Breaking: Jenna secretly serving in Afghanistan

Oh wait, sorry wrong royal family.

Make that Harry, Prince Harry.

The Guardian

Our leaders have other priorities.

How can it be that the washed up royalty have a better conception of public service than our chickenhawk leaders?

Our guys are busy talking on TV about flag lapel pins, while a Prince is calling in airstrikes on the frontlines of the real war on 9/11 criminals.

But they know better and are ready to lecture us on patriotism.

I suspect the dear prince has more cojones than the entire Republican leadership and treats his people less like subjects than the RNC does the American voters.

Remind anyone for the war still, there is a plane leaving for Baghdad everyday.

The Army will take you even if you are flatfooted, forty, fat, morally questionable, and without a high school diploma--sounds a lot like a lot of talk show hosts I know--and nothing like the vets I have met.

•  flames for chickenhawks

  by jhpdb on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:32:05 PM PDT

  •  Jenna ...

    I'm glad that Jenna is not in Afghanistan.

    'Cuz when Jenna runs against Chelsea in 2022, I don't want her to win based on military service.

    Trying to shame the Bush family into military service is like trying to shame Paris Hilton into chastity.

    by Bronxist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:40:17 PM PDT

    •  Just to fair.....

      which is more than members of the Grand Old Phobics would ever be, Poppy Bushes record of service was more than merely acceptable --- it was steller. Flying off a carrier requires pretty big brass ones. Doing it 18 and into combat, is well, a pretty darn good record. Problem is, his kids and grandkids have been little more than cowardly freeloaders ever since. What a difference from FDR's kids.

      by eastvan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:55:48 PM PDT

      •  Very true ...

        by Bronxist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:57:47 PM PDT

        •  about your sig

          I Reject and Denounce Killing Baby Kittens!

          Aren't you just flip-flopping on the issues again?

          by alizard on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:28:00 AM PDT

      •  But when you think about it, most

        Goopers would make pretty crappy soldiers. I doubt most of them have the character to succeed in a recruit course, let alone be reliable or trustworthy, essential traits for a soldier. Basic values like teamwork and sacrifice are alien to them.

        by eastvan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:00:11 PM PDT

    •  There's also

      no presidential election scheduled for 2022.  Unless you think the West Wing is real.

      by SpiderStumbled22 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:12:49 PM PDT

  •  Beautiful minds

    http://www.snopes.com/...

    They are not commoners.  They can't waste their beautiful minds on things like military service.  

    by GreatDane on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:46:48 PM PDT

    •  I agree completely.

      They've got so little of them to waste.

      by Dauphin on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:53:03 PM PDT

•  So is Jenna Serving in the Army

  still a secret? What role did the CIA play in getting you to retract that Jenna was in Afghanistan?

  by BlueTide on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:33:50 PM PDT

•  asdf

  I think it's weird that Harry has no last name. What do they put on his uniform?

  by droogie6655321 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:35:03 PM PDT

  •  mountbatten

    by carlyle4 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:37:08 PM PDT

  •  Per Wikipedia

    He (and Prince William) use 'Wales' as a surname, when they need one.

    by Collideascope on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:38:37 PM PDT

    •  Not Windsor? n/t

      by lineatus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:45:19 PM PDT

      •  The fact that there's a dispute is weird

        Three answers so far.

        What's on his driver's license? Does he even have one?

        by droogie6655321 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:46:34 PM PDT

        •  Wikipedia

          As a titled royal, Harry holds no surname, but, when one is used, it is Mountbatten-Windsor (or, more colloquially, his father's territorial designation, Wales)

          by Oothoon on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:50:09 PM PDT

          •  Wales! That explains! He is the secret spawn of

            Jimbo.

            by clyde on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:34:12 PM PDT

        •  William and Harry are both known as...

          Cornet Wales. They serve in the Blues and Royals which uses Cornet in place of Lieutenant.

          When you see them with a uniform patch, it says Wales.

          by homogenius on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:51:17 PM PDT

          •  Your'e right, Coronet Wales

            is what he is called in the Guardian article.

            by EJP in Maine on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:53:07 PM PDT

      •  It's the house of Windsor, which is not last name

        It was the  house: House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, a branch of the House of Wettin.  They changed it during World War One because they wanted to eliminate the tie to Germany.  The royal family originated from Germany in the 1700,s.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        by Churchill on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:48:04 PM PDT

        •  I thought it was also the

          House of Hannover.

          by eastvan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:02:46 PM PDT

          •  Became the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

            when Queen Victoria married Albert of House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha -- their children were "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha"s.

            by Oothoon on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:06:18 PM PDT

      •  Apparently, Mountbatten-Windsor ...

        ... is also used on occasion.

        Again, per Wikipedia (the Prince Harry bio page is somewhat self-contradictory).

        by Collideascope on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:48:50 PM PDT

    •  I don't think wiki's right on this

      The family name is Windsor (the family changed it from the original German prior to WWI).  Wales is William's title.  Harry wouldn't have Wales anywhere in his.

      by bfitzinAR on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:52:34 PM PDT

      •  Oops - Charles' title - William can't have it

        unless/until Charles dies or abdicates (the latter is unlikely, since the title is only Prince of Wales and won't be King of England until/unless his momma dies, so why abdicate the heir's position).

        by bfitzinAR on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:54:45 PM PDT

      •  No, it's right

        Windsor has been the surname of the royal family since they changed it.

        Mountbatten-Windsor is reserved for descendants of Queen Elizabeth II

        and Prince Philip

        . Mountbatten is the surname he chose for himself when he married the Queen.

        As for Wales, it's not William's title. It's Charles' title, and his children use it as well.

        Both Princes William and Harry have used "Wales" as a last name during their schooling. Both were known as Officer Cadet Wales at the Sandhurst Military Academy. Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie of York both similarly use "York" as a last name.

        by Oothoon on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:59:30 PM PDT

        •  Ack, "and Prince Philip" shouldn't be in blockquo

          by Oothoon on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:00:29 PM PDT

  •  His surname is Mountbatten-Windsor

    But he and William use "Wales" at schools and whenever else they need surnames.

    by Oothoon on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:47:48 PM PDT

  •  Royal children use their father's title

    In school William and Harry went by Wales and Beatrice and Eugenie went by York.

    Because their mother was Queen, Charles and Andrew went by Windsor in the military.

    Before her father became king, the queen was known as Princess Elizabeth of York.

    Technically only descendants of the Queen and Prince Phillip without a royal title should use Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname, but reports are that for their second marriages both Prince Charles and Princess Anne used Mountbatten-Windsor.

    It's all quite twisty. There are a number of variations at work.

    by homogenius on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:49:10 PM PDT

•  I think the bigger story is that

  egomaniac Matt Drudge just simply couldn't hold the story back for the sake of the safety of Prince Harry and the troops he serves immediately with.

  Isn't that considered aiding and abetting the enemy? Isn't this somewhat like Geraldo drawing troops maps in the sand on live tv?

  by Stand Strong on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:35:51 PM PDT

  •  Harry's unit clubbed together and got

    T-shirts that read, "I'm Harry" in response to questions about Harry being especially targetted by insurgents.  I'd say that's a testimony to how his unit feels about him.

    by bfitzinAR on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:56:24 PM PDT

    •  Point noted

      but that aside, still - if this has been Jenna Bush's tour in Afghanistan that Markos had just front-paged as a "world exclusive", my god...

      by Stand Strong on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:04:50 PM PDT

  •  I think it is time that Matt Sludge

    was bought out the same way Homer S. was bought out by Bill Gates  " Buy him out boys..(sound of breaking and smashing ) You think I got rich writing checks?"

    by eastvan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:05:36 PM PDT

  •  I agree--It is abhorrent

    Here is a man, royalty, no less, who is serving in Afghanistan and the British press agreed to a press blackout to provide him the safety to do so.  And Drudge decided to "out" him, severely risking his safety and the safety of his fellow soldiers. What kind of patriotism is that?

    by EJP in Maine on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:56:07 PM PDT

•  as silly as the royals are

  As silly as the whole notion of the royal family still be relevant in England might be, one has to respect them because of their real military service.  No BS air national guard stuff, they do the real deal and do it without complaining.  Very honorable.  

  They take their military service very seriously and it is great to see them displaying actual patriotism, as opposed to the ginned up, flag waiving, phony variety that is so popular amongst some.

  by Nathan in MN on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:37:52 PM PDT

  •  To say the notion is is silly is to grossly

    underrate the importance of the Royal Family to both the national phsyce and history of Britian. It may seem trite to some but it is a very large part of their history and make up. There, and in other places, the past is important. To be treasured and understood so they can understand themselves. Other than that, you are 110% correct!

    by eastvan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:10:03 PM PDT

    •  No,

      it's silly.  It carries some weight but it's silly.  So's the Rose Bowl Parade.

      by SpiderStumbled22 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:16:26 PM PDT

      •  Still disagree..... the Royals are a symbol

        of living history --the best kind-- and quietly lead by example with service to society being the stock intrade To trivialize them is to trivialize an entire country and it's culture. And right now America is hardly in a position to do anything of the sort to anyone. There has been quite enough of that of late --- to absolutly no positive effect whatsoever. It may be archaic in the view of some, but with the record of service and leadership they embody it is anything but silly. Trivializing them is trivializing a society and it's culture. And that culture is not silly.

        by eastvan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:38:17 PM PDT

    •  part of my point

      I think that you are correct that the Royals are important to Britain as a symbol of national unity, pride and patriotism.  Their strong record of military service is a very important part of this.  The notion of royalty in a democracy such as the UK is silly, but at least insofar as they play this symbolic role, they are quite relevant.

      by Nathan in MN on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:32:07 PM PDT

•  Just Imagine if it had been Jenna and...

  Imagine if it were Jenna Bush and a progressive had leaked the story.  Can you imagine the response from the right?

  by zoopnfunk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:38:17 PM PDT

  •  Oh gawd it'd be a firestorm

    by Stand Strong on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:39:54 PM PDT

    •  Great sig n/t

      by A Mad Mad World on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:52:29 PM PDT

      •  thanks n/t

        by Stand Strong on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:02:26 PM PDT

  •  Every Republican Congressman

    and Senator would be calling for censure on the floor of the xxx. FOXNews would go into overdrive, Bill O'Reilly would be arming himself to the teeth with loofahs, Rush Limpbaugh would be talking about the "drive-by media" doing drive-by's, Hannity, the "great American" that he is would be on The Big Talker taking calls from people in Harrisburg about "dem librul, latte-drinking, Commie dumbocrats", Ann Coulter would call Barack Obama a hummus eating surrender monkey....

    And then John McCain would say that he never met any of these people and that he thinks Democrats are fine people and have earned his respect, only to flip-flop on that five minutes later when it comes out he knows everybody.

    by Stand Strong on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:46:49 PM PDT

    •  ''Hummus-eating surrender monkey?''

      I'm almost afraid to ask: Why hummus eating?

      by Dauphin on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:51:05 PM PDT

      •  Oh....

        **you** know....(wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

        Hummus is to Middle Eastern as Barack is to being Muslim.

        Guilt by non-association of tasty food stuff based on, well...because I said so. Actually because I got it in an email from a friend who got it from another friend who apparently heard from this guy on the subway who heard it from his tax-person who read it in a newspaper that was left on the bus that he rode to work...

        Stop asking questions! Why do YOU hate America?! Hmm? How about that question, Meester Smarmy-pants?! I don't see YOUR American Flag lapel pin on your collar!

        Got something you want to admit?

        [/heavy dose of snark]

        by Stand Strong on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:01:21 PM PDT

        •  Yes, actually I do.

          Firstly, patriotic as they may be, lapel pins are tack. I wouldn't be caught dead wearing one of them.

          Secondly, there's a fascinating little red book I'd like to interest you in...

          by Dauphin on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:02:49 PM PDT

          •  *tacky, I mean. Gah...

            by Dauphin on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:07:35 PM PDT

•  The Queen was in the army in WW2

  HRH Queen Elizabeth II was in the army motor pool in World War Two and service in Great Britain.  She was I believe a Private and was about 20 years old.  

  Too bad NONE of the 11 Bush kids, the two daughters, and 9 nieces and nephews of military age aren't serving at least STATESIDE in a military hospital or something!

  by Churchill on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:38:52 PM PDT

  •  Heh. This faux (Fox?)

    royalty isn't all they're cracked up to be. Being a noble involves more than being rich, drinking, partying, and snorting lines of coke as thick of railway tracks.

    But, fuck it. What does Bush's nouveau riche crowd know about honour, duty, history, etiquette, and, last but not least, taste?

    by Dauphin on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:47:40 PM PDT

    •  *as thick AS railway tracks

      Heh. The spelling police has caught itself.

      by Dauphin on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:50:03 PM PDT

  •  no undisclosed location

    Not to mention that her family stayed in London throughout the Blitz. They didn't go hide in an "undisclosed location," they stayed in a city that was being leveled from the air because their people had to stay there, too.

    There's a lot that can be said for the royals, but I for one am glad to see a powerful family who doesn't use their status to hide from danger. When it's important, they stick by their people.

    by eColt on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:53:40 PM PDT

    •  The Queen Mother said

      When Buckingham Palace was finally hit by bombs something to the effect of Thank God now we can hold our heads up to the East Enders.
      Those in the East End were under ferocious bombardment.  My relatives were there.  When the Docks were bombed, my grandmother was beside herself with worry as a lot of her family was there.

      One of my mother's aunts was killed after taking sanctuary in the sanctuary of a church.  She was only one of her family killed because the rest had stayed where it was less safe.  She had been to too terrified to stay there and had sought a safer place to spend the night.  But she didn't die alone.

      by Bionic on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:13:41 PM PDT

  •  And all 5 of FDR's boys served as well. n/t

    by bfitzinAR on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:58:10 PM PDT

    •  Small correction

      FDR had five sons, but one of them died in infancy.  The surviving 4 all served in WW2 and were decorated.  On the recent PBS mini-series "The War" one Hispanic veteran mentioned being in the chow line and noticing that there was a Lieutenant behind him and he said "Sir, go ahead."  The Lieutenant said. "That's okay."  And just waited his turn.  The soldier noticed his name take read "Roosevelt" and then he looked at his face and there was no mistaking him for anyone but FDR's son.  That was when we had a First Family to be proud of.

      by SpiderStumbled22 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:21:09 PM PDT

      •  true - I remember he had 5 sons and that

        all of his adult sons served, I forgot the childhood death of one.  The eldest child, Anna, had small children at the time, but she volunteered for Red Cross, etc, as well.  For that matter, Winston Churchill had children and grandchildren serving.  And, as mentioned elsewhere, Elizabeth now 2nd queen of that name, served - I believe in the ambulance corps in WWII.

        by bfitzinAR on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:04:07 AM PDT

    •  As did Teddy R's.......

      And I believe Quenton is buried in France. Another served with great valor on the Wetern Front, came back to duty in WW2 and served as Ass't div Commander of both First Infantry in North Africa, Sicily and the same job with 4th Inf --- on Utah Beach. He died a month later from a heart condition he did his best to keep secret. What a difference from Deserting Chimpy.

      by eastvan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:53:45 PM PDT

      •  Even LBJ

        both of his sons-in-law fought honorably in Vietnam.

        by SpiderStumbled22 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:14:24 PM PDT

        •  and the Kennedys - while Old Joe was a

          defeatist (not a German sympathizer, but he bought the German line that they couldn't be beaten), all of his sons served in the military -"Young" Joe was killed, John had to pull strings to get in because he was underweight, Bobby was still in training at the end of the WWII, but even Teddy served a couple of years active duty in the 1950s (Ted was born in 1932).

          by bfitzinAR on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:10:36 AM PDT

  •  I thought Jeb's son

    Prescott was going to join the Navy.  Did that ever happen?

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:17:20 PM PDT

    •  do they drug test? n/t

      by mollyd on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:34:11 PM PDT

•  Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, 2 Lt. British Army WW2

  now known an HRH Queen Elizabeth II

  by Churchill on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:42:49 PM PDT

  •  You're mixing style and title.

    HRH Princess Elizabeth served in WWII. She's now HM Queen Elizabeth.

    HRH goes with Princess.
    HM goes with Queen.

    by homogenius on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:03:20 PM PDT

•  Below in the wiki link

  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  by Churchill on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:43:22 PM PDT

•  Well......

  How can it be that the washed up royalty have a better conception of public service than our chickenhawk leaders?

  They actually have a sense of honor and know that the word "sacrifice" doesn't just mean doing without your favorite blow dryer on that weekend trip to Martha's Vineyard.

  by funluvn1 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:46:12 PM PDT

•  I think you mean Argentina

  at a very secret club..on a secret mission...must attend parties til dawn.

  by Mae on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:47:12 PM PDT

  •  Her poor, poor liver.

    Seriously, when I party, I leave at 3am in exceptional circumstances. Otherwise you lose the entire next day, and what's the advantage in those few hours, then? Unless you're involved with a pretty woman, but that falls under the aegis of extraordinary circumstances...

    by Dauphin on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:49:24 PM PDT

•  what about Not-Jenna?

  where is she serving?

  by steelman on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:49:27 PM PDT

•  polar opposites - Harry and George

  After he graduated, the British government tried to prevent him being sent to war. Prince Harry objected, basically saying that he had trained to do a job and he wasn't going to use his family to get out of it. He didn't want his friends going to war if he wasn't going too. (I followed it on BBC News at the time, so I don't have the links to sources, sorry.)

  Sounds like pretty much the exact opposite of what Bush did in Vietnam, doesn't it?

  by eColt on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:49:43 PM PDT

  •  Difference between noblesse oblige

    and nouveau riche asshole, I believe.

    by bobdevo on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:12:56 PM PDT

•  The one "pro" to the many "cons" of royalty

  They're trained for the job.  Whether they do a good job or a bad one is based more on personality than anything else, but they do get training from the time they get out of leading strings.

  by bfitzinAR on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:50:26 PM PDT

  •  They're good for tourism . . . another "pro".

    Changing of the Guard, the Beefeaters, etc . . .

    by bobdevo on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:15:26 PM PDT

•  I like Harry, he's a real wag (as they say).

  Unlike our TXNationalGuard veteran, and his 5 deferments side-kick, at least he has a sense of duty.
  It's almost enough to make one melancholy for George III.

  by Lepanto on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:52:46 PM PDT

•  well, i don't know

  I suspect the dear prince has more cojones than the entire Republican leadership

  republicans are fighting a brave mission on the homefront,  leading its troops (college conservatives) against the scourge of secular humanism that is on the verge of overthrowing this christian nation.   This brave fight against the infidel liberals and communist greenies is equally as important and just as dangerous.   !!!!

  by soros on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:53:09 PM PDT

  •  And let's not forget the huge sacrifice

    mitten's litter made --- orking hard to get Daddy elected. Oh yeah, they failed. Guess that excuse is gone. Time to enlist. After all, as long as they were not stoplossed they could complete an enlistment and then put the gloves on for mittens.

    by eastvan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:58:03 PM PDT

  •  And beer.

    If they all went off to eye-rack the beer supply could reach dangerously high levels. And young women would be deprived of all that bad sex.

    Thank you young republicans--you have saved us!!!

    by homogenius on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:05:39 PM PDT

  •  republicans risk carpel tunnel syndrome

    oh so courageously while pushing war on the poor.

    by mollyd on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:37:12 PM PDT

•  Well, you have to compare the families...

  On the one hand, you have an inbred family of political monarchs, molded from an early age to rise to the throne.

  Whereas the Brits have bad teeth.

  So really, there's no common ground here, and no point in disparaging the royal family with comparisons to the Bush family.

  by George Hier on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:57:20 PM PDT

•  Apparently you don't have a nose....

  for a pr stunt. Don't get me wrong I'm sure Harry is a nice guy, but his "front line" is probably a lot different from the regular Joe's "front line." BTW, I don't blame Harry for that.

  As far as the leak goes; is it possible that the leak was done on purpose? No war hero status to add to a resume without acknowledgement.

  by leftbird on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:03:10 PM PDT

  •  yeah I did notice ...

    .. .they sure seemed to have a whole story on his lingo and all up and ready quite quickly, no?

    by jhpdb on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:19:35 PM PDT

    •  a pre-recorded...

      interview prior to going in.

      IMO, Politics have become----> lights, camera, action....and the public falls for it just about everytime. Micheal Moore touched on this a little in "Fahrenheit 911"

      by leftbird on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:25:49 PM PDT

    •  Embedding part of secrecy deal

      The press got all kinds of access to the Prince on the condition that they keep the embargo until he was safely out of the country. The UK press is now full of stories, photos, and videos they were keeping under wraps.

      by Sharon Jumper on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:44:58 PM PDT

  •  Helmand Province is very much

    the front line. No safe area. And a patrol is a patrol ---you are in danger from the moment you step out the gate untill you get back. He is not having a 'soft tour'. Unlike many who stay in the wire and get a ticket punch.

    by eastvan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:01:25 PM PDT

•  There's a Hooters in Kabul????

  oh . . . the Green Zone . . . OK.

  by bobdevo on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:11:40 PM PDT

•  Royals not happy with Drudge

  A report on MSNBC just now indicated that the story about Prince Harry has been kept under wraps with the cooperation of the media under "a gentleman's agreement," but that Matt Drudge is not a gentleman.

  The prince will probably have to be withdrawn from his combat assignment now that the news has leaked out.

  by SicXitGM on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:39:31 PM PDT

•  Harry, but Gordon Brown's kids

  probably aren't over there. Or Tony Bliar's.

  The Army will take you even if you are flatfooted, forty, fat, morally questionable, and without a high school diploma

  There's hope for Jonah Goldberg yet!

  To those who lament that the Bush sprogs aren't serving in some capacity, these are people who fuck up quite literally every single thing they touch. Do you really want to burden our military with that? Isn't having Admiral Bunnypants as C-in-C punishment enough?

  by dconrad on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:04:05 PM PDT

•  Wait....

  ...how will Barbara come for tea? There's no booze there....

  The media doesn't seem to be upset with Drudge. Guess I won't either. Heck, I think Rush should give away allied positions in Tora Bora. Yeah, and O'Reilly can tell al Qaeda all about the secret tunnels into Baghdad. Yep...right there on his show. What have they to worry about...they're the ones supporting the troops.

  by Hedwig on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:55:21 PM PDT