RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

Sophie11 -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/13/2008 2:15:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

Now, I must keep my word, and answer your question, which was, "do you believe the media's sensationalizing such stories in an effort to bash the President had anything to do with future issues that arose from these incidents?"

I don't think they were sensationalized, and I think efforts to "bash" Bush were not related to the media. If anything the media was quite compliant from the summer of 2002 leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Finally, Bush himself said on July 2, 2003, "bring them on," and he was later heavily criticized because the Iraqi insurgents took him seriously and attacked our soldiers with a vengeance after he said that. As commander-in-chief and chief executive of our military and government respectively, that sounds like a pretty irresponsible and thoughtless thing to say if you ask me - and I don't think you will disagree considering we have lost over 4000 of our finest men and women in uniform, not to mention dozens of thousands of others who have suffered serious injuries/wounds.[/size][/font]


Well I suppose we do just disagree then. No problem though! [:)]

Anyway, my thoughts are that some seem to want to blame the Pres for everything that goes wrong, give no credit for what goes right. And the Iraqi citizens killing our troops get sympathy for what Bush and the US did to them, as if it is logical for them to then use violence. When do our President and soldiers get a break from these same people? Never.

I just don't understand it.



RichLP -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/14/2008 9:52:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sophie11

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

Now, I must keep my word, and answer your question, which was, "do you believe the media's sensationalizing such stories in an effort to bash the President had anything to do with future issues that arose from these incidents?"


I don't think they were sensationalized, and I think efforts to "bash" Bush were not related to the media. If anything the media was quite compliant from the summer of 2002 leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Finally, Bush himself said on July 2, 2003, "bring them on," and he was later heavily criticized because the Iraqi insurgents took him seriously and attacked our soldiers with a vengeance after he said that. As commander-in-chief and chief executive of our military and government respectively, that sounds like a pretty irresponsible and thoughtless thing to say if you ask me - and I don't think you will disagree considering we have lost over 4000 of our finest men and women in uniform, not to mention dozens of thousands of others who have suffered serious injuries/wounds.


Well I suppose we do just disagree then. No problem though! [:)]

Anyway, my thoughts are that some seem to want to blame the Pres for everything that goes wrong, give no credit for what goes right. And the Iraqi citizens killing our troops get sympathy for what Bush and the US did to them, as if it is logical for them to then use violence. When do our President and soldiers get a break from these same people? Never.

I just don't understand it.


One quick question. do you think Bush acted irresponsibly by saying "bring them on?"



Sophie11 -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/14/2008 10:05:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP


One quick question. do you think Bush acted irresponsibly by saying "bring them on?"


Yes, probably. He was trying to talk tough, though I doubt he literally meant he wanted attacks to come pouring in on the US troops. But I just don't think that would be the reason for any increase in insurgents. They were either already inclined to attack US soldiers or they weren't, IMO.



henny -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/19/2008 3:14:23 PM)

Malaki has said that he thinks Obama's 16 month plan -with minor give and take- is a good one.


quote:

In an interview with SPIEGEL, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Barack Obama's 16 timeframe for a withdrawal from Iraq is the right one.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

Malaki was careful to back away from outright support for Obama. "Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business," he said. But then, apparently referring to Republican candidate John McCain's more open-ended Iraq policy, Maliki said: "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems."


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-566841,00.html



backrowbaptist -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/19/2008 4:15:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

One quick question. do you think Bush acted irresponsibly by saying "bring them on?"

I don't. The strategy has always been to draw the terrorists into battle in Iraq and Afganistan, where our troops can fight them, instead of waiting for them to attack us again and respond. It's worked. We've been kept safe for seven years because of it.



rlj -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/19/2008 6:18:22 PM)

quote:

I don't. The strategy has always been to draw the terrorists into battle in Iraq and Afganistan, where our troops can fight them, instead of waiting for them to attack us again and respond. It's worked. We've been kept safe for seven years because of it.


That's a great plan to. Kill, dismember and forcefully remove from their homes 2 million+ Iraqis so that we can sit in relative peace and type in on Crosswalk.

Think those 2 million plus Iraqis believe it was a good plan?



henny -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/19/2008 10:50:38 PM)

Here's a quote from McCain back in 2004 in which he says that if the Iraq government wants us out, we would have to leave regardless of the security situation.

It seems he's changed his tune a bit here:

quote:

QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it’s a hypothetical, but it’s at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because — if it was an elected government of Iraq — and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.


http://rawstory.com//news/2008/McCain_adviser_on_Iraqi_PMs_Obama_0719.html



Leon_Figg3 -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/19/2008 11:01:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

One quick question. do you think Bush acted irresponsibly by saying "bring them on?"

I think that whether or not one feels Bush was irresponsible in saying "bring it on" depends on how one interprets that quote.

In one sense it could mean that he was acknowleging the terrorist view that they and we were at war, and that if they were serious they needed to take us on directly. He was informing them not to underestimate us, and that we were ready to deal with them.

Granted, translation into another language, could be mis- understood.



wing2000 -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/19/2008 11:02:52 PM)

quote:


I don't. The strategy has always been to draw the terrorists into battle in Iraq and Afganistan, where our troops can fight them, instead of waiting for them to attack us again and respond. It's worked. We've been kept safe for seven years because of it.




Every major advance against Al Qaeda occurred OUTSIDE the borders of Iraq...



RichLP -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/21/2008 12:36:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

One quick question. do you think Bush acted irresponsibly by saying "bring them on?"

I don't. The strategy has always been to draw the terrorists into battle in Iraq and Afganistan, where our troops can fight them, instead of waiting for them to attack us again and respond. It's worked. We've been kept safe for seven years because of it.


This is wrong for the simple fact that the vast majority of the insurgents in Iraq who targeted our troops were not Al-Qaeda-type terrorists, but rather disgruntled one-time Iraqi soldiers (from the Iraqi army of the Hussein era) who were stripped of their livelihood by L. Paul Bremer III's executive order disbanding the Iraqi army, Republican Guard, Special Republican Guard, and other military/security elements of the Hussein regime.

I have talked about this extensively in the Iraq war thread and will pull up older posts of mine containing supporting evidence, but in a nutshell, they were disgruntled for the following reasons.

During the short war between the US-led coalition and the Baath military, US propaganda leaflets exhorted the Iraqi army not to fight for Saddam. Those leaflets said that US, once in charge of reconstruction, would have needed manpower and that the Iraqi army, after the war, would have been an integral part of that rebuilding effort through the provision of that very manpower.

Many Iraqi soldiers and officers accepted that offer and did not fight.

In fact, after ORHA/CPA's on-the-ground officers, including US military officers were in place, liaison meetings between ORHA/CPA and Iraqi military generals took place. The latter promised ORHA/CPA that in a matter of days, military police and thousands of men would have been available to serve as security and as laborers. Security was direly needed as looting was ravaging Baghdad, as US troops were ordered not to intervene in the looting, and as there were not enough troops to safeguard all of Baghdad and other major areas.

It would have been logical and pragmatic to utilize those Iraqi troops and police. They were locals, they had weapons, they knew the language, culture, streets, intersections, weapons depots. And by employing them, paying them, rewarding them... we could have won their trust and allegiance. They would have seen that we were men who kept our word; they would have seen we could be trusted; they would have felt accomplished and proud as they were part of the new Iraq's rebuilding effort; and, very importantly, they would have received wages to support their families and to feed themselves. This last point was extremely important as honor and pride are very important in the Arab world, and a man's ability to provide and to earn for themselves and their families are a paramount priority.

But when the order from Washington came to Bremer, and then the Independent Military Gathering (as the Iraqi officers and soldiers who were hoping to get what the leaflets promised) was left out in the cold, to the shock and unbelief of the now angry ORHA/CPA American officers, the Iraqi soldiers and their officers were now embittered. And they turned their weapons - which they knew how to use thanks to military training - on OUR SOLDIERS.

They were NOT terrorists like the Salafi Sunnis like the Al-Qaeda of Osama Bin Laden. Granted, some homegrown insurgents later turned to radical Islam or were already Shiite Muslims who were very religious. But they were not terrorists like Osama; they were primarily angry for what they saw as an American betrayal. They didn't care about striking US soil; they wanted to exact revenge on the Americans and they now wanted to expel what they saw (not incorrectly) as a FOREIGN OCCUPATION ARMY.

The idea that those ragtag combatants will one day explode nukes in smalltown America is absolutely ludicrous - and it is a fantastic example of how fearmongering has been a pivotal (and sadly, oftentimes successful) tactic of the Bush Administration.



RichLP -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/21/2008 12:39:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj

quote:

I don't. The strategy has always been to draw the terrorists into battle in Iraq and Afganistan, where our troops can fight them, instead of waiting for them to attack us again and respond. It's worked. We've been kept safe for seven years because of it.


That's a great plan to. Kill, dismember and forcefully remove from their homes 2 million+ Iraqis so that we can sit in relative peace and type in on Crosswalk.

Think those 2 million plus Iraqis believe it was a good plan?


You mean FOUR MILLION. IT's 2 million internally displaced and another 2 million displaced outside IRaq.

Proportionately, that would be 48 million displaced Americans - 24 million abroad and 24 million inside the USA. That's nearly 6 times the population of New York City.

Yep, a great plan indeed...



RichLP -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/21/2008 12:44:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

quote:


I don't. The strategy has always been to draw the terrorists into battle in Iraq and Afganistan, where our troops can fight them, instead of waiting for them to attack us again and respond. It's worked. We've been kept safe for seven years because of it.


Every major advance against Al Qaeda occurred OUTSIDE the borders of Iraq...


Let's not forget that:

1. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a secular state which served as a bulwark against Shiite Iran and where Al-Qaeda types were persecuted (Hussein ordered the arrest of Zarqawi and the only areas where Al-Qaeda types were known to operate were in the extreme north, which was part of a No-Fly Zone and where Hussein's control was weaker... this was where a fringe group known as Anser Al-Islam operated).
2. The US government has made several statements stating that the Iraq war has turned Iraq into a training ground for Islamic terrorism. This was not the case before the war.
3. Saddam Hussein and OSama Bin Laden were ideological enemies. Bin Laden denounced Hussein as a Muslim infidel, and Hussein was notorious for persecuting radical Islamists.
4. If Al-Qaeda ever made any inroads into Iraq it was thanks to the vacuum created by the deposition of the Baath, not because Hussein was friendly to them.
5. The only Al-Qaeda known to operate in Iraq is not proven to be the Al-Qaeda of Bin Laden; it is an offshoot which calls itself "Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" and it is at best loosely affiliated with the Al-Qaeda we should've been persecuting all along.

Bush and the war on terror. YAY!



RichLP -> US Leadership agrees to Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/21/2008 12:50:25 AM)

Yep, you read that right.

"US Leadership agrees to Timetable For US Troop Departure"

So Bush has agreed to a time horizon for the withdrawal of our soldiers. You guys are free to disagree or to refuse to admit it, but Bush has agreed to a withdrawal in all but name.

Face it, folks: Bush started a horrible war which killed dozens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, made 4 million Iraqi civilians refugees, generated a sectarian civil war, led to the deaths of over 4 thousand US servicepersons, led to the horrible injuries to dozens of thousands of US troops, will cost (ultimately) approximately 3 trillion dollars, helped raise the price of a barrel of petroleum, turned Shia Iran into the regional power of the Middle East, drew in foreign jihadists, turned Iraq into a training ground for terrorism, worsened the image of the US in the Middle East, heightened already high levels of anti-Americanism, raised the odds of anti-US blowback, and now Bush has all but conceded defeat.

Say what you wish and think what you will about Bush being a "stay the course" leader, but Bush will not win this war by the time he leaves office, and regardless of who takes over next year, things have deteriorated so badly that Bush has all but guaranteed that this war has been lost.

I repeat: George W. Bush has conceded defeat, and he lost this war.

And the human suffering caused by this unnecessary war will haunt Iraq and America for generations.



Leon_Figg3 -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/21/2008 12:51:03 AM)

RichLP,
Perhaps you should educate us and provide us with the unbiased links to all this accurate and very detailed information that you somehow seem to have at your disposal.

Also. Please explain what all you said, had to do with the question you asked and was being responded to.



RichLP -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/21/2008 12:52:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

One quick question. do you think Bush acted irresponsibly by saying "bring them on?"

I think that whether or not one feels Bush was irresponsible in saying "bring it on" depends on how one interprets that quote.

In one sense it could mean that he was acknowleging the terrorist view that they and we were at war, and that if they were serious they needed to take us on directly. He was informing them not to underestimate us, and that we were ready to deal with them.

Granted, translation into another language, could be mis- understood.


Well, given that Bush made statements later that implied he recognized brash statements were not wise, I speculate Bush's statements were clearly understood by both us and the Iraqis who "brought it on."



RichLP -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/21/2008 12:53:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
RichLP,
Perhaps you should educate us and provide us with the unbiased links to all this accurate and very detailed information that you somehow seem to have at your disposal.



Leon_Figg3,

Which of the posts I've just written are you referring to?



Leon_Figg3 -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/21/2008 1:00:29 AM)

Basically every anti-Bush administration and every anti-Iraq conflict you've made, but more specifically post #61. [8|]



RichLP -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/21/2008 1:05:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3

Basically every anti-Bush administration and every anti-Iraq conflict you've made, but more specifically post #61. [8|]


NO END IN SIGHT

I gave this link to you on February 1, 2008, in the Iraq War thread. Did you not watch it?



Sophie11 -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/21/2008 1:09:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

Well, given that Bush made statements later that implied he recognized brash statements were not wise, I speculate Bush's statements were clearly understood by both us and the Iraqis who "brought it on."


The issue I have with all of your statements RichLP is that Bush seems to be responsible for everything he and everyone else does. I am in full agreement that he is responsible for his own actions, but he cannot be the one to blame for everything.

You are blaming Bush for the increase in insurgent attacks because of one off-handed comment he made, but at the same time you are giving excuse for those who kill our troops, saying that many are fighting due to loss of employment, which is of course the fault of the US and not theirs for their choice to pick up their weapons. I cannot make sense of that.



RichLP -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/21/2008 1:15:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sophie11
The issue I have with all of your statements RichLP is that Bush seems to be responsible for everything he and everyone else does. I am in full agreement that he is responsible for his own actions, but he cannot be the one to blame for everything.

You are blaming Bush for the increase in insurgent attacks because of one off-handed comment he made, but at the same time you are giving excuse for those who kill our troops, saying that many are fighting due to loss of employment, which is of course the fault of the US and not theirs for their choice to pick up their weapons. I cannot make sense of that.


Bush is not responsible directly if a gang of Iraqi insurgents bursts into homes and kills people who collaborated with us. But at the same time, Bush is most definitely responsible because he was and is commander-in-chief and he made the decisions.

Granted, people like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, etc. - the neocons - share the blame as they influenced the formation and execution of policy.

The off-hand comment he made was followed by a sudden and frightening spike of attacks on US troops. Later, insurgents sent a message about whether Bush had any more messages.

And you are wrong - I am NOT excusing them for attacking our troops. I am explaining, using facts and the testimony of people like retired Colonel Paul Hughes, US Army, Director of Strategic Policy for the U.S. Occupation for the CPA, who were on the ground, who met the generals, and who wanted to work with them exactly as I described in post number 61.

I repeat: I am NOT justifying what the Iraqis did, but I am explaining the background of the promises made by US wartime propaganda, the Iraqi response, the communication between ORHA/CPA and the Iraqi army - and the fateful intervention in the form of Bremer's Executive Order summarily disbanding the Iraqi military.

If you don't believe me, please watch the video contained in the link I have just provided to Leon_Figg3. It contains the testimony of Hughes and other senior-ranking American officials who were on the ground in Baghdad right after the fall of Saddam Hussein.



Leon_Figg3 -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/21/2008 1:30:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3

Basically every anti-Bush administration and every anti-Iraq conflict you've made, but more specifically post #61. [8|]


NO END IN SIGHT

I gave this link to you on February 1, 2008, in the Iraq War thread. Did you not watch it?

I've seen as much as the heavily biased film as I could stand.

I believe I asked for you to provide an unbiased source. Maybe I should add to my request that the information also be somewhat current and up to date, rather than the same old propoganda.



wing2000 -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/21/2008 1:36:24 AM)

I still find the following report to be dead on....


Dr. Jeffrey Record examines three features of the war on terrorism
as currently defined and conducted: (1) the administration’s
postulation of the terrorist threat, (2) the scope and feasibility
of U.S. war aims, and (3) the war’s political, fiscal, and military
sustainability. He finds that the war on terrorism—as opposed to
the campaign against al-Qaeda—lacks strategic clarity, embraces
unrealistic objectives, and may not be sustainable over the long haul.
He calls for down-sizing the scope of the war on terrorism to reflect
concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American military
power.

2003 report presented at the US Army War college:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/record_bounding.pdf



Sophie11 -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/21/2008 1:48:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sophie11
The issue I have with all of your statements RichLP is that Bush seems to be responsible for everything he and everyone else does. I am in full agreement that he is responsible for his own actions, but he cannot be the one to blame for everything.

You are blaming Bush for the increase in insurgent attacks because of one off-handed comment he made, but at the same time you are giving excuse for those who kill our troops, saying that many are fighting due to loss of employment, which is of course the fault of the US and not theirs for their choice to pick up their weapons. I cannot make sense of that.


Bush is not responsible directly if a gang of Iraqi insurgents bursts into homes and kills people who collaborated with us. But at the same time, Bush is most definitely responsible because he was and is commander-in-chief and he made the decisions.

Granted, people like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, etc. - the neocons - share the blame as they influenced the formation and execution of policy.

The off-hand comment he made was followed by a sudden and frightening spike of attacks on US troops. Later, insurgents sent a message about whether Bush had any more messages.

And you are wrong - I am NOT excusing them for attacking our troops. I am explaining, using facts and the testimony of people like retired Colonel Paul Hughes, US Army, Director of Strategic Policy for the U.S. Occupation for the CPA, who were on the ground, who met the generals, and who wanted to work with them exactly as I described in post number 61.

I repeat: I am NOT justifying what the Iraqis did, but I am explaining the background of the promises made by US wartime propaganda, the Iraqi response, the communication between ORHA/CPA and the Iraqi army - and the fateful intervention in the form of Bremer's Executive Order summarily disbanding the Iraqi military.

If you don't believe me, please watch the video contained in the link I have just provided to Leon_Figg3. It contains the testimony of Hughes and other senior-ranking American officials who were on the ground in Baghdad right after the fall of Saddam Hussein.


And the insurgent could have also simply watched US media coverage and discovered that Bush was already being blamed for it. Maybe they didn't, but maybe they did. Either way, they were loose cannons to begin with if that was all it took for them to go on a rampage.

And to be honest it certainly does not bother me that the US did NOT use these Iraqis to help us in our effort. If by their own testimony this one comment sent them off like that then they would never have had any business working alongside US troops IMO.



Leon_Figg3 -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/21/2008 3:01:55 AM)

RichLP,
After skipping over parts of the film that seemed to be heavily biased and seemed to do nothing more than rehash old arguements, I managed to see more of the film. As a result, I quess I have somewhat softened my stance. However, I am still very troubled by conclusions-if memory serves me right- you have repeatedly drawn and the fairly unprovable cause and affect arguemnets-if memory serves me right-you have also repeatedly drawn.

Though Truman's sentiment that "The buck stops here" may sound like very good guidance for our presidents to follow, it should not blind us to the very real possibility that our government has grown so large, so insulated and isolated from reality that whoever is the president can not possibly keep on top of everything and be assured that he is getting all the information he needs to make timely decisions. Repeatedly, in the film, I was struck by the fact that for some reason, the objections people held about what decisions were being made, never seemed to get up to the president in any sort of way. Repeatedly, in the film, I was struck by the apparent fact that departments didn' seem to talk with each other very well. I was struck by the apparent fact that after Iraq fell and was later secured, is some fashion (prior to Bremer and others), that many of those assigned to Iraq seemed to be more concerned about themselves than the jobs they were being sent there to do, thus making a bad situation even worse, which unfortuneately is what happens in war. It is what happens when individuals and beauacrasies grow larger, and acquire a degree of self importancce and power that they do not rightly derserve.

In short, I am not so easily stirred to blame the Bush administration for mistakes and problems that arose in Iraq. I do blame the political system that has evolved in our country which seems to handicap the president, in all kinds of ways and makes him fair game for all kinds of criticism no matter what he does.

Were mistakes made?
Yes.
Were these mistakes eventually corrected, in some way?
Yes.

It would seem that back in 1945, when the political system in this country was not so polarizing and devisive, we were able to turn Germany back over to the Germans a whole lot better than we have been able to do in Iraq.



henny -> RE: Iraq Leadership Wants Timetable For US Troop Departure (7/21/2008 3:18:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3

Basically every anti-Bush administration and every anti-Iraq conflict you've made, but more specifically post #61. [8|]


NO END IN SIGHT

I gave this link to you on February 1, 2008, in the Iraq War thread. Did you not watch it?



Thanks for this.

I remember it got pretty good reviews from all circles (i.e. both conservative and liberal) when it came out, but I never got a chance to see it, even though I meant to.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI