If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2658
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7552 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2658 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | » | Last
 
  2007-08-13 07:02:58 PM
dottedmint: I'm sorry Trog69 for using you as the bad guy....

No need to apologize, Lt. Oneline.

I'm not the one equating the President of Iran with Hitler, though.

dottedmint: You and I can disagree if it is useless or not.

I'm also not the one being willfully ignorant.

dottedmint: We had (and still have) international support in Iraq.

Please do all of us a favor and stop posting that blatant lie.


Willful ignorance, par excellence!
 
  2007-08-13 08:57:11 PM
Cleveland-Steamer: And to be fair, I haven't seen much of any true "subjective analysis" of hard facts from you or me or anyone in this forum, 'tis the nature of the fark...

Wow I'm an idiot. I meant "objective."

smert: While we try to build infrastructure the damned insurgents blow it up along with a bunch of Iraqi people.

Well maybe we should have considered this scenario beforehand and planned accordingly? I.e., planned for about 400,000 more American troops to properly secure the country?

And if that wouldn't have been politically possible at the time, then maybe we shouldn't have gone in in the first place?
 
  2007-08-13 11:25:51 PM
the_deciderer:

I'm trying to discuss the root cause of Muslim Extremism,

It's a good discussion, but there is no single answer or root cause. There are factors, such as Israel and Palestine. You agree this is a major sticking point correct in the ME correct? What should the next US president do in this regard?

I still would like an answer for my hypothetical to you regarding Saudi Arabia. Again, invading Saudi Arabia or regime change or any of that IS NOT MY POSITION, it never was, and I don't think it's a good idea. However, since all the criteria for a country which needs regime change according to you (fostering terrorism, non-democratic, etc.) are there, I'd like you to explain why this is not an option. What's the problem? I know several reasons why but I want to hear your POV.

What "resources or strategic location" did we want from Somalia?

Regardless of whether they were truly good intentions or there were nefarious ulterior motives for this action and any others, something I don't see you mentioning is that in many cases we left the country worse off than when we found it. If the problem (as you stated before with Somalia) was that we left before the "job was done," why did that happen? Were Republicans at the time particularly excited to stay or where they absolutely licking Clinton for the whole operation?

Like what has happened with Iraq, if "political realities" prevent the US from truly completing what it starts or doing a half ass job, then maybe we should stop doing these so called "humanitarian" operations, since they all seem to fail? Perhaps democratic nations such as the United States are not truly fit for far flung military operations intended to pacify violent war-torn nations or bring democracy to oppressive dictatorships, considering these operations typically require more effort and lives than the American Public will probably ever be willing to give up? It seems that the worst idealism possible is the idealism that allows the United States to make failed (but some would argue well intended) military forays into other nations.

I think it's far more realistic to recognize our limited abilities and to eschew the current American global-dominance mindset we seem to be entrenched in. Instead, concentrate more of our resources on American citizens. You could cut the pentagon budget in half. Seriously. Put that money into schools, roads, hospitals, loan programs, law enforcement (hello... want to deal with terrorism?) etc. etc. (Whether its via federal or state, whatever.) Make our country better and maybe then we can start helping the rest of the world in a more enlightened and reasonable manner. Until then I want no part of the waste of money and lives which our current foreign policy seems to be creating.
 
  2007-08-13 11:27:26 PM
Whidbey: "There's a fine line between protection and paranoia."

And there is a fine line between working for peace and ignoring real threats that are in this big wide world.

"I don't have a crystal ball. Most likely action would take place after an attack. We cannot second-guess what's going to happen. And invading/meddling with other countries to satisfy some "what if" line of thinking. While you believe that somehow it keeps our country safe, it doesn't. It only makes the animosity and hatred of this country's pre-emptive actions more pronounced."

Some threats can be seen before they actually materialize. All it takes is for someone to deal with the threat instead of simply ignoring it.

"It is not a UN-sanctioned operation, and it does not reflect the attitude of the rest of the world."

We have international support....

When we first went into Iraq we had even more international support....

I know.... I know....

You would have 'more' international support because you would be so much smarter ....

It is so much easier for you to make that claim now when you are not faced with a real threat......

I could be wrong but it seems like this conversation is about at an end.

You claim that you would be willing to use the military without UN support if there was an 'emergency'.

You are apparently unwilling to define what would be an 'emergency' so I guess it is pointless for me to keep asking you.

I don't know if 10,000 American lives endangered would be an emergency or not....

It does seem like you would be willing to take actions after lives were lost but before....?????

Well.....

Whenever anyone wants to bring up a new topic.....
 
  2007-08-13 11:38:08 PM
C-S: "It's a good discussion, but there is no single answer or root cause. There are factors, such as Israel and Palestine. You agree this is a major sticking point correct in the ME correct? What should the next US president do in this regard?"

Hmmmm....

Does Israel have a right to exist?

Does Israel have a right to defend itself?
 
  2007-08-13 11:41:26 PM
dottedmint: Does Israel have a right to exist?

Does Israel have a right to defend itself?


Of course they do. Next question?
 
  2007-08-13 11:53:18 PM
dottedmint: Some threats can be seen before they actually materialize. All it takes is for someone to deal with the threat instead of simply ignoring it.

All right, spell it out for me:

What do you believe the threat is? Which countries, which groups, and how do you know it's a threat?
 
  2007-08-13 11:54:37 PM
Thinking about it a little more dottedmint, perhaps a more interesting question is: who has the right to say whether any country has the right to exist or defend itself?

Does the US?
 
  2007-08-14 04:31:49 PM
Soup4Bonnie,

No en el autobus.

My Spanish isn't great so I hope I got it right. I'm visiting my wifes family in BC (regular even)

End of personal moment..

To whidbey, I'm still on PDA so can't do it justice but can't wait to respond to '...only way to solve...problems...UN concensus.."

Oh boy!!! :-)
 
  2007-08-14 06:50:05 PM
I think the_deciderer just entered the Twilight Zone...from last week.
 
  2007-08-14 06:51:24 PM
lol
 
  2007-08-15 05:29:31 AM
dottedmint: Whenever anyone wants to bring up a new topic.....

Hmmm...what about 'embryonic stem cell resea...Just funnin'.
 
  2007-08-15 04:34:59 PM
whidbey: dottedmint: Some threats can be seen before they actually materialize. All it takes is for someone to deal with the threat instead of simply ignoring it.

All right, spell it out for me:

What do you believe the threat is? Which countries, which groups, and how do you know it's a threat?


I'm not dottedmint but I would say for one any country whose leaders state that the US will not exist in the near future, that they will wage a holy war and are currently in the process of trying to build a nuclear bomb would be a threat. Wouldn't you agree that a country like that is a very potential threat and deserving of some attention?

C'mon, you know who says stuff like that, at least one major and a couple of others. Just be honest....
 
  2007-08-15 07:35:51 PM
Actually, I was looking for specific countries, smert.

Let's have a list.
 
  2007-08-16 10:58:41 PM
A list?????

A list of countries that I think we need to attack????

I don't have a list of countries that I think we need to attack.

I do have a list of countries that I think we need to keep a close eye on.

And yes Iran would be very close to the top of that list.

That said I do not think we need to launch a military attack against Iran. At least not YET....

I do think we need to be open to launching attacks against Al Quada camps when we get intel about them.

But without being able to see the intel reports it is hard to say where exactly they are and if launching a military attack would be the best option.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to give you a nice list of countries that I would attack but I never said there was a list of countries that I would attack.
 
  2007-08-17 12:17:01 PM
dottedmint: I do have a list of countries that I think we need to keep a close eye on.

OK. Which ones, and why?

I just want to understand why you think the US needs to do so much worldwide meddling to our detriment as a respected nation.
 
  2007-08-17 10:43:59 PM
"Meddling"????

So keeping an eye on what is going on in other countries is now "meddling"????

Hmmmm.....

Who woulda thunk it????

I guess President Whidbey wouldn't be worried about what Iran does because we all know that actions started in the ME could never reach this country and result in the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans....
 
  2007-08-18 06:13:49 AM
I guess Iran shouldn't be worried about what the USA does because we all know that invasions of sovreign nations started in the ME on trumped up charges of WMDs and false claims of collusion with terrorists could never reach neighboring countries and result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people all while creating more terrorists where there weren't any to begin with.

Good god, man. You've learned absolutely nothing about the mistakes we've allowed to happen.
 
  2007-08-18 10:03:54 AM
Good God Bonnie.

Terrorism is a real threat that we all face.

And when/if that threat is joined with WMDs SOMEBODY had better do something.

When/if Iran ever gets Nukes without any change in the leadership of Iran we should all be at least a bit worried.

I am hoping that before that happens some moderates take over leadership in Iran.

While some in here want to point to our intel failings in Iraq as a reason for doing nothing I think it is a mistake to ignore the threats that are out there.....
 
  2007-08-18 02:33:44 PM
Nuclear technology isn't exactly new. I'm sure more and more countries will get it at some point.

A delivery system capable of reaching the US is another thing they have yet to develop.

Supposing they develop both, why would Iran initiate a strike against the US that practically guarantees a nuclear response from us?

Terrorism is a real threat that we all face.

No, not really. I'm not threatened by terrorists. I haven't changed my way of life one bit since 9/11 and if you have, then you've handed them a victory. I am not concerned about a terrorist blowing up my plane, my place of work or the bridge that I travel every day. Living in fear is not my idea of a life worth living at all.

Taking pot shots in the dark at imagined phantasms may be your idea of a foreign policy, but it's not one we share.

What do you think would have happened had we not invaded Iraq? You claim Saddam was a threat to the US. (I believe you've stated this above somewhere, perhaps I am misattributing.) If that is your claim, then please explain how so?

And, if you'd be so kind, please explain to me what jack-the-fark-all Iraq had to do with terrorists prior to our invasion.

Moderate leadership taking over Iran is something we can both hope for. I believe that a President who labels them as evil isn't supporting that agenda, but is actually working against it.
 
  2007-08-18 05:20:41 PM
Bonnie: "Nuclear technology isn't exactly new. I'm sure more and more countries will get it at some point."

And would it be a good thing if every country had nukes???

I don't think so....

"A delivery system capable of reaching the US is another thing they have yet to develop."

How big would a nuclear bomb be?

I think it is safe to say that even the biggest nuke (not power wise....bulk size) would easily fit inside of a cargo ship.

And the ship wouldn't even need to make it into the harbor to kill thousands of lives.

"Supposing they develop both, why would Iran initiate a strike against the US that practically guarantees a nuclear response from us?"

I don't think they would openly nuke us but I don't doubt for a second that they would be willing to sneak a nuke to a terrorist group that would.

"Terrorism is a real threat that we all face."

"No, not really. I'm not threatened by terrorists. I haven't changed my way of life one bit since 9/11 and if you have, then you've handed them a victory. I am not concerned about a terrorist blowing up my plane, my place of work or the bridge that I travel every day. Living in fear is not my idea of a life worth living at all."

I didn't say that we need to change our way of life....

I said that we all face the threat of terrorism.

IF you wish to ignore it fine.

Those people who died in those planes and towers didn't worry about terrorism.

Those people who were blown up on that train probably didn't worry too much about terrorism...

Those people who were blown up in that dance club also probably didn't worry too much about terrorism...

But the FACT is that we do face a real threat when it comes to terrorism.

"Taking pot shots in the dark at imagined phantasms may be your idea of a foreign policy, but it's not one we share. "

I never said it was my idea of foreign policy.

It seems to me that you would rather just keep your eyes closed...

That way you never have to deal with the threats that are out there...


"What do you think would have happened had we not invaded Iraq? You claim Saddam was a threat to the US. (I believe you've stated this above somewhere, perhaps I am misattributing.) If that is your claim, then please explain how so?

And, if you'd be so kind, please explain to me what jack-the-fark-all Iraq had to do with terrorists prior to our invasion."

-sigh-


I really didn't want to get into a debate of why we went into Iraq because we are already there......but......

Our intel said Saddam was a threat....

Intel from Clinton's WH said Saddam was a threat....

Intel from other countries said that Saddam was a threat....

H@LLS BELLS ..... even the all-mighty UN said that Saddam was a threat....

Does this mean that every time in the future that we have intel that warns of a threat that we are going to say that it is wrong????


"Moderate leadership taking over Iran is something we can both hope for. I believe that a President who labels them as evil isn't supporting that agenda, but is actually working against it."

I disagree....

We are not labeling the majority of Iranians who are more moderate evil. We are labeling the extremist government that talks about Jihad and wiping Israel off the map as being evil.
 
  2007-08-19 10:38:08 PM
dottedmint: And when/if that threat is joined with WMDs SOMEBODY had better do something.

When/if Iran ever gets Nukes without any change in the leadership of Iran we should all be at least a bit worried.


A nuclear strike in the US is far more likely to occur from a nuke smuggled out of Russia or the former Soviet Union than anything cooked up in Iran.

Look, if Iran was really on the verge of developing a nuke, Israel probably would have bombed the factory already. They don't really have any qualms about aggressively defending themselves and they are more than capable of doing so. I find it laughable that we need to "intervene" or do anything over there to help them if a threat arises. We give them plenty of help already and they can take care of themselves just fine.

There are many more effective ways to stop Iran from developing nukes than our current policy, and there are also many more effective ways of combating terrorism than our current policy. You don't combat terrorism with more terrorism, it's that simple. You also don't stop aggressive dictators from pursuing weapons-development oriented national policies by aggressively threatening them and invading their neighbors.
 
  2007-08-20 11:28:00 AM
dottedmint: So keeping an eye on what is going on in other countries is now "meddling"????

Yep. ABSOLUTELY it is. And it's a big reason why we're so hated.

I guess President Whidbey wouldn't be worried about what Iran does because we all know that actions started in the ME could never reach this country and result in the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans....

And hypothetical fearmongering "what if" statements like yours keeps aspiring fascists in business, dottedmint.

I'd say it's high time you stop daydreaming about what might happen and start thinking about what does and will happen.

Terrorism is a real threat that we all face."

I really seriously doubt it's as bad as this administration's paranoia would have us believe.

So somebody out there hates us? Big surprise. Do we try to be a better nation and find the root causes of the hatred being directed towards us?

NO. We continue with the same arrogant dysfunctional policy. Our attitude is practically begging someone to challenge us.

I say the US is the biggest proponent/supporter of terrorism. WE are ultimately the biggest problem in this world, not a bunch of religious fanatics.
 
  2007-08-20 11:31:03 AM
Oh, and I'm still looking for that list of countries we should be "keeping an eye on."

And tell us why you think that the US needs to do so much worldwide meddling to the point where our neighbors in the world community hate us so much.

Oh sorry. "Looking after." "Keeping an eye on."
 
  2007-08-20 03:45:11 PM
Our intel said Saddam was a threat....

Info cherry picked by Cheney and friends against the advice of the CIA. How many mobile chemical weapons labs have we found? How about those 16 words in the State of the Union Address?

Intel from Clinton's WH said Saddam was a threat...

Clinton didn't invade Iraq.

Intel from other countries said that Saddam was a threat...

What other countries are you referring to and did they say he was a threat to the US? I think not.

H@LLS BELLS ..... even the all-mighty UN said that Saddam was a threat....

The UN didn't think we should invade and the inspectors didn't find any evidence of WMDs. You discredit the UN by saying they're ineffective and then use them as some yardstick whenever it's convenient for your argument.

IF you wish to ignore it fine.
Those people who died in those planes and towers didn't worry about terrorism.
Those people who were blown up on that train probably didn't worry too much about terrorism...
Those people who were blown up in that dance club also probably didn't worry too much about terrorism...


Frankly, I find it quite disgusting that you are somehow shifting blame to the victims of these attacks for somehow not preventing their own deaths.

I said that we all face the threat of terrorism.

Yes, you did. And I disagreed. Where is this threat of terrorism today that I face? Your terrorist threat is as bone chilling to me as the boogeyman in the closet, that is to say not at all. It's not that I would rather keep my eyes closed, as you say, but that there is no threat. I'm not ignoring it. It doesn't exist, or at least the odds of something like that happening are so minimal as to be nonexistant. You might as well say we all face the threat of lighting strikes from the sky or we all face the threat of getting in a fatal car accident.

Get it?
 
  2007-08-20 11:25:26 PM
Let me see if I understand the basic ...um... opinion here....

'Islamnic terrorists are nothing to worry about.'

'Whatever these terrorists (sorry) people do should be of no concern to us.'

'These people pose us no greater threat than drunk drivers.'

'IF only we were nicer these people wouldn't want us dead.'

And at least it seems like....

'It is all our fault.'

Am I missing anything here????

Obviously I'm not going to change anyones mind but I couldn't disagree more.....
 
  2007-08-21 01:24:18 AM
dottedmint: Obviously I'm not going to change anyones mind but I couldn't disagree more.....

Which is why I've been asking you to make a case for why we should be involved in the Middle East, why it's so much in our interest to continue doing what we're doing. Even though they're supposedly sovereign nations that most likely don't support our covert actions, many of which involve upsetting democratically-elected leaders and supporting brutal dictators.

You really don't see anything wrong with this picture?

Because up until now, the only impression I'm seeing drom your comments is that these countries are full of terrorists fueled by their religion to hate the West. They're looking for a bomb, and they're eventually going to get one despite all our efforts, and then they're going to use it on us.

Because they're bad people. Nothing else. No outside influences led them to take their actions. Especially not the United States meddling in their country or somewhere neighboring.

Is that what I'm hearing from you?
 
  2007-08-21 04:29:43 PM
'Islamnic terrorists are nothing to worry about.'
'These people pose us no greater threat than drunk drivers.'


Speaking for myself: Bingo.

'Whatever these terrorists (sorry) people do should be of no concern to us.'

First of all, I don't appreciate the backhanded jab.

Secondly, I'd need some clarification on the word 'us'. If you mean the average citizen, then I would agree. If you mean the government of the United States, then I would disagree. It is their job as spelled out in the Constitution. I think the feds should protect the borders, the ports and maintain an intelligence agency that monitors foreign activities. Please note that I did not say spy on its own citizens, launch illegal occupations, run secret prisons or any other nonsense the current administration has been up to.

'IF only we were nicer these people wouldn't want us dead.'
'It is all our fault.'


Oh, just stop it. Next you're going to come out with how I want the terrorists to win and the equally ridiculous notion of how I want our soldiers to die. Let's have a discussion and not a regurgitation of talking points or the slinging of silly accusations.
 
  2007-08-21 07:35:31 PM
dottedmint: 'These people pose us no greater threat than drunk drivers.

You know, statistically speaking yes, drunk drivers are a far greater threat to your personal safety than terrorists, as are many other things. Like crossing the street for example.
 
  2007-08-21 09:12:02 PM
Iraq did and would have continued working on WMD even if they were not working on them when they were invaded.

The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind by Mahdi Obeidi
 
  2007-08-21 09:41:16 PM
Is what Obeidi saying today accurate? Hard to gauge. But Imad Khadduri -- an Iraqi nuclear scientist who escaped from Iraq in 1998, and the author of Iraq's Nuclear Mirage: Memoirs and Delusions -- believes it is not on several important points.

**********

I'll source this statement when I get home. Right now I am using my Blackberry and it's difficult to do.

Suffice to say, I disagree with your assertion, Bedlam28.
 
  2007-08-22 02:13:39 PM
Bedlam28: Iraq did and would have continued working on WMD even if they were not working on them when they were invaded.

Sorry, undocumentable speculation isn't proof of anything.
 
  2007-08-22 03:27:17 PM
Bedlam28: Iraq did and would have continued working on WMD even if they were not working on them when they were invaded.

I don't have much to add to the above responses to this. However, EVEN IF what you say is true, the next logical question(s) are 1) taking into account the contained and dilapidated state of the Iraqi government at the time, what threat would this weapons-development have had on us, AND; 2) in light of all the other possible threats real or perceived in 2003, was this threat sufficient for invasion? In other words, would invasion of Iraq be the most efficient use of the US military to lessen the threat of terrorism?

I would still posit that the answer to all of those questions is a resounding no, and that at the time of invasion the answer would have STILL been NO, meaning this isn't hindsight or second guessing. It was apparent back then if you were paying attention.
 
  2007-08-22 04:26:47 PM
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000144.html

There's a lot of good info there on Mahdi Obeidi and Imad Khadduri so I encourage you to check it out, Bedlam28.

My favorite funnybone tickler is:

A more truthful title would have been: The 12 Year-Old Things in my Garden that Could Possibly Have Reduced the Time Needed For Iraq to Recreate a Nuclear Program if Against All Odds Sanctions Had Been Dropped, Inspections Ceased, the World Again Supported Iraq's Nuclear Program as it did during the 1980s, and Saddam Remained in Power and Decided to Try Again: The Sort of Secrets of One Among Several Senior Iraqi Nuclear Scientists.
 
  2007-08-22 11:32:26 PM
What is the "goal" of islamic terrorists?
 
  2007-08-23 12:30:40 AM
dottedmint: What is the "goal" of islamic terrorists?

Money and power.
 
  2007-08-23 11:49:07 AM
I've taken an 8 month break from giving a shiat about politics.

What is new?
 
  2007-08-23 05:28:03 PM
C-S: Money and power.

Uhhhh.....

Not exactly what my answer would have been.....

I'm curious what others say before I state my opinion.

Anyone????

What is the "goal" of islamic terrorists?
 
  2007-08-23 05:41:30 PM
I wonder why you are singling out islamic terrorists.
 
  2007-08-23 08:36:36 PM
It's kind of an over generalized question dottedmint. Which groups? They all are different. For instance, the goal of Osama Bin Laden is different from the goal of Muqtada Al Sadr, who publicly calls for his followers to fight both Al-Qaeda and the US military. Then you have groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, who are primarily concerned with Israel and the political cluserfark between Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Then you have the "grunts," the guys that actually go out there and kill themselves. What are their goals? Sometimes the families of Palestinian suicide bombers are actually paid... is it intimidation? Desperation? Does it matter? Are we going to use this information? Do we know how?

But what it really boils down to is that the bigger players, the leaders like Al Sadr or the corrupt leaders of Hamas, do just want money and power and glory. They manipulate people with popular causes, like hatred of the west or Israel, when really their goals are elsewhere. Sound familiar?
 
  2007-08-23 08:46:38 PM
Well Bonnie that would be because we have been talking about islamic terrorists for several days now.....

I guess I could have completely changed the subject and asked about 'eco-terrorists' or some other terrorist group that you might think of but I was curious what people felt was the 'goal' of islamic terrorists.

So what is your answer????
 
  2007-08-24 11:14:42 AM
Hello everybody.

Question: While reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman, do I need a tinfoil hat?
 
  2007-08-24 01:50:12 PM
I would say that islamic terrorists are trying to coerce or intimidate governments or societies through the use of, or threatened use of, violence to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

Much like any other terrorists on the planet.
 
  2007-08-25 06:52:47 PM
Bonnie you basically just said that the goal of islamic terrorists is to use terror to acheive their goal.


I mean what exactly is the "political, religious, or ideological objectives" of islamic terrorists?

Granted different groups may have unique "political, religious, or ideological objectives" that are group specific but they also have "political, religious, or ideological objectives" that all islamic terrorist groups share.
 
  2007-08-25 09:07:01 PM
Why don't you just tell me what you're driving?
 
  2007-08-26 03:37:11 PM
Let me guess where you're going dottedmint; Islamic terrorists want to kill Americans and destroy America, and therefore the only prudent course of action is to attack them before they attack us. Is that where this is headed?

Speculation aside, the Rolling Stone article on the main page today was a good (albeit depressing) read. I'd be curious what some of the war supporters on here have to say about it.
 
  2007-08-26 03:42:01 PM
dottedmint: Bonnie you basically just said that the goal of islamic terrorists is to use terror to acheive their goal.

I think Soup4Bonnie's response was appropriate, considering how general the question was.
 
  2007-08-26 04:22:56 PM
I don't know, but nothing says it's time for a good housecleaning like that article.

All the houses. There was testimony before Congress about the astonishing grab-the-cash-with-both-hands fraud. Their failure to enact some serious reform would make them just as culpable as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

How do you retain oversight when two out of the three branches of gov't are f*cking up?
 
  2007-08-27 09:04:27 AM
No Alberto headline yet?

Weird.
 
  2007-08-27 12:21:27 PM
Alberto Gonzales esto Chingaro?
 
Displayed 50 of 2658 comments

First | « | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report