THE SLEEPING GIANT - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Japanese Imperial Navy
The above quote was stated by Yamamoto shortly after he received word of the results of the attack that he authored on Pearl Harbor in 1941. When informed that his true goal of eliminating The United States Pacific Fleet including all Aircraft Carriers had failed in his estimation and the fleet was somewhat intact especially all of the carriers Yamamoto knew that the United States would be filled with a, "terrible resolve," and that the final out come would be dire for Japan. The, "sleeping giant." This one phrase offers the best description of The United States and our capabilities and how we manage them that has ever been given by an enemy or an ally when considering how we historically and currently approach and view the world. We are the," sleeping giant," lulled into a sense of security by the very freedom that when we fight we fight for and only awakened when catastrophic measures are taken against us because of a perceived weakness when we refuse to accept that because of who we are we are a target for a world of fanatics that see our freedom as threatening and our peaceful nature as weakness. Our freedom threatens fanatics because they offer no such freedom to those who either follow them blindly or have been under oppression for so long that they know of nothing but the oppression whether this be an oppressive regime or an oppressive ideology. Our peaceful nature gives fanatics the courage to attack us because they perceive that nature as an unwillingness to defend ourselves or use what we have to fight for what we believe. This peaceful nature and our respect for life is also perceived as a weakness because we grieve at the loss of one soldier or civilian because as Americans we believe that all life is precious and as such should not be taken for granted nor taken lightly and when sacrificed must be sacrificed for the cause of liberty and even then with regret. This very concern for life also gives us pause when using our great might because of the devastating effects that it can bring about. With great power though comes great responsibility and this too is how The United States is viewed by much of the world and why we are also hated by some because our strength and compassion is viewed as arrogance because we accept the responsibility of power and the leadership that comes with it which also makes us a target for those who refuse to understand our true intentions which are always to assist for the betterment and share freedom. Unfortunately there are also many in our own country who agree with this hatred because of our strength and as such view their own country as the enemy of the world and the cause of its problems and are part of the problem and a detriment to the answer. Yet despite this the world looks to us for answers and unfortunately when those answers include our respect for life and the right of all people to live free those who believe otherwise see us as an enemy.
Another challenge that comes from being a, "sleeping giant," is that in living in the freedoms that we hold dear we have a sense of security and optimism that catches us off guard when we view trouble in the world from a distance. We were caught off guard until the sinking of the Lucitania brought WWI home to this nation. We were caught off guard until Pearl Harbor brought WWII home even to our very shores and we were caught off guard until September 11 brought the evil of terrorism to our front door. It is then when catastrophe threatens our security and freedom that this , "sleeping giant," is filled with the, "terrible resolve, " to act and to use the great power that is ours to eliminate the evil that is thrust upon us. We entered WWI and our presence brought an end to a conflict that had killed millions throughout the world but our strength tilted the balance for good. We entered WWII and our bravery, industrial might and leadership turned the tide and the enemies of the world were forced into an unconditional surrender that eliminated their capability to seek world domination ever again. After September 11 this nation was filled with a resolve to destroy those who brought the evil of terrorism to our home. Terrorism to most though took on only the face of Al Qaeda and as such the resolve was to seek out and destroy only this one face of terrorism while the many other faces of terrorism are not seen as an enemy nor as a reason to use our great power to eliminate. Because of this we again are becoming the," sleeping giant," and are being lulled into a sense of security that believes that though the warnings are there and the enemy is still viable because Al Qaeda is weakened the United States is less likely to be attacked again as on 9/11. I realize that many say we will be attacked but most do not believe it and as such our resolve has become weak and we are closing our eyes to threats that are just as great and seek the same result as those who flew the planes on 9/11, the destruction and end of freedom and the United States and the beginning of a world dominated by Islam and the fanatical ideology that drives Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and states like Iran and Syria. As such we are seeking negotiation with the very evil that seeks our destruction and displaying a weakness because we have lost our resolve that is being perceived as an opportunity by those same fanatical entities to further lull the, "sleeping giant, " into a position that further weakens our resolve and through this deception decreases our security and increases our vulnerability to another attack while also exposing our troops to greater risk as their hands are tied by the dictates of politics and negotiation.
Prior to WWII British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin met with Adolph Hitler and negotiated the annexation of the Sudutanland which consisted of most of western Czechoslovakia to Germany in trade for the promise of the end of Germany's aggressive actions in Europe. Chamberlin returned to England claiming , "peace in our time, " and this appeasement lulled Europe into a false sense of security which allowed Germany to continue its buildup and soon afterwards the invasion and defeat of Poland and France followed. We are at a similar crossroad with the suggested negotiation with the terror states of Iran and Syria in the Middle East. We are being lulled into the same false sense of security by these two countries and negotiating with them will bring similar results as the appeasement of Chamberlin but only this time Iraq and the Middle East will be the toll used by these two terror states. We as the lone superpower have the ability and the means to prevent both the domination of the Middle East by Iran which is their true goal and also insure a free Iraq at the same time while protecting Israel's right to exist if we would but use our capabilities and stop fearing to flex our muscle and wake the, "sleeping giant, " with a , "terrible resolve." This does not mean that we have to use that muscle to destroy everything in its path nor does it mean that we even have to overthrow the terror regimes that see us as weak. We need but only show that we have the resolve to prevent their domination and refuse to negotiate with their demands as well as make our presence felt in a way that will give them pause to realize what they are up against if they choose to continue their destructive plans of domination.
President Reagan proved that the presence of United States strength had the ability to bring about the desired out come when he refused to bow to the Soviet Union as we had for forty years and through the display of our power and a resolve to stop Soviet domination brought about the collapse of the, "evil empire, " and the end of communist expansion and virtually the end of communism in the world. We have the military might to move into the region around the Arabian Gulf to prove to Iran and Syria as well as other terror entities that we will not stand for their threats nor for their dominance in the region and forcing puppet regimes under their control such as Lebanon. With the very presence of The United States in full force this enemy will finally understand that we mean business and if needs be will use the full power of America to stop their fanatical take over of the world. In Iraq using our muscle to step forward and stop the violence with a greater presence and the might of the military to control the country will give the Iraqi government without the interference of Iran and Syria or destructive factions from within the time and ability to form the free government that Iraqi citizens have voted for. If it means militarily closing the borders then it must be done. If it means becoming a military occupying force in the same sense as we were in Japan allowing the Japanese to rebuild and form a government then so be it. In the long run it will cost fewer American lives, prevent terror dominance by groups like Al Qaeda and states like Iran and finally achieve the goal of peace in the Middle East while also ending the threat of terrorism bringing victory in a war that we must fight though not by our choice but ended by the way of our choosing. We have the ability to bring this about but what lacks is the resolve and frankly the guts to make it happen. We stepped forward and ended WWI by our strength and presence. We stepped foward and ended WWII through our leadership and our power and now it is time again for the, "sleeping giant, " to wake up and through our , "terrible resolve, " end terrorism in this world and treat Iran and Syrian as the rogue and small entities that they truly are by refusing to recognize them as a, "player, " isolating them and proving to them that we have the strength and ability to keep them in check. The ultimate result of all of this will be the continued security and protection of our nation!
Ken Taylor
The above quote was stated by Yamamoto shortly after he received word of the results of the attack that he authored on Pearl Harbor in 1941. When informed that his true goal of eliminating The United States Pacific Fleet including all Aircraft Carriers had failed in his estimation and the fleet was somewhat intact especially all of the carriers Yamamoto knew that the United States would be filled with a, "terrible resolve," and that the final out come would be dire for Japan. The, "sleeping giant." This one phrase offers the best description of The United States and our capabilities and how we manage them that has ever been given by an enemy or an ally when considering how we historically and currently approach and view the world. We are the," sleeping giant," lulled into a sense of security by the very freedom that when we fight we fight for and only awakened when catastrophic measures are taken against us because of a perceived weakness when we refuse to accept that because of who we are we are a target for a world of fanatics that see our freedom as threatening and our peaceful nature as weakness. Our freedom threatens fanatics because they offer no such freedom to those who either follow them blindly or have been under oppression for so long that they know of nothing but the oppression whether this be an oppressive regime or an oppressive ideology. Our peaceful nature gives fanatics the courage to attack us because they perceive that nature as an unwillingness to defend ourselves or use what we have to fight for what we believe. This peaceful nature and our respect for life is also perceived as a weakness because we grieve at the loss of one soldier or civilian because as Americans we believe that all life is precious and as such should not be taken for granted nor taken lightly and when sacrificed must be sacrificed for the cause of liberty and even then with regret. This very concern for life also gives us pause when using our great might because of the devastating effects that it can bring about. With great power though comes great responsibility and this too is how The United States is viewed by much of the world and why we are also hated by some because our strength and compassion is viewed as arrogance because we accept the responsibility of power and the leadership that comes with it which also makes us a target for those who refuse to understand our true intentions which are always to assist for the betterment and share freedom. Unfortunately there are also many in our own country who agree with this hatred because of our strength and as such view their own country as the enemy of the world and the cause of its problems and are part of the problem and a detriment to the answer. Yet despite this the world looks to us for answers and unfortunately when those answers include our respect for life and the right of all people to live free those who believe otherwise see us as an enemy.
Another challenge that comes from being a, "sleeping giant," is that in living in the freedoms that we hold dear we have a sense of security and optimism that catches us off guard when we view trouble in the world from a distance. We were caught off guard until the sinking of the Lucitania brought WWI home to this nation. We were caught off guard until Pearl Harbor brought WWII home even to our very shores and we were caught off guard until September 11 brought the evil of terrorism to our front door. It is then when catastrophe threatens our security and freedom that this , "sleeping giant," is filled with the, "terrible resolve, " to act and to use the great power that is ours to eliminate the evil that is thrust upon us. We entered WWI and our presence brought an end to a conflict that had killed millions throughout the world but our strength tilted the balance for good. We entered WWII and our bravery, industrial might and leadership turned the tide and the enemies of the world were forced into an unconditional surrender that eliminated their capability to seek world domination ever again. After September 11 this nation was filled with a resolve to destroy those who brought the evil of terrorism to our home. Terrorism to most though took on only the face of Al Qaeda and as such the resolve was to seek out and destroy only this one face of terrorism while the many other faces of terrorism are not seen as an enemy nor as a reason to use our great power to eliminate. Because of this we again are becoming the," sleeping giant," and are being lulled into a sense of security that believes that though the warnings are there and the enemy is still viable because Al Qaeda is weakened the United States is less likely to be attacked again as on 9/11. I realize that many say we will be attacked but most do not believe it and as such our resolve has become weak and we are closing our eyes to threats that are just as great and seek the same result as those who flew the planes on 9/11, the destruction and end of freedom and the United States and the beginning of a world dominated by Islam and the fanatical ideology that drives Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and states like Iran and Syria. As such we are seeking negotiation with the very evil that seeks our destruction and displaying a weakness because we have lost our resolve that is being perceived as an opportunity by those same fanatical entities to further lull the, "sleeping giant, " into a position that further weakens our resolve and through this deception decreases our security and increases our vulnerability to another attack while also exposing our troops to greater risk as their hands are tied by the dictates of politics and negotiation.
Prior to WWII British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin met with Adolph Hitler and negotiated the annexation of the Sudutanland which consisted of most of western Czechoslovakia to Germany in trade for the promise of the end of Germany's aggressive actions in Europe. Chamberlin returned to England claiming , "peace in our time, " and this appeasement lulled Europe into a false sense of security which allowed Germany to continue its buildup and soon afterwards the invasion and defeat of Poland and France followed. We are at a similar crossroad with the suggested negotiation with the terror states of Iran and Syria in the Middle East. We are being lulled into the same false sense of security by these two countries and negotiating with them will bring similar results as the appeasement of Chamberlin but only this time Iraq and the Middle East will be the toll used by these two terror states. We as the lone superpower have the ability and the means to prevent both the domination of the Middle East by Iran which is their true goal and also insure a free Iraq at the same time while protecting Israel's right to exist if we would but use our capabilities and stop fearing to flex our muscle and wake the, "sleeping giant, " with a , "terrible resolve." This does not mean that we have to use that muscle to destroy everything in its path nor does it mean that we even have to overthrow the terror regimes that see us as weak. We need but only show that we have the resolve to prevent their domination and refuse to negotiate with their demands as well as make our presence felt in a way that will give them pause to realize what they are up against if they choose to continue their destructive plans of domination.
President Reagan proved that the presence of United States strength had the ability to bring about the desired out come when he refused to bow to the Soviet Union as we had for forty years and through the display of our power and a resolve to stop Soviet domination brought about the collapse of the, "evil empire, " and the end of communist expansion and virtually the end of communism in the world. We have the military might to move into the region around the Arabian Gulf to prove to Iran and Syria as well as other terror entities that we will not stand for their threats nor for their dominance in the region and forcing puppet regimes under their control such as Lebanon. With the very presence of The United States in full force this enemy will finally understand that we mean business and if needs be will use the full power of America to stop their fanatical take over of the world. In Iraq using our muscle to step forward and stop the violence with a greater presence and the might of the military to control the country will give the Iraqi government without the interference of Iran and Syria or destructive factions from within the time and ability to form the free government that Iraqi citizens have voted for. If it means militarily closing the borders then it must be done. If it means becoming a military occupying force in the same sense as we were in Japan allowing the Japanese to rebuild and form a government then so be it. In the long run it will cost fewer American lives, prevent terror dominance by groups like Al Qaeda and states like Iran and finally achieve the goal of peace in the Middle East while also ending the threat of terrorism bringing victory in a war that we must fight though not by our choice but ended by the way of our choosing. We have the ability to bring this about but what lacks is the resolve and frankly the guts to make it happen. We stepped forward and ended WWI by our strength and presence. We stepped foward and ended WWII through our leadership and our power and now it is time again for the, "sleeping giant, " to wake up and through our , "terrible resolve, " end terrorism in this world and treat Iran and Syrian as the rogue and small entities that they truly are by refusing to recognize them as a, "player, " isolating them and proving to them that we have the strength and ability to keep them in check. The ultimate result of all of this will be the continued security and protection of our nation!
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 9:09 AM
33 Comments:
Great Post!
I'm not sure the half of this Country that knows there is a war going on are lulled back to sleep or just quiet, keeping to themselves, and watching every one around them.
You could see that in the latest Fiasco with the "Flying Imam's"
The Passengers were very alert and well aware of what was going on. And applauded when the Imam's were taken off the plane.
Now those that ignore the fact that we are at war do everything they possibly can to disrupt everybody and everything with the idiotic notion that we should go back to a "Police State" of mind.
However I bet there are more people watching than we know about.
I bet even the Liberals watch out for things, they are just to scared they will upset the PC crowd to admit it.
I know what you mean though, it sounds pretty quiet out there sometimes.
Who are you at war with? Terror? Terror is an emotion. Are at war with an emotion?
Or are you at war with terrorism? Which is a tactic that has been around since the begining of time, and will always exist?
Or are you at war with Iraq (the Iraqi people) even though Saddam was captured, and we now know for a fact that there were no impending "mushroom clouds" or WMDs?
Or are you going to pick sides between the Islamic Fundamentalist Shia's or the Bathist Secular(ish) Sunnis?
Too bad our army is being used as security for the 100,000 "private contractors" in Bagdhad.
we now know for a fact that there were no impending "mushroom clouds" or WMDs?
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing, kitty? And what would you have us: wait until the threat is imminent, rather than respond before the threat becomes imminent?
"Too bad our army is being used as security for the 100,000 "private contractors" in Bagdhad."
"your chimp lied. and you liked the lie."
We have our tin foil hats on extra tight today I see.
WSmith- I wouldn't have cherry picked the intel, nor, lied to the American people, that's for sure. Fear mongering is not securtity. It's the opposite of securtity. It's crying "wolf."
Fear mongering is not securtity.
Neither is sticking your head in the sand.
And who lied to the American people, exactly?
Woa! You sure do have the dingbats, er... moonbats out on this one, hon. Dang!
What are these people doing anyway; smoking their own socks? I can't believe the comments by mudkitty: "Terror is an emotion?" Yeah... well, let's see how emotional she gets when someone tries to blow her butt up! Too bad she didn't get a first hand interview of the twin towers episode and live through it. I'll just bet she would have had an entirely different view on it then. Or how about being on one of those planes? Hmmm? Really wonderful to be in denial when you're not there, isn't it?
Hello! Bush lied about WMD's and so did Rice, Rummy, Cheney and Powell. (Now don't start justifying the lies with 1998 Clinton intel...are you going to say that the Bushies relied on 5 year old intel to go to war in '03?)
There's a big difference between lying as to the reasons for going to war, and sticking your head in the sand. There's a reason that rightwingers have always been described as extreamists, and this is an illustration. For rightwingers, it's either bomb the sh-t out of people you disagree with and/or fear, or stick your head in the sand. It's a false dichotomy.
As for the twin towers, Iraq had nothing to do with that...Bush's family friends, and business partners, the Bin Ladens and the Saudi Royalty, did.
It's sad that some would try to make their point on the backs of the 3000 dead.
And as for my ass being blown up, at the rate that the republican war on terror is going, rightwingers may get their wish, cuz Bush has really screwed up, and screwed up big time. He's made the country way less safe. He's lit a tinderbox. He took a baseball bat to a hornets nest. He's made a big doo doo, poo poo.
And now, if we need to fight them over here, we can't cuz we're over there.
Hello! Bush lied about WMD's and so did Rice, Rummy, Cheney and Powell.
Proof please. Not just accusations.
(Now don't start justifying the lies with 1998 Clinton intel...are you going to say that the Bushies relied on 5 year old intel to go to war in '03?)
It wasn't just Clinton intell. Agencies all over the world, including Putin warning us that Iraq was planning terror attacks on the U.S. And "regime change" was an inherited part of American foreign policy in dealing with Iraq. Do you think the status quo was going on just swimmingly, in how Saddam was "bottled up"?
There's a big difference between lying as to the reasons for going to war,
And there's a big difference between lying and making valid judgment call based upon the available intelligence. The irresponsible thing, based upon known intelligence at the time, would have been to do nothing.
I can actually see good arguments against having chosen Iraq as the next step in the GWOT. But what I find dishonest are the anti-war people hollering about "no wmds", when they were against the war even back when they believed that Saddam did have wmds and posed a threat. So the wmd argument made no difference to them.
As for everyone now, what I don't understand is how even if you were against the war in the beginning, how you can actively do everything imaginable to sabotage and hamstring our ability to "win" in Iraq. There are people on your side who are so steeped in Bush-hatred, that they've allowed that hatred to override their desire to see America win and Iraq to be a free and liberated society. You'd think the Dems would be thrilled, based on humanitarian grounds.
and sticking your head in the sand.
What do you make of it when there are Dems who deny that terrorism is even a threat? That it's a fabrication to keep Americans living in a state of fear? Used as as political tool? You folks are in denial, who don't perceive the threat of Islamic terror.
There's a reason that rightwingers have always been described as extreamists, and this is an illustration.
And leftwingers never are described thus? Eco-terrorists? Environmental whackjobs? You don't consider many lefties on the fringe, as well?
For rightwingers, it's either bomb the sh-t out of people you disagree with and/or fear, or stick your head in the sand. It's a false dichotomy.
For lefties as well, my friend. For lefties as well.
As for the twin towers, Iraq had nothing to do with that...
Keep telling yourself that, and maybe you'll convince yourself that President Bush actually stated that Iraq had a hand in 9/11. Another strawman argument.
Bush's family friends, and business partners, the Bin Ladens and the Saudi Royalty, did.
American leadership have always had ties to the Saudi royal family. Everyone wishes we were less cozy with the Saudis. So what? Down this path lies the way of conspiracy whackos.
It's sad that some would try to make their point on the backs of the 3000 dead.
HAHAHAHA! You just did!!!!
And as for my ass being blown up, at the rate that the republican war on terror is going, rightwingers may get their wish, cuz Bush has really screwed up, and screwed up big time. He's made the country way less safe. He's lit a tinderbox. He took a baseball bat to a hornets nest. He's made a big doo doo, poo poo.
So Dems would be stronger on national security? They would have made us more safe? The Dems who have been against The Patriot Act, the NSA Surveillance programs, etc.?
And now, if we need to fight them over here, we can't cuz we're over there.
That....was just too rich. LMAO! I wanna read that again:
And now, if we need to fight them over here, we can't cuz we're over there.
ROFL!
For proof, I suggest you go to any number of sites that show videos of virtually all of the Bushies saying that Iraq had WMDs. I suggest you view the footage of Powell speaking at the UN - the just of which he later said he regreted saying. It's not my fault that you're not well informed.
I knew you were going to bring up the "all over the world" bit. It's was still 5 year old intel, that the Bushies were trying to sell you, and you bought it. In hindsight, you were wrong.
Bush has stated, recently, when backed up against the wall, that "I never said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11." And he didn't, he merely attempted to imply it without stating it, so his legal ass could be covered. But he never said it. You prove that he said it. As for my proof, you may refer to any number of press conferences that Bush gave over that previous summer. Again, it's not my fault that you dobn't know this, considering you only read the Moonie times and World Nut Daily.
I challenge you to proove to me that Bush directly stated that, rather than implied, that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 were carried out by Saudis and Yemenis. Not Iraqis. That would have made Iraqis our enemy (so why liberate them...?)
Ties to the Saudis? America has always had to contend with the Bush family. And that doesn't get W off the hook for being business partners with the Bin Laden's in his Harking business. Look it up. Again, I'm not responsible for the fact that you don't know these facts.
As for the 3000 dead - you say "ha ha!" Creepy.
Yes the Dems will be stronger on National Securtity, because you can't get worse then republicans who buy every bite of pap that the Bushies feed them. The lies, the inuendos...Dems won't cherry pick 5 year old intel. Dems won't lie you into a quagmire. Running around screaming the sky is falling is not National Security.
So, how do you expect to fight them over here, if we have to, when we're over there, genius? Suddenly bring them all back? What? What's your big plan, if we get attacked over here?
Sorry, Bush's company was called Harkin, and the major investors were the Bin Ladens. Look it up. It's a matter of the public record.
You know if you keep feeding this moonbat mudslinger it will stay.
What a loon! Might as well dig up the Bush-Hitler link while your're at it.
Totally irrelevant to the problem and only serves to distract people from REAL danger.
Now, if I might return to the topic which your moonbat seems so eager to avoid:
Had the giant not been sleeping, the consequences of "terrible resolve" might not have been necessary.
At the end of WW2 we realized we could not totally disarm and go back to sleep, so we kept our military strong.
But the resolve of the people slept again as we began to confront the problem of attacks by Islamic fascists.
And it would seem that some, like that idiot mudslinger, are only too happy for the giant to remain asleep until the cost for waking is indeed high.
Have we learned nothing from history?
Good post, long but well worth the read. I would agree with your points. We (America) have great power in the world, with great power comes great responsibility. While that responsibility can mean using restraint, contrary to most peace-nic liberals, it does not mean that we at all times use restraint. At times situations require us to “unleash the dogs of war” (lefties, spare me any references to Abu Graib because you know I am talking about an old saying.) Look at the way we fight war now, it is insane. We are more concerned about anyone except us. The old tactics of carpet bombing the enemy has been tossed to the side. Nuclear weapons, while we say “every option is on the table” I seriously doubt any of our nuclear force will ever be used. Note they still serve as a deterrent so to answer your question lefties… no I do not want to get rid of our nuclear weapons.
Mudkitty,
“Or are you at war with terrorism? Which is a tactic that has been around since the begining of time, and will always exist?”
- Huh, well Nazi’s are still around. We will never rid the world of all Nazi’s. Should we have not bothered dealing with Hitler? Nazi’s will always exist.
“Bush lied about WMD's and so did Rice, Rummy, Cheney and Powell.”
- Right, because he decided to try to deal with the world by going to the UN and giving Saddam time to move military related items and weapons out of the country. I know you don’t like to believe it but there is evidence of heavy traffic in the weeks prior to the war from Iraq to Syria. We should not warn people and give them the time to move things around. Saddam used WMDs in the past, that means nothing to you right?
“For proof, I suggest you go to any number of sites that show videos of virtually all of the Bushies saying that Iraq had WMDs.”
- Because that is what the intelligence community concluded. How are they lying when all they are doing is basing their words and decisions on the information provided? The intelligence from around the world and OTHER countries was not all 5 years old. I’d like to know how you conclude yourself that all this intelligence you speak of is old? It wasn’t. You can argue it was wrong, but it was not “old” and the administration was not “lying.” Maybe you need to start looking up the meaning of words.
“Bush's company was called Harkin, and the major investors were the Bin Ladens.”
- You do realize that the Bin Laden family has disowned Osama. So because of one helluva rotten apple in the family you wish to punish them when there is little to no proof that any money is going from the family to Osama.
“In 1994 bin Laden's family publicly disowned him, shortly before the Saudi Arabian government revoked his citizenship for anti-government activity. He attended his son's wedding in January 2001, but since September 11 of that year he is believed only to have had contact with his mother on one occasion.” His family disowned him, the Government booted him… oh yes I see the strong ties that you are concerned about.
For proof, I suggest you go to any number of sites that show videos of virtually all of the Bushies saying that Iraq had WMDs. I suggest you view the footage of Powell speaking at the UN - the just of which he later said he regreted saying. It's not my fault that you're not well informed.
Don't tease....link me to the straight dope on the subject. C'mon, kitty, kitty....shoot me up. I wanna see those moonbat links to youtube videos and DU sites.
Although the Senate Intelligence Committee said pre-war intelligence by the CIA was flawed, they found that no one in the Bush Administration "attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities."
I knew you were going to bring up the "all over the world" bit. It's was still 5 year old intel, that the Bushies were trying to sell you, and you bought it. In hindsight, you were wrong.
The decision was based in large part on the findings of the U.N. and IAEA weapons inspectors and that of foreign intel. Every government in the world believed Saddam posed a danger. Democrat Congressmen, British and Russian intelligence agencies all believed Saddam posed a danger. Richard Butler who headed the team investigating Saddam's weapons programs said: "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself: Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction." David Kay told the Senate Armed Services Committee: "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion — although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."
Translations of the Saddam Documents only confirms for me, that deposing Saddam was the right course of action, and that pre-war intelligence wasn't as far off as we've been led to believe, in stating the dangers posed by Saddam.
David Kay also said "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president [an apology] rather than the president owing [one to] the American people."
Bush has stated, recently, when backed up against the wall, that "I never said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11." And he didn't, he merely attempted to imply it without stating it, so his legal ass could be covered. But he never said it. You prove that he said it. As for my proof, you may refer to any number of press conferences that Bush gave over that previous summer. Again, it's not my fault that you dobn't know this, considering you only read the Moonie times and World Nut Daily.
Lol....Go over to my blog and list how often I've linked to World Net Daily. Look over at my sidebar and you tell me if I only list rightwing sources.
Lefties such as yourself seem to have a listening and reading comprehension problem. I've never once gone into this believing we weren't in this for the long haul; that it would be a cakewalk. Nor have I ever once thought Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. The dumb-dumbs in the Democrat Party seem to confuse "Saddam had a hand in 9/11" to "Iraq with questionable links to al Qaeda" as somehow meaning the same thing. You weren't misled. You deceived yourself, hon. Don't blame Bush for your own shortcomings.
Democrats just don't get it when it comes to fighting the global war against terrorism. Wishing to go back to living in a 9/10 world is sticking your head back in the sand. You're here, post 9/11. Deal with it. President Bush is not responsible for the times we live in, anymore than I personally would blame Clinton. President Bush is responsible for dealing with the rough times we live in. The Islamo-nutcases have brought this on. And denial that it exists is why Democrats can't be trusted with national security.
I challenge you to proove to me that Bush directly stated that, rather than implied, that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 were carried out by Saudis and Yemenis. Not Iraqis. That would have made Iraqis our enemy (so why liberate them...?)
This is just perfectly illustrative of your mindset. Of how you perceive the situation. The whole case was laid out for you back in 2003...and it had to do with more than just wmds and liberation (which was given as part of the case for war).
Ties to the Saudis? America has always had to contend with the Bush family. And that doesn't get W off the hook for being business partners with the Bin Laden's in his Harking business. Look it up. Again, I'm not responsible for the fact that you don't know these facts.
What I'm saying is "who cares?!" And Dick Cheney had ties to Halliburton. It doesn't invalidate the fact that America has real enemies who have wanted to kill us even before the Bush Administration came into office.
As for the 3000 dead - you say "ha ha!" Creepy.
See? Reading comprehension problem. I laughed at you because you fail to see the irony in what you typed:
It's sad that some would try to make their point on the backs of the 3000 dead.
To which I responded, "you just did." You used the number "3000 dead" as a point, supposedly backing up your justification for invalidating this war. You think all 3000 of those honored dead approve of your use of them for your political power points? Every step of the way, the anti-war crowd have "celebrated" each milestone: "100 dead" the headlines used to scream...then it was "500"....then "1000", all the way up to today's numbers. WTF? You yourself made the comparison between this war and WWII. Just how many of those numbered milestones would you scream about when American soldiers gave their lives at Iwo Jima? Normandy? You say this war has lasted longer than WWII, but percentage-wise, how many lives have we lost so far fighting this war, compared to that one? And yet we're losing?! The problem here, is that you don't see the costs in lives and in finances as a worthy and necessary sacrifice. What would the cost be to our society had we not engaged the War on Terror? Might the number of casualties be even greater than the 3000 soldiers and 3000 9/11 citizens that we have lost, thus far?
Yes the Dems will be stronger on National Securtity, because you can't get worse then republicans who buy every bite of pap that the Bushies feed them. The lies, the inuendos...Dems won't cherry pick 5 year old intel. Dems won't lie you into a quagmire. Running around screaming the sky is falling is not National Security.
Dude...it's the Dems who have the chicken little syndrome. You are the quagmirists, the negativists, the pessimists, the Murthahadists. And Dems lie a plenty.
So, how do you expect to fight them over here, if we have to, when we're over there, genius? Suddenly bring them all back? What? What's your big plan, if we get attacked over here?
Do you even have an inkling of the size of our military? No, I didn't think so.
I was laughing at you, because I find the logic so twisted. Do you not agree that it is a good thing to be fighting them overseas, instead of upon our own shores?
Great post, and, well, having been visiting blogs for 5 years, this has definitely been the best comment thread I've ever seen as far as refutation of shallow bumperstickerisms go.
If I wuz you, Mudkitty, I'd give this debate a rest. :-)
Just look up any of the speaches Bush made in the lead up to the war. It's not that hard, believe me.
I didn't say we shouldn't fight terrorism, but the Iraq war is a distraction and a drain on fighting terrorism.
Saddam never used wmd's, he used chemical weapons...which are a different classification, and he used them during the Reagan Administration while turning a blind eye.
Many in the intel community say that the Bushies cherry picked the intel. Not only that, he used 1998 Clinton intel to justify an invasion that took place in '03.
Not everyone in the Bin Laden family (it's a big family) disowned Usama. And at the time of the Harkin bail-out, Usama was still in the busom of his family.
The Senate Intell Committee was republican controlled. I rest my case, the opporative word being "was." There will be accountability now as to just WHY the intel was so "flawed."
The weapon's inspectors wanted more time, before they were ordered to leave, due to the imminent strikes by the United States, and anyway, the conclusion of the inspectors and of David Kay was that any WMDs were destroyed during the first Gulf War. Obviously Kay wasn't a part of the cherry picking process.
Your leaders, the Bushies,
and the arckitects of the Iraq Invasion said it would be a cakewalk. Rummy said he doubted it would last six months.
As for the "9/11 changed everything excuse..." if you believe that, then the terrorists have already won.
This country has always had enemies, and always will, especially if we keep hireing beligerent, bellicoise leaders.
The comparison I made between ww2 and the Iraq invasion was a negative comparison.
The anti war crowd doesn't celebrait every death mark or milestone. That is an obsene thought that came out of your head. Not mine, and not the left. We mourn them, and take note of them, while the pro-war, pro-death crowd just want's to pretend it's not signifigent.
Actually the libs were right, we predicted it would be a quagmire, it is. We predicted civil war, it's happening now. You're the chicken little, only you've stuck your fear mongering head in the sand. You don't want to face reality.
You can't fix something if you don't acknowledge it.
And yes, I think fighting Iraqis over there (when we were told we were going to liberate them) puts us at an obvious disadvantage if (or when) we have to fight them over here. I'd rather protect my homeland, than there's.
As for the size of the military, several million in bases all over the world. We have aprox 130,000 in Iraq, and we have 100,000 mercenaries (euphamisticly refered to as "private contractors") over there. What are you going to do, pull everyone out of Korea and Germany, etc. and send them of to Iraq? Please.
Believe me, I find your logic to be utterly lacking, and I'm not laughing. This war is not funny.
Seth, all you want is a circle jerk.
No, Mudkitty --
It's about the truth. You and the rest of your far left wingnut crowd live in another dimension or something, where reality doesn't exist.
"There's a signpost up ahead..."
Seth, truth doesn't need your endorsement, or your agreement.
Just look up any of the speaches Bush made in the lead up to the war. It's not that hard, believe me.
Why should I "believe" you? YOU go look up those pre-war speeches and tell me what you find that is a "gotcha" moment.
I didn't say we shouldn't fight terrorism, but the Iraq war is a distraction and a drain on fighting terrorism.
Our Islamic enemies are treating it as a central front; why can't you? Tell it to the jihadists that have poured into Iraq over the last 3 years, that Iraq is not a central war against their version of Islam. Oh wait....many of them are dead. Like entering a roach motel. They come to Iraq to lose every military engagement they've ever made against Coalition forces. Poor, poor Zarqawi...wonder what he'd be doing about now, had we not entered Iraq? Selling falafels or killing Americans elsewhere?
It'd be nice if you guys would show at least half as much passionate anger against the violent insurgents, the jihadists, and the states that sponsor them (Syria and Iran) as you do against the Bush Administration and anything negative that our soldiers might do, whether it be an abu Ghraib scandal or collateral damage.
Saddam never used wmd's, he used chemical weapons...which are a different classification, and he used them during the Reagan Administration while turning a blind eye.
From wikipedia:
Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a munition with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of living beings. The phrase broadly encompasses several areas of weapon synthesis, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons.
Next.
Many in the intel community say that the Bushies cherry picked the intel.
Who are these "many in the intell community" you speak of? Clintonistas in the CIA? I want names, dammit.
Not everyone in the Bin Laden family (it's a big family) disowned Usama. And at the time of the Harkin bail-out, Usama was still in the busom of his family.
Here's an interesting tidbit for everyone: bin Laden was never really as rich as we've thought. He was worth about $7million, which was his share of the bin Laden construction company. And the Saudis cut him off from that as well as his annual allowance, which amounted to half a million during good years. This comes from Lawrence Wright, author of "The Looming Tower".
The Senate Intell Committee was republican controlled. I rest my case, the opporative word being "was." There will be accountability now as to just WHY the intel was so "flawed."
We already know why the intel was "flawed". You can trace that back to 8 years of the previous Administration, thinking that now since the Cold War was over, all the world was daffodils and fuzzy bunnies and blissful sunshine; that we could cozy up to China, hold hands, and sing "Kumbaya, it's a small world after all" all day long.
As for the Senate Intell Committee, it was 9 Republicans to 8 Democrats, with 2 of the Republicans being Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe.
the independent Silberman-Robb Commission also drew the same conclusions as the Senate Intell Committee.
Try again.
The weapon's inspectors wanted more time, before they were ordered to leave, due to the imminent strikes by the United States,
Yup. I'd say 12 years of 17 UN Resolution violations plus the original Cease-fire agreement was long enough. Saddam has only Saddam to blame. Because of the history of weak enforcement of violations over the past 12 years, captured Iraqis during the major operations of the war stated that Saddam didn't believe the U.S. would actually follow through with the attack. At worst, he figured we'd hit a few aspirin factories, and that'd be that.
Note the following:
Just two months before the war, the Los Angeles Times reported that chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix "disclosed troubling new details about Iraq's weapons programs and expressed frustration with what he described as Baghdad's refusal to resolve long-standing questions about efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, as well as long-range missiles." Mr. Blix later told reporters that in his gut he felt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
and anyway, the conclusion of the inspectors and of David Kay was that any WMDs were destroyed during the first Gulf War. Obviously Kay wasn't a part of the cherry picking process.
The "conclusion of the inspectors"?! The inspectors who Saddam continually threw out and who he played cat and mouse with? On the Saddam tapes, there is recorded conversation of Saddam talking with his senior aides about hiding information from UN inspectors. About inspectors who, in 1995, also ended up finding biological weapons programs that they had previously denied having. On those tapes, Saddam's son-in-law can be heard saying, "We did not reveal all that we have. Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct." Given that, what makes you think that from 1998 thru 2003, they had stopped lying to us?
If all wmds were destroyed during the first Gulf War, as you say, how do you account for the 500 weapons munitions consisting of degraded mustard and sarin nerve agents that made some headlines in June of 2006, but found months earlier? They weren't proof of an ongoing wmd program, but it refutes your argument about wmds destroyed. So were you lying to me, or simply mistaken? It certainly proves Saddam to be a liar when he continually told us that all such weapons have been destroyed.
Those weren't the only wmds found over the past few years, either, btw.
In referencing David Kay, what gets conveniently left out is what I quoted David Kay as saying: basically that Saddam posed an even greater danger than he had realized. Here's what else he had to say to the House and Senate Intell Committees:
the ISG had found that Iraq had a network of clandestine laboratories containing equipment that should have been (but was not) disclosed to the UN inspectors. He also said that the ISG found an undeclared prison laboratory complex and an undeclared Unmanned Aerial Vehicle production facility. The Iraq Survey Group also found out that a UAV had been test-flown out to a range of 500 kilometers even though the agreed upon limit was 150 kilometers. Iraq lied to the UN about the range of that particular UAV, Kay said.
He testified that Iraq had done research on Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever and Brucella but had not declared this to the UN. Iraq also continued R&D work on anthrax and ricin without declaring it to the UN.
ISG found nuclear research materials and centrifuge parts hidden in the home of Iraqi nuclear scientist Mahdi Obeidi (see Post-Saddam WMD search).
Kay told the committees that between 1999 and 2002 Iraq attempted to obtain missile technology from North Korea that would allow them to build missiles with a range of 1300 kilometers, far beyond the UN limit of 150 kilometers that Iraq agreed upon in UN Resolution 687. They also sought anti-ship missiles with a range of 300 kilometers from North Korea.
"With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War," Kay testified.
After the interview, Kay told National Public Radio that Iraq "had a large number of WMD program-related activities." He said "So there was a WMD program. It was going ahead. It was rudimentary in many areas." Kay also said that Iraq had been trying to weaponize ricin "right up until" Operation Iraqi Freedom. He also said that Iraq had began retooling its nuclear program in 2000 and 2001
Charles Duelfer also believed, as David Kay, that the regime had every intention of rebuilding and reconstituting weapons programs, should opportunity permit itself.
Your leaders, the Bushies, and the arckitects of the Iraq Invasion said it would be a cakewalk.
Go read the "Mission Accomplished" speech, and you tell me where in that speech, President Bush said it would be a cakewalk. All the experts were predicting hundreds of thousands of deaths of our soldiers. Didn't happen, did it?
Rummy said he doubted it would last six months.
Obviously he was mistaken. Oh, gee...wow. Guess that invalidates the entire war, doesn't it? You lefties have this Administration under such a microscope, that they could walk on water, and you'd criticize them for not being able to swim. Every little mistake or setback becomes magnified beyond the scope of reason. You are so desperate to have Bush proven to be wrong.
As for the "9/11 changed everything excuse..." if you believe that, then the terrorists have already won.
And if you don't believe that, then expect more 9/11's to occur, Sunshine.
This country has always had enemies, and always will, especially if we keep hireing beligerent, bellicoise leaders.
We need strong leaders who recognize the dangers and are willing to engage our enemies with a warface on. That will bring us closer to peace than a weak policy of appeasement and self-loathing.
The comparison I made between ww2 and the Iraq invasion was a negative comparison.
Care to elaborate? Or is this a scud/taepadong argument you're lobbing my way?
The anti war crowd doesn't celebrait every death mark or milestone. That is an obsene thought that came out of your head. Not mine, and not the left. We mourn them, and take note of them, while the pro-war, pro-death crowd just want's to pretend it's not signifigent.
Note that I had "celebrate" in parenthesis. Once again, proving that you have difficulty with comprehending. "Celebrate" in the sense that the anti-war left was ready to throw their hands up and yell "QUAGMIRE" at the first milestone of 100 deaths. If it isn't 3000, this war would still be called a disaster by you Murthadists, because 100 soldiers died in the war; and/or, you'd just be crying about how bad this war is because the terrorists and insurgents are killing innocent Iraqis and blowing themselves up, creating chaos. Any negative news you can sink your teeth into, is fair game to be politically exploited for a war of defeat.
Actually the libs were right, we predicted it would be a quagmire, it is.
By any rational, estimal comparison to previous wars, it is not a quagmire. It's a machination of your own creation. You and your fellow liberals. That is a perception problem, and one that will indeed cause us to lose. If that happens, I don't think America will ever be able to win another war. We would have proven our enemies right who labeled us a paper tiger, too weak to sustain losses and incur the necessary sacrifices to win wars.
We predicted civil war, it's happening now.
Call it whatever you want, as if it matters. It is what it is. You can call it sectarian violence or a civil war. Why the obsession with the labeling? Because you defeatists on the left think that by calling it a civil war, it will be excuse enough to throw up your hands and pronounce, "Oh well....nothing we can do; let's come home now and wait to battle the terrorists on our own soil."
You're the chicken little, only you've stuck your fear mongering head in the sand. You don't want to face reality.
Reality's trying to stare you in the face, and all it sees is your rear end, as your head's buried to the neck.
And yes, I think fighting Iraqis over there (when we were told we were going to liberate them) puts us at an obvious disadvantage if (or when) we have to fight them over here. I'd rather protect my homeland, than there's.
I don't get it. The Left often speaks about how we are selfish whenever we only look out for ourselves; that we have to help our neighbors in order to make the world a better place to live in; that we should be charitable to those less fortunate than ourselves. And here we are trying to help to rebuild an entire nation, and you idiots are nothing more than obstructionists and cheerleaders for the other side.
And make no mistake. Our primary reason is to do it, in hopes of making America safe. Not Iraqis. But by making Iraqis safer and giving them a free and democratic country, we hope to make America safer. Those who help others, help themselves. I'd think bleeding heart liberals would be all for that noble sentiment.
As for the size of the military, several million in bases all over the world. We have aprox 130,000 in Iraq, and we have 100,000 mercenaries (euphamisticly refered to as "private contractors") over there. What are you going to do, pull everyone out of Korea and Germany, etc. and send them of to Iraq? Please.
What the hell makes you think our ENTIRE military would ever be needed to occupy a single country? How outlandish are you?! What are you munching on, there?
How about this:
T he Department of Defense employs 1.4 million people on active duty. It is the largest employer in the US, with more employees than ExxonMobil, Ford, General Motors and GE combined.
The US operates a fleet of more than 15,000 aircraft, including 20 stealth bombers in service. The navy operates more than 1,000 ocean going vessels
We also have about 1.28 million ready and stand-by reserves.
Total armed forces: 2,685,713
Active Troops: 1,426,713
Total troops: 2,685,713
By branch:
Army - 500,203 *I think this is from the number of soldiers who were put on active duty from the Reserves and ARNG) *
USMC - 180,000
Navy - 375, 521
Air Force - 358, 612
Coast Guard - 40,151
Army components: 494, 291 Active Duty, 342,918 in the ARNG and 204,134 in the USAR
Our Marines are not "bogged down" in Iraq, btw. About 120,000 of our 130,000 in Iraq are Army. A minority of them are marines.
Believe me, I find your logic to be utterly lacking, and I'm not laughing. This war is not funny.
No, the war's not funny. But you are. And I'm laughing at you.
Don't bother waiting for mudkitty's links wordsmith. She doesn't have any. She'll just keep ranting and expect you to do her research for her.
"Seth, truth doesn't need your endorsement, or your agreement."
You really need new material. You usually post that exact line right after someone mops the floor with you in a debate. I'll be standing by to see what kind of evidence you can link us too mk. Still waiting for proof of the tin foil hat conspiracies you mentioned above. "Look it up" doesn't count. YOU made the claim. YOU look it up and post it.
Nantuckie - I've already seen 'em. I saw 'em the first time around. It's not my fault you didn't/don't keep up with Bush's speeches and press conferences. That explains a lot though. Maybe if you had, you wouldn't be such a rah rah for him.
But I do see you've been googleing furiously.
Will rebut when I get back from mice catching elsewhere.
Look it up does cut it. I'm not here to do your homework for you.
You guys should have looked stuff up a long time ago, rather than spouting drugRush Limbaugh talking points.
Nantuckie - I've already seen 'em. I saw 'em the first time around. It's not my fault you didn't/don't keep up with Bush's speeches and press conferences. That explains a lot though. Maybe if you had, you wouldn't be such a rah rah for him.
I'm "rah rah, go Bush!" exactly because I do pay attention. Read the 2003 SotU and tell me where President Bush lied (oh, this'll be good!). Read the "Mission Accomplished" speech and tell me what is wrong with it.
But I do see you've been googleing furiously.
Not really. But I do try to back up what I know by giving you accurate figures and not just conjecture and the fallibility of memory. I sourced wikipedia and offered a couple of links where I cut and pasted. The military figures I cut and pasted from a gmail sent me a while back. Beyond that it's sheer brilliance on my part, darlin'.
Will rebut when I get back from mice catching elsewhere.
Go mice!
Look it up does cut it. I'm not here to do your homework for you.
You don't get it, do you? I doubt you can produce anything I haven't already seen at Daily Kos. There are legitimate criticism with substance you can level at this Administration. Of course there are. But you're so filled with spit and vinegar for this President, that you'll believe anything negative about him, including moonbat ideology, based nowhere near reality.
I just want to see you make a fool out of yourself by posting your links, as if there really is anything new and revelatory we haven't already seen from your side. Guess you have enough sense to know not to bite, seeing as how you are outclassed here.
You guys should have looked stuff up a long time ago, rather than spouting drugRush Limbaugh talking points.
Are you cutting and retreating already, muddy?
And who's drugRush?!
Just to throw some fuel on the fire here, the Military not only met but exceeded thier recruiting goals yesterday, so Wordsmith's figures are about to really increase.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061212/D8LVI1Q00.html
Oops I will make it more simple
Story Here
Isnt it amazing we have men and women that are saying "Send Me" because they realize what's at stake?
I think Wordsmith covered this but I think it is important. Mudkitty if you cannot understand the basics of weapons, I do not know why you would assume the rest of your points would make any sense.
You say Chemical weapons are not WMDs? The DOD would disagree:
“(DOD) Weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Weapons of mass destruction can be high explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons, but exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon. Also called WMD.”
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/w/05813.html
But just incase you believe the evil Pentagon is on the side of the right let’s look at a reference which is NOT in anyway controlled by the right. Even the U.N. disagrees with you:
“The Weapons of Mass Destruction Branch provides substantive support for the activities of the United Nations in the area of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological weapons), including the threat of use of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist acts, as well as missiles.”
http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/
And isnt it odd that there was a "Dr Germ and "Mrs Anthrax" who worked for Saddam?
Story Here
They sure didnt get those names for nothing!
I have a Kurdish friend who lost most of his family to Saddam, I dont want to hear there was no WMD when that's exactly what my friends family was killed with!
"Look it up does cut it. I'm not here to do your homework for you."
Its YOUR homework. YOU made the claim. YOU can't back it up.
I did the homework. I'm not your teacher. You should know this stuff already, man.
Marie...those are People Magazine descriptions...
"Who is drugRush?" You're kidding, right?
"I did the homework."
Prove it. After all this time, you're either too stupid to figure out how a proper debate works, or you have no evidence, which is why you refuse to post it.
Proove what? I make more than one point you know. Points, btw, that an informed person should already be well versed in.
"Proove what?"
I don't want you to "proove" anything, I want you to PROVE even one of the many points you make. You can't, which is why you repeatedly refuse to.
Came over from Mike's America year end Word Loom - this is an outstanding post! Very thoughtful and foreboding. Thank you!
Post a Comment
<< Home