Ten years of lying about the Iraq war has to stop now – immediately. The government – our government – lied to us, the America people, about the reasons they said it was necessary to go to war with Iraq – a country that was not threatening us. One decade ago to this day, their lies produced action: the “shock and awe” “bunker-busters” unleashed on the capital of Iraq, March 19th, 2003.
They lied to cover up their invasion of Iraq a decade ago to this day.
And now ten years later, after more than 4400 Americans killed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, 30,000 Americans injured, after we have spent over $3 Trillion dollars, we have come to the realization that, if America is to be honest with itself, we must now demand that someone be held accountable for these lies and the wastes of lives and resources.
Those to be held accountable, of course, must include the leaders of our government at that time: George W. Bush, President, and Dick Cheney, Vice-President and those who demanded the war which includes then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
These four – and others – lied to us, the people, lied to our allies, lied to the press – they lied that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ready to use on us and others; they lied that he had nuclear weapons, they lied that he had chemical and biological weapons.
They lied that we would be welcomed by Iraqis with open arms, that we were liberating them, that we could destroy the Iraqi army and walk away.
Our government lied about going to war, about sending our fellow citizens to war – one of the most solemn tasks that governments have. These people who lied, then, are directly responsible for the thousands of American lives lost and all the Iraqis lost. They are responsible for the 30,000 Americans injured because of the war.
They are responsible for one of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions in modern American history. They are also responsible for wasting so much money and so much of the resources of our country, that their policies set the stage for the worst economic disaster in 70 years.
These lies have to stop now. And we must make them stop. We, the American people.
The lies are definitely continuing to this day. Dick Cheney says he would do it again. George W Bush is totally un-remorseful. The Republican candidate who just lost the November election, called the war a “war of liberation” just days ago.
In order to maintain any sense of democracy in this country, we must ensure that those responsible are indeed held accountable. What does that mean? We’re not certain. But an investigation would be a good start. Then a second excellent step would be indictments.
The decisions to misrepresent what weapons that Hussein had in order to convince the American people that we had to go to war – were not based on or were not mistakes, errors, or mis-judgements; they were conscious, intentional misrepresentations – in other words – lies. They lied about why we had to go to war. They had to lie because initially at least the American people were not convinced.
So the Bush administration had to link Iraq with 9-11. That was the only emotional issue left in their arsenal. There had to be a link and connection between Saddam and al-Queda, despite the irreconcilable differences those two had. Hussein had to be connected to the massacre of Americans, even though our leaders failed us in responding to intelligence about those fateful plans. Al-Queda had to be receiving arms and weapons from Iraq. These were the lies we were told.
The Failure – No, Duplicity – of the Mass Media
The media was also culpable during the run-up to the war and then during the invasion, and for years afterwards. The mass media, the corporate media, simply did not do its job, did not perform its duty – its duty of questioning the decisions of government. That’s why the press is called the “Fourth Estate” (the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary are the 3 other “estates” of government), as the press in a “free and democratic country” acts as part of the so-called checks and balances, as a last resort for the truth.
But the media, the press utterly failed during all the months while the government clamored for war. It more than failed, it jumped on the band wagon – remember “the embedded reporters”? – the corporate media lapsed onto the reasons to go to war without any serious questioning. The press absolutely failed to hold the needed discussion of whether the nation should go to war with Iraq; it failed to ask the right questions; it failed in doing the needed research; it did not hold those politicians – even a popular President – to the truth.
This failure of the corporate media is hugely the reason why a whole new generation and world of political blogs appeared, the blogosphere, – that rose up in response to this abysmal failure of the media. The OB Rag and then the San Diego Free Press were both part of the later waves of that same response to the failure of the mass media.
This development of new media forms when the old ones become woefully pitiful – in part due to a divisive war, was also reflected a generation earlier, when because of the failure of the mass media in telling the public the truth about another war – this one the Vietnam war, there was an explosion of “underground newspapers” across America. And the original OB Rag and the original San Diego Free Press / Street Journal were all part of that blossoming of alternative media.
A Divided Country
Ever since the invasion, the country has been divided by the war. At first, it was only the left and the anti-Iraq war movement who said anything, and which mounted huge demonstrations around the country during the Fall before the spring invasion of 2003.
However, those demonstrations – and those that followed over the years – were vilified, ignored, down-played, snubbed.
And the lies had to continue, for the American people still were not convinced. Even though many Democratic legislators voted for the war – like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry – many did not. And now – 10 years later – those Democrats who voted for the war are apologizing and those who didn’t vote for war, wear that vote like a badge of honor.
It’s no mistake that the first popular Democrat in the 2004 Presidential primaries was anti-war: Vermont Governor Howard Dean – and it’s no mistake that he was smashed politically by the mainstream press, both Time magazine and Newsweek slammed him for making noises at a victory rally. What the Dems then got – John Kerry – was only a luke-warm anti-war candidate – who lost.
And it was no mistake that we now have a President named Barak Obama – because he was the anti-war candidate in 2008 – this time a successful one. It’s a strong indicator that most of the American people have been against the Iraq war for many years.
So, what must happen?
In order to keep America America, in order to maintain a semblance of democracy, we must hold those who lied and who are responsible for the deaths and injuries of so many of our countrymen and women responsible.
For the sake of our children and for the sake of future generations of Americans, – hell, for our sake – we must bring to a halt immediately these lies, and bring those who lied to account for the lies. In a democratic country, there are consequences for words and actions that cause so much harm.
It is called justice.
We must call for justice then.
____________________
Note: “Hubris” – the story of how the government lied about the Iraq war, is on msnbc Friday night March 22, with a discussion following.
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
OB had one of the most vibrant anti-Iraq war movements in San Diego. The OB Grassroots Organization held several protests at the foot of Newport Ave against the war – both during the war and during the run-up to it.
okay, but will you leave the dog out of it?
You forgot to mention John Kerry (current secretary of state), Hillary Clinton (former secretary of state) and “Sheriff” Joe Biden (current vice president) in your list of liars. You do mention them but you sorta whitewash their actions as if they have no responsibility for their votes. I believe they did vote for the Iraq war and were supportive until the insurgency started and public opinion of the war dropped. You know Chuck Hagel (current secretary of defense) voted for it too?
Good point. The guilty are spread wide across party lines. Complicity in war crimes reaches all the way to the White House with Obama continuing the illegal war in Afghanistan and overseeing the Guantanamo torture facility. Trouble is, this country doesn’t seem capable nor interested to do a damn thing about it all. Yes folks, there are high ranking (and I mean RANK) Democrats who are eery bit as guilty of war crimes as Republicans. Sadly, America continues down the same path toward its demise because we are unwilling to even look at the corrections that must be made to ‘right her course’: No reforms, no apologies, no reparations, no remorse, no traitors held accountable.
Think the rest of the world doesn’t notice? Think again…
Lester, let’s just be perfectly clear that Congress, and specifically the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, were force-fed a bunch of trumped of evidence direct from the Bush Administration and their “Office of Special Plans” at the Pentagon. Evidence from discredited dissidents like Ahmed Chalabi and the “Curveball” guy who was in German custody. They intentionally didn’t run it through normal channels because they knew it wouldn’t vet out, and they relied on people like Tenet and Powell to swear up and down for its validity in terms of an “imminent threat” to our national security.
Oh, they are developing nuclear materials and plan to share them with al-Qaeda? Of course people were going to vote for that if that is the intelligence they were being presented with as being rock-solid. But it sure doesn’t make it John Kerry’s war. The people of the Bush Administration and those citizens who strongly supported that war at the time are just going to have to put on their big boy pants and own it. Sorry.
The Project for a New American Century neocons have wanted Iraq since the Gulf War. They saw it as a prime piece of geopolitical real estate, and a potential foothold for Arabian democracy. That in itself isn’t a terrible goal, especially in a region where we have significant economic interests (oil), but they tried to implement it under false pretenses and horribly inaccurate assumptions about exactly how secular and ripe for democracy Iraq was.
Make no mistake that that. This wasn’t a military war, it was an egghead war. A real life version of RISK. Their military people basically told them no every step of the way, from Schwarzkopf at the end of the Gulf War to Shinseki and other generals in 2002-03. Unlike his father, George W Bush wasn’t wise enough to heed their warnings about what a complete sh-tshow is was going to be if Saddam was removed by force without enough boots on the ground to handle the aftermath. And the biggest reason why was so is that Bush surrounded himself with third-rate eggheads like Wolfowitz and Cabinet members like Rumsfeld, who were nowhere near the caliber of people like Kissinger, James Baker and yes, Hillary Clinton.
They thought they knew war better than their own military even though almost no one in the administration had any military experience of their own. They expected to install a democracy in Iraq primarily via high-tech air power and a belief that Iraqis — a Western term, fwiw — of all stripes would rush out to meet our soldiers with flowers and open arms. It seems beyond silly to even think of that now. Of course there was going to be sectarian strife post-Saddam, of course Iran and al-Qaeda were going to do their best to mess it all up, and of course the rule of law was going to completely evaporate in a country where the military and police no longer existed. Yet, they really did say these things, and expected to install Chalabi as a “democratically-elected” President within a matter of months.
At the end of the day, history has already spoken on this. First person accounts of all kinds have already been provided from people who were in the room. The bullsh-t is well past documented. The best spin that can even be put on the Iraq War at this stage is that it helped to waste al-Qaeda’s resources and set the stage for the Arab Spring, both of which are reaches to the extreme. These right-wing talking points about how “the surge worked” or “Kerry voted for Iraq too” are feeble partisan nonsense sorely lacking in both credibility and accountability.
Although I agree with most of what you say. Facts are, though, several Democrats DID voice objections to the war and actually voted AGAINST the resolution that authorized Bush to make war in Iraq. I remember Senators Wellstone and Byrd were highly critical and presented much evidence for their stance. Congressman Kucinich was quite eloquently opposed as well. Even a few Republicans saw fit to vote against it! The leadership of the Democratic Party chose to turn a deaf ear for political cover and handed Bush what he needed. Ironically, that single vote for political cover cost Hillary Clinton her bid to become President in 2008. Interesting note:Had Obama been in the Senate, he most likely would have voted in favor of the Iraq war bill with the mainstream which would have led to a McCain/Palin winner. That resolution bit both Hillary and eventually McCain in their asses.
Fact remains, Democrats were complicit in the build up to and the conduct of the Iraq war. They ignored their anti-war colleagues and gave Bush the green light for war in Iraq. Shame!
Agree and disagree. The Congressional votes are kinda moot, IMO. Not only were we going in anyways, but Republicans controlled both houses and only needed a handful of Democrats to vote with them. Wars have also been fought without Congressional approval. Beyond that, as I said, their votes were highly influenced by the embellished/fabricated/erroneous intelligence they were provided with. IMO, that’s a rather expanded definition of “complicit”.
But yes, shame. Every piece of “smoking gun” evidence made available for public consumption (and there wasn’t much) was getting completely discredited by laypeople on the internet within a matter of hours. The UK even plagiarized a California post-graduate student’s article as their big piece of evidence to justify a preemptive invasion, which was also cited by Colin Powell at the UN. And we knew this before the war!
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.uk.dossier/index.html
Definitely agree that Hillary wishes she could have had that vote back, but I don’t think there was any scenario where she or Obama weren’t going to pound McCain into a fine powder in 2008. The country was deep in Bush fatigue by that point, and with good reason. The guy failed across the board.
The fact is, Seth, the “Democratic leadership” in both the House and Senate chose to ignore their progressive wing and push for a resolution for ‘political cover’from a then popular Bush! I’m aware of all the info you posted ,but so were Sens Wellstone, Sanders, Leahy, Feingold, Byrd and others at the time of the vote! And they made their cases on the floors of Congress. Their party colleagues ignored these “far out” Reps. and gave Bush all he needed to make his illegal war seem legitimate in the mainstream. Evidently, the “far outs” were actually absolutely right on the mark! They cut through the crap that the Bush Admin was delving out and it is a public record. If the party leadership was somehow oblivious to the myths and lies created by Bush and all, dispelled “on the internet” than they were not fit to hold office. All they had to do is listen to their wiser colleagues on the floor!
Bush/Iraq War was the decisive issue in the 2008 Presidential election. Had BOTH Obama and Hillary voted for the act, that would not have been the case. Think about that!
Agree with your first paragraph, with the caveat that the Iraq Resolution vote didn’t really have any impact on whether we were going in or not, which pretty much everyone knew in real time.
As to the last paragraph, I can’t really agree. It certainly helped to give Obama some traction on the left in the primaries, but Iraq was IMO ultimately not that pivotal in 2008. For me, the biggest reason Obama won is that Axelrod had a ground game and strategic plan that kicked everyone’s tail. For all the blahblahblah, McCain and Romney were never in a million years going to beat the guy. It was like watching high school basketball teams play against a college one. They were all outclassed.
As a sidenote, it’s sad, but Iraq or Katrina were really not where Bush (and Republicans) lost popular support. The day that gas prices went up to $4-5 a gallon was the day that America turned on Bush. It was right then that his approval ratings fell through the floor. Had he left office with a robust economy in place, he would still be remembered fondly by a majority of Americans, I think.
So, Seth you seem to be saying that you agree w /me except on one point– that is, that if the 2008 election was a instead a contest between Hillary vs McCain, you seem to think Hillary would have won hands down??
Hillary had a huge weakness that Obama did not have, that being the one vote for war in Iraq. The Obama campaign was able to turn that into a position of moral authority in both the primary and the general, even though we all know had Obama been in Congress at the time he most likely would have voted in favor of it. So, that one vote or lack of vote, carried Obama all the way to the White House in 2008.
Now, had Hillary been the Dem candidate instead, the whole election dynamic would have changed. Both she and McCain were equals in terms of the Iraq War as they both cast the same vote, in favor. My thinking is, that in the minds of most people there would be little difference between them. In the minds of voters when it came to US war making (The elephant in the waiting room), each candidate would offer “more of the same” or politics as usual. And in that contest, which would have been much closer, I would give the edge to McCain because of the stigma of Hillary being adulterer Bill Clinton’s wife, a card that McCain would surely have played to the max. We never saw that, thank goodness. I guarantee you ‘US wars’ would have taken a backseat in the election because for voters, they were the same. In simple terms, Hillary was for the war and not a fresh face. McCain was a maverick and still not Bush. So, we would have had President John McCain.
By the way, I think McCain was blindsided by the Dem primary.
Been enjoying the discussion that you, OBcean and Seth, have provided us over the last couple of days. Thanks.
Yes, pretty much agree otherwise, but I am saying that McCain had absolutely no chance whatsoever of beating either Hillary or Obama. Not in a million years. Due to their lack of a candidate in 2012, the same was also true of Republicans in this past election.
The news outlets and both parties have an interest in playing up how close these elections are, both for ratings and their downticket implications, but neither of these last two general elections have been close at all. With how divided the country is, both parties start out in national elections with a floor of 47% of the popular vote and about 180-200 electoral votes. Anything short of a nominee stripping down naked on the campaign trail and curling up into the fetal position on live TV, and that is the bare minimum of what they will end up with.
Recent Presidential elections are entirely dictated by Get Out The Vote campaigns in 10-12 battleground states, and fighting over a few million moderate voters who live in them. For Obama to beat McCain 2-to-1 in the electoral college and by 7% in the popular vote is as big a bloodbath as is even possible in this era. If pictures of McCain having illicit relations with an underage staffer came out, he would still get about that many votes.
Also… I have the benefit of exposure some highly entertaining insider baseball from a friend who has worked in major GOP campaigns here in CA. While CA is solidly blue, it is a major fundraising state for candidates of both parties, and he has met personally with both McCain and Romney on many occasions. These hired hand types are less about ideology and more about winning, for the most part, and they are a tight-knit group who definitely engage in some scuttlebutt with each other.
My guy was shocked by how inept the McCain campaign was. Said the guy would sleep through meetings and wake up suddenly cursing. I suppose that’s not funny given his POW history, but he would also scream at his wife and call her a c-word in front of dozens of staffers backstage at fundraising events. Said they were so broke, they’d pull up in 6 SUVs with “McCain Campaign” taped in the windows on 8.5 x 11 pieces of paper. He held Axelrod in high professional esteem, and even stated that he “wished Obama was one of ours.” Bottom line in his opinion, it was a battle between a highly-funded, highly organized and highly capable campaign with a great ground game battleground states and another campaign that was none of those things.
Now, his thoughts on Mitt are even funnier. He just hated the guy, and said that everyone found him extremely arrogant and off-putting, including McCain. When the subject of Mitt’s tax returns came up, he said, “McCain saw about 20 years worth of his taxes and went with Sarah Palin as his VP instead, that’s all you need to know. America is not going to vote for a big-time tax shelterer who donates millions every year to the Mormon church.”
Other claims and tidbits, that may or may be true, but are highly sourced and again, entertaining:
That Mitt’s first 3 choices for VP turned him down, mostly because they knew he’d lose.
That Mitt’s own hired hands told him well in advance that they had no chance of beating Axelrod or matching up with his operation.
That Harry Reid’s source for what was in Mitt’s tax returns was actually John McCain (ouch!), and that Mitt’s hired hands knew that the issue eliminated any chance they had at winning.
Anyhow, take it or leave. Just thought I’d share.
McCain would fall asleep at meetings? Like Reagan? Who served two terms. And RR’s progressing Altzheimer’s was well known to many. So, I wouldn’t discount McCain’s electability based upon precedent. these campaigns as you seem to know are well managed, popularity contests.
McCain’s propensity for angry outbursts was legendary long before he ran for President. So that didn’t disqualify him either. I hear you though, not very Presidential. But we have learned over the years, from Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton that Presidents don’t always behave very Presidential.
I’m speaking to the issues. And on them, I see little real difference between McCain and Hillary. Especially the one on everyone’s mind at the time.
Yes, I appreciate the back and forth. So thanks!
All good. Appreciate the discussion as well.
I’m really just saying that Obama basically won *all* the votes that were even in play in 2008. Given the fact that (a) Obama crushed McCain and (b) Hillary actually got more popular votes in the primaries than Obama did, and significantly so in large/battleground states, I don’t see any quantifiable basis whatsoever to say that she would have underperformed him to the tune of 5-6 major states in 2008. The only reason she lost was that Axelrod had a phenomenal plan for the caucuses, ran the table in the red states that weren’t even in play in the general, and that Michigan and Florida essentially disqualified their own delegates by moving their primaries up (and there was much infighting on this from Dems resentful of the Clintons that helped tip the issue Obama’s way).
“and they relied on people like Tenet and Powell to swear up and down for its validity in terms of an “imminent threat” to our national security. ”
You’d figure the head of the CIA that said it was “a slam dunk” would really know what’s up. I know the left narrative is to say Bush lied to get us into war but has it ever occurred to you that maybe the intelligence agencies of the countries involved got it wrong and Saddam was a good bluffer; or he sent his WMDs to Syria.
“But it sure doesn’t make it John Kerry’s war.”
But he voted for it and now he’s the secretary of state under a president that’s against “dumb wars.” Remember this ironic John Kerry quote…
“How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
I’m sure he ponders that quote when he’s on his yacht that he can’t seem to pay full taxes on.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38378992/ns/politics/t/sen-kerry-docks-yacht-ri-saves-taxes/
“The Project for a New American Century neocons have wanted Iraq since the Gulf War. ”
Was Bill Clinton involved with this neocon kabal? He did sign the Iraq Liberation Act as president which advocated regime change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
“who were nowhere near the caliber of people like Kissinger, James Baker and yes, Hillary Clinton.”
Hillary “what difference does it make!” Clinton is high caliber !?! Under her leadership our Libyan ambassador was killed along with a number of others over the course of 7 hours. Hillary was MIA along with Obama who actually went to bed that night since he had to campaign in Vegas the next morning. So much for that whole 3am phone call commercial from 2008…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yr7odFUARg
“These right-wing talking points about how “the surge worked” or “Kerry voted for Iraq too” are feeble partisan nonsense sorely lacking in both credibility and accountability.”
Um, the surge did work despite all the dems being against it. Remember Harry Reid saying the war is lost? Even Obama was against the surge before he was for it later after it worked. (hint: like most issues Obama had one position and then changed it when it was no longer politically feasible,
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/08/a-brief-history-of-president-obama-and-the-2007-surge-of-troops-in-iraq/
I suppose it’s partisan nonsense since it doesn’t fit the lefty narrative of the evil Chimpy McBush going it alone in Iraq so Halliburton can make billions stealing Iraqi oil.
Lester, if you noted, my post was hardly from a progressive POV. You’re going to trip yourself up if you try to put me in that box. I paid compliments to the caliber of Kissinger and Baker, and to some degree GHWB, on foreign policy. I’m a left-leaning moderate whose biggest ideology is competence, and the Bush Administration didn’t have too much of that.
If you still feel the need to polish the turd that is Iraq, go for it. But the rest of the planet understands that it was an unmitigated disaster, top to bottom. The Iraq Liberation Act did not endorse or condone the invasion of Iraq, it was a call to support grassroots democracy within Iraq. Clinton’s Iraq policy was a bit more subtle, and a lot more effective than Bush’s. Worth noting that they posed no threat to us at any point, and especially not after GHWB et al bombed them back into the Stone Age during the Gulf War. The threat as it was posed by W Bush was a fabrication, pure and simple.
As to oil, of course that was and is the primary consideration in our Middle Eastern policies. Has been for the last 50-100 years now, regardless of what party has held the Presidency. Without oil, the Middle East would be Africa in our eyes. Not sure what your grasp of geopolitics is, but Iraq as a pilot program in Arabian democracy was intended to help pivot us off of near-total reliance on Israel and puppet dictators like Saddam for the security of the oil our economy depends on.
As to Hillary, whatever. Shameful to play up a handful of deaths in a terrorist attack while at the same time pooh-poohing the thousands of dead Americans who died for no good reason in Iraq. Rest assured that the foreign policy of the Obama Administration to date will be remembered by history as rather successful during a turbulent and unstable period in global politics. Your seal of approval will not be required on that.
Obecean, let’s not forget Barbara Lee, my Congresswoman from Oakland, who was the one no vote in the House against the war resolution. And this was a great artice and a great discussion
Barbara Lee — a true American patriot! Someday Americans will learn all this history and see it for what it was. The scoundrels will not hide from history books.
Patriotism is not about taking the easy stand. It is often about taking the hard stand, the right stand!
Seth, since I know my stance on this issue is controversial enough to be considered trolling here, I’ll keep this to one brief post only with no further reply.
Your description of history is just wrong and would be in violation of a few laws if true, namely the Intelligence Reform Act of 1980 which gives the legislative branch its own conduit of finished intelligence products (reports) from the DCI (George Tenet).
Also a violation of these legislators sworn elected duty as a constitutional balance of powers to take their marching orders on their vote from the President.
The fact is their vote and the President’s decision was mostly based upon the NIE on Iraq WMD Tenet produced in early October in rushed fashion based upon Democrat request just a month prior, knowing they were about to vote on the Joint Resolution.
These Democrats who were lock step with the Bush administration later told you they were Bush’s patsies and shouldn’t be expected to make their own decisions and rely on the White House telling them what’s going on in the world. I believe they did this because they were then distancing themselves from accountability for a war they were criticising during an election year.
You can believe their absurd excuses all you like but if you repeat it it doesn’t exactly enamour anyone with opposing views to respect yours when it only shows a lack of knowledge about these issues.
Bush obviously did inflate the threat of Saddam and the intelligence was wrong. However there wasn’t any intelligence that has surfaced as of today that indicates he, or the Democrats in question, we supposed to know anything other than what they believed.
Just like you expressed your beliefs above, beliefs are not facts, and if you go to war with just those, the results may not be so pretty.
You are suggesting we are “whitewash”ing this? Really?!!! C’mon, we want to hold those who made the war happen, who directed it, who demanded it and who told the lies that others foolishly and fatally believed; – it is true, that many were complicit, and many Democrats were, as you mention; and many Dems have since recanted their earlier vote and approval – like Chuck Hagel. But for you Lester to suggest we are part of the whitewash tells me you cannot even at this point, tell friends from enemies.
Of course since you’re totally giving the dems a pass. Kerry, Biden, Clinton and Hagel were total cheerleaders for Iraq until the war went bad and it was politically viable to be against it. Then they said oh we were misled and yada yada yada. If they were so easily misled by a dummy like GW why are they in the most high level positions in govt? Does that bother you or are you like the cop in Harold and Kumar go to White Castle that says “NPH wouldn’t do that” after Harold tells him Neil Patrick Harris (Doogie Howser) stole their car.
Well, Idefinitely don’t give the dems a pass, but “Um, the surge did work . . .”?? I do not know what you think it “worked” means, but have you noticed what we are leaving behind in Iraq? Really . . . none of it worked, except they did manage to get that statue down . . .
rip saddam…..
Deadly blasts mark tenth anniversary of the IRAQ WAR
It’s OK Cheney/Rummy/Blair, BIG OIL thinks your a star
{ 1 trackback }