Gyllenhaal Bashed for 9/11 Truth

MSN is reporting:

http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=189305&GT1=6428

Maggie Gyllenhaal has waded into sensitive political waters by ... [saying] that the United States "is responsible in some way" for the [September 2001 terrorist] attacks.

A fan Web site devoted to Gyllenhaal was overwhelmed with criticism, forcing the site's editor to remove the ability to post messages "because it's gotten too outta hand."...

She also expressed her grief for "everyone who suffered and everyone who died in the catastrophe."

YES!, it is true that we have angered the Arab world with unjust globalization policies and unrestrained capitalism, and Reagan and Bush I gave weapons and support to bring both Osama bin Laden and Sadam Hussein to power. Yep, that is certainly "responsible in some way."

It is also good to have the empathy to feel profound grief for the victims. The only thing that needs to be added to paint a full picture of the truth is to make clear that hateful fundamentalist religions, including the middle eastern islamists, and the US fundamentalist christian bigots, are wrong, dangerous, and at fault in the destruction they create.

•  I saw that...

  ...and I think she's doing the right thing, and we should stand by her. Hopefully after 4 years, the wave of stupid, silly patriotism that prevented all rational discussion of our role around the world has passed and we can have normal conversations about the real problems our foreign policy has caused.

  by eugene on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:05:07 AM PDT

  •  Have we EVER been able to have...

    ...those conversations?  Not in my memory, anyway...

    by OrdinaryVanity on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:20:07 AM PDT

•  Ha ha, I diared the first news of this

  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/24/13512/6278

  I linked to the Daily News poll, and Kossites were able to vote it from 60-40 "Maggie must die" to 70-30 "Maggie was right."

  It's such transparent b.s., isn't it? Bush's approval numbers are tanking, the insurgency isn't going away, DeLay is finally feeling the heat, the Social Security privatization fiasco is paving the way for the end of GOP power ... HEY LOOK OVER THERE A CELEBRITY SAID A MEAN THING!

  by daveweigel on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:05:47 AM PDT

  •  Transparent as can be

    A celebrity known for nothing says something moderately dumb and quick and a finger snap! the Vast Right Wing Noise Machine kicks into high gear as if the world were about to end. WHO CARES?????????????

    by Dont Just Stand There on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:37:15 AM PDT

    •  Dumb?

      What was dumb about what she said? Very few people, especially with any platform to be heard, have been willing to openly discuss that these deaths were civilian casualties in a war that is wrong on both sides. Osama was fighting the commies, so he was our friend. There are consequences to supporting monsters, and we need to speak against it.

      by Ryvr on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:44:17 AM PDT

      •  I am not speaking of her personally mind you

        I didn't even read her comments to be honest. I'm more subscribing to the phenomenon wherein someone from say, The Dixie Chicks, says something and it becomes a national matter of life and death. Thus, our nation's social security policy is going to hell, debtors' prison has been re-established, we're running record deficits, but what's REALLY IMPORTANT is what a celebrity said. It's E! meets Rush Limbaugh, which is exactly what Fox News is designed to be.

        by Dont Just Stand There on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:50:13 AM PDT

        •  Their lie

          I think this is just buying into the right-wing tactic of smearing the speaker of truth. Certain things need to be said, and if our political leaders were saying them, then maybe Hollywood could go back to acting. Unfortunately, as it is, these are some of the few people able and willing to be heard telling Americans what the corporate media avoids reporting. It needs to be said, so if a celebrity is the only person who will say it, they should do so.

          by Ryvr on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:57:46 AM PDT

•  Good for her

  for saying what she thinks.

  by gnat on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:07:09 AM PDT

•  umm hate to break it to the wingnuts..

  ...but she's right. and besides, can anyone that excruciatingly hot ever be truly wrong?

  "after the Rapture, we get all their shit"

  It's time: the albany project.

  by lipris on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:11:05 AM PDT

•  NO.. you are absolutely wrong in your position...

  There is NO excuse, NONE, for killing 3,000 innocents.. and to suggest that we are responsible for such actions is the equivilent of arguing that a murder victim is responsible for his death because he pissed off the shooter - or better yet killed the shooter's entire family.  No matter how gruesome the grievence no way you are justified in that action.

  Statements such as Gyllenhall's do nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to rectify the ills that the U.S. creates through its foreign policy.. it merely gives the right one more thing to tar liberals with as "America Haters."

  Statements such as "angered the Arab world with unjust globalization policies and unrestrained capitalism" are just ill-informed ranting...  This is a legitimate reason that 3,000 Americans should die?  

  The fact of the matter is that the U.S. has not always acted in the best interests of all parties in the world... it has, more than occassionally in pursuit of its "best interests" (a riduculous concept given our diverse nature), done things that upset others in the global community (which is to say that its simply impossible to please all of the people all of the time).

  None of this, however, excuses what the terrorists did to the people at the WTC, and it CERTAINLY doesn't excuse Ms. Gyllenhall for saying something patently as stupid as the U.S. is somehow responsible for that reprehensible action.
  

  by mlangner on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:21:07 AM PDT

  •  excuse me,

    but who here is excusing the murderers of 3,000 people? i think acknowledging the fact that osama (saddam too) is to some extent our creation is healthy and honest. i don't think such an admission excuses anything, nor should it. ever.

    "after the Rapture, we get all their shit"

    It's time: the albany project.

    by lipris on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:26:10 AM PDT

    •  What does the word

      responsible mean to you? Lets use Webster:"liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent" so "responsible in some way" means that the U.S. is part of the primary cause, motive or agent.. by definition that means that the terrorists are "partially not responsible" for their actions.. you can't have it both ways, you can't have one group partially responsible, and another group wholly responsible.. that's more than 100% responsible...  How is that not excusing their actions?

      To argue that Osama is our creation is neither healthy nor honest.. Osama is a thug looking to grab power - he needed an enemy to rally around, we were an easy target.. Could we have avoided Osama's wrath by making different foreign policy choices? Absolutely.  Would have doing so been in the best interest of America.. not likely (especially given the facts on the ground when those decisions were made).

      Does that excuse the Bush administration for their bungling of this from beginning to end... no.   But this CERTAINLY isn't the way to convince others that our (the Democrats) way is better (though I suspect my way and your way are a bit different).

      by mlangner on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:38:33 AM PDT

      •  Are you?

        Are you trying to make the right-wingers look bad by making obviously silly statements?

        Of course more than one party can bear full responsibility for their own actions that result in something harmful.

        If I give a gun to a man I know to be dangerous, and he shoots someone, he should be held fully accountable for murder, and I should be held fully accountable for aiding murder.

        In fact, not to hold Reagan/Bush deeply responsible for their support of Osama bin Laden, if anything, excuses the terrorists more because we are complicit that it must not have been such a bad thing to support such a man.

        by Ryvr on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:50:02 AM PDT

        •  First off..

          there is no reason to be nasty just because I disagree with your position.

          Second, your example makes no sense at all.. You give the gun to a murderer you aren't responsible for the murder, you are responsible for "aiding" the murder (you said it yourself)...  He is responsible for killing someone, you are responsible for dangerously (criminally) bad judgement - not the same thing.  That is why aiding a crime is not the same as doing a crime - hence the reason we have "accessories" to a crime.

          What does In fact, not to hold Reagan/Bush deeply responsible for their support of Osama bin Laden, if anything, excuses the terrorists more because we are complicit that it must not have been such a bad thing to support such a man. mean?  How would you suggest we do so?  

          Are you arguing that giving OBL guns to fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan was a bad thing? (particularly given the fact that it happened years before he started Al Queda?)... What would have you done put in the same shoes as those men?

          by mlangner on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:58:01 AM PDT

          •  words

            Ok, so the terrorists are 100% responsible for their actions that resulted in the deaths, and ReaganBush are 100% responsible for their actions that fostered the growth of Islamic terrorists that obviously helped them to get to the point they did.

            What would I have done if I were president instead of Regan? I would have helped the U.S. move towards a democratic, civil-liberty strong Marxism which would have made Soviet claims that they needed to engage in attrocities in order to give the workers the fruits of their own labors so ridiculous that the Berlin Wall would have fallen in 1985.

            by Ryvr on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:10:42 AM PDT

            •  Yes.. but

              I don't think the U.S. was 100%, or even 50% responsible for the creation of the environment.. MAYBE we bore more share than other state-actors because of our influence in the creation of the environment that allows terrorist organizations like Al Queda to operate - but that's not what was said and caused the uproar.

              And we certainly we bear responsibility for being bad at security against such organizations (Bush particularly given the warnings from the Clinton admin.) but that still isn't the same as being responsible in part for 9/11.. it just isn't.  Were the English and French responsible, even in part, for WWII becuase they imposed draconian measures on Germany after WWI? Of course not, and few would argue so, even though that action is universally accepted as setting the stage for the potential rise of someone like Hitler...

              As for Marxism, if North Korea, China, Cuba, and the USSR don't sway your view on why that system doesn't work too well, then I doubt anything I say will..

              by mlangner on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:37:35 AM PDT

              •  Thanks for insight and new manifesto

                I actually have had an insight as a result of this exchange.

                And yes, I do believe that the English and French were partly responsible for WWII because they partly caused an environment in which nazism could take hold.

                I think that our differnces in perspectives are consequences of socialist vs. individualist world views. I think we all hold responsibilities to make choices that result in a better world. Evil that happens in the world can certainly be solidly blamed on the immediate perpetrator, however I also believe those who do not work hard to remove the causes that result in evil people becoming powerful hold responisibility in the evil.

                All of the countries you mentioned used Marx as an excuse for tyranny. I believe that since capitalist owners are a minority, a democratic government elected by the majority of the workers whose goal is to distribute profits to those whose labor created the profit, is a real possibility. We need to implement Marxism non-violently, democraticly, and with even stronger civil liberties than exist in this country. This has not been tried, and I do not believe that it would fail. I believe that humanity would reach it's true potential under this system.

                The only slightly convincing argument that I have heard against this system is that without rewarding innovators by making them owners of the means of production, we would not have sufficient rewards to encourage innovation. I believe the fault in this argument is that money will actually be shown to be a lesser reward than the motive towards the pride that innovators will have to be contributing to the improvemnt of society. If we need a new medicine, I will work to make it not to get rich, but to save lives. Those who grow the food will keep me fed because they like what I am working on.

                Will absolutely everyone cooperate with this out of the goodness of their hearts? I believe most will because I believe that man is basically good. Those who refuse and want to take private ownership of the means of production or not contribute to the common good can justly be jailed (in humane prisons), and we will have the prison space because we will no longer lock people up in hideous inhumane prisons for inhaling the smoke of a plant that changes their thought patterns to allow insights and compassion.

                Almost every system apart from what I suggest has been tried. Why haven't they tried a Marxism along with respect for the human spirit? Because it will work wonderfully and the oligarchs will never again be able to buy five yachts. We will all work, we will all eat, we will all have medicine, and we will all have comfort.

                Yep, that was long, but I took it as you asking. Not that I necessarily expect anyone else to think so, but I feel that was one of the better expressions of my beliefs I have written. Perhaps I will use it as a start for a new "Democratic Passifist Civil-Libertarian Communist Manifesto."

                by Ryvr on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 11:10:37 AM PDT

                •  Right On Ryvr!...

                  I think that our differnces in perspectives are consequences of socialist vs. individualist world views.

                  Absolutely.. I am a left wing libertarian (if that makes any sense).. that is to say I believe that Gov't is important for creating a level playing ground for individuals to suceed (in any way they wish).. this philosophy mostly covers equality rights, sensible taxation, security and education.  I think current gov't is too big, but I don't believe that no gov't is good - I believe that actually stifles the rights of the individual - to riff off Oliver Wendell Holmes, I believe that Gov't is the price we pay for individual freedom..

                  I suppose if we could Venn diagram this we would be both to the left of center but I would be far from the x axis in one way and you the other..

                  I don't disagree with Marxism in principle.. just in practice... you do bring up one of primary challenge to Marxism, which is benefit based on innovation - or harder than average work for that matter - which I don't see how you get around.

                  My other two problems with Marxism are: 1.) there is no proper mechanism for equitible distribution and compensation of labor that doesn't involve man. 2.) Human nature.  I don't think that Lenin started out with tyranny in mind when he formed the Soviet system... but it got corrupted pretty quickly - mostly because of these two shortcomings.

                  That's why I think the best we can hope for is to give everyone a fair shot - and when I mean fair shot, I mean fair, provide everyone with a safety net that is JUST below comfortable and then let everyone find their own way...

                  Its not Marxism, its more of the principles of Marxism applied to the individual...

                  by mlangner on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 11:37:01 AM PDT

      •  Osama is our creation

        Sorry, but he is.

        We, along with the Saudis, funded the rise in Islamic extremism. And we looked the other way when we knew it was getting bad.

        Because they may have been crazy A-rabs, but at least they weren't Commies.

        Not such a good choice, in retrospect.

        Not to mention that our addiction to oil is the reason why anyone in the Middle East has the funds to devise and execute an attack such as 9/11.

        But you probably don't want to hear that, either.

        by cscs on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:50:28 AM PDT

        •  Geezus..

          under that argument then we are pretty much responsible for the death of millions of Polish Jews becuase Hitler refined the U.S. invention of the airplane to overrun Poland in 1938... meanwhile we looked the other way while it got bad...

          As for  
          Replying To:

             Osama is our creation (none / 0)

          Sorry, but he is.
          We, along with the Saudis, funded the rise in Islamic extremism. And we looked the other way when we knew it was getting bad.

          Because they may have been crazy A-rabs, but at least they weren't Commies.

          Not such a good choice, in retrospect.

          Not to mention that our addiction to oil is the reason why anyone in the Middle East has the funds to devise and execute an attack such as 9/11.

          But you probably don't want to hear that, either.

          1. Thanks for the personal attack.. since I don't agree with your assesment of U.S. culpability in 9/11 I must drive an Escalade - while towing Hummer no doubt... BTW - I commute 1 hour each way on my BICYCLE to work.. so beat that.

          2. You are absolutely right about oil dependence... but still doesn't make us responsible.. it may make us responsible for creating the opportunity.. but that's not the same thing.  Just becuase I leave the doors to my house unlocked, does not give a theif the right to steal my stuff... nor does it make me "partially" responsible for him doing so..  

           

          by mlangner on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:06:02 AM PDT

          •  I apologize for the tone

            You're right. That was a little nasty.

            The "airplane" and the "doors unlocked" arguments are not analagous to what happened in the Middle East. It is not the same as directly funding and arming the people that turned around and attacked us.

            I think we're just defining the word "responsible" differently.

            I believe that our oil dependence in some way DOES make us responsible. I believe that our choices in funding extreme the extreme Islamic movement in the late seventies and eighties makes us responsible in some way for what happened.

            You call it something different. Responsible for creating the opportunity. Maybe that's a better way of putting it.

            But we must learn from 9/11. We must understand that our actions have consequences.

            That is what I am most trying to say.

            I applaude you, by the way, for biking to work. I am also a cyclist. We probably agree on much more than my prior choice of words makes it seem. Again, that was wrong.

            by cscs on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:48:13 AM PDT

            •  Thanks.. BTW...

              I bike to work because I like it and its the fiscally responsible thing to do.. not out of any larger purpose.. I really like my car and enjoy driving - if it didn't cost $25 a day to drive to work I probably wouldn't bike as much (though its hard to argue with the health benefits).. When I can buy an electric car, that is as fun to drive as my current car, at a similar price, that I can recharge for free off of solar/wind energy - and figure out a way to not pay for tolls and parking, then I am right back in the car...

              Along the same lines, I am a conservationlist, not because I care about trees... because I don't like subsidies to polluters, and/or the costs of upsetting the natural balance of the environment...

              As for the topic at hand:

              Your are right, our actions do have consequences.. If I screw up my kids, am I responsible in part for what they do? Of course, but it doesn't do anyone any good, for my Father to point out, or better yet announce to the world, that I screwed up my kids... either for me or the kids, nor does it do anything to fix the situation.

              The world is a complex place, and its not easy to make good decisions even if you have only the most altruistic motives at heart - especially as those decisions play out over the course of a few decades and the chairs get rearranged on the decks...  

              Have we taken actions that, in retrospect, helped create the environment were Al Queda could grow - sure.  Were those actions taken maliciously or knowingly with the intent of creating, or even ignoring, the fact that those organizations would be created, of course not.  And that is where I think the rub is with regards to this issue...  Say what you want about former governments, but I don't believe (with the exception of the current) that they have acted against our self interest - they did what they thought was right given what we knew at the time.

              Hindsight is a dangerous thing, and blaming the U.S. for the rise of Al Queda - and therefore 9/11 - is easy to do with its benefit - and its really not correct, nor productive at all - especially for our side.. and that's my point.
              

              by mlangner on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 11:12:06 AM PDT

  •  Responsibility is

    Responsibility is the opposite of excuse. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the actions of the terrorists and all who aided them in any way.

    There is no excuse for the terrorists, nor for irresponsible U.S. right-wing foreign policies that support the overthrow of democratically elected governments in favor of right-wing dictators.

    You are the one making excuses for people who are in part responsible for the dangerous world we now have as a consequence of their greed.

    by Ryvr on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:28:38 AM PDT

    •  Your are right

      Responsiblity is the opposite of excuse.. Responsibilty is also an net sum game.. if you are totally responsible for something then you carry ALL of the responsibility.. if your are partially responsible for something, then the other responsible parties cannot carry ALL of the responsbility as well - you cannot have more thna 100% responsibility.

      If you are partially NOT responsible for something, then you are partially JUSTIFIED for your actions - because for some part of the action you were not responsible (the other entity bore that portion of the responsibility)

      Look, I am not making excuses for anyone.. I am merely pointing out a giantic hole in Ms. Gyllenhall's thinking... Is the U.S. responsible for creating a environment where something like 9/11 could happen... Sure.. but under that argument the U.S. would be responsible the spread of a pandemic flu because capitalism drove the development of the airplane...

      by mlangner on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:50:28 AM PDT

  •  Yup

    Crucial American support (i.e., training and weaponry) for regimes which tortured and disappeared people - the Shah's Iran, Saudi Arabia, El Salvador - sure does upset some people.

    Those damn sensitive foreigner types.

    by pletzs on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:34:37 AM PDT

  •  No, you are wrong

    We are ABSOLUTELY to blame for what happened.

    Read your history. I suggest "Ghost Wars" by Steve Koll.

    We gave power to the extremist groups that attacked us on 9/11. This was our brilliant government's idea to fight the dreaded Communism -- we funded Islamic groups with MILLIONS of dollars in cash and weapons.

    Did you know that the CIA PRINTED AND DISTRIBUTED Korans in the Middle East?

    We did more than "upset others in the global community." We provided the fuel and the fire got out of hand.

    In that respect, we certainly are responsible.

    by cscs on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:41:26 AM PDT

  •  Responsibility

    Hmm, were the Germans "responsible in some way" for the fire-bombing of Dresden, in which a lot more than 3000 innocent civilians were killed?  Or the Japanese "responsible in some way" for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where over 200,000 civilians lost their lives?  Sure, the US pulled the trigger, so to speak, in all of these cases, and has primary responsibility for the choices it made in responding to the aggression of the victims' governments, but I don't think anyone would leave the Japanese and Germans out of the equation when assigning blame.  To say the least, we would certainly understand why a Japanese or German citizen after each of these incidents might say to his fellow countrymen, "we are responsible in some way for these atrocities."

    And before you shriek "but we're not the Japanese or Germans!", please remember, I never said we were.  It's an example that reveals in stark terms that, even where there is an identifiable, active agent that is the proximate cause of the deaths of innocents, you're leaving out an important part of the story if you don't ask yourself how the victims contributed to the event.

    For myself, I don't think the firebombing of Dresden or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, in moral or military terms, and I hold the US responsible for making immoral choices in those cases.  (This is not a point I will debate.  It's just to let you know where I'm coming from.) Having said that, I am not blind, at all, to the fact that the victims played a significant role in these events.

    With 9/11, my conclusions are similar.  Those who orchestrated those terrorist attacks, make no mistake, are responsible for their choices, their acts and the deaths that resulted, and the ways in which we contributed to the events do not exonerate them or lessen their guilt.  But if you leave out our part, you're guaranteed to learn no lessons from that day, which would only compound the tragedy.

    by scorponic on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:48:22 AM PDT

    •  Wait...

      so you are saying we are at war?  In the case of both Dresden and the Atomic Bombings, these events occured as part of a larger event - a war.. which 9/11 is not.. and don't tell me otherwise...  In the case of Dresden, I think its pretty plain that the Germans bore little responsibility (outside of starting the war) and I think what the U.S. did was sad - it was late in the war, the German army's back was broken, and the town was of little strategic importance - its doubtful that it did much to save Allied lives. (though who am I to argue with those decisions given the benefit of 60 years of history)...

      As for the atomic bombs, I think that the Japanese definitely bore responsibility.. We dropped those bombs to save American lives, and rightly so...

      And who said anything about not learning lessons?  Its like the door locking argument I made in another post... do you think after being robbed leaving the doors unlocked I wouldn't learn?  It still doesn't make me responsible for getting robbed...

      by mlangner on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:18:47 AM PDT

      •  Whatever...

        ...with your attitude, and your arguments, I might as well go scrub the tub.

        See ya.

        by scorponic on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:24:40 AM PDT

        •  Classic...

          What attitude do you speak.. I haven't taken one potshot at anyone here.. I just disagree with the poster's position this and want to discuss.

          I actually think statements like Ms. Gyllenhall's are harmful to our efforts as progressive - not in the least becuase they are so ill informed...

          by mlangner on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:27:26 AM PDT

  •  you're right...

    The US is, of course, not responsible in any way for 9/11.  Responsibility would fall on those who organized, armed, funded, and trained al Qaeda, set up terrorist training camps for them in Afghanistan, made Osama bin Laden their leader... oh wait, that's the US too.

    by Leggy Starlitz on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:52:11 AM PDT

    •  Ah...

      what a reflexivly liberal left wingnut argument... Of course its our government's goal to create organizations bent on its own destruction so that the companies owned by the star chamber puppet masters of the universe can insure the success of their industrial-military-energy/oil businesses... </snark>

      Leftwingnuts are as sadly cynical about our world as rightwingnuts - and neither are anywhere close to the truth..

      by mlangner on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:25:12 AM PDT

•  responsible vs. deserved

  It's not like she said was wishing 9-11 to happen because us evil Am'uricans deserved to get attacked.  No, she was simply stating that she believed that the US's actions in the Mid East could have triggered the attacks.  

  I'm surprised at the reaction, now 3 1/2 years later.  It seems that 9-11 is still an open wound on some citizens' psyche.  I wonder why they won't let it heal...

  by spyral on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:22:49 AM PDT

  •  open wound

    I'm mostly not surprised that it is still an "open wound." But I think honest discussion will promote more healing... I'm not sure we can wait until everyone is healed before we speak the truth.

    by Ryvr on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:40:47 AM PDT

  •  The reaction is about as authentic

    as Michael Jackson's skeletal structure. Yet another shameless attempt by Wingnuts to change the political discourse, shout about treason and hunt down our internal Hollywood Liberal enemies.

    by Dont Just Stand There on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:41:55 AM PDT

•  She needs to be Spanked!

  Time for Secretary II!

  Seriously, I'm delighted she has the courage to speak out.
  Way to go, Maggie!
  

  by Caelian on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:24:21 AM PDT

  •  She needs to be spanked! ???

    Ugh -- For some reason the image of Schoolmaster John Bolton, ruler in hand, just popped into my head.

    by Dont Just Stand There on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:44:48 AM PDT

•  she's so sexy

  am i wrong?

  by mediaprisoner on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:58:46 AM PDT

  •  You are very, very right

    I'm a sucker for a cute nose, and she's got one of the cutest.

    by daveweigel on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:00:18 AM PDT

•  Some in the US are responsible for 911

  But they're a select group.  An elite group, if you will...

  by glooperoo on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 11:00:54 AM PDT