seeking to further their efforts threw the use of whatever weapons are available.
Secondly, the people of IRAQ were TRAUMATIZED you nitwit from 20 years of Saddam as both head of Iraq’s security where he perfected his tyranny to his role as dictator. And so we are to just LEAVE a traumatized nation helpless after deposing the government that terrorized them through mass murder, torture and genocide?
Who do you think knew they would be scared and probably quite debilitated and vulnerable? Yeah, terrorists who sought to pour in, just like CRIMINALS do when they loot, rob and steal during times of instability.
Sorry ding dong REINCARNATO the RIDICULOUS, war, justified war, still brings instability. We have been fighting TERRORISTS. IRAQ needed protection and stabilization and did for some time and STILL DO. There is no extensive military HISTORY regarding the engagement of Al Q. Get it? Much of it was what we had to learn in the first 36 months.
Yes we are furthering their efforts toward autonomous security and that is the goal, Bush has made that clear. But your silly notion and ignorance of military action, the nature of war and particularly engagement in the middle east is substantial and should be embarrassing for you. Instead it only ignites your arrogance and incites your ego to posture and lecture people about things you have only your imagination for as a frame of reference.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted July 24, 2008 at 11:46 pm


ah, the troll returneth. he must have heard his name. welcome back, guy.
“You claim, clever one, you wanted us to go in and hit them with everything. WHO IS THEM? You don’t even know what you are talking about.”
the THEM, at that time was saddam and his “axis of evil” baath party that we were suckered into believing posed an immediate threat by your boy king of propaganda. or have you forgotten that THEY are the ones that we went in after… it was, in the beginning, to be a conventional war, a coalition of forces against the evil baath party wielding chemical and biological weapons, nuclear warheads, possibly a mushroom cloud or two, who aided al qaeda to attack the u.s. (so we were told). don’t be so mentally obtuse. you’ve bought every excuse thrown out by the neocons such that you’ve forgotten the ones that took us there in the first place.
“The THEM, you clown, couldn’t be hit with everything. Once Saddam was removed, it would matter what fire power you had, the THEM wasn’t easily identifiable.”
the THEM that i’m talking about, you brain tumor, is saddam and his army. i wasn’t talking about hitting anyone with everything post-saddam. that’s all you.
the THEM that you talk about, you butt pustule, did not come into iraq until we destabilized the security of iraq. the other of THEM (that weren’t easily identifiable) were the sunnis who hated us being there enough to attack us as soon as saddam was gone. apparently you weren’t informed of that. big surprise.
“Secondly, the people of IRAQ were TRAUMATIZED you nitwit from 20 years of Saddam as both head of Iraq’s security where he perfected his tyranny to his role as dictator. And so we are to just LEAVE a traumatized nation helpless after deposing the government that terrorized them through mass murder, torture and genocide?”
no kidding, shirlock? golly, makes me wonder why the republican regime sent your hero rumsfeld there to shake hands with such a brutal dictator and make deals with him and help him to build his arsenal. i love how you use this as an excuse decades too late. surely, had we truly known where said WMD were and actually found them, you wouldn’t be clinging to this excuse du jour. and yes, after deposing the baath party, and the new democratically elected government has asked us to plan our departure, and the people of iraq overwhelmingly want us to leave, that is precisely what we should do, maggot.
“war, justified war, still brings instability. We have been fighting TERRORISTS. IRAQ needed protection and stabilization and did for some time and STILL DO.”
there are a few problems with your logic here. first of all, you contradict yourself. if iraq needed stabilization, yet war brings instability, then… well, see if you can connect those dots, genius. secondly, it was the war that destabilized iraq that brought the whole house of cards down (to spell it out for you so you don’t blow a gasket trying to comprehend: we made the mess that we’re in, much to bin laden’s delight). additionally, the invasion of iraq was not justified, and we know that, or at least most of us know that, although there are you warmongers who believe that every war we wage is justified.
“But your silly notion and ignorance of military action, the nature of war and particularly engagement in the middle east is substantial and should be embarrassing for you. Instead it only ignites your arrogance and incites your ego to posture and lecture people about things you have only your imagination for as a frame of reference.”
reflections of yourself, pumpkin? not that it matters, because this is merely a red herring. even if i had no knowledge of the nature of war, middle east conflicts, or history, it still would have no bearing on the reality that the reasons sold to us for invading iraq were wrong, and that the iraqis want us to leave, and there’s a time line that you just can’t deal with. not that you would ever recognize your errors in simple logic, because you’re so full of yourself and hatred for anything that gets in the way of your own little reality, sir guy arthur dumbass, knight of the short bus.
so, you have yet to address the fact that maliki, along with the iraqi people want us to pack up and leave by 2010. you completely avoided any of that and instead did what you do best – ranted and raved and foamed at the mouth at a “lefty lib” with what you think you know about me. so be it. if that’s the best you can do… well, it’s all we’ve come to expect anyway.
to everyone else, i apologize for the tone and level that guy has brought this to. sometimes you have to get in the gutter to communicate with the worm.



report abuse
 

Guy Arthur Thomas

posted July 25, 2008 at 9:23 am


to everyone else, i apologize for the tone and level that guy has brought this to. sometimes you have to get in the gutter to communicate with the worm.
Posted by: anonymous reincarnate | July 24, 2008 11:46 PM
_____________________________________________________________
Yes, it’s not YOUR fault you chose to communicate in a way that makes you feel like you have to apologize, it’s someone else’s fault. Hahahahaha, you LEFTY LIBS are more predictable than a calendar.
As for your crazy rantings about 2010, no REINCARNATO the RIDICULOUS, Iraq nor Maliki have stated they want us out by 2010. As usual for your LEFTY LIBS, you read Der Spiegel and cite it even after its dishonest reporting of Maliki’s words was made clear. Typical.
Maliki has no choice right now but to publicly take the posture of wanting to initiate a withdraw. He is under pressure to portray a move toward sovereignty and lessen ties with the U.S. in order to get the status of forces agreement through parliament. But not even the parliament has said they want the forces out by 2010.
What they have agreed upon is that “assuming that positive developments continue” the time table or time horizon mentioned reflects their similar hopes. At no point has he or the parliament said “we want you out by 2010″ that is your invention. Your goofy position is that they simply want us out. WRONG LEFTY LIB. Guess what clueless one, the positive developments are a result of the surge and the by-products of the surge (Sunni concessions and so on) wouldn’t exist if not for the surge and in fact our continued and tireless efforts during the entire engagement. DUH.
At no point has anyone said that if it does not warrant our presence we must insist on being there. No one. Once again you create fictitious claims by others in order to form a position for yourself. IF IT IS NECESSARY and Maliki acknowledges that, if it is necessary he accepts our continued presence. His political statements are also necessary. He cannot be viewed as simply being an extension of the American government and he isn’t. But your silly notion that he is taking the position of an antagonist only displays your unsophisticated understanding of world affairs, leadership and politics.
However, the truth on this matter is available. It appears your mind treats the truth as waste and fiction as food so at this point, because I indeed am gracious, I’ll offer you the parting shot and save my ideological ammunition for other articles.



report abuse
 

priceofliberty

posted July 25, 2008 at 9:29 am


I’m disturbed by the push for people to get Obama to admit the surge “worked”. What is your criteria for having it work? I think that is the main reason timetables and metrics have been opposed because then its harder to spin.
The truth is violence declined with more troops– that should be a big fat duh to most people. But McCain implies worked == victory.
My question is if the surge “worked” why can’t we withdraw? I thought we were “victorious”?
But of course the leaders that think we are victorious also think iraq is the 1st major conflict since 9-11. I guess Afganistan isn’t a conflict? Our leaders that say the surge worked as a mantra also think Checksolvakia is still a country, and Pakistan and Iraq share a border.
Lately McCain has shown that he doesn’t know what the surge was, let alone know what it accomplished. I have expect McCain to make a banner.



report abuse
 

Jason

posted July 25, 2008 at 2:41 pm


“The truth is violence declined with more troops– that should be a big fat duh to most people. But McCain implies worked == victory.”
Well I guess your guy Obama is big freakin retard then…He stated that the surge would not reduce viloence.
“My question is if the surge “worked” why can’t we withdraw? I thought we were “victorious”?”
For the same reason we are in still in Korea and Germany.



report abuse
 

recovering ex-Pentecostal

posted July 25, 2008 at 5:16 pm


Maybe you just aren’t watching the right news sources, Michele. I saw him being interviewed last night where he did, indeed, say that the surge is working. In fact, his (rather insightful) words were to the effect, ‘Sending in 30,000 more troops – how could that not work.’ And he’s right. As he was when he questioned the wisdom of invading a country that was not attacking America.
Meanwhile, America fires its best Arabic translators because they love others of the same sex.
Meanwhile, America fires judges because, because, um, “I have no recollection of that.” – A. Gonzales
Meanwhile, America shits on Habeas corpus.
Meanwhile, America wiretaps its citizens.
Meanwhile, America allowed sub-prime loans.
Meanwhile, America ignored New Orleans post-Katrina – heckuva job there, Brownie – and continues to allow looneytunes ‘evangelists’ to blame Katrina on gays.
Meanwhile, America sinks into its greatest debt in history. (“I can’t believe I ‘won’ – I was running against peace and prosperity.” – George W. Bush, 2000)
Meanwhile, America waterboards.
Meanwhile, to echo RG, Why won’t the GOP admit they have been wrong about nearly everything?
(You did want “specific rebuttal”, ZZ.)
George W(armonger) Bush (aka ‘failure boy’) has nearly destroyed America and its standing in the world, nevermind 98% of your personal freedoms. (Anyone else miss the days when America was proudly the “land of the free”?)



report abuse
 

recovering ex-Pentecostal

posted July 25, 2008 at 5:25 pm


Christopher Taylor ‘thinks’ “We won”.
Yeah, R-I-I-I-G-H-T. “Mission accomplished” – fer shure.



report abuse
 

Guy Arthur Thomas

posted July 25, 2008 at 6:32 pm


Meanwhile, America shits on Habeas corpus.
Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | July 25, 2008 5:16 PM
________________________________________________________________
Oh, this must be that Christ likeness you wanted me to display when you complain so vehemently about me…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…..HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….
You LEFTY LIBS know no bounds to your hypocrisy. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Next Please!



report abuse
 

Guy Arthur Thomas

posted July 25, 2008 at 6:36 pm


Meanwhile, America ignored New Orleans post-Katrina – heckuva job there, Brownie – and continues to allow looneytunes ‘evangelists’ to blame Katrina on gays.
Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | July 25, 2008 5:16 PM
(If you don’t believe me, check out the myriad comparisons of gay relationships to cannabalism, necrophilia, child-molestation, rape, incest, (yet more) bestiality), etc., etc., etc., over on the not-too-hard-not-too-soft Con blog).
Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | July 25, 2008 4:05 PM
_______________________________________________________________
We get it “REX” you’re an angry, bitter and ranting homosexual.
Next Please!



report abuse
 

RG

posted July 25, 2008 at 9:36 pm


NEXT PLEASE!
NEXT PLEASE!
NEXT PLEASE!
NEXT PLEASE!
You see, others can do it too. But that, coupled with lots of name-calling, and lots of HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHs , still doesn’t amount to an argument. It just proves that you have a lot of arrogance , even when you’re wrong. In other words, it proves you’re a Bush supporter.
Most of the public has noticed the routine, and it’s gotten stale.
NEXT PLEASE!



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted July 26, 2008 at 2:38 am


“Yes, it’s not YOUR fault you chose to communicate in a way that makes you feel like you have to apologize, it’s someone else’s fault.”
see, i understand that some people don’t like your childish manners, so i apologize to them for that. but, believe me, i have no problem treating you like the steaming pile of feces that you are.
“It appears your mind treats the truth as waste and fiction as food so at this point, because I indeed am gracious, I’ll offer you the parting shot and save my ideological ammunition for other articles.”
let’s see what your mind thinks about truth, worm.
“Iraq nor Maliki have stated they want us out by 2010.”
seems your right when you only read the article in spiegel – prime minister maliki is talking about 16 months (but one would think that the starting point on that time line would start after the election and not right now):

When asked in an interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded “as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned.” He then continued: “US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.” – spiegel

but yes, in your mind, because the spiegel said it, it can’t be true (“you read Der Spiegel and cite it even after its dishonest reporting of Maliki’s words was made clear.”). well it might be good for you to know that the translation was verified by others, and spiegel will even let you listen to the interview. golly, i bet you wish now that you had that foreign language skill, huh? well, no worry, because maliki’s arabic answers were translated into english by his own translator. the completed transcript was later provided to maliki for his approval before publication.
so, you might question the 2010 date if you happened to be under your rock. apparently you missed this little nugget in a follow-up from the NYT:

Ali al-Dabbagh [maliki's spokesman], told reporters in Baghdad, “We cannot give any timetables or dates, but the Iraqi government believes the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal.” – nyt

oh, there’s that dreaded date again. guess you were wrong after all. now if you can’t accept that much, then there’s no point in reading further, because you’ve proven yourself incapable of accepting the truth.
“Maliki has no choice right now but to publicly take the posture of wanting to initiate a withdraw. He is under pressure to portray a move toward sovereignty and lessen ties with the U.S. in order to get the status of forces agreement through parliament. But not even the parliament has said they want the forces out by 2010.”
so, by your own admission, he’s posturing politically under pressure from parliament to initiate a withdrawal. why is that? because they want us out. duh. if not 2010, what date do you think that parliament us giving maliki that he would endorse that time line? if there’s pressure, then parliament must have a shorter deadline. but that’s only speculation, knowing how political pressure and compromise work. did you forget the event in early 2007, when a majority of the iraqi parliament “endorsed a bill calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and demanding a freeze on the number of foreign troops already in the country” (associated press, and similarly, the nyt on 12 may 2007)? they didn’t give the date of 2010, but they were clear that they wanted a timetable. do you deny all of the polls that led up to that, which clearly showed that always the largest majority (even up to 80%) of iraqis wanted the u.s. troops out?
“the positive developments are a result of the surge and the by-products of the surge”
i won’t deny that the surge has had an overall positive influence on the security in iraq, but other developments that you neglect to mention can’t be attributed to the surge. the anbar awakening made headlines (summer of 2006) before the surge (announced jan 2007) but actually started when the u.s. began training and supplying weapons to the abu mahals back in late 2005. former insurgents turning on the terrorists that flowed into the country was a key turning point. sectarian segregation (both voluntary and forced), ethnic cleansing, and mass exodus to other countries was rampant through 2005 and 2006 and no doubt was a factor of reduced violence in its wake.



report abuse
 

Rob

posted July 26, 2008 at 2:54 pm


I personally believe both Obama and McCain are wrong on Iraq.
We need to make Iraq our 51st state, and we need to do this right now. The new American state of Iraq, filled with religious conservatives, would breathe new life into the Republican party and balance our budget with all the income tax on oil revenues. Also, the morality required by both Sunni and Shia Islam would shore up the efforts of Christians to make America, in its 51 states, a society freer of pornography, gratuitous nudity, alcoholism, and drugs. Shiite Muslims and Reformed Christians may not share a theology, but they certainly share much of their view of society.



report abuse
 

Guy Arthur Thomas

posted July 27, 2008 at 2:51 pm


Well, if you ask the Obamanation, he thinks there are 57! Hahahahahaha, hahahahahah, hahahahahahaha! Next Please!



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted July 27, 2008 at 7:17 pm


yeah, 57, that was pretty funny! the things people say… it’s almost as funny as these numbers:
50-60 billion: iraq prewar estimates by the bush administration in dollars
12 billion: average true monthly cost of the iraq war in dollars
24: mccain’s age when “the pill” hit the market (the birth control pill that he voted against being covered by medical insurance)
2: times mccain has confused sunni and shia
2: times mccain has referred to czechoslovakia (in present tense)
2: mccain’s age when the first helicopter flew
5: years since bush started the war in iraq
72: the age mccain will be when obama wins the election
6: days for mccain to flip-flop and agree that a 16 month timeline is about right after al maliki all but endorsed obama’s position (i really thought he’d move faster!)
hahahahahahaha! oh, those funny numbers.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Reformed Chicks Babbling. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Inspiration Report Happy Reading!!!

posted 3:05:14pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

One Final Word
My dear friend Michele slipped into eternity on Wednesday, February 1.   She was a remarkable woman who left a legacy of faith, determination, and love. For three years she courageously battled the ovarian cancer that eventually robbed her of her life.  A few days before she died, one of her docto

posted 8:43:41pm Feb. 10, 2012 | read full post »

The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated
My husband told me that there are rumors that I've died. I'm happy to report that I'm still very much alive. My cancer has gone to stage four but we are controlling it with chemo, the cancer numbers are currently in the normal range. I've stopped blogging to concentrate on my daughters and writing a

posted 7:07:55pm Aug. 23, 2010 | read full post »

An update and a prayer request
Several people have asked about Michele's condition, and have promised to pray for her. On her behalf, I thank you for that. I spoke with her a little while ago, and she asked that I come here and tell you what's going on, and to ask you to pray for her. She isn't able to post here herself right

posted 4:55:36pm Apr. 06, 2010 | read full post »

Rest in peace, Internet Monk.
A man known in the cyber world as The Internet Monk, has died. Michael Spencer lost his battle with cancer tonight. My prayers go out for his family and for all those who loved and will miss him. :(

posted 11:52:00pm Apr. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.