liberal media fun..."ATTACK ON U.S."

Great headline here. The Archbishop of Canterbury sharply criticizes U.S. policy in Iraq. Not exactly a surprise, as this policy is not particularly popular here and is widely reviled abroad. The headline?

WORLD ANGLICAN LEADER LAUNCHES ATTACK ON U.S.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071125/us_nm/religion_anglicans_usa_dc

Holy fuck. Look dickbags, this is an "attack on the U.S."



Hey, "liberal" media: Stop equating me, a citizen of the United States, with the current Presidential Administration's foreign policy. I'm very sick of this shit.

 

damn liberal sec media

 

Check your former Eastern bloc European countries on that widely reviled policy shit. It's not as wide as you claim.

 

Inches from actual coherece, oh somnolent one...

 

\\\

This is also an attack on the U.S.

 

Eat a bag of shit, Zeke.

Is that coherent enough for you?

By the way, dipshit, check your spelling.

 

I said "widely," not "universally." The characterization is accurate.

Let's not get off point: criticizing current Iraq policy is not "launching an attack" on the United States.

 

No fucking shit. What are you trying to prove?

 

As would be the characterization: Yawn is widely despised around here.

Universally is likely correct, but hard to prove.

 

Of course, the incumbent president wouldn't know the Archbishop of Caterbury if he sat in his lap.
I, for one, do not feel "attacked" by this gentleman.

 

Define COHERECE, Zekie.

And quit obsessing over me.

 

Fenian came out of the monthly moveon.org meeting to say that.