posted on July 24, 2004 09:12:46 AM new
BTW, Linda.
I think that it's interesting to point out another of our differences.
If someone had called you...several years ago, a drunk whether it was true or not, I would not bring that allegation up again as you have. It's a rather tacky and unscrupulous practice and to do so and says more about you than it does me.
The truth is that I have never been a drunk. Dealing with people such as you and Hepburn is not fun but otherwise, I've met some great people here.
Helen
And just for YOUR clarification when I mentioned that I had more than one "lover" most people understood that I was being facetious and really meant people like you who hate me.
posted on July 24, 2004 09:42:10 AM new
helen - The point is not whether you do or don't drink....many people do.
The point is that you cheerlead those who make personal insults to those you don't like.....*and when questioned on it said you find it humorous*. But you sure don't/didn't find it humorous when it's directed towards you.
Then they're oh-so-mean-and nasty....just the way your lapdog is - but whose behavior you overlook quite easily, and even cheer on.
That's the point.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"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 24, 2004 09:52:56 AM new
OK OK Linda(harriet) you've made the amazing point that we all insult each other, back and forth, everybody does it!
GREAT DICOVERY! You're amazing!
Now, let's get over it.
Take Ozzie back with you, he's grunting again and may need a walk!
posted on July 24, 2004 09:55:35 AM new
Not only did clinton reject the plan to capture bin laden....he didn't do much about dealing with the terrorists at all....
I recall the 'lefties' here being SO upset that President Bush was [in their opinion] giving Canada such a hard time about how they weren't doing enough to screen their ports/boarders. Blaming him for upsetting relations with Canada....because he was trying to protect this Nation.
[taken from humanevents - today]
-------
The massive report released July 22 by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reveals that the Clinton Administration was warned in early 2000 that U.S. borders were open to terrorists and that terrorist sleeper cells had already penetrated the United States.
The warning came in a memo written by National Security Council aide Richard Clarke after al Qaeda had failed in its Millenium Plot, which included plans to detonate a bomb at Los Angeles International airport on Jan. 1, 2000.
[note - this is the document that was 'removed' by Sandy Berger - that has made recent news and that clinton and his supporters....laugh about].
That attack was foiled when terrorist Ahmed Ressam panicked and ran as he was pat-searched by a Customs agent at Port Angeles, Wash., where Ressam had arrived from Canada via ferry.
A search of Ressam's rental car turned up the bomb he intended to use in Los Angeles.
Clarke made recommendations on how the United States could combat the al Qaeda threat. His memo said U.S. efforts thus far had "not put too much of a dent" in Osama bin Laden's network.
In summarizing Clarke's Jan. 11, 2000, memo, the 9/11 commission, says, "If the United States wanted to 'roll back' the threat, disruption would have to proceed at 'a markedly different tempo.' Second, 'sleeper cells' and 'a variety of terrorist groups' had turned up at home."
National Security Council staff advised the Clinton Administration to promote CIA efforts to go after al Qaeda, crack down on terrorists in the United States, and bolster immigration enforcement.
"The NSC staff advised [National Security Adviser Sandy] Berger that the United States had only been 'nibbling at the edges' of Bin Laden's network and that more terror attacks were a question not of 'if' but rather 'when' and 'where,'" says the 9/11 commission report.
"The Principals Committee met March 10, 2000, to review possible new moves. The principles ended up agreeing that the government should take three major steps.
First, more money should go to the CIA to accelerate its efforts to 'seriously attrit' al Qaeda.
Second, there should be a crackdown on foreign terrorist organizations in the United States.
Third, immigration law enforcement should be strengthened, and the INS should tighten controls on the Canadian border (including stepping up U.S-Canada cooperation)."
The Clinton Administration failed to respond aggressively. CIA counterterrorism funding became bogged down in an internal fight in the administration. "The FBI operated a web of informants, conducted electronic surveillance, and had opened significant investigations in a number of field offices," the report continues. But "on a national level . . . the FBI never used the information to gain a systematic or strategic understanding of the nature and extent of al Qaeda fundraising."
On the immigration front, among Clarke's recommendations were "creating an interagency group to target illegal entry," "imposing tighter controls on student visas," and "taking legal action to prevent terrorists from coming to the United States and to remove those already here, detaining them while awaiting removal proceedings."
Concludes the commission: "These proposals were praiseworthy in principle. In practice, however, they required action by weak, chronically underfunded executive agencies and powerful congressional committees, which were more responsive to well-organized interest groups than to executive branch interagency committees."
[article posted in full]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"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 24, 2004 10:00 AM ]
posted on July 24, 2004 10:03:12 AM new
No, the point, Linda is that you brought up a spurious charge against me in an attempt to embarrass me and malign my character. But linda, you are wasting your time and your little attempted smear only served to exhibit your unscrupulous and frankly bizarre tactics.
If you think that crowfarm's remark to you justifies a personal attack on ME then you need serious work on your thinking process.
If crowfarm had made his remark to me and then you had considered it as innocuous as I do, I would not attack YOU unscrupulously in an attempt to make you feel my pain.
If you believe crowfarm's comment was so serious why do you turn around and do what you erroneously consider the same...not to crowfarm but to me?
Helen
Crowfarm's remark didn't smear your character or attack your son. It was one of the most innocuous remarks that I have read in several days.
posted on July 24, 2004 10:17:55 AM newNot only did clinton reject the plan to capture bin laden....
Has Bush been successful in capturing Bin Laden? No. Has he been any more successful than Clinton? No.
While Bush has attacked Afghanistan and has speant three years trying to find him, I do not think Bush has been any more successful in stoping Bin Laden.
he didn't do much about dealing with the terrorists at all....
And I suppose Bush's plan in attacking every single Middle Eastern Country that has allowed the terrorists to roam in their country is the most efficient way of dealing with the terrorists?
Did you not read how the 9/11 commission said we are not any safer today than we were 3 years ago?
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 24, 2004 10:32:03 AM new
In the months preceeding 9/11 Bush spent 42% of his time on vacation....not paying any attention to his advisers on terrorism.
Clinton was distracted with the Monica Lewinsky thing that cost US what..40 million!The Republicans UN-PATRIOTICALLY took the focus off terrorism and instead got their rocks off with trying to impeach the president when most of America didn't give a damn what he did sexually.
The BI PARTISAN (Harriet do you know what BI-PARTISAN means?) 9/11 commission found faults and gave credit to Bush and Clinton
EQUALLY (Harriet, do you know what EQUALLY MEANS?)
posted on July 24, 2004 11:09:58 AM newembarrass me and malign my character.
You do that to yourself...by your own words you type here. Your character is clear to all.
------------------
logansdad - Are you pulling a kerry? Sending our troops off to war and then admitting he didn't read all the intelligence reports before voting to go? READ the 9-11 commission's report. The quotes in my above c&p are in them. clinton FAILED to take strong enough action to prevent the terrorist attacks. He dumped all this mess into Bush's hands...and then you blame him for not doing in less than 7 months....what clinton didn't do since 1993.
---------------
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"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 24, 2004 11:22:55 AM new
Clinton rejected plan to capture bin laden four times.
taken from the Washington Times - today
in full
By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
President Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, rejected four plans to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, worrying once that if the plans failed and al Qaeda launched a counterattack, "we're blamed."
According to the September 11 commission's 567-page report, released Thursday, Mr. Berger was told in June 1999 that U.S. intelligence agents were confident about bin Laden's presence in a terrorist training camp called Tarnak Farms in Afghanistan.
Mr. Berger's "hand-written notes on the meeting paper," the report says, showed that Mr. Berger was worried about injuring or killing civilians located near the camp.
Additionally, "If [bin Laden] responds" to the attack, "we're blamed," Mr. Berger wrote.
The report also says that Richard Clarke, Mr. Berger's expert on counterterrorism, presented that plan to get bin Laden because he was worried about the al Qaeda leader's "ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction."
These revelations come as Mr. Berger is under investigation by the Justice Department for smuggling several copies of classified documents that dealt with the Clinton administration's anti-terror policies out of the National Archives.
Commission Co-chairman Lee Hamilton said Thursday, however, that the missing documents Mr. Berger has acknowledged taking doesn't affect "the integrity" of the final report.
According to the report, the first plan of action against bin Laden presented to Mr. Berger was a briefing by CIA Director George J. Tenet on May 1, 1998. Mr. Berger took no action, the report says, because he was "focused most" on legal questions.
"[Mr. Berger] worried that the hard evidence against bin Laden was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted," the report says.
Mr. Clarke asked Mr. Berger: "Should we pre-empt by attacking [bin Laden's] facilities?"
Mr. Berger decided against it, but later that year, Mr. Clinton ordered an attack on a chemical plant in Sudan that was suspected of providing bin Laden with dangerous weapons material.
Another opportunity to strike at bin Laden occurred on Dec. 4, 1999, according to the report, when Mr. Clarke suggested carrying out an attack on an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan in the last week of the year.
"In the margin next to Clarke's suggestion," the report states in a footnote, "Berger wrote, 'no.' "
Finally, in August of 2000, five months before Mr. Clinton left office, Mr. Berger was told that aerial surveillance from a Predator drone suggested another opportunity to kill bin Laden.
Mr. Clarke told Mr. Berger that the imagery captured by the Predator was "truly astounding," and expressed confidence that more missions could find bin Laden. Mr. Berger, however, "worried that a Predator might be shot down, and warned Clarke that such an event would be a 'bonanza' for bin Laden and the Taliban."
"In the memo's margin," the report states, "Berger wrote that before considering action, 'I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.' "
The commission's report also notes a speech that Mr. Clinton gave to the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002, in which ? in the answer to a query from a member of the audience ? he said that Sudan offered to turn over bin Laden to U.S. custody, but Mr. Clinton refused because "there was no indictment" in hand.
Mr. Clinton told the commission in April that he had "misspoken" and was never offered bin Laden.
Frank J. Gaffney, a former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy under President Reagan, said the September 11 report makes it clear that the Clinton administration "didn't take terrorism terribly seriously."
"Their approach to terrorism was like their approach to national security in general," Mr. Gaffney said. "They certainly didn't pursue it in any consistent and robust way."
To strike at al Qaeda the way Mr. Clarke suggested several times, Mr. Gaffney said, would have involved defending the actions as thoroughly as President Bush has the invasion of Iraq.
Mr. Berger defended the bombing of the suspected Sudan chemical factory in a February 1999 press conference by saying that "had we not and had a chemical weapon been used subsequently in the San Francisco subway system, I would find it hard to have defended our inaction."
"At the very least, [striking at bin Laden] should have been tried," Mr. Gaffney said. "It would have been better and easier and more prudent to deal with that threat in Sudan or in Afghanistan rather than have to deal with it in New York or Washington."
---------------
oh yes, let's elect kerry - one FAR more liberal than clinton - and put another hand wringer - lawyer-the-issue-to-death president in office. Sure don't want to upset any of our allies that are in the middle of illegal deals with saddam - we'll react, MAYBE, AFTER we're attacked again.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"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 24, 2004 11:49:56 AM new
AND Harriet, I thought you were on the side of people who don't believe women should have an opinion.....better take those "pants" off and get back in that kitchen !!!!
posted on July 24, 2004 11:50:10 AM new
Linda_K, Bush is trying to bribe N.Korea with billions of U.S. Dollars in aid. So far N.Korea has rejected the Bush bribe. Because you were so dishonest in your twisted replies to me I can no longer show you any respect or trust a word you say. I believe you have lowered yourself to the same low level as yellowtoes and bear 1949 have put themselves in. I firmly believe you have sold out and sold your soul for a few pieces of silver. I believe you have lost touch with reality or are a despicable dishonest person. Either way I pity you.
DEMOCRATS NEED TO OUTSOURCE GEO BUSH ALONG WITH PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT HIM FOR A STRONGER BETTER AMERICA!!!!
posted on July 24, 2004 11:50:31 AM new
LOL - There's that GREAT character you speak of helen. While you bash others for taking things out of context you do the same thing here.
I won't bother to find both quotes....but this one's from 3-13-02 press conference.
Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"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 24, 2004 12:06:30 PM new
bigpeepa - Thanks for another great laugh from a leftie. that's real funny. You're now going to start doing what you've already been doing?
And read a little....Bush is doing NOTHING different, as of YESTERDAY, than he has said he will do IF NK disarms. Period. You can't back up what you're saying because it's not true.
And you have the nerve to call ME an old bag of wind? Look in your own mirror.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"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 24, 2004 12:10:59 PM new
Dummy, your quote does not contain either of my quotes so how could either be out of your context. What a fabrication/twist.
I agree with bigpeepa. I'm beginning to pity you.
Helen
In addition every single one of your quotes was taken out of context.
Quotes are generally taken out of context and that is ok if the meaning is not changed. Should I request that you include the context for all of the quotes that you posted?
posted on July 24, 2004 12:24:31 PM new
difference is helen....it's YOU who is constantly saying it's taken out of context....then do it yourself.
I don't go around accusing people of that. Just using it now to point out one on your oh-so-long-list of double standards.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"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 24, 2004 12:40:24 PM new
Linda, when partial statements are taken out of context, and when the intended meaning is changed by taking something out of context then that is wrong. That's not the case with these comments.
Everything that he said in that paragraph from which the statement was taken was damaging to Bush. First he admits that he doesn't spend much time on bin Laden. Although he stated that he was worried about the soldiers being well supplied we know now that they were not. We know that the strategy was a disaster and we know that the numbers were not sufficient to keep the troops safe in a war that should not have been waged in the first place.
posted on July 24, 2004 12:58:43 PM new
Linda(harriet) is so two-faced. At the beginning of this thread she said that women shouldn't have opinions and NOW she just can't keep her pinched little mouth shut!
JEEZZZ Harriet, make up your mind...why should YOU be more special than other women???
posted on July 23, 2004 05:41:14 PM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I'm renaming linda and Bear Ozzie and Harriet for their ancient, sexist, early 20th century views.
Who "wears the pants" went out with intelligent people when women got the vote!
Wonder who "wears the pants" in THEIR families?
What exactly does this mean...that women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen? Like slaves? Oh, I forgot, neocons LIKE slavery.
Does it mean that women should just fetch the beer and keep their mouths shut? Never disagree with men???
What do you exactly do you mean?
So the SECRETARY of STATE and the First Lady didn't want to deal with terrorists....what nasty-ass people THEY must be.
They had the backbone to take an active stand and, of course, neocons fault this.
posted on July 24, 2004 01:10:39 PM newAt the beginning of this thread she said that women shouldn't have opinions
You only prove that you're a liar to everyone who doesn't have you on ignore. I never said that. Maybe that's why helen thinks so much of you.....and supports your false lies and statements....it's your great character.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"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 24, 2004 01:27:20 PM newClinton rejected plan to capture bin laden four times
And I suppose Linda you know for a fact that bin Laden would have been at the places were the intelligence said he was going to be. It is not like Bin laden sent the CIA a note saying I will be at the McDonald's in Afghanistan on Tuesday March 3rd come and get me...
Go ahead and believe the intelligence reports if you like. This is the same group of government agencies that could not stop the 19 hijackers from entering the US. This is the same intellience agencies that gave Bush the information so he could decide going to war in Iraq.
I suppose you believe the government is always right.
Heck why don't you go and try to find Bin Laden if you think it is so easy to get him. You can claim a big reward if you do find him. Then Bush can go ahead and worship you.
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 24, 2004 01:31:59 PM new
Well, explain this archaic piece of horseship......
""""LOL - figures....we've always known who wears the pants in that union.""""
Linda(harriet) this phrase comes from the era when women were expected to cook, have babies and keep their opinions to themselves.
It's sexist, implying that if women have an opinion they're the boss in the relationship.
Now, I know intelligent, powerful, successful, rich, powerful women like Madeleine Allbright and Hillary Clinton (remember Theresa Kerry) make you gag but to try to insult them with such a stupid old-fashioned phrase just because they're so far above you is ridiculous.
posted on July 24, 2004 03:56:00 PM newBush has only increased the terrorism by inflaming the mid-east, making Bin Laden's job easier
But Clinton in firing one cruise missle to kill a few camels gave bin Laden the impression that the U.S. would NEVER use any greater force to combat terrorism. leading the way to the destruction of the WTC.
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on July 24, 2004 06:10:38 PM newBut Clinton in firing one cruise missle to kill a few camels gave bin Laden the impression that the U.S. would NEVER use any greater force to combat terrorism. leading the way to the destruction of the WTC.
But Bush attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 gets the Muslims and the rest of the Middle East mad at the U.S. Thus wanting to seek revenge on Bush and the U.S.
It is a cycle that will not end.
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.
[ edited by logansdad on Jul 25, 2004 06:54 AM ]
