The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

Exposing the Liberal Lie through current events and history. “Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.” ****** "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free." RONALD REAGAN

My Photo
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, United States

Two Reagan conservatives who believe that the left has it wrong and just doesn't get it!

HISTORICAL QUOTE OF THE WEEK - "Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other." ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Wednesday, January 31, 2007


Rhino Republican Arlen Specter former Chairman and current ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated in reference to the President being, as Bush put it, "the sole decider, " concerning military strategy and deployment wrongly asserted that " the decider is a shared and joint responsibility." Specter was claiming that according to the Constitution the President of the United States and the United States Congress share responsibility for deciding the use of, strategy and deployment of the military. For one who claims to be a Constitutional lawyer and considered by many to be a learn'ed man when addressing Constitutional matters, this supposed, "expert, " missed the mark by a long shot on this one.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into actual Service of the United States." As Commander in Chief he is the sole officer of the government responsible for the use of the military in, "service of the United States." As Commander he is responsible for deployment orders, strategy, and the exercise thereof of all military service when defending this nation. He is the Constitutionally charged civilian authority over the military when the armed forces are called into service.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states - each of the following are clauses of this section pertaining to the Congress and the military:

To declare war.....To Raise and support Armies.....To provide and maintain a Navy.....To make Rules for the Government and regulation of the land and naval Forces.....To provide forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union.....To provide for organization, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.

Each of the Congressional Constitutional responsibilities calls for either provision, discipline or regulation of the military and not assisting in command, deployment or the development of strategy.

The responsibility of a Commander whether Commander in Chief or a field Commander is the development and execution of military strategy and the decided use of both military personnel and equipment. The Founding Fathers assigned this responsibility to the President in order to prevent long and drawn out debate by the many members of Congress as to the use of and the Command and control of the military. Their decision to Constitutionally assign the responsibility of civilian command solely to the President was to allow quick action in defense of the nation and equally as quick decision making for strategy to protect this nation and the soldiers in the field rather than having them wait for the havoc that would ensue if every member of Congress were to debate military in field service.

For Arlen Specter to contend that Congress has equal responsibility in the service of the military is not only misreading the Constitution but an attempt to usurp the command authority of the President. Congress controls the military purse strings but the command and control of military activities and the deployment of forces when the military is in the service of the nation belongs solely to the President.

Ken Taylor


Blogger RJay said...

Liberals and Rhino Republicans don't care about the Constitution.

These Senators and House members should read the Constitution.
They know what the Constitution says they count on the MSM to run scare tactics on the voters.

As far as I can remember JFK has been the only Senator elected to the Presidency.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
John F. Kennedy

Pelosi met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Logan Act: Conducting Foreign Relations Without Authority
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Sorry about the rant, but these liberals just piss me off.
What irks me even more is that the Republicans can't get the sway out of the elephants back.

1:45 AM, February 01, 2007  
Anonymous Seth said...

Our Congress, on both sides of the aisle, has turned itself into one big contradiction of what it was intended to be. The liberal owned Democrats lead, the Republicans follow.

Both parties are slowly becoming one and the same, and I'd be the first to join a new conservative party if one surfaced, independent of and excluding any of the current crop of Republican politicians. A party that adhered unwaveringly to the Constitution.

Hopefully, one with two-term limits across the board.

1:40 PM, February 01, 2007  
Blogger Vern1966 said...

With regard to the Logan Act, it states, and I'm paraphrasing, that you cannot conduct foreign relations with a government in dispute or controversy with the US without consent of the US government. So is the Iraqi government "in dispute" with the US? And last time I checked, isn't Pelosi a representative OF the US government? Duh!

3:17 PM, February 01, 2007  
Blogger MDConservative said...

Well said Ken. I simply could not believe Arlen. Acrually after his bitching about the TSP I can. But he is dead wrong. As you mentioned the only control they have after giving authority is to cut the money flow.

While so many contend this is horrible and no more lives should be lost... very few are willing to step out and take the political risk. Esentially they want to bitch and point fingers. Yet when it comes down to doing the right thing (in their mind) and getting the military out of Iraq or worrying about their political future look at which one they pick.

3:38 PM, February 01, 2007  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Great post Ken,

Sometimes I wonder if Arlen Spector is related to Phil Spector in some freaky way!

I guess we are beginning to see what RINO's we need to pluck out of the next election.

11:01 PM, February 01, 2007  
Blogger Robert said...

Ken, Congress is peddling to the left wing base. For some reason, republicans have this impression that if they play nice then the liberals will begin to like them and they will have an easy road. Arlen Specter left the ranch a long time ago, and I think he should just change parties,get it over with, and save us a lot of trouble and heartache.

7:25 AM, February 02, 2007  
Blogger Rob said...

Ken, the executive and legislative branches are co-equals and both play significant roles when it comes to war.

Go back and read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

In addition, Congress has significant and clear power under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Much of the power comes in the form of oversight.

Anyone who says that Bush is the sole-decider and that Congress has no authority when it comes to war and providing oversight of military strategy is factually in error.

5:09 PM, February 02, 2007  
Blogger Vern1966 said...

"...the only control they have after giving authority is to cut the money flow."

mdconservative, even if this were true, aren't you just confirming the fact that this is, by definition, a means by which Congress can influence war policy?

Aren't conservatives supposed to be for small government? So why does the concentration of power within the hands of one person square so well with them? If the president were a social and economic liberal, would you still vest this much power to him?

Nope. You wouldn't. See, this is what is called "ulterior motives".

9:39 PM, February 02, 2007  
Blogger Obob said...

All Spector is doing is keeping the democrats in his state off his back by stabbing GW's

11:10 PM, February 02, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

I just want to say that the Kirpatrick quote, describes the Bush Administration perfectly.

2:21 PM, February 03, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

And now all you fake constitutionalists...don't you know that the military is subservient to civilian rule?

Otherwise we'd be a military state. Hello?

2:22 PM, February 03, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

A military state, that is, rather than a nation of laws.

2:23 PM, February 03, 2007  
Blogger Gayle said...

"Fake constitutionalists", Mudkitty? You're far too kind! Why don't you write a blog of your own since you are so full of opinions? I promise to visit it and write stupid insults if you like. Turnabout is fair play, you know. :)

7:38 PM, February 03, 2007  
Anonymous Seth said...

Mudkitty --

In time of war, the President is the civilian authority, he is empowered to prosecute the war as he decides it must be done. Congress' authority ends when they authorize the war -- which they did.

You need to research these nice sound bytes like "civilian rule" rather than simply use them off the top of your head.

Or maybe go out and pick up a copy of the Constitution.

11:26 PM, February 03, 2007  
Blogger Rob said...

Seth, can you direct me to Congress' declaration of war against Iraq?

OK, since there isn't one, let's just pretend that there was. There were no WMDs and we destroyed Saddam's defenses in the race to Baghdad. Saddam has been deposed and has been executed. Bush himself declared "Mission Accomplished." So the war is over. We are not at war with Iraq, we are in the middle of an occupation and nation-building exercise.

As Vern pointed out, Congress can defund the "war" - that alone gives it power.

And as I pointed out earlier, Congress has significant and clear power under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Do some civics homework and read it yourself - don't take my word for it.

The idea that only Bush can decide what to do is both factually incorrect and just plain silly.

10:45 AM, February 04, 2007  
Anonymous Seth said...

Rob --

Congress did not "declare war", they voted their approval for Bush to go ahead -- that is, they were for it before they were against it. Now we hear a variety of lame denials in the form of "if I knew then what I know now...", all of which are pure politics like everything else coming from the Democrats. I have yet to hear a single plan coming from the left side of the aisle other than cut-and-run, yet I hear copious criticism of Bush coming from the same place.

Like I said, pure politics, as in when the Democrats, who had been clamoring to send more troops to Iraq, abruptly did an about face when Bush decided to do just that and began attacking him for it.

While Congress has jurisdiction over funding and other issues relating to the armed forces, they do not have the power to second guess the Commander-In-Chief re the prosecution of a war itself. There is a reason for this -- it is virtually impossible to achieve any kind of victory when command authority is hobbled by continuous debate.

11:49 PM, February 04, 2007  
Blogger Rob said...

No Seth, I am sorry you are mistaken. Congress absolutely has the right to second-guess the CIC.

Not only do they provide oversight of the Executive Branch, but in the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of force (Public Law 107-243) - which we agree was not a declaration of war - Section 3(c) explicitly states that President must adhere to the War Powers Resolution (which provides for significant Congressional oversight), and Section 4 spells out the fact that Bush must report back to Congress every 60 days in writing regarding actions taken in Iraq.

If Congress had declared war, there would be different rules that apply, but that is not the case.

And I will state again, we are not at war with Iraq. We are occupying a sovereign country and conducting a nation building exercise.

12:36 PM, February 05, 2007  
Blogger Robert said...

"Reporting back to Congress..." every 60 days is not quite the same as "seeking congressional approval for actions to be taken." It would seem you refute your own point with that section.

It would also seem that you simply refuse to see the big picture. The terrorists themselves define iraq as the central battle. Now, it may not have been before 2003, but it is viewed that way now. The terrorists know that a democracy in the middle of the region, which would exert influence on Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and as a result Lebanon and the "palestinian question", would sound the death toll for their radical plans for a caliphate.

We might could win this thing more quickly if our own players would run toward the right endzone.

3:00 PM, February 05, 2007  
Blogger Rob said...

The point of reporting back to Congress is to decide if the strategy is working. Then, Congress can choose to de-fund the war.

Robert, you do realize that Congress has the legal authority to de-fund the war - don't you? That means that they are an important partner with the President and cannot just be dismissed.

The principle is the same as Corporate Boards and CEOs. CEOs run day to day operations and set strategy. If the Board does not like the results they can step in and take appropriate action.

You are dreaming if you think a democracy is emerging in Iraq. What American soldiers are fighting and dying for is to prop up a religious theocracy aligned with Iran. That is the reality.

3:19 PM, February 05, 2007  
Blogger Robert said...

Of course Congress can defund the war, but they won't. Congress cannot order the President to remove troops. Congress cannot order the President to change his tactics. Congress holds only the purse strings, but doesn't believe strongly enough to do it.

You are deluded if you think we are propping up a Shia government. We are there to keep a Shia government from gaining too much power, which would give Iran the country. Just because it isn't American democracy, doesn't mean that it isn't democracy.

6:48 PM, February 05, 2007  
Blogger Rob said...

We are there to keep the Shia government from getting too powerful? Is that the mission of our military now?

Maliki is Shia and is clearly aligned with Iran. His Shia coalition government includes Sadr and his death squads in the Mahdi army. That is why the Sunnis won't join fully into the political process.

But I'll humor you. So you believe that it is the policy of the United States to fully support the elected Maliki government, which is supported by the majority Shia population, but that we don't want to give them too much support because then they will align with Iran.

You do realize that Iraq is a sovereign country - at least that is what Bush keeps saying. So, we don't really have much say. Also, you do realize that al Qaeda and Saddam are (were) Sunni. Don't you? So we don't want the Shia to get too powerful, and we don't want to allow the Sunnis to get too powerful. Just how do you suppose that is going to happen, and is that a good mission for American soldiers to be dying for?

7:30 PM, February 05, 2007  
Blogger Robert said...

I think it is the perfect mission for Americans to be dying for. Democracy? Liberty? Free choice? The long view (known in military jargon as Strategic, as opposed to the democratic rabble which is teactical) is that we need a stable government. Where there are stable governments, there is democratic influence.

We don't want the Shia in Iran to be too powerful. We don't want the Shia to control the oil. We want an elected government that is friendly to the US and to the world body.

The Sunni are still pouting because they don't quite understand the concept of politics. Funny that historically the Persians were some of the greatest strategic thinkers. Apparently, that value has been watered down over the centuries.

10:42 PM, February 05, 2007  
Blogger Vern1966 said...

..."I have yet to hear a single plan coming from the left side of the aisle other than cut-and-run,..."

As if it is now solely up to the opposition party to get our asses out of this mess. You know, when you walk through a dark room and bump into something, you don't just keep going forward and bumping into it. You change directions. When something isn't working, you don't keep doing it. It's stupid....and hence, very Republican.

11:31 PM, February 05, 2007  
Blogger Rob said...

Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Libya, China, Russia, and North Korea all have "stable" governments. How long before democracy breaks out?

Where do you want to send American soldiers to die next in the grand quixotic spread of democracy? How about China or Saudi Arabia? Yeah, right!

Hilarious - a government that is friendly to the U.S. and the world body (whatever that means). You mean to tell me that Maliki is the answer? That is even more hilarious. Robert you clearly have very little understanding of the political realities of Iraq and the region.

So we don't want the Shia to control the oil or to get too powerful, and the pro-Saddam/al Qaeda Sunnis are pouting. Who else is there? The Kurds? Turkey would invade if that were the case.

12:18 AM, February 06, 2007  
Blogger Robert said...

Rob, I see that you are one of those that has to have everything spelled out for you. I wasn't saying that stable governments breed democracies. I was saying that stable democracies breed democracy, but you either knew that and are simply being assinine, or you didn't know that and are a moron. I shall leave the decision up to you.

I will point out your logical fallacy Dicto simpliciter, in that you propose that because a democracy in Southwest Asia is in our interests, that we should follow the same policy and strategy to every nation that isn't a democracy. I don't recall advocating invading China; neither do I recall communists flying planes into buildings or committing suicide bombings against our embassies and warships.

Your next fallacy is the complex question "You mean to tell me that Maliki is the answer?" I said no such thing, and to put forth a yes/no type question ignores the possibility of other options. I don't think that maliki is the sole answer to the problem any more than I think George Washington was the sole reason that democracy in America succeeded. What I think is that he was elected in the first real election in decades, and that is democracy.

You certainly may question my understanding of the issues, but I insist that you are mistaken. I have spent a fair amount of time on the region, and I have spent the past five years dealing with terrorism and the accompanying issues. What I know is that radical islam has goals and objectives. Those are to establish islam as the world power, and killing those who are not faithful is but a tactic. We cannot apply the U.S. Constitution to Iraq, otherwise we would jsut igve them a copy and tell them to run with it. They have to find their own way, and we must support them until it is accomplished.

Exerting pressure through a continued committment (to say nothing of killing as many wackos as possible every day) is the way to bring all parties to the table. If you took notice, the major operation the past few weeks forced and end to the boycott of governance.

The bottom line is that there are few perfect answers, and no easy way to get this done. I can define the way to derail it, and that is cutting and running out of fear and cowardice.

8:14 AM, February 06, 2007  
Blogger Rob said...

Words matter and I would ask that you please be more clear. When you write, "Where there are stable governments, there is democratic influence" with no other qualifying discussion, you open yourself up for criticism. I'm sorry I cannot read your mind.

You shoot down your own argument, Iraq wasn't "flying planes into buildings or committing suicide bombings against our embassies and warships" either. So by your own reasoning, invading Iraq was a mistake.

The whole purpose of the escalation is to prop up the Maliki government. Bush has explicitly said he is the guy who will lead Iraq out of chaos. If you don't believe Maliki is the answer then why should we send troops to support him and his government? You cannot possibly be for escalating our troop levels just for the heck of it.

I will agree with you that there are "no perfect answers." Through his mismanagement of the occupation and gross incompetence, Bush has ensured that we have no good options.

10:40 AM, February 06, 2007  
Blogger Robert said...

Get a grip! We aren't fighting against Iraq anymore. We whipped them in less time than it takes to play the NBS playoffs. Of course, I think we fought WWII in less time than that......

Had the terrorists not made this the cetral fron in the GWOT, we would have been gone two years ago. We are there for democracy, and Maliki is the face of it at the moment. We are there for our own intersts, which actually coincide with the fight for democracy there now.

Unfortunately, Bush hatred clouds the mind.....

12:10 PM, February 06, 2007  
Blogger Rob said...

What a joke. There are terrorists across the globe. By and large, we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq, we are fighting Sunnis who don't support the Iraqi government. And, we are fighting Shia who are running death squads against the Sunnis. Basically, we have soldiers playing referees in the middle of a civil war.

If we left today, the Sunnis and Shia would continue to kill each other for control of Iraq. Do you believe that they are going to hop on planes and come to the U.S. to kill us?

It is not Bush hatred - I don't know the man, so how can I hate him? I am just one of the overwhelming majority of Americans who understands that Iraq is a mess and the Bush is responsible for the debacle because of his incompetence.

2:18 PM, February 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Greg Thielmann
Director- strategic, proliferation and military office State Dept. Bureau of Intelligence-Bogus evidence

Questions Swirl Around WMD Charges
New Allegations And Defenses; Trailers' Use As Arms 'Labs' Doubted
As Bush Admin. Pushed Weapons Claims, Defense Intelligence Was Skeptical


"When the administration did talk about specific evidence ... it did it in a way that was not entirely honest"
Retired U.S. intellience official Greg Theilmann, on U.S. allegations of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program

(CBS/AP) President Bush's administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war.

"What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say," said Greg Thielmann, who retired last September. "The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field."

Separately, the chief of the Pentagon's intelligence agency said it had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to produce them. The assessment suggests a higher degree of uncertainty about the immediacy of an Iraqi threat, which was the main justification for war.

Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, discussed the matter at a Capitol Hill news conference Friday as the administration scrambled to respond to news reports about excerpts from a September 2002 DIA report on facilities and other pieces of Iraq's arms-building infrastructure.

And the New York Times reports in its Saturday editions that American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence are disputing claims that mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making deadly germs. In interviews with the Times over the last week, they said the mobile units were more likely intended for other purposes and charged that the evaluation process had been damaged by a rush to judgment.

"Everyone has wanted to find the 'smoking gun' so much that they may have wanted to have reached this conclusion," said one intelligence expert who has seen the trailers and, like some others, spoke to the newspaper on condition that he not be identified. He added, "I am very upset with the process."

Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

In Thielmann's view, Iraq could have presented an immediate threat to U.S. security in two areas: Either it was about to make a nuclear weapon, or it was forming close operational ties with al Qaeda terrorists.

Evidence was lacking for both, despite claims by Mr. Bush and others, Thielmann said in an Associated Press interview this week. Suspicions were presented as fact, and contrary arguments ignored, he said.

The administration's prewar portrayal of Iraq's weapons capabilities has not been validated despite weeks of searching by military experts. Alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons have not turned up, nor has significant evidence of a nuclear weapons program or links to the al Qaeda network.

Mr. Bush has said administration assertions on Iraq will be verified in time. The CIA and other agencies have vigorously defended their prewar performances.

Thielmann suggested mistakes may have been made at points all along the chain from when intelligence is gathered, analyzed, presented to the president and then provided to the public.

The evidence of a renewed nuclear program in Iraq was far more limited than the administration contended, he said.

"When the administration did talk about specific evidence - it was basically declassified, sensitive information - it did it in a way that was also not entirely honest," Thielmann said.

Thielmann said he had presumed Iraq had supplies of chemical and probably biological weapons. He particularly expected U.S. forces to find caches of mustard agent or other chemical weapons left over from Saddam's old stockpiles.

"We appear to have been wrong," he said. "I've been genuinely surprised at that."

Some critics have suggested that the White House and Pentagon policy-makers pressured the CIA and military intelligence to come up with conclusions favorable to an attack-Iraq policy. The CIA and military have denied such charges. Thielmann said that generally he felt no such pressure.

Although his office did not directly handle terrorism issues, Thielmann said he was similarly unconvinced of a strong link between al Qaeda and Saddam's government.

Yet, the implication from Mr. Bush on down was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden's network. Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks frequently were mentioned in the same sentence, even though officials have no good evidence of any link between the two.

Jacoby said his agency concurred in an intelligence community consensus last fall that Iraq had a program for weapons of mass destruction. But the DIA was unable to pinpoint any locations.

"We could not specifically pin down individual facilities operating as part of the weapons of mass destruction program, specifically the chemical warfare portion," Jacoby said at a joint news conference with Sen. John Warner and Stephen Cambone, the Pentagon's intelligence chief.

They spoke after the Senate Armed Services Committee met privately with Jacoby, Cambone and an unidentified CIA representative to discuss prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs.

For his part Warner, chairman of the armed services panel, said he was not prepared to place blame for any intelligence shortcomings until all information is in.

"There are always times when a single sentence or a single report evokes a lot of concern and some doubt," Warner told reporters after a closed hearing of his committee. "But thus far, in my own personal assessment of this situation, the intelligence community has diligently and forthrightly and with integrity produced intelligence and submitted it to this administration and to the Congress of the United States."

In his description of the still-classified DIA report, Jacoby drew a distinction between the level of certainty about Iraq's pursuit of weapons and the existence of actual chemical weapons.

"As of 2002, in September, we could not reliably pin down - for somebody who was doing contingency planning - specific facilities, locations or production that was under way at a specific location at that point in time," he said.

The report "is not in any way intended to portray the fact that we had any doubts that such a program existed," he said.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently raised the possibility that Iraq destroyed such weapons before the war started March 20. He also has said he believes some remain and will be discovered when U.S. search teams find knowledgeable Iraqis who are willing to disclose the locations.

In making its case for invading Iraq, the administration also argued that Iraq was seeking to develop nuclear weapons and that it might provide mass-killing weapons to terrorists.

On Friday, a small team of United Nations nuclear experts arrived in Baghdad to begin a damage assessment at Iraq's largest nuclear facility, known as Tuwaitha. It was left unguarded by American and allied troops during the early days of the war and was pillaged by villagers.

The arrival of the team - whose members are not weapons inspectors - marked the first time since the Iraq war began that representatives from the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency returned to the country. The agency had long monitored Iraq's nuclear program.

The DIA's analysis is just one piece of an intelligence mosaic that Rumsfeld and other senior administration officials could consider in making their own assessment of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capability. Congress is reviewing the prewar intelligence to determine whether the administration overplayed the weapons threat in order to justify toppling the Iraqi government.

In Britain, Parliament is investigating the government's use of intelligence material on Iraqi weapons amid reports that Prime Minister Tony Blair's office redrafted an intelligence dossier, published in September, to emphasize a single-source report about the threat of chemical and biological weapons.

As for the trailers, which allied forces found in Iraq in April and May, the Bush administration has cited them as evidence that Saddam Hussein was hiding a program for biological warfare. In a white paper last week, it publicly detailed its case, even while conceding discrepancies in the evidence and a lack of hard proof.

Now, says the Times, intelligence analysts stationed in the Middle East, as well as in the United States and Britain, are disclosing serious doubts about the administration's conclusions in what appears to be "a bitter debate" within the intelligence community. Skeptics told the Times their initial judgments of a weapon application for the trailers had faltered as new evidence came to light.

Bill Harlow, a spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency, said to the Times that the dissenters "are entitled to their opinion, of course, but we stand behind the assertions in the white paper."

7:34 PM, February 08, 2007  
Blogger Little Miss Chatterbox said...

I despise Arlen Specter.

7:52 PM, February 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi, Just returned here to remind you about Mobile Monopoly. This is a great system and WILL make you money, especially seeing as you own a web site. Take a quick look at their video, the system is about using Mobile Advertising which is fresh and an unexposed marketplace where you can make thousands by doing hardly any work. I assure you that after you watch their short video it will change you and it will start making you think.

12:39 PM, December 31, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey i just came here to let you know about a service i offer. I offer cheap backlinks that can help you website rank significantly better on Google. Traffic is everything and to get decent traffic you need to rank well in the search engines. My service can help provide that, check out my site

1:39 AM, August 06, 2011  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

ninest123 07.21
nike free, nike outlet, longchamp outlet, prada outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, ray ban sunglasses, kate spade handbags, coach outlet, chanel handbags, tiffany jewelry, christian louboutin outlet, louboutin outlet, louboutin shoes, gucci outlet, ray ban sunglasses, nike air max, michael kors outlet, replica watches, burberry, michael kors outlet, michael kors outlet, coach outlet, michael kors outlet, nike air max, oakley sunglasses, coach factory outlet, kate spade outlet, longchamp, burberry outlet online, jordan shoes, longchamp outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, tory burch outlet, michael kors outlet, michael kors, oakley sunglasses, tiffany and co, louboutin, oakley sunglasses, prada handbags

3:25 AM, July 21, 2015  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

coach purses, nike free, hollister pas cher, converse pas cher, ralph lauren pas cher, lacoste pas cher, air force, nike air max, true religion outlet, north face, hollister, north face, tn pas cher, michael kors, true religion jeans, air max, louboutin pas cher, longchamp pas cher, mulberry, oakley pas cher, vans pas cher, ray ban pas cher, ray ban uk, michael kors, michael kors, ralph lauren uk, new balance pas cher, timberland, vanessa bruno, nike blazer, lululemon, true religion jeans, true religion jeans, hermes, nike roshe run, burberry, sac guess, air jordan pas cher, sac longchamp, hogan

3:29 AM, July 21, 2015  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

nike free run uk, ferragamo shoes, lululemon, p90x workout, hollister, valentino shoes, nike roshe, bottega veneta, longchamp, soccer jerseys, nike huarache, wedding dresses, celine handbags, new balance, nfl jerseys, herve leger, nike air max, abercrombie and fitch, abercrombie and fitch, chi flat iron, asics running shoes, ghd, giuseppe zanotti, mont blanc, mac cosmetics, babyliss, mcm handbags, nike roshe, nike trainers, north face outlet, beats by dre, insanity workout, jimmy choo shoes, nike air max, soccer shoes, vans shoes, birkin bag, instyler, reebok shoes, north face outlet

3:33 AM, July 21, 2015  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

supra shoes, hollister, coach outlet, ralph lauren, lancel, juicy couture outlet, pandora charms, swarovski crystal, hollister, converse, hollister, thomas sabo, swarovski, nike air max, marc jacobs, baseball bats, converse outlet, karen millen, pandora jewelry, montre pas cher, replica watches, links of london, timberland boots, pandora charms, gucci, vans, oakley, louboutin, juicy couture outlet, toms shoes, ray ban, iphone 6 cases, nike air max, wedding dresses
ninest123 07.21

3:38 AM, July 21, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home

website hit counters
Provided by website hit counters website.