"the worst scandal in American political history." - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-08-2003, 10:45 AM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:48 PM
US3 Where have you been?

My fear is not that the administrationis lying. My fear is that the administration had it right, but that the WMD has been moved outside of Iraq. It is not farfetched at all to think this. There were reports before the war of ships that were sent out to sea that were being monitored.

I still think that Iraq was lying about what it had from the start. Why wouldn't Iraq lie? It is a natural deterrent against outside agression, and who is to say that Saddam did not think that the reason he survived Gulf I was because of the fact that the WMD deterred the Coalition from finishing the job.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 01:25 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:48 PM
I'm pleased that Saddam is out of power. He's a on the level of Hitler, Ceceauscu and Milosevic. I really think the politicians should have focused on that rather than WMD's. I supported the strikes in Bosnia and Kosovo because I thought Milosevic was a total who needed to get kicked out for the sake of the Serbian people as well as the Bosnians and Kosovars. Maybe Saddam did move the WMD's out of Iraq. I wouldn't put it past him to lie. I'd like it if they arrested both Saddam and Osama. What a couple of 's.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 01:28 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:48 PM
I agree with Dreadsox. It is indeed a possibility that these weapons were moved to another location. I believe that Bush and Blair did not lie. They did indeed think that Saddam had WMD, because...and this is the important part...Saddam DID HAVE WMD. Now come on, even though we have not found the weapons yet, we have found certain facilities that in all probability produced such weapons. Come on, what else would someone use a mobile biochem lab for? As an ice cream truck?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 01:33 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
I'm pleased that Saddam is out of power. He's a on the level of Hitler, Ceceauscu and Milosevic. I really think the politicians should have focused on that rather than WMD's.
Verde.....I think that it is a SHAME that this was NOT the focus given what we are learning on a daily basis.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 03:09 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Verde.....I think that it is a SHAME that this was NOT the focus given what we are learning on a daily basis.


The American people, or should I say the Administration's supporters would not support spilling American blood to rid Iraqis of a cruel dictator.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 03:16 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by us3
I dunno, if Bush was lying about WMD, and actually knew there weren't any. wouldn't he have covered his bases on this by planting such materials?

.
I am a bit surprised to see you suggest that they might plant WMD.


I want to believe this is beneath them.

When/if WMD are found they will have to past the credibility test.

That is to say even critics will believe they are legit.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 03:23 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Dread, I'm reading all sorts of damning things on 4iraqis and other sites. The Iraqis on 4iraqis all disagree on alot of things but they all want Saddam's blood for crimes against his people. One of the Iraqi groups supporting Jubilee Iraq, the Iraq Prospect Organization, has a site with articles about all of this stuff. Here's the link.
http://www.iprospect.org.uk/
The mass graves, the torture chambers, and the other crimes are truly blood-curdling. I just hope they bust the and his equally evil sons so justice can be carried out against them. Using the WMD's argument was much more vague and confusing and sort of depended on what Kierkegaard called "a leap of faith" IMO.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 03:38 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Re: Rove is too smart,

Karl Rove is very calculating. He has not let his guard down once. This Administrations every decision, move, statement is measured and evaluated in terms of broadening their base of likely voters.


Because they have said there are WMD emphatically, leads me to believe they may be there.

Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Rope-a-dope.
The mobile labs are in my opinion a one, on the old 1-10 scale. 10 being the bio weapons Saddam used to kill the Kurds and Shia in the 80s and 90s (irrefutable).

If there truly are some WMD in Iraq more damning, say in the 5-7 range why release it now. Ws poll numbers might go from 60 to 80-85. Then, if the economy remains stagnant the 2004 election becomes problematic.

I think they may be suckering in the Dems, much like Ali used the ropes in the middle rounds to tire out his opponents. Ali saved his best stuff to finish big, when his opponents had punched themselves out.

Karl Rove is no fool.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 04:37 PM   #24
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 08:48 PM
I never understood why the Bush Administration (+ the rest of the coalition) chose to make the issue of WMD the main reason on the war against Saddam

I fear a bit that Deep is right and that they thought they wouldn't be able to convince the US citizens that Saddam being pure evil + a thread to peace in that region was enough reason to "spill american blood"


what annoys me a bit is that a lot of the people who now say that there weren't any WMD in Iraq are (for a large part) the same people who month ago claimed "of course Saddam has WMD, we (the US etc) provided the stuff he needed to create those weapons ourselves"

now, not both of these statements can be true
(personally I believe the 2nd statement is true and that indeed Saddam was given the means to create those weapons by ourselves)
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 06:19 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:48 PM
----
Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction:
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jun. 06, 2003

President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away - unless, perhaps, they start another war.

That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.

President Bush's Statements On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Should The President Get The Benefit Of The Doubt?

When these statements were made, Bush's let-me-mince-no-words posture was convincing to many Americans. Yet much of the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted them.

As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses - including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.

On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the President of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.

First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's thought. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.

Second, I explained that - at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton - statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the President is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.

Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In addition, others in the Administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs - and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?

After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find - for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.

So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist?

There are two main possibilities. One that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the President has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.

A Desperate Search For WMDs Has So Far Yielded Little, If Any, Fruit

Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the President had dispatched American military special forces into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.

Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMDs continued. None were found.

As the coalition forces gained control of Iraqi cities and countryside, special search teams were dispatched to look for WMDs. None were found.

During the past two and a half months, according to reliable news reports, military patrols have visited over 300 suspected WMD sites throughout Iraq. None of the prohibited weapons were found there.

British and American Press Reaction to the Missing WMDs

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also under serious attack in England, which he dragged into the war unwillingly, based on the missing WMDs. In Britain, the missing WMDs are being treated as scandalous; so far, the reaction in the U.S. has been milder.

New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has taken Bush sharply to task, asserting that it is "long past time for this administration to be held accountable." "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat," Krugman argued. "If that claim was fraudulent," he continued, "the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra." But most media outlets have reserved judgment as the search for WMDs in Iraq continues.

Still, signs do not look good. Last week, the Pentagon announced it was shifting its search from looking for WMD sites, to looking for people who can provide leads as to where the missing WMDs might be.

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured Congress that WMDs will indeed be found. And he advised that a new unit called the Iraq Survey Group, composed of some 1400 experts and technicians from around the world, is being deployed to assist in the searching.

But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."

Perhaps most troubling, the President has failed to provide any explanation of how he could have made his very specific statements, yet now be unable to back them up with supporting evidence. Was there an Iraqi informant thought to be reliable, who turned out not to be? Were satellite photos innocently, if negligently misinterpreted? Or was his evidence not as solid as he led the world to believe?

The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the President's misstatements may actually have been intentional lies.

Investigating The Iraqi War Intelligence Reports

Even now, while the jury is still out as to whether intentional misconduct occurred, the President has a serious credibility problem. Newsweek magazine posed the key questions: "If America has entered a new age of pre-emption --when it must strike first because it cannot afford to find out later if terrorists possess nuclear or biological weapons--exact intelligence is critical. How will the United States take out a mad despot or a nuclear bomb hidden in a cave if the CIA can't say for sure where they are? And how will Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad?"

In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now called for a Defense Department investigation into what went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O. J.'s looking for his wife's killer. But there may be a difference: Unless the members of Administration can find someone else to blame - informants, surveillance technology, lower-level personnel, you name it - they may not escape fault themselves.

Congressional committees are also looking into the pre-war intelligence collection and evaluation. Senator John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee would jointly investigate the situation. And the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans an investigation.

These investigations are certainly appropriate, for there is potent evidence of either a colossal intelligence failure or misconduct - and either would be a serious problem. When the best case scenario seems to be mere incompetence, investigations certainly need to be made.

Senator Bob Graham - a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee - told CNN's Aaron Brown, that while he still hopes they find WMDs or at least evidence thereof, he has also contemplated three other possible alternative scenarios:

One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of Iraq, which maybe is the worst of all possibilities, because now the very thing that we were trying to avoid, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, could be in the hands of dozens of groups. Second, that we had bad intelligence. Or third, that the intelligence was satisfactory but that it was manipulated, so as just to present to the American people and to the world those things that made the case for the necessity of war against Iraq.

Senator Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN "there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration."

Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Senator Graham requested that the Bush Administration declassify the information before the Senate voted on the Administration's resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq.

But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq," and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion.

Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decisionmaking process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggests manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."

Worse than Watergate? A Potential Huge Scandal If WMDs Are Still Missing

Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 06:27 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:48 PM
That's a damn good article. Dean is right. The WMD thing is potentially a great big screw-up.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 06:30 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:48 PM
Having stated in another thread that I believe the US invasion of Iraq was illegal in the eyes of international law, and that I supported this invasion with or without the UN based on this administrations' arguments for war, I must say now that it is looking more and more like I have been sold a bag of shit.

If it turns out to be the case, and I still am open minded enough to give them more time to prove me wrong, I will not be voting for GW in 2004.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 06:59 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Having stated in another thread that I believe the US invasion of Iraq was illegal in the eyes of international law, and that I supported this invasion with or without the UN based on this administrations arguments for war, I must say now that it is looking more and more like I have been sold a bag of shit.

If it turns out to be the case, and I still am open minded enough to give them more time to prove me wrong, I will not be voting for GW in 2004.

Peace
Dreadsox,
You're at least the fifth or sixth person I've heard say the exact same thing in the last few days. I have so many friends who supported the war because they believed Bush and Blair's arguments regarding WMDs and are now beginning to feel as though they have been lied to. The thing I hate most about this is that I'm seeing how it has entirely undermined people's trust in politicians: they think if they couldn't even trust Blair to tell the truth about something as enormous as a war, how can they trust anything another politician says to them? I have three friends who are saying they won't even bother to vote at the next election because they don't see the point if they can't believe a word politicians tell them. I hate how much this has undermined people's confidence in government.

I remember something one good friend of mine wrote in an email: "You wouldn't believe the number of people who have been angry with me because I supported that war or the number of arguments that have left me feeling as though I'm supporting the slaughter of innocents. And all the time I kept justifying my opinions by talking about the threat Iraq posed to the world, I even quoted Tony Blair's claim that Saddam could use WMDs within 45 minutes of giving the order! But now it turns out to have been, if not outright lies, at least exaggeration. I supported a war which killed thousands of innocent Iraqis and devastated their country, and now it turns out that the arguments that convinced me to support it were false. I feel betrayed by Tony Blair: I'd never vote Labour again and that in turn means I'm unlikely to bother voting at the next election."
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 07:42 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Is anyone here familiar with the UN inspectors report to the United Nations after being kicked out of Iraq in 1998. It clearly documents that Iraq had thousands of tons of various chemicals and biological agents and various means to deliver them. The Majority of the Bush administrations and others justification for war was Iraq's failure to either hand over or verifiably destroy the above materials. If you think the Bush Administrations case for war is a "bag of shit", that must be your opinion of the UN inspectors and their work that documented Iraq's possession of the WMD to begin with.

It is not incumbent upon any member state of the UN to prove that Saddam's regime has Weapons of Mass Destruction, it is incumbent Saddam to prove that his regime does not have Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Saddam failed to do that.

Of course, people like John Dean seem to be of the opinion that we should take on faith when a person like SADDAM claims that he destroyed the WMD on his own between 1998 and 2002, and produces no evidence to demonstrate that fact, that everyone in the international community should accept that as the gospel truth. After all, Saddam's past behavior and actions are of a person of deep honesty and integrity, correct?

The war itself was a huge success and has prevented Saddam from ever killing another 1.5 million people like he already had or invading and attack 4 independent countries or developing a nuclear weapon to murder millions of people within seconds. The war was clearly justified on both security, legal, and humanitarian grounds and clearly the world and especially the Iraqi people are better off because the actions of the countries involved in operation Iraqi Freedom.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 07:47 PM   #30
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 03:48 PM
But if my President told me that we were going to war because Saddam Hussein had WMDs, and we would find them, then it is in fact incumbent upon my President to find these weapons and tell me where they were found. It might not have been incumbent on Bush to demonstrate that there were WMDs, but since the alleged WMDs were used as justification for war, it is incumbent now.

I am a voter, a taxpayer, and a citizen. I am entitled to these answers. And I won't have any problem voting Bush out of office if I don't get them.

(I mean, I'd have voted him out anyway. But you get the point.)
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com