This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
That's kind of eerie! Bottle Rocket???? Must have been some bottle rocket!! Flare, well was there a ship in the middle of the ocean in trouble or something?
I'm surprised they didn't say the pilot was hallucinating or something. You know, flashbacks from his younger years?
I just find it interesting that this story has not been bigger. Seems to me, it's pretty serious.
Very serious. Especially after hearing some of the things those ex-911 Commission members have been saying lately.
It's not a matter of "If" anymore, it's a matter of "when" a terrorist attack will take place since the Bush Administration hasn't done anything with their recommendations.
A bottle rocket is just silly. Like the pilot of an airliner would be able to even make out a tiny-ass bottle rocket smoke trailer.
Oh, typical, BLAME BUSH!!!!! HAHAHA, Man, that is so yesterday!
Oh, and Jenn, you would think that with people like this Will guy that it would be a huge story. An opportunity to blame Bush? It is curious isn't it.
You know, there was the plane that crashed a few years ago into the ocean that they were investigating. The possibility of it being shot down was an undertone. I believe RepJen wrote about it but that was awhile ago. Do you remember that? A lot of people died in that crash if I recall correctly.
You guys are so defensive. I'm blaming Bush for not making homeland security a bigger priority and not adhering to anything the 911 COmmission has recommended. That is fact.
I don't care if it was the Bush or Clinton or whatever administration, you'd think that after our country was attacked by its own airplanes that we should probably take some preventative steps.
But more tax cuts for the rich take priority.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocu...land/
index.html
"Securing The Border Is Essential To Securing The Homeland. Since he took office, the President has increased funding for border security by 60 percent. Border agents have apprehended and sent home more than 4.5 million people coming into the country illegally including about 350,000 with criminal records. The U.S. border must be open to trade and tourism and closed to criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists."
"The President Has Committed The Resources Necessary To Enforce Immigration Laws. Since 2001, the Administration has increased funding for interior enforcement by 44 percent; increased the number of immigration and customs investigators by 14 percent; and new funding will allow for an additional 400 immigration enforcement agents and 250 criminal investigators. These skilled officers are getting results. In Arizona alone, 2,300 people have been prosecuted for smuggling drugs, guns, and illegal immigrants across the border. Operation Community Shield has resulted in the arrest of nearly 1,400 illegal immigrant gang members including hundreds of members of violent gangs like "MS-13." Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), agents have apprehended nearly 27,000 illegal immigrant fugitives"
"Our actions to integrate manpower, technology and infrastructure are getting results. And one of the best examples of success is the Arizona Border Control Initiative, which the government launched in 2004. In the first year of this initiative -- now, listen to this, listen how hard these people are working here -- agents in Arizona apprehended nearly 500,000 illegal immigrants, a 42-percent increase over the previous year. We've captured a half-million pounds of marijuana, prosecuted more than 400 people suspected of human smuggling, and seized more than $7 million in cash. You've got some good folks here working hard to do their job, and I appreciate it very much."
Not defensive Will, sarcastic. If you were the President of the United States, tell me how you would prioritze things. I'm just curious.
9/11 Panel Cites Inadequate Security Steps
By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press
Monday, December 5, 2005; 1:41 PM
WASHINGTON -- The former Sept. 11 commission gave dismal grades Monday to the federal government's efforts to shore up national security and prevent another terror attack on the United States.
Meeting for the last time since being appointed by Congress in 2002, commission members gave the government "more F's than A's" among the 41 grades measuring progress on security recommendations they issued last year.
"We're frustrated, all of us _ frustrated at the lack of urgency in addressing these various problems," said former commission chairman Thomas Kean, a Republican and former New Jersey governor.
Specifically, the panel gave the government an "F" on homeland security spending for cities most at risk, on improving radio communication for emergency agencies and on airline passenger prescreening. They awarded only one A _ actually an A-minus _ for the administration's efforts to curb terrorist financing.
"We shouldn't need another wake-up call," Kean said. "We believe that the terrorists will strike again, so does every responsible expert that we have talked to. And if they do, and these reforms that might have prevented such an attack have not been implemented, what will our excuse be?"
The official commission, tasked with investigating government missteps that led to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, disbanded after issuing its recommendations in July 2004. It has since been operating with private funds at the 9-11 Public Discourse Project to monitor government progress.
Since the commission's final report in July 2004, the government has enacted the centerpiece proposal to create a national intelligence director. But it has stalled on other ideas, including improving communication among emergency responders and shifting federal terrorism-fighting money so it goes to states based on risk level.
"There are so many competing priorities," said vice chairman Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. We've got three wars going on: one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq and the war against terror. And it's awfully hard to keep people focused on something like this."
White House counselor Dan Bartlett said the Bush administration wants to base funding on threat but is frustrated by the way Congress spends homeland security funding.
"They are funding things based on old models, pre-9/11 models. We think it's important that homeland security dollars go to where the threats are," Bartlett said Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
He said the Bush administration had acted on some 70 of the commission's recommendations and that others were awaiting congressional action. "It's important that Congress act on those recommendations," he said on CBS' "The Early Show."
Bartlett told NBC's "Today" show that while the United States has not been attacked since Sept. 11, "we're not resting on our
Which way do you want it Will?
They step up security even more and the lefties cry "freedoms are being taken away". And to step up security, costs MONEY!!!!
But you and your ilk bemoan spending more money.
So, really, which way do you want it Little Rock? Huh?
You want to protect this country from another attack? Well, three things would have to be done to really accomplish this.
1) Close the friggin' borders. Period, closed, Berlin Wall style.
2) Anyone, ANYONE, here illegally get's a one way ticket to, not here.... So we have millions more dollars to spend on security, and our own people.
3) Profile away the day. Getting on a plane, look like a Muslim Extremist? Profile baby. Taking the subway, look like a Muslim Extremist, you're getting profiled.
That's just to start. Liking that idea Will? I know I am....
As to the whole bottle rocket thingy..... This, is possibly an actual conspiracy. For once.
Close'em up! I'm down with that.
I know where we could have gotten about $400 billion dollars to put towards our security. (And I'm not talking about taking out Saddam.)
And, by the way, your time is almost up.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney assumed the chairmanship of the Republican Governors Association last week, and immediately confronted a troublesome landscape for 2006. As Romney put it during a break at the RGA gathering at La Costa resort, "The math is not in our favor this time."
There will be 36 gubernatorial races next year, 22 in states held by Republicans and 14 by Democrats. Seven of the eight states where the incumbent isn't seeking reelection are held by the GOP -- and that could grow to eight if Romney decides to forgo a second-term bid in favor of running for president in 2008.
He emphasized he's no political forecaster. But based on what he's been told by other Republican analysts, he said, if conventional expectations are borne out, the Republicans could lose three to six governorships -- after failing to pick up either Virginia or New Jersey last month. That could strip them of their majority. ...
Other states now held by departing Republican incumbents that are likely to be competitive next year include Florida, Arkansas, Colorado and Nevada. Beyond that, several GOP incumbents are facing tough campaigns, including Maryland's Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.
OOOOHHHH, Quakin' in my boots here anon
Hey Will, you didn't address my question. If you were the President of the United States of America, how exactly would you prioritze things?
And exactly how would you deal with all the problems that our President has faced? Terrorist attacks, numerous hurricanes, Tsunami, Terri Schiavo, Supreme court nominations, etc. I'm positive that I am missing a whole slew of things here but even so, I would love to hear some fresh ideas.
And your article, it seems to me after reading, that congress is holding up the show, not Bush. In fact it states very clearly "White House counselor Dan Bartlett said the Bush administration wants to base funding on threat but is frustrated by the way Congress spends homeland security funding."
Perhaps I am missing something there?
Git him girl....
Yeah, yeah, I was trying to answer you but it cut off most of what I wrote after the story. I don't feel like rewriting it again, but I basically acknowledged that Congress is the main blockade, even though that's basically an extension of the Administration.
All the problems that our President has faced that the Administration brought on itself? First off, there was absolutely no need for Bush to get involved in the Schiavo case, so that doesn't count. Second, if we had been prepared for natural disasters such as hurricanes like the richest country in the world should be, then that wouldn't have been much of a distraction. (Not that it was much of a distraction to Bush, regardless.) Throw some money along with your daddy and an accomplished ex-Pres at the Tsunami and that's covered, as well.
As far as Iraq goes, we had the entire world on our side after 9/11 and an 86 percent approval rating that could have been used to do some major good. Instead, the Administration started slinging lies and pissing people off and going after the wrong people, and now look where we're at. Divided, angry, alienated, piss-poor approval ratings, no exit strategy, no end in sight, created a terrorist breeding ground, globally destroyed US confidence, the torture stuff is embarrassing as all hell (and Cheney is still supporting it), Rumsfeld is saying shit like "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you'd like to have," Iran is actually gaining more power now and the middle east is more volatile than ever, we've wasted $500 or so billion dollars on this war, the White House is working like a corporation instead of a for-the-people entity, etc........
I know that's not complete, but that's all i have time for right this second.
In short - The right guy could have capitalized on 9/11 support and made the world a safer, better place.
"Git him girl...."
Suck it, Jenn. 
What shall I suck Will?
1)Congress, blockade=Yes.
2)Shiavo.... he almost had to get involved. Not that I agree with that, but geez.
3)You can't be completely prepared for a natural disaster, they are NATURAL.What we had there was a failure to comunicate. The libby Democraps running the stae and the Mayor, acted like prissy little children, and caused most of their own problems, not to mention the fact that many of the people thay stayed, did so of their own volition, and admitted as much on camera numerous times.
Throw money at the Tsunami? He delegated fundraisers for it, sent over military and ships, and the people sent millions... what the hell else could, or should we have done, the bastards were thankless anyway. Piss on you.
5)There you go with the whole "slinging lies" mantra.... get over yourself. What LIES!!!!! Show me your irrefutable proof that we were actually LIED TO.
6)How do you know we don;t have an exit strategy, are you actually Rumsfeld?
That's all I have time for now....
-In short, why don't you answer her question:If you were the President of the United States of America, how exactly would you prioritize things?
Will's not too bright is he. Here's an example:
It's not a matter of "If" anymore, it's a matter of "when" a terrorist attack will take place
Er..when was it ever "if." It's always been when.
Another example:
How was not being prepared for Katrina Bush's fault? Was he in charge of building the levees?
It is hard to see how any president could have been ready to counteract 60 years of liberal corruption and graft in New Orleans, torn asunder by a major natural disaster. If Will were the "moderate" he claims to be he would at least see that New Orleans dug it's own grave.
And yes, the world was on our side after 9/11 as long as all they had to do was pony up some sympathy. But, do the right thing and they all ran for the hills. Not exactly something to be proud of.
Perhaps Will hasn't heard that most of those countries were sucking Hussein's johnson. For Simple Will, that means "on the take."
But hey, who cares what is right when you've got the holy poll numbers on your side. God forbig Will ever gets elected to office. Unless, that is, people enjoy leaders who do nothing but read tea leaves.
The thing about sycophants like Will is that no matter how many times somebody lays out an exit strategy or a plan for victory, it simply doesn't penetrate their tiny MorOn.org mind.
Then, when cornered, he leaves the highly enlightened "suck it" response.
Can somebody tell me why anyone would waste their time on Will's utter lack of logic and pre-school notions?
The only thing he hasn't done is answer the very simple question posed to him. For a "moderate" he sounds an awful lot like the mentally bankrupt left.
Good luck to you Will. I hope, for the sake of this country, that you someday outgrow the childish fantasies you call political positions.
"All the problems that our President has faced that the Administration brought on itself?"
That in itself is just to funny to answer to. Jenn and Teaparty pretty much took care of that for me.
Which is it that you would rather have, a president with stellar ratings or National Security. If we leave Iraq, what then? Will everyone suddenly loooooove Mr. President? Hell no, he can do no right in your eyes or those of many others. Hell, he would be blamed for a plane crashing in the ocean loaded with soldiers coming home from the war! I can read the headlines now. 'Conspiracy led by Bush'
New Orleans wasted that money on Community Centers and bettering their city instead of what that money was allotted for.
I would really love to know how you would prioritize all of these problems that have occurred under Bush's terms though. And better yet, how you would solve them. People like yourself are so quick to point a finger but yet you offer no real solid solutions except to .... gee, point the finger.
All of you can suck it. That's right. I stooped to the level of extending the offer to all of you. (It's just a joke, by the way. Lighten up Teeaparty.)
Where to begin?
Let's see; I guess to answer "the" question, my priorities after 9/11 would have been to actually go after the guy/group that was actually linked to the twin towers - those being Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida. Yes, Saddam Hussein was evil, but turning his country into a terrorist breeding ground and entering a winless war is/was absurd. And forcing a connection between Iraq and 9/11 was even more absurd. But I guess you guys, like a lot of people, including spineless democrats, bought everything that was being spewed. I bet you guys even actually believed the the "mission" was indeed "accomplished" with the grand aircraft carrier landing/speech. Well, years later, the killing is three times the amount of what it was.
It's obvious to anyone with a brain that the administration rushed us off to war on faulty intelligence without a plan for victory or even providing the proper equipment for battle. But now that's neither here nor there; we just need to figure out what the hell to do now. "Stay the course" isn't going to cut it when you're talking about American soldiers being blown up on a daily basis.
The hurricane stuff is a whole other argument. Let's just say that had New Orleans been established on the Texas coast, we would've seen what a proper response from the federal government would have looked like.
I guess I missed any "exit strategies" that were laid out. All I've heard is "stay the course" and that sort of thing. I think it's pretty obvious at this point that Rumsfeld needs to be replaced. C'mon, I know you guys can at least agree to that.
Rummy's doin' a heckuva job just like Brownie.
How's DeLay?
Mr. DeLay is fine..... looks like they've thrown out some of the garbage, the rest will follow.
Texas, as demonstrated by Rita, was prepared, and that was after taking care of the New Orleans refugees. Let's see, New Orleans, Louisinna, Democrats in charge.
Texas, Republicans in charge. Hmmm I see a pattern.
What faulty info, those 16 WORDS? That's not a lot.
Oh Will, suck it.
As usual, not a lot to say, huh Jenn?
You basically repeated what I had to say about the hurricane. Blah, blah ...
It's not looking good for DeLay. Even his fellow Republicans are turning against him. Oh well. Unfortunately, all politicians aren't being held accountable for their misdeeds.
I see your new mayor there in "the nation's finest city" accomplished his first main goal: To put the self-proclaimed title back on the Web site. Ah, priorities, priorities.
It was a moral boost moron. And it's America's Finest City, and we are. It's friggin beautiful here. Did you watch the last Super Bowl? Even the announcers said it was America's Finest City, so it's not self proclaimed, you bitter little man. What jealous because you live in or near Little Rock?San Diego rocks.
And, Sanders eschewed the normal pomp and circumstance, costly fiesta put on for a swearing in, he's aready saved us thousands of dollars, in his first 5 minutes. Not bad.
Hypothetical case here.
Will, if you were in the middle of some street gang brawl where you were the 'good' guys trying to change the way of the 'bad' guys and you were seeing progress, maybe just a little in the eyes of the media, but you saw that you were accomplishing something that you believed would better the streets, would you suddenly back away and say, "I'm done"? And lets say the involvement in this 'fight' was very in-depth and very complicated to boot and you knew that if you backed away that that may result in making matters worse? That the 'bad' gangs would multiply an in retaliation kill those whom you just knew in passing? Your neighbors? Pretty much go on a spree?
Stupid hypothetical but easy enough to put oneself into that sort of situation. We all want the war over. Damn right. I have a brother who is military and my daughter wants to join in a couple of years. The last thing I want is for them to go to Iraq but for my daughter it is almost inevitable. But in looking for an exit plan it's not as simple as opening a door and saying 'later',
so given that scenario, how do you suggest we go about 'exiting' Iraq and Afghanistan?
Chirp, Chirp.
Chirp on this, Jenn. (The hits just keep on comin'.)
Look, I realize now that we're there we're going to have to find a way to seamlessly break our ties. I'm not advocating our troops packing it in and coming home, though I wouldn't be opposed to that, either.
You're putting words in my mouth. I don't agree with our reason for being there and how we got there, but now that we're in the shit, we do need to find the best possible exit strategy there is. But we have to have a plan. We can't "stay the course" doing what we've been doing. People are dying and, whether you choose to believe it or not, the Iraqis are not going to ever be able to defend themselves from an uprising. It's impossible. Everybody who knows anything about foreign policy and wars, including former and current generals and politicians, are saying it's not going to work the way we're doing it. I was watching "Off To War" the other night and one of our generals was laughing at an Iraqi battallion because they didn't even have shoes, uniforms, or weapons, and they were trying to teach them how to freaking march. It's a joke. The Iraqi who was in charge of the battallion was trying to explain to the American colonel that they have four weapons for 40 troops, no shoes, no vehicles, no food, they were sleeping in open-air huts with no protection, etc.....
It appears that we're "training" these Iraqis just to give the appearance that we're doing something. Bush openly lied about the number of troops during the election, saying that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had been trained, when there's just now only 35,000 or so "trained." (So, to answer an earlier question, Jenn, about an example of a lie, there you go.)
There was also an Iraqi cleric the American troops were talking to, who was an educated, well-spoken man. He was laughing at us, saying that most of the weapons the insurgents are using against us are ours, because we failed to secure weapons caches. I hear Allanis, "Isn't it ironic."
The colonel was like, "don't ya' think?"
For the sake of clarity, my main problem is how the Bush Administration has handled the details of the war and never really gave us a chance to succeed there. Not that we had any business trying to force a democracy or christian values in a middle eastern country where those things won't fly to beginwith.
At any rate, you guys need to stop trying to paint me as a crazy liberal and look at the facts. You say it's unpatriotic for me to criticize the war, but I say it's even more unpatriotic to not hold anybody accountable for the endless mistakes, thousands of dead soldiers and billions of taxpayers money spent spewing lies and PR.
But if it makes you feel better to put a yellow ribbon on the back of your oversized SUV, read Scott McClellan's fluffy PR and basically just hope for the best, then more power to ya.
I don't intend on losing another family member to a retarded roadside bomb for so
someone else's stupid mistakes.
After the first Gulf War, Colin Powell said we decided to stop the war short of Baghdad and leave Saddam in power because Saddam is the only one who could keep the country under control. Powell knew moral outsiders could never pacify the place. George the First took this good advice. George II should have.
I drive a VERY fuel efficent car Will. The only stickers on it are actually magnets, and they are snowflakes.
To be honest, what does this have to do with the original post? Just curious?
Good - There you go again responding to something that wasn't even the point. That "you" was a general "you."
Snowflakes? In southern Cal? C'mon, I know you have some politically motivated statement to make on your car. "Support The Hammer?" "W?" "Bombs-R-Us?" "Deaniac?"
We had a bumper sticker that said,
"The road to hell is paved with liberals."
I just read an article and did a post on it in fact. How the troops see it.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/11...01s02-
usmi.html
It's easy for us to stand over here in America and assume to know what the heck is going on in Iraq. Fact is is we don't! The media reports only the number of dead people, the negative crap all the time. Don't you ever tire of not trying to find some Positive Will? Don't you ever want to know that there may be something good coming out of this war? According to one thing that I read,
"Part of the reason that such stories usually aren't told is simply the nature of the war. Kidnappings and unclear battle lines have made war correspondents' jobs almost impossible. Travel around the country is dangerous, and some reporters never venture far from their hotels. "It has to have some effect on what we see: You end up with reporting that waits for the biggest explosion of the day," says Mr. Hart."
I guess I see just one more American growing to hate his country because he believes everything the media says. Bush lied, no other President played a role in the terrorist attacks, it's all Bush's fault. There are two sides to every story. It would be nice if for once both sides could be heard.
BTW Will, you made a comment that you don't want to lose another family member to a retarded roadside bomb?
What exactly did you mean there? No, I am putting aside the sarcasm here and simply being human...
hey jenn, you want snow come on up to MN!!!!! You can have it! and the cold
I agree, Jenn, that it's impossible for us to get a clear picture on what is actually happening in Iraq judged solely on media reports. All we can do is seek out as many different sources as possible and try to sort them out and form an opinion.
The show "Off To War" on Discovery Times is the most candid, vivid and real account of what's going on in Iraq that's out there. If you haven't seen it, I highly suggest it. It's basically a documentary series following the 39th Brigade from Clarksville, Ark. Being from Little Rock, of course we were eager to watch it. It follows them from home, to Ft. Hood, to Kuwait, to Baghdad and then back, along with their families at home and personal angles. Great, tear-jerking, pride-swelling shit. You witness the transformation of these soldiers over the time they spent in Iraq and the pain their families go through back home. You see what they do day to day, get accounts from Iraqis, military higher-ups, normal guys, patriotic guys, republican guys, liberal guys, small children, even some insurgents. Check it out if you get Discovery Times. Or at least do a search and read about it. Some positive, some negative. They showed the troops getting their humvees (some without doors, windshields, some that they had to rig up just to start the engine) once they were in Iraq. They showed them stopping at a local scrap-metal yard just to get pieces of metal to adhere to their vehicles for protection. That's some bullshit. They showed a park in the middle of Baghdad the troops spent months building and fixing up, only for it to be bombed and torn up by both insurgents and Iraqis who don't want us there a day after it was finished. Good insight on stuff like that.
As far as my comment about a family member, I have lost a brother and a cousin in Iraq to roadside bombs that penetrated a humvee that didn't have the proper armor. (Thanks, Rummy. I know, we go to war with the army we have, not the army we wish to have.)
Will says:
You say it's unpatriotic for me to criticize the war
In the time that I have spent reading the back and forth here, I don't recall a single person questioning Will's patriotism. Perhaps he could provide an example?
I also wonder what would qualify as a success in his eyes. No attaks on Haifa street in 10 months, Iraqi military in charge. Massive reduction in attacks on the road to the airport. Attacks over all down steadily for the last seven months. I've already given a laubdry list here and at my own site of countless examples of success in Iraq.
I don't see defeat anywhere in this war. Everywhere you look in Iraq are the signs of victory. It's one thing to be bitter about the war or against the war, but to blatantly and knowingly deny the progress in Iraq is fantasy.
People like Will told us that the war would be hell, and that we shouldn't get into it, and than acted shocked and dismayed when war actually turns out to be difficult. Like...once we decided to get into it, that terrible hardship that is war was supposed to be bloodless, without complication, and over within a week.
There has always been a plan and progress is going according to that plan. I don't get it. People continue to insist that there has never been a plan, but I can provide quotes from the administration going back two and half years that have been laying out the exact plan that is playing itself out as we speak.
To suggest otherwise isn't partisan, it's just ignorant.
I am done debating with Will for one of these two reasons.
1. He is telling the truth about his relatives, and for that I am very sorry. But I have no desire to debate war policy with someone so close to it. In other words, Will has earned the right to feel any damn way he pleases about the war. His family's sacrifice demands that I respect his loss. He isn't a public figure like Cindy Sheehan and therefore isn't seeking attention or inviting criticism.
2. He is not telling the truth about his relatives, which is an absolutely horrible thing to do. I have no interest in debating policy with someone who would resort to tawdry stunts like that.
I'm not sure which one it is. It's 50-50. But either way...
I wish you'd go to Iraq Teaparty. That's all I have to say.
I'm done, too.
You guys are so far up the PR asswagon that you've grown comfortable living your fantasies. You'll see what happens - You'll hear the stories. Well, maybe not if you keep bending over and allowing the administration to blow sunshine in your ass.
Sorry for your loss Will.
But don;t blame Rummy completely, Clinton spent 8 years cutting the military budget. This is what we've got. It's getting better though.
Maybe, you just need to think of some of the positives, not always the negatives.
For the record, I could give a flying f*** about the administration. In fact, I can't wait until Bush is gone so the left can get over its obsession and actually deal with issues on their merit, though I doubt they will. It will simply become "blame Guiliani," or "blame McCain."
Wait and see.
I haven't read or heard any of the speeches by the administration in the last few weeks. My judgements about Iraq are made on NEWS coming out of Iraq.
In fact, the politician I put the most stock in these days regarding Iraq is Joe Lieberman, a Democrat.
It isn't about the administration, its about Iraq, freedom in the ME and yanking a group of people who still think its the dark ages into modern times.
The events that have transpired over the last two years are very encouraging. Iraq is extremely encouraging. It is they and the military that I believe in, not a speech or a person.
Out of respect for your relatives I would think you would like to be a little better educated anout what they died for and the successes they contributed to. Or is that not important to their memory.
Incidentally, I may very well be sending my daughter to Iraq in about two years, if that makes you feel better.
If indeed you are being honest about your deceased relatives, I suggest you honor their memory by stopping your infantile obsession with Bush and actually learn about some of the things they accomplished and the appreciation being felt for that sacrifice by 27 million Iraqis.
To do any less is a dishonor to them as people and as soldiers.
Or, were they just terrorists too, like John Kerry says.
Mna that John Kerry this almost made me laugh it was so bad. Almost.
Oh, Will, did you get scared and go away?
LOL, I just told T that he scared Will away!!!!
Why do they always run and hide. That is just so disappointing!
entering a winless war is/was absurd
Howard Dean? Is that you?
Don't you have better things to do than read blogs, like run your party?
a connection between Iraq and 9/11 was even more absurd
You don't get out much do you? Ever heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: the Jordanian-born head of al-Qaeda in Iraq? al-Qaeda isn't in Iraq? Just whom are we fighting? The Iraqis who dipped their fingers in purple ink in defiance of terrorists, during their elections? This argument is absurd!
Brent Roos
http://brentroos.blogspot.com
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
