Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditReading Bob Woodward's The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008, is like reading raw transcripts of documents and interviews from a sensational murder trial: you know what happens, and you know who the victim and the perpetrator are. But to read their actual words is chilling. It's the In Cold Blood of national security journalism.
I read it last night, cover to cover. Yes, it's written in that frustrating Woodward style, with little or no attribution for much of what he writes. (He does provide sketchy footnotes, but they mostly say: "The information in this chapter comes primarily from background interviews with firsthand sources.")
Still, much of it is astonishing. And I don't just mean the juicy tidbits that Woodward gives us – that the United States spied on Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, that a supersecret, high-tech assassination program killed large numbers of militants beginning in May, 2006, and so on. I'm talking about the dangerously sycophantic advisers surrounding Bush, the ones who stroked the ego of a know-nothing president as The Decider doubled-down on his failed war in Iraq. And I'm talking about the machinations of a rogue general named Jack Keane and his rump staff of strategists at the American Enterprise Institute who worked with Steve Hadley, the national security adviser, to promote the January, 2007, escalation called "the surge."
How's this for sycophantic? Here's Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with Bush on the brink of ordering the surge, speaking to a man who most historians consider America's worst president, ever:
I think you probably have to do it. But this is going to be one of the most consequential decisions of all time. You are probably, because of the things you've chosen to do, one of the four or five most consequential presidents--maybe in our history, certainly in the last 100 years, but maybe in our history.
Or take Steve Hadley, who orchestrated the surge plan, on Bush's "greatness":
Those of us who are here believe in him. Believe in him and believe he has greatness. He has greatness in him. … This guy is really strong. And … we're strong because he's strong.
What Woodward unfolds, page after horrifying page, is the story of how Hadley, Keane, John McCain, and the gang from AEI rode roughshod over the widespread establishment opposition to the surge. Keane, in particular, emerges as the principal advocate and facilitator of the surge strategy and as a sneaky, back-channel operator working at the behest of Dick Cheney's office and General Petraeus. When Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tries to "get Keane back in the box," and tells him point blank to stop his secret meetings with Cheney and Petraeus:
Keane called John Hannah in Cheney's office to report what had happened. … Vice President Cheney had noticed Admiral Mullen putting the hammer down on Keane. He didn't agree, so he had sent a note and talked to [Defense Secretary] Gates about how important Keane's assistance had been. The president had also requested that Keane be allowed back in Iraq.
During 2006, Woodward makes clear, the overwhelming consensus, both among the public and in Washington was to end the war, to start the drawdown of U.S. forces. That was the belief of General George Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, General John Abizaid, the CentCom commander, and nearly all of the uniformed military. It was the view of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, the State Department, and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. In 487 pages, Woodward details how all of them were steamrolled. Consider this: had they not been rolled over, today, two years later, the war would largely be over.
The picture of Bush that emerges is not a flattering one. He is portrayed as a man convinced of his utter righteousness. "Not one doubt," says Bush. And: "We're killin' ‘em. We're killin' ‘em all." Yet at the same time, Bush is blissfully detached, relying on Hadley for everything. His decision to order the surge, taken in November-December, 2006, was a tough one, Bush told Woodward. "Now, this is a period of time where I've got, I don't how many, holiday receptions."
In case you've forgotten that the war in Iraq was about something real, about the extension of American power into the heart of the world's oil region, here's an account of Condi Rice outlining the whole thing:
"Let's say that we have to live with the Iranian revolutionary state for some time," she said. "Would I rather live with the Iranian revolutionary state with American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf and Central Asia. You bet. When I hear the Iranians are just sitting pretty, I think, well, how does their neighborhood look to them? What has really happened is that starting with Gulf War I, but really after 9/11, the center of American power has moved." Following World War II, the United States had moved the epicenter of its military power to Europe. … Now American power had shifted to the Middle East.
Woodward asks Bush about that, about United States "hegemony" in the region. Hadley, sitting nearby, warns Bush about "the implications of the word ‘hegemony,'" which Woodward notes "carries "overtones of empire." Then this exchange:
"It's a loaded word, as you know very well," the president said."It is a loaded word," I agreed.
"It's a very tricky, Washington loaded word. It was very tricky, Woodward. Very tricky," Bush said.
RSS
"Yes, it's written in that frustrating Woodward style, with little or no attribution for much of what he writes. (He does provide sketchy footnotes, but they mostly say: "The information in this chapter comes primarily from background interviews with firsthand sources.)"
Yet to most here this will be accepted as gospel truth. To me it sounds like Woodward could be making it all up.
I don't know, maybe it is the truth. But, objectively, do you think Bob Woodward has an agenda too? That he might be a bit partisan?
No you won't because so many of you desperately want this to be the absolute truth.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 10:58am
Happy-Religious extremism has always existed and will always exist and bringing a islamic version of democracy to Iraq will, hardly, get Bush much play in history books.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 11:09am
FRANK of course defending Bush, because McCain implicated too ("Hillary in '12" always the reason)
This is interesting though-
"During 2006, Woodward makes clear, the overwhelming consensus, both among the public and in Washington was to end the war, to start the drawdown of U.S. forces. That was the belief of General George Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, General John Abizaid, the CentCom commander, and nearly all of the uniformed military."
Funny how the neo-cons seem to NOT "listen to the commanders" when it's in opposition to ideology or what Dubya wants?!?!??
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 11:10am
Here's my take. I understand the anti Iraq war sentiment. I wish american blood wasn't shed there.
But this is all politics. The dems know that to most americans a successful "surge" result is a BIG DEAL.
McCain was pro surge. Obama wasn't. Obama is already on record that the surge was successful beyond expectations.
So, what does the Obama damage control team do? Underplay the surge. Make the troop advancement pushed by McCain immaterial to the success. Point to everything else happening there on the ground. Make it look like the tide would have turned regardless.
Hey, it is a good strategy. Success in Iraq is forcing this hand by the democrats. They are so heavilly invested in defeat in Iraq, they have no choice.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 11:10am
freiheitz-McCain,at first,said that we could win in Iraq quickly by fighting war on the cheap and did not change that view until it became obvious that more troops were needed.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 11:13am
I'm nobody, no argument there. But look at it from a "getting votes" perspective.
The fact that McCain adjusted and more importantly that adjustment can be seen as leading to current SUCCESS? Can you see the democrat's problem here?
You need to accept the fact that not everyone hates Bush. And not all americans see the Iraq war in your light.
The relative success of the surge is a HUGE problem for Obama. Underplaying the military aspect is a democrat strategy.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 11:33am
freiheitz-The problem is that most people are uninformed and don't know that McCain got it wrong and did not get it right until that it was obvious and are giving him credit for something that he should not be getting credit for and that will hurt the democrats.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 11:37am
Yes, i'm nobody, most people are uninformed. How else would one explain Obama's popularity?
Bottom line dude, this is election politics. Since when was that ever a bastian of truth?
McCain backed the surge. Obama didn't. That's the truth as most americans see it. It is the truth. You can spin it how McCain was wrong at first. So what? Obama never changed his tune, he was against it as a strategy. Now, despite the efforts of the MSM, there are material successes as a result. Even Obama admitted it was successful.
Sorry, that is the problem the democrats face.
The moral hazard they face is having to hope for more violence there and a breakdown of that success... Just like they cheered on Gustav to hit New Orleans during the RNC. (Another perception americans have of the democrats.)
Dems are in a bad place right now. And they know it.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 11:59am
Notice all of the dipshit rethugs coming out of the woodwork here to defend the neocon machine without a shred of evidence one way or the other. They're pathetic. Notice that now Frank is defending the Bush administration.
Frank, go post at a nice republican neocon site where they post the pledge of allegiance, the national anthem plays inifinitely in a loop, and the colors of Red, White and Blue stream endlessly with pictures of Palin in a bathing suit as a backdrop intertwined with pictures of McCain carrying an M16 into combat killing AQ agents and uncovering Obama as an AQ field general.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:01pm
Dems are in a bad place right now. And they know it.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 11:59am
This country is in a bad place and your too God damned stupid to see it.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:03pm
You need to accept the fact that not everyone hates Bush. And not all americans see the Iraq war in your light.-----Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 11:33am
That's true....there is STILL 28% of the country that supports Bush and thinks the Iraq War was a good idea.
I won't deny that 28% exists and that that 28% are solidly behind Bush and the war and that 28% haven't wavered in their support or that that 28% is part of the American public.
Nope....no, "not everybody"...
just 70%!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 12:07pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:03pm
Nope, I agree the country is in a bad place Wolfgang. Never said otherwise. But that has nothing to do with my point that the dems are in a bad place right now.
You having focus issues dude? I would too if I were hopeful for an Obama presidency.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:11pm
Mask, wouldn't yoou agree that there are millions of americans who poll against the war, yet don't want to lose? The surge results play to that hopeful and intellectually detatched demographic.
The surge success plays against Obama's opposition to that successful strategy.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:14pm
Woodward is a true American success story..
Here's a guy that discovered a sloppy burglery nearly forty years ago and because of it, everything he says or writes cannot be challenged.
He's made millions attacking the right. Yet nevers finds fault with the left. Bob-Limbaugh-Woodard... (Oops, his taxes are going up.)
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/09/2008 @ 12:28pm
It is incredible that America continues a war that was first triggered by false assumption of WMD in Iraq's possession. We have to come out of Iraq NOW!!! It will be for the sake of our children, their children, and before all to reinstitute the reign of reason in this world, not those of vested commodities or geopolitical interests.
Posted by yanovsky at 09/09/2008 @ 12:29pm
"That's true....there is STILL 28% of the country that supports Bush and thinks the Iraq War was a good idea."
TWENTY-EIGHT percent?? That's monster approval ratings compared the the NINE (9) percent congress is getting these days.
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/09/2008 @ 12:31pm
freiheit1, even if your assertions that the surge is responsible for the relative decline in violence could be proven beyond any shadow of doubt (which they can't), the fact remains that the entire venture was ill-advised, and McCain took a hand in it. Assuming that the 'surge has worked' nonsense is true to any degree (which it isn't), let's break it down in simple terms: "We created the disaster, but we did something that kind of helped to slow down the disaster." And you applaud this?
And no, not everyone hates bush, there's you and perhaps five or six others.
Posted by jin at 09/09/2008 @ 12:32pm
"It is incredible that America continues a war that was first triggered by false assumption of WMD in Iraq's possession. We have to come out of Iraq NOW!!! It will be for the sake of our children, their children, and before all to reinstitute the reign of reason in this world, not those of vested commodities or geopolitical interests."
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Will someone please remind Obama of his anti-war stance for god's sake...
What happened????
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/09/2008 @ 12:33pm
Woodward is a pretty bad writer, he's usually all over the place, and yes, really does lack sourcing; though I'd say it mystifies me that he actually does get people to talk to him.
The review Dreyfus writes is pretty rambling too, expected from a blog I guess. Doesn't have much of a point expect to do the bashing of Bush and Co.
But one jarring thing: He drops this one half way through: "Consider this: had they not been rolled over, today, two years later, the war would largely be over."
And then just leaves it there -- without the Surge, Iraq would have been a disaster by now; even Obama has admitted it worked (even while opposing it). I've never heard the argument, it would have been helpful if he'd at least sketched out an outline. It's so patently ridiculous, it would be fun reading.
Posted by J. Saxon at 09/09/2008 @ 12:34pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:14pm
No, actually I wouldn't.
Rasmussen did a poll two months back..."Would you like to see the US pull-out of Iraq REGARDLESS if we 'win' there or not?"
53% said yes.
BTW, bleeding....28% is still 28%....you're in a small minority of the American opinion, regardless if there are even smaller minorities.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 12:37pm
Like IN COLD BLOOD?
Nah.
Woodward isn't remotely the great writer Capote was.
And the killers in that Kansan small town were arrested, indicted, tried, convicted & hanged.
None of that will be happening to these killers.
Posted by sloper at 09/09/2008 @ 12:40pm
Posted by jin at 09/09/2008 @ 12:32pm
jin, even the NY Times admits an improvement on the ground in Iraq.
I'm speaking only to the perception. that perception in america is that the surge has been successful.
Can you stay focused on the perception? Because, as the rise of Obama proves, perception is reality in elections.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:43pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:43pm
BTW, FREI, you do KNOW that if McCain is elected....he's going to go "maverick" and basically enact the "Obama plan" for pull-out of Iraq, regardless of what he's saying now.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 12:52pm
"Woodward isn't remotely the great writer Capote was."
that may be so, but Capote did not get a criminal US president bounced.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2008 @ 1:07pm
"BTW, bleeding....28% is still 28%....you're in a small minority of the American opinion, regardless if there are even smaller minorities."
Nope, you're wrong there...
I'm in an even smaller minority...
I'm supporting NADER!!
(But nobody else is talking withdrawal anymore....)
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/09/2008 @ 1:08pm
I'm supporting NADER!! (But nobody else is talking withdrawal anymore....) Posted by bleedingheart at 09/09/2008 @ 1:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Nader has always talked a good game. he's seldom in a position to DO anything.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2008 @ 1:11pm
It's funny how the neocons - perhaps intentionally - lose sight of the original justification for anything pertaining to Iraq.
We went there we were told, to get rid of WMD, to smash the vaunted link between AQ and the evil bogeyman Saddam, to get rid of the bogeyman himself.
Two of three of those reasons were demonstrated to be false and Saddam swung, yet the goal-post shifting of the new-cons continues.
The surge had associated with it what, 18 benchmarks that it was supposed to achieve?
The fundamental goal of the surge was to quell violence sufficiently so that the Iraqis could develop a political solution of their own, not to 'win' militarily or to save face for Shrubco.
Has a political solution been achieved?
Not yet; until then, the surge is no success.
Not a failure, be absolutely not a success because the men and women actually fighting the war and only sustain this level of activity for so long - which was the point of the generals and admirals.
Those opposed to another 4 years of inaction, troop stress and combat deaths on behalf of big oil and the state of Israel need to make this point over and over again. The new-cons need to be brought up short on their propensity for engaging in the art of diminishing expectations.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/09/2008 @ 1:22pm
What really is funny about all this is that if you ask Iraqis, the majority of them--as in towards 90%--want us out of there and think we have messed things up. Of course, for those who care about spreading democracy and the like, this does not matter.
Posted by onthehelm at 09/09/2008 @ 1:35pm
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/09/2008 @ 1:08pm
How is it you "support Nader", yet mostly side with the Right here?!?!?!?!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 1:41pm
all this is true for the Afghanistan war as well. what is the point there seven years later?
Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2008 @ 1:41pm
I find the information about a high tech assissination program to be very significant.
The surge did not reduce violence. It had little to do with more troops, but because:
A. Ethnic cleansing was being completed. B. The Sunni's were sick of Al Quada C. The Mahdi Army was told to stand down. D. Fatigue. Many people had been killed, so a waiting / regroupment game was next. Normal.
The fact is, as this book shows, the surge only postponed and extended the day of reckoning in Iraq. Wanting to 'win' in Iraq is just imperialist cheerleading. That is what McCain/Bush want to do, along with their little fogs on these blogs. The imperialist mindset is the heart of American militarism.
The surge lead to continued assets and lives being lost, but left the U.S. there in a 'heightened' way so the oil companies could get a better 'oil' deal from Maliki. That is what the surge was intended to do.
Cheer you little warmongers, cheer. Blood for oil, blood for oil.
Posted by ElyDog at 09/09/2008 @ 1:44pm
Posted by jin at 09/09/2008 @ 12:32pm
jin, even the NY Times admits an improvement on the ground in Iraq.
I'm speaking only to the perception. that perception in america is that the surge has been successful.
Can you stay focused on the perception? Because, as the rise of Obama proves, perception is reality in elections.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:43pm
Things are just grand in Iraq? Perhaps you can explain why suicide bombings are still taking place if things are going so well over there? They just found a tunnel that was going to be used to take a few folks out with. Just imagine if that tunnel had not been accidentally found how many people would have died? Things aren't going well over there. People are still being blown up and it's far from safe. That's not a good sign.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/09/2008 @ 1:46pm
"So, what does the Obama damage control team do? Underplay the surge. Make the troop advancement pushed by McCain immaterial to the success. Point to everything else happening there on the ground. Make it look like the tide would have turned regardless. "
First, in some respects it would've turned regardless. al-Qaida overplayed its hand and the Sunnis turned on them. Second, the point of the surge was to create an opportunity for a political solution to happen. That hasn't happened (Kirkus, provincial elections, no integration of Sunnis into the security forces).
Posted by brunowe at 09/09/2008 @ 1:48pm
We need to conquer this Military Industrial Complex and put this crap in a deep hole and bury along with the new Mcmaverick Reformers Party and their continuing republican dogma.
PEACE
Posted by crease at 09/09/2008 @ 1:51pm
BTW, FREI, you do KNOW that if McCain is elected....he's going to go "maverick" and basically enact the "Obama plan" for pull-out of Iraq, regardless of what he's saying now.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 12:52pm
No Mask, I have no way of knowing, nor would I rule out that possibility. In fact, it is very possible.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:01pm
Obama is the ONLY CHOICE..
no matter to which side of the political aisle you currently reside or if you are straddling the fence, etc..
HRC was on walmart board, she started PACs dedicated to foreign interests, the first of its' kind, while in Congress; the Friends of India Caucus...etc..
john mccain while protesting lobbyists has his campaign staff replete with lobbyists...his own actions while senator such as promoting DBL outsourcing all its' jobs from Ohio, professing to know nothing about the economy, promoting building walls to keep immigrants out, which negatively affects middle class, does not bode well for middle class, should he somehow steal this election through pandering...
whether you like other races or are xenophobic, the stark reality is immigrants perform functions, without which formerly middle class will be performing or our economy will contract....
palin has NO EXPERIENCE in any of these things...recently, she asked "what does a VP actually do???" which is not reassuring...
when cindy mccain was asked why palin was chosen, she responded,"because she is gov of alaska, which is next to russia, so that is her experience"
once again, while bewildering, totally off-point, and purposely misleading, is definitely NOT reassuring...
while the media and mccain and even hrc supporters pounced on rev wright...and skewered his hour long sermons, picking and choosing some sentence here or there....palin's preacher is warning of end times, and actively tries to convert gays.....
america, choose whoever, it does not matter, it is too late....foreigners will win...they already have....we have already lost.....china wins '08
Posted by jrs112 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:02pm
Gad, these neocons and their shills are as useless as, say, lipstick on a pit bull.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/09/2008 @ 2:07pm
china wins '08 Posted by jrs112 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I don't think so. China has invested heavily in the US. these investments have not exactly proven to be blue chip.
biggest gov't bail out ever? that's that good old american self sufficiency.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2008 @ 2:17pm
"without the Surge, Iraq would have been a disaster by now"
This is not a justified conclusion. Many of the things the surge is getting credit for began before the surge was implemented, and, if BW's book is accurate, a necessary condition for the improved conditions we see now was the assassination program, which is distinct from the surge.
That said, the Dems still have a problem because to come to a proper view of Iraq requires nuance, something the populace largely lacks. Politicians need to tell simple stories to garner support--complexity and nuance and shading are seen as forms of indecisiveness. The GOP has a very simple, idiot-proof story ("Deaths down, surge good") that lends itself to stump speeches and debate one-liners.
To win, the Dems need a simple story of their own. One tack might be to attempt to frame the debate with a view towards the whole war, not just one particular tactical success. The talking point could be something like "It took them almost five years--and cost us a trillion dollars and countless lives--to stumble upon a tactic that wasn't an abject failure. Our approach would have avoided the whole mess."
Posted by BlueSpark at 09/09/2008 @ 2:20pm
mccain is a liar
he is not a maverick or reformer
all mccain bills have tried to send american jobs overseas.
Section 413 of the Kennedy-McCain Immigration Act (S.1639) attempted to keep congress in the dark and in an attempt to institute NAFTA II, would eliminate country of origin labeling in North America (US, Canada, and Mexico), let all inspections of truckers and food take place at place of origin, i.e. Mexico, among other things...
the hope was, if standards of living improved as a result of this bill, less mexicans would be inclined to jump the border...
this fantastical thinking by neocons and refusal to include american people and change Constitution is insiduous and evil...
At the trilateral meeting where bush signed a secret bill with Mexican Pres.Calderon and Canada PM Harper alled Security and Prosperity Partnership Act security included a 25 mile perimeter around the small Canadian town outside Quebec...and there were 25,000 protesters ,and almost NO U.S. media coverage...
The only U.S. coverage stated "U.S. trade meeting overshadowed by storm"...
that was it!!!!!!!!!!!
Very similar to GOP convention, thousands arrested and NO U.S. media coverage....
now, with bailout of FNM and FRE, as well as today bail out of highway funding by taxpayers and future generations, we are a state hybrid system similar to china....
there is no reason to work hard, innovate, etc....we are already socialist, we just don't know it....over HALF of U.S. taxpayer monies goes overseas to Iraq RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!
american voter, do whatever you want, bitter hillary supporter, rabid palin fanatic die hard neocon GOP puppet...
god mohammed, jesus, buddha have all abandoned us....for good reason...
US is no longer empire and we ARE in a recession
Posted by jrs112 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:25pm
mccain is a liar
he is not a maverick or reformer
all mccain bills have tried to send american jobs overseas.
Section 413 of the Kennedy-McCain Immigration Act (S.1639) attempted to keep congress in the dark and in an attempt to institute NAFTA II, would eliminate country of origin labeling in North America (US, Canada, and Mexico), let all inspections of truckers and food take place at place of origin, i.e. Mexico, among other things...
the hope was, if standards of living improved as a result of this bill, less mexicans would be inclined to jump the border...
this fantastical thinking by neocons and refusal to include american people and change Constitution is insiduous and evil...
At the trilateral meeting where bush signed a secret bill with Mexican Pres.Calderon and Canada PM Harper alled Security and Prosperity Partnership Act security included a 25 mile perimeter around the small Canadian town outside Quebec...and there were 25,000 protesters ,and almost NO U.S. media coverage...
The only U.S. coverage stated "U.S. trade meeting overshadowed by storm"...
that was it!!!!!!!!!!!
Very similar to GOP convention, thousands arrested and NO U.S. media coverage....
now, with bailout of FNM and FRE, as well as today bail out of highway funding by taxpayers and future generations, we are a state hybrid system similar to china....
there is no reason to work hard, innovate, etc....we are already socialist, we just don't know it....over HALF of U.S. taxpayer monies goes overseas to Iraq RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!
american voter, do whatever you want, bitter hillary supporter, rabid palin fanatic die hard neocon GOP puppet...
god mohammed, jesus, buddha have all abandoned us....for good reason...
US is no longer empire and we ARE in a recession
Posted by jrs112 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:26pm
"In fact, it is very possible."----Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:01pm
I agree...which is what I was saying. (Of course NOBODY can "know" that he'll do that...I simply meant that you would agree it was a very probable scenario)
And I think you would also agree that the neo-cons here, who were so dismissive of Obama's plan (which COULD NOT be enacted until January 2009 either)...will wholeheartedly embrace the IDENTICAL withdrawal plan from McCain (again, only enactable after January 2009), as long as it's called "victory"....yes?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 2:35pm
US is no longer empire and we ARE in a recession Posted by jrs112 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:25pm
Well, an empire in rapid decline.
And in a recession that will snowball into a depression thanks to the fannie/freddie bailout that could approach $1 trillion.
Up to 6 months ago, the US MSM were still cranking out the propaganda about the US being an economic model for the world, US financial innovation being as superlative as US management. But those messages have dried up, it seems, overcome by reality.
US is screwed.
But theUS perps will walk.
Even swagger.
All the way into their walled & guarded estates.yacht & country clubs.
Posted by sloper at 09/09/2008 @ 2:38pm
the Senate ultimately rejected the Kennedy-Mccain Immigration bill, stating it represented "elitism and unrepresentative government" and globalism in its' rawest form. the executive branch proceeded to change laws, regulations, and procedures secretly with governments of Canada and Mexico with no involvement of the legislative branch, which does not conduct even minimal oversight. Media are excluded yet spoon-fed select tangential information. Only favored corporations are included, such as Walmart, which is currently building a deep water port in Mexico to circumvent US FDA regulations and the streamlined SuperHighway will allow Mexican truckers unfettered and unregulated by the U.S. in our country, which will GREATLY increas our vulnerability in every way and make us LESS safe.
What bush, mccain intended to do was create a North American Union, similar to the European Union but without any citizen of any country knowing or voting on this....
a Mccain presidency will ensure this bill passes and the Security and Prosperity Partnership Pact of Americas will survive as NAFTA II...
ultimately chavez will create his southern hemisphere pact and China will do the same, in response
for a country like us dependent in every way on others, this development is very ignorant and short-sighted and will FAIL
Posted by jrs112 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:39pm
Obama has admitted that the surge worked. But it's not true. the reason the violence is down is because of the anbar awakening ( which McCain is on record as incorrectly saying happened after the surge ) and Muqtada al-Sadr ordered a cease fire.
Given how many people were murdered in Iraq in the last week, calling the surge a success is a bit disingenuous. If this is success, it's hard to imagine what failure would look like. Going from complete to utter disaster is an improvement, but nothing to brag about.
Posted by nerdken at 09/09/2008 @ 2:50pm
Woodward got part of it, but there is so much more. The use of counter-terrorism as a marketing ploy, as a mechanism to maintain power seems to boggle the minds of most Americans. Our folks has been swamped auditing terrorism data (most product generated by commercial entities, many of which have ties to industries that have been beneficiaries of Bush Administration largess) for members of Congress since 2005 and what we have turned up indicates that the guys at the top are more interested in profit margins and power than dealing with terrorism, or more importantly, the economic, environmental, and social inequalities that generate same, than we, the people. We, my friends, are all expendable - just as expendable as those poor folks in New Orleans after Katrina. Which begs the question: What is the real target of the "war on terror"? The answer is in the Bush terror data which seems to be based on Shell's "TINA" model ("There is no alternative" - pseudo-predictive analysis used as a marketing strategy to manipulate public opinion). As for who is involved: While Woodward and others are aware of the AEI, we should remember that it is just one of many such groups. Check out the Committee On the Present Danger, for example. You will find Joe Lieberman and a individuals who are trying to pawn off this data corruption on Senator Obama and an Arab (read Saudi) conspiracy - with a pinch of Russia thrown into the stew for good measure, of course. Insane? Sure. But so were the Niger forgeries. Bottom line: I wish Woodward and his book well, but I fear the positive response to Sarah Palin from the "heartland" indicates that we still have a long way to go before election day. God help us all if we don't make the case before 4 November
Posted by Infokronea at 09/09/2008 @ 3:16pm
Forget the surge - what happens when all the American forces leave save the token force left behind to train the Iraqi Army and police? The surge only bought a temporary respite from the violence (however Americans are still dying in Iraq every day) but I believe did little to change the fundamental conditions that caused the violence in the first place (tribal, clan and kin-ship networks).
I spent a year in Iraq helping train the Iraqi army and police. From what I witnessed (and have subsequently read) the real problem in Iraq right now is one of legitimacy - in deference to tribal and kin-ship loyalties, the Iraqi constitution lacks provisions for a strong national government. Once the loose collection of tribal alliances begins to fray (as I am sure it will) we can all expect to see a return pre-surge levels of violence.
This is really a political issue that needs to be solved on the national level - rarely are counter-insurgencies won through military means alone.
Posted by big_foot at 09/09/2008 @ 3:42pm
mccain's son was director of silver state bank which failed yesterday, even while mccain advocates privatizing freddie mac and fannie mae, which would further leave low to middle income out in the cold literally with even less affordable housing, since they are typically lenders of last resort forced by govt; when privatized, the rich poor gap will increase even more, until all of us peasants in this feudal society riot...after today's bailout by taxpayers of the national highway fund by bush who just flip-flopped, we are now a state hybrid system just like China, whose communist party controls main businesses and rest privatized;
neil bush brother of dubya is in joint partnership with a member of communist politburo owning tech corporation, and uncle preston bush co-owns a chinese golf course...
china is the new superpower aided and abetted by bush who was aided and abetted by gullible taxpayers, ironically the red staters who don't believe anything dems say and anything the GOP says, while their jobs disappear and their quality of life diminishes...
don't even get me started on palin..for her very weak resume, she has done a lot of damage, misusing position, misusing state taxpayer dollars on family vacations, her preacher advocates "converting" gays...ad nauseum
former NYC mayor ed koch, republican, just endorsed obama, saying palin "makes him sick"...
git r dun mcsame '08
Posted by jrs112 at 09/09/2008 @ 3:47pm
Woodward is a true American success story.. Here's a guy that discovered a sloppy burglery nearly forty years ago and because of it, everything he says or writes cannot be challenged. He's made millions attacking the right. Yet nevers finds fault with the left. Posted by bleedingheart at 09/09/2008 @ 12:28pm
First of all, Bob Woodward did not discover anything. The five Watergate burglars got caught and were arrested. Woodward was sent to cover the story for the Post and did a great job. All the praise that he and Carl Bernstein got for their investigative reporting on Watergate was well-deserved. I'm a journalist myself, and although I've obviously never covered any stories of this magnitude - or even close to it - I do know what it's like to chase a scoop and how frustrating it is to keep digging without getting anywhere. If it had been me on the Watergate beat, I would have just given up at some point.
Second, Woodward was a registered Republican at the time of Watergate. He still may be. So I don't buy this story about how he's made a career out of attacking the right. And even if he had made a career out of it, don't you think that the right deserve it just a tiny bit...?
The thing I don't get with the surge is this: McCain likes to remind everybody that he was in favour of the surge, and that the surge has worked. But shouldn't McCain at least admit that the surge fixed something that should never have been broken in the first place, and that he was one of the people responsible for breaking it? Why don't the Democrats hit him with that painfully obvious fact, over and over again? If you set someone's house on fire and a lot of people die, why should you be allowed to consider yourself a hero for calling the fire department afterwards?
Posted by Amsterdam69 at 09/09/2008 @ 4:51pm
George W. Bush makes Reagan appear smart and Nixon honest. How is it possible that we may well hand the reigns of power over to Bush's successor, John McCain? Have we become so attached to American Idol and cultural nonsense, that the lying and the deceit of the Bush Administration don't meaning anything to us?
Posted by TripLBee at 09/09/2008 @ 5:45pm
The "surge" has decreased violence, not gotten rid of it. The purpose of the surge was to create an opening for the government of Iraq to step in and govern. They have not done this.
Until US forces leave Iraq the "surge" cannot be deemed successful anymore than the 3rd month of a 10 year war can be a mission accomplished.
and as AM69 points out, why should credit for one partial success be awarded more than the previous 5 years of mistakes?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/09/2008 @ 5:56pm
freiheitz-McCain,at first,said that we could win in Iraq quickly by fighting war on the cheap and did not change that view until it became obvious that more troops were needed.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 11:13am
dude, you're once again missing the point. Mccain uses the term "WIN". He has a goal that is being realized and Americans are seeing it, despite the MSM's basic ho hum over success in Iraq. McCain was willing to say he was wrong about process. But he never was wrong about desired result, was he? That is a PLUS in election politics, not a negative.
Obama never used the word victory, as Palin pointed out, in his acceptance speech in the context of Iraq or the general WOT, did he? Victory only came up in context of his own.
I think the democrats wish they had Palin's kind of material.
Here's the real moral hazard. Democrats NEED an escalation of violence in Iraq right now. (Now, I'm not even suggesting for a millisecond they want this at all, so please don't misunderstand me.) Our enemies in Iraq, you know, the ones on record rooting for Obama, know this though. If americans start dying in escalated violence in an effort to discredit surge success to enhance Obama's poll numbers, the backlash will be significant.
Spain's elections were derailed by the Madrid bombings. I'm uncomfortable by the whole concept that the democrats are on record for rapid withdrawal - or as some have said, they are invested politically in defeat. What is to stop our enemies from trying to influence the american voters through violence on behalf of Obama's stated policies of withdrawal?
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 6:00pm
These people are not in the real world. This is not the Cold War or World War II, when we had the draft. You do not have enough troops to cover one war properly, must less two or more wars. I think we need to forget the Iraqi government, and try a coalition of Sunni and Madhi Army. Al-Sadr is a nationalist, and he might work with the Sunni. The Iraqis need to figure it out. We don't have a clue! There will probably be civil war when we leave, but we have to leave. We don't have the money, enough troops, or the industrial base needed to support a large armed forces.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 09/09/2008 @ 6:01pm
If you don't like Woodward, try one of these:
Fiasco
Assassins at the Gate
How America lost Iraq
Against all Enemies
Cobra II
or any other of the myriad books on the subject.
Mistakes were made. The war that was sold as a cakewalk is now entering it's 9th season. If the people in charge knew what they were doing it would have ended long ago. You can circle around all you want neo-cons, but the fact is the war is still killing people, Iraq is not a safe place to live, millions have fled, the country has been divided by sect and you cannot tell us when 130,000 soldiers and marines will leave.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/09/2008 @ 6:06pm
"George W. Bush makes Reagan appear smart and Nixon honest. How is it possible that we may well hand the reigns of power over to Bush's successor, John McCain? Have we become so attached to American Idol and cultural nonsense, that the lying and the deceit of the Bush Administration don't meaning anything to us?
Posted by TripLBee at 09/09/2008 @ 5:45pm'
Compare your public life with that of Ronald Reagan for a minute... I'll wait...
What'd ya come up with? My guess, you are tub mold in comparison.
Argue his policies all day and night and you'll be respected. Calling Ronald Reagan dumb, even indirectly, as you have, only discredits you.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 6:09pm
Calling Ronald Reagan dumb, even indirectly, as you have, only discredits you.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 6:09pm
Can't dis' St. Ronald, no, no, no.
I used to think that he would be the worst president in my lifetime. Then the current nitwit in the white house found a way to get himself inaugurated.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/09/2008 @ 6:43pm
"former NYC mayor ed koch, republican, just endorsed obama, saying palin "makes him sick"... "
This might help with some retired NYers in FL.
But it may come as a surprise to them that old Ed is now a GOPer.
When did the former Dem congressman, mayor & one-time leader of Greenwich Village reform dems switch parties?
Posted by sloper at 09/09/2008 @ 6:46pm
Posted by skeletonman at 09/09/2008 @ 6:43pm
Sure you can dis Reagan, dude. But dis the actions. What? Do you think he was stupid? Do you think calling your opponent "stoopid!" is a credible position?
That's all I'm saying. Take Kerry, for instance, whom I could easly characterize as stupid. But what really does that add to a conversation? He's not really stupid. I'm sorry, even long term senators with whom I disagree aren't stupid. And a two term President who brought the cold war to a close and won in unprecidented landslides - oh in what was like, his third career, is not what one can rationally characterize as stupid.
It is a detriment to the left that they so often call those who have the audacity to disagree, stupid. You know, like when leftists refer to the entire friggin' electorate! ;-)
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 7:11pm
"He has a goal that is being realized and Americans are seeing it, despite the MSM's basic ho hum over success in Iraq."
"But he never was wrong about desired result, was he?"
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 6:00pm
What exactly is that desired result? Ever since we invaded Iraq, I have yet to hear the administration (or anyone else for that matter) clearly define our end-state (that's military jargon for victory) other than a desire to establish a free-market, liberal democracy in the Middle-East. But what does that mean? Have we achieved victory when Micky D's and Starbucks franchises spring up on every corner in Baghdad? Or is it a weak democratic government whose fragile hold on power is beholden to various tribal sheiks and mullahs (not to mention Iran)?
The purpose of the "surge" was to give the Iraqi national government the breathing room for reconciliation. That has not happened. The Maliki government is awash in corruption and dysfunctional, and until they find a way to deal with Iraq's powerful tribal and kin-ship networks, democracy will be just a pipe dream.
Posted by big_foot at 09/09/2008 @ 7:58pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 6:09pm
FREI, is it acceptable to say that Ronald Reagan raised taxes...
in contradiction to the religious dogma?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 8:04pm
Posted by big_foot at 09/09/2008 @ 7:58pm
Well, I'm sure the american electorate would warm to your optimistic summary of events big_foot. I particularly like the Micky D's and Starbucks slam.
I hope Obama uses it verbatim because I don't think you are off base at all. But he won't, will he? Because my point here today is that the democrats are dealing with election politics. Poorly. Election politics have never been about the truth. And both partys know it.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 8:04pm
Mask, whether Reagan raised or lowered taxes isn't relevant to my argument that he was not a stupid man.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 8:07pm
you know, Mask, I hope you at least get my point. Attacking Regan's decisions is indeed fair game.
But surely you agree that writing, "GW Bush makes Reagan look smart" doesn't add much to any debate.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 8:24pm
In terms of hindsight, the "surge" IS a public perception problem for Sen. Obama.. The average person won't stop to think that had we had gone with a different strategy at that time, we might be winding Afghanistan down, now, and Iraq might be much further along, politically, than it now is. Bush threw out some of the most informed and learned opinions & ideas about the situation in order to double down on what has already been condemned as an illegal occupation. He had to. It is a crucial pivot point in the overall strategy for the New American Century's "Middle East" phase. How many Americans have been killed since the surge began? How are their families supposed to measure success? Regardless of a "perception problem" for Barack, these neo-con,irresponsible power-drunk GOB's need to be removed from power. They've exceeded their limit at the bar. Sen. Obama needs to go after McCain on the prosecution of this war. He needs to do what the Republicans have been doing to him, & take McCain's strongest argument "the surge worked, I was right, Barack Obama was wrong" and beat him over the head with it. McCain has sought to maintain American men in women in harm's way for purposes that many in the global community have condemned as illegal. He likes to gamble with his choices in running his campaign and the country, and our lives and our families'lives are not his poker chips.
Bliss: Alamantra www.alamantra.blogspot.com
Posted by Alamantra at 09/09/2008 @ 9:37pm
Ten worst presidents:
1. James Buchanan 2. Warren Harding 3. Andrew Johnson 4. Franklin Pierce 5. Millard Fillmore 6. John Tyler 7. Ulysses S. Grant 8. William Harrison 9. Herbert Hoover 10. Richard Nixon 11. Zachary Taylor 12. Jimmy Carter
(courtesy US New and World Report)
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/09/2008 @ 10:25pm
(had to go to 12 to get Jimma)
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/09/2008 @ 10:26pm
"He (McCain) likes to gamble with his choices in running his campaign and the country, and our lives and our families'lives are not his poker chips."
Umm....
Would that be kinda like the democrats choosing a "rock star" over the likes of Clinton, Biden, Dodd, and Edwards...??
If you think the limousine liberals aren't playing poker with your future you'll need to go back to "Go Fish"......
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/09/2008 @ 10:34pm
.think of where Viet Nam would be toay if they had surrendered....
Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/09/2008 @ 11:58am
flabbergastingly arrogant.
and think of where the u.s. would be today if they hadn't surrendered.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2008 @ 12:50am
surge?
what b.s.
baghdad's been decimated.
half the people are either in jordan or syria
or the morgue.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2008 @ 12:51am
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/09/2008 @ 10:34pm | ignore this person
Ummm...Obama for 2 years answered questions of everyone. Over 20 debates. That gave him the right to earn these things called "VOTES". I would just like 2 solid hours from "Sister Sarah" to sit down with anyone with of unquestioned independence, questioning her. God, I miss Tim Russert. Obama went on O'Reilly and The Saddleback Forum, even when he knew his words were going to get twisted from the beginning. CONE OF SILENCE MY ASS!!! That took guts.
If Sarah can gut a moose (like it's relevant to running the USA) why can't she just go on Meet the Press? Lieberman must be havin' a hard time getting through. 12 days and counting. Watch the people answering for her so far. They SQUIRM.
Posted by CanWeQuestionPalin? at 09/10/2008 @ 01:37am
"O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is!
O brave new world
That hath such people in't!"
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2008 @ 02:09am
Where would Vietnam be if they'd surrendered?
Like the Philippines ...
... a broken nation, sucked dry, grossly manipulated by the US, heavy emigration by its women to work as servants mainly in the M.E., run by kleptocratic dictators & the Catholic church, continually challenged by its exploited peoples.
Posted by sloper at 09/10/2008 @ 03:26am
The Surge is a smokescreen.
The tactics of bribery, death squads and concentration camps don't reflect well on the administration.
It's easier for Bush et al... to take credit for success due to troop increases than tell the truth.
Also...
Calling Ronald Reagan dumb, even indirectly, as you have, only discredits you. Posted earlier
Ronald Reagan was dumb. He told Cokie Roberts that a desk in the Whitehouse was Grover Cleveland's desk and that he (Reagan) played Grover Cleaveland in a movie. In reality Reagan portrayed Grover Cleveland Alexander, a baseball pitcher, in a movie. How could he confuse President Cleveland with the pitcher?
Posted by koroviev at 09/10/2008 @ 04:07am
Ten worst presidents:
1. James Buchanan 2. Warren Harding 3. Andrew Johnson 4. Franklin Pierce 5. Millard Fillmore 6. John Tyler 7. Ulysses S. Grant 8. William Harrison 9. Herbert Hoover 10. Richard Nixon 11. Zachary Taylor 12. Jimmy Carter
(courtesy US New and World Report)
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/09/2008 @ 10:25pm
That list is in flux.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/10/2008 @ 05:52am
Election politics have never been about the truth. And both partys know it. Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 8:04pm |
Man, FREI, you sure hit the funny bone good last night. That's a good one! Funnier than Reagan as Super Man.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/10/2008 @ 07:14am
How many of the neo-cons know that Condi Rice opposed the surge...before she was for it?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/10/2008 @ 07:20am
Mask, whether Reagan raised or lowered taxes isn't relevant to my argument that he was not a stupid man.-----Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 8:07pm
Well, it's part of the mythos.
Reagan wasn't stupid...but he wasn't a Rhodes Scholar either.
Nor was he the "tax cutter who never flinched"...he did, on Social Security reform.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 09:10am
worst presidents:
I'm sure after Dumbo goes back to clearing brush and we've had time to reflect, he'll earn at least an "honorable mention"
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/10/2008 @ 09:24am
He's not gonna go back to clearing brush, because Crawford was nothing but a prop to make the blowhard look like he was more of a man than he is.
Posted by chinesebandit at 09/10/2008 @ 1:22pm
Wow, there's a whole lotta nonsense and poor thinking in these comments.
Those of you who argue (if one could dignify the deed) that the U.S can't be an empire builder because we weren't one in Japan or German - you ignore that we WERE one in the Philippines, Texas, Cuba, the French & Indian wars, etc. If we could be one some times, and not other times, then we could be one now. Right?
Those of you who argue (again, I know, that's an exaggeration) that the surge has 'worked', ought to feel bound to describe that success in meaningful terms. To my view, the surge has resulted in another 1,000 dead American service men and women, and the same number of them left in Iraq after as before, and no end to the occupation in sight. If the surge worked, why aren't the troops home? And, more importantly, what will a 'fixed' Iraq look like.
Woodward, flawed as he is, manages to reveal to you the truth - that the purpose of the occupation of Iraq is to put American forces into the region, and keep them there to 'counter Iran's influence', whatever that nonsense means. But you don't want to debate THAT - there's too much substance there. You'll stick to the talking points.
Posted by sagibson at 09/10/2008 @ 3:33pm
Mask, the "mythos" is that Reagan was stupid. And you know for a fact that was the impression pushed by the left. Incessantly. Still is. In fact all conservatives are stupid. I can't tell you how many knuckleheads have tried to end debates with that statement.
"Reagan wasn't stupid...but he wasn't a Rhodes Scholar either." --Mask
Thanks, my only argument was against Reagan being called stupid - usually by people a fraction of his intellect.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/10/2008 @ 3:53pm
Oh, No, not ANOTHER conspiracy.
From The Sludge Report!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/10/2008 @ 4:25pm
freiheitz,
Bottom line the Iraq War means the end of empire. Bush and his enablers have flushed America down the toilet. We cannot sustain. All the debt. Add it up. Things that cannot go on forever don't. In one fell swoop unelected officials doubled our debt (Bernanke, et al). The chits are going to be called in and the world will expect real assets, not increasingly worthless dollars. The end is nigh. Thanks to Bush and you and all his sycophants and blind bats.
Posted by Stevebremne at 09/10/2008 @ 6:04pm
#1 worst president by a country mile is Bush II. Why? Because he is responsible for the end of America.
Posted by Stevebremne at 09/10/2008 @ 6:06pm
It's really interesting to find the output of Fox Noise here. I sense a certain frustration that reality turns out not to be as advertised by the GOP.
Of course, in the GOP world fighting until you win: never giving up is essential. Even here in the heart of liberal America.
By the way, has anyone ever defined what 'winning' in Iraq looks like? GW told us we won in 2003.
Oh, I forgot: moving the goal post is a normal way to handle issues that aren't turning out the right(!) way.
I'm not clicking 'ignore this person'. The posts are too amusing.
O.
Posted by otie at 09/10/2008 @ 6:09pm
I'm not sure why it is out of bounds to comment on the apparent intelligence or stupidity of our leaders - unless you're very sensitive to the possibility that they may actually be idiots. I have no problem calling Bush an idiot; it is manifest that he is one. He is a joking, back-slapping idiot who, as far as I can judge, has brought the country to the edge of ruin.
what I liked in the review was Rice's notion that somehow American presence in Iraq is a shifting of our center of power to the mid-East. Does anyone still believe that the Iraq war or the american presence in the region has enhanced US power? that sounds like compete foolishness. McCain talks of "victory" in Iraq, but without a clear what, how, or when. It is big talk - based, I suspect, on his seething memories of having taken part in a war we lost.
Posted by nodevice at 09/11/2008 @ 04:00am
Rice is the chief of Bush's amen corner.
how is that big diplomatic push with Israel going?
Posted by emile duBois at 09/11/2008 @ 12:30pm
how is that big diplomatic push with Israel going?
Posted by emile duBois at 09/11/2008 @ 12:30pm
yeah,
weren't we supposed to have peace by now?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 11:04pm