0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 11:48 am
Blatham, ONE MORE TIME!

Please provide specific references or links to the article or articles that quote Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and/or Powell publicly acknowledging any one or more of the following:
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and the Taliban, or
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, or
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and Indonesian Terrorists.

I don't require any references or links to the Administration's acknowledgment of no connection "between Sadaam and the International Boy Scouts." Your say so will suffice. Smile

On this administration publicly acknowledging topic, I hereby abandon and will not use the old Einstein observation: "absence of proof is not proof of absence."

If you provide specific references or links, I shall surely get with the program.

blatham wrote:
I have little hope you'll change your position regardless of what might come your way.


Try me!

I am not asking you to prove anything. I am simply asking you to provide me specific references or links. If one or more of those administration officials you have mentioned has actually said or written what you say they have, you should find it easy to provide those references or links. If I were to reneg on my commitment to you, you could have a jolly time pointing that out to the rest of the folks here on able2know.
0 Replies
 
jackie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 11:59 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64604-2004Mar16.htm

Beyond the antics of Bush, the lawmakers have taken SO MUCH abuse off the Republicans... They are about to 'break truce'.

(I don't think the link works. Go to WashingtonPost home page for article:
Ethics fraying...)


Ethics Truce Frays in House
Democrats Torn Over Investigating GOP
By Charles Babington and Dan Morgan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 17, 2004; Page A01


A seven-year ethics truce between congressional Republicans and Democrats has begun to fray under the weight of mounting alleged abuses by House GOP leaders and tensions among Democrats over how aggressively to pursue the matters.
Some Democrats and outside groups think the reported wrongdoings have reached a critical mass that cries out for investigations and reforms. Democratic leaders, however, are wary of breaking the long cease-fire that has protected both parties from the types of ethics charges and countercharges that roiled Congress and toppled two speakers in the 1980s and '90s.

Central to the debate is the House ethics committee,
largely dormant since the unwritten truce took effect but rousing in recent days to defend itself against the rain of criticism. Watchdog groups are demanding that the secretive panel show more vigor in pursuing published reports of questionable behavior by lawmakers, and they want an end to the House-approved 1997 rule that bars ethics inquiries based solely on complaints from outsiders.
Some Democratic activists also are seething, convinced their elected officials are letting Republicans flout ethical standards in ways that were unthinkable when the GOP took control of the House in 1994. Republicans had attacked the entrenched Democrats' abuse of the House bank and post office and vowed to end Congress's "cycle of scandal."

The recent allegations touch top lawmakers, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and several committee chairmen. They involve suggestions of bribery and threats on the House floor, illegal use of
campaign funds, misuse of a federal agency for political purposes, conflicts of interest, and strong-arm tactics against lobbyists and campaign contributors.

Yet prominent Democrats, such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) -- who this month decried "the fraying of the moral fiber of what goes on here" -- have repeatedly declined to press ethics charges or make them a political priority. Pelosi said she does not think leaders should bring ethics charges against lawmakers from the opposing party.

Outside Congress, some Republicans have joined Democrats in expressing mounting dismay over inaction in dealing with alleged ethics abuses.

"The ethics oversight process in the House is completely paralyzed," said Trevor Potter, a Republican and appointee of the first Bush administration who heads the Campaign Legal Center.

Several analysts and academics say the House must change its self-policing practices,
perhaps by having former lawmakers or judges help screen cases or suggest sanctions.

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), however, thinks the ethics process "works well," and he sees no need to respond to critics, said his spokesman, John Feehery. DeLay, the second-ranking House Republican, has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and accuses political enemies of raising trumped-up charges.

The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct -- which was in the thick of cases that led to the resignation of Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) and later the political wounding of Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) -- last week defended itself against charges it has been a do-nothing panel. In a four-page letter to House members, Chairman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) and ranking Democrat Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.) said, "We are fully committed to pursuing any credible claim that a member or staff person has violated any provision of the House rules." Those rules require, among other things, that members and staffers conduct themselves "in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House."

In the past seven years the committee has undertaken "informal fact-finding" missions 18 times, the letter said, and "a number of them are ongoing." Most cases were closed with no public indication that anything took place, the letter said.

In a sign that it may pursue some of the pending cases further, the committee last week asked for an equal number of House Republicans and Democrats to be named to a "pool" that can be tapped for investigative subcommittees. In keeping with committee traditions, Hefley declined to say which cases, if any, are being actively pursued.



(skipping second page of three pages:)




Several of the recent ethics controversies center on DeLay, an aggressive, energetic lightning rod for admirers and detractors alike.

Veteran public-disclosure advocate Fred Wertheimer, who now heads Democracy21.org, is calling for ethics committee and Internal Revenue Service investigations into DeLay's charitable organization, Celebrations for Children Inc. The charity's fundraising brochure seeks donations of up to $500,000, which would entitle the contributor to a "private dinner" with DeLay and his wife, tickets to Broadway plays, a golf tournament and other events associated with the Republican National Convention this summer in New York City.

Wertheimer said DeLay is "flagrantly misusing a purported 'charitable' organization for his political purposes and to finance his political operations" at the convention.

DeLay spokesman Stuart Roy said Celebrations for Children is perfectly legal and at least 75 percent of the money it raises will go to charitable groups helping neglected children in Texas and New York.

Also drawing fire from Democrats and watchdog groups is a political action committee closely tied to DeLay: Texans for a Republican Majority, or TRMPAC. An Austin-based grand jury is looking into allegations that TRMPAC illegally used corporate funds to help Texas GOP candidates in 2002. Among those subpoenaed is Danielle Ferro, DeLay's daughter, who was paid by TRMPAC to organize events.

Prosecutors are asking whether TRMPAC laundered $190,000 in corporate donations through the Republican National Committee. Texas law bars PACs from using corporate donations to help individual candidates. Also, outside money and gifts are barred from the race for the Texas House speaker, a focus of TRMPAC's efforts.

Prosecutors have cited documents showing that TRMPAC spent about $400,000 in corporate contributions on political consultants whose work they say was prohibited. DeLay and other Republicans say the services were legal because they did not go directly to GOP candidates. They accuse a Democratic prosecutor of using the grand jury for political purposes.

Researchers Lucy Shackelford, Madonna Lebling and Meg Smith contributed to this report.



(I decided to print this since the article is off the page now. I do not know how to link things... plus - In my opinion, I am not an asset to the forum, so---- last one)
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 12:02 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Can anyone offer me evidence that the US has any proficiency in managing a situation like the one in Iraq?

Well, how about the BEEB survey results, for starters. Cool (But good comeback!) Very Happy

Then we might look at post WWII Germany and Japan...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 12:13 pm
ican711nm wrote:
AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT HAS INCREASED THE INCIDENCE OF WORLD TERRORISM, AND NOT OUR THUS FAR INSUFFICIENT ATTEMPTS TO RESIST IT.

First paragraph from bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa:
Quote:
Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement

23 February 1998

...

Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.


One more time:
Quote:

I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped


Please know your enemy before you and yours can no longer know anything.


This Fatwa is not Saddam indulging himself; this is bin Laden in 1998 declaring war on the west.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 12:24 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
The least we can do now to solve our own conscience, if nothing else, is to make good on our promise to make Iraq a better place.
Steve... We've found more common ground... excellent!
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 12:31 pm
Bill, if you concede we did it for oil, I'll share a cigar with you Laughing

Meanwhile

Tony Blair said again today that you can't negotiate with this type of suicidal terrorism. You have to fight it. On the face of it this seems absolutely true. How can you negotiate with some nut with a Kalashnikov in one hand and the Koran in the other? We are left with the impression that obl and his kind want to destroy western democracy and impose global sharia law. But do they?

Osama bin Laden has published a list of demands ranging from the removal of American troops from Saudi Arabia, to a suitable Kashmiri settlement, to the establishment of a new Islamic Caliphate. [With the conquest of Iraq, and establishment of American bases there, Bush has agreed to withdraw American troops from Saudi Arabia. Just how much that has placated obl I don't know]. OBL sees himself as fighting a defensive jihad. Here he is in an interview in Oct 2001

HM: Can it be said that you are against the American government, not the American people ?

OSB: Yes! We are carrying on the mission of our Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him). The mission is to spread the word of God, not to indulge massacring people. We ourselves are the target of killings, destruction and atrocities. We are only defending ourselves. This is defensive Jihad. We want to defend our people and our land. That is why I say that if we don't get security, the Americans, too would not get security. This is a simple formula that even an American child can understand. This is the formula of live and let live.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 01:13 pm
We need to bring this information on the "coalition of the willing" to bring it into perspective today. Only Britain and Japan made major committments, but Japan's support was for "after the war." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2862343.stm
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 02:20 pm
CI - Tell you what, I'll accept your assessment (or that of your source) sight unseen. Let's just say it was the US and UK, period. A coalition of 2 nations. That fair enough? Great.

Now, if we can just agree that 2 entities do not act "unilaterally", we can move on from this tedious twisting of the language. Cool Heck, maybe we could have a discussion wherein we try to take an unbiased look at why each nation made the choice it did; why the US wanted to drive Saddam out, why France didn't, ... Taking a look at the real reasons behind each nation's actions might be useful in painting this whole issue in a different light.

Or, if you and others really want to stretch the term "unilateral" to mean "without the UN or the specific countries I think should have been on board" then can we agree that Clinton went into Bosnia "unilaterally", and can we further acknowledge that he didn't even make a pretense of going to the UN first? Then maybe we can explore why so many care so much about the war in Iraq, but care so little about the war in Bosnia.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 02:28 pm
"self-determination" might very well be stated as the manifest function of a democratic form of governing. When we debase other (non-conforming) nations/peoples by questioning their rationale for their decisions ie France-Germany and now Espana while at the same time disparaging self determination for the middle-east or any other region of the world as being against our self-determined self-interest we debase ourselves.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 02:34 pm
No one disagrees that the US' involvement in Bosnia was uinilateral,a dn against the wishes of the UNSC. What you might perhaps wish to focus on is why that action was not opposed strongly by the rest of the world, while the action in Iraq was,a nd rightly so.
In the current (March/April) Foreign Affairs, there is an article by Robert Kagan that discusses this very issue in terms of "legitimacy" of actions. Perhaps you should ask yourself why unilateral actions in response to ongoing ethnic genocide were deemed "legitimate" by the world community, while invasion and overthrow of a government run by a despot who was finally co-operating with the UN was not. In many ways it may be a matter of expressed intent. The administrations "tough guy" rhetoric has lost for it most of teh co-operation it had previously enjoyed.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 02:40 pm
dyslexia wrote:
"self-determination" might very well be stated as the manifest function of a democratic form of governing. When we debase other (non-conforming) nations/peoples by questioning their rationale for their decisions ie France-Germany and now Espana while at the same time disparaging self determination for the middle-east or any other region of the world as being against our self-determined self-interest we debase ourselves.

Dys - I am not disparaging anyone; I am suggesting that if we take a dispassionate look at the reasons each nation had (or may have had) for choosing as it did regarding the Iraq war, we will learn more of value to us than simply whining that the US acted without the permission or help of specific others. People seem more than willing to question the motives of the US. Certainly it is equally reasonable to question the motives of other nations.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 02:54 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Bill, if you concede we did it for oil, I'll share a cigar with you Laughing

Steve, perhaps we can agree on this:
The Middle East is what it is because of the oil beneath it. Without the oil, there would be little wealth there, and very likely few of the geo-political issues surrounding the region would be as they are. The region is important to the US and the world because of its oil resources; there's no getting around that. (I think one could even make a logical case that there would likely be no such thing as Middle East terrorism as it exists today, if there had never been oil there.)

So, since the very reality of what the Middle East is was and continues to be shaped by the oil beneath the sand, it's hard to argue that anything that happens there isn't about the oil. I guess this is a long way of saying, of course it's about oil, but what is it you think that point should mean to us? That the US shouldn't be concerned about the stability of the region where most of the world's energy resources are found? I just don't get this "it's about oil" complaint. It illicits a loud "duh" from me.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:31 pm
Scrat wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Bill, if you concede we did it for oil, I'll share a cigar with you Laughing

Steve, perhaps we can agree on this:
The Middle East is what it is because of the oil beneath it. Without the oil, there would be little wealth there, and very likely few of the geo-political issues surrounding the region would be as they are. The region is important to the US and the world because of its oil resources; there's no getting around that. (I think one could even make a logical case that there would likely be no such thing as Middle East terrorism as it exists today, if there had never been oil there.)

So, since the very reality of what the Middle East is was and continues to be shaped by the oil beneath the sand, it's hard to argue that anything that happens there isn't about the oil. I guess this is a long way of saying, of course it's about oil, but what is it you think that point should mean to us? That the US shouldn't be concerned about the stability of the region where most of the world's energy resources are found? I just don't get this "it's about oil" complaint. It illicits a loud "duh" from me.


What ..... Sargon, Alexander the great, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane were all after oil?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:49 pm
I'm not making a complaint. I'm just stating the obvious, the United States invaded Iraq to secure supply of energy resources. Not just from Iraq, but by force projection into neighbouring oil and gas states within easy reach of Iraq. And while I think the cry "blood for oil" is naive, it also describes accurately what we did. We should feel bad about it. The fact that this was done knowing the US and Britain were going to sustain battlefield casualties, and that further civilian deaths were likely from terrorist reprisal action, just takes the breath away at the sheer callousness and cynicism which is real politik.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:51 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:

What ..... Sargon, Alexander the great, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane were all after oil?


How, do you think, they worked? :wink:
Quote:
The lucerna is an oil lamp widely used since ancient times. Lamps were made with an oil container and one or more wick spouts. The use of oil lamps is mentioned in Homer's Odyssey (XIX, 34) and their use is also confirmed in Crete at the age of Mycenaean civilization (remnants were found in ancient palaces of Cnosso and Haghia Triada in Crete). Later, oil lamps were used by Phoenicians and Greeks who handed down their use to the Romans around the 4th century b.C.The more ancient did not have covers , and had a small flat case and a wick spout on the rim.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 05:03 pm
Iraq IS oil. The very boundaries of the country were drawn up around oil, not its peoples. And when the new royal navy Dreadnought class battleships were oil fired/steam turbine powered, Brittania Ruled the Waves OK?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 05:06 pm
We went into Iraq:
to protect our oil supply;
to protect ourselves;
to protect Iraq's neigbors;
to protect Iraqies.

Without all these adequately protected, we cannot protect any of these.

For example, protecting our oil supply protects our electric power, our transportation, our education, our jobs, our food, our clothing, and our shelter. In brief, protecting our oil supply protects our economy. Without adequate transportation, adequate food, clothing and shelter will be in short supply for many of us.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Tony Blair said again today that you can't negotiate with this type of suicidal terrorism. You have to fight it. On the face of it this seems absolutely true. How can you negotiate with some nut with a Kalashnikov in one hand and the Koran in the other? We are left with the impression that obl and his kind want to destroy western democracy and impose global sharia law. But do they?


YES Exclamation Read between the following lines Exclamation

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Osama bin Laden has published a list of demands ... OBL sees himself as fighting a defensive jihad. Here he is in an interview in Oct 2001.

HM: Can it be said that you are against the American government, not the American people ?


Anything can be said. What is true?
OSbL's followers murdered over 1000 innocent American citizens who are not members of the American Government.
OSbL's followers murdered over 1000 innocent American non-citizens who are not members of the American government.
All of those people were American people and not American government.

Some might claim it's right to kill innocent Americans in order to influence the American Government. If that be the case (I for one do not think it is), then isn't it equally right to kill innocent arabs just to influence Jihadists in general and OSbL in particular to stop killing American innocents?

Quote:
OSbL:
Yes! We are carrying on the mission of our Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him)."


I believe OSbL's mission is clearly expressed in the first paragraph of his 1998 Fatwa. When he or his heirs and their sympethizers and aiders and abettors all denounce and renounce the first paragraph of OSbL's 1998 Fatwa, I will think OSbL's mission is other than that paragraph says it is.

Quote:
OSbL:
... We are only defending ourselves. This is defensive Jihad.


Killing innocents is not defending one's self against anything other than one's resentment: resentment of what those innocents one kills have that one does not have. Such resentment is more born of the envy of an envious devil than the love of a loving god.

Quote:
OSbL:
" ... if we don't get security, the Americans, too would not get security. ... This is the formula of live and let live."


The American government is attempting to provide security to Iraqies, but OSbL's followers are hatefully trying to sabotage our efforts there. Where else do they want security? Let our government know! I'm sure it would like to help there too (where ever it is) when it finishes providing security to the Iraqies.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 05:28 pm
hobitbob wrote:
Perhaps you should ask yourself why unilateral actions in response to ongoing ethnic genocide were deemed "legitimate" by the world community, while invasion and overthrow of a government run by a despot who was finally co-operating with the UN was not.


Too much spin there Exclamation Rolling Eyes

Let's try it without that spin:

Quote:
Perhaps you should ask yourself why unilateral actions in response to ongoing ethnic genocide were deemed "legitimate" by the world community, while invasion and overthrow of a government run by a despot who was doing the same thing was not.


Saddam's late, so-called cooperation with the UN consisted of letting UN inspectors back in to Iraq, but not stopping Saddam led mass murders of his own people (e.g., poisoning many of his people, and more recently pushing many of his people off bridges to their death) , and not even providing the evidence of Saddam's claimed disposal of toxic chemical and biological agents, which was the subject of numerous UN resolutions demanding such evidence.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 05:39 pm
QUESTIONS

Will Bush or Kerry profit enough from their and the other guy's mistakes to finally do the right thing:

in Iraq;
in the US;
in the middle east;
in the world Question

Who will probably profit the most from past mistakes to finally do the right thing Question
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 06:17 pm
Blix vindicated, touring US
Quote:
Vindicated Blix returns to U.S. after Iraq search turned up no WMD

Tue Mar 16, 7:13 AM ET


DAFNA LINZER

NEW YORK (AP) - U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites) and British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) have lost credibility, the world isn't safer now that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) is out of power and it was clear 10 months ago that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (news - web sites), according to Hans Blix, the former UN weapons inspector who returned to New York on the one-year anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.


Missed Tech Tuesday?
Will the government's anti-terror tactics invade your privacy? Plus, protecting yourself from identity theft and is Wal-Mart watching?



Blix, who was often vilified by supporters and opponents of an invasion in the run-up to the Iraq war, left his post at the United Nations (news - web sites) last June at a time when many held out hope that biological, chemical or even nuclear weapons could be found by U.S. troops in Iraq.

But dozens of search teams over the last year have came up empty-handed and much of the initial resources devoted to the hunt have since been reallocated.

In an address Monday at New York University, Blix said the United States should have known months ago that there were no weapons to be found.

"By May I knew there was nothing because the Americans had interrogated so many Iraqis by then and even offered money and still they found nothing."

On a speaking tour for his new book Disarming Iraq, Blix offered some tough assessments of American accomplishments in Iraq and suggested that the United States was motivated to go to war because of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"It was a reaction to 9/11 that we have to strike some theoretical, hypothetical links between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists. That was wrong. There wasn't anything," he said in an interview with NBC's Today show.

And he disagreed that the war had made the world a safer place.

"Sorry to say it doesn't look that way. If the message was to terrorists that we are willing to take you on, then that has not succeeded. In Iraq, it has bred a lot of terrorism and a lot of hatred to the western world," he told an audience of 1,200 at NYU.

"Disarmament by war and democracy by occupation are difficult prospects."

He was especially critical of the United States and Britain for claiming the war was meant to uphold UN resolutions when the rest of the Security Council refused to back the conflict and he said Bush and Blair "oversold" what they knew.

"The moral of this story was clearly a loss of credibility for the leaders of this war and that they didn't think the council mattered, that was a mistake," Blix said.

Referring to passages from his book, the 75-year-old Swede identified Vice-President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) as his No. 1 opponent inside the Bush administration.

In a meeting with Cheney in October 2002, Blix said he was told the United States "was ready to discredit inspections in favour of disarmament," unless Blix's teams were able to find weapons the White House insisted were in Iraq.

Blix's return to the United States, after nine months in Sweden working on the book, was triumphant compared to his quiet departure last June, which was marred by a U.S. refusal to let his inspectors back into Iraq.

Blix spent Monday appearing on TV talk shows and signing copies of his book, which came out this week in the United States.

At NYU, he was introduced by faculty members as a "real-life hero," "unbiased and critical," and his comments drew rounds of thunderous applause during his two-hour appearance.



It was a striking contrast to the contentious appearances he made in the UN Security Council in the months leading up to the war. At that time, he was often criticized as pro-Iraqi or anti-American because his teams were coming up empty and refusing to blame Saddam for their failures.

Blix said he had been convinced for years that the Iraqis were hiding weapons of mass destruction but began having doubts when intelligence provided by the United States and other countries wasn't producing results. He blamed an overreliance on defectors and a refusal on the part of the White House to consider the possibility that the intelligence was wrong.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/18/2025 at 12:58:54