well Bush nostalgists?

[callmeslick]

How's that Removing Saddam Hussein thing working out? Hmmm? I mean we only spent a trillion dollars, a couple of thousand dead soldiers and maybe 50,000 others severely damaged, so that we created this.....
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/milit ... it-n129271

as my father wisely noted when the Iraq war started, it was the 'dumbest foreign policy decision' in his lifetime. He was born in 1921.
I'm sure the usual suspects will say this is all Obama's fault, somehow, but the bottom line is that the previous administration spent a fortune, hurt our future(both societally and economically as a cost of the human toll),didn't pay for any of those costs, and you all focus on Bengazi?? Really?

[Will Robinson]

If a previous presidents foreign policy strategy was terrible how does that make a current presidents terrible foreign policy immune to criticism?

Only in your purely partisan world does a rule like that apply!

[Will Robinson]

"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government," said Biden.

"I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

I guess Bush must have tricked him into saying those things huh?

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that President Obama is imperiling gains made in Iraq by pulling troops out too quickly.

Cheney said he envisioned the United States having a substantial long-term military presence in Iraq to act as a stabilizing force in the region, drawing comparisons to Japan, Germany and South Korea.

He described Obama’s Iraq policy as a “rush for the exit.”
“I’ve got a problem with it,” Cheney said when asked about the president’s announcement last week that the last American soldier would leave Iraq by the end of the year.

The former vice president has been a longtime critic of the Obama administration and its national-security policies. His stance echoes that of the GOP presidential contenders, most of whom blasted Obama for the announcement, noting it risked the gains Americans have made in the region.

[callmeslick]

If a previous presidents foreign policy strategy was terrible how does that make a current presidents terrible foreign policy immune to criticism?

Only in your purely partisan world does a rule like that apply!

didn't suggest it did, but that the scale difference is VAST.

[callmeslick]

"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government," said Biden.

"I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

I guess Bush must have tricked him into saying those things huh?

nope. Old Joe was clearly jumping the gun. Frankly, we all know the pressure on the incoming administration to get the heck out of there, and I suspect MOST Americans don't give a rat's behind what happens there. The current situation is exactly what one might expect, insofar as the place is breaking up along old tribal/religious lines. As it had for a millenium until the Brits attempted to cobble the region into a 'nation'. Saddam was able to control that 'nation' and keep this sort of crap from happening. That is why he was politically valuable for a couple decades to our objectives.......

[Will Robinson]

...Saddam was able to control that 'nation' and keep this sort of crap from happening. That is why he was politically valuable for a couple decades to our objectives.......

Correct and I was hoping they would have slapped him around and put him back in charge after he 'invited us' to build a base in the north to 'keep the kurds' in line from where we would have continued and improved tactical and strategic value toward our objectives.
Instead of just rushing to the exit and posing for the cameras.

Old Joe did a 'mission accomplished' orders of magnitude greater than Bush did on the deck of the carrier. The only difference is the media isn't going to be looking to nail Joe and his team...

[callmeslick]

Old Joe did a 'mission accomplished' orders of magnitude greater than Bush did on the deck of the carrier. The only difference is the media isn't going to be looking to nail Joe and his team...

you're joking, right? Bush claimed the end of hostilities altogether, if you remember.....right before another 1500 men lost their lives.

[Will Robinson]

Old Joe did a 'mission accomplished' orders of magnitude greater than Bush did on the deck of the carrier. The only difference is the media isn't going to be looking to nail Joe and his team...

you're joking, right? Bush claimed the end of hostilities altogether, if you remember.....right before another 1500 men lost their lives.

Bush told the returning ship/fleet that their mission was accomplished, those sailors, arriving home at end of tour or floating endlessly in the Mediterranean, were never going to keep the peace or fight the war in the trenches. He declared the end of major hostilities not 'all hostilities' as you claim and not the end of the war as others more brazen than even you have said. The white house made that distinction clear...but the media didn't like the way that fit their narrative. Weasel words are only allowed by the other guys...

Did he want people to think the tide had turned? Sure, just like Biden did in this case.
How many people will have died in Iraq since Obama took the troops out and left what Biden calls "one of the great achievements of this administration"?
..."You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government,". riiiiiigghhtt.

Same thing different media priority.

[callmeslick]

I suspect, Will, that we might both agree the whole Iraq thing was a clusterf**k, but admit that Obama got elected on the promise to get out, and get out completely and quickly. That drove the agenda. I agree that nothing in reality would have given any confidence to Biden's pronouncement, but at least his were merely wishful thinking, not a flat-out lie.......

[Tunnelcat]

Let's face the facts. The only thing that kept all those disparate factions in Iraq from fighting each other in eternal war was a tyrant with absolute power, Saddam. We as a nation don't want to have absolute despotic power over another country that we can't profit from or control. Our citizens at the present certainly don't want the responsibility of dealing with the constant loss of our troops just to keep these factions apart, nor can we afford it either. So one other other undeniable fact remains. Bush toppled the dictator that kept the lid on things over there without good forethought as to what would happen, and nothing Obama can or did do will fix the mess that resulted from it. It's a lost cause.

[vision]

Bush told the returning ship/fleet that their mission was accomplished, those sailors, arriving home at end of tour or floating endlessly in the Mediterranean, were never going to keep the peace or fight the war in the trenches. He declared the end of major hostilities not 'all hostilities'...

That is a pro level of spin right there. You could have a job in politics.

[Tunnelcat]

Bush told the returning ship/fleet that their mission was accomplished, those sailors, arriving home at end of tour or floating endlessly in the Mediterranean, were never going to keep the peace or fight the war in the trenches. He declared the end of major hostilities not 'all hostilities'...

That is a pro level of spin right there. You could have a job in politics.

Maybe Will is really Fox News' official spinmeister, after he left the job as Bush's? Sorry Will, there's no way to sugar coat Bush's 2 pump chump. Slam, bam, thank you ma'am.

[Spidey]

Predicting the future again huh…How can you say that Iraq and Iran wouldn’t be at war or some other god awful thing might not be happening anyway?

JFTR I never supported the Iraq invasion, and don’t have any good feelings about the results…but saying this is a direct result is just BS, and has to be called out.

[callmeslick]

I disagree. This was an EASY predictable outcome, that should have been forseen before invading Iraq. Hell, I'm no military/governance/Islamic world expert, but I was calling this outcome from the moment we went to overthrow Hussein. Anyone with a moderate grasp of recent world history, and social structures of the Islamic world could see that outcome.

[woodchip]

I disagree. This was an EASY predictable outcome, that should have been forseen before invading Iraq. Hell, I'm no military/governance/Islamic world expert, but I was calling this outcome from the moment we went to overthrow Hussein. Anyone with a moderate grasp of recent world history, and social structures of the Islamic world could see that outcome.

Slick you are really great at stating the obvious....after the fact. Since your boy was in such a rush to get out and neglected to get a status of forces agreement signed, I'll make this prediction. We'll wind up going back to Iraq when AQ takes over the country and uses the vast oil money there to make a attack on our country. Obama will of course look for reasons not to attack but in the end we will have to.

[callmeslick]

I disagree. This was an EASY predictable outcome, that should have been forseen before invading Iraq. Hell, I'm no military/governance/Islamic world expert, but I was calling this outcome from the moment we went to overthrow Hussein. Anyone with a moderate grasp of recent world history, and social structures of the Islamic world could see that outcome.

Slick you are really great at stating the obvious....after the fact.

on the board where CUDA and I first encountered on another, I was stating that outcome in 2002.

Since your boy was in such a rush to get out and neglected to get a status of forces agreement signed,

here come the lies. The administration sought such, but couldn't reach agreement with the Iraqis, so we left, as promised. Try to stick to the truth when waving the Obama hard-on, otherwise you look even sillier than usual.

I'll make this prediction. We'll wind up going back to Iraq when AQ takes over the country and uses the vast oil money there to make a attack on our country. Obama will of course look for reasons not to attack but in the end we will have to.

I doubt it. Funny all the pressure from the GOP, as expected. Boehner, Graham, the other usual suspects want him to rush into Iraq. Despite the fact that Iran is already involved. What do they wish him to do? Arm the Iraqis, who could lose the weapons? Work side by side with our old pals, the Iranians? Hell, you're pissing and moaning that we don't still have troops in that armpit. Thank goodness, Obama got them all out. Marching in them would be the best Sunni Extremist Recruitment Tool ever.

[Will Robinson]

I disagree. This was an EASY predictable outcome, that should have been forseen before invading Iraq. Hell, I'm no military/governance/Islamic world expert, but I was calling this outcome from the moment we went to overthrow Hussein. Anyone with a moderate grasp of recent world history, and social structures of the Islamic world could see that outcome.

Yes it was predictable and Obama predicted all those rascally islamofacists would chill out the day he was inaugurated because he has Muslim family members.

The guy was elected because he was going to be the solution not the problem. If the problem was so damn easy to see for a civilian like you with no advising experts...how the hell did the genius Obama with his crack team get it so wrong?!?
He pulled out of there too fast with no concern for the problem. His politics trumped the solution.

[callmeslick]

I disagree. This was an EASY predictable outcome, that should have been forseen before invading Iraq. Hell, I'm no military/governance/Islamic world expert, but I was calling this outcome from the moment we went to overthrow Hussein. Anyone with a moderate grasp of recent world history, and social structures of the Islamic world could see that outcome.

Yes it was predictable and Obama predicted all those rascally islamofacists would chill out the day he was inaugurated because he has Muslim family members.

more lies

The guy was elected because he was going to be the solution not the problem. If the problem was so damn easy to see for a civilian like you with no advising experts...how the hell did the genius Obama with his crack team get it so wrong?!?
He pulled out of there too fast with no concern for the problem. His politics trumped the solution.

he knew the problem, because, as I said, you had to be an idiot not to see it. Sadly, the nation was run by idiots in 2002. Obama got nothing wrong. The nation wanted OUT OF IRAQ, the polls said that to the tune of 82-18%. Are you suggesting we should have kept troops there? In other words, you are whining(and making up lies to back the whine up) because we didn't chase good money(and lives) after bad over there? What would troop presence do, other than prolong the inevitable and cost us the same 150 Million dollars per year it had been costing. Remember, the treasury was a tad short, and folks like yourself were in a dither over that, too. Can't have it every way at once.......

[Will Robinson]

I disagree. This was an EASY predictable outcome, that should have been forseen before invading Iraq. Hell, I'm no military/governance/Islamic world expert, but I was calling this outcome from the moment we went to overthrow Hussein. Anyone with a moderate grasp of recent world history, and social structures of the Islamic world could see that outcome.

Yes it was predictable and Obama predicted all those rascally islamofacists would chill out the day he was inaugurated because he has Muslim family members.

more lies

This makes the third time you declared it to be a lie. The previous two times I posted the link to New Hampshire Public Radio interview where you were able to hear him say as much. You then disappeared so I think I'll pass on finding the link again since the truth seems to elude you regardless of how many times you walk face first in to it.

The guy was elected because he was going to be the solution not the problem. If the problem was so damn easy to see for a civilian like you with no advising experts...how the hell did the genius Obama with his crack team get it so wrong?!?
He pulled out of there too fast with no concern for the problem. His politics trumped the solution.

he knew the problem, because, as I said, you had to be an idiot not to see it. Sadly, the nation was run by idiots in 2002. Obama got nothing wrong. The nation wanted OUT OF IRAQ, the polls said that to the tune of 82-18%. Are you suggesting we should have kept troops there? In other words, you are whining(and making up lies to back the whine up) because we didn't chase good money(and lives) after bad over there? What would troop presence do, other than prolong the inevitable and cost us the same 150 Million dollars per year it had been costing. Remember, the treasury was a tad short, and folks like yourself were in a dither over that, too. Can't have it every way at once.......

Waaaah someone call the waaahmbulance!

[woodchip]

What would troop presence do, other than prolong the inevitable and cost us the same 150 Million dollars per year it had been costing. Remember, the treasury was a tad short, and folks like yourself were in a dither over that, too. Can't have it every way at once.......

Yet the treasury was not so short Obama couldn't give Solyndra 500 million

[callmeslick]

500 million as part of a economic initiative we have to take, unless we wish to be buried in the global economy of the next 50 years. That, versus the $150 BILLION Iraq was costing us. Really? You compare the two, with a straight face?

[callmeslick]

oh, and Will, I heard the interview. He inferred no such thing, unless you are a right-wing hating loon, and wish to twist words and intent a bit.
Sorry. I'll stop calling it a lie, and refer to it as a hallucination from here on in.

[Will Robinson]

oh, and Will, I heard the interview. He inferred no such thing, unless you are a right-wing hating loon, and wish to twist words and intent a bit.
Sorry. I'll stop calling it a lie, and refer to it as a hallucination from here on in.

The only lie is the one you are telling.
Or maybe you didnt listen to the whole thing because I'm citing his words. Not implying that was what he meant. His words.
He was even stopped by the interviewer who tried to rephrase it for him and he corrected her and reaffirmed his belief that it was his having a muslim half sister and his own islamic experience that gave him a unique quality that would cause muslims everywhere to respect him and america in a way that no other candidate could deliver.

Lie my ass. Anyone who doubts either of us can google new hampshire public radio 2007 Obama interview and listen toward the end of the interview and then they will know who is lying...

[callmeslick]

he didn't at any time infer or say that all corners of the Muslim world would respect his heritage, Will. There's the big difference. You tried to stretch it to the notion that the radical fringe would do so, and NO ONE inferred that. EVER. If you think he did, you're, as I noted, hallucinating.

[vision]

Everywhere is not the same as everyone.

[Will Robinson]

The comments he made were in response to a question by a caller.

She asked him to talk a little bit more about his backgropund, his experience and how it will help change the image of america in the world'.

Wow, I wonder who actually authored that question? Lol!

Regardless of the staged question (doesn't she sound a bit like Candy Crowley), that is the context in which he offered his response.

Now you can try to spin his response any way you want but a candidate trying to hold himself up as the superior choice who cites his half sister as a credential of his because she is muslim...and he not only spent time living with muslims as a youth but apparently claims to have traveled there through his college years and adds those travels to his 'resume' of one who, in his words: "on the day I am inaugurated, not only does the country look at itself differently but the world looks at america differently."
He claims the whole world will see america differently BECAUSE of those credentials...a half sister who is muslim and having spent time in the midst of muslims. And he then goes on to specify muslims will do that.

It is laughably naive.

He is out of his element and put it on display.

He is half white and spent lots of time with white people, his mother is white. So he certainly has the same resume in the civil rights arena of america yet he doesn't go around claiming white people automatically relate to him based on that!
He often claims the opposite...that they hate him because of the way he looks. He is a player through and through.

You two apparantly like being played by him so you snap to his defense regardless of how far from rational your defense takes you. Have fun with that. The rest of us recognize the emperor has no clothes.

[woodchip]

Everywhere is not the same as everyone.

Isn't everyone everywhere tho? See, I can make the same kind of nuanced gobbledygook like you do.

[callmeslick]

and now the experts come out of the TV woodworks: Bremer, Kristol, Cheney.....forgawdsakes, Dick Freaking Cheney? He wants to help the nation figure out what to do in Iraq? Dick Cheney? He should be publicly flogged for getting us involved whatsoever, and the rest of that neocon crowd should be hung from DC lampposts by the testicles. Do these clowns understand that we're still dealing with the fact they made the DUMBEST decision in US foreign policy history??

[Will Robinson]

and now the experts come out of the TV woodworks: Bremer, Kristol, Cheney.....forgawdsakes, Dick Freaking Cheney? He wants to help the nation figure out what to do in Iraq? Dick Cheney? He should be publicly flogged for getting us involved whatsoever, and the rest of that neocon crowd should be hung from DC lampposts by the testicles. Do these clowns understand that we're still dealing with the fact they made the DUMBEST decision in US foreign policy history??

Funny, you seem to have left out a bunch of other experts who were involved. Without them the neocons would have had no hope of succeeding.
And you seem to be completely on their side now too!

Democrats' Responsibility

The Democrats who voted to support the war and rationalized that vote by making false claims about Iraq's WMD programs were responsible for allowing the Bush administration to get away with lying about Iraq's alleged threat. For example, Bush was able to note how "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate - who had access to the same intelligence - voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." In a 2005 speech attacking anti-war activists, Bush noted how, "Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.'"

Indeed, the fact that 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry chose to make such demonstrably false statements and voted in favor of the resolution likely cost the Democrats the White House since it led many potential supporters, myself included, to refuse to vote for him. Furthermore, because of Kerry's vote in support for the war and his false claims about Iraq's weapons capabilities, the debate during the fall campaign was not about who was right about Iraq (since they were both wrong), but Kerry's alleged "flip-flopping" for belatedly raising questions about the conduct of the war.

Kerry was not alone in rushing to the defense of the Bush administration. Despite serious doubts being raised by arms control specialists, including some within the US government, about Iraq having proscribed weapons and a series of articles in academic journals, daily newspapers and elsewhere disputing the administration's claims, Senator Hillary Clinton, in justification of her vote to authorize the invasion, falsely insisted that Iraq's possession of such weapons was "not in doubt" and was "undisputed." Despite her lies, Obama named her his first secretary of State.

Similarly, Senator Joe Biden, then head of the Senate foreign Relations Committee, falsely claimed that Iraq under Saddam Hussein - severely weakened by UN disarmament efforts and comprehensive international sanctions - somehow constituted both "a long-term threat and a short-term threat to our national security" and was an "extreme danger to the world."

Despite the absence in Iraq of any "weapons of mass destruction" or offensive military capabilities, Biden - when reminded of those remarks during an interview in 2007 - replied, "That's right, and I was correct about that."
In his powerful position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden orchestrated a propaganda show designed to sell the war to skeptical colleagues and the American public by ensuring that dissenting voices would not get a fair hearing.

Biden refused to even allow testimony from former UN inspectors like Scott Ritter - who knew more about Iraq's WMD capabilities than anyone and would have testified that Iraq had achieved at least qualitative disarmament. Ironically, on Meet the Press in 2007, Biden defended his false claims about Iraqi WMDs by falsely insisting that "everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them."

Biden also refused to honor requests by some of his Democratic colleagues to include some of the leading anti-war scholars familiar with Iraq and the Middle East in the hearings. These included both those who would have reiterated Ritter's conclusions about nonexistent Iraqi WMD capabilities as well as those prepared to testify that a US invasion of Iraq would likely set back the struggle against al-Qaeda, alienate the United States from much of the world and precipitate bloody urban counter-insurgency warfare amid rising terrorism, Islamist extremism, and sectarian violence. All of these predictions ended up being exactly what transpired.

Nor did Biden even call some of the dissenting officials in the Pentagon or State Department who were willing to challenge the alarmist claims of their ideologically-driven superiors. He was willing, however, to allow Iraqi defectors with highly dubious credentials to make false testimony about the vast quantities of WMD materiel supposedly in Saddam Hussein's possession.

Ritter has correctly accused Biden of having "preordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts and ... using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq."

Despite all this, Obama made Biden his pick for vice president.

At least Biden initially tried to alter the wording of the war authorization resolution so as not to give President Bush the blank check he was seeking and to put some limitations on his war-making authority. By contrast, Harry Reid - as assistant majority leader of the Senate - helped circumvent Biden's efforts by signing on to the White House's version. As the Democratic "whip," Reid then persuaded a majority of Democratic Senators to vote down a resolution offered by Democratic Senator Carl Levin that would authorize force only if the UN Security Council voted to give the US that authority and to instead support the White House resolution giving Bush the right to invade even without such legal authorization.

In March 2003, after Iraq allowed United Nations inspectors to return and it was becoming apparent that there were no WMDs to be found, President Bush decided to invade Iraq anyway. Reid rushed to the president's support, claiming that - despite its clear violation of the United Nations Charter - the invasion was "lawful" and that he "commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President."

Despite all this, the Democrats voted to make Reid their leader in the Senate, where he now holds the powerful post of majority leader.

It is also important to recognize that not everyone in Congress voted to authorize the invasion. There were the 21 Senate Democrats - along with one Republican and one Independent - who voted against the war resolution. And 126 of 207 House Democrats voted against the resolution as well. In total, then, a majority of Democrats in Congress defied their leadership by saying no to war. This means that the Democrats who did support the war, despite being over-represented in leadership positions and among future presidential contenders, were part of a right-wing minority and did not represent the mainstream of their party.

The resolution backed by Reid, Biden, Clinton, Kerry and other Democratic Senate leaders also claimed that "the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States ... or provide them to international terrorists who would do so … combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself." In other words, those who supported this resolution believed, or claimed to believe, that an impoverished country, which had eliminated its stockpiles of banned weapons, destroyed its medium- and long-range missiles and eliminated its WMD programs more than a decade earlier, and had been suffering under the strictest international sanctions in world history for more than a dozen years, somehow threatened the national security of a superpower located more than 6,000 miles away.

Furthermore, these members of Congress believed, or claimed to believe, that this supposed threat was so great that the United States had no choice but to launch an invasion of that country, overthrow its government, and place its people under military occupation in the name of "self-defense," regardless of whether Iraq allowed inspectors back into the county to engage in unfettered inspections to prove that the WMDs, WMD programs and weapons systems no longer existed.

From a much more honest liberal.

So why should we listen to you complain? What credibility do you have since you defend so many who are responsible?
You are nothing but a partisan hack....a wannabe Sean Hannity from the other end of the spectrum.

[callmeslick]

I agree with the complicity and the stupidity of the Dems who allowed themselves to be steamrollered on Iraq. However, the big difference with Cheney et al, is IT WASN'T THEIR PLAN. That is a big matter. I'm sure you, as well as I, remember the over-inflated bogus 'patriotism' of the times that sent, essentially, most of the populace into lockstep with anything that was sold to be anti-terrorism, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan or the Patriot Act. Yes, there should have been FAR more courageous people to stand up and question all of those. However, that is water over the dam at this point. The question is HAVE WE LEARNED? As I said before, my 93 year old father knew Iraq was a stupid move in 2002, when it was first proposed. Has our political class learned not to repeat the mistakes? I don't know. I do know this much: the American public wants no more incursions into foreign lands. This BS about 'fighting for freedom' sort of rings hollow, when the 'freedom' allows for genocide, and the troops return home to unemployment, VA issues, lifetimes of trauma.....for what?

[Spidey]

Do these clowns understand that we're still dealing with the fact they made the DUMBEST decision in US foreign policy history??

The dumbest and by a mile...foreign policy mistake was delaying the entry into WWII, that in itself cost more lives in one day then all of Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

You and your "facts"...you wouldn't know a fact if it walked up to you and introduced itself.

[callmeslick]

Do these clowns understand that we're still dealing with the fact they made the DUMBEST decision in US foreign policy history??

The dumbest and by a mile...foreign policy mistake was delaying the entry into WWII, that in itself cost more lives in one day then all of Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

You and your "facts"...you wouldn't know a fact if it walked up to you and introduced itself.

sorry, but I'd disagree. The long-term effects upon this nation of entering Iraq are far worse We haven't begun to pay those costs in full. Your estimate of 'lives in a day' is based on pure speculation and is pretty dubious. I prefer not to search out the 'worst' but was merely repeating my Dad's assessment, which impressed me as he had seen a long string of less-than-perfect decisions from WWII through the Bay of Pigs, to Vietnam, etc.

[Spidey]

Fine, I’ll just chalk that up to one man’s opinion…and let it go.

[Nightshade]

[callmeslick]

ah, TB....another one with a lot of whine and no substance.