Republican lawmakers urge shift in Iraq plans

By Vicki Allen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Republican congressman called for a deadline to pull U.S. troops from Iraq, while some other members of President Bush's party urged on Sunday that his administration come to grips with a persistent insurgency and revamp Iraq policy.

Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina conservative, said on ABC's "This Week" that he would offer legislation this week setting a timetable for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

"I voted for the resolution to commit the troops, and I feel that we've done about as much as we can do," said Jones, who coined the phrase "freedom fries" to lash out at the French for opposing the Iraq invasion.

Other Republicans on television talk shows joined Democrats in criticizing the administration for playing down the insurgency, while overestimating the ability of Iraq's fledgling forces to fight without U.S. soldiers in the lead and failing to plan for the post-invasion occupation.

"The insurgency is alive and well. We underestimated the viability of the insurgency," Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said on CBS' Face the Nation. He said the administration has "been slow to adjust when it comes to troop strength and supporting our troops."

Graham said the Army is contending with a serious shortfall in recruiting "because this war is going sour in terms of word of mouth from parents and grandparents." He said "if we don't adjust, public opinion is going to keep slipping away."

Jones, a member of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, said "primarily the neoconservatives" in the administration were to blame for flawed war planning.

"The reason of going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that's all been proven that it was never there," he said.

Jones joins some of Congress' most liberal Democrats in demanding a deadline to withdraw troops from a conflict they said has been too costly in U.S. lives and money.

According to a new Gallup Poll, nearly six in 10 Americans say the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, up from 49 percent who held that view in February, USA Today reported in its Monday edition.

The Bush administration contends that setting a withdrawal date would fuel an insurgency that Vice President Dick Cheney recently said was in "the last throes."

Graham opposed setting a date. "If the insurgents drive us out ... we've lost a big battle in the war on terror," he said.

Jones said he was pushing the legislation because his "heart aches" at the nearly 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and 12,000 seriously wounded in Iraq. He said Iraqis should defend themselves once their forces are trained.

Rep. Curt Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican who just returned from Iraq, joined several Democrats saying the administration must be more candid and acknowledge that it could take about two years to train Iraqi forces to replace U.S. soldiers and allow a significant pullout.

"We can't come back to America and have our people being convinced that the Iraqi troops are prepared to take over, when they're not," he said on NBC's Meet the Press.

Weldon also said the administration must "come to grips" with a rising insurgency, boosted by fighters from Syria and Iran, "which for some reason our intelligence community does not want to acknowledge or deal with."

Weldon said he heard "a common theme" in Iraq that the largest number of foreign insurgents may be coming from Syria, but that "Iran overwhelmingly has the quality behind the insurgency."

Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, said on CNN's Late Edition, that "many of us warned this administration before we ever put a boot on the ground" that it would face a long-term conflict. "We didn't have plans for it. And we are now where we are," he said.

Since we are going to assign dates to impossible to predict situation I propose a date of 25 October 2345. Happy?

Oh and I have a revamped Iraq policy...scorched earth. If an easy solution to the conflict is desired...that's about it. It really stinks to be the good guy. It's hard, nobody likes the process to get to the destination and few appreciate the outcome. But we are doing it. Making a point. That the USA is not a paper tiger. It will not bend to the will of tyrants and murderers whose sole reason for existance is the pursuit of power in an apparent vacuum.

Yep, just like a drug addict or alcoholic, the GOP can only live in denial for only so long before it bites you in the a s s.

I love the smell of impeachment in the air.

Ground control to Major Tom...

Come back to Earth

Are you saying it couldn't happen? And why not?

Because no body cares enough to, besides the leftwing nutjobs ::wink wink::

You really should read the posts you comment on. This post was about Republican Conservatives that are fed up with the BS from BuSh.

Since we are going to assign dates to impossible to predict situation I propose a date of 25 October 2345. Happy?

Oh and I have a revamped Iraq policy...scorched earth. If an easy solution to the conflict is desired...that's about it. It really stinks to be the good guy. It's hard, nobody likes the process to get to the destination and few appreciate the outcome. But we are doing it. Making a point. That the USA is not a paper tiger. It will not bend to the will of tyrants and murderers whose sole reason for existance is the pursuit of power in an apparent vacuum.

No doubt! If you look all the way back to the Barbary Pirates and how this country handled the problem then and how they have been handled up to GWB then you would understand why the terrorist think we will just pack our bags and go home. they will not quite until they realize that we are resolved in our fight to see an end to thier tyranny.

We will not fold, we will not retreat and we will no longer pay tributes to those that wish to compromise this country's future. Pack sand liberals this has been needed for a mighty long time. I thank God every day that one of you are not in office to screw this up.

God Bless GWB,God Bless the soldiers that are sacrificing thier lives for my children, me and you and God Bless America!

Here is some food for thought. If the liberals are so darned hell bent on our government not spending money on religous centric services then ask your government officials to stop spending our hard earned tax dollars on religous services for the FREAKING TERRORIST. If you want to be a religion bashing liberal take it all the way please.

Are you saying it couldn't happen? And why not?

Tell us why. Give us some rock solid substantiated proof and stop regurgitating what the MSM spins day in and day out because it does not hold one ounce of water.

You really should read the posts you comment on. This post was about Republican Conservatives that are fed up with the BS from BuSh.
BS!!!

dream on!
About 87% republicans and 38% still support Bush's foreign policies -- heard it on a poll reported by Rush today. What did Rush have to say about the poll? Polls can never be completely trusted because they can be spun either way. I agree. so what do I think about yer post? i don't care... its :bsflag:

impeachment is just bringing the pres up on charges, not throwing him out. So if GWB is brought up on charges, he won't be convicted, and the libs can kiss the 2008 election goodbye.

You really should read the posts you comment on. This post was about Republican Conservatives that are fed up with the BS from BuSh.

If you knew anything about conservatives you would know we do use polls to make decisions like the liberals do. We actually make decisions based on what we know to be fact. The fact is the world was concerned about the killer/tyrant/oppressor aka Saddam but the world at large with a select few had the testicular fortitude to deal with the sorry sob.

If you knew anything about conservatives you would know we do use polls to make decisions like the liberals do. We actually make decisions based on what we know to be fact. The fact is the world was concerned about the killer/tyrant/oppressor aka Saddam but the world at large with a select few had the testicular fortitude to deal with the sorry sob.

Ground control to Major eL eS...

Come back to Earth

....just thought that needed to be repeated.

....just thought that needed to be repeated.

"In the best interests" of the United States of America.

Where's your concern for what is happening in Darfur? And where is your "righteous indignation" about the possibility that what the Downing street memos say is true? More money was spent trying to find something to string Bubba up than was spent on the 9/11 investigations and all they could come up with is lying about a BJ. I am a registered Independent, I don't think that either party is all that good, I judge each by their stand on the issues I am concerned about, but it seems to me that the Repugs are a lot further out of line than the Dems are. They use the buzz words to insite the public, but their actions are the opposite of what they say. They say they are for christian values, but their actions in cutting programs that help the sick,poor and elderly seem to me to be against christian values.
The tax cuts and giveaways to corporate contributors seem to be against the poor and middle class. Some argue that the bible also says that we should be stewards of the natural resources available throughout the world and not squander and destroy them, yet the energy and environmental bills pushed through( or are attempting to push through)do the opposite. To me, their actions in most cases seem to be the ultimate in hypocrasy.
I think everyone here needs to stop thinking about whether the Repugs or the Dems are better and start thinking about what is right.

I am prepared for this country to right the wrongs of all tyrants. No one has mentioned dafur till now and I will be the first to tell you that is horrible what has happened there. The question is where is your activism for dafur since you are so diametrically opposed to what w are doing now I suspect that your support for action there are non-existent, so bag you socialist, terrorist sympathizing liberal.

We all know independents are clost liberals so don't give me the two sides of the coin story to cover your wagon tracks.

hey since you are commenting on memos how about your hero kofi and the memos that surfaced about the oil for food scandal which clearly indicate his envolvement. I figure since you like bringing up things well off topic maybe you can explain this one.

i donot have aproblem with giving everyone tax breaks especially the rich. I have never been employed by a person on welfare but I sure as hell have to support them and I am expected to just shut up and accept it. Not on my watch. If you get on welfare your next step should be getting off of it. tax cuts are good for America which means it is bad for liberals especially the welfare junkies.

Unless you are abosolutely sick and can't be a contributor to the ecopnomy you have no reason to be on welfare of any sorts. we have illegals flooding this country to fill jobs that lazy welfare recipients should be doing but they have been lead to believe that theyare too good to do a days work, who gave them that idea... LIBERALS.

Where's your concern for what is happening in Darfur? And where is your "righteous indignation" about the possibility that what the Downing street memos say is true? More money was spent trying to find something to string Bubba up than was spent on the 9/11 investigations and all they could come up with is lying about a BJ. I am a registered Independent, I don't think that either party is all that good, I judge each by their stand on the issues I am concerned about, but it seems to me that the Repugs are a lot further out of line than the Dems are. They use the buzz words to insite the public, but their actions are the opposite of what they say. They say they are for christian values, but their actions in cutting programs that help the sick,poor and elderly seem to me to be against christian values.
The tax cuts and giveaways to corporate contributors seem to be against the poor and middle class. Some argue that the bible also says that we should be stewards of the natural resources available throughout the world and not squander and destroy them, yet the energy and environmental bills pushed through( or are attempting to push through)do the opposite. To me, their actions in most cases seem to be the ultimate in hypocrasy.
I think everyone here needs to stop thinking about whether the Repugs or the Dems are better and start thinking about what is right.

Where's your concern for what is happening in Darfur? And where is your "righteous indignation" about the possibility that what the Downing street memos say is true? More money was spent trying to find something to string Bubba up than was spent on the 9/11 investigations and all they could come up with is lying about a BJ. I am a registered Independent, I don't think that either party is all that good, I judge each by their stand on the issues I am concerned about, but it seems to me that the Repugs are a lot further out of line than the Dems are. They use the buzz words to insite the public, but their actions are the opposite of what they say. They say they are for christian values, but their actions in cutting programs that help the sick,poor and elderly seem to me to be against christian values.
The tax cuts and giveaways to corporate contributors seem to be against the poor and middle class. Some argue that the bible also says that we should be stewards of the natural resources available throughout the world and not squander and destroy them, yet the energy and environmental bills pushed through( or are attempting to push through)do the opposite. To me, their actions in most cases seem to be the ultimate in hypocrasy.
I think everyone here needs to stop thinking about whether the Repugs or the Dems are better and start thinking about what is right.

:I Well said, Phil.

BTW, what happened to post #14?

yeah great job avoiding the issues head on. Great job with the flares and chaff it was a great diversion.

You guys are the masters of diversion. Everytime someone criticized BuSh you guys bring up Clinton.

You guys are the masters of diversion. Everytime someone criticized BuSh you guys bring up Clinton.

Hey, speaking of the Clintons, I heard yesterday that they've finished paying off their "fine" (or whatever it was) from the Whitewater investigation.

One less thing for the GOP to bitch about the Clintons. :N

[QUOTE=eL eS] so bag you socialist, terrorist sympathizing liberal.[/QUOTE
Sounds like a typical "right wing republican christian in name only, certainly not in actions" kind of response. People like you sadden me. You can't respond intelligently to the issues or questions raised so you resort to name calling and lumping people into categories, all of which are bad because you're not in them. Run away little boy, and take your toys with you cause we don't agree with you.

You guys are the masters of diversion. Everytime someone criticized BuSh you guys bring up Clinton.

Well stop bringing up Bush! You have to expect criticism of your party when you criticise others. What you guys like to do is bring up a completely unrelated topic in some hopes to substantiate your position. Just stick to the position and fight. Do not go from apples and then to oranges to prove your position on apples. It doesn't work...just like the majority of your constituents.

Yes I do. You guys do more to aid and abet the terrorist than any other group besides themselves. You are ruining this country with your liberal social programs that do not expect results from the recipients. You promote the killing of unborn children whoses mothers life is not at stake. This country is in a baby bust right now and the baby boomers just have to have thier social security checks so how can you justify the murder of unbron citizens especially when people risk thier lives to get here to have thier children and have it paid for by one of your social programs. I just do not see the sanity in all of this. So yes, you are liberal, you have a socialist agenda and have abetted the terrorist. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.... you know what you are.

[QUOTE=eL eS] so bag you socialist, terrorist sympathizing liberal.[/QUOTE
Sounds like a typical "right wing republican christian in name only, certainly not in actions" kind of response. People like you sadden me. You can't respond intelligently to the issues or questions raised so you resort to name calling and lumping people into categories, all of which are bad because you're not in them. Run away little boy, and take your toys with you cause we don't agree with you.

You're a sick man Noah. Have you stopped taking your pills?

It is reality that is sick. I speak about what I see. I do not see where that previous post stretched the truth about anything. I am sure you might disagree with liberalism not being socialism but the fact is the remainder of that post comes right out of lifes book.

They say they are for christian values, but their actions in cutting programs that help the sick,poor and elderly seem to me to be against christian values.

Well... follow me with this logic, if you will, and you might agree that christian values for charity work out even better than just govt programs.....

those programs are paid for from money that is taken by force (tax dollars). Is it right for me to hold a gun to your head and take your money if i am going to give it to the poor? No! and it is even worse if I take money from you and keep half of it to buy better weapons to further my force over you. Spending tax dollars, that are taken from us without our choice in the matter, on programs for charity is wrong!! And, the programs are horribly inefficient due to governmental control. In contrast, the Christian churches, do not take money by force, but they do charity work to feed and cloth the poor with money that is given freely by members and wealthy donors after they pay taxes (by force), and it is done a lot more efficiently than govt programs.
The conservative side of america pays taxes by force to fund inefficient programs and liberal agendas, they give money and their time to the church on top of that, and they still have the means to meet all thier own provisions for themselves -- it's called being blessed!!!! And since the head of the democratic party maliciously labels us conservatives as mostly (white) Christian (which we are christian), what are the liberals doing to support the church in comparison?? Not much!! they are trying to stifle the church (excep islam) in favor of their inefficient govt. programs.... and GEEEEE for some reason, they NEED help from the govt. because they can NOT provide for themselves because they are NOT blessed!!

It's great to consider liberal politics.... it forces us to think and become more conservative! :Beer

Well... follow me with this logic, if you will, and you might agree that christian values for charity work out even better than just govt programs.....

those programs are paid for from money that is taken by force (tax dollars). Is it right for me to hold a gun to your head and take your money if i am going to give it to the poor? No! and it is even worse if I take money from you and keep half of it to buy better weapons to further my force over you. Spending tax dollars, that are taken from us without our choice in the matter, on programs for charity is wrong!! And, the programs are horribly inefficient due to governmental control. In contrast, the Christian churches, do not take money by force, but they do charity work to feed and cloth the poor with money that is given freely by members and wealthy donors after they pay taxes (by force), and it is done a lot more efficiently than govt programs.
The conservative side of america pays taxes by force to fund inefficient programs and liberal agendas, they give money and their time to the church on top of that, and they still have the means to meet all thier own provisions for themselves -- it's called being blessed!!!! And since the head of the democratic party maliciously labels us conservatives as mostly (white) Christian (which we are christian), what are the liberals doing to support the church in comparison?? Not much!! they are trying to stifle the church (excep islam) in favor of their inefficient govt. programs.... and GEEEEE for some reason, they NEED help from the govt. because they can NOT provide for themselves because they are NOT blessed!!

It's great to consider liberal politics.... it forces us to think and become more conservative! :Beer

You must be a lifetime member of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker's televangilists "religious" organization, eh? You are more clueless than I first gave you credit for.

The majority of self-proclaimed "organized religions" (if one could truly call them a "religion") are worse than even the republicans for stealing hard-earned $$ from the less fortunate to line their own pockets and the pockets of the elite. They are so busy patting themselves on the back for "helping the needy" that they can't be truthful about their real agenda of "helping the greedy". 'Yall just don't walk the talk.

I'd rather my hard-earned money be taken from me and given to programs that help people and have at least some hint of accountability, rather than be fooled into "giving" my money to a black hole only to have it end up lining the pockets of the greedy.

But HEY! This is a free country. You GO boy!

You must be a lifetime member of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker's televangilists "religious" organization, eh? You are more clueless than I first gave you credit for.

The majority of self-proclaimed "organized religions" (if one could truly call them a "religion") are worse than even the republicans for stealing hard-earned $$ from the less fortunate to line their own pockets and the pockets of the elite. They are so busy patting themselves on the back for "helping the needy" that they can't be truthful about their real agenda of "helping the greedy". 'Yall just don't walk the talk.

I'd rather my hard-earned money be taken from me and given to programs that help people and have at least some hint of accountability, rather than be fooled into "giving" my money to a black hole only to have it end up lining the pockets of the greedy.

But HEY! This is a free country. You GO boy!

jim n tammy baker? lol @ you again.... dude thats such old news! they dont get the peoples money anymore because of their scandal. ppl who send money to tv organizations send it to pat robertson on the 700 club.... they have a great reputation and help a lot in need... dude, it's not the 80s anymore! less than 1% of charity donations go to tv organizations... the rest go to local groups that donors are involved with and are kept honest.

So you judge all church charities by the one scandalous one you saw on tv back in the 80s? the Jim n Tammy deal is one bad case out of thousands of honest church charities.... and if that's all ya know about churches, you are quite outta touch with reality.... hey guess what!.. life isn't quite like it appears on tv! and with statements like that.... you know nothing about the majority of church charity... or the majority of anything i suppose! poor you!... again!
you are really digging yourself deeper in your hole. the more you post, the more un-informed you appear! keep it up johnny...., you're earning your name. :monkey:

You must be a lifetime member of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker's televangilists "religious" organization, eh? You are more clueless than I first gave you credit for.

The majority of self-proclaimed "organized religions" (if one could truly call them a "religion") are worse than even the republicans for stealing hard-earned $$ from the less fortunate to line their own pockets and the pockets of the elite. They are so busy patting themselves on the back for "helping the needy" that they can't be truthful about their real agenda of "helping the greedy". 'Yall just don't walk the talk.

I'd rather my hard-earned money be taken from me and given to programs that help people and have at least some hint of accountability, rather than be fooled into "giving" my money to a black hole only to have it end up lining the pockets of the greedy.

But HEY! This is a free country. You GO boy!

Trust my money with some liberal politician bwahahaha. Accountable Liberal bwahahaha whoe... man can I email this to my friends so they can read the jokes this is great stuff.

I'd rather face the cohersion of some tv evangelist than a Liberal Wallet Jacking any day.

It will be close to being fair if and when we get the flat tax.

jim n tammy baker? lol @ you again.... dude thats such old news! they dont get the peoples money anymore because of their scandal. ppl who send money to tv organizations send it to pat robertson on the 700 club.... they have a great reputation and help a lot in need... dude, it's not the 80s anymore! less than 1% of charity donations go to tv organizations... the rest go to local groups that donors are involved with and are kept honest.

So you judge all church charities by the one scandalous one you saw on tv back in the 80s? the Jim n Tammy deal is one bad case out of thousands of honest church charities.... and if that's all ya know about churches, you are quite outta touch with reality.... hey guess what!.. life isn't quite like it appears on tv! and with statements like that.... you know nothing about the majority of church charity... or the majority of anything i suppose! poor you!... again!
you are really digging yourself deeper in your hole. the more you post, the more un-informed you appear! keep it up johnny...., you're earning your name. :monkey:
good work!

I have never tithed to a TV Church.

For the Liberals out there thithing is when you give one tenth of your income to the church. But since you aren't white church attending devils this would not be familiar to you.

10% of my income goes to an organization that helps feed, cloth and build homes. This organization has very little administrative costs and none of the red tape. Further, they turn peoples lives around in shorter time. If sermons are given attendance is VOLUNTARY unlike my contribution to your bloated, low results and zero accountibility programs.

It is not to hard to conclude that if my household had more income that that 10% would increase not multiply that by all teh church going white devil conservatives and you have a whole lot of helping going on.

I know, I know we preach wacky things like be good to thy neighbor and abstinence, honor thy father and thy mother which apparently you are diametrically opposed to but think people would be getting the help they need. after all isn't that what your agenda is?

Problem is, YOU DON'T PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!!!

Problem is, YOU DON'T PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!!!

This oinion has already been rendered and my retort is on public record here. NEXT

By PETE YOST

WASHINGTON (AP) - Amid new questions about President Bush's drive to topple Saddam Hussein, several House Democrats urged lawmakers on Thursday to conduct an official inquiry to determine whether the president intentionally misled Congress.

At a public forum where the word ``impeachment'' loomed large, Exhibit A was the so-called Downing Street memo, a prewar document leaked from inside the British government to The Sunday Times of London a month and a half ago. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, organized the event.

Recounting a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair's national security team, the memo says the Bush administration believed that war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam.

``The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy,'' one of the participants was quoted as saying at the meeting, which took place just after British officials returned from Washington.

The president ``may have deliberately deceived the United States to get us into a war,'' Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said. ``Was the president of the United States a fool or a knave?''

The Democratic congressmen were relegated to a tiny room in the bottom of the Capitol and the Republicans who run the House scheduled 11 major votes to coincide with the afternoon event.

``We have not been told the truth,'' Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son was killed in Baghdad a year ago, told the Democrats. ``If this administration doesn't have anything to hide, they should be down here testifying.''

The White House refuses to respond to a May 5 letter from 122 congressional Democrats about whether there was a coordinated effort to ``fix'' the intelligence and facts around the policy, as the Downing Street memo says.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan says Conyers ``is simply trying to rehash old debates.''

Conyers and a half-dozen other members of Congress were stopped at the White House gate later Thursday when they hand-delivered petitions signed by 560,000 Americans who want Bush to provide a detailed response to the Downing Street memo. When Conyers couldn't get in, an anti-war demonstrator shouted, ``Send Bush out!'' Eventually, White House aides retrieved the petitions at the gate and took them into the West Wing.

``Quite frankly, evidence that appears to be building up points to whether or not the president has deliberately misled Congress to make the most important decision a president has to make, going to war,'' Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said earlier at the event on Capitol Hill.

Misleading Congress is an impeachable offense, a point that Rangel underscored by saying he's already been through two impeachments. He referred to the impeachment of President Clinton for an affair with a White House intern and of President Nixon for Watergate, even though Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment.

Conyers pointed to statements by Bush in the run-up to invasion that war would be a last resort. ``The veracity of those statements has - to put it mildly - come into question,'' he said.

Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson said, ``We are having this discussion today because we failed to have it three years ago when we went to war.''

``It used to be said that democracies were difficult to mobilize for war precisely because of the debate required,'' Wilson said, going on to say the lack of debate in this case allowed the war to happen.

Wilson wrote a 2003 newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. After the piece appeared someone in the Bush administration leaked the identity of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, exposing her cover.

Wilson has said he believes the leak was retaliation for his critical comments. The Justice Department is investigating.

John Bonifaz, a lawyer and co-founder of a new group called AfterDowningStreet.org, said the lack of interest by congressional Republicans in the Downing Street memo is like Congress during Nixon's presidency saying ``we don't want'' the Watergate tapes.

President Cheney '06!


(although hardly the lesser of the two evils)

President Cheney '06!


(although hardly the lesser of the two evils)


We'd be dealing directly with the puppeteer instead of the puppet. :F

I'd rather face the cohersion of some tv evangelist than a Liberal Wallet Jacking any day.

And the difference between "liberal wallet jacking" and conservative government funding of "faith-based initiatives" IS??????????? SSDD, the only difference is the first one is FAIR to all those receiving aid, and the latter is prejudiced based on the beliefs of those receiving aid.


It will be close to being fair if and when we get the flat tax.

Now that :I


SSSsssswwwwwooooooosssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

What was that sound? It was the sound of my joke flying right over the head of Gruuvin8. It would've been so bad except that it was a ground ball. :N