The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-31 09:30:31

I always worry when the legislature tries to take over the Executive Branch. As incompetant as George W. Bush may seem to some people, having the entire legislature attempt to take over the government is even more incompetant. Even having Jimmy Carter back as President would be a better idea than having the Congress attempt to do the President's Job as it is now trying to do! And What do they want the US to do? Negotiate with terrorists, that's what. Read the following that I copied from the Associated Press:

Senators Warn Against War With Iran
Wed Jan 31, 12:25 AM - Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Republican and Democratic senators warned Tuesday against a drift toward war with an emboldened Iran and suggested the Bush administration was missing a chance to engage its longtime adversary in potentially helpful talks over next-door Iraq.
"What I think many of us are concerned about is that we stumble into active hostilities with Iran without having aggressively pursued diplomatic approaches, without the American people understanding exactly what's taking place," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told John Negroponte, who is in line to become the nation's No. 2 diplomat as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's deputy.
Obama, a candidate for president in 2008, warned during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that senators of both parties will demand "clarity and transparency in terms of U.S. policy so that we don't repeat some of the mistakes that have been made in the past," a reference to the faulty intelligence underlying the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a possible presidential candidate, asked Negroponte if he thinks the United States is edging toward a military confrontation with Tehran. In response, Negroponte repeated President Bush's oft-stated preference for diplomacy, although he later added, "We don't rule out other possibilities."
Separately, the Navy admiral poised to lead American forces in the Middle East said Iran wants to limit America's influence in the region.
"They have not been helpful in Iraq," Adm. William Fallon told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It seems to me that in the region, as they grow their military capabilities, we're going to have to pay close attention to what they do and what they may bring to the table."
The Bush administration has increased rhetorical, diplomatic, military and economic pressure on Iran over the past few months, in response to Iran's alleged deadly help for extremists fighting U.S. troops in Iraq and the long-running dispute over Iran's nuclear program.
Bush said Tuesday the United States "will deal with it" if Iran escalates military action inside Iraq and endangers American forces. But, in an interview with ABC News, Bush emphasized this talk signals no intention of invading Iran itself.
A day earlier, the president acknowledged skepticism concerning U.S. intelligence about Iran, because Washington was wrong in accusing Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. "I'm like a lot of Americans that say, 'Well, if it wasn't right in Iraq, how do you know it's right in Iran,'" the president said.
Washington accuses Iran of arming and training Shiite Muslim extremists in Iraq. U.S. troops have responded by arresting Iranian diplomats in Iraq, and the White House has said Bush has authorized U.S. troops to kill or capture Iranians inside Iraq.
The United States also accuses Iran of secretly developing atomic weapons - an allegation Tehran denies. Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment lead the U.N. Security Council to impose limited economic sanctions.
Senators including Hagel, George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., sounded frustrated with the administration's decision not to engage Iran and fellow outcast Syria in efforts to reduce sectarian violence in Iraq.
Negroponte, a career diplomat who is leaving a higher-ranked job as the nation's top intelligence official, gave only a mild endorsement of the administration's diplomatic hands-off policy toward Damascus and Tehran.
Negroponte would lead the department's Iraq policy if confirmed, as expected. He said Syria is letting 40 to 75 foreign fighters cross its border into Iraq each month and repeated the charge that Iran is providing lethal help to insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq. Iran and Syria are not helping promote stability and peace in Iraq and understand what the United States and other nation expect of them.
"I would never want to say never with respect to initiating a high-level dialogue with either of these two countries, but that's the position, as I understand it, at this time," Negroponte said.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to approve Negroponte quickly for a job vacant since July.

There you have it, we've elected a pack of fools. Iran is a well known terrorist sponsor, it oppresses its women, and the Democrats who claim to be liberals and pro equal rights want to force the President to negotiate with them. The warn of sliding into a War with Iran. What is worse, getting a few thousand more troops killed in an action against Iran or having them nuke one of our liberal cities? Democrats are so myopic that they can't see the threat Iran represents, all they care about is Bush Bush Bush. If there is any subject that doesn't involve defeating the Bush Administration, it is not part of their Universe, they certainly can't prevent the Iranians from building nuclear weapons and planting one in an American City. The Democrats believe the enemy of their enemy is their ally, and Bush is their enemy so they help Iran in whatever way they can. There is only one sort of negotiation with Iran that makes any sense to me, that is an ultimatum to Iran either they stop developing nuclear weapons or well go to war against them to stop them. If the Democrats are going to hobble the Administration and prevent George Bush from safeguarding the American people, then I don't know, what's it worth to save millions of people from Nuclear terrorism. The Democrats would have us surrender to the forces of Islamic Conservatism in order to defeat American Conservatism in the name of Liberalism?

RobertDyck · 2007-01-31 19:15:48

The U.S. Constitution Online

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The U.S. Constitution clearly grants the Congress the power to declare war. This power is not shared with anyone, not even the President.

Again I have to ask: Why do I, a Canadian, have to lecture you on your own nation's constitution?

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-01 01:47:35

The U.S. Constitution clearly grants the Congress the power to declare war. This power is not shared with anyone, not even the President.
Again I have to ask: Why do I, a Canadian, have to lecture you on your own nation's constitution?

War has already been declared. That provision in the constitution deals with Wars initiated by the United States only. If someone else starts a War with the United States by initiating the hostilities themselves, then War does not have to be declared in order for the President to exercise his duty to defend the United States of America. If you really think the legislative body can exercise executive duties in a time of War and direct the movement of troops as commanders in chiefs, then we don't need Generals, we can simply have an Army that consists of 100% privates. Have all the privates come to a consensus on how to fight the war, through debate and discussion and then they can vote on their orders and carry them out. Most armies that have been led by committees and debating societies have faired poorly on the Battlefield. If you want the Congress having debates on which tactics to use and where to deploy the troops, then that's a guaranteed strategy to lose the War. The reason why we have a command structure is that in a time of War, there is no time for debate. If a soldier receives an order he carries it out, he doesn't ask why or discuss strategy with his commanding officer, unless said officer asks for his opinion. In a battle their is no time for an Army to vote on what's its going to do. The duty of Congress is to enact laws, not direct troops. If you suggest that the Congress can ursup executive authority and exercise that authority successfully through debates and votes, then I suggest the office of President be abolished and we simply have Congress vote on orders for the troops.

Give me an Army led by a single leader vs an Army led by the legislature and the single leader led army will win every time.

RobertDyck · 2007-02-01 03:14:50

War with Iran has not been declared. War against Afghanistan and Iraq was. This does not permit declaring war on everyone on the planet. Trying to claim war in general permits the President to declare war on any country he wishes is a obvious and blatant violation of the constitution, and that is grounds for impeachment. The American people have come to realize war in Iraq was a bad idea, and the majority of the current Congress agrees. They want a way out as soon as possible. I believe the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan should never have stopped or slowed until all of al Qaeda neutralized. Iraq is a distraction, and permits terrorists to grow their organization. Declaring war on Iran as well would further weaken the effort against terrorists, and create more ire in the Islamic world that would only recruit more civilians into terrorist organizations. I think the Democrat congress is beginning to realize this. It isn't about loosing or backing down, but understanding how it works and adopting a winning strategy. Iran has not taken action against America or its allies since 9/11, debate all you want what happened before, but they have behaved themselves in recent years. How they choose to build their national military within their own borders is an internal issue. Only the UN has jurisdiction over any say in that. Europe is handling the issue of uranium enrichment, and they're doing so non-violently, without an invasion. Remember, invasion or covert military action is what angers people to form terrorist organizations against you. It's also amoral (not moral). Killing people just because they do something within their own territory that you don't like has to be the worst violation of morals possible. You want to be a right-wing, bible thumping Christian, then I remind you of the ten commandments: "You shall not murder". That's commandment number 6 by the Jewish or Protestant count, number 5 according to the Catholic/Lutheran/New Church. The latter combines the first two commandments together, then splits the last one in two. Where you split the sentences really doesn't matter, it still says the same thing: don't murder. When I was a kid in Sunday school they taught the King James Bible translation: "Thou shalt not kill." Since Iran has no intention of attacking the U.S., they just will not be cowed into bowing down before yet another military dictator (as they see the United States when you threaten war), the sane civilized response is to find a non-violent resolution. At one time the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein, treated him as an ally. When Iran was at war with Iraq, they saw the United States as an ally to their enemy. Well, Iraq isn't an ally anymore so that is over. All that's left are a lot of hard feelings, fear, and posturing in an attempt to get those they fear to back down. And I do mean both sides. Iran is posturing in an attempt to get respect from the United States. Americans like you are sabre rattling because you fear Iran. Admit it, you're scared. Well, they're scared too but they can't afford to back down so they posture just as much. The obvious, adult response is to have a third party negotiate a resolution, to get both sides to calm down. That means leave it to Europe. They can impose sanctions and other non-violent means to get Iran to abandon nuclear weapons. But remember, American doesn't respect anything short of nuclear weapons so as long as you rattle the sabre you convince them that they have to develop nuclear weapons. Relax, calm down, stop goading them. Your actions have the exact opposite effect from your intention. Conclusion: shut up and stay out of it. Let Europe do the negotiating. And for God's sake stop undermining Europe's efforts by threatening Iran.

RobertDyck · 2007-02-01 09:45:45

It appears the French president has the same position I do, although someone in the United States doesn't like that.

Chirac pooh-poohs Iran nuclear threat, then backtracks

French President Jacques Chirac said in an interview with three newspapers that Iran's possession of a nuclear bomb wouldn't be "very dangerous" and that if it used the weapon on Israel, Tehran would be immediately "razed."
...
Instead, Chirac said, the danger lies in the chances of proliferation or an arms race in the Middle East should Iran build a nuclear bomb. Possessing the weapon would be useless for Iran — whose leader has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" — as using it would mean an instant counterattack.
'Tehran would be razed' before nuclear strike, Chirac says
"Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?" Chirac asked.
"It would not have gone 200 metres into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."
...
In the second interview with the same newspapers, Chirac retracted his comment about Tehran being razed. "I retract it, of course, when I said, 'One is going to raze Tehran,"' he said.
Chirac also said other countries would stop any bomb launched by Iran from reaching its target.
"It is obvious that this bomb, at the moment it was launched, obviously would be destroyed immediately," he said. "We have the means — several countries have the means to destroy a bomb."

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-01 10:22:58

War with Iran has not been declared. War against Afghanistan and Iraq was. This does not permit declaring war on everyone on the planet. Trying to claim war in general permits the President to declare war on any country he wishes is a obvious and blatant violation of the constitution, and that is grounds for impeachment. The American people have come to realize war in Iraq was a bad idea, and the majority of the current Congress agrees. They want a way out as soon as possible. I believe the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan should never have stopped or slowed until all of al Qaeda neutralized. Iraq is a distraction, and permits terrorists to grow their organization. Declaring war on Iran as well would further weaken the effort against terrorists, and create more ire in the Islamic world that would only recruit more civilians into terrorist organizations. I think the Democrat congress is beginning to realize this. It isn't about loosing or backing down, but understanding how it works and adopting a winning strategy. Iran has not taken action against America or its allies since 9/11, debate all you want what happened before, but they have behaved themselves in recent years.

Does 9/11 wipe the slate clean between the US and Iran? What Iran did in 1979 was an act of War, taking 44 US diplomatic personell hostage for over a year is clearly an attack against the United States. The President of the United States does not need a declaration of War to respond to an attack against the United States. The latest attack by another country doesn't erase previous attacks, and Congress has also not approved any peace treaties between Iran and the United States so technically we're still at War. The Iranians still say, "Death to the United States" so from their end, they are sill at War with us. Iran has also attacked US troops through Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran is helping the Iraqi insurgents to kill US soldiers, this gets them involved in our current war in Iraq. What your attempting to do is divide up the War into a number of smaller wars, and then say Congress has declared War here but not there, and if somebody from over there attacks US soldiers, then those US soldiers are not allowed to defend themselves until Congress declares war against those people over there.

Declarations of War only Apply when the United States wants to initiate hostilities and start a War on its own. The lack of a declaration of War does not tie the President's hands when a foreign enemy initiates hostilities and it does not prevent him from defending the American people when they are attacked by a foreign enemy. The American people include American soldiers fighting in Iraq. If some new foreign element gets involved in the current conflict, we are allowed to fight those new belligerents regardless of what Congress thinks.

It is also very dangerous when Congress says, the US soldier can't defend himself as it has not declared war against the guy who is shooting at him. As it happens, the new Congress does not wish to see George Bush succeed at this War effort, the previous Congress authorized him to use force against terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the new Congress cannot force him to sign a peace treaty with terrorists. Congress can take away the spending authorization for next year, but then the buck only stops with the President if Congress does not tie his hands. If Congress prevents the US President from fulfilling his duty to protect the American People, then the responsibility clearly shifts from the President's office to the US Congress. The Congress authorizes all government expenditures, this is clearly stated in the US Constitution, so despite what Harry S. Truman has said, the "Buck stops with Congress" because Congress has control of every buck that gets spent.

I think that if Congress does not allow the President to fight the War, he and the vice President should resign and let Nancy Pelosi assume responsibility for the wars, this would likely happen at the beginning of 2008 since the current funding for the Wars authorized by the previous congress expires by then. I see no purpose in George Bush becoming a figurehead and losing the War for the Democrats. I'd let the Democrats lose the War all by themselves with no Republicans taking part in it. Nancy Pelosi will then have one year's incumbancy and she can run onm the record of losing the War in Iraq instead of George playing her "Gerold Ford" and falling on his sword. I don't think Hillary, Obama, and several other Democratic hopefuls who are now Senators and Congressman, would be very pleased if Nancy Pelosi were to suddenly be made President by succession. If Congress makes the President's job impossible, the President and Vice President can always retaliate by quitting. I'd rather have Nancy Pelosi for one year in office than have some other democrat for the next four years, it would be much easier for a Republican challenger to beat her if Nancy is the incumbant and is responsible for the war and keeping the American people safe ad she falls down on the job because she doesn't want to succeed.

How they choose to build their national military within their own borders is an internal issue. Only the UN has jurisdiction over any say in that. Europe is handling the issue of uranium enrichment, and they're doing so non-violently, without an invasion.

They are not doing so nonviolently, they want to keep on trading with Iran despite what it does in developing nuclear weapons, especially if they think Iran will attack the United States and not them. Europe has not trouble trading with our enemies, it has been doing so with Iran ever since their revolution when they took US hostages.

Remember, invasion or covert military action is what angers people to form terrorist organizations against you.

Lots of people get angry with us without mounting terrorist attacks against the American people. If the US tries to stop terrorists through covert action and you say that our trying to stop them only creates more terrorists, that is a self-defeating statement, because if we do not stop those terrorists, they are still around to hurt us and if we do stop terrorists, that only creates more terrorists that go on to hurt us, so which is better action or inaction? I think if we do not stop the terrorists that we know about, and they attack us, it is more our fault because of our inaction than any new terrorists groups that we may inadvertantly create by attacking the terrorists we see. We do not know what all the side effects of attacking a known group of terrorists may be, but we do know what is going to happen if we don't stop the terrorists that we know about. 9/11 happened in part due to our inaction about intelligence on the activities of Al Quada. Ever since that attack, the Democrats have done nothing except issue one self-defeating statement after another and consul inaction, because what they most desire to see is the Bush administration fall down on its face so they can get back in the White House. Of course the failure of the Bush Adminstration means more American's dying. It is interesting that about 3000 Americans died fighting terrorism over the last several years and also 3000 Americans died not fighting terrorism in a single attack during 9/11. The Democrats make a big thing about the number of soldiers who died in the War exceeding the casualities in the 9/11 attack, but the 9/11 attack occurred in a single day, while the US casualties in the Iraq War occured over several years. I'd rather have more US soldiers die slowly in a war of attrition than have more 9/11 attacks where thousands of American civilians who cannot defend themselves die at once. I think we have kept the enemy off balance by fighting them on their home turf, there have been no more 9/11 style attacks since we started fighting on their home ground. If we pull out now, they can plot more massive attack against us unmollested by us or by fear of our army getting them, I'd rather not do that. The US Media has been dishonest in portraying the War; 3000 casualities over 6 years is not the same as 3000 casualities in a single day, and having one exceed the other is not a significant event. The US casualities in Fighting World War II easily exceeded those who died in the Pearl Harbor attack. The US Media has been constantly chipping away at out will to fight ever since the War began, with their dishonst Anti-War propaganda.

It's also amoral (not moral). Killing people just because they do something within their own territory that you don't like has to be the worst violation of morals possible. You want to be a right-wing, bible thumping Christian, then I remind you of the ten commandments: "You shall not murder". That's commandment number 6 by the Jewish or Protestant count, number 5 according to the Catholic/Lutheran/New Church. The latter combines the first two commandments together, then splits the last one in two. Where you split the sentences really doesn't matter, it still says the same thing: don't murder. When I was a kid in Sunday school they taught the King James Bible translation: "Thou shalt not kill." Since Iran has no intention of attacking the U.S., they just will not be cowed into bowing down before yet another military dictator (as they see the United States when you threaten war), the sane civilized response is to find a non-violent resolution.

Non-violent resolutions don't always exist to be found! That was the mistake of the allies before World War II, they kept on looking for non-violent resolutions to Hitler's agression for way too long, they were searching for something that wasn't there. If Iran doesn't want peace with us, we can search for non-violent resolutions and peace forever and not find it, all this does is give the advantage to the enemy, and allow Iran more time to develop its nuclear weapons for instance.

At one time the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein, treated him as an ally. When Iran was at war with Iraq, they saw the United States as an ally to their enemy. Well, Iraq isn't an ally anymore so that is over. All that's left are a lot of hard feelings, fear, and posturing in an attempt to get those they fear to back down. And I do mean both sides. Iran is posturing in an attempt to get respect from the United States. Americans like you are sabre rattling because you fear Iran. Admit it, you're scared. Well, they're scared too but they can't afford to back down so they posture just as much. The obvious, adult response is to have a third party negotiate a resolution, to get both sides to calm down. That means leave it to Europe. They can impose sanctions and other non-violent means to get Iran to abandon nuclear weapons. But remember, American doesn't respect anything short of nuclear weapons so as long as you rattle the sabre you convince them that they have to develop nuclear weapons. Relax, calm down, stop goading them. Your actions have the exact opposite effect from your intention. Conclusion: shut up and stay out of it. Let Europe do the negotiating. And for God's sake stop undermining Europe's efforts by threatening Iran.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-01 12:50:09

It appears the French president has the same position I do, although someone in the United States doesn't like that.
Chirac pooh-poohs Iran nuclear threat, then backtracks
French President Jacques Chirac said in an interview with three newspapers that Iran's possession of a nuclear bomb wouldn't be "very dangerous" and that if it used the weapon on Israel, Tehran would be immediately "razed."

It doesn't immediately follow that he wouldn't use them anyway. We could just as easily dismiss the threat of suicide airplane attacks and terrorism by that same reasoning. "If they deliberately crash and airplane or blow themselves up, they would be killed, so they wouldn't do that." I guess Jacques Chirac has never before encountered Muslim extremist fanatics and assume all human beings are rational and interested in their own self-preservation, what is the one place where that does not necessarily hold true? The Middle East of course and the Muslim World, they brainwahs alot of people into commiting suicide with promises of 72 virgins, I don't want these nuts getting anywhere near a nuclear weapon, much less building one. If Chirac trusts in deterrence to deter them then he is a fool. We've protected such fools and suffered them for too long without letting them face the consequences of their own foolishness. When one superpower becomes strong and protect the rest, those others under protection, often have foolish notions, they think that War is something that could be simply wished or protested away, because they have been protected from it for so long, they start to blame anyone wearing a uniform for the existance of War, and they figure that by defunding the military, they thus ensure no future wars, forgetting that it is usually the foreign enemy that threatens their society not the soldiers protecting them that they accuse of starting wars.

Instead, Chirac said, the danger lies in the chances of proliferation or an arms race in the Middle East should Iran build a nuclear bomb. Possessing the weapon would be useless for Iran — whose leader has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" — as using it would mean an instant counterattack.

So he's more worried about others reacting to Iran rather than Iran itself, thus giving Iran an instant pass for its behavior. The most obvious way to deescalate the nuclear arms race is to attack Iran and destroy its ability to produce nuclear weapons before it has them rather than have endless discussions with them that go nowhere while giving them time to further their nuclear projects. Talking with Russia did not stop it from gaining nuclear weapons, talking with China, or France did not stop them from getting nuclear weapons either. Talk is cheap, why does he expect talk to work this time when before it has not?

'Tehran would be razed' before nuclear strike, Chirac says
"Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?" Chirac asked.

Most Israelis live in Tel Aviv, If Iran destroys that, most of the Israelis will be gone. The Israeli military that was not in the blast could retaliate against Iran and destroy a few cities with its missiles, but Israel itself will be effectively destroyed before that happens. The Israeli military units that retaliated would be a stateless military force as most of those people it was charged to protect would already be dead.

"It would not have gone 200 metres into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."

Of course Tehran is just one city in a much larger state, millions of Iranians live outside ogf the major cities in the countryside. Who knows, Iran may just be willing to accept the loss of several of its major cities in order to get rid of Israel, 70% of whose population lives in Tel Aviv. Many muslim fanatics are willing to die and accept tremendous losses in order to realize their goals. When you realize that Israel is effectively a city state with a surrounding countryside much like Kuwait is, this makes Israel alot easier to destroy with a few nuclear bombs than Iran is. After Tel Aviv and Jerusalem is gone, the surrounding Arabs can effectively move in with little resistance, once the IDF expends its nuclear retaliation on Iran. Having a small population that's concentrated vs a large population that's spread out is a disadvantage that makes one not want Iran to have nuclear weapons and to prevent them from gaining them in the first place. More advanced cultures tend to be city centric, while the more primitive ones like Iran are more rural.

In the second interview with the same newspapers, Chirac retracted his comment about Tehran being razed. "I retract it, of course, when I said, 'One is going to raze Tehran,"' he said.
Chirac also said other countries would stop any bomb launched by Iran from reaching its target.
"It is obvious that this bomb, at the moment it was launched, obviously would be destroyed immediately," he said. "We have the means — several countries have the means to destroy a bomb."

This puts alot of faith in untested missile defense programs, that alot of liberals have opposed in the past.

Don't get me wrong, it is good to have a missile defense program, but it is better still not to have to need to use them, if one can prevent one's enemies from having nuclear weapons, one should rather than rely on the last line of missile defense once the missiles are already on their way.

clark · 2007-02-01 13:18:56

a majority of americans supported a war against Afghanistan with the goal of seeking out the agents directly responsible for 9/11.

a majority of americans supported a war against Iraq with the goal of preventing a similar attack being peretrated by agents supplied with WMD's from Saddam.

There were no WMD's. Saddam was not involved in supporting the terroirsts who have an interest in attacking america. Saddam is now dead.

A majority of americans support getting out of the war. A majority want the troops to come home. A majority think Bush is an ass.

John Creighton · 2007-02-02 01:44:20

I think they should flip a coin.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-03 13:57:46

a majority of americans supported a war against Afghanistan with the goal of seeking out the agents directly responsible for 9/11.
a majority of americans supported a war against Iraq with the goal of preventing a similar attack being peretrated by agents supplied with WMD's from Saddam.
There were no WMD's.

Are you God? How do you know there were no WMDs? There were chemical weapons, 500 canisters of nerve agents, and Saddam was working on nuclear weapons, the IDF bombed a reactor. Better to be safe and assume the worst and get rid of a dictator, than assume the best and have the dictator surpise us.

So should we assume the best when we launch a mission into space? Lets just design the vehicle and launch it with space probe on board without testing any of the components, we just "know" its going to work because we assume the best.

Saddam was not involved in supporting the terroirsts who have an interest in attacking america. Saddam is now dead.

Your like those two guys crying over that slain monster in Return of the Jedi. Oh boo hoo hoo! Has that mean old president slain your favorite dictator? He was just having some fun gassing those Kurds with those chemical weapons he didn't have, chalk it all up to flatulence I guess. :twisted:

A majority of americans support getting out of the war. A majority want the troops to come home. A majority think Bush is an ass.

Isn't it interesting that the Democrats chose the Ass as their party animal.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-03 13:59:23

I think they should flip a coin.

As George S. Patton said, "Americans love a loser, and they will not tolerate a winner!" :x

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-06 10:30:03

I guess from the poll above, the majority of people by a margin of 2 to 1 don't think the United States needs a President to run the Armed forces. All we need is Congress to vote to give orders the the generals to be carried out. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be a soldier in the army where the men giving out the orders are a bunch of politicians in the legislature, and they argue and tussle and your orders determining where you will be sent all depend on the outcome of the debates and the give and take in the Senate where pork barrel spending is doled out to various districts, and compromises made. So , if your a soldier in the Army and you are outnumbered and surrounded by enemy forces, you must make a request to Congress for reinforcements, and a hearing will be held about whether to allow for reenforcements, and while they are discussing it, more enemy forces are moving in and surrounding your position. Isn't it reassuring that the tactics used and the strategy employed would all be determined by political discussions and compromises, rather than by military necessity?

The reason we have a President is so that quick military decisions can be made without endless discussion in the Legislature. If you think the Legislature, any Legislature can do a better job than the President, then we don't need a President and thus all those Democrats who are running for President and simultaneously weakening the office of President as they do so are wasting their time.

noosfractal · 2007-02-07 01:56:20

I guess from the poll above, the majority of people by a margin of 2 to 1 don't think the United States needs a President to run the Armed forces.

The Whitehouse has spent US blood and treasure to no good end. The situation would be better if Bush had spent his entire presidency holidaying at his ranch, and the nation would be hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention thousands of lives, richer. Congress should do whatever they can to limit what further damage Bush & Company can do to the nation. Godspeed to them.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-07 10:53:11

I guess from the poll above, the majority of people by a margin of 2 to 1 don't think the United States needs a President to run the Armed forces.
The Whitehouse has spent US blood and treasure to no good end. The situation would be better if Bush had spent his entire presidency holidaying at his ranch, and the nation would be hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention thousands of lives, richer. Congress should do whatever they can to limit what further damage Bush & Company can do to the nation. Godspeed to them.

Let me just say, there is a reason the liberals are comparing the length of the Iraq War to that of World War II, and not the casuality rates. 3,000 people is not alot. If we were to retreat after losing 3,000 casualities, we wouldn't have won any of the major Wars. We would have succumed to the British during the Revolutionary War, we would have surrendered in the War of 1812, The Confederates would have defeated the Union forces after inflicting only 3,000 casualities in the first year. The Kaisar would have won World War II after the US sent its forces in and then quickly withdrew them after receiving 3,000 casualities in the trenches. The US would have capitulated to the Japanese shortly after Pearl Harbor and the 3,000th casuality was lost, the Korean War would have been a total win for the North. Need I go on. The USA wouldn't exist if we had such intollerance for casualities in a War, we would have been conquered and subjugated long ago. So your new standard for retreat is not a good one, and does not protect the American People, as the enemy only has to kill 3,000 soldiers and the white flag automatically goes up. We could have easily lost that amount in 9/11, we could have lost 50,000 in that single attack, so try to gain some perspective would you?

Also the Army needs a commander and Chief who can make decisions quickly with minimum debate. If you were a US soldier, would you want to receive your orders from Congress? Do you want Democrats and republicans debating on whether you are to receive aid or whether you can fight back while you are under attack by the enemy? The Legislature is not the Executive Branch, if you think we don't need an Executive Branch of Government, why don't you just say so now?

dicktice · 2007-02-09 10:15:41

Tom: A few of your consecutive posts back, I quit reading when I came to: "... I'd rather have more US soldiers die slowly in a war of attrition ..." Very generous of you, I must say, and I realize you didn't mean "die slowly," but the way you put things sometimes makes you seem like an unfeeling blabbermouth. Sorry, but if you were over there to see the carnage I bet you'd write more sympathetically. Robert's replies, on the other hand, seem more reasoned and intelligently thought out. If I really thought you're relying on Bush and Cheney to "win your war" for you, I wouldn't have bothered to react to your diatribes--but you were kidding, right?

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-10 20:52:34

Tom: A few of your consecutive posts back, I quit reading when I came to: "... I'd rather have more US soldiers die slowly in a war of attrition ..." Very generous of you, I must say, and I realize you didn't mean "die slowly," but the way you put things sometimes makes you seem like an unfeeling blabbermouth. Sorry, but if you were over there to see the carnage I bet you'd write more sympathetically. Robert's replies, on the other hand, seem more reasoned and intelligently thought out. If I really thought you're relying on Bush and Cheney to "win your war" for you, I wouldn't have bothered to react to your diatribes--but you were kidding, right?

I mean die slowly such as 3,000 deaths over 6 years as opposed to a single day. I don't mean individual soldiers take days to die a slow and agonizing death. In a modern battlefield, if an individual soldier is going to take a long time to die, that gives the medical corps and doctors more time to save him, and more chances that the individual soldier is going to live. I think most soldiers would be willing to suffer some agony for a while if it give the doctors a chance to save them, however if they just get blown apart in an instant, they probably suffered a relatively painless death. I think If I was a soldier, I'd prefer to suffer and live rather than die painlessly.

I think common sense indicates that if wars last a long time casualities will mount, but the rate of casualties for the Iraq War is orders of magnitude less than World War II, or the Civil War, so I don't understand what the liberals are complaining about. The Democrats are harping about the length of the War, because its the only part of it that's worse that World War II, a war which we were willing to endure and win. The liberal media wants to give as bad a picture of the war as they can muster, so they show the casualty figure that yields the highest number, that is over the whole war, they seem not interested in the number of casualities for 2006 as compared to 2005, they don't want to show whether its trending upwards or downwards, but if all the show is the total number of casualities over the entire war, that figure will only go up over time, as people are not resurrected. A little common sense should be applied. If you look at the total casualitie figure for World War II as of 1941 and then look again in 1942, then by gosh you find the total casuality count has gone up over that year, does that mean the War is going badly? Common sense people! I'm not insensitive to the toll the War has taken, but I put it into historical perspective and compare it to other Wars America has fought.

The Iraq War is a relative light-weight in all but length. The reason why we have suffered so few casualities over such a long time is because are armed forces are good. George Bush is attempting to wage a "patient war", I'm sorry so many liberals are impatient and can't wait to lose, but I think George Bush believes that the civilian casuality toll would be lighter if we fought the War "patiently" and did not use excessive deadly force to achieve quick victory. Do you disagree with that analysis? A patient war requires patience, and it seems the Democrats have very little of that, they keep urging George Bush to throw in the towel on this War and give up, because this war was not won quickly. I think rather they did not want this war to be won at all, and its length is merely the latest excuse they have to call for a pull out. I believe the Liberals have given up on all their liberal principles in calling for a withdrawal.

Think about it for a moment, who is the enemy exactly? Does this enemy believe in women's rights for example? Do they believe in a secular democracy? are there any of the liberal values that Al Qaeda or the Taliban stand for that makes the Democrats desire for them to win and beat the US army, or is it all an over blown personal vendetta against Bush. How many women are going to suffer in the middle east if the US loses because the Democrats forced us to withdraw? What about Arab democracy, will the democrats have made the middle-east safe for theocracies and dictatorship by forcing the US to withdraw. Do the Democrats even deserve to be called Democrats after some of the cozy up to Fidel Castro, or Hugo Chavez, what part of democratic principles do they expouze for these countries? The Democrats sent Elian Gonzoles back to Cuba to live under a dictatorship, I guess they find nothing wrong with dictatorships, if they would so willfuly deny an individual his civil rights by their own actions. I miss the Democrats of old, the ones who believed in this country and wanted it to win its Wars. What ever happend to FDR or Harry Truman, or Woodrow Wilson for that matter. The modern democrats are all 100% peace now and make any sort of deal with the enemy to secure it, and 0% Democracy. I hope these extreme leftists who love Castro and all of America's enemies would leave the Democratic party soon. It just bother's me that one of the two main political parties of this country want it to lose and don't believe in America any more. I don't think peace is worth any price, if it was, we would be paying tribute.

dicktice · 2007-02-10 21:47:21

Tom: It all depends upon what you call "winning."

noosfractal · 2007-02-11 06:12:29

No kidding. God only knows what "victory" is supposed to look like in Iraq right now. As far as I can tell, the US is actively assisting the installation of an Islamic Theocracy with religious ties to Iran. Why are they doing that?

But the Iraq mess is nothing compared to the planned attack on Iran. Iraq has merely bankrupted the nation. An attack on Iran has a serious chance of triggering World War III. This is beyond folly. You have to question the sanity of someone who wants that.

And it is all so silly. You don't defeat religious fundamentalists by attacking them with guns and bombs. That just makes them stronger. You defeat them with MTV, Desperate Housewives and 137 flavors of liquor. Want better treatment of women? Set up a University with a Women's Studies Department. The patriarchy will wither like flowers in winter.

That's the really sad thing. The US had already won. Just a few spastic death throes from extremists and Mickie Ds would have started sprouting like mushrooms. Now Bush's mishandling of the situation has brought us to the brink of world war. It is unbelievable how much damage he has done in such a short amount of time.

Maybe, just maybe, Congress can stop us from going over the edge. Let's hope it isn't too late.

dicktice · 2007-02-12 11:47:58

The Rules of War, for War Lovers:

Be sure your war is the only alternative.

Set a time limit on the war. What works today may be standing in the way of winning the war tomorrow.

Limit the scope of the war as much as possible.

Report the war in plain language, minimizing propaganda.

Be specific about what is allowed and not allowed.

Give refugee nonparticipants a place to go with questions about the war.

Be realistic. Impose a war that will make sense, and explain the logic behind the war.

Focus the war on outcomes, not process.

And finally, fight a green war, remembering that others have to live with the consequences of your war, like land mines, pollution, and budgetary overuns requiring innocent progeny to pay after you have had your war.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-12 22:41:51

No kidding. God only knows what "victory" is supposed to look like in Iraq right now. As far as I can tell, the US is actively assisting the installation of an Islamic Theocracy with religious ties to Iran. Why are they doing that?

Funny, I thought that's what the Democrats are doing with all their defeatism, they want the US to pull out so that the Iranians can move in and install their Islamic Theocracy, Now why are they doing that?

But the Iraq mess is nothing compared to the planned attack on Iran. Iraq has merely bankrupted the nation. An attack on Iran has a serious chance of triggering World War III. This is beyond folly. You have to question the sanity of someone who wants that.

Is Iran a superpower? How many nuclear weapons does Iran have? Seems to me that it will be more like World War III if we attack Iran after it gets nuclear weapons than if we attack them to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons.

If Iran doesn't want World War III, perhaps it should consider not supplying weapons to terrorists who are killing US troops, I think that's extremely provocative. Poor Iranians, they have a government that's attacking US troops and it may start World War III, and in a World War III between Iran and the US, its going to be mostly Iranians that die. Now they can either die fighting to over throw their own government and installing an accountable democratic government, or they can die in much greater numbers fighting us in World War III, so which is it going to be, the US doesn't get to decide whether there is going to be a World War III, they do!

And it is all so silly. You don't defeat religious fundamentalists by attacking them with guns and bombs. That just makes them stronger.

You mean they rise up as zombies after we kill them? I didn't know you believed in the undead!

You defeat them with MTV,

Ha ha ha, what a joke!
MTV is supposed to defeat them? That makes fighting for freedom and liberty rather cheap doesn't it? Too bad our founding fathers didn't have MTV, they could have driven off the British with it. How unimaginitve those silly Continentals must have been, they thought they had to shoot the British in order to defeat them.

Desperate Housewives and 137 flavors of liquor. Want better treatment of women? Set up a University with a Women's Studies Department. The patriarchy will wither like flowers in winter.

That just doesn't work. Do you want to be the guy managing the liquor store? Many liquor stores got firebombed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now if you got someone willing to do this and forfeit his life after the terrorists attack his store and execute him, then you end up with an empty burnt out store front. I tell you what, I'd rather be an soldier with a gun in his hand and an ability to defend himself that an unarmed liquor store owner who may be attacked and murdered while running his business. Theocracy is enforced with a gun, just like Communism was, if you try to do something like spread propaganda or try to undermine the religion the theocracy is based on, they will try to kill you. If they try to kill you, wouldn't you rather be a soldier with a gun in his hand than some hapless civilian? Soldiers can fight back civilians cannot!

That's the really sad thing. The US had already won. Just a few spastic death throes from extremists and Mickie Ds would have started sprouting like mushrooms. Now Bush's mishandling of the situation has brought us to the brink of world war. It is unbelievable how much damage he has done in such a short amount of time.

A world war requires another superpower to fight. The closest thing to another superpower is China, and I don't see China getting involved and fighting on the side of Muslim terrorists, do you?

Maybe, just maybe, Congress can stop us from going over the edge. Let's hope it isn't too late.

Yes, Congress is such a fountain of military genuises, how many of them have graduated from West Point? Do you know the number? Why do you think all are generals are so stupid and all our congressmen are so smart? Just because they're elected, does that make them tactical and military geniuses? Didn't seem to work for Lincoln when he got elected. I don't know the last time Congress leading troops won any of our wars, do you? Should we put each of the Congressment and Senators into general's uniforms and assign them troops to lead into battle, since they are so smart and all our career officers are morons?

I can answer that question myself, our generals are trained to deal with military situations, and they know better than any elected politicians, its up to the President to make sure the Generals leading the troops are good enough to get the job done, give them a decent chance and then if no progress is made to replace them. Congress should fund the troops or not, its not up to them to lead troops or to make military decisions for them, doing that will only get more troops killed. The generals are trained for this, they know better than the elected politicians how not to waste soldiers lives, and they know how to win battles. 3,000 deaths is nothing, if it takes 6 years to equal the casualities in a single day on 9/11, that isn't much for a whole war, why do you keep acting as if it is alot? We're not a small country, we have a population of 300,000,000, now what percentage is 3,000 out of 300,000,000?

I can do the math. In 6 years, we've lost 0.0001% of our population. Our population is growing at a rate that is much faster than that. To act as if 3,000 people over 6 years is a high casuality rate is to presume that our total population is much smaller than it is. Police officers die every year in greater numbers, as do fire fighters. There are more deaths due to smoking and drunken driving than there is due to the Iraq War, and as we have seen, we can lose as many civilian lives in a single day as we did over this entire War. That it took 6 years to exceed the number of casualities in the 9/11 attack really says something. Now whose lives are more valuable, is it the lives of our soldiers or the lives of the civilians that they are supposed to protect?

What if we pull out of Iraq, and the terrorists stage an attack killing 5,000 American civilians originating from Iraq which we abandoned. The soldiers only go where the politicians send them, if they go somewhere where they cannot protect the American people from the next attack, whose fault is that. If Congress prevents the President from doing his job and sending the troops where they are needed to protect the American people, whose fault is that?

Rxke · 2007-02-13 02:43:20

Always funny to see people mentioning 911 and Iraq in one breath. Again and again.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-13 10:11:42

Always funny to see people mentioning 911 and Iraq in one breath. Again and again.

Yes, it Democrat strategy to divide the War on Terrorism into quadrants, and then for Congress to speak up and say to our troops, you can go here, but you must provide safe havens for the terrorists here and here so they can recover from your efforts to fight them and recruit more suicide bombers, and we mustn't molest them in Iraq, cause that's a "quagmire".

So how are we supposed to win the War on terrorism of the Democrats keep on pealing off "no go" zones in which we can't fight them? "Oh its a quagmire here and a quagmire there, we can't send our soldiers into these places cause they'll just get bogged down." Sooner or later the the soldiers get stuck in one spot where congress will allow them to operate, they'll be effectively immobile, surrounded by "Quagmire zones", they won't be able to go after the terrorist bases, where the terrorists can plot and train in safety for their next terrorist attack on the United States.

One of these days, we'll see a mushroom cloud rising high over New York City, and that will be the end of the Democratic Party because the public will know that it was the democrats that insisted on allowing the Iranians to have a nuclear bomb and they prevented the Bush Administration from doing something about it, because they wouldn't release the funds due to their overarching "concern" for US Soldier's casualities.

If you don't like 3000 soldier casualities, how about a million civilians instead, that's our choice. You support Congress's tying the President's hands, that is what may just happen. If you don't trust our Generals to know what their doing on the War on Terrorism, go ahead, trust your congressman instead, but on your head be it.

John Creighton · 2007-02-13 23:43:32

Always funny to see people mentioning 911 and Iraq in one breath. Again and again.

The connection is Iraq is a proxy with Iran. BTW a third carrier group is entering the gulf.

Martian Republic · 2007-02-15 11:02:15

Always funny to see people mentioning 911 and Iraq in one breath. Again and again.

There a name that!

It called being brainwashed.

Larry,

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-16 08:34:22

Here are the latest doings of those fools in Congress:

Dems Challenge Bush's Power to Wage War
Fri Feb 16, 6:47 AM
WASHINGTON - Democrats are challenging President Bush's power to wage war, contending they've found a way to block a troop increase in Iraq and prevent any pre-emptive invasion of Iran. But first Congress will vote on a nonbinding measure stating opposition to Bush's decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
The House was expected to pass the measure on Friday, with the Senate planning to hold a test vote Saturday.
Democrats say the votes are the first step toward forcing Bush to change course in a war that has killed more than 3,100 U.S. troops and lost favor with voters.

A pittance really, 55 million people died in World War II, yet we fought on to victory, and 3,100 is supposed to be a jaw dropping amount? Is it supposed to undermine the moral of this country and cause us to flee?

"This country needs a dramatic change of course in Iraq and it is the responsibility of this Congress to consummate that change," said Rep. John Murtha, who chairs the House panel that oversees military spending.
Murtha, D-Pa., is preparing legislation that would set strict conditions on combat deployments, including a year rest between combat tours; ultimately, the congressman says, his measure would make it impossible for Bush to maintain his planned deployment of a total of about 160,000 troops for months on end.

It depends on which soldier you are, are you the soldier out in the field in badly need of reinforcements, or are you the soldier out enjoying his vacation? You know what this can do is increase the number of US combat casualities, because those fighting won't be able to receive reinforcements, no matter how dire the circumstances, this piece of legislation seeks to deny the US Combat soldier the full support and backing of the US government when his life is on the line. It is easier for the enemy to kill American soldiers when Congress forces the Administration to send them out in small numbers so that they can more easily be killed.

Murtha's proposal also might block the funding of military operations inside Iran - a measure intended to send a signal to Bush that he will need Congress' blessing if he is planning another war.

So those are the people Jack Murtha really represents, the Islamic Republic of Iran. He wants Iran to get nuclear weapons, hand them out to terrorists, and blow up one of our major cities like New York, and the bloody accusing finger will point right back to Jack Murtha and the accomodating Congress, that allowed this bloodshed. Trying to prevent a short term slaughter of soldiers may lead to a more massive slaughter of civilians further down the road, if he refuses to let the President deploy troops flexibly in preventative wars now, we'll only get the more massive wars later. By taking power away from the President, Congress only confers responsibilty for US security onto themselves. Warfare is the realm of Generals, they have the proper training to fight and win wars, not Congress. IF Congress doesn't allow the generals to do their job, or so restricts their flexibility so that threats to national security cannot be addressed, then we're in big trouble and Congress is to blame.

"The president could veto it, but then he wouldn't have any money," Murtha told an anti-war group in an interview broadcast on movecongress.org.
In an interview Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran "and I take him at his word."
At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."
Bush said at a news conference Wednesday he has no doubt the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill American troops in Iraq. But he backed away from claims by senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad that the top echelon of Iran's government was responsible.
Administration critics have accused the president of looking for a pretense to attack Iran, at loggerheads with the United Nations about what Tehran says is a nuclear program aimed at developing energy for peaceful purposes.
In a speech Thursday, Bush said he expects Congress to live up to its promise to support the troops.
"We have a responsibility, Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to give our troops the resources they need to do their job and the flexibility they need to prevail," Bush said.
In the third day of a House debate on the war, GOP combat veterans spoke out against the Democratic resolution.
"The enemy wants our men and women in uniform to think their Congress doesn't care about them," said Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, who was a prisoner of war during Vietnam. "We must learn from our mistakes. We cannot leave a job undone like we left in Korea, like we left in Vietnam, like we left in Somalia," Johnson said.
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, called the political maneuvering by Democrats "extremely dangerous."
"It could stop reinforcements from arriving in time to stop major casualties in any of a number of scenarios," said Hunter.
Democrats will have to fight critics in the Senate as well.
"I will do everything in my power to ensure the House resolution dies an inglorious death in the Senate," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
---
Associated Press writers Jim Abrams and David Espo contributed to this report.

I often wonder what recourse there could be if Congress elects to commit national suicide on our behalf. Maybe their are sections of this country that don't agree with Congress that the American Republic should die. If the blue states want to exercise their pacifist foreign policy, then maybe as a last resort, they should be allowed to do so seperately as an independent country.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-01-31 09:30:31

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#2 2007-01-31 19:15:48

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#3 2007-02-01 01:47:35

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#4 2007-02-01 03:14:50

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#5 2007-02-01 09:45:45

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#6 2007-02-01 10:22:58

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#7 2007-02-01 12:50:09

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#8 2007-02-01 13:18:56

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#9 2007-02-02 01:44:20

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#10 2007-02-03 13:57:46

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#11 2007-02-03 13:59:23

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#12 2007-02-06 10:30:03

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#13 2007-02-07 01:56:20

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#14 2007-02-07 10:53:11

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#15 2007-02-09 10:15:41

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#16 2007-02-10 20:52:34

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#17 2007-02-10 21:47:21

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#18 2007-02-11 06:12:29

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#19 2007-02-12 11:47:58

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#20 2007-02-12 22:41:51

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#21 2007-02-13 02:43:20

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#22 2007-02-13 10:11:42

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#23 2007-02-13 23:43:32

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#24 2007-02-15 11:02:15

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

#25 2007-02-16 08:34:22

Re: The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate

Board footer