GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/11/28/mission-accomplished-iraq-war-is-over/trackback/

  1. I’m very happy they finally got the deal done.

    (Rant On)

    I was really pissed in July(ish) when the Iraqis asked for this deal and the Bush administration scoffed at the idea. Here were the Iraqis, finally proclaiming they were ready to fully assume their sovereignty, and we go “yeah, what ev’, you don’t got to say when you’re ready, we do!”. What arrogant pricks, I thought. Here was an opportunity to claim victory thrown right at their feet, and they punt. Sad thing is, I bet the language in the d agreement signed last week is probably almost EXACTLY the same at the one proposed in July. And worse, if they would have signed this in July, it might have given enough of a Republican bump to carry McCain to the White House….

    (Rant Off)

    OK. that last part is just fantasy. Obama would have won regardless of the Iraqi deal. Still, I was very pissed when we balked at this in July.

    Comment by sonicfrog — November 28, 2008 @ 12:29 pm - November 28, 2008

  2. If you ask me, VI day was the day we dragged Hussein out of his rathole. At that point the war WITH Iraq was over, the government toppled, we had one. Victory in Japan and Germany was not defined by when we stabilized those countries, but when we defeated them.

    We have not been at war WITH Iraq since that day long ago. Ever since then, we have been on a peace-keeping mission, fighting the enemies of Iraq, defending the duly elected government of the free Iraqi people.

    We have done ourselves a great disservice by not recognizing that fact.

    It is much harder to oppose a peace-keeping mission, or to oppose defending Iraq than it is to oppose the inaccurately named, “War in Iraq”.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 28, 2008 @ 12:33 pm - November 28, 2008

  3. I have NO idea why I typed “one” instead of “won”. how embarrassing.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 28, 2008 @ 12:34 pm - November 28, 2008

  4. I of course applaud our servicemen and women, but I’m hesitant to declare full victory until I see what Obama does when in office. Eh, perhaps it’s silly but I’m afraid of jinxing anything. I hope he doesn’t completely screw this up…

    Comment by John — November 28, 2008 @ 12:40 pm - November 28, 2008

  5. Karl Rove praises Chairman 0′s Economic Team. If lefties owned guns, they’d be eating them right now.

    Comment by V the K — November 28, 2008 @ 12:47 pm - November 28, 2008

  6. I’m too old for November 22 to mean anything to me except the day John Kennedy was assassinated.

    Comment by windybon — November 28, 2008 @ 6:02 pm - November 28, 2008

  7. I also had assumed we won when we deposed Saddam. It took longer to stabilize the country than to actually fight the war.

    Comment by Attmay — November 28, 2008 @ 8:40 pm - November 28, 2008

  8. I won’t consider there to be any sort of victory in Iraq until after my friends and I get back from our deployments.

    Comment by JT in the Army — November 28, 2008 @ 9:35 pm - November 28, 2008

  9. If you ask me, VI day was the day we dragged Hussein out of his rathole.

    It was when he went on the run and the statue came down. Captured or not, he was finished.

    It’s not like he didn’t have a chance to avert all this either. One would think liberals would be pissed that he didn’t get while the getting was good.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 29, 2008 @ 3:30 am - November 29, 2008

  10. A stunning display of delusion that could (as is) only found on the wingnut portion of the Internet.

    Let’s set aside the reality that the war is still going on (a clue is there’s still people being killed everyday) and that Saddam wasn’t a threat to begin with (hint: no WMD and his army was flattened in a few weeks) your “heroes” themselves do not consider Iraq a “victory”, case in point:

    No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus

    General Petraeus on the Iraq campaign

    The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there.

    Gosh GP and fellow wingnuts, what is it that you know that the architects of this disaster don’t? Why aren’t they joining in your parade I wonder?

    Comment by salvage — November 29, 2008 @ 9:31 am - November 29, 2008

  11. During and after the Gulf War, G.H.W. Bush was repeatedly criticized for not going to Baghdad and finishing off Saddam with the prediction that we’d eventually have to do it due to Saddam’s continued claims to Kuwait, hostilities with Jordan, etc.

    The predictions were correct except that W and co. invaded Iraq without the pretext of Iraqi aggression and with the pretext of non-existent WMD based upon bad British intelligence.

    This “war” is/was W’s answer to his father’s critics. Those who did the actual fighting deserve praise and those who did the dying deserve our undying shame for having to build a legacy for men with apparently small cocks.

    Based upon the pretexts of and for our invasion of Iraq, North Korea has done far more to warrant an attack. When does the bombing start?

    The invasion of Afghanistan is/was justified as we were attacked by those whose leadership are/were based there at the time. Instead of focusing on finding bin Laden and bringing him and his cohorts to justice, we did otherwise to the detriment of our foreign policy, diplomacy, economy, blood/treasure, Republican politics. Not only that, we invaded Iraq with inadequate equipment and forces, necessitating a surge years later that squandered precious lives and time.

    Sorry I can’t join the jingoism.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 29, 2008 @ 10:46 am - November 29, 2008

  12. Man…laying it on pretty thick aren’t you?
    It will be judged by the following:
    Will Iraq be an ally?
    Will Iraq be a multicultural democracy?
    Will Iraq be a supporter of Israel?
    Will Iraq be a beacon of Freedom?
    Will Iraq be a stabilizing force in the region?
    How will the varying ethnic groups coexist?
    How long until Kurdistan is recognized by the UN?
    Was it worth bankrupting our country to achieve what we did?

    But in one point we are all in agreement, our soldiers are awesome.
    So be ready to spend more tax dollars to take care of them. OK?

    Comment by gillie — November 29, 2008 @ 12:18 pm - November 29, 2008

  13. #4 – John –
    Bush has tied Obama’s hands here.
    We must abide by the timeline set.

    Comment by gillie — November 29, 2008 @ 12:20 pm - November 29, 2008

  14. Of course, salvage and his fellow “General Betray-us” leftists are now trying to co-opt the very person whose name they sullied in their insane attempt to stop any sort of success in Iraq.

    Of course, this hypocrisy is no surprise; after all, these are the same people who scream about torture, corruption and illegal imprisonment, but supported all three on a massive scale when it was Saddam doing it and enriching them and their UN allies in the process.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2008 @ 12:55 pm - November 29, 2008

  15. North Dallas Thirty

    You are not very smart and or do not understand what is being said.

    You do not know the meaning of “co-opt” or at the very least do not understand the context of its use. General Petraeus said those words, that is a direct quote, if you follow the link there is a video were he says it and expands on his points.

    How is that “co-opting”? Don’t answer that, it’s not.

    >insane attempt to stop any sort of success in Iraq.

    Do you understand how armies work? The chain of command for the US military? Do you know that the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief? That everything the military does is under his orders and therefore his responsibility? So anything that happens in Iraq, success or otherwise is in fact the PotUS’s full responsibility? So you can pathetically mew that it’s ain’t Dubya’s fault that the war is a dismal failure but the reality that it is.

    You can float this “knife in the back” bullshit all you like, doesn’t change the facts Sparky; your Dear Leader blew it.

    >Of course, this hypocrisy is no surprise; after all, these are the same people who scream about torture, corruption and illegal imprisonment, but supported all three on a massive scale when it was Saddam doing it and enriching them and their UN allies in the process.

    HAHAHAHAHAH! YES! I am rich because of Saddam and the UN! You figured it out Sherlock, the mystery of the anti-Iraq war people, they’re were all working for Saddam!! Not just that but we all attended the “Keep Saddam’s Prisons Full!” fund raisers where we sold Saddam yellow cake and al Qeada contacts.

    North Dallas Thirty IQ, you are officially too stupid to talk to.

    Comment by salvage — November 29, 2008 @ 1:59 pm - November 29, 2008

  16. I understand perfectly, salvage; the hypocrisy of people like yourself who were namecalling Petraeus previously as “General Betray-Us” now attempting to quote him is blatantly obvious.

    Furthermore, your attempt to deny that Saddam was imprisoning or torturing individuals, or carrying out massive genocide, or bribing liberals around the world and in the UN, only demonstrate what little grasp of the truth you have.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2008 @ 1:03 am - November 30, 2008

  17. W and co. invaded Iraq without the pretext of Iraqi aggression

    False. Legally and factually untrue.

    and with the pretext of non-existent WMD based upon bad British intelligence

    Largely false. First, the British intelligence about Saddam seeking yellowcake in Africa wasn’t bad. Second, Coalition forces did find WMD in Iraq: they found chemical weapons that Saddam hadn’t declared, long-range missile development programs, and various forms of WMD research; none of which Saddam was supposed to have. Not to be overlooked, they also found Saddam, who was himself a WMD, his regime having killed his own people at a rate of approximately 30,000 per year for decades.

    Iggy’s claim has partial truth, in that they didn’t find a row of nuclear bombs labelled London, Tokyo, Washington, etc. I.e., they didn’t find nuclear weapons stockpiles. But who ever said they would? Why, Democrats did, such as Senator Jay Rockefeller. W didn’t. So, you could say that Democrats lied us into the war, if WMD stockpiles were/are important to you. I notice Iggy fails to point it out.

    This “war” is/was W’s answer to his father’s critics.

    Evidence, please. (Keep the above comments in mind; that if anybody exaggerated Saddam’s direct threat and thereby “lied” us into the war, it was, in fact, certain Democrats.)

    North Korea has done far more to warrant an attack.

    “Far” more? Again false, i.e., legally and factually untrue. North Korea hasn’t attacked four of its neighbors at various times. North Korea hasn’t, to my present state of knowledge, broken a cease-fire in the last few years which is still in effect and which gives other nations the right to invade North Korea, if it is violated. North Korea hasn’t essentially had its sovereignty suspended by 12 years of U.N. condemnations and supervising resolutions. All of which applied to Saddam.

    North Korea has done a lot of the bad things that Saddam did, and very arguably should be invaded. But to say they’ve done “far more” than Saddam, or even “more”, misrepresents reality.

    The invasion of Afghanistan is/was justified as we were attacked by those whose leadership are/were based there at the time.

    Finally, a spark of sanity and knowledge.

    Instead of focusing on finding bin Laden and bringing him and his cohorts to justice, we did otherwise…

    You had me, Iggy, then you lost me. “Finding bin Ladin” would have required (and still requires) an invasion of Pakistan. Are you proposing it? If so: On what legal and moral grounds?

    Sorry I can’t join the jingoism.

    As the “jingoism” is your creation, Iggy, based on your misinterpretation of events, you’ve already joined it. Thankfully, I won’t be joining you there.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 30, 2008 @ 5:06 pm - November 30, 2008

  18. Apology for a partial error. North Korea is still technically at war with South Korea. North Korea is still under a ceasefire, not a peace treaty. If and to the extent North Korea’s activities violate its cease-fire conditions, invasion may be legally justified as it was with Saddam violating his cease-fire. And North Korea has made terrorist attacks against Japanese and South Korean citizens, and was long desginated a state sponsor of terrorism.

    On the other hand, that designation was lifted on Oct 11, 2008. And to my knowledge, North Korea still hasn’t invaded or attacked as many of its neighbors as Saddam did (four).

    So, my overall point remains: while one could certainly argue that North Korea has done a lot of bad stuff, and perhaps *as much* bad stuff as Saddam had done, to claim they’ve done “far more” is disconnected from reality.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 30, 2008 @ 5:27 pm - November 30, 2008

  19. W and co. invaded Iraq without the pretext of Iraqi aggression

    ILC forgets that Iraq was contained at the time of the U.S./allied invasion. Iraq was not engaged in open hostilities with any of its neighbors. Our no-fly zone was being enforced. Iraq posed absolutely no imminent threat to the United States. The statement is absolutely true.

    The British intelligence used by Colin Powell and others to make the case for invasion simply wasn’t accurate. WMDs have never been found in Iraq, although one could argue Saddam’s use of chemical warfare against his own people and within his own borders is massively destructive.

    North Korea has made no secret of its intentions to launch WMDs and has launched non-nuclear missiles with varying degrees of success. The regime is currently building a long-range launch site at Dongchang-ni, has conducted an underground test, and is believed to have enough plutonium to produce several large bombs. North Korea’s Taepodong missiles now have a range of more than 4,200 miles — putting the Western U.S. within striking range. North Korea has willingly equipped other nations with technologies; connections with Syria, Iran, Indonesia are widely known but many others are suspected.

    Again, the premise for the Iraq invasion was that we simply couldn’t allow Saddam to develop WMDs — or that we couldn’t allow him to have the WMDs we knew he had (the story kept changing). North Korea is actively pursuing the capability to deliver WMDs via advanced ICBMs. North Korea has done far more to warrant an invasion than Iraq ever did after the Gulf War based upon the logic used to justify this most recent occupation.

    This “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists”, black-and-white, 2-dimensional thinking isn’t the product of intelligent, thoughtful people whose goal is peace.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 30, 2008 @ 7:49 pm - November 30, 2008

  20. But, if the “no imminent threat” doctrine is applied, then the Balkans war was unjustified and illegal. However, were genocide against one’s population considered in the same manner valid for Iraq, the war against Saddam was justified on that one point alone, not to mention the WMD activities that ILC mentioned.

    Furthermore, North Korea, unlike Iraq, is under virtually-unanimous international sanction. There is no corrupt UN body and group of leftist bureaucrats receiving payments from Kim Jong-il — and in addition, there is a massive nation to the north on which North Korea is completely dependent, which has a vested interest in what North Korea is doing, and has shown on numerous occasions that it has no intention of allowing Kim to carry out his idiotic intentions.

    In short, Iraq had no China to keep it leashed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2008 @ 11:05 pm - November 30, 2008

  21. ILC forgets that Iraq was contained at the time of the U.S./allied invasion. Iraq was not engaged in open hostilities with any of its neighbors. Our no-fly zone was being enforced.

    That’s a rather passive-voice, or even Orwellian way to put it. Here’s the truth. “At the time” of the Coalition invasion, Iraq was engaged in regular aggression against brave U.S. pilots attempting to enforce the U.N.-mandated no-fly zones.

    Furthermore, numerous acts of Iraqi aggression over a period of years constituted an overwhelming cease-fire violation meaning that Saddam Hussein had not “stayed in his box” and would commit future aggression. To deny or ignore has no intellectual integrity.

    Iraq posed absolutely no imminent threat to the United States.

    And who claimed it did? Not Bush or Blair. I can’t recall their exact quotation but they specifically said, Saddam was NOT an imminent threat… more of a gathering threat that, in a post-9/11 world, could not be allowed to stand. Perhaps Democrats (like Rockefeller, again) tried to call him “imminent”; I would have to look it up.

    The British intelligence used by Colin Powell and others to make the case for invasion simply wasn’t accurate.

    Au contraire. The majority of it was accurate. The real inaccuracies have been blown out of proportion and context. As GPW (of the GayPatriot blog) has blogged many times, when Joe Wilson returned from Niger, Joe Wilson reported to the CIA that Saddam *most likely had* try to buy yellowcake – then later lied about it to the American people.

    WMDs have never been found in Iraq

    Laughably false. Or are chemical weapons not WMDs? Coalition forces did find them in Iraq – ones that Saddam had never declared and wasn’t supposed to have; you just didn’t see the NYT trumpeting it.

    And apparently the following didn’t sink, so I’ll repeat it: “[Saddam had] long-range missile development programs, and various forms of WMD research; none of which [he]was supposed to have. Not to be overlooked, [Coalition forces] also found Saddam, who was himself a WMD, his regime having killed his own people at a rate of approximately 30,000 per year for decades.”

    North Korea has made no secret of its intentions to launch WMDs

    Really? Has North Korea made a statement to the following effect? “Our nuclear energy program is in fact an offensive weapons program, and we will launch against other countries when we are ready.” If so, I did miss it. Please let us know.

    Having said that: I do agree that North Korea’s intentions in fact are probably aggressive. But, as NDT points out, there are several other regional powers involved, China not least. I do believe China would take any U.S. invasion of North Korea as an act of war. Remember when they did that before?

    the premise for the Iraq invasion was that we simply couldn’t allow Saddam to develop WMDs

    Indeed – and it was a valid premise. The world and the U.S. are enormously better off for him being gone. I’m saddened, HardHobbit Iggy, that you can’t bring yourself to admit that.

    North Korea has done far more to warrant an invasion than Iraq ever did after the Gulf War

    Let’s see. After the first Gulf War, and before (or up to) the Coalition invasion in 2003, Iraq:

    - was neck-deep in an assasination attempt on a U.S. President.
    - was at least ankle-deep in the first World Trade Center bombing (1993) and gave shelter to its leading light.
    - tried to develop WMD.
    - after making a show of ending its WMD programs, tried to preserve the know-how, the bio ‘seed stocks’, the active missile program, etc. so that (1) the world could never know if they had really stopped, and (2) they could bring the programs back online once the world stopped looking.
    - funded Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israel.
    - paid numerous bounties to suicide bombers’ families.
    - tried to buy yellowcake in Africa and probably elsewhere.
    - held a series of high-level meetings with al Qaeda over a period of a decade, and probably gave them some kind of funding or assistance. (Not that they needed it.)
    - gave refuge to al Qaeda terrorists fleeing Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban in late 2001, including Zarqawi and the al Qaeda offshoot group known as “Ansar al Islam”.
    - attacked U.S. planes more or less continually.
    - kill hundreds of thousands of its own people.

    All violations of its ceasefire. All cited by Bush and Congress in their (legitimate) laundry list of reasons for removing Saddam. And, except for the final item, all acts of aggression against either the U.S., allies it was pledged to defend, or the U.N.

    I’ll let you cite North Korean actions and show, or at least argue, that they have done quite a lot of bad things, nearly as much as Saddam. But to claim they have done “far more” is wrong.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 1, 2008 @ 1:32 am - December 1, 2008

  22. spamfilter

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 1, 2008 @ 1:32 am - December 1, 2008

  23. This will be a P.S. to my long comment (wait for it) refuting most of what Iggy says.

    This “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists”, black-and-white, 2-dimensional thinking isn’t the product of intelligent, thoughtful people whose goal is peace.

    Iggy, that’s a slimy comment. You’re suggesting that Bush’s long-term goal/desire isn’t peace, which would be an unsupportable slander him if you had the guts to say it more directly. You’re also suggesting that, given a choice between siding with America in its conflict with the terrorists and siding with the terrorists in their conflict with America, there could somehow be a legitimate 3rd option. Slimy, slimy, slimy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 1, 2008 @ 1:55 am - December 1, 2008

  24. The British intelligence used by Colin Powell and others to make the case for invasion simply wasn’t accurate.

    Actually, if you are referring to the British intelligence that Saddam was seeking to purchase uranium in Africa, the Brits still stand by it and our own investigations have found that the only person lying about it was Joe Wilson. And most of what Colin Powell said cannot be verified. He showed satelite photographs of truck caravans at and leaving suspected weapons sites. He spoke of photographs of truck caravans crossing into syria. And he held up a phial and reminded us all that WMD’s cannot be contained.

    WMDs have never been found in Iraq, although one could argue Saddam’s use of chemical warfare against his own people and within his own borders is massively destructive.

    One could argue

    Comment by American Elephant — December 1, 2008 @ 2:07 am - December 1, 2008

  25. Let’s set aside the reality that the war is still going on (a clue is there’s still people being killed everyday)

    Less than in Obama’s hometown of Chicago. Salvage and his fellow Daily Kossacks have their diapers all in a twist because the war has been won, despite their best efforts to sabotage it.

    and that Saddam wasn’t a threat to begin with

    Funny, the entire Clinton administration, the Dulfer Report and the vast majority of Democrats in congress disagree with you. Could it be because youre an idiot? Why, yes, I think it could.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 1, 2008 @ 2:32 am - December 1, 2008

  26. In short, Iraq had no China to keep it leashed.

    It most certainly did. It is/was the United States. Ever hear of the no-fly zone, semi-autonomous Kurdistan, our installations in Kuwait, etc., etc.?

    There is no corrupt UN body and group of leftist bureaucrats receiving payments from Kim Jong-il…

    “Corrupt UN body” is a redundant statement. Whether there are bureaucrats receiving payment from Kim is beside the point and the claim isn’t verifiable. North Korea is a member of the U.N., something I find damning in itself — of us. North Korea is a long time dealer in terrorist technology regardless of the protestations of any one organization. That a body as incompetent, corrupt, and impotent as the U.N. isn’t involved (so the claim is made) is hardly a converse argument to justify an Iraq invasion. Why was everyone so shocked that Saddam wasn’t living up to the U.N. sanctions/resolutions? What intelligent person concluded he would when the sanctions and resolutions were discussed and decided?

    North Korea is dependent upon China, but not solely. The United States, South Korea, Japan send shipments of food and other necessities on a regular basis, used as an ecomonic incentive to enforce agreements to which the regime has no intentions of keeping. These food shipments are widely suspected of feeding the North Korean military machine, thus exacerbating the problem we claim to wish to solve. Several years ago, a defector who escaped to Japan through China claimed to witness North Koreans luring children, murdering them, and eating them.

    But, if the “no imminent threat” doctrine is applied, then the Balkans war was unjustified and illegal. However, were genocide against one’s population considered in the same manner valid for Iraq, the war against Saddam was justified on that one point alone…

    Yes, the war in Kosovo was not justified. Genocide against one’s own people is a debatable term. The North Korean regime is guilty of brainwashing and mass starvation and its human rights record is non-existent. In such an homogenous nation, it isn’t ethnic cleansing in the sense of Kosovars vs. Bosnians vs. Albanians, but the result is death on a huge scale. Although Kim’s regime isn’t known for killing North Koreans by the millions via chemicals or firing squads (that we know of), starvation through idealogy is in my book just as bad or worse — the victims are assumed to be too brain-dead to understand or are willing to die for the Dear Leader and the Juchae Idea.

    Is North Korea an imminent threat to the United States? It would certainly like to be and considering its current missile capability, one could argue it is more of a threat than Iraq ever could have been.

    Again, when does the bombing start? And since the argument that the number of neighbors a nation invades is justification for U.S. invasion, let’s discuss some Russian history. How many nations has she invaded over the centuries and will likely continue to do so based upon recent behavior and statements made by Putin and Medvedev? When does the bombing start? Genocide? Heck, let’s invade Zimbabwe and the “Democratic” Republic of The Congo.

    But because I didn’t and do not support our Iraq invasion, I somehow “supported” Saddam and the Ba’ath regime. With such an argument, there is no middle ground. You either support the U.S. military or you support the tyrant. My position of a consistent, defensive posture for our Dept. of Defense is one that doesn’t exist in the current conservative universe. Shoving democracy (meaning fighting a war so a nation can vote itself back into tyranny) down a nation’s throat isn’t intelligent diplomacy.

    Comment by Ignatius — December 1, 2008 @ 10:59 am - December 1, 2008

  27. Think we’ll see Bush declare “Mission Accomplished” this time?

    Think Obama will get any credit? Remember Reagan being elected then suddenly American hostages were released? As if Reagan scared ‘em sh*tless? Maybe everybody finally agreed on a resolution because Obama brought them hope and happiness and puppies and kittens?

    Comment by DoorHold — December 1, 2008 @ 3:52 pm - December 1, 2008

  28. for having to build a legacy for men with apparently small cocks.

    Says a colossal pussy.

    This is lovely:

    Those who did the actual fighting deserve praise

    Then she shat all over them with:

    Instead of focusing on finding bin Laden and bringing him and his cohorts to justice, we did otherwise to the detriment of our foreign policy, diplomacy, economy, blood/treasure, Republican politics.

    What a POS!

    Not only that, we invaded Iraq with inadequate equipment

    After all, lord BJ spent ass loads of money building up the military and making sure they had the best, right?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 2, 2008 @ 3:57 am - December 2, 2008

  29. Ah. My long post (second refutation of Iggy) has appeared at last, at #21.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2008 @ 3:31 pm - December 3, 2008

  30. I still can’t believe we aren’t establishing a long term base there. We did in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. Why not Iraq?

    -AC

    Comment by AngryConservative — December 4, 2008 @ 3:58 pm - December 4, 2008

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.201 Powered by Wordpress