posted on July 15, 2004 10:19:09 PM newTime to apologize to Bush
Earlier this week, Americans learned from the Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) report that the Bush administration did not lie about or manipulate intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. To reiterate, the report found "no evidence that the [intelligence community's] mischaracterization or exaggeration of [Iraq's] weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of political pressure ... The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
Yesterday, a British inquiry exonerated the Blair government of exactly the same charge. "We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence [on the part of the Blair administration].
We found no evidence of [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments and the judgments inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior officials on the JIC," the report said.
The British report also agreed with the SIC about the nature of Iraq's weapons programs. In short, intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs on both sides of the Atlantic was flawed, but no one "lied" about it. Both President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair acted in good faith given the intelligence provided by their respective agencies. This is the nature of leadership.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the 2004 elections.
Soon after the fall of Baghdad, it started to become clear that Saddam Hussein did not have the weapons programs everyone believed he had. Urged along by one dissembling former ambassador, the Democrats soon lost control and began to accuse the president of the United States of lying to, or at least misleading, the American people.
To name only a few, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), in a television ad, mentioned the "yellowcake" reference in the president's 2003 State of the Union, adding "the administration knew it wasn't true ... It's time to tell the truth." (No, it was true, then as now.) The DNC Web site also informed readers about the administration's "year-long campaign of deception involving a bogus intelligence report on Iraq's nuclear program." DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe huffed, "This may be the first time in recent memory that a president knowingly misled the American people during the State of the Union address."
According to John Kerry, Mr. Bush "misled every one of us." Sen. Joseph Biden believed the administration "hyped [the intelligence] ... to create a sense of urgency and a threat." Sen. Carl Levin said, "The statement that Iraq was attempting to acquire African uranium was not an inadvertent mistake. It was negotiated between CIA and National Security Council officials, and it was highly misleading."
We agree with the Wall Street Journal on this matter: Apologies are in order.
---------------
And I agree with both of them.
But do I think this apology will be forth coming? No...even now a report has been leaked from Rockefeller IV that says the dems should continue to deny the findings.
The Pentagon is fed up too, and demanding proof or a retraction of Rockefeller's statements.
Here's what type of leader he is:
[i]Last year, Mr. Rockefeller was embarrassed when one of his staff's strategy papers leaked to the press. The paper talked of how Democrats would work with Republicans to get a critical report on the Bush administration and pre-Iraq war intelligence, then continue to exploit the issue no matter what the report's conclusions.
posted on July 16, 2004 04:54:29 AM new
I see no reason to apologize to a man: who jumped the gun by invading Iraq, who supports the rich and looks down upon the poor, who thinks the constution should be changed because he thinks it should, who is a closet bigot, who has ruined this nation's ecomony and will make my grandchildren pay the price. . . .need I go on?
posted on July 16, 2004 05:11:41 AM new
Blair has hardly been forgiven. Linda, you need to check your facts a bit further:
Jackie Ashley
Thursday July 15, 2004
The Guardian
Damp squib or smoking gun? The conclusions from Lord Butler's report seem, at first sight, to provide the expected establishment support for the government. Lord Butler proves himself no patsy Hutton. He's shrewder than the judge, a real player. He makes several trenchant criticisms. But he decides, in the end, that no one's actually to blame. Everyone's acted honourably and in good faith, so we should all just work hard to make sure it doesn't happen again.
So there it is. The intelligence about weapons of mass destruction was wildly wrong. Warnings about the unreliability of the evidence were not included in the dossier the government presented to parliament. We went to war against the wishes of the majority of the UN. At least 11,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Islamist terrorists, who had no foothold in Iraq before, are more dangerous than ever. A bloody insurgency still burns in the country, punctuated by car-bombings and grisly videotaped beheadings.
Yet the prime minister continues to insist that it was right to go to war. Never mind if the original reason - the legal reason - for doing so has been utterly discredited. Suddenly, he finds the real reason for sending in the troops was to topple a very nasty dictator and make the world a safer place. So far, so convenient. Now we can just move swiftly on, after two Commons inquiries and the reports from Lords Hutton and Butler. Let the line be drawn.
But closer reading of the report presents us with one stunning and inescapable fact: the prime minister knew, from the evidence supplied to him and published yesterday by Lord Butler, that there were many doubts and uncertainties about the intelligence: to say it was dodgy is an understatement. Yet, in his forward to the September dossier, Tony Blair wrote: "What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt [my italics] is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme." Lord Butler describes as a "serious failing" the fact that the dossier did not contain warnings and caveats about intelligence known to the joint intelligence committee (JIC).
If this does not add up to misleading parliament and the public, then I don't know what the word "mislead" means any more. Much has been made of the conclusion by Lord Butler and the insistence from Tony Blair himself that he acted in good faith. I'm sure he did. But whatever he believed about the merits of taking action against Saddam, there can be no doubt that he gave us all a misleading impression of the reasons for going to war. Thanks to Lord Butler, we have seen the original intelligence, and we know that the dossier was not a fair representation of it - it was sexed up.
Actually, I don't think Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell and the rest of them huddled together and twisted John Scarlett's arm behind his back. It wasn't necessary. Simply, as Lord Butler says, "the JIC was put under strain" and the decision then to let the JIC take ownership of the dossier was a "mistaken judgment".
What is pretty obvious is that the decision to go to war was taken in Washington. Blair felt he had to go along with it for reasons of politics. He'd decided to stand alongside the biggest boy in the playground and it was too late to go skulking in the toilets. The facts were distorted by desire. They ended up so distorted, they were a deception. It may have been self-deception as well as the deception of the rest of us: but two deceptions don't cancel out to make the truth.
The fact that the prime minister misled parliament and the people about taking the country to war is a matter of law, and international order, too. The invasion of a sovereign country, however vile its regime, is something we would normally only contemplate as a last-ditch matter of self-defence.
What the Butler report confirms, yet again, is that the war against Iraq was not a war of self-defence. It was not launched, first and foremost, to protect us. Those wretched weapons of mass destruction matter as an issue because they were the reason the Commons voted to go to war; they, we were told, threatened British bases and British interests directly. Well, they didn't. They didn't, because they didn't exist.
In his statement to the Commons yesterday, Mr Blair accepted personal responsibility for any mistakes made. Yet he proposes cheerfully to carry on, as if he'd done nothing more serious than forget the orange juice when sent out on a Tesco run. Of course, he can hold things together if he chooses. Whatever today's byelections bring, he cannot be removed except by a cumbersome and unlikely procedure. He has the awesome power and patronage of Downing Street. He has the backing of most of the cabinet. He has, not least, his own extraordinary personal resilience, his chirpy self-belief and optimism.
Mr Blair told MPs yesterday that he'd "searched his conscience" to see whether the war was justified. Now he should search it some more, to consider what effect this damning report will have on Labour's chances at the next election, and, just as important, on democratic engagement in general. How can the public be expected to vote, to get involved, to think politics changes anything, if some one can lead a country into war on a false premise, and not be held to account?
Lord Butler may not have put any heads on stakes outside parliament but he has tried, and found guilty, the pals' act way of doing business in Downing Street. He calls instead, in effect, for a return to traditional governance, with its checks and balances and its clear demarcations between officials and politicians. He wants government by cabinet, not cabal. That seems to me to be quite a verdict. Lord Butler may not have meant it this way, but it is a guilty verdict on the Blair way of using power.
Mr Blair has been a phenomenon. Whatever the political despair and anger engendered by the Iraq war and his collaboration with George Bush, Labour owes him a vast debt. He helped make the party electable. He won two landslides. Under him, we have had a government that has redistributed some wealth, which has expanded employment, tamed inflation and started to put some serious investment back into the welfare state.
But a real leader knows when he's done what he can do, and when it would actually strengthen his party to stand down. His good faith may not be in question, but his credibility most certainly is. After Iraq, Labour and the country need some healing. Lord Butler's report is not a healing moment. The gun is still smoking, it isn't closure. That can only come from the man at the top.
posted on July 16, 2004 05:59:09 AM new
Nice post Linda, as you can see the the BDS people are posting and continuing to deny facts... LOL
Cheryl you wouldn't have to look very hard to see the same thing said here about President Bush, PM Blair is not stepping down and his Parliment has forgiven him... thats what matters...
posted on July 16, 2004 09:15:08 AM new
Cheryl is right. Bush and Cheney intentionally lied about the integrity and accuracy of the intellegence.
EVERY intellegence person has said the same thing - the information wasn't corroberated and was sketchy at best. Bush left all these qualifers out of his reasons for war to both Congress and the public.
Rockefeller puts the charge very accurately and where it belongs.
posted on July 16, 2004 09:24:05 AM newPM Blair is not stepping down and his Parliment has forgiven him... thats what matters...
Parliment may have forgiven Blair, but it doesn't look like the British people have
LONDON, BRITAIN -- Prime Minister Tony Blair's governing Labor Party lost a parliamentary seat to an anti-war party and narrowly avoided defeat over another spot, according to vote results Friday.
The result is a further blow for Blair, whose popularity has slumped since the Iraq war. Labor fared terribly in local council and European Parliament elections last month and some in the party question whether Blair, once their most prized electoral asset, has become a liability.
The Liberal Democrats, who opposed the war in Iraq, finished first in Thursday's balloting with 10,274 votes in Leicester, a city in central England with a high Muslim population.
The two elections followed the publication Wednesday of a report exposing widespread British intelligence failures on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
It is the people of the UK that will either elect to keep Blair or elect to replace him - not Parliment. It hardly matters that Parliment has forgiven him. The people of the UK have not. That's what matters.
posted on July 16, 2004 10:51:03 AM new
The second part of the investigation has yet to occur. The second investigation WILL investigate the Bush administartion's promoting the war with the misinformation.
Rockefeller wanted to start part two of the investigation immediately and complete it before the election so the American people could know the truth before voting, but the Republicans would not allow that.
An apology is in order, but it should be from the Bush liars to all the surviving family members of those killed or wounded in Iraq.
posted on July 16, 2004 10:56:42 AM new
Yes, twelve - it's BDS alright.
They are blinded to the fact this President has taken actions to protect this nation - and are just like the people of Spain.....fearful and unwilling to truly see what we face as a Nation - appear willing to surrender to the terrorists. And for some reason I'll never understand, they ignore the actions/agendas of these terrorists and call this President evil [and so many other things] for having a backbone and a willingness to fight this war on terror.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 16, 2004 11:09:04 AM newThey are blinded to the fact this President has taken actions to protect this nation - and are just like the people of Spain.....
Well that's certainly at the heart of the matter. Bush invaded Iraq to protect this nation from weapons that didn't exist, and terrorists that weren't there. Spent billions of dollar$, cost thousands of lives, AND GUESS WHAT, YOU'RE NO SAFER THAN YOU WERE ON 9-12-01. In fact, a CIA member's book will be coming out soon that makes the case we are actually in MORE DANGER for invading Iraq than if we had just continued to contain Iraq.
posted on July 16, 2004 11:14:57 AM new
I agree Cheryl & Reamond. Bush & Co. should be the ones apologizing. I'd sure like to ask them a few questions...
How's the re-building going in Afghanistan since the liberation? Compare that to how quickly oil pipelines are being built there and tell me why the pipelines are taking precedence. How's the hunt for Osama going? Or is it? How many of the hundreds of terrorist cells located in the U.S. have you busted? Did you catch the anthrax terrorist yet? What about all the re-building of Iraq? When does that start - when the WOMD are located? How come before you invaded Iraq, the WOMD being talked about were nuclear, but since nothing's been found the talk has been downgraded to chemical & biological weapons? How are things going with North Korea?
posted on July 16, 2004 11:15:09 AM new
Yes, hold that party line. And what's the dems party line on this?
"[i]The paper talked of how Democrats would work with Republicans to get a critical report on the Bush administration and pre-Iraq war intelligence, then continue to exploit the issue no matter what the report's conclusions.
And it doesn't embarass the dems here, one bit, that no matter what the truth is - their side wants to "exploit" the issue - and they willingly admit it. shame - shame. All that's important is they continue to smear a President that took action he believed to be in this Nation's best interests.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 16, 2004 11:24:52 AM newLinda, you need to check your facts a bit further. By believe the word of some person on a far-left magazine article?
The *facts* [which can be verified by kerry's voting record] are the intelligence agencies that 'got it wrong' are the same agencies that kerry has voted not to fund. So...there were mistakes made? Great...let's put kerry in office who has voted against giving them the funding they need to be able to do a better job.
Let's put kerry in office who will send our troops to war, ONLY with UN approval, but votes not to fund them.
Somehow you socialists believe that the terrorists can be talked out of their agenda. If we just run and hide we can get the UN to convince them not to harm us. Yea...right.
------------------
logansdad - That district that lost the one seat you speak of in the UK....was populated largely by Muslims. Does that say anything at all to you? Probably not.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 16, 2004 11:26:42 AM new"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
posted on July 16, 2004 12:03:54 PM new
Time to apologize to Bush??? Yeah, right. He should be apologizing to the American People and those who he killed because of his lies. I doubt it will happen, but Bush should be tried for War Crimes for each and every life lost in Iraq including the innocent Iraqi's who died, the innocent American Soldiers who lost their lives because Bush lied so that he, his criminal family, and his cronies could make just a few more billion dollars from the pocketbooks of Americans. Yes, Linda K. Bush is a criminal. It is only a matter of time before his hand gets cut off from sticking it in the cookie jar too many times. When it happens, I will be laughing and celebrating. I hope all you lefties saved some fireworks from the 4th of July for this coming election. It will be a monumental day when we rid ourselves of this Oligarchy.
posted on July 16, 2004 12:09:00 PM new
Yes...oh so much better to put a spineless ultra-liberal in office. One who puts his political career in front of our National Security.
Here are kerrys own words on Iraq/saddam for the past 14 years. And he voted to go to war....just not fund the troops.
---------------------
He must be a liar too....
January 2003
"We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation.
He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait.
He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Those are only two reasons why we need to:
Re-elect President Bush!!
Kerry's statements on Iraq and WOMD for the past 14 years
posted on July 16, 2004 12:13:47 PM new
Quoting Oliver North... That is hysterical. A criminal looking out for other criminals.
Linda K- you really need to wake up and smell the coffee. Next you'll be quoting OJ Simpson to make a point. You really love to support the mass murderers of the world.
posted on July 16, 2004 12:17:34 PM new
On the BDS - Actually this gentleman called it like it is...and while it's been sited on many different URLs....this was the original article - with the full commentary.
And man was he right....he sure hit the nail on the head....
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 16, 2004 12:18:35 PM newHere are Kerry's own words on Iraq/saddam for the past 14 years. And he voted to go to war....just not fund the troops.
Linda, why don't you get your facts straight. Kerry voted against Bush's additional funding for the Iraq war because Bush did not specify where the money was going to be speant. Otherwise Kerry has said time and time again he supports the troops.
He must be a liar too....
Just as much as your pal Bush and company. Where are all those WMD's that Bush said were in Iraq.
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
Just like the right to quote a person that has to cover up for someone else. Good old Oliver North the scapegoat for the Iran-Contra Afair. Now there is someone I can really trust.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 16, 2004 12:24:40 PM new
Oh here we go again lindaofthebraindead ! WHO are you calling spineless? WHO?
Must be Georgie-boy because HE didn't even show up for his military duty and Kerry DID!
Who's spineless?
That always shuts her up!
AND: "He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation.""
So perfectly describes BUSH!
AND:"That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)
DId you read:""""""through the United Nations Security Council""""
AND Linda says,"He must be a liar too.... "
TOO means ALSO ....so you finally admit bush is a liar!
posted on July 16, 2004 12:31:23 PM new
And what have we heard in the news the past couple of days? That kerry blasted this President and asked if he'd even read the intelligence reports...
but, poor guy, it backfired on him. The news came out that while he had promised to read the full report himself....HE LIED...he didn't...he was only briefed on the threats.
But here's he's promised to do just the opposite of what he actually did BEFORE he voted to take this Nation to war.
Yea....we sure can trust him to do what he says.
-----------------
February 2003
Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein "Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable." (Jill Lawrence, "War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates," USA Today, 2/12/03)
"[Kerry] said the Bush administration has taken too long to make its case for military action, 'but nonetheless I am glad we've reached this moment in our diplomacy.'
Kerry added: 'Convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction should trigger, I believe, a final ultimatum from the United Nations for a full, complete, immediate disarmament of those weapons by Iraq.
which is exactly what it did. The UN Security Council's vote was 15-0
Over the next hours, I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to fully examine the evidence offered by the secretary for a complete and close reading. But, on its face, the evidence against Saddam Hussein appears real and compelling.'" (Wayne Washington, "Kennedy,
Others Question Timing Of Attack But Presidential Hopefuls Back War With Iraq," The Boston Globe, 2/6/03)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Those are only two reasons why we need to:
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 16, 2004 12:41 PM ]
posted on July 16, 2004 12:37:42 PM newBut here's he's promised to do just the opposite of what he actually did BEFORE he voted to take this Nation to war.
Linda have you ever heard of the expression..."the buck stops here"? The decision for war lies with Bush not members of Congress. Bush decided to go to war. He had the intelligence reports that he gave to Congress. It was his reponsibility to make sure the intelligence information was accurate, not members of Congress. Congress voted based on the information that was given to them by Bush. Bush needs to accept responsibility for his actions.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 16, 2004 12:39:35 PM new
Spineless are those who steal from the pockets of Americans to fund a war that has done nothing but result in the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqi's and American Soldiers so that Daddy Warbucks (aka King George) can afford more cocaine after his presidency ends in 2004.
posted on July 16, 2004 12:44:20 PM new
Thanks Bob & Linda for the BDS explanation. I found your link amusing Linda... the Ann Coulter book... "Support the Reagan Legacy"... then an explanation of dissenters being paranoid.
posted on July 16, 2004 12:49:51 PM newOtherwise Kerry has said time and time again he supports the troops.
Just how naive can you be? He said he supports them? Does the term 'giving lip-service' mean anything to you?
Don't take my word for it....after all I'm the terrible opposition. Go look for yourself at his *voting record* against defense ...look at his voting record against intelligence...see how he voted on downsizing our troop strength/size/equipment.
There you will find your factual proof....not on some left-leaning website/paper/media propoganda/film maker/lying democratic leaders - who themselves voted to go to war - but who now blast this President for doing EXACTLY what they said, themselves, needed to be done.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
