I am solidly with the Air Marshal concerning the war, terrorism and Iraq. Bush wants the election to be about the war? Fine — by any measure, this poorly-planned, poorly-executed and mishandled conflict has revealed terrible flaws in Bush’s leadership and the leadership of his administration. The American people must make a clear statement about Bush’s failures and remove him from office.

I also want to defend the Minister of Agriculture against the false charges of our Maximum Leader. If he has been ’squishy,’ as our Maximum Leader described, it’s just because he hasn’t been working out lately and has nothing to do with his political views. I’ve also never been a pacifist, and my military credentials are as strong as anybody else’s in the cabinet. I have always been in favor of the war on terror and against the war in Iraq, a position I have spelled out on this blog many times. Even our Maximum Leader has acknowledged the merit of my argument, and I’m honored that the Minister of Agriculture has shifted his position; he’s hardly gone soft on the issues simply because he’s made the intelligent decision to vote against Bush.

My only disagreement with the Minister of Agriculture is the expressed reluctance of his shift to Kerry. While I think that Kerry has been a poor campaigner so far, I think Kerry’s character and experience are exemplarly, and he will make a fine President. In suggesting otherwise, I think the Minister of Agriculture has fallen prey to Republican propaganda rather than examining the record of the man himself. If he truly wants Bush to lose, he needs to discover the merits of Kerry’s position for himself and argue in his favor.

Failing that, the Minster of Agriculture remains vulnerable to the charge of wanting it both ways (if so inclined, please insert sexual innuendo here). If our dear rural minister sees fit to post his political hand-wringing verbatim, he should take care lest he be squished in the middle.

Believe.

RE: Profile

I’ll throw my profile into the mix.

RE: Iraq

As fr Iraq, I’ll almost agree with the Minister of Propaganda. I think that the mission in Iraq is damn close to impossible at this point. I say almost, because though I can’t see a way out… and I guarantee that the current administration can’t see a way out… that doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. I’m still mulling over why the administration was dead set on Iraq in the first place. It’s obvious at this point that the White House had enough information in its hands that it should have known that the WMD issue was a dead duck, and the terror connection was tenuous. Yet the administration chose these two points to justify the war.

So two things are possible. Either the administration actually believed this stuff, or there was an ulterior motive for the war. I believe the war was designed, as the Prop Minister asserts, as a first stepping stone in a Neo Con plan of democritizing the middle east. If this is true, then two things about it are typical of the Bush presidency. First, Lying about real motives and agendas. Second, the incapacity to thing things through. Did the administration actually think that we’d be seen as heros, and revered as the angelic liberators of the Iraqi people? Sounds like it.

Did the administration actually think we could democritize the region?

RE: Terror

As for the war on Terror, I don’t believe that Iraq was the right front to fight. The war with Iraq was justified on the grounds that Iraq posed a serious threat to the US. This is why the WMD’s and the Al Quaeda connection were so key. The implication that Iraq would/could provide those sorts of weapons to Bin Ladens’ people demanded action. Any other scenario doesn’t demand the immediate overthrow of the Baathists.

Any war on terror, or Islamofacism, is incomplete without addressing Saudi Arabia. And addressing Saudi Arabia is gonna be damn hard. Dealing with Saudi Arabia will piss a lot of people off.

Now, was Saddam really related to Islamofacism? Maybe. What about Mubarak, or Ghaddafi? Both are just as bad in different ways. Ghaddafi has seen the writing on the wall, and now he’s sucking up to us. And we’re letting him. Mubarak is almost as bad as Saudi Arabia at plaing the two faced game. They suck up to us, and say the right things to our faces, but STATE RUN media actually plays up Wahabist tendencies.

And on the subject of terror, it’s good that we’ve vowed to hunt down the vermin responsible for this. Too bad that all the stuff at Abu Graib undermines any moral high ground we have here. And I guess this is my biggest frustration with the whole Iraq situation. There is a real fight to be fought. We haven’t beaten Al Quaeda yet. We haven’t really eliminated the Taliban. We haven’t captured or killed Bin Laden. We didn’t finish the job in Afghanistan. Bush was so eager to jump into Iraq that he left the bigger, real chore unaccomplished. This will bite us in the end.

RE: Democracy

I believe that democracy has two requirements. It must be wanted by the population in question, and it must be earned by the same population. In short a people that want democracy earn it by fighting for it. The cost is blood. I think any democracy imposed from without is illegitimate. Until an Islamic population rises up, and demands, and fights for, democracy, there will be no Arab democracy under the sun. We can’t go in there and impose one on them. That’s colonialism under a different name, and as Americans we should be dead set against that.

I guess partly what offends me so much about the current Iraq situation is that it is beginning to go against everything I believe in as an American. It seemed like a good idea initially. Here’s a corrupt regime that poses a threat to us, and is holding it’s population in terrible oppression. Because it poses a threat to us, we are justified in going to War. Then we can help them rebuild their government. Now it appears that rebuilding their government was our primary goal, an that nation didn’t really pose a threat to us. (FYI wasn’t one of Bush’s main foreign policy points in 2000 to argue AGAINST Nation Building? Freaking Liar. Yeah, I know, 911 changed everything for him.)

OK, so now that we know that Iraq didn’t really pose a threat to us, and the Administration had enough information in it’s posession to know this, were we justified to overthrow a government for the sole purpose of installing a better one? No. What gives us the right to determine that Saddam is bad enough to merit an invasion? Merely that he’s a brutal tyrant isn’t enough. That’s a given. If that were the only criteria, there are dozens of states that we should invade. North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, China, Just about any Sub Saharan Nation, California, and on and on. It’s just not enough.

Do it for Democracy? That tells me that the Bushites not only don’t understand how to read intelligence, they don’t really know what Democracy is. Democracy to them, I guess, simply means Halliburton gets the contracts.

The Maximum Leader’s Minister of Agriculture begs his esteemed leader to go back and reread my posts. I am not squishy on the war.

We NEED to win.

My “mindless ranting,” if the Maximum Leader will pull his partisan head out of his proverbial partisan backside, is not pacifist in origin.

My conclusion, shared by the oh-so-liberal George Will, is that Bush is incapable of prosecuting the war to a successful conclusion.

Deciding to vote for Kerry has been a painful process. Kerry is the worst Democratic candidate in my memory. That said, if we want to win, we HAVE to change the leadership.

Those conservatives who are still backing Bush need to answer a simple question: Has the war been successful so far? No. How has Bush’s approach changed with the evolving situation? It hasn’t changed. What makes you believe that Bush will suddenly become reflective and change course? That I would like to answer. To paraphrase George Will again (only to insulate myself against the charge of mindless liberal ranting), “This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it does not think, and having thought, have second thoughts.

I’ll grant that Kerry has not really laid out a real plan for Iraq (other than some platitudes designed to attract the Deaniacs). So I’m scared. But we know that Bush’s plan is a failure.

Our choice in November, leaving all domestic policy considerations aside, is A) A lost war that drags on and on or B) A question mark. I’ll take the question mark over guaranteed failure EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Since the Maximum Leader still backs Bush, perhaps he should explain to our readers why he believes that intractable George can win. I’ll be waiting.

In fact, all conservatives should have to answer this question. They may claim to value our security above all considerations, but their blind support for our president belies that claim.

To avoid confusion amongst our gentle readers (wouldn’t want anyone to mis-attribute my liberal views), I’ve retired my usual alias, ‘The Director,’ and am now posting specifically and singularly as ‘The Minister of Propaganda.’

That sounds cooler, anyway. Now BELIEVE (hey, that could be MY sign-off!)

It wouldn’t matter if we publicly executed Rumsfeld, the Arab world will never forgive the U.S. for those images (and the many more to come). The neo-conservative mission of ‘re-imagining’ the Middle East is not just more difficult, it’s now impossible. If we stay, the insurgents (many of whom probably see themselves as fighting for the freedom of Iraqis, not the other way around) will bleed us until we quit. Our intentions are no longer relevent, andI’m surprised that more ‘real politik’ enthusiasts from the Republican side of the aisle don’t see that.

The fact that the Pentagon has known about the abuses for six months (thank you, Red Cross, for staying true to your mission), undercuts anything this administration says about it’s intentions in Iraq. Bush has never been clear about our mission in Iraq, and this is the result. Are we safer now? In the blink of an eye, those images have created more future terrorists than the next 10 years with Hussein would have done. We are wasting the lives of our military in Iraq, and I hold Bush responsible for every individual killed following his stupid orders. Personally, I hope Bush keeps Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the rest of those criminals close — they’ll hang like an albatross around his neck come November.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is filled with regret that he hasn’t posted more of late. Those of you who have come to rely on your Maximum Leader’s sensible and thoughtful conservative opinions must be going through horrible DTs. Especially since the Smallholder appears to have gone all squishy on the war, and appears to have fallen from the light and decided to vote for Kerry. Your Maximum Leader even got an e-mail from a minion who said that they wondered if your Maximum Leader has let his site devolve into mindless liberal rantings…

Well, let your Maximum Leader say that he values the opinions of all of his ministers. And he invited them all to participate in his forum because he knows that open honest discussion is the lifeblood of our republic. And while open and honest discussion will be severely curtailed in the MWO, it is what is best for our country now, and at any time.

In the spirit of open and honest debate, allow your Maximum Leader to take a side in the current debate concerning the prisoner abuse at Abu Gharib (and likely other prisons) in Iraq. Your Maximum Leader, like most reasonable Americans, is horrified to learn about what has gone on in these prisons at the hands of Americans. He believes that the prisoner abuse is, as so many others have said, disgusting. It is a serious setback to our efforts in Iraq. So serious that in order to deal with it, President Bush must take serious action to deal with it. (Action that seems, regrettably, less and less likely.)

Your Maximum Leader, in a telephone discussion with the Minister of Agriculture the other evening, expressed his belief that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers should resign for his failure to act more decisively as investigations of prisoner abuse began to show the extent of this problem. Further, your Maximum Leader also said that the Chief of Staff of the Army Peter Schoomaker should go. But at the time, your Maximum Leader didn’t believe that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld should be asked to resign. Now, your Maximum Leader has come around to the view that Rumsfeld should go to.

Many have opined that letting Rumsfeld go would be a serious blow to the military in a time when the military doesn’t need further disruption. (And if your Maximum Leader’s belief that Myers and Schoomaker go too that would be, supposedly, an even larger disruption.) Your Maximum Leader believes this argument to be false. There is a Deputy Secretary of Defense. There are ther senior generals. These men are ready to step up. The time has come for them to step up. Your Maximum Leader cannot believe that Donald Rumsfeld is the only man in America up to the job of being Secretary of Defense. (Surely Paul Wolfowitz is. He is the most visible Deputy Secretary of Defense in memory.)

President Bush should, but is unlikely to, cashier these three men for their failure to follow-on more deliberately as prisoner abuse allegations became substantiated. Furthermore, the soldiers who committed the abuse should be jailed. As should their officers all the way up to General Karpinski.

It is sad that the President will not act decisively in this way. Your Maximum Leader believes that it would go a long way towards putting deeds behind all of the mournful statements of regret and the apologies. And might go far to restore faith in the American mission in Iraq among moderate Arabs (if such a beast exist outside the US).

Having said this, do not believe for a moment that your Maximum Leader has changed his mind about the war or our presence in Iraq. He has not. But he recognizes that the recent events have made our mission that much more difficult. He firmly believes that the US is the only nation that has even an outside chance of reshaping Iraq into a moderate democracy. The UN cannot, and in your Maximum Leader’s opinion, will not be able to do anything in Iraq except allow the country to devolve into civil war moderated by ineffective UN Peacekeepers (who would likely consist of the exact same troops who are currently in Iraq - only under untenable UN rules of engagement).

Your Maximum Leader is afraid that his elected leaders will lose the will to continue in Iraq. And that soon after, the citizens of our nation will demand that our troops be recalled. That is, in your Maximum Leader’s opinion, the worst possible outcome for the US. The removal of US troops might result in Iraq becoming a little Iran. Or possibly a little Iran and a little Sunni state and a little Kurdish state. But strategically, it would be an emboldening event for the Islamofacists who are the heart of matter.

There are many who are firmly committed to the idea that Iraq is a distraction in the war on terror. Your Maximum Leader is not one of them. Iraq is another front in that war. A very daring front at that. While the good Minister of Propaganda may scoff at “neo-conservative” plans for the remaking of the middle east (and perhaps history will be on the M of P’s side in this), your Maximum Leader doesn’t see that another viable option existed for the dramatic change needed to break the cycle that is at the root of Islamofacism. All of the diplomacy, and talk, and nice-making that has gone on to different degrees and with different tactic since the 1960’s hasn’t gotten anyone anywhere. Over the decades the Islamofacists have grown in strength and influence that negotiations are no longer possible. They are not possible because in the end you cannot negotiate with a religious fanatic. The only thing to which these religious fanatics respond is force. Alas, after so long the only thing that can break the cycle is a forceful and decisive blow. Whether or not we have dealt that blow remains the open question.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader realizes it has been very quiet from the Villainschloss of late. He hopes to write some more later. But! He noticed that the Poet Laureate had put up a public profile as part of the Blogger redesign. Here is your Maximum Leader’s.

Carry on.

I mowed my lawn this weekend. We have a big yard, and my mower is a mulching mower so I rake high traffic areas afterwards. So there I am raking up mounds of grass, enjoying a glorious suburban Saturday Morning. The wife has our daughter at dance class, I’m thinking of what Mammal flesh I’m going to sear over hot flames for dinner. Wonderful.

Then I see a funny brown spider in the pile of grass I’m raking. It’s not moving, and It looks kind of menacing. It rings a bell in my mind, and I get an idea. So I run inside and get a small piece of tupperware, go back outsideand easily catch the spider. Then I go inside, get on google, and try to ID this puppy. Sure enough, I found myself a brown recluse.

So now that I have a dangerous poisonous arachnid in my posession, what do I do? Do I flush it down the toilet? Feed it to my cat? Nope. I’m already in 100% “Just not thinking” mode, so I take that puppy outside and release it into the wild again. At least not in our yard.

I completely agree with Smallholder.

(FYI… you want to click on the globe with the chain links to post a link. The paperclip is for uploading. You also want to check your punctuation… it looks funky.)

The torturers must be brought to justice, all the way up the chain of command. Should Rumsfeld be held accountable? I don’t know. Not sure how I feel about it. However, anyone who knew, had the power to act, and didn’t act, should be held accountable. Even if this means President Shrub. The fact that reports documenting this stuff were circulating months ago is even more damning.

Don’t make excuses for these people. If these individuals actually did the things that they were caught on film doing… (innocent until proven guilty, you know)… they are criminals and should be treated as such.

These individuals have disgraced the United States of America. They have made us even more distrusted in the eyes of the Arab world. Any moral high ground we hold, if any is left at all, is eroding quite quickly.

RE: illegal orders

Bravo for refusing to do something that you know is wrong. I’ve been in the position of having to tell a boss I can’t do what they want. Never easy. Sometimes screws up your career too.

Your humble Smallholder has had just about enough of the apologists for the American torturers.

Family and friends are coming forward to defend these war criminals with the collective cry of: “They were only low-level enlisted soldiers who followed orders.”

I believe we have already established the legality of the “I was following orders” defense.

It was established at Nuremburg.

As a soldier, it is your duty to refuse an illegal order.

I’ll grant you, this can be hard. I remember being given an illegal order while in the reserves. A Major ordered me to falsify arms-room records. Though I was thoroughly browbeaten (”Lieutenant, you have to think about your career!”), I refused.

The orders (if they existed) to humiliate Iraqi prisoners of war SHOULD have been easier to refuse ‚ÄövÑv¨ after all, humiliating and degrading another human being should trigger a greater revulsion than signing your name in a fraudulent logbook.

I am very angry that it appears that the greatest punishment that these goons are likely to receive is dismissal from the army. They need to do real time at Leavenworth as prisoners themselves.

Today’s Washington Post also has an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13114-2004May9.html)about Brigadier General Janis Karpinski. She claims that she didn’t know what was going on in the prisons under her command. She objects to a letter of “admonishment” she received before being rotated back to the states.

I believe General Karpinski’s claim that she is not legally responsible for her subordinates’ actions was also addressed in the World War Two trials.

From the Tokyo Indictments:

Count 54: “ordered, authorized, and permitted” inhumane treatment of Prisoners of War (POWs) and others.
Count 55: “deliberately and recklessly disregarded their duty” to take adequate steps to prevent atrocities.

Five Japanese officers (military and civilian) were convicted of count 54. Seven were convicted of count 55. All of those convicted of count 54 were sentenced to death, but to be fair, were also convicted of numerous other crimes against humanity. Of the seven convicted of 55, sentences ranged from seven years to death. Interestingly, one of the convicts served his time, earned parole, and was promptly appointed foreign minister.

I don’t remember exact specifics; I had to look up a war crimes summary here (http://cnd.org/mirror/nanjing/NMTT.html). However, if memory serves, the wording of 54 was interpreted as “and/or;” (perhaps the Maximum Leader or the Propaganda Minister can remember more details from their college history classes). I’m pretty sure that a couple of the generals were convicted on the principal that even if they didn’t know of maltreatment of prisoners, they SHOULD have. Does this principal not apply to Karpinski?

Note: Sorry for the awkward links; Blogger’s paperclip icon now wants to “upload files” rather than create links. They ought to fix this. Or perhaps one of my Nakedvillainy colleagues could shoot me a quick tutorial on how to use the new Blogger interface.

John Brady Kiesling suggests a possible solution to the Iraqi quandry. I think he’s crazy.

He suggests that we pick a strong Iraqi leader, and then let that leader defeat us, and unite Iraq. OK, what would this achieve?

1. United Stable Iraq? Maybe. For the sake of argument, let’s say yes.
2. Get us the hell out? Sure.

So it could achieve two stated goals. So why is it crazy?

It’s crazy because of it’s impact on terrorism and anti-Americanism. All the psycho Jihadists in the Muslim world would point at this as an Arab defeat of the US. It would empower Terrorists all throughout the region. It would have the same impact on the US around the globe as did Al Quaeda’s terror victories in the 90s, and our withdrawal from Somalia.

You may recognize the author as the Diplomat who publically resigned last year on the eve of the Iraqi war. I remember listening to an interview with him on NPR’s “Fresh Air” (here) and being less than impressed. The message I too away from his interview was “I disagree with the Administration, therefore they are wrong.” This annoyed me. While he made a convincing case for the incompetance of the Bush State Department, his absolute conviction over his own infallibility was absurd.

Or maybe not. I just remember my feelings listening to it at the time. I don’t have time to go back and listen to it again now.

In any event, I think there must be a third, and more important goal for the resolution of the mess in Iraq. The impact on the Security of the US, and the war on Terror must be the prime concern. Simply put, we should be safer after we pull out, then before we went in, and the situation for Terrorists should be worse. Kiesling’s solution may be a victory for Iraqi’s, but it would be a defeat for us not only on the battlefields of Messopotamia, but also in the fight with Terrorism. And that last point is unacceptable.

I guess this all comes down to how one views 9/11. For me, 9/11 was an act of War against the US that must be answered. And so far, it hasn’t been answered. Sure, we toppled the Talliban, but Omar and Osama are still out there making trouble. Defeating a Terrorist organization isn’t the same as taking out a regime. I’d be lying if I said I know how to go about it, and I think the current Administration doesn’t have much more of a clue than I do.

If, however, 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor of the War on Terror, the analogy goes much deeper than merely a sneak attack. The warning signs were there for years, and it was predictable to some degree. 9/11 did not happen in a vaccuum. We are at war with someone or something. If it’s Terror, so be it. My biggest fear is that this is the first open hostility in a much larger war between Islam and the West. I hope I’m wrong.

In any event, right or wrong, Iraq is the second battlefield in this war. We left off in Afghanistan before securing victory, and that may have been a mistake. Letting Iraq fall in defeat would seem to be another phenomenal mistake.

Of course, given our choices this November for the position of Fearless Leader, we’re pretty much fucked no matter who’s in the Oval office next year.

The Good Professor Volokh wonders about the definition of Judicial Activism in a recent post.

In the tradition of Analphilosopher, here is a devlisih definition:

Judicial Activism: When judges take a position not held by the speaker.

Examples:

Maximum Leader: “Activist judges are seeking to enforce the principal of ‘equal protection of the law’ in the realm of marriage.”

Smallholder: “Activist judges in the Ninth Circuit have created an individual right to bear arms.”

Director: “An activist judge ruled that my film appeals only to prurient interests and has no redeeming social importance.”

Apologies for the lack of links back to the Analphilosopher and the Volokh conspiracy; the worthless Macintosh on which I type does not give me the full blogger menu to create links.

A good weekend to all!

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader recommends this article for your consideration. Prison Mutiny - What the torturers of Abu Ghraib have wrought. By Christopher Hitchens

Thanks to Keith Burgess-Jackson for the link.

Carry on.

Thanks to a friend, I had the pleasure of attending a Johnnie Walker Black Label tasting event in down town DC last night. Quite nice.

Now, while I find Johnnie Walker Red Label repulsive, I quite like the Black Label. My previous assessment of it was a nice smooth 12 year old blend with a little muscle. Kind of smoky, but with real character. I liked it alot. After the tasting, my appreciation of it has expanded.

First of all, there was a nice cocktail half hour, with free drinks. I opted for two glasses of Black Label neat.

But the tasting was quite interesting. We were presented with a sample of Black Label followed by samples of three component Single Malts. I correctly guessed one of the single malts as Talisker (one of my favorites) and as a result our party was invited to a special tasting afterwards. Talisker is a wonderfully smokey and peaty full bodied malt from the Isle of Skye. The second malt was enticing, but none of us could guess it. Very soft and fruity to the nose, and wonderfully smooth to drink. Turned out to be Cragganmore. The last one I guessed correctly as a lowland malt, but not being familiar with the style, I had no clue what it was. It was Glenkinchie. Very light and herbal, with fruity tones. We finished up with another sampling of Black Label. The complexity was evident at this point. Highly enjoyable.

The special tasting that followed was a royal pleasure. 18 of us, out of a total of about 200, were presented with a tray with an ice cold bottle of Johnnie Walker Gold Label. (I hope the link works, I’ve had some trouble with it.) To quote from the above link

The perfect way to enjoy Johnnie Walker Gold Label is to drink it frozen. This indulgent ritual creates a moment of pure hedonistic pleasure.

Freezing it is certainly not the only way to serve Gold Label ‚Äöv묢, but it is an intriguing and entertaining way to draw out the delicate flavour of the whisky. Try serving the frozen whisky in a frozen glass accompanied with fine chocolate deserts to enhance the experience.

We were served it frozen with chocolates. Due to allergies, I had to pass on the chocolates, but frozen Gold Label in a martini glass is a wonderful experience. I’m convinced some of the women in group had “Special Moments” with the chocolate and the whisky. Hedonistic Pleasure? Yeah, pretty much. That describes it.

So I attended this with two friends. Max Leader was invided, but couldn’t attend due to family responsibilities. The three of us who attended are all fathers, all of little girls who are best friends. So we’re sitting around drinking, talking about our girls when two very attractive young women ask to join us on the pretext of needing table space. They join in the conversation asking about our girls, making small talk, etc.

So what is it that makes attractive young women flirt with married men? Mention that you have a daughter, and BANG they kick it up a notch. Eh? Where were they when I was a frustrated single guy? Huh? Turns out one of the women was an intern in the Bush White House. I will say I note a marked difference between GOP interns and DEM interns.

Your ever faithful Minister of Liquor and Spirits

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has let minionly mail build up in his mailbox for all too long. Okay, it has really built up since Monday, but that seems to be long enough. Let us check our first message….

One of our most loyal minions, Kilgore “You’re Dangerous” Trout writes in response to a post by your Maximum Leader:

In my 20 years growing up in Mason City, Iowa (motto: “43°8′55″ North, 93°12′7″ West”), I only ever met three Jews. So it was news to me that the “world’s largest kosher slaughterhouse” is in my home state. I wonder how the sign outside of town reads:

WELCOME TO POSTVILLE
HOME OF THE WORLD’S LARGEST KOSHER SLAUGHTERHOUSE
KIWANIS - ELKS - ROTARY
1963 CLASS “A” FOOTBALL CHAMPS!
SALT FOR SALE - CHEAP

Take it easy,

Kilgore Trout

Your Maximum Leader responds:You know Kilgore, your Maximum Leader was also shocked to learn this. Are all those Hebrew National Hot Dogs he has been feeding the Villainettes coming from Postville, Iowa? Humm… Very curious. Of course, your Maximum Leader was also shocked to learn that the Amish are fleeing Pennsylvania for Wisconsin. Who knew?

More Minion Mailbag to come!

Carry on.