PhillyKev 0 #26 May 5, 2004 Quote2 - I'm with Ron on this. The response is because it's the right thing to do and we (US) don't support those actions so our president is speaking out on that. Not for something as lame as making a fake show for the world press. Bull. If that were true he would have spoken out about it before it was exposed to the world. He didn't do a damn thing until it got bad press. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #27 May 5, 2004 Khazakhstan thenQuote You can be sure, this is well known. But it's for sure too: guess who will be at invadors side same second they enter the country? ***How on earth will Mr Bush get his hands on any foreign oil, apart from buying it legitimately? Like usual: Just invade, take over the power and tell the rest of the world you're going to safe their lifes... I like this word: Shoplifting dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crzjp20 0 #28 May 5, 2004 you weant to know why he didnt want those names and what not to be shown? its simple, the US can not be beat on the battle field by these terrorists, just like we could not be beat in vietnam. then why do so many people say we lost vietnam?? reason- cause we lost the war at home. When this country losses suport of its troops we withdraw, historicaly speaking, so in retun we "lose" but we dont lose the battles, we lose support. People of the US do not like to see bodys they do not like to see dead americans. That is why the rallied so strongly after 9-11. So when the US fights a war it is on 2 fronts. On the battle field, and at home. thats my opinion so there. Now as for President Bush (yeah he is the president so i wil lcall him that) giving the apoligie... i think it is the right thing to do. Why? cause we were in the wrong and when we screw up we need to fix it. an apoligy is a step in that direction. it doesnt matter what President Bush does the bush haters will complain, they will wine, they will say he is in the wrong. if the dems were calling for him to pull out of iraq and he did it, then they would complain cause he looked to weak. thats politics, thats the game, so get over him doing somehitnt that ius different that what you like. an investigation will be done, and the people responciable will be put on trial, should be public and the muslum world should be able to see it. as for the oil thing.... if oil is such a big deal to the euro people with it coing to us going in to iraq, maybe its beacuse their countries were making billions a year through fraud in the UN. AKA Oil for Food prpgram. Havnt heard a word about that. Maybe that is beacsue the contries that were so appoised to the war were the countries that are being discovered to be involved... frace, germany, russia, china. there is pleanty of blame to go around.-------------------------------------------------- Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #29 May 6, 2004 Quoteyou weant to know why he didnt want those names and what not to be shown? its simple, the US can not be beat on the battle field by these terrorists, just like we could not be beat in vietnam. then why do so many people say we lost vietnam?? reason- cause we lost the war at home. When this country losses suport of its troops we withdraw, historicaly speaking, so in retun we "lose" but we dont lose the battles, we lose support. People of the US do not like to see bodys they do not like to see dead americans. That is why the rallied so strongly after 9-11. So when the US fights a war it is on 2 fronts. On the battle field, and at home. thats my opinion so there. Seems to me that not liking dead American boys in a war that we shouldn't be involved with in the first place is a healthy response. Quote Now as for President Bush (yeah he is the president so i wil lcall him that) giving the apoligie... i think it is the right thing to do. Why? cause we were in the wrong and when we screw up we need to fix it. an apoligy is a step in that direction. it doesnt matter what President Bush does the bush haters will complain, they will wine, they will say he is in the wrong. if the dems were calling for him to pull out of iraq and he did it, then they would complain cause he looked to weak. thats politics, thats the game, so get over him doing somehitnt that ius different that what you like. an investigation will be done, and the people responciable will be put on trial, should be public and the muslum world should be able to see it. Explain why Rumsfeld didn't say one word about this to Congress when he was there and he knew it had happened. Why did the administration let Congress learn about it from the press?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #30 May 6, 2004 >Explain why Rumsfeld didn't say one word about this to >Congress when he was there and he knew it had happened. While that's a valid question, it's more an issue of what Rumsfeld did wrong than what Bush did wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #31 May 6, 2004 Quote>Explain why Rumsfeld didn't say one word about this to >Congress when he was there and he knew it had happened. While that's a valid question, it's more an issue of what Rumsfeld did wrong than what Bush did wrong. The administration reports to Bush. The administration kept silent about it even though they knew.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #32 May 6, 2004 >The administration reports to Bush. The administration kept silent > about it even though they knew. As you said in a different thread, pretty much everyone screws up. The important part is to see how they react to it. If the reaction is business as usual then I'll agree the problem is more widespread than just Rumsfeld. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kathryn_hemlin 0 #33 May 6, 2004 I think this whole situation has become horribly sad - it seems that what we're seeing now is just Bush being caught up in doing damage control for acting out on his desire to spank the man who tried to kill his daddy. As a side note...who would have ever thought that Bush had the word 'abhorrent' in his vocabulary...nearly fell over when I heard him say it. "The true miracle is not walking on water or walking in air, but simply walking on this earth" - Thich Nhat Hanh Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lifewithoutanet 0 #34 May 6, 2004 QuoteThe important part is to see how they react to it. If the reaction is business as usual then I'll agree the problem is more widespread than just Rumsfeld. I might be taking your statement out of context, missing something about it, but I'll run with it anyway. "Business as usual" in Washington, dems or reps, is denial first. "The truth doesn't get better with age" doesn't seem to apply to them when so much popular opinion is based on initial reaction. For you or I, individuals, sure, we'll take the initial information and see how the details pan out. Popular [public] opinion, however, seldom endures the details past the initial media explosion. So, as for how they react to it...denial first, damage control later, regardless of party. These are, afterall, career politicians rather than the civil servants that politics should theoretically be built upon (but throughout history, rarely, if ever, has been). Damage control in this situation is the administration acting as a team, sacrificing a member in pursuit of accountability...so that they can move on. It's the same in any party. I'm not too surprised by it anymore. Would you agree? -C. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #35 May 6, 2004 QuoteThe war was on a basis of WMD, which I don't need to point out again, were never there in the first place. They were there at one time. He had used them, hell we sold them to him. He ignored the UN. QuoteIf this 'war' was about terrorism, we would have eliminated OBL first, then taken on another regime Well except we could not find him...Does the FBI only look for #1 on the top 10 list? QuoteIf this 'war' was about liberation, we wouldn't still be there. Yes, we would...how long were we in Germany and Japan after WW2? Hint its longer than we have been in Iraq. QuoteYeah, they are trained for that - but their training is in accord with the Geneva Convention, not Gorilla Tactics; their training is in fighting, not being dooped by turncoat Sunni Radicals. We have no other option than to train by the Geneva Convention....If we didn't then we would be as bad as the people we are fight against. And could you imagine the shit storm that the rest of the wrold would get into...Kinda like this BS issue with the prisoners...But like 100 fold."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #36 May 6, 2004 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 - I'm with Ron on this. The response is because it's the right thing to do and we (US) don't support those actions so our president is speaking out on that. Not for something as lame as making a fake show for the world press. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bull. If that were true he would have spoken out about it before it was exposed to the world. He didn't do a damn thing until it got bad press. Why did Clinton lie about getting a hummer in the Oval Office? Same reason Bush didn't say anything till it was out. Why shoot yourself in the foot? Even if he knew it was happening.... bet I did plenty of bad things while I was in the service that my CO didn't know about, much less I don't think the CiC was getting briefed on my actions. He has much bigger fish to fry than this tiny BS. But once its out, it needs to be addressed."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Malfunction 0 #37 May 6, 2004 QuoteThey were there at one time. He had used them, hell we sold them to him. He ignored the UN. Problem with that: we have Tony Blair even saying it was bad information. The UN Weapons Inspectors could not find anything, yet Bush and Powell still persisted ... turning US into the bad guy. Why could the UN Inspectors not find anything? THERE WERE NONE. QuoteIf this 'war' was about terrorism, we would have eliminated OBL first, then taken on another regime -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well except we could not find him...Does the FBI only look for #1 on the top 10 list? Maybe you are right... but we wasted NO time in declaring war on Iraq, spared no expense (and clearly no lives either) trying to find him and bring his regime to an end. If we kept this many troops in Afghanastan and the surrounding countries and had this much press there, OBL would not be loose 2 1/2 years later. The FBI and the US Government-led Military is hardly an even comparison... first, the FBI is a fraction of the size of the US Military, with a fraction of the budget, and a fraction of the training. The FBI utilized nationwide searches through Unsolved Mystery shows, Bounty Hunters and Post Office postings. The military uses years and years of research, pinpoint satelites, thousands and thousands of troops - I don't see any comparison here. QuoteWe have no other option than to train by the Geneva Convention....If we didn't then we would be as bad as the people we are fight against I agree. I do not argue that we need to and will continue to train by the Geneva Convention. However, by doing so, we get massacred in Vietnam, Iraq, and nearly in Somalia. We are playing by a different, more political set of rules. The people we are fighting don't care about world politics or Geneva, they just care about killing Americans. I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #38 May 6, 2004 Quote Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They were there at one time. He had used them, hell we sold them to him. He ignored the UN. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Problem with that: we have Tony Blair even saying it was bad information. The UN Weapons Inspectors could not find anything, yet Bush and Powell still persisted ... turning US into the bad guy. Why could the UN Inspectors not find anything? THERE WERE NONE. We had some intel saying they did not exist...But we also had intel telling us they did exist. The weapons inspectors said they could not find any, but they also said that the Iraqis were not up front about anything. This whole thing would not have been an issue if Saddam had dsclosed what he did with the WMD's we knew he had...But he didn't. Saddam could have let us talk to his top scientists...But he didn't let us. Part of the resolution was he had to dispose of all his current stockpiles, and PROVE he had, which he did not. AND he had to not plan on making anymore...He had a weapon system that he kept that could be used for WMD deployments at a range greater than he was allowed to have..All he had to do was change the fuel and it was beyond the max range allwed by the Resolution. Also he had several plants that could serve double duty as a chemical weapons plant or a fertilizer plant at almost the flip of a switch. So he had the ability to make WMD's and the ability to deploy them. He had WMD's but lost them? He would not let us talk to his scientists. He had invaded two countries. And ignore no fly zones several times. He had used WMD's against his own people. He gives money to the families of suicide bombers...thus supporting terroism. His actions destabilized an already unstable region Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If this 'war' was about terrorism, we would have eliminated OBL first, then taken on another regime -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well except we could not find him...Does the FBI only look for #1 on the top 10 list? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe you are right... but we wasted NO time in declaring war on Iraq, spared no expense (and clearly no lives either) trying to find him and bring his regime to an end You want another "limited war"...They don't work. If you are going to go, go hard and fast. Plus we warned him to comply and he said no. Quote If we kept this many troops in Afghanastan and the surrounding countries and had this much press there, OBL would not be loose 2 1/2 years later. Maybe...You don't know and niether do I. However he is ONE man that lives in caves and does not use a cellphone of internet. He is surrounded by a group of people that would kill or die for him...Its not easy to find a guy like that. Quote The FBI and the US Government-led Military is hardly an even comparison... first, the FBI is a fraction of the size of the US Military, with a fraction of the budget, and a fraction of the training. The FBI utilized nationwide searches through Unsolved Mystery shows, Bounty Hunters and Post Office postings. The military uses years and years of research, pinpoint satelites, thousands and thousands of troops - I don't see any comparison here. Yep no comparison. The Army is looking for a guy that could be anywhere in the world. That has a loyal following of fanatics that would kill or die for him and their God. The crooks on the FBI most wanted list don't usually have that kind of following. And most times they are in only the US, and people will turn them in for money. The Army is going up against a guy that has MILLIONS of dollars...That buys a hell of a lot protection. The crooks on the top 10 list don't have that kind of resources. The Army is going after a guy that lives without a cell phone, internet and lives in caves in a barren part of the world. No where in the US is a barren and run by out laws as any where in Afganistan. The US requires pin numbers, has video cameras everywhere, requires deposits, registration on cars..ect... Afganistan has none of these. So if OBL was in the US the FBI might be able to find him, but they have no chance in AFG. Yep no comparison. The US it is much easier to find someone."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #39 May 6, 2004 QuoteWhy did Clinton lie about getting a hummer in the Oval Office? Man, you are freakin' fascinated by Clinton, aren't you? I just read three threads, and in every one of them you make an allegation against Clinton in defense of Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #40 May 6, 2004 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why did Clinton lie about getting a hummer in the Oval Office? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Man, you are freakin' fascinated by Clinton, aren't you? I just read three threads, and in every one of them you make an allegation against Clinton in defense of Bush. Its relevent, I bring it up. But I'm ashamed he ever got elected. I'm embarrased that we had a guy admit to lying under oath and we did nothing about it. It does show how totally immoral the US is as a a whole that we elected a guy that dodged the draft, admitted to using drugs with a lame lie about "I didn't inhale", cheated on his wife, lied in a court of law, and still you have people defend him."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crzjp20 0 #41 May 6, 2004 at one time the weapons were there, that is fact. We also know that he had the ability to manucafture WMD's cause we have found the places where they could have been made. Now tell me why he would have that if he didnt intend on making them and using them. Also, i said this in another thread, but as for the waepons, i think he had them. But i think he got rid of them, and i think that he sold them or moved them out of country. Example, a few weeks ago the Jordanian police foiled a terrorist plot that involved chemical weapons. Guesse what, they already had the weapons. The police found them. So where did they get them... i dont know, but could it have been from iraq? but then again they could have come from some otehr country that was making them.... i dont know, but it makes me think.-------------------------------------------------- Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #42 May 6, 2004 QuoteIt does show how totally immoral the US is as a a whole that we elected a guy that dodged the draft, admitted to using drugs with a lame lie about "I didn't inhale", cheated on his wife, lied in a court of law, and still you have people defend him. Since, once again, I'll point out that Clinton is irrelevant. Let's evaluate your statement above regarding the relevant topic of GWB. -Dodged the draft. Student deferement or pulling strings to get in the Guard and avoid combat duty. Same thing IMO. -Admitted to using drugs, GWB, cocaine, check. -Lied in a court of law vs. convicted of a crime in a court of law. And still you defend him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #43 May 6, 2004 Quote-Dodged the draft. Student deferement or pulling strings to get in the Guard and avoid combat duty. Same thing IMO. Nope one served, the other didn't...In fact GWB asked about getting rotated to Nam...But he didn't have enough flight time. Quote-Admitted to using drugs, GWB, cocaine, check. The difference was that GWB admitted to it. Clinton admitted to smoking dope, "But I did not inhale". What a BS line. So he is either: A. A liar...(We already know this) and he did inhale. B. To damn stupid to smoke a joint. Quote-Lied in a court of law vs. convicted of a crime in a court of law You talking about Bushes DUI? A DUI several years ago vs lying in a court of law while under oath WHILE BEING THE PRESIDENT? There is no comparison between the two. A DUI was not a gigantic deal back then, and infact I know people who have had them and I don't think less of them if they clean up. Which Bush has done. Clinton however, cheated on his wife (Low morals) and lied about it in court (The most powerful man in the world lying about something so small as a hummer...What else did he lie about that was big?) One was several years ago and mistake that many people make...The other was while President, and he knew he was doing it...PLUS Clinton was a lawyer, so he KNEW how bad it was. No way those two compare."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Malfunction 0 #44 May 6, 2004 QuoteWe also know that he had the ability to manucafture WMD's cause we have found the places where they could have been made. Now tell me why he would have that if he didnt intend on making them and using them I can't speak for another person, so I don't know. But you said yourself "where they could have been made" but we don't know that they ever were made there nor do we have proof that there was any intention to make them. Oooh, we found several missile heads, but no traces of chemical, biological or MD agents ... they were just missiles. Quotei think he got rid of them, and i think that he sold them or moved them out of country. Example, a few weeks ago the Jordanian police foiled a terrorist plot that involved chemical weapons. Guesse what, they already had the weapons. The police found them. So where did they get them... i dont know, but could it have been from iraq? but then again they could have come from some otehr country that was making them.... Yeah, like the USA. Anyone remember when we supplied all those weapons to Iran? How about all the weapons we sold to Russia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel? Those weapons could have been weapons we sold in the 80's and have since been touched up to support chemical or biological agents. Who knows... but it doesn't change the fact that Hussein said he didn't have any weapons, and we still have not turned up the cache that we supposedly had photos of. Someone is going to bring up the argument that we can't comb the desert, and they could be burried. If this is so, do you think that any of Hussein's people that have been captured for months would have told us about them... afterall, they did give up Saddam. That still leaves the impunity of the apology from Bush. I am sure that getting naked is the worst thing these Iraqi people have ever done... And a dog-pile? If this is cruel and unusual torture, I would hate to see what is borderline acceptable... maybe room service and valet parking? I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #45 May 6, 2004 QuoteBut I'm ashamed he ever got elected. I'm embarrased that we had a guy admit to lying under oath and we did nothing about it. Not only that, but he actually got votes from the majority of US citizens.......TWICE........unlike some other president I know..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #46 May 6, 2004 QuoteNot only that, but he actually got votes from the majority of US citizens.......TWICE........unlike some other president I know..... You really need to let the whole "bush stole the election" bullshit go. Recount after recount after recount after recount after recount he won. How hard is it to understand that he won? How hard is it to understand that Gore tried to throw out military ballots? I understand you are from Canada, but simple counting is something you should be able to do. Recount after recount after recount after recount Bush WON. It really is that simple. How hard is it for you to understand that Bush won fair and square."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #47 May 6, 2004 QuoteYou really need to let the whole "bush stole the election" bullshit go. Recount after recount after recount after recount after recount he won. How hard is it to understand that he won? How hard is it to understand that Gore tried to throw out military ballots? I understand you are from Canada, but simple counting is something you should be able to do. Recount after recount after recount after recount Bush WON. It really is that simple. How hard is it for you to understand that Bush won fair and square. First read what I actually wrote Ron!!!!! I agree that Bush won the election fair and square, no argument there. What I said was that Clinton actually got the majority of US citizens to vote for him twice. Eventhough Bush won the election fair and square, if you count the votes (I understand you are from the US, but simple counting is something you should be able to do) Bush did not get the majority of votes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #48 May 6, 2004 Quote Eventhough Bush won the election fair and square, if you count the votes (I understand you are from the US, but simple counting is something you should be able to do) Bush did not get the majority of votes. If that mattered then your point would carry weight. That's not how the US election process works.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #49 May 6, 2004 QuoteIf that mattered then your point would carry weight. That's not how the US election process works. I was not trying to carry any weight with my point, just saw it as somewhat ironic. specially since the original poster went on the say something about US morals etc etc. Anyways, just thought it was ironic..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #50 May 6, 2004 QuoteI was not trying to carry any weight with my point, just saw it as somewhat ironic. specially since the original poster went on the say something about US morals etc etc. Anyways, just thought it was ironic..... Clinton is a masterful politician. The Clintons have the ability to suck all the oxygen out of any forum. When Clinton's book comes out late summer, count on Kerry's campaign to suffer greatly (lack of attention). I bet that Bush's approval ratings will go up too. Just a guess.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Ron 10 #46 May 6, 2004 QuoteNot only that, but he actually got votes from the majority of US citizens.......TWICE........unlike some other president I know..... You really need to let the whole "bush stole the election" bullshit go. Recount after recount after recount after recount after recount he won. How hard is it to understand that he won? How hard is it to understand that Gore tried to throw out military ballots? I understand you are from Canada, but simple counting is something you should be able to do. Recount after recount after recount after recount Bush WON. It really is that simple. How hard is it for you to understand that Bush won fair and square."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #47 May 6, 2004 QuoteYou really need to let the whole "bush stole the election" bullshit go. Recount after recount after recount after recount after recount he won. How hard is it to understand that he won? How hard is it to understand that Gore tried to throw out military ballots? I understand you are from Canada, but simple counting is something you should be able to do. Recount after recount after recount after recount Bush WON. It really is that simple. How hard is it for you to understand that Bush won fair and square. First read what I actually wrote Ron!!!!! I agree that Bush won the election fair and square, no argument there. What I said was that Clinton actually got the majority of US citizens to vote for him twice. Eventhough Bush won the election fair and square, if you count the votes (I understand you are from the US, but simple counting is something you should be able to do) Bush did not get the majority of votes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #48 May 6, 2004 Quote Eventhough Bush won the election fair and square, if you count the votes (I understand you are from the US, but simple counting is something you should be able to do) Bush did not get the majority of votes. If that mattered then your point would carry weight. That's not how the US election process works.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #49 May 6, 2004 QuoteIf that mattered then your point would carry weight. That's not how the US election process works. I was not trying to carry any weight with my point, just saw it as somewhat ironic. specially since the original poster went on the say something about US morals etc etc. Anyways, just thought it was ironic..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #50 May 6, 2004 QuoteI was not trying to carry any weight with my point, just saw it as somewhat ironic. specially since the original poster went on the say something about US morals etc etc. Anyways, just thought it was ironic..... Clinton is a masterful politician. The Clintons have the ability to suck all the oxygen out of any forum. When Clinton's book comes out late summer, count on Kerry's campaign to suffer greatly (lack of attention). I bet that Bush's approval ratings will go up too. Just a guess.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
