Please Don't Crap In Your Pants And Tell Me You Farted
This week there has been a lot of defensive action on the part of the Bush administration and the GOP.
First, we see the actions of Rep. Mark Foley, a Republican from Florida, whose indecent e-mails to pages serving the House of Representatives is best described in the words of one of the pages he solicited: "sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick". What is ironic and hypocritical about Foley's pedophile proclivities here is that Foley was one of the primary authors of legislation that targeted on-line predators.
What is hypocritical and scandalous about the GOP members and leadership of the House is that the Speaker of the House and other leaders knew about Foley's violation of decency and law last year and held off doing anything about it because it would interfere with the GOP maintaining control over the House in the upcoming mid-term elections. While the Speaker is making excuses about having spoken to Foley and accepting his word that no inappropriateness occurred, it is clear that they are excuses because explanations are based on reason not matters of convenience. The fact remains that someone with the legal, governmental and sociological knowledge about pedophile predators possessed by congress members should have reported the matter to the appropriate law enforcement authorities and sought a full blown investigation. There can be no excuse for not demanding an investigation and it is a travesty of justice that the Speaker allowed these behaviors to continue.
Then, too, there is the behavior of the members of congress that reported the matter to the Speaker of the House and the GOP leadership. Decency, morality and, in some states, the law requires a person reporting such matters to follow up until the issue is resolved in an appropriate manner. Stating that the matter was reported to the Speaker and leaving it at that is unacceptable from and ethical, moral and legal perspective.
But here we are seeing a pattern among the GOP. While the GOP built its base upon the idea of "family values," "Christian values" coming from its ultra-conservative Christian and Religious Right base, bemoaning the approach of progressives and Democrats as being indecisive and lacking moral character, the GOP has been embroiled in one scandal after another.
The Abramoff scandal is still being reported in the media and it now appears that there are links directly to the Bush administration. While the Abramoff scandal reached a few Democrats, the reality is that it mostly involved members of the Grand Old Party... some of them holding quite prominent (or should it be lucrative) positions in congress.
Tom DeLay smeared the reputation of the GOP--what was left of it--by not only being involved in a scandal, but also by appearing to be racist and elitist, manipulative and sneaky, not too mention dismissive of any genuine criticism of his affairs.
Then there is Randall "Duke" Cunningham, who turned being elected to congress into quite the criminal enterprise. While the newspapers and news outlets all reported on the Cunningham scandal as being the acts of a single member of the GOP, I want to know what happened to the moral obligations and observations of other members of congress. Could a man who was making millions of dollars in illegal perks and muscling his position in congress into illegal contributions, kickbacks and bribes really hide such greed in a town where rumor is treated as political currency? How could the rest of the California delegation not notice that "Duke" was making a much larger bundle than they were given that they were trying to tap the same honey pot lobbyists and special interests? Then, too, how could the rest of the GOP--especially the GOP leadership and the RNC--not notice that there was a noxious odor coming from Duke Cunningham's office? Are we supposed to believe that no member of the GOP noticed something was rotten in California?
George Allen seems to be drawing some negative attention to the GOP as well. His alleged use of the "N Word" in his earlier days as well as his use of the word "Macaca" to describe a supposed oppositional audience member at a campaign event seems to speak loudly about his nature and tendencies toward being elitist and racist. While Allen is busy denying and making excuses, one has to use a little rational thought and common sense... If it decorates like a rascist, speaks likes a racist, acts like an elitist and belongs to the GOP, then there may be some truth to the observations, conclusions and allegations. But this is not the first time that a member of the GOP has treated the general public like we are all stupid.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a litany of scandals all by himself. Apparently, once a General Staff Officer retires from active duty and regains the freedom to speak openly and honestly without threat of penalty from prosecution under th Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or career sabotage and retaliation, criticizing Secretary Rumsfeld is like shooting fish in a barrel. If it were one general, one might assume that there was a personality conflict, a political agenda or personal issues between the individuals. If it were a general with a declared membership in the opposing political party, one might accept the criticism as a polictical campaign to smear Rumsfeld for political gain. But a good number of the 18 generals that have spoken out against Rumsfeld are lifelong Republicans. All of these generals are career officers, most are West Point graduates, almost all hold advanced degrees and military training at one of the war colleges, and all of them posses intimate knowledge of military operations, the chain of command and military protocols and traditions.
Add to these generals the criticism of career officers such as Col. Thomas Hammes (USMC-Retired), Lt. Colonel Ann Wright (who was also a career diplomat for the State Department), and numerous front line commanders and combat veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and one has to ask, what would motivate such people to speak out against the Secretary of Defense? As a veteran, I know that military protocol, regulations and tradition calls for such issues to be dealt with internally, through the chain of command. It is often stated by experienced officers and non-coms that it is a soldier's right to complain. But the reality in the military is that those that complain are often subject to retaliation and career sabotage. Promotions, task assignments and command opportunities are often given on the basis of someone being a team player. Someone that complains, even a little bit, is not seen as a team player and is targeted by the rest of their unit, command and sometimes by the entire branch of service. It takes a lot of courage and intestinal fortitude to speak up in the military.
So what is Rumsfeld's legacy of scandal? First and foremost in my mind is the fact that he was dismissive of the fact that our troops were not supplied with the proper vehicular and body armor. The lack of proper armor, according to internal studies and reports from the Army and Marines, is directly responsible for over 80% of the deaths, disabilities and severe injuries occuring in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. That is depraved indifference for human life, which is a key element proving second degree murder in a court of law.
Then, too, Rumsfeld is the key authority figure involved in the circumvention of the provisions of the Geneval Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, certain provisions of the United Nations Charter, certain provisions of the NATO Treaty, the provisions of treaties involving international travel and transportation of suspected criminals or combatants ("extraordinary rendition") and in authorizing the mistreatment and torture of detainees held at Abu Ghraib, Guantanmo Bay and prisons in Afghanistan. While not directly involved in the crimes, massacres and atrocities committed by US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, his opposition to signing the proposed treaties that would compel US authorities to answer for war crimes and crimes against humanity, his direction to subordinates in the field, and his several memos suggesting (if not authorizing) tactics and methods of interrogation that violate moral decency, Christian values, our Constitution and international law makes him directly responsible for these criminal acts in the same way a mafia boss is responsible for ordering a "hit."
President Bush is the source of one scandal after another. After viewing the video entitled "911 Loose Change," one cannot assume that there is not a conspiracy afoot. There are questions raised in that video that demand answers. While I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, the fact is that the Bush administration has a track record of lying to us, has a history of misrepresenting facts and events in order to push their pre-determined agendas forward, and have been involved in one cover up after another of events reported in the news. The evidence against Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Chertoff and others in this administration for being bald-faced liars is mounting.
Recently their attention has been drawn to the reports and writings of Bob Woodward. Members of the Bush gang are vehemently denying such reported conversations and events that point to inadequacy, ineffciency, incompetence and outright lying. But we have to ask an important question: What does Woodward have to gain from making such allegations and reporting such events? The first reaction to that question is money. Woodward makes a lving by reporting and writing books. He is an editor for one of the most prestigious news organizations in the nation and selling newspapers and his own books are his way of making money. But Woodward makes his money by reporting and writing about issues, facts and events in a reliable manner. Were he to write or report in an inappropriate or untruthful manner, he would undermine his credibility, the credibility of the Washington Post, and compromise the sale of his books.
Woodward made his bones in the news business by reporting factually and reliably on the Watergate Scandal. He can ill afford to undermine his standing by becoming a nutcase conspiracy theorist that writes just to see his words in print. So, given Woodward's track record of being accurate, reliable and appropriate, we must assume that he is reporting the facts. On the other hand, the credibility of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Chertoff, Hastert, Lott, Warner, Cronyn, and the GOP on the whole is entirely questionable.
The Bush administration is filled with animosity for anyone that offers dissent or demands answers to questions regarding the agenda they have put forward. Richard Clarke was a loyal member of not only this administration, but four others. His role and expertise as the highest ranking member of White House advisors on matters of national security and terrorism was unquestioned... until he found it necessary to resign and speak out against the Bush administration's complete lack of handling intelligence appropriately, pushing an agenda to invade Iraq in the absence of any qualifying data, facts, information or reliable intelligence. Clarke has, as a consequence of speaking out, been ridiculed and dismissed by the Bush gang.
Again, if we were talking about one person abandoning the Bush administration's boat, or even criticisms from just the Democrats, we could say that there was room for doubt. But former Senator Bob Graham, a conservative that stood heads and shoulders among and above other conservatives, and a key member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has not only spoken out, but has written a book that clearly takes to task all the claims of the Bush gang regarding the intelligence on Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism connections in Iraq prior to our invasion, and the Bush Doctrine on the whole.
Dick Cheney, of course, is a hypocritical, stubborn, asinine fool with an agenda to push his view of the world ahead of any other view. He is so forceful that it has been questioned by many in America just who is president, Bush or Cheney. Cheney is also a dark character, bent on secrecy, backstabbing retaliation and revision of historical events. A good insight into his character is the "accidental" shooting incident on a hunting ranch in Texas. While he was apologetic about the "accident," the entire affair was handled in an inappropriate manner, with a proper investigation into the events being obstructed. The question as to whether or not Cheney was drinking, and therefore intoxicated at the time, remains unanswered. Of course, if the incident had involved an ordinary citizen rather than Cheney, that ordinary citizen would have been arrested and brought before a court for arraignment before being allowed to post bail pending a full investigation by prosecutors. Further evidence that Cheney holds a double standard and is hypocritical is the report that when he was injured by a similar event a few years back, he threw a hissy fit and wanted the person responsible for shooting in his direction jung out to dry and whipped.
Then there is the Halliburton contracts. Awarded without consideration of costs, procurement procedures, authorization from congress to appropriate and spend an undetermined and largely undisclosed sum, the contracts with Halliburton and its subsidiaries remain questionable in nature. These contracts have not been reviewed for cost effectiveness, appropriateness and accountability in the five years since the events of 9-11. While there may be a case for an emergency award of initial contracts in the immediacy of responding to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, one would think that somewhere along the line the normal procedure of putting these contracts out for bid would have been implemented. This is especially the case when the failure to provide quaility goods and services by Halliburton and its subsidiaries has been proven time and time again.
Time and time again... that is the case of how often we are being lied to by the GOP, the GOP leadership and the Bush administration. Somewhere along the way we have to start asking questions and demanding truthful answers. The positions of our government at this point in time has exceeded the idea of pissing on my leg and claiming it's raining. Someone has obviously crapped in their pants and the lie about having only farted is far too obvious a lie. I would offer apologies for being so crude, but as my grandmother used to say, sometimes there just isn't an appropriate way to express one's anger without being a little crude.
If I were to continue I could address issues of failure, lies and corruption involved in responding to Katrina, the National Counter-Terrorism Center, the Senate Judiciary Committee and much more. But I think my point is valid and sufficiently made.
Take a look at the following links for evidence supporting my views:
The Foley Scandal: It's Not Just About Foley.
Foley Built Career as Protector of Children: He Gained Attention by Fighting Sex Crimes
GOP Leader Rebuts Hastert on Foley - Reynolds: Speaker Knew of E-Mails in Spring
Report Says Rove Aide Accepted Abramoff Gifts
Attacks in Afghanistan Grow More Frequent and Lethal
Secret Reports Dispute White House Optimism
Backing Policy, President Issues Terror Estimate
UN Torture Investigator Criticizes US Detainee Bill
Democrats Hold Hearing on KBR's Iraq Water Contamination
Halliburton's Hellofa Good Deal
Republicans Kill Amendment to Investigate Halliburton Contract Abuse
Contracting Problems Cited for Iraq Construction Failures
Millions In Iraq Contracts Obligated To 'Dummy Vendor'
New Woodward Book Says Bush Ignored Urgent Warning on Iraq
Intelligence Director Rejects Claim That U.S. is at Greater Risk
Prosecutors Say CIA Leak Probe Has Cost $1.44M
O'Connor Warns of Growing Efforts at 'Judicial Intimidation'
A Textbook Definition of Cowardice:
Keith Olbermann Comments on Bill Clinton's Fox News Interview
Nations Limit Use of NATO Forces
EU Panel Chief Doubts Legality of US Financial Transactions Monitoring Program
First, we see the actions of Rep. Mark Foley, a Republican from Florida, whose indecent e-mails to pages serving the House of Representatives is best described in the words of one of the pages he solicited: "sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick". What is ironic and hypocritical about Foley's pedophile proclivities here is that Foley was one of the primary authors of legislation that targeted on-line predators.
What is hypocritical and scandalous about the GOP members and leadership of the House is that the Speaker of the House and other leaders knew about Foley's violation of decency and law last year and held off doing anything about it because it would interfere with the GOP maintaining control over the House in the upcoming mid-term elections. While the Speaker is making excuses about having spoken to Foley and accepting his word that no inappropriateness occurred, it is clear that they are excuses because explanations are based on reason not matters of convenience. The fact remains that someone with the legal, governmental and sociological knowledge about pedophile predators possessed by congress members should have reported the matter to the appropriate law enforcement authorities and sought a full blown investigation. There can be no excuse for not demanding an investigation and it is a travesty of justice that the Speaker allowed these behaviors to continue.
Then, too, there is the behavior of the members of congress that reported the matter to the Speaker of the House and the GOP leadership. Decency, morality and, in some states, the law requires a person reporting such matters to follow up until the issue is resolved in an appropriate manner. Stating that the matter was reported to the Speaker and leaving it at that is unacceptable from and ethical, moral and legal perspective.
But here we are seeing a pattern among the GOP. While the GOP built its base upon the idea of "family values," "Christian values" coming from its ultra-conservative Christian and Religious Right base, bemoaning the approach of progressives and Democrats as being indecisive and lacking moral character, the GOP has been embroiled in one scandal after another.
The Abramoff scandal is still being reported in the media and it now appears that there are links directly to the Bush administration. While the Abramoff scandal reached a few Democrats, the reality is that it mostly involved members of the Grand Old Party... some of them holding quite prominent (or should it be lucrative) positions in congress.
Tom DeLay smeared the reputation of the GOP--what was left of it--by not only being involved in a scandal, but also by appearing to be racist and elitist, manipulative and sneaky, not too mention dismissive of any genuine criticism of his affairs.
Then there is Randall "Duke" Cunningham, who turned being elected to congress into quite the criminal enterprise. While the newspapers and news outlets all reported on the Cunningham scandal as being the acts of a single member of the GOP, I want to know what happened to the moral obligations and observations of other members of congress. Could a man who was making millions of dollars in illegal perks and muscling his position in congress into illegal contributions, kickbacks and bribes really hide such greed in a town where rumor is treated as political currency? How could the rest of the California delegation not notice that "Duke" was making a much larger bundle than they were given that they were trying to tap the same honey pot lobbyists and special interests? Then, too, how could the rest of the GOP--especially the GOP leadership and the RNC--not notice that there was a noxious odor coming from Duke Cunningham's office? Are we supposed to believe that no member of the GOP noticed something was rotten in California?
George Allen seems to be drawing some negative attention to the GOP as well. His alleged use of the "N Word" in his earlier days as well as his use of the word "Macaca" to describe a supposed oppositional audience member at a campaign event seems to speak loudly about his nature and tendencies toward being elitist and racist. While Allen is busy denying and making excuses, one has to use a little rational thought and common sense... If it decorates like a rascist, speaks likes a racist, acts like an elitist and belongs to the GOP, then there may be some truth to the observations, conclusions and allegations. But this is not the first time that a member of the GOP has treated the general public like we are all stupid.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a litany of scandals all by himself. Apparently, once a General Staff Officer retires from active duty and regains the freedom to speak openly and honestly without threat of penalty from prosecution under th Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or career sabotage and retaliation, criticizing Secretary Rumsfeld is like shooting fish in a barrel. If it were one general, one might assume that there was a personality conflict, a political agenda or personal issues between the individuals. If it were a general with a declared membership in the opposing political party, one might accept the criticism as a polictical campaign to smear Rumsfeld for political gain. But a good number of the 18 generals that have spoken out against Rumsfeld are lifelong Republicans. All of these generals are career officers, most are West Point graduates, almost all hold advanced degrees and military training at one of the war colleges, and all of them posses intimate knowledge of military operations, the chain of command and military protocols and traditions.
Add to these generals the criticism of career officers such as Col. Thomas Hammes (USMC-Retired), Lt. Colonel Ann Wright (who was also a career diplomat for the State Department), and numerous front line commanders and combat veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and one has to ask, what would motivate such people to speak out against the Secretary of Defense? As a veteran, I know that military protocol, regulations and tradition calls for such issues to be dealt with internally, through the chain of command. It is often stated by experienced officers and non-coms that it is a soldier's right to complain. But the reality in the military is that those that complain are often subject to retaliation and career sabotage. Promotions, task assignments and command opportunities are often given on the basis of someone being a team player. Someone that complains, even a little bit, is not seen as a team player and is targeted by the rest of their unit, command and sometimes by the entire branch of service. It takes a lot of courage and intestinal fortitude to speak up in the military.
So what is Rumsfeld's legacy of scandal? First and foremost in my mind is the fact that he was dismissive of the fact that our troops were not supplied with the proper vehicular and body armor. The lack of proper armor, according to internal studies and reports from the Army and Marines, is directly responsible for over 80% of the deaths, disabilities and severe injuries occuring in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. That is depraved indifference for human life, which is a key element proving second degree murder in a court of law.
Then, too, Rumsfeld is the key authority figure involved in the circumvention of the provisions of the Geneval Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, certain provisions of the United Nations Charter, certain provisions of the NATO Treaty, the provisions of treaties involving international travel and transportation of suspected criminals or combatants ("extraordinary rendition") and in authorizing the mistreatment and torture of detainees held at Abu Ghraib, Guantanmo Bay and prisons in Afghanistan. While not directly involved in the crimes, massacres and atrocities committed by US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, his opposition to signing the proposed treaties that would compel US authorities to answer for war crimes and crimes against humanity, his direction to subordinates in the field, and his several memos suggesting (if not authorizing) tactics and methods of interrogation that violate moral decency, Christian values, our Constitution and international law makes him directly responsible for these criminal acts in the same way a mafia boss is responsible for ordering a "hit."
President Bush is the source of one scandal after another. After viewing the video entitled "911 Loose Change," one cannot assume that there is not a conspiracy afoot. There are questions raised in that video that demand answers. While I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, the fact is that the Bush administration has a track record of lying to us, has a history of misrepresenting facts and events in order to push their pre-determined agendas forward, and have been involved in one cover up after another of events reported in the news. The evidence against Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Chertoff and others in this administration for being bald-faced liars is mounting.
Recently their attention has been drawn to the reports and writings of Bob Woodward. Members of the Bush gang are vehemently denying such reported conversations and events that point to inadequacy, ineffciency, incompetence and outright lying. But we have to ask an important question: What does Woodward have to gain from making such allegations and reporting such events? The first reaction to that question is money. Woodward makes a lving by reporting and writing books. He is an editor for one of the most prestigious news organizations in the nation and selling newspapers and his own books are his way of making money. But Woodward makes his money by reporting and writing about issues, facts and events in a reliable manner. Were he to write or report in an inappropriate or untruthful manner, he would undermine his credibility, the credibility of the Washington Post, and compromise the sale of his books.
Woodward made his bones in the news business by reporting factually and reliably on the Watergate Scandal. He can ill afford to undermine his standing by becoming a nutcase conspiracy theorist that writes just to see his words in print. So, given Woodward's track record of being accurate, reliable and appropriate, we must assume that he is reporting the facts. On the other hand, the credibility of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Chertoff, Hastert, Lott, Warner, Cronyn, and the GOP on the whole is entirely questionable.
The Bush administration is filled with animosity for anyone that offers dissent or demands answers to questions regarding the agenda they have put forward. Richard Clarke was a loyal member of not only this administration, but four others. His role and expertise as the highest ranking member of White House advisors on matters of national security and terrorism was unquestioned... until he found it necessary to resign and speak out against the Bush administration's complete lack of handling intelligence appropriately, pushing an agenda to invade Iraq in the absence of any qualifying data, facts, information or reliable intelligence. Clarke has, as a consequence of speaking out, been ridiculed and dismissed by the Bush gang.
Again, if we were talking about one person abandoning the Bush administration's boat, or even criticisms from just the Democrats, we could say that there was room for doubt. But former Senator Bob Graham, a conservative that stood heads and shoulders among and above other conservatives, and a key member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has not only spoken out, but has written a book that clearly takes to task all the claims of the Bush gang regarding the intelligence on Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism connections in Iraq prior to our invasion, and the Bush Doctrine on the whole.
Dick Cheney, of course, is a hypocritical, stubborn, asinine fool with an agenda to push his view of the world ahead of any other view. He is so forceful that it has been questioned by many in America just who is president, Bush or Cheney. Cheney is also a dark character, bent on secrecy, backstabbing retaliation and revision of historical events. A good insight into his character is the "accidental" shooting incident on a hunting ranch in Texas. While he was apologetic about the "accident," the entire affair was handled in an inappropriate manner, with a proper investigation into the events being obstructed. The question as to whether or not Cheney was drinking, and therefore intoxicated at the time, remains unanswered. Of course, if the incident had involved an ordinary citizen rather than Cheney, that ordinary citizen would have been arrested and brought before a court for arraignment before being allowed to post bail pending a full investigation by prosecutors. Further evidence that Cheney holds a double standard and is hypocritical is the report that when he was injured by a similar event a few years back, he threw a hissy fit and wanted the person responsible for shooting in his direction jung out to dry and whipped.
Then there is the Halliburton contracts. Awarded without consideration of costs, procurement procedures, authorization from congress to appropriate and spend an undetermined and largely undisclosed sum, the contracts with Halliburton and its subsidiaries remain questionable in nature. These contracts have not been reviewed for cost effectiveness, appropriateness and accountability in the five years since the events of 9-11. While there may be a case for an emergency award of initial contracts in the immediacy of responding to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, one would think that somewhere along the line the normal procedure of putting these contracts out for bid would have been implemented. This is especially the case when the failure to provide quaility goods and services by Halliburton and its subsidiaries has been proven time and time again.
Time and time again... that is the case of how often we are being lied to by the GOP, the GOP leadership and the Bush administration. Somewhere along the way we have to start asking questions and demanding truthful answers. The positions of our government at this point in time has exceeded the idea of pissing on my leg and claiming it's raining. Someone has obviously crapped in their pants and the lie about having only farted is far too obvious a lie. I would offer apologies for being so crude, but as my grandmother used to say, sometimes there just isn't an appropriate way to express one's anger without being a little crude.
If I were to continue I could address issues of failure, lies and corruption involved in responding to Katrina, the National Counter-Terrorism Center, the Senate Judiciary Committee and much more. But I think my point is valid and sufficiently made.
Take a look at the following links for evidence supporting my views:
The Foley Scandal: It's Not Just About Foley.
Foley Built Career as Protector of Children: He Gained Attention by Fighting Sex Crimes
GOP Leader Rebuts Hastert on Foley - Reynolds: Speaker Knew of E-Mails in Spring
Report Says Rove Aide Accepted Abramoff Gifts
Attacks in Afghanistan Grow More Frequent and Lethal
Secret Reports Dispute White House Optimism
Backing Policy, President Issues Terror Estimate
UN Torture Investigator Criticizes US Detainee Bill
Democrats Hold Hearing on KBR's Iraq Water Contamination
Halliburton's Hellofa Good Deal
Republicans Kill Amendment to Investigate Halliburton Contract Abuse
Contracting Problems Cited for Iraq Construction Failures
Millions In Iraq Contracts Obligated To 'Dummy Vendor'
New Woodward Book Says Bush Ignored Urgent Warning on Iraq
Intelligence Director Rejects Claim That U.S. is at Greater Risk
Prosecutors Say CIA Leak Probe Has Cost $1.44M
O'Connor Warns of Growing Efforts at 'Judicial Intimidation'
A Textbook Definition of Cowardice:
Keith Olbermann Comments on Bill Clinton's Fox News Interview
Nations Limit Use of NATO Forces
EU Panel Chief Doubts Legality of US Financial Transactions Monitoring Program
posted by Jim Downey at 9:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home