CNN: “Significant” confrontation between U.S. and Iranian navies in Persian Gulf; Update: “[A] heartbeat away from being blown up”
posted at 9:48 am on January 7, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
“Significant” being a relative term: No shots were actually fired, although they were right on the brink. Telling a U.S. Navy ship “You will explode in a couple of minutes” usually isn’t a good idea.
What’s bizarre about it is that it’s hard to believe it was accidental — but it’s also so small-scale that it’s hard to believe it was fully intentional. If Iran wanted to provoke America, this seems like an awfully penny-ante way of doing it. On the other hand, if the military’s right in thinking these were Revolutionary Guard boats, then surely they knew the consequences of attacking American ships. Any theories? Just an exercise in “feeling out” the U.S. response to a provocation? Maybe they mistakenly thought the American ships were in Iranian waters (the excuse given when the British sailors were captured)?
Exit question: Which nutroots blog will be the first to scream “Gulf of Tonkin!”?
Update: There’s no doubt who would have won this skirmish — the Navy ships were a destroyer, a frigate, and a cruiser. But between assurances that the Iranians were a “heartbeat from being blown,” ABC’s Pentagon sources ask a good question — how was it that an Iranian ship ostensibly packed with explosives was able to get as close as 200 yards?
Needless to say, the fact that they were that close destroys the Iranian excuse that the ships didn’t recognize each other.
Update: Iran spins: “That is something normal that takes place every now and then for each party, and it (the problem) is settled after identification of the two parties.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
It would have been great if President Bush could have pulled a trick from RR and stepped to the closest podium and said the following….
“My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Iran forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 7, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Maybe they thought the ships were British?
Bryan on January 7, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Big difference………no white flag.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 7, 2008 at 9:50 AM
I laughed, but I’m ashamed of myself.
Our poor declining friends, the British….
Nessuno on January 7, 2008 at 9:53 AM
I can hear the moonbattus denialus crying out
“GULF OF TONKIN!”
already.
scottm on January 7, 2008 at 9:53 AM
And then follow that immediately with: “Impeach Boosh.”
Always Right on January 7, 2008 at 9:53 AM
I am putting forth a guess
1. Rosie on her website will be the first “Gulf of Tonkin…..Google it !!!!”
Joey1974 on January 7, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Allah beat me too it. I saw this break on the news and came to HA just to say “SECOND LOOK AT GULF OF TONKIN!” Alas, that job has already been done by and large.
Wineaholic on January 7, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Maybe they just wanted iPods.
Slublog on January 7, 2008 at 9:55 AM
It’s already started. That ancient hack McGovern has an article in the Washington Compost.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 7, 2008 at 9:55 AM
The phrase “Shooting fish in a barrel” comes to mind. And if you saw the Mythbusters episode that explored that idea, it would be just about exactly like the final segment.
Kowboy on January 7, 2008 at 9:56 AM
My speculation is that the Revolutionary Guards who man these boats have more zeal than brains. I see this as an example of their lack of military discipline. These kind of cowboy antics are more dangerous than getting orders from above to provoke the Great Satan. It would be wise for the US Navy to make an example of them lest they get out of hand. Thugs respect only brute force.
Tantor on January 7, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Democratic Underground. Natch.
Michelle on January 7, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Sounds like showboating to me.. pun intended I guess they don’t have a problem embarking and detaining a RIB w/ crew.. I can guarantee if they’d encroached our Naval vessl it’d be the last act on this earth.. Or at least one should hope.. Go Fred!!!
whiskeytango on January 7, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Over at Demented Underground, it didn’t take long to mention “Tonkin” (first post less than 1 minute after the news).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102×3127702
winter999 on January 7, 2008 at 9:58 AM
OT: What’s up with Drudge?
Here is the headline: TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGN
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 7, 2008 at 9:58 AM
(As opposed to British sailor reaction when a rubber boat waggles and taunts them: “Take my ship! Take my ship!”)
tree hugging sister on January 7, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Huh; no hostages taken?
Jaibones on January 7, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Allahpundit, your Exit Question is right on the money.
.
Who’ll be first, d’you think? A hard lefty blog? The NY Times? One of the two mongrel pit bulls of MSNBC?
.
Or one or more of our esteemed Democrat Senators or Congressmen? (but don’t you DARE question their patriotism!)
DavePa on January 7, 2008 at 10:00 AM
And when will Allah start posting from his shiny new iPhone?
Frozen Tex on January 7, 2008 at 10:00 AM
With Bush bashing rising (i.e.comrad McGovern) could the mullahs be thinking that any response we may attempt would further whip up the nutroots ?
JonRoss on January 7, 2008 at 10:00 AM
At this point, after the whole British debacle and “Israel will be wiped off the map,” etc., I am not at all surprised. Iran’s sabre-rattling will continue until their sabre gets JDAMed or MOABed or NUKEd. Which I fully anticipate seeing in my lifetime.
Iraq…check.
Afghanistan…in the works.
Iran…in the crosshairs.
Saudi Arabia…(see in-box).
thejackal on January 7, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Boy are they lucky Hillary or Obama are not President yet!!!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on January 7, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Sorry but ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ isn’t that far fetched. The IRG, the Iranian government, hell AQ itself look at America’s war in South East Asia as a model of how to defeat us. They read it in a book(or two)! I can see the headlines now….
three U.S. guided missle destroyers go nuts on three little aluminum boats.
They loose three or four patrol boats, we loose a government and all hell breaks loose in America.
Limerick on January 7, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Hey Allah, what did the Boss get you for Christmas?
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on January 7, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Psychological intimidation.
AlexB on January 7, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Maybe they mistakenly thought British ships were in Iranian waters. It worked for them once.
SECOND LOOK AT LEISURE SUITS.
fourstringfuror on January 7, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Just a probe. Nothing to see here, move along.
mjkazee on January 7, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Nothing new here. Iranian attack boats have played ‘cat and mouse’ games with the U.S. Navy for more than 20 years. I’m just wondering when (and if) the U.S. Navy will eventually spank this belligerent toddler known as the Iranian navy?
neomarket on January 7, 2008 at 10:08 AM
I can hear the screaming, “All your ship are belong to us!”
Alden Pyle on January 7, 2008 at 10:08 AM
A signed copy of “Infidel”.
SouthernDem on January 7, 2008 at 10:09 AM
There is one major flaw in your analysis…they ain’t that smart.
right2bright on January 7, 2008 at 10:10 AM
How long until Iran releases a video of their “Heroic Navy” taunting the paper tiger that is Amerikkka”? Will be played all over the Middle East.
broker1 on January 7, 2008 at 10:11 AM
“Turn on the CIWS.”
mojo on January 7, 2008 at 10:11 AM
It has always been only a matter of time
georgealbert on January 7, 2008 at 10:13 AM
The Iranian boats weren’t a threat. We all know fire can’t melt steel.
CP on January 7, 2008 at 10:14 AM
“
Only significant in the minds of the Iranians, we’d wipe them off like we would wipe pig pooh off our boots.“
They don’t have a navy, they have a lot of floating pig pooh.
leanright on January 7, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Hee, hee!
BRRRRRRRRRRRMKABOOM!!!!
Frozen Tex on January 7, 2008 at 10:15 AM
In response to exit question:
It will be on Ahmadinejad’s new “blog” that was talked about some time ago.
NickJ on January 7, 2008 at 10:16 AM
I for one would like an investigation as to why our ships DIDN’T fire on the Iranians…with a message like that, and white boxes thrown overboard…If that’s not a provocation of war, what is?
JetBoy on January 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Love the AP description. Iranians are “harassing” American ships.
Like they stuck out their tongues and said “nyah, nyah” or something.
Meryl Yourish on January 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Anyone find out what kind of ships (ours) were being harassed? Did they pick on some they thought they could handle?
Hendo on January 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM
between this and Bill-O’s confrontation this weekend, bathtub boy’s head will explode tonight at some point..
stlpatriot on January 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Actually Allah, it’s the perfect trick to pull. Imagine your commanding that fleet. 5 boats approach your carrier group, these waters are infamous for terrorist attacks/Revolutionary Guard members going after Naval ships.
Option 1: Blast the friggin things and their crews to the after life. Result- Most likely cause a war with Iran. Iran will spin some story of how the fleet approached them or entered Iranian waters. articles from lefty papers read “U.S. PREEMPTIVE ATTACK ON IRAN!”
Option 2: Capture the boat crews and start interrogating them. Result: Possible war with Iran claiming illegal arrest of citizens/capturing IRG members as POWs
Option 3: Do nothing, risking repeat of the USS Cole.
Result: Possible war but bogged down to no end by UN who decides a international investigation is needed, because it happened in International Waters. Iran also does its own investigation because it may or may not have also happened in it’s waters. U.S. ends up on the short end of the stick and takes blame for commiting no offense.
Option 4. Other: if you have some other idea you may have
Razgriez on January 7, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Like another poster said, I don’t know who these Idiot Iranians were but they probably don’t know just how close they came to cashing in on the Virgin Lottery.
Some of their
inbred cousinscompatriots pulled a similar stunt several years ago and quickly became part of the sea floor decor.PrairieWind on January 7, 2008 at 10:18 AM
It may be that from 20+ years of indoctrination those Iranian saliors may not realize that we can blow them to Paradise Come.
davidk on January 7, 2008 at 10:19 AM
It’s okay, according to Ron Paul there is no Iranian navy! Problem solved!
Neo on January 7, 2008 at 10:21 AM
The only thing I find unfortunate, is that the US Navy doesn’t have any big gun ships left on active duty.
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on January 7, 2008 at 10:22 AM
“The U.S. Navy reported that an Iranian navy ship was dropping white boxes into the water in front of one of the U.S. warships.”
…
…
Maybe some fruitcake for the soldiers? What do you think?
…
…
Btw, how do I insert a break or newline into Wordpress? Obviously, all the HTML I am used to is blocked. Thanks for any help.
mcrabben7 on January 7, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Mayhap I’m wrong, but it sounds like they’re seeing if they can find someone trigger happy. Bad press for Bush, wingnuts come out of woodwork, etc etc.
It’s almost a win-win for them. Either the US looks bad. Or they can say how brave they are, and that’s why the other nutjobs in that part of the world should follow their lead.
Ed_PA on January 7, 2008 at 10:25 AM
I don’t like CNN framed the story on their website,
then
Rosie is getting warmed up somewhere…
FLcapitalistthug on January 7, 2008 at 10:26 AM
like how*
FLcapitalistthug on January 7, 2008 at 10:28 AM
As much as I would have liked to see us sink their “fast boats” with a salvo or two, I think what results could be too problematic for an explanation. No doubt it would be spun as a pre-emptive attack, even though they charged our warships, perhaps even by the MSM with fault pointed at Bush.
My vote: Intentional scuffle on Iran’s part to try and make us defend ourselves and look like we started something we didn’t, attracting international blame.
knob on January 7, 2008 at 10:29 AM
BillyJeff was asked for comment. His response, “What color dress where the Iranian ships wearing?”
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 7, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Shame the Iranians don’t have the collective will to be buddies with us. The US military is a MUCH better friend than anyone EVER gives them credit for.
tree hugging sister on January 7, 2008 at 10:31 AM
I for one would like an investigation as to why our ships DIDN’T fire on the Iranians…with a message like that, and white boxes thrown overboard…If that’s not a provocation of war, what is?
JetBoy, I agree. That Iranian Hitler’s gunboat should have been blown into toothpicks.
I fear we are closely following the British into Wussland.
Bet ol’ Harry S. wouldn’t have stood for this BS.
Dave R. on January 7, 2008 at 10:32 AM
It’s a chess game, Irans bold moves will not alter the final results.
The game is best played knowing your opponents tendanceies and preparing for them. And Iran holds no suprises that could alter the games outcome, they are not that good.
Their only victory is in the minds of the left winged press, and only as long as it suits them.
leanright on January 7, 2008 at 10:32 AM
It was an exercise. You don’t announce your intentions to attack over the radio. I’d welcome any cause belli to sieze the straights. This ain’t it. Unfortunately we’ll need to add another ship to the list: Cole, Roberts and Stark before we get there.
i b squidly on January 7, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Well they came pretty close to it:
NickJ on January 7, 2008 at 10:37 AM
There would not be war with Iran if we sunk some boats. There wasn’t last time.
Nessuno on January 7, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Actually sounds like a “Normal” situation in the gulf. Even when I was there in 96 we had challenges etc. from the Revolutionary Guard. Never within 200 yards in the straights, but via radio. And we were always seeing the small boats.
When ships travel the straights they line up single file and run at full speed with every gun manned. I assume the Iranians were testing to see what would happen. Maybe they wanted to be fired upon so they could claim we attacked them.
In my opinion if this is correct and they were threatened via ship to ship comms and a small boat was within 200 yards I would hope my Captain would have ordered the crew to fire. Some of those “small boats” carry missiles. See Janes
Ravenlike on January 7, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Thanks, Jimmuh.
Kid from Brooklyn on January 7, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Didn’t we (the US) sink a significant portion of the Iranian navy for something they did in the 90’s. I can’t remember and couldn’t seem to find anything, but I think we had at some point already.
And its like John Bolton has said; when hasn’t a state of war existed between Iran and the US sense 1979?
liquidflorian on January 7, 2008 at 10:41 AM
I think they’re celebrating President Obama just a bit too early. Although, they damned well might be right.
pistolero on January 7, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I really doubt they are trying to provoke a war more than they are trying to influence our elections.
It is all about what they can do to get a pacifist into our White House.
leanright on January 7, 2008 at 10:43 AM
The problem is obvious. Iran will constantly approach closer, and closer, with more belligerence, until shots are fired. If the US shoots first, then we are the bad guys. Its the same thinking as the Bill O’Reilly thread where the debate eventually reached the point where the line was drawn at physical contact. No physical contact, no foul. No shots fired, no foul. He who pushes/shoots first, is the thug.
Unfortunately, that also means we have to give Iran the first shot. It will be very costly in lives, and damage if Iran ever actually pulls the trigger. Even if they do fire first, someone will make the claim that the Revolutionary Guard did so without authorization; i.e. the Iranian Government will deny responsibility.
If we publicly state that because of the threat of suicide boat bombers no small boat can approach within 100 yards of any US vessel, you can be sure the Revolutionary guard will be sending small boats to within 10 feet.
We had the same problem with the USSR and attack aircraft overflying our aircraft carrier battle groups.
rockhauler on January 7, 2008 at 10:46 AM
I’ve been imagining the looks on the “reporters” faces if he said that. PRICELESS!
Dave from Flint on January 7, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Any mischief by Iran grabs headlines, spikes oil, feeds their nationalism, detracts from homefront economic woes, complicates US interests.
What is the down side for them?
Starlink on January 7, 2008 at 10:46 AM
under customary international law we’d be within our rights to blast them out of the exclusionary zone normally associated with american warships. unfortunately the straits of hormuz are very narrow and congested waters so no trigger happy squids. interesting intel the iranians have though, they knew they could come close to those ships in particular. Had they approached a strike carrier group or an assault carrier group they would have been destroyed by the escort long before they reached the 200 yards they did. since it was a cruiser, a frigate, and a destroyer they were allowed to come closer
elduende on January 7, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I don’t think that the so-called “Gulf of Tonkin” incident is far off the mark–but IRAN is pulling it, not us. They know that our military assets are already stretched thin, and if they can claim (even with the lowest of credibility) that WE attacked THEM, the nutroots will sound the clarion call to step up interference with military shipments at home.
Personally, I think war with Iran would actually consolidate our fronts, but I could be wrong.
q2600 on January 7, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Having had the privledge to tour a destroyer, I can tell you that if the Skipper had been given the green light to “fight his boat” the Iranians would have been obliterated in under 30 seconds…
Most people, this readership excluded, have no idea of the fire power of the boat AND the professionalism of the entire crew. The boat isn’t called a “destroyer” for nothin… God bless the men and women that man these boats.
Babs on January 7, 2008 at 10:51 AM
There is still one more point I have to add to my previous post. Logic doesn’t work with the liberal/left. No matter where one ‘draws the line’ there is one hard and fast rule that is inarguable, the US is always wrong.
rockhauler on January 7, 2008 at 10:53 AM
GWB is going to the Mid East tomorrow. This may have been an attempt to wreck the trip before it started.
BillyRuffn on January 7, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Getting blown out of the water?
amerpundit on January 7, 2008 at 11:07 AM
DUh
NoFanofLibs on January 7, 2008 at 11:09 AM
This is not an accident. This is a probe. The Iranians know the 5th fleet’s rules of engagement and are harrassing our navy in the straits. This is a strategic probe (annoy Bush, coerce the markets, demonstrate their ability to impede the right of free passage along the straits and generally make nuisances of themselves – ie. stay in the headlines) This is also a traditional tactical probe (to determine the response of our Navy)
elduende on January 7, 2008 at 11:12 AM
The “Strait of Hormuz Incident” probably is not going to amount to much. By one measure, oil futures haven’t moved significantly in response.
Is there a reason “Gulf of Tonkin” means something beyond a body of water? Was the incident and LBJ’s reaction positive and of a nature we’d want to replicate?
What percentage of Americans, if polled yesterday, could have given a simple description of the Tonkin incident? Maybe 10%? Not the worst thing in the world to learn from that part of the Vietnam experience.
dedalus on January 7, 2008 at 11:19 AM
It’s only “Gulf of Tonkin” if it is used to justify a war.
Iran officially reached out to us in 2003 trying to open negotiations, with everything on the table, including recognition of Israel’s right to exist. Bush refused to talk with them. Shame on Bush.
Mark Jaquith on January 7, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Please don’t say probe that gets Denise Kucinich too excited and then they can never get him back into his booster seat.
Mojack420 on January 7, 2008 at 11:44 AM
We should have just blown them out of the water after all they threatened the navy first. Of course the MSM would have said that Bush was at fault due to BDS. First post and glad to here
limowilliam on January 7, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Another thought is we may also be probing them and this was their response. Our ships may be steaming outside regular lanes within the strait in order to test any number of Iranian responses or provoke them prior to the POTUS trip. Whichever it is the Iranians are playing with fire. The sea lanes are guaranteed by the US Navy so we’d still be within our rights to blow them out of the water…
elduende on January 7, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Only fractionally correct, do your homework.
leanright on January 7, 2008 at 11:53 AM
In the late 1980’s (I forget the exact date) the Iranian navy started attacking tankers, freighters, and what not, provoking the US Navy that was escorting US flagged Kuwaiti tankers in the Persian Gulf (as it was known then, now it’s referred to as North Arabian Gulf). The US Navy responded by basically destroying the Iranian Navy.
I am not sure what Iran is up to, I am inclined to believe they are trying to get us to respond with self defense which they will spin as an “unprovoked attack”. Something China and Russia would also probably chime in on. They will try to paint the US as the bullies, and Iran as the poor little guys. I think Iran probably considers their military as expendable.
Rode Werk on January 7, 2008 at 12:01 PM
This sounds like a terrorist practice run.
Next time, they will hopefully send them the message of how nobody messes with the US Navy.
Hening on January 7, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Speaking as a strong supporter of the POTUS, had Bush spoken to the Iranians in any capacity prior to the 2004 elections i would not have voted for him. He knows most of the country still feels the same way. Only the cowardly left would bend knee to enemies that have 29 years of American blood on their hands.
elduende on January 7, 2008 at 12:07 PM
I just got an iPod this weekend. My first one. If that little Smurf in a windbreaker’s navy think they can steal my iPod, I’d welcome them to try it. I wouldn’t cry and I would do something unmentionable.
Because it’s awesome!
mjk on January 7, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! Yeah, because when a country like Iran says “We’ll recognize Israel”, they actually mean it. Because Arafat said it and you see all the peace between the Palestinians and Israelis.
FYI – 90% of what a Middle Eastern leader says is pure and utter BS rhetoric. It’s the 10% not broadcast by CNN and MSNBC you have to watch out for. Just a hint: It’s usually the stuff they say at rallies in their own countries – “Destroy Israel”, “Finish What Hitler Started”, etc.
mjk on January 7, 2008 at 12:14 PM
I remember under Reagan when the Libyan navy gave significant provocation. Then suddenly there wasn’t a Libyan navy.
Buford on January 7, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Should we have not spoken to the Russians and Chinese during the 70s and 80s? Would you have not voted for Reagan because of his meetings with Brezhnev and Gorbachev or his 1984 visit to China?
dedalus on January 7, 2008 at 12:21 PM
They must be banking on our political class’ infamous lack of intestinal fortitude, because there is no way they should feel safe playing stupid games with American ships. We would absolutely crush anyone in the world in a naval engagement. I can’t possibly imagine what they hoped to gain through this, but it worries me.
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Say Gulf of Tonkin and the brain turns off.
RobCon on January 7, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Different strategic situations. Soviets strategic posture during the 70s was ascendant we were in retrenchment due to the retreat from vietmam. During the 70s we needed to hold the soviets back in any way possible therefore the SALT and ABM treaties were negotiated. Soviet strategic posture by the time Reagan came around was in decline due to Reagan’s rollback strategy of confrontation wherever possible (afghanistan, angola, nicaragua, peru, colombia, mexico, mozasmbique, etc)(as long as the confrontation did not cause a nuclear crisis it was fair game) so speaking to them was a part of the game. With SDI the dynamics of the game changed and the soviets could not compete by the time Gorbachev came around the soviet strategic posture was one of decline they approached us from a position of weakness. The resulting strategic treaties were good for us.
As for the Chinese it was Nixon in 1972 not Reagan in 1984 who thawed relations with them. Frankly both powers needed each other in an effort to contain the aforementioned ascendant soviets that had chased us out of indochina in those days and had provoked 2 border wars with the chinese alongg the Azur river. Mao wanted to keep the amercian engaged in the region because due to his cultural revolution the chinese feared they could not contain the soviets by themselves. Ergo Nixon (the staunch anti-communist zealot) goes to China. Therefore by the time Reagan went to China it was window dressing for the strategic relationship.
the point is what we hope to accomplish by speaking with the Iranians? There is no strategic parity here, almost anything “negotiated” will be unpalatable to the US posture. Just because the left in this country can’t stomach realpolitick and the Hobbsian state of international affairs does not mean we should bend over like they would like to for an enemy. got to go for awhile…
elduende on January 7, 2008 at 12:40 PM
“We will
burysink you…oh, and death to America!”CP on January 7, 2008 at 12:51 PM
I wonder what the part about them throwing white boxes in the water is about. Perhaps they were trying to set up the US to send out a small team to investigate and try a repeat of the British kidnapping incident?
Either that or the revolutionary guards are just total cowboys.
irish_infidel on January 7, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Well said elduende and completely factual. I’m always amazed that people forget Nixon’s trip.
limowilliam on January 7, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Gulp of toxin.
No. No. No. No. No.
Talk of golfing.
No. No. No. No. No.
Honky tonkin.
No. No. No. No. No.
Goal for Beckham.
No. No. No. No. No.
Shy Guy on January 7, 2008 at 12:58 PM
A wacky Paulnut goes with the Tonkin schtick: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018365.html
Amazing how so many Ronulans sound just like barking moonbats
William Teach on January 7, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »