The war

The war

: Andrew Sullivan said it well and I almost agree with him:

To my mind, the war to depose Saddam is still justifiable, morally important, and will, if we stay the course, eventually be regarded as an important milestone in the war against terror. But at the same time, it seems to me that there’s no denying that the actual case made by the Bush administration for war was built on false information….

But this remains one of the biggest government screw-ups in recent history. It has made future pre-emption based on intelligence close to impossible. And President Bush is ultimately responsible for this. Tenet has taken the fall, but it will take years and years before the U.S. regains the reputation for credibility that this president has destroyed. Even if you believe that Bush is still the best man to fight this war, you also have to concede that his record includes at least one massive error, and one that will cripple our ability to fight the war in the future.

I do agree — as I’ve said here often — that deposing Saddam was, in Sullivan’s words, “justifiable and morally important.”

But the problem is, Bush did not use morality as the justification for war. He used WMD — which, not that I knew anything, I never saw as an imminent threat — because that was the way to put together a coalition, even if a limited one. And, yes, Sullivan’s right that our credibility and motives will suffer the consequences of the bad WMD intelligence.

But I blame both Bush and the coalition of the unwilling for that. If Bush had predicated the invasion on the moral necessity to get Saddam out to protect the people of Iraq from tyranny and to bring democracy (and prosperity) to this nation in the Middle East, he would have put both the French flock and the American left in the difficult position of being against human rights for Iraqis. Yes, we would have had a smaller coalition or no coalition at all, but we would not have had to trump up justification for the war — if that is indeed what we did — or find ourselves standing morally naked with no WMDs to cover our crotch.

It’s all the worse, of course, because the aftermath to war was not well planned or executed. And because of that, our reputation for credibility and competence will also suffer. And that’s an even worse shame.

The best thing that can happen for Bush right now is for Saddam to go on trial; it won’t happen soon enough. But when Iraqis list his crimes against them and give witness to his tyranny, I at least hope that will remind everyone that there was another justification and need for this war that had nothing to do with WMDs and faulty intelligence and even oil. That has been entirely lost both by the right and by the left.

31 responses to “The war”

  1. Sharp as a Marble Avatar

    It’s all the worse, of course, because the aftermath to war was not well planned or executed

    And how exactly would you have planned it Jeff? Do you think that wars must adhere to specific shcedules? For all the uncertainty of war, I think we are doing as well as should be expected. It would probably benefit many people’s bloodpressure if they’d stick to second guessing the Giants’ choice of rushing plays rather than war planning.
    I find Bush to be a miserable failure on this war, not because of it’s execution (which he only pushes the ‘go’ button, he doesn’t plan the attacks or defense) but because of his apparent lack of PR skills. He’s getting evicerated in the media and it seems that most people think things are going absolutely awful over there when there are more good things than bad.
    Now, I also agree that the WMD idea was pushed hard enough to make me a little more than pissed that we were THAT wrong. But pushing the humanitarian angle would probably have backfired as we already hear plenty of cries of “If you can’t get rid of all dictators, you can’t get rid of any” as it is.
    Just my opinion.

  2. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    George Bush and the neocons in his administration misled the United States into the unprovoked, unnecessary, illegal and immoral military invasion and occupation of Iraq, a sovereign country, causing tremendous destruction of life and property. In Iraq, as in all wars, most of the death, maiming, torture, destruction, and utter human misery falls on poor, weak, defenseless, innocent civilians. As sure as Jesus Christ watches over us from Heaven, George Bush will burn in hell forever for crimes against humanity.

  3. Ann Avatar

    what do you mean no WMD’s? according to the AFP there were some found:
    http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040702144519.jnzjpbf3.html
    And Paul Martin is screaming that the weapons are now in the hands of the terrorists.
    And this from the UN via Vanguardpac.org
    ——————————————————————————–
    UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq
    ——————————————————————————–

  4. Sydney Carton Avatar
    Sydney Carton

    I love to see armchair generals like Andrew Sullivan say that the end of the war wasn’t planned. I don’t know how one really plans an END to the war – the important part is to win it. Did anyone have a plan for the end of WW2? What was our “exit strategy” there? Did it surprise us that the Soviet Union Army wouldn’t return to Moscow, and instead occupied half of Eastern Europe for 50 years?
    That Eisenhower, he screwed up with Europe, and was still elected president….
    And Lincoln, he screwed up the Civil War even more! Did he really plan for “Reconstruction”? It lasted for nearly 20 years! What kind of “end” is that?
    /shrill Sullivan-like sarcasm.

  5. MD Avatar

    Jeff, President Bush did mention Saddam’s human rights abuses in the state of the union addresses and his address to the UN. You are correct that it did not receive the attention the WMD argument did by the press (and after 9-11, the WMD argument was certainly compelling).
    I doubt arguments of based on the immorality of Saddam’s regime would have done anything. The world ignores Darfur.

  6. Don Avatar

    The intense focus on WMD’s has been perpetrated by the left, exactly for the reasons you site, Jeff. Bush did make a case for a war based on morality, but that has been, for the large part, ignored by the media so they cold endlessly hammer him on the WMD issue. The war was never framed solely, or even principally, on WMD’s. It has been, however, carefully spun to be about that by those who would benefit from them not being found – the hard left and their fellow travelers. I mean, look at that post by that clown Michael above.

  7. TomK Avatar

    There’s more than enough blog posts in the world debunking the “Bush said it was all about WMDs” silliness, so I won’t waste time covering that. If you can’t be bothered to read the numerous speeches by Bush himself outlining the reasons to go after Saddam, I can’t help you.
    However, to answer Sullivan’s comment about the war being poorly planned, from Murphy’s Laws of Combat:
    “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.”
    The fact that we’ve got an administration that’s willing to change plans when they aren’t working is a good thing. That’s generally considered the intelligent thing to do.
    Remember all the teeth-gnashing we heard when he put Bremer in charge of the occupation? All sorts of comments about how he screwed up. Given the response of Iraqi’s to Bremer’s departure, I’d say Bush knew something the rest of us didn’t, and was wise enough to know when to depart from the plan.

  8. sbw Avatar

    You really should not underestimate the importance of France. But for France, the UN would have concluded that Saddam Hussein was not being fully cooperative as required in Resolution 1441 and would have moved closer to the necessary showdown. France has been a pill since Charles DeGaulle before D-Day.
    Furthermore, it is Article 2, Paragraph 7, of U.N. Charter itself, that gives such indemnity to “leaders” who abuse their citizens.
    I’m no fan of some Bush policies, but don’t you find it the least worrying that those presenting arguments against Bush dance around like water drops on a hot skillet whenever the logic is cut out from under them? Have you seen anyone — politician, pundit, or paper — acknowledge that a single revelation from the Senate Report has caused a retraction?
    If we’re going to get civil discussion back on track, it’s time for us to begin to laugh at those who consistently resort to baseless canards.

  9. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    sbw:
    You said…
    “Furthermore, it is Article 2, Paragraph 7, of U.N. Charter itself, that gives such indemnity to “leaders” who abuse their citizens.”
    The United Nations Charter, Article 2, Paragraph 7, says…
    “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.”
    Is this the text you’re referring to? If not, am I mistaken or are you? If it’s me, please supply correct text. If the text is correct, what’s your point?

  10. sbw Avatar

    > what’s your point?
    Hmm. Briefly…
    Since the birth of nation-states (Treaty of Westphalia, 1648), international relations has dealt with governments rather than the people they serve. The United Nations Charter confirms it: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state….” [Art. 2. Para. 7]
    Governments cherish sovereignty — the notion they alone control their own territory and people. In return for autonomy at home, states implicitly agreed not to intervene in the internal affairs of others. Without exempting internal affairs in 1945, the formation of the United Nations itself would have stalled.
    The clause has served… and continues to serve… as a shield for a multitude of sins. I briefly noted it here: http://blogs.rny.com/sbw/stories/storyReader$142: Challenging Sovereignty
    My point of several: There is a lot of navel-watching going on that deflects looking at Real Problems. Parse the political discussion, the punditry that follows it, and associated blog-Noise… and we are all stuck in Capital-F Fog.

  11. anne.elk Avatar
    anne.elk

    But the problem is, Bush did not use morality as the justification for war. He used WMD — which, not that I knew anything, I never saw as an imminent threat — because that was the way to put together a coalition, even if a limited one. And, yes, Sullivan’s right that our credibility and motives will suffer the consequences of the bad WMD intelligence.
    But I blame both Bush and the coalition of the unwilling for that.

    Shorter Jeff: Wahhhh, you made me lie!
    Or:
    “We had to burn the village to save it.”

  12. Chris Avatar

    Sullivan makes a couple of mistakes in his observation. If the war was built on false information, then the same false information was believed by entirely 100% of the rest of the world. Why? Russia and France vehemently opposed the war but were in no doubt as to Saddam’s possession of WMD. If the war is “still justifiable, morally important, and… an important milestone in the war against terror”, how then has our credibility been destroyed? As to our ability being crippled to fight a war in the future, Sullivan assumes facts that are not in evidence.
    As to Jeff’s contention that we would have put the French and the American left in a difficult position by arguing for the moral necessity of removing the dictator, where is the evidence for this. Both parties understood the egregious human rights violations of Saddam yet opposed lifting a finger to do anything about it.
    History will remember little about our precise justification for removing a homicidal maniac from power, it will just note that he was removed for the good of mankind.

  13. Yehudit Avatar

    Like the previous poster said, Bush used all the arguments that Jeff claims he didn’t use. Jeff is relying on major media interpetations of Bush’s speeches. Read the originals: humanitarian, WMDs, succoring of terrorists, bringing democracy to the ME – it’s all there.
    Whether or not Saddam actually had stockpiles of WMDs is immaterial. We had every reason to think he did: Clinton thought so, Chirac thoughts so, Kofi thought so. Everyone had bad intelligence – why should ours be laid at Bush’s feet? Bush had to make a decision based on what we had, and most of it still holds up: Saddam was definitely seeking to rebuild his WMD programs, he was not complying with the inspectors, he’d had 10 years and 17 resolutions to comply, he harbored and encouraged Islamist terrorists, Iraq was riper for moving toward a modern tech-savvy democratic polity than any other Arab state, plus we could move our military out of SA but keep an even larger military presence right in the middle of a terrorist hotspot that needs to be monitored, plus when the Iraqi oil gets flowing Saudi oil will be less important.
    Deposing Saddam was a no-brainer. Plus we got the added benefit of exposing the oil for food scandal and cutting off France and Russia’s arms and oil deals.
    Who cares whether Saddam actually had stockpiles or was only trying to get them? This only matters if you want to argue that we should have waited, because Saddam wasn’t that much of a threat. I disagree that waiting would have improved our chances for a coalition. France and russia were making too much money off saddam to ever agree. Meanwhile Saddam keeps buying missile parts and uranium, terrorists keep wandering in and out of Iraq, the UNSCAM folks keep making money, we keep spending billions maintaining no-fly zones, Saddam grooms Uday and Qusay. So when should we have gone in, AFTER Saddam got all his WMDs in a row?
    “If Bush had predicated the invasion on the moral necessity to get Saddam out to protect the people of Iraq from tyranny and to bring democracy (and prosperity) to this nation in the Middle East, he would have put both the French flock and the American left in the difficult position of being against human rights for Iraqis.”
    Earth to Jeff: he did, and they didn’t care and still don’t. The French just vetoed a UN action in Sudan because they have oil fields there. Why do you think they would let a HR argument get in the way of lucrative arms/oil trading?
    “Yes, we would have had a smaller coalition or no coalition at all, but we would not have had to trump up justification for the war — if that is indeed what we did — or find ourselves standing morally naked with no WMDs to cover our crotch.”
    Jeff, you read Iraqi blogs and you know Iraqis are much better off now than before. You know they are condemning extremist jihadi groups and trying to build a democratic country. This occupation – with all its mistakes – is going better than our occupation of Germany was at the same date. So how are we morally naked? Don’t let Michael Moore propagandize you.
    And, um, how is Kerry a viable alternative to the supposedly awful Bush? Do you really think Kerry is going to run this occupation any better than Bush did? In what way? And how do you know this? Please be specific about exactly where Bush screwed up that you know Kerry will do better, and why.
    Now for Sullivan:
    “President Bush is ultimately responsible for this. Tenet has taken the fall, but it will take years and years before the U.S. regains the reputation for credibility that this president has destroyed.”
    Bush’s CIA was Clinton’s. Expecting Bush to totally reform the CIA in a year after taking office is silly. And I would like some examples of how “our credibility is destroyed” that aren’t just Eurointellectuals being pissed. AFAIK we are still engaged in all sorts of coalitions and negotiations around the globe that are going fine.

  14. Yehudit Avatar

    PS I meant A previous poster, not the one right before mine. This one:
    “There’s more than enough blog posts in the world debunking the “Bush said it was all about WMDs” silliness, so I won’t waste time covering that. If you can’t be bothered to read the numerous speeches by Bush himself outlining the reasons to go after Saddam, I can’t help you.”

  15. John Anderson Avatar
    John Anderson

    Go back to September-October 2002 and look at what was used in asking Congress to approve powers to use against Saddam: I think WMD was 7 or 8 of 12…
    WMD was stressed at the UN because it was the only argment that MIGHT have worked. Humanitarian? Nothing to do with the cease-fire of 1991. And of course, there is the example of Sudan. And several others.
    Then in January 2003, Chirac stated (according to the New York Times) that he would veto anything that did more than continue sanctions NO MATTER WHAT. And he wanted the sanctions dropped. Schroeder, still hoping to share the EU presidency with France and not allow any other country to be able to hold that spot, agreed. Russia and China did not go quite that far, but made it clear they would veto a regime change invasion.
    Now, I believed (as did, it seems, Saddam) there were chemical WMD’s. But I supported going in because of the non-compliance issues and the apparent intent to re-invade Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and possibly others, as soon as sanctions were lifted.

  16. Leland Avatar

    The Dems demanded Bush go to the UN for approval. The UN’s only concern was WMD, because Saddam potentially having WMDs was the UNs only rational for keeping sanctions in place. Those sanctions made certain UN delegates personally rich. None of the moral issue were important to the UN.
    Alas, I’m sure that’s why the Dems pushed Bush to go to the UN. They knew what the fight would be there, and now they have their talking points for the election. I’m unimpressed.

  17. syn Avatar

    Bush said we cannot wait until Saddam becomes an imminent threat, contrary to the lie posed that Bush had said Saddam was an imminent threat.
    In 1999, it has been confirmed that indeed Iraq did seek to obtain ‘yellowcake’ from Niger, according to both British and French intelligence.
    Put this together, what does it tell you?
    I am beginning to believe that the only way for some people to recognize the validity of removing Saddam from power would have been through a nuclear detonation.
    Before 9/11 and all throughout the later part of the 20th century, Americans believed Al Queda could have been addressed through diplomacy and law enforcement.
    Look what that type of thinking brought to us.
    3000 innocents slaughtered in an instant.
    I won’t be fooled again.

  18. syn Avatar

    In the days leading up to the war in Iraq, I recall Bush having made numerous references regarding the need to address ending the oppressive brutality perpetuated by Saddam.
    By the way, France as represented through its’actions does not care about the people of Iraq anymore than it cares about the people in Durfar. France cares only for TotalFinaElf oiiiillll!
    Get the picture yet?

  19. MaB Avatar

    The trouble with the humanitarian case for invasion is that it is not at all clear that Iraq should have been a higher priority than other countries, such as North Korea. I doubt there would have been popular support within the US if the case for war was not based on an alleged threat.

  20. sbw Avatar

    Jeff: But the problem is, Bush did not use morality as the justification for war. He used WMD…
    No, Jeff, Bush used 1) the United Nations evidence of WMD, and 2) Hussein’s demonstrated lack of cooperation to verify the WMD’s destruction.

    [From Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address] “The 108 U.N. inspectors … were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials…. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq’s regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

    “The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax — enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

    “The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin — enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.”

    Jeff, the real problem is manufacturing belief. Political campaigns depend on it. You don’t want to be a part of that, do you?

  21. syn Avatar

    One would think that the United Nations would have enough ‘heart and soul’ to put forth an effort to ending the oppressive brutality in North Korea. Or at the very least, for Durfar.
    We know how the UN’s heart and soul felt regarding Iraq.

  22. sbw Avatar

    syn: One would think that the United Nations would have enough ‘heart and soul’ to put forth an effort to ending the oppressive brutality in North Korea.
    As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the U.N. is forbidden by its charter to do so.

  23. J_Crater Avatar
    J_Crater

    “Bush did not use morality”
    Take a look at UN resolution 616.
    Not all the UN resolutions that Sadaam violated are related to WMDs or Kuwait.

  24. shark Avatar

    It’s all the worse, of course, because the aftermath to war was not well planned or executed
    Says who? Those who wanted everything wrapped up quickly in a pretty little package?
    Sullivan has turned into a hack when it comes to the war. He reduced himself into a blubbering, quivering mass over how we handled Fallujah- yet it seems that our actions there may have done some good.
    Sadr is marginalized, Iraqis run Iraq, indicators are that the people of Iraq are turning ugly towards those foreign terrorists causing trouble. All in all, not bad. Not perfect, but what can you expect?
    Anyone who would whine about the wars aftermath are disappointed this isn’t another Vietnam, plain and simple. Sorry boys and girls, no chance to breakout your beads and drugs..

  25. sbw Avatar

    The service bloggers could be carrying out is to inoculate readers to ask “Who is playing voters for fools?”
    Besides the obvious answer that “both political parties are”, the better question becomes “Who has been caught out and STILL continues to try to play the voters for fools?”
    The myth that “Bush lied about WMD” was dealt with in earlier comments. It wasn’t what Bush said or what he did. As did virtually everyone else, Bush believed Iraq had WMD. Bush also believed U.N. inspector reports that Hussein was uncooperative verifying their destruction.
    Now, according to the Senate and the British Butler reports, the claims that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa were correct and former ambassador Joe Wilson has been found out.
    So let’s just sit back to identify the candidates, the shills, and the main stream media that persist perpetrating myths. Either they are deluded or they are so bent on affecting the election are they that they’ll use any means necessary to take it. Bloggers can help us turn our backs on such activities.

  26. Sandy P Avatar
    Sandy P

    The CIA can only be reformed so much by any president.
    It wasn’t a president who writes the restrictions.
    Didn’t Torchy have a hand back in the 80s with this non-sharing of intel? Unless Congress is willing, nothing substantive can be done.

  27. Sandy P Avatar
    Sandy P

    We can handle NorK – or let Sork handle them. Cost us less in the long run. I’m willing to supply food there, but the psychological counselling that will be required I want nothing to do with. That’s a major difference between USSR and NorK. The commies were exposed to western culture. I’ve read that some NorK spies are easily ID’d because when they get to DT Seoul, they stand w/their mouths agape just staring, they weren’t prepared for what they saw, considering where they came from.
    But the swamp needed draining in the ME and that was a good place to start.

  28. notthisgirl Avatar
    notthisgirl

    OK Jeff – I have a question for you (or anyone else who cares to respond). Jeff, you said this: … “But the problem is, Bush did not use morality as the justification for war. He used WMD — which, not that I knew anything, I never saw as an imminent threat — because that was the way to put together a coalition, even if a limited one. And, yes, Sullivan’s right that our credibility and motives will suffer the consequences of the bad WMD intelligence.”
    Perhaps this may be over-simplifying things; but, take this into account:
    1) September 11th, 2001 (a middle-eastern attack)
    2) Vladimir Puting PERSONALLY delivers a message to President Bush WARNING him that Saddam Hussein intend(s) to attack the United States.
    3) Intelligence that (nearly) THE WHOLE WORLD had on WMD (not just the CIA).
    If you put those three items alone together, President Bush would have been negligent had he done nothing. What were we supposed to do? Wait for Saddam to attack us and lose MORE people while the country is still licking 9/11 wounds? – or wait for the pedantic UN to get through their “inspections”? I don’t think so.
    * And now it seems that the “Yellow Cake” issue was NOT a fabrication or misinformation?
    Also – supposedly this September – M. Quadaffi(sp) will be giving some detail about how Saddam utilized some space and equipment for his scientists to do nuclear weaponry R&D – BECAUSE LIBYA WAS NOT SUBJECT TO INSPECTION.
    IMHO, I think you will start to see the WMD issue unravel here – and it won’t be to the Bush-bashers’ liking. And although I could be wrong, I doubt Libya is/was the only country involved.
    We’ll have to wait and see.

  29. Flipperwald Avatar
    Flipperwald

    To quote Chris (July 13):
    “If the war was built on false information, then the same false information was believed by entirely 100% of the rest of the world”
    Sorry, but the 2 million protestors (among millions around the world) who marched with me in London against this bogus war had no doubt whatsoever that the WMD claim was completely and utterly rubbish. Millions and millions of people didn’t believe the lies you did, nor did their governments’ intelligence services. Face it, you got suckered. The same Mossad that was helping, along with the INC and the Iranians to disseminate false information to the gullible Brits and US media now says, “Oops!”, and dear Ann in her comment now thinks we should believe these clowns that the weapons have been moved to Syria. Jeez, she’ll be diappointed when the easter bunny really doesn’t show up! If you’re looking so hard for *real* WMD, why not start at home?
    “As to our ability being crippled to fight a war in the future, Sullivan assumes facts that are not in evidence.”
    How about the fact that 160,000 of you goofs can’t even manage to control one 2-bit 3rd-world country??
    “Both parties understood the egregious human
    rights violations of Saddam yet opposed lifting a finger to do anything about it.”
    Like you gave a flying toss about Saddam before Bush started beating the war drums! Really, stop being so hypocritical. Your country imposed sanctions that led directly to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children. Add to that the 10K+ civilian casualties of your illegal, immoral war, and you make Saddam look like Mother Theresa!
    “History will remember little about our precise justification for removing a homicidal maniac from power, it will just note that he was removed for the good of mankind.”
    Or maybe it’ll remember that a secular dictator in Iraq was violently overthrown by an act of aggression not seen since Hitler’s invasion of Poland in favour of a repressive Sharia-law state that actively supports terrorism, where before it had no links to terrorists at all.
    Next the parade of moronic “insights” continues on the 14th with this morsel from Syn:
    “In 1999, it has been confirmed that indeed Iraq did seek to obtain ‘yellowcake’ from Niger, according to both British and French intelligence.”
    Do you actually get the news where you live? It has long been known that Niger’s entire uranium output has always been 100% accounted for. The “sourcing attempt” documents were a *really* bad forgery. Period. Get over it.
    “Put this together, what does it tell you?”
    That your gullibility is boundless?
    “I am beginning to believe that the only way for some people to recognize the validity of removing Saddam from power would have been through a nuclear detonation.”
    I have no doubt you’re prepared to believe anything, no matter how far-fetched, that might acquit your moronic president of his war crimes.
    “Before 9/11 and all throughout the later part of the 20th century, Americans believed Al Queda could have been addressed through diplomacy and law enforcement.”
    Yeah, and before the war, Bush was telling everybody that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. It wasn’t true then, but it sure is now.
    “3000 innocents slaughtered in an instant.”
    Where, in Baghdad?
    “I won’t be fooled again.”
    Hahaha! I’m willing to wager a substantial sum that you get fooled all the time.
    Seriously now, are *all* Americans insane? How are you *all* so at odds with logic, common sense, and the opinions of everybody else in the entire world (give or take a few parasitical toadies)?
    America is currently illegally invading and occupying sovereign nations at will and setting up torture camps around the world. She’s a rogue nation now, and a serious threat to the peace of the world. Should a large military power then claim moral justification for trying to remove that threat? And don’t come with that macho crap; a handful of freaks in hijacked airplanes brought your mighty economy to it’s knees just by knocking down two skyscrapers.
    You know what happens to those that live by the sword? No, of course you don’t. Oh well, look it up.

  30. sbw Avatar

    Flipperwald would be wise to catch up on the Butler Report before another post.