Exploiting The Dead
- Thread starter 280PLUS
- Start date
- Status
coylh
Member
Yeah, people sure get their panties in a bunch sometimes.
My feeling is that if the cause is just, morale will be high. If soldiers need grade school kids to send them Christmas cards so they can make it through the weekend without counceling, perhaps the cause is not just.
When I saw the thread title, I thought this was about the officer accused of getting kick-backs from the funerals of soldiers: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002600811_extort03m.html
My feeling is that if the cause is just, morale will be high. If soldiers need grade school kids to send them Christmas cards so they can make it through the weekend without counceling, perhaps the cause is not just.
When I saw the thread title, I thought this was about the officer accused of getting kick-backs from the funerals of soldiers: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002600811_extort03m.html
Marshall
Member
And the problem is?
I'm damn glad the politicians we elected are doing something to look out for our future, our military strength, our freedom and challenging those whom threaten it.
Yes, we are the most prosperous nation on earth, I have no problem with people in power, people that lead this nation, looking out for our security and prosperity. Thank God we don't have the short sided views of some folks on this forum be the views that are in charge of running this country. There are more important things in the world today than socialized medicine, rain forests, spotted owls and making sure Caribou don't have to trot around an oil well in Alaska.
The plan of do nothing, mind your own business, sell your soul and technology to the Chinese while getting a Wet Willie in the oval office, failed miserably. We had many military men and women and civilians killed by terrorist attacks during the Clinton/leftist/do nothing years. There were an outstanding amount of tragic deaths, while not even at fricking war. By sticking our heads in the mud we lost military power, we lost world respect, we were seen as the country that would be too scared to retaliate and as an easy mark to target. So yes, we may be loosing some soldiers in this war but, by God, this time it's for a purpose and we're fighting back!
So, hell yes, I'll take a kick ass and take names policy of those who threaten our future of freedom, future of prosperity and future of security instead of the "Live and let Live" false ideals, or should I say "Live and let us Die" policies, of the left. I'll take them from here on out until we see a safer future and existence. Closing our eyes is traitorous and treasonous to this nation, it's people and it's military.
I can't believe I hear the pretentious "where are the WMD's" argument from what I thought were intelligent people on this forum. Former administrations of both parties agreed there were WMD's in Iraq. But no, we have intelligent folks on this board thinking that we purposely led our nation to war through the manufacturing of this bazaar idea. What? Saddam with WMD's? Surely not! Yea we know he's killed many of his own people with them, we know he won't let inspectors in, we know all the intell in the world says he's been manufacturing them over the last how many decades?
Yea, guess he never had any WMD's, guess he repented and decided to be a good boy, only resort to maiming men, women and children. He must have given up the idea of invading other countries, gave up the idea of manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Guess he decided to just pay the car bombers families $25,000.00 to kill us and be a common low rent thug. He gave up thoughts of launching massive bombs into Israel, gave up looking for longer range launching methods. Naaa, no WMD's for that man anymore. Besides, he didn't have months, upon months, upon months to get them into other countries. But hey, Bush made this up, it's a conspiracy to go to war for personal profit and gain through oil. Evil Bush, Evil Bush!
What's hilarious is that the Dems on capital hill really know the "Bush lied" argument is hollow because when told and asked, "hey we have Saddam, we can always let him go, let Iraq go back to where it was before the war, put him back in power, leave Iraq and mind our own business, what do you say Dems, can we put this down as your idea and give you the credit for returning to the days "before the Bush lie"? They know they're wrong but it's all political. Same as on this board. We have smart folks here but, they hate Bush so the unrealistic, far fetched stories are for attempted political benefit only. The reason they want us out of Iraq is because deep down they know it will be a strong success, it is a success now. But, if we pull out, it looks like we ran, we don't have a strong victory and the Dems have something to use in an election. Like I said, treasonous and traitorous but I'm not surprised anymore.
There was a point when I thought the Liberals really didn't think this was right, even though they voted for it but, they don't fool me anymore. They know they're arguments are FOS, I know it, they know it, but hey, it's political so all is fair these days.
Go ask France how their Muslim population is today, ask them if they are very bothered by what may be happening shortly in their country. You know, the French, they ones so nice to the Mulsims.
Oh yea, what's the latest in the news, there was no pre-war intelligence spoof by the administration? Did I hear that right? Huh, how bout that. Oh yea, those findings are probably part of a conspiracy too.
Later
And now the world respects us?
The term "treason" has a specific definition. Hint: it doesn't include closing one's eyes.
So what? Congresscritters from both parties overwhelmingly voted for the war.
With the knowledge and assistance of the US gov. Did you forget about US aid to to Saddam?
I wish that the US gov would give up on the idea of invading other countries and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.
When did he pay car bomber $25K to kill "us"? Clearly you're making it up as you go along.
If this is "success," I'd hate to see failure.
280PLUS
Member
You focus on Iraq when it is just the tip of the iceberg. And don't forget, the MAJORITY of VOTERS in this country kept GWB in place because he is taking the track we'd like to see. Granted, a lot of people voted the other way which went to show our enemies how divided we are on this. It all fits right into their plan. Ever hear of "divide and conquer"? That's part of their plan and it frightens me to see how many people are falling right into it. Of course our enemies EXPECT this to happen because they know us better than we do ourselves.
Try to remember. IT"S NOT ABOUT IRAQ!! Iraq is just a step in the "War on TERRORISM". In this instance, the best defense truly IS a good offense.
And, once again, WHERE IS YOUR BETTER PLAN??
Try to remember. IT"S NOT ABOUT IRAQ!! Iraq is just a step in the "War on TERRORISM". In this instance, the best defense truly IS a good offense.
And, once again, WHERE IS YOUR BETTER PLAN??
Marshall
Member
In a military/stand up for ourselves way, hell yes!
Geeze man, get a grip. If you can't see the difference you're in the wrong country to begin with. There is a difference in good and evil, I am real sorry you don't see that.
If I give you a gun to help you and show you how to use it am I at fault for your actions with the gun? Typical liberal belief.
Clearly you're ill informed, look it up.
You did see failure, the Clinton years of foreign policy.
Javafriend,
Tell me your plan. What would you have done when given the same intelligence. I want to hear your plan. Inspections were not working, all kinds of sanctions were not working, the man had disregarded everything the Untied Nations, whom liberals so love, said to do, we were given intelligence stating the WMD's, etc. What would you have done? Warn him again? Shake your finger at him? Let the evil dictator continue to thumb his nose and present an even greater danger?
It was the right thing to do, the smart and stategically sound thing to do.
Gordon Fink
Member
280PLUS said:
Following the Constitution would be a nice start.
~G. Fink
280PLUS
Member
Elaborate please...
GoRon
Member
They can't post details. If they did we would be able to dissect what the ramifications of their policy would be.
If you just say follow the constitution we are stuck because nobody wants to argue "no" don't follow the constitution.
Does follow the constitution mean pull all our troops stationed all over the world? Just Iraq? Who knows?
Leftys and Libertarians are to coin a phrase "stuck on stupid", no workable alternatives to the present course of action.
I hate war, I wasn't initially happy with the Iraq invasion. After listening to the arguments from the administration and others I decided to support the effort.
I have listened carefully for alternative plans for dealing with the threat that the middle east poses. From any source, left, right, middle whatever. Isolationism and the UN are facets of all alternatives. Count me out.
I give credit to the Republicans for at least having a plan. It hasn't gone perfect but what military action ever has?
Iraq will work because freedom and capitalism work. If it fails it will be because of the restrictions on freedom and free markets built into the new constitution.
Perhaps these will help (yeah, I'm plugging my own work, but it beats having to repeat everything again):
How To Define Success in the War on Terror
As for the myth of "Bush lied us into war" and the whole WMD business:
"No WMD": The Myth That Won't Die
I should also point out that all through the late 90's, 2000 and 2002, the Clinton officials and the Democratic congressmen made the same statements about Iraqi WMD and intentions as President Bush has. Some Democrats, in fact, made stronger comments about Saddam Hussein as an "imminent threat."
The view on intelligence -- until very recently when the Democrats began to sense that the war is becoming unpopular -- was bipartisan. The only difference is that the President was willing to "pull the trigger," and the Democrats were merely content to talk up the threat while doing nothing.
How To Define Success in the War on Terror
As for the myth of "Bush lied us into war" and the whole WMD business:
"No WMD": The Myth That Won't Die
I should also point out that all through the late 90's, 2000 and 2002, the Clinton officials and the Democratic congressmen made the same statements about Iraqi WMD and intentions as President Bush has. Some Democrats, in fact, made stronger comments about Saddam Hussein as an "imminent threat."
The view on intelligence -- until very recently when the Democrats began to sense that the war is becoming unpopular -- was bipartisan. The only difference is that the President was willing to "pull the trigger," and the Democrats were merely content to talk up the threat while doing nothing.
280PLUS
Member
The silence IS a bit deafening.
IMHO...
This is a time of war. The people re-elected GWB because they felt he was on or at least close to the right track in prosecuting this war. When at war and your side loses the election your side should, accept the defeat, drop the rhetoric, rally behind the President and show the enemy a united bi-partisan front. The Dems have done nothing but criticize and back bite the President before, during and now AFTER the election. Our enemies relish in this. They are counting on it. It is their dream come true. Again. Kerry said Bush did and is doing everthing wrong. But just like around here, where's his better plan? The Generals are no good. Fine, where are the good ones he would put in their places? They're just pissed cause they lost and will stop at nothing to regain control and it weakens our defense. And damn near half the population still takes their side.
I know, let's say "OK, you guys are right,,, you win."
NOW WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO??
IMHO...
This is a time of war. The people re-elected GWB because they felt he was on or at least close to the right track in prosecuting this war. When at war and your side loses the election your side should, accept the defeat, drop the rhetoric, rally behind the President and show the enemy a united bi-partisan front. The Dems have done nothing but criticize and back bite the President before, during and now AFTER the election. Our enemies relish in this. They are counting on it. It is their dream come true. Again. Kerry said Bush did and is doing everthing wrong. But just like around here, where's his better plan? The Generals are no good. Fine, where are the good ones he would put in their places? They're just pissed cause they lost and will stop at nothing to regain control and it weakens our defense. And damn near half the population still takes their side.
I know, let's say "OK, you guys are right,,, you win."
NOW WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO??
So what?
Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq is identical to that of W's. The Dems are lying militarists with a vested interest in inventing enemies of the state to justify their own aggrandizement of state power.
If they do it, it's "terrorism." If we do it, it's counter-terror.
If they do it, it's called "agression." If we do it, it's called "showing resolve."
If they do it, it's called "naked violations of international law." If we do it, it's called "looking out for our own interest."
When they do it, it's called "running gulags" and "torture rooms." When we do it, it's called "taking the gloves off."
When they do it, it's proof of their inherently evil nature. When we do it, it's just a "mistake" committed by "a few bad apples."
Yes, I see now. Thank you very much.
Depends on whether whether you know the transferee to be a prohibited person.
U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
"The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983)."
In 1988 the US Senate unanimously passed the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988," which would have imposed sanctions on Iraq. The legislation died when the House balked as a result of intense lobbying against it by the Reagan administration. Good old Reagan, a warm friend of many genocidal regimes and patron of several terrorist causes.
Saddam sent money to Palestinian suicide-bombers. Last time I checked, Israel wasn't our 51st state, so Saddam did not finance terrorism against "us."
I opposed US interventions in Haiti, Bosnia, and Somalia. Didn't you see me and people like me all over the media articulating principled opposition to US intervention in those countries? Hint: the US media rarely allow onto the airways principled oppostion to US invention.
Calm down, Kim. Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9-11.
The retail terrorism committed by Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda over the past 30 years can't compare to the wholesale terrorism sponsored by the US gov and Israel. It's not even a drop in the bucket.
Did you yourself read it in that book? Or are you quoting someone who claims to have read it in that book?
The claim is a myth. See this and this.
"The reference librarian, an articulate and helpful woman named Heather, called me back exactly as promised and read me the following:
"Lenin, it is said, once described left-liberals and social Democrats as ‘useful idiots,’ and for years anti-communists have used the phrase to describe Soviet sympathizers in the West, sometimes suggesting that Lenin himself talked about ‘useful idiots in the West.’ But the expression does not appear in Lenin’s writing. We get queries on ‘useful idiots of the West’ all the time, declared Grant Harris, senior reference librarian at the Library of Congress, in the spring of 1987. We have not been able to identify this phrase among his published works."
The source of this passage is a work entitled "They Never Said It: a Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions", authored by Paul F. Boller Jr. and John George, published by Oxford University Press in 1989. [I have it on my bookshelf. It's an excellent book.] The text goes on to explain that the phrase apparently first appeared in a John Birch Society pamphlet labeling President Ronald Reagan a "useful idiot" because of some agreement he had negotiated with the Soviet Union.
In the source you reference, Lenin merely referred to Woodrow Wilson as an "utter simpelton" not for foolishly believing any promises made by the Soviet Union, but for the way that Wilson allowed himself to be manipulated by the British and the French.
The exact quote is –
“Nowhere has the Versailles Treaty been analyzed so well as in the book by Keynes, a British representative at Versailles. In his book Keynes ridicules Wilson and the part he played in the Treaty of Versailles. Here, Wilson proved to be an utter simpleton, whom Clemenceau and Lloyd George twisted round their little fingers.”
Given the consequences of Versailles (the punitive measure against Germany leading to economic chaos and the rise of national socialism), I'd say that in this particular instance, Lenin was correct in his assessment of Wilson.
NavyDoc wrote:
Utter nonsense, NavyDoc. That is pure BS which I have repeatedly exposed as BS. You clearly have not even read the treaty or you would not have posted something so obviously stupid. You say it's in the treaty? Fine. See UNSCR 687 - 3 April 1991, Ceasefire agreement at the end of the Gulf. Read it and tell us where it establishes no-fly zones.
You see, NavyDoc, that's the problem with making these false statements either out of ignorance or reckless disregard for the truth thereof.
Do you know what happened when the US gov finally released the "secret documents" which supposedly proved that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger? Baradei at the International Atomic Energy Agency debunked the documents that afternoon just using google. Are we supposed to believe that our intelligence establishment with all its resources, its tens of billions of dollars in annual budget, couldn't do what it took the IAEA an afternoon to do?
I don't believe it. It is simply implausible. The other option is that there was deliberate deception. The Bush Administration would take anything - regardless of how utterly far-fetched - and use it to manipulate public opinion behind going to war with Iraq without regard for the truth thereof. That's called lying.
"We don't know whether it's true or false, but it supports out agenda, so we're gonna put it out there anyway, feed it to Judy Miller at The Times, and testify about it before Congress."
They lied even as other intelligence agencies were disagreeing with them about Iraqi's supposed WMD. See Italy 'warned Saddam intelligence was bogus'.
"Italian intelligence warned the United States about bogus information on Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions at about the time President Bush cited them as a crucial reason for invading Iraq, an Italian parliamentarian said yesterday."
US occupation is feeding the insurgency. My plan is simple: US out now.
Oh boy, there's nothing quite like getting lectured about "crediability" by someone who can't even spell the word.
How many times have the neocons on this board claim that "everyone" believed the gov's lies about Iraq WMD? yet another news article comes out showing that that just wasn't the case.
Italy 'warned Saddam intelligence was bogus'
No wonder that the Republicans got upset that the Democrats essentially shutdown the Senate to force the release of a languishing report on whether the administration had distorted or mishandled intelligence in making the case for invading Iraq.
It's gotten so bad that on Capitol Hill recently, Republicans joined in criticizing the administration about Iraq. When Rice said at a hearing that "we have made significant progress" in Iraq, Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) replied: "Well, we all wish that were true, but we can't kid ourselves, either."
They fear us more, that doesn't mean that they respect us. Admiration for the US has dropped to record lows. It's even starting to hurt US business interests.
An article in U.S. Banker warns, "[T]he majority of American CEOs, whose firms employ eight million overseas, are now acknowledging that anti-American sentiment is a problem." And a 2004 Boston Herald story, headlined Mass. Execs: Iraqi War Hurting; U.S. competitiveness becoming a casualty, pointed to the "sixty-two percent of executives surveyed by Opinion Dynamics Corp. [who] said the war is hurting America's global competitiveness."
280PLUS
Member
I appreciate your efforts to present your side java. Unfortunately the next 2 days are totally socked for me. I WILL come back and read this thoroughly ASAP.
280
280
GoRon
Member
Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) ha ha ha.
Thats like me quoting Zell Miller to prove the Dems are strong on defense issues.
The big holdup on the report in the Senate is that the Republicans wanted a "blind" test on various statements. In other words, they wanted to check a statement against the facts without revealing who made the statement.
Here is where the holdup was, the Republicans wanted to include statements Democrats made and the Dems said no. Thus the report languished.
Thats like me quoting Zell Miller to prove the Dems are strong on defense issues.
The big holdup on the report in the Senate is that the Republicans wanted a "blind" test on various statements. In other words, they wanted to check a statement against the facts without revealing who made the statement.
Here is where the holdup was, the Republicans wanted to include statements Democrats made and the Dems said no. Thus the report languished.
Javafiend:
I've tried to be polite in our discourse, but obviosly you do not have the intillectual integrity to have a polite discourse. So I must unleash my true feelings........
I HAVE FLOWN THOSE NO FLY ZONEs AND I HAVE BEEN FIRED UPON WHILE FLYING THOSE NO FLY ZONES!!!!!!!!!
???????!!!!!
Agree or not with our first war with Iraq, the bottom line is that Sadaam vilolated the treaty that he signed and thus we must enforce that treaty.
Get out of your mom's basement, lose some weight, and have a little bit of common courtesy to those that stand on the wall to help ensure your freedom to be an idiot!!!!
I've tried to be polite in our discourse, but obviosly you do not have the intillectual integrity to have a polite discourse. So I must unleash my true feelings........
I HAVE FLOWN THOSE NO FLY ZONEs AND I HAVE BEEN FIRED UPON WHILE FLYING THOSE NO FLY ZONES!!!!!!!!!
???????!!!!!
Agree or not with our first war with Iraq, the bottom line is that Sadaam vilolated the treaty that he signed and thus we must enforce that treaty.
Get out of your mom's basement, lose some weight, and have a little bit of common courtesy to those that stand on the wall to help ensure your freedom to be an idiot!!!!
javafiend said:
"Utter nonsense"
"
"pure BS "
"posted something so obviously stupid"
"
You see, NavyDoc, that's the problem with making these false statements either out of ignorance or reckless disregard for the truth thereof"
Listen, idiot! I've been there, you?? I actually have the integrety to put my life on the line (several times) for what I belive in. You????
Disagree with me, FINE! That is what free speech is all about (men like me dedicate our lives so that people like you are free to be idiots......(you are welcome for your freedom of speech. Put down the twinkie, pick up a rifle, and be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem, OK?)
Disagree with me is fine, but don't you dare question my integrity unless you have had the guts to stand on that line. (I'm really pissed....have you noticed??)
"{Italian intelligence??!?!??!) What an oxymoron....how about quoting a real intelligence organisation?
AHhhh. I've been there, on the ground, multiple times......I'm going again (and leaving my family, my wife , and my daughters...and it really pisses me off to be insulted so by a namby, pamby momma's boy who does not have the moral fortitude to leave his mother's basement!)
Disagree with me fine......that is what intellectual discourse is all about. Insult my integrity and you have declaired war! COMMUNIST!
Orwell (a socialist, but he has a few good points):" Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence in their behalf." Pussy!
(Oleg, ban me if you must, but I will not stand for such leftist, insulting, nonsense!)
GoRon
Member
NavyDoc,
We have a few (or more) posters here that are poster children for the contempt the left has for the military.
Don't let them get you upset or down. The vast majority of Americans truly support you and your mission. This is born out by the President being re-elected.
In spite of the anti war in Iraq media barrage and questionable polls I believe the base of support is solid. Yes, we are not happy with the war and the administrations handling of it. But given the chance to vote on it we put this administration back in to finish the job.
Thank you and all the vets for doing the job you do. Your labor is not in vain.
We have a few (or more) posters here that are poster children for the contempt the left has for the military.
Don't let them get you upset or down. The vast majority of Americans truly support you and your mission. This is born out by the President being re-elected.
In spite of the anti war in Iraq media barrage and questionable polls I believe the base of support is solid. Yes, we are not happy with the war and the administrations handling of it. But given the chance to vote on it we put this administration back in to finish the job.
Thank you and all the vets for doing the job you do. Your labor is not in vain.
GoROn...Sorry for the emotion. I had gotten a page a few hours ago that one of my patients, a Marine that I had actually served with a few years ago had expired in the hospital from wounds recieved in Iraq.
After such a thing, you can imagine I've a low tolerance for asshats.
After such a thing, you can imagine I've a low tolerance for asshats.
NavyDoc,
I posted the link to the Gul War Ceasefire Agreement which you claim established the "no-fly zones."
Put aside your emotions and calmly kindly point out to me which specific section establishes the "no-fly zones."
Either it's there or it isn't - notwithstanding your hysteria.
Did your superior officers tell you that the "no-fly zones" were established by the Gulf War Ceasefire Agreement? If so they 're as wrong about that as the fedgov was about Iraq's "vast stockpiles" of WMD.
Do you have the "intillectual" integrity to read and decipher the ceasefire agreement? Or are you just going to parrot the militarist propaganda that was spoon-fed to you by the CnC?
"notwithstanding your hysteria."
Again. Lack of commmon courtesy from someone who has not been there.
Sir, I respectfully suggest that you put down the DNC talking points and step away from the computer.
I've been fed nothing....I've been there and seen with my own eyes many reasons to be there. YOU?
Where have you served? Please enlighten us. Perhaps you are one of those parasites on society that enjoys the fruits of liberty that others have secured for you?
Just a thought.
Again. Lack of commmon courtesy from someone who has not been there.
Sir, I respectfully suggest that you put down the DNC talking points and step away from the computer.
I've been fed nothing....I've been there and seen with my own eyes many reasons to be there. YOU?
Where have you served? Please enlighten us. Perhaps you are one of those parasites on society that enjoys the fruits of liberty that others have secured for you?
Just a thought.
GoRon
Member
The no fly zones were established by the US and UK to protect the innocent lives being threatened by Saddam after the first Gulf War.
The UN never signed off on them just as they wouldn't sign off on deposing Saddam.
The thousands of Kurds and Shias protected by the NFZ's would disagree with Javafiend and Saddams position on the No-Fly-Zones. They like Navy Doc were/are there.
The UN never signed off on them just as they wouldn't sign off on deposing Saddam.
The thousands of Kurds and Shias protected by the NFZ's would disagree with Javafiend and Saddams position on the No-Fly-Zones. They like Navy Doc were/are there.
NavyDoc:
You're lecturing me about common courtesy?
NavyDoc:
I served as many years in the military as Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity combined.
NavyDoc:
Turns out that they were right, and that Bush was wrong.
Look at the headlines of today's New York Times. More evidence - as if any were needed - that the Bush Administration deliberately lied us into the war.
Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Doubts
You're lecturing me about common courtesy?
NavyDoc:
I served as many years in the military as Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity combined.
NavyDoc:
Turns out that they were right, and that Bush was wrong.
Look at the headlines of today's New York Times. More evidence - as if any were needed - that the Bush Administration deliberately lied us into the war.
Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Doubts
rick newland
Member
I believe the only good terrorist is a dead one. I was a SP stationed at Rhein-Mein, there wasn't 22 killed in that bombing.C.S.Powell said:
- Status