President Bush - about bush

clark · 2002-12-03 10:42:10

Pagan, the schoolyard banter is not needed- is it so difficult to act like an adult?

Shaun, your points are very well taken, and on the whole, make for a very emotionally convincing argument? however, that is not the argument being made. We may be doing the "right" thing for entirely wrong reasons, and that is my fundamental problem. Yes, a world without despots is indeed a better place for all, but your statements presuppose that American leaders know which people would be better off with which leaders. Would you like the American electorate to choose their leaders, who then choose who shall govern your country and how? That is effectively what you suggest- that American politicians are best equipped to decide what is best for the citizens of Iraq. It would be a far more noble and worthwhile cause if we were truly looking to vanquish villainy- to prevent the senseless deaths of so many- but it just isn't the case. Rwanda, Chechnya, Liberia, China, Colombia, the list goes on? each demonstrates that the welfare of the people is not even a general concern for us as a nation. As such, how much "democracy" do you think any Iraq people will enjoy under US military rule? The Supreme Court is hearing a case soon which will determine whether or not the detainees on Guantanamo Bay fall under the discretion of the US judicial system- it's not US territory. The ramifications of this one case are huge in light of the coming war- current precedent holds that the US judicial system has no power over areas controlled by the US military that are not part of the US. This means that the US military, which answers to the President, is not bound by the US judicial system- they in effect are their own law.

Cal,

The presence of covert-ops will create the ability to strike at a moment'snotice, if Saddam begins to show signs of hiding weapons or harassing the weapons inspectors.

we have enough air power to strike now- we have been able to do so for 9 years now. There is no need for the amount of military we are placing in the middle east unless we plan on invading- it is an overabundance to meet the goal of forcing Saddam's hand.

We really do need the UN's support. I mean, we pretty much ARE the UN, but it is still a symbolic thing.

If the UN is symbolic, then we do not need their support, do we. If we hold a veto on the Security Council, nothing can pass unless we allow it to. We also have other alliances that negate the need of the UN altogether? after all, Bosnia was a NATO action, not a UN one.

As for Bush being foolhardy- Bush is a war time president with a Republican congress. Think about the political ramifications of this. If anything, the latest election gave Bush a free hand since any who oppose him will be cast off from the Republican party, and the Democrats do not want to lose any more seats by standing in the way of fighting "terrorism". Even if the UN says, "hey, Iraq is clean"; Bush has only to tell the American electorate that the UN is bowing to despotism or some other half-truth.

As for ANWR, I think that any oil we can get domestically is better than having to import it from nations like Saudi Arabia

Why? We can get cheap oil now from other areas, use theirs, and have ours to fall back on if for some reason in the future we may need it. We have strategic reserves, but they only last so long- the amount that we can extract from ANWR will only come into production in 10 years- in 10 years, we should be somewhere along in mass producing hybrid vehicles or have fuel cells that are a bit more useful. Further, why risk any kind of impact on the environment there? It is an unnecessary option at this time. Our security is maintained by securing cheap oil from somewhere, and we will never be able to provide enough for ourselves- so our only options are to diversify our energy options, and/or set up reliable oil sources? perhaps Iraq. Do you see?

clark · 2002-12-03 12:30:27

To demonstrate how there will be war, not if:

"But Bush sought to draw attention away from the inspections, saying that disarmament rather than the inspections is the goal of the U.N. resolution passed last month.

"The inspectors are not in Iraq to play hide and seek with Mr. Saddam Hussein," Bush said in remarks at the Pentagon. "Inspectors do not have the duty or the ability to uncover terrible weapons hidden in a vast country. The responsibility of inspectors is simply to confirm the evidence of voluntary and total disarmament."

The president also laid out strict parameters for compliance.

"In the inspections process, the United States will be making one judgment: Has Saddam Hussein changed his behavior of the last 11 years? Has he decided to cooperate willingly and comply completely, or has he not?" Bush said. "So far, the signs are not encouraging."

Please note that Saddam Hussein has allowed weapons inspectors into Iraq, and he has let them into Presidential Palaces, a previously restricted area under the old UN inspections terms. How can our President justify this statement "so far, the signs are not encouraging"? Apparently the US is making the "one judgement", not the UN?

He also added:

"To press his point, Bush spoke for the first time of recent Iraqi actions he considered provocative: continued firing at U.S. and British planes in Iraq's "no-fly" zones and a bombastic, anti-American letter Iraq sent to the United Nations in which it accepted the terms of the world body's resolution."

Please note that the no-fly zone is not authorized by the UN. Please also note that we have bombed the Iraq's for 9 years now, and they have shot at us for 9 years- nothing has changed except the posturing and the rhetoric. I also question the legitimacy of pointing out a letter that protests what is perceived as injustice caused by US desires- yet somehow Bush would like us to believe that this could be a pretext for war. I ask you, is war justified by a letter of protest, especially in light that said country is abiding by the decision?

Defend this statement, " "A regime that fires upon American and British pilots is not taking the path of compliance. A regime that sends letters filled with protests and falsehoods is not taking the path of compliance," the president said."

" "The U.N. Security Council, the NATO alliance and the United States are united: Saddam Hussein will fully disarm himself of weapons of mass destruction," Bush said. "And if he does not, the United States will lead a coalition to disarm him.""

Notice the reference to NATO. This effectively allows us the ability to create a NATO action, since Turkey, as a member of NATO could be threatened by Iraq. The groundwork for bypassing the UN has already been set.

Bush made his comments before he signed a law authorizing a $393-billion defense budget in the biggest increase in military spending since the 1980s.

The whole article is located at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld … ec03.story - registration is required (free)

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-03 15:04:51

I agree with Clark that we need to let the Iraqis choose their own government. To some extent, we did that in Afghanistan, but the US backing there was due in part to the possibility of an Al Qaida uprising (which we now think is beginning to happen).

And what do you guys have against Bush? Yes, he has a Republican congress. Yes, he has broader war making powers. Yes, we have amassed troops in the region. But has Bush done ANYTHING with that yet? No. We are waiting for the outcome of the inspections, and keeping Saddam in check for the moment.

I would very much like to see the Iraqi people elect a new leader. I mean, only 10% of the people really support Saddam. How are those other impoverished, starving, and disarmed people supposed to oust a leader ruling under the cloak of supposed "democracy"? The US.

Here's where my argument hits a pothole. Please bear with me... You guys (aka clark) have wanted the US to leave Saddam alone. Then, you come back and say that Saddam needs to go for the sake of the Iraqi people. What am I supposed to say? Yes, I would like to see Saddam go, but I still don't want the US throwing its weight around and getting into trouble internationally, over a perfectly legitimate leader!

You guys pick up the trail from here... ???

Palomar · 2002-12-03 15:24:16

Here's where my argument hits a pothole. Please bear with me... You guys (aka clark) have wanted the US to leave Saddam alone. Then, you come back and say that Saddam needs to go for the sake of the Iraqi people. What am I supposed to say? Yes, I would like to see Saddam go, but I still don't want the US throwing its weight around and getting into trouble internationally, over a perfectly legitimate leader!
You guys pick up the trail from here... ???

*I just gone done arguing about this topic at a Yahoo! news message board; I rarely go to them, because I usually come away feeling like I've been in actual fisticuffs with people.

Okay, here's my take on it: I don't like Hussein. He is a dictator; need I say more? However, I don't like Bush either. He wants to be a dictator. Did anyone else catch his comment, either prior to the 2000 Election or shortly thereafter [I can't recall exactly when], when he made the comment that if America would have a dictator, it should be him? I wanted to puke. Trouble is, Georgie Porgie does have a lot of money and power behind him.

The -only- reason he wants to go after Saddam is because of O-I-L. Oil. Period.

North Korea has claimed it has nuclear materials it isn't supposed to have [based on some treaty agreement, the name and date of which I can't recall]. Why isn't Bush screaming and yelling for the UN weapons inspectors to go to N. Korea? Why isn't he threatening N. Korea with war if they don't quit/hand over their nukes? Why isn't he trying to rustle up support in a war effort against N. Korea with other nations? Because N. Korea doesn't have O-I-L. Bush and his top-notch cronies are oil men.

As for whether or not America should seek to remove Hussein from power: No. The motives of Bush and his cohorts are, IMO, purely hypocritical and entirely based on GREED and protecting THEIR oil/financial interests.

And by the way, when's the last time anyone has heard of the Cheney-Enron connection, hmmm? And wasn't King George known personally to and friendly with Kenneth Lay? A little bit of the "tail wagging the dog" going on here, want to bet?

::steps off soapbox::

--Cindy

clark · 2002-12-03 15:30:14

You agree that we need to let the people of Iraq choose their own government, yet you also seem to accept the necessity that the American government must make these choices for them. And the suggestion that the US needs to back an Afghanistan government to prevent an Al-Qaida uprising is a bit of a stretch. Al Qaida is not an army, it is nothing more than hired thugs. How exactly is the greatest nation, the strongest military in the world threatened by them in Afghanistan?

You think some here have a problem with Bush? Well, to some extent I do, however, I have a definite problem when the systematic checks and balances of our government have been corrupted. We have ONE person who can decide whether or not to engage in WAR- to decide if Americans should risk life and limb- for what? Oil.
We have AMERICANS in harms way for what? Oil. Not for a better Iraq, but for control of resources to undermine the oil cartel. We are not waiting. Bush is waiting for a plausible pretext to justify this war to the American electorate. He has to make it look like it is the right thing to do. If you read history, know this, politics is about the mobilization of groups of disparate people to a common cause for specific goals unrelated to the actual needs. Freedom and democracy is our rally, but oil and control is the reality.

I agree that expecting the poor and starving to help themselves against nearly impossible odds is a stretch, but I ask you, as one who will soon engage in the ritual of American men, do you want to die, or watch your friends die in some god-forsaken country for their liberty? Is their liberty important enough for you to risk your life, or ask that others who may not agree, be forced to risk their life?

Our military exists for one reason. To protect US. You want to play hero, join the foreign legion. Do not demand that others be so careless with their lives.

This whole issue is not about Saddam- it is about our leaders setting a bad precedent for all the wrong reasons. Yes, some good may come of this, but it is far more likely that the ramifications from this little adventure will be paid with the blood of our children.

Here is another point to ponder. The US is the dominant power in every respect, however, we derive our position from economic prosperity. I ask you how we do this. The answer, cheap energy. If we control a large portion of the source of cheap energy, it necessarily increases our position, and our dominance. Bill has spoken of Pax Americana, and that is exactly what will happen with this war.

What do you think would be the result if we instituted a "democratic" regime in Iraq and a referendum was held that demanded the removal of all foreign troops? Nothing, because no such referendum would ever be allowed, and would be ignored even if it did pass. The power of government comes through the ability to enforce itself. That enforcement is derived by the US military in ANY post-Saddam regime.

PS- You are providing well thought out points Cal.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-03 15:36:36

The reason we haven't gone after North Korea is:

1.) Where did they get their weapons from? Pakistan. A very important country for our operations in Afghanistan. We wouldn't want to make them very upset at this point in time. But it's coming.

2.) Who's been their military drinking buddy for the past 40 years? China. They ARE a nuclear threat to us, and those 1 billion people are a little frightening. We wouldn't want to make them mad either.

3.) Who would be threatened by a North Korean nuclear bomb? South Korea and Japan. We wouldn't want to provoke an attack on either of those important trading partners.

After we can get our investigation and negotiation underway, we can re-examine our position, and look at the best way of getting back to a nuclear-free Korean penninsula.

Iraq, on the other hand, has no allies nearby. They do threaten Israel, and they don't have any major trading partners in the region.

Palomar · 2002-12-03 15:40:53

Al Qaida is not an army, it is nothing more than hired thugs. How exactly is the greatest nation, the strongest military in the world threatened by them in Afghanistan?

*Sounds like Hitler's "Brown Shirts"...just a bunch of street thugs, surely no great threat to anybody!

--Cindy

P.S.: The "Brown Shirts" later became the dreaded Stormtroopers, as if they weren't already enough of a vicious threat when still "mere" Brown Shirts. Yes, the comparisons between Hitler and bin Laden may prove very apt. I don't know if you're aware of it or not, Clark, but many people laughed at and wrote off Hitler [and his henchmen]...until he actually came into power. Yep, the "Beer Hall Putsch" was the joke of the day.

clark · 2002-12-03 15:46:16

1) Where did Iraq get their weapons from? France, Russia, *USA*, Pakistan, and China (to name a few). Gee, I think I just named several important allies of ours, and a few other nations we don't neccessarily want to piss off.

2)Who has been their military drinking buddy? Russia. They still have nukes aimed at us, not to mention that China has been laying fiber optics for their military for the last decade. Los Angeles is a target for the CHinese. Apparently we have no fear of angering anyone regarding Iraq.

3)Who would be threatened by an Iraq nuclear bomb? Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, numerous US military installations...oh yeah, Isreal- apparently we have no qualms about provoking an attack on these nations- and the CIA says that a cornered Saddam is one that WILL use WMD!

Iraq has Muslim allies, which can be used to ignite further terroist aggression, they have only attacked Isreal during the last Persian Gulf war, and they have major trade pacts with Russia and France, for starters- they also happen to be sitting on a lot of oil that a lot of the world needs. Japan used to get most of its oil from Iraq.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-03 15:46:42

I hadn't read your last message, Clark before I posted my new one. Sorry.

I just can't picture Bush curled up in bed with his teddy bear having a wet dream about getting Iraq's oil. He's a rational man, and I don't think he wants to willy-nilly sacrifice American lives overseas. And even though he has broader powers, he still has to convince a very tight congress even after the elections that it is a good idea. Even with a majority, the minority can still throw wrenches in the way, and the Republicans will find it easier to co-operate than to haphazardly forge their way through congress.

And what does this have to do with oil? Yes, I would very much like to see a steady stream of Iraqi oil flowing to our country, but I don't believe that we'll have to set up a puppet government to do it. If you were a recently liberated Iraqi living under this oppresive regime, wouldn't you be very grateful to your liberators? Many of those new government leaders would be oppresed Iraqis. I think those new grateful leaders would be willing to strike a deal with US businessmen.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to wrisk US soldiers lives in the persuit of oil. I think Saddam should be removed for a number of already stated reasons, and an oil trade agreement would only be an extra benefit in the big scheme of things.

Thanks for the compliment. I'm enjoying this debate.

clark · 2002-12-03 15:47:53

Comparing the situation in 1939 Germany and Osama Bin LAden in Afghanistan is a stretch.

Afghanistan has no industrial might to speak of, the comparisons are purly rhetorical.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-03 15:52:34

Once again, I'm behind one on my messages. Let me catch up.

The Russians won't help out the Iraqis. Need I remind you that we stared down a much more powerful Russian force back in the 1960's.

The Chinese won't help out the Iraqis. Why would an already bad off nation risk its neck in Iraq against, as you have said, the only remaining world superpower?

The French? Please. I can see them now, sitting outside their cafes. "I have been assailed with a croissant! We surrender!"

Pakistan? I haven't heard of the Pakistanis helping out Iraq. But if you say, how can the Pakistanis hurt us? They don't have long range missiles. And their President is on our side.

Palomar · 2002-12-03 15:55:20

Comparing the situation in 1939 Germany and Osama Bin LAden in Afghanistan is a stretch.
Afghanistan has no industrial might to speak of, the comparisons are purly rhetorical.

*Sure Clark...whatever. I think you're forgetting, or are not aware of, the severely depressed economic and other conditions of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Post WWI Germany bore *very little* resemblance, economically, industrially, and otherwise, to Nazi Germany.

The fact remains what I pointed out: You laugh at Al-Qaeda, others laughed at the silly Brown Shirts with their baggy pants. People laughed at Hitler and thought that loud-mouthed pipsqueak wouldn't amount to a hill of beans...much like some people brush off Osama bin Laden.

Al-Qaeda hasn't only operated in Afghanistan, you know...and there ARE other Arab nations much wealthier and more industrially advanced [which wouldn't take much, granted] than Afghanistan.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-12-03 15:55:50

It's all very rational, and all very wrong.

The President's job is to ensure our way of life. Hmm, how to do that?

Oil. Keep it flowing, fast and furious. Every modern day president has sold the needs of other peoples, unfortunate enough not to be born in this country, down the river. Presidents want to get elected, and they want to help their party get elected. They do this by making life better for more people here, anyway they can. They also need to develop the politcal war chests, so they need to line the pockets of certain corporate masters in order to fund their politcal ambitions (themselves and the party that helps get them elected in the first place). their is no distinction between either party in this regard.

The Dems lost becuase they were perceived as standing in the way of a war time president and his drive to keep us safe- he has the power to do whatever HE deems fit in Iraq- there is no need for another vote- the Dems won't take it up becuase they know it would be political suicide. It's a done deal Cal.

And yes, recently liberated Iraq's who become the new leaders will be forever grateful to the US military that put them into power, so of course they favor US oil companies.

It's called "quid pro quo"- I do dis ting for you, you do dis ting for me. Oh, I should mention that we have to risk american lives for our end of the bargain.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-03 15:59:22

Yes, and we should keep the oil flowing! But you are thinking that Bush will follow through with his 250,000 man invasion. Remember those Covert-Ops troops we were talking about? ONE false move on Saddam's part, and we can have him dead on the palace floor in a few hours. Remember, we don't need to kill the body to defeat the enemy. Just cut off the head and the rest follows.

After we've removed Saddam, it would be easy to clean up afterwords. The question is, when do we decide Saddam has gone too far?

clark · 2002-12-03 16:00:45

Cal, the point of my 1 2 3 post was to show the flaws in YOUR post. You are pointing out reasons why we take a different tack with N. Korea, yet all of those reasons can be applied to Iraq as well. There is no difference other than resource aquistition- that is what differentiate the two situations.

Cindy,
Okay, Al Qaieda is like Hitler's Brown shirts. Afghanistan is like 1930's Germany in terms of resources, industrial might, and education...

Al Qaieda is mostly uneducated youths with little opportuntiy other than fighting. But hey, I'm probably wrong. I have no desire to belabor this point.

clark · 2002-12-03 16:04:22

Oh, so assination is now a democratic action that observes the rule of law? We should keep the oil flowing, becuase American lives our worth the price?

We kill saddam, and his son takes his place- he is just as brutal, if not more so.

Killing politcal leaders?

So would the Chinese be justified in doing the same thing to other nations leaders that they see as terroists or despots?

Why is murder wrong, but murder of political leaders, outside any court, right?

Think carefully.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-03 16:04:34

But I am saying that we have more to risk on the Korean penninsula than in Iraq. I think the world will turn a blind eye to Iraq, but China would be willing to intervene in such close proximity. I will admit, China is my one big fear as far as the Korean penninsula goes. But Iraq doesn't scare me.

And you didn't answer about using Covert-Ops to save lives...

Thanks for making this debate a bit easier for me. I'm not asking for mercy, by any means, but I am a high school freshman, after all

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-03 16:09:33

Once again, I'm behind.

Yes, I think it is okay. By no means should we get into a World War I type of situation, but in certain cases it is appropriate. And the laws against assassinating foreign leaders has been replealed.

And Chinese secret services? Ah, wesa so sorry for you losa, Mr. Bond. Kanechiwa!

I'm sorry for the above. My point is, we are in a very different position than China.

And I would favor an assassination of Saddam, the head of state, the secretary of defense, Saddam's son, and other prominent (Saddam supporting) leaders. ???

clark · 2002-12-03 16:09:54

Covert ops would save lives, namely american ones.

We faced a similar decision in WW2 when deciding to drop TWO nuclear bombs (funny that the only nation to use nuclear weapons in war is now the one decryign the POSSIBLE use by others, but I digress). The arguement said we would save more lives, since it might take 1 million GI's lives to do the job.

So we dropped the bomb and incinerated a hundred thousand civilans.

Murder is wrong, no matter how you might rationalize it.

I also question the morality of your decision of support for engagement in Iraq but not N. Korea. It seems that if no one will fuss, it is okay to fight- but if we put ourselves at risk (as in N. Korea w/China we should reconsider...

I knew people who acted this way in school, we called them bullies- they always picked on those who could least defend themselves...

clark · 2002-12-03 16:14:17

Just because the executive order related to assination of politcal leaders has been recinded does not neccessarily make it "right". If we repealed the right to free speech, would you be okay with the limit on your freedom? Laws do not = right.

By accepting that assination is a legitmate tool of the state, you are agreeing that the State may kill anyone it deems an enemy without respect to the rule of law.

that means you or I can be legitmate targets if for some reason the State thinks we should be killed- and all they need is to think it, there is no oversight. There is no judicial proceedings to determine evidence, or guilt.

How can you accept such chilling terms?

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-03 16:15:02

Unfortunately, North Korea and Iraq are the kids that come to school with a gun and shoot the bullies...

And unfortunately, murder is a part of war, and a part of our survival as a nation.

Your comparision of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs is not accurate. At this point, I'm trying to say that we can save many American lives with the deaths of a few Iraqi leaders. And the nuclear bomb was, in my mind, one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century. How many wars were stopped with the possession of one type of weapon? How many times did the nuclear bomb stop the US and Russia from going to war? A lot. It saved many more lives in the long run than it destroyed. It is only now that irrational and irresponsible possesors of this weapon cause any fuss about it.

clark · 2002-12-03 16:19:05

Murder is not a part of war. Death is, but not murder.

We don't kill prisoners of war, why? Becuase to do so is murder. War is the means by which States resolve disputes- people engaged in war stop being individuals and become extensions of the State- they become individuals once they put the gun down.

Assination is murder- there is no self-defense issue here. It is cold blooded and premeditated. It is wrong.

Would you accept the murder of one innocent person for every hundred guilty? Is that right?

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-03 16:22:28

What does innocent and guilty people have to do with this? I am saying that a few assassinations will save the lives of hundreds of Americans in a job that needs to be done anyway.

Now, you're saying that war is a legitimate way to settle a dispute. And we both agree that Saddam is a bad leader that needs to be removed. The question between us now is, do we fight a long, costly, legitimate war, or snipe a few people and be done with it?

I'm at school right now, and the bell's about to ring, so I won't be able to respond until about 8 pm (Mountain) tonight.

clark · 2002-12-03 16:27:09

Where did I say "legitmate"?

Palomar · 2002-12-03 17:19:02

Cindy,
Okay, Al Qaieda is like Hitler's Brown shirts. Afghanistan is like 1930's Germany in terms of resources, industrial might, and education...
Al Qaieda is mostly uneducated youths with little opportuntiy other than fighting. But hey, I'm probably wrong. I have no desire to belabor this point.

*I didn't say Al-Qaeda and the Brown Shirts, Afghanistan and pre-Nazi Germany were exact duplicates. What I am saying is that there are indeed very real SIMILARITIES.

As for most Al-Qaeda being "mostly uneducated youths with little opportunity other than fighting,"...that's what most Brown Shirts were; either uneducated or with low levels of education, and also unemployed in a severely depressed economy with very few opportunities except for fighting and getting into trouble.

As for "But hey, I'm probably wrong" -- I never asked you to agree with me.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-12-03 10:42:10

Re: President Bush - about bush

#27 2002-12-03 12:30:27

Re: President Bush - about bush

#28 2002-12-03 15:04:51

Re: President Bush - about bush

#29 2002-12-03 15:24:16

Re: President Bush - about bush

#30 2002-12-03 15:30:14

Re: President Bush - about bush

#31 2002-12-03 15:36:36

Re: President Bush - about bush

#32 2002-12-03 15:40:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#33 2002-12-03 15:46:16

Re: President Bush - about bush

#34 2002-12-03 15:46:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#35 2002-12-03 15:47:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#36 2002-12-03 15:52:34

Re: President Bush - about bush

#37 2002-12-03 15:55:20

Re: President Bush - about bush

#38 2002-12-03 15:55:50

Re: President Bush - about bush

#39 2002-12-03 15:59:22

Re: President Bush - about bush

#40 2002-12-03 16:00:45

Re: President Bush - about bush

#41 2002-12-03 16:04:22

Re: President Bush - about bush

#42 2002-12-03 16:04:34

Re: President Bush - about bush

#43 2002-12-03 16:09:33

Re: President Bush - about bush

#44 2002-12-03 16:09:54

Re: President Bush - about bush

#45 2002-12-03 16:14:17

Re: President Bush - about bush

#46 2002-12-03 16:15:02

Re: President Bush - about bush

#47 2002-12-03 16:19:05

Re: President Bush - about bush

#48 2002-12-03 16:22:28

Re: President Bush - about bush

#49 2002-12-03 16:27:09

Re: President Bush - about bush

#50 2002-12-03 17:19:02

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer