Why Bush Really Attacked Iraq
There has been a lot of discussion about the real reason Bush attacked Iraq, but only I know the real reason. The real reason is that George Bush was jealous of Saddam Hussein. Think about it. Here Bush is, leader of the most powerful nation on earth, and he can't get away with half the stuff Saddam Hussein can. That kind of thing has just got to eat away at a man's craw.
posted by LeRoy at 8:24 PM
9 Comments:
The only one main reason why I never really supported the war on Iraq was because Bush never really told us the real reason to why he attacked Iraq. And yes, people to this day wonder why Bush really attacked Iraq..was it for the people of Iraq or was it for suspicion of 'WMD'? Funny thing is..Bush jumped on Iraq right after 9/11 had happened. Why all of a sudden Iraq became some target of liberation or 'threat' to USA? Why until 3 years ago or so, liberation became their goal after the government realized the people of USA weren't optimistic about Bush's action..when the people of this world knew all about Saddam's cruelty and 'misbehavior'? Considering you saying George Bush was jealous of Saddam, I'm starting to believe that he really attacked Iraq for his father's revenge..or shall I say 'mission completion'. We will not know the real reason until the mis-given statements will be revealed for the true statements to rise up and bald itself lol....or unless some kind man from the US government could share with us some secrets! heh.
Referring to your 3rd recent post about what's under the Burkas...I must say, a good post that is! The thing is, the ideology of women veiling themselves has gone too far...too far that new converts to Islam who I know of have allowed it to be taken too far where they themselves, wear burkas. As an Iraqis and many others, we don't really take religious demands or recommendations seriously all the time. There are many Iraqi women in and out of Iraq (not in Iraq anymore due to the situation) who didn't wear the veil and don't do so till now...any veil. So when we met this new female kiwi Muslim convert who wore the burka, we found it quite unusual, which we believed was taken too far. I could tell you that the Quran does not ask women to wear garments like a burka at all. It only asks women to cover their hair, and not wear clothes that might attract people of the opposite sex.
However, the annoying thing I had realized in quite a bunch of Arab countries is that Muslim women may wear an abaya (black cloak, not really like a burka ) and under that, they would wear these tight pants and short tops, of course with all that make up on their faces as well. God help them..I don't think that ever was the reason of the veil in the first place. They still attract attention after all, so their attempts of good deeds aren't as strong since they present themselves that way with that new abaya styles and fashion. Over all, it's not good to go over abroad or under broad. Moderate should be just fine for this modern society..well I hope.
So the media often picture the burka, abaya or headscarves as oppressive. Well, I might be objective but burkas aren't really what God or the Quran asked Muslim women to wear and do. Veils or headscarves/abayas have been with the Muslim tradition for years and years, just like the garment men wear which we Iraqis call 'dish dasha'. The only kind of garment women had when Islam was an official religion, was the head covering which covered only their hair and the long garment which covered their all body. There obviously weren't pants back then, were there? lol...well, it was unusual for women to wear such things back then anyhow. I suppose it may have been the fashion for women back then. But the burkas weren't. Burkas have been used and 'also followed' by some majority of Muslims to take Islam to its highest strictness; I don't think I should call it largely mis-interpreted..should I? Well, this is where I would say, Islam, Jihad and the veils have been misunderstood by many of us in this world, Muslim and Non-Muslim. Back when Islam was all one, garments did not end up being worn in such a way that resulted in a burka that now, you wouldn't even know where a woman is looking at..
Sara.
Thanks for your comment Sara. My post was more of a joke than anything else. I really don't think Bush attacked Iraq out of jealousy. I really think the situation is far more complex than that, while Bush had his reasons for attacking Iraq, other people in the administration had their own reasons for supporting him. I think greed for oil was one reason that many in the administration, and in the country, supported the war, but it may or may not have been one of Bush's reasons.
If I had to guess, I'd say that Bush went into Iraq for several possible reasons. The first was because he believed Sadam was a bad leader and needed to be deposed, and he thought that the U.S. could do it. I think most people in the U.S. believe that this was at least part of the reason, even though a lot of anti-Bush people might be reluctant to admit it.
Another reason was, of course, that Iraq has a lot of oil, and it is in the best interests of the U.S. to make sure that this oil is accessible. If Sadam was being "difficult", and threatening to withold oil if we didn't meet certain demands, we may have felt it was necessary to remove him.
Third, Bush's family has a lot of ties to the Saudi royal family, and it may be that the Saudi royal family wanted to get its hands on Iraq's oil, and Sadam's removal might open the door for them to get the oil.
This is, of course, all speculation. I wasn't really invited to any of the meetings where they discussed this.
As for why this all happened after 9-11, from what I've read/heard, Bush was interested in Iraq long before 9-11, and probably would have tried to come up with some excuse to attack them anyway. What 9-11 did was suddenly make attacking another nation more acceptable. After all, we had been attacked ourselves. Even though Iraq wasn't who attacked this, Bush obviously felt that he could twist things around enough to make people think Iraq was responsible. One thing to remember is that the vast majority of U.S. citizens don't really follow the news that closely. They catch the major headlines and that's it. If a newpaper reports on the first page one day that Iraq "may" have been involved, then follows it up on page 3 a few days later that the evidence proved false, most people will only see the first article. Politicians know this, and will often make outrageous statements with no backing, knowing that a lot of people will only hear this initial statement and will believe it.
Even if the first reason above is the overriding reason that we attacked Iraq, it doesn't necessarily follow that war is the best way to solve the problem. A lot of people have tried to compare Iraq with Japan after WWII, but there is one major difference: Japan attacked the U.S. first, and they were confident that they could win. When they lost, they gained a lot of respect for the U.S.. The difference in Iraq is that Iraqis already knew we were the stronger nation, so there was no sudden gaining of respect. Also, since we attacked Iraq, we were the aggressor, so we lost the moral high ground that we had in Japan.
Even so, I think we would have been successful in Iraq if we had been more respectful of Iraqi rights. If we hadn't invaded so many inocent Iraqi homes and arrested all of the males, covering their heads in bags and making them lie on the ground. If we hadn't imprisoned and tortured so many innocent Iraqis in Abu Ghraib (I know many of the stories of torture made it out to the Iraqi public even before the scandal was admitted in the U.S. because I saw people writing about it in their blogs). If we hadn't compromised Iraqi's freedom of speech by closing down Muqtada al Sadr's newspaper or the Baghdad office of Al Jazeera. If we had hired more Iraqi companies to rebuild Iraq instead of trying to reward our allies and Halliburton with rebuilding contracts. If we hadn't had so little respect for Iraqis rights, and upheld the same values in Iraq that we had at home, I think we wouldn't be seeing all of the uprisings that we're seeing right now. Remember, the violence in Iraq took a major turn for the worse right after we closed down Muqtada Al Sadr's newspaper, and it hasn't really let up since.
As for the Burka, you made a lot of interesting points about what the Quran actually says, and about the history of the veil, and you've given me a lot to consider, but you still didn't answer my question :)
Thanks for the reply LeRoy. I guess I took your post about Bush being jealous quite seriously, although I did chuckle about it at the very beginning, but not anymore, eh? lol. I am so much of an indecisive person. I look at things at both sides, the good and bad, but many times, I see the bad side of this war as that continuously stands out to the public more than ever. But as I may have said somewhere, knowing Bush is not telling the real truth about the reason of the war on Iraq makes me quite angry that I do not appreciate him or what he did at all. People, Iraqis and Americans are all at stake, risking their lives..don't we have a right to know? Doesn't everybody have a right to know what's happening? I don't even think Bush has a right to continue being president but all in all, if Bush is out of the President seat, and someone like John Kerry takes over, plans will change which highly can result with more problems for everyone.
I know to this day a majority of people including American citizens are yapping about how bad Islam and the people of Islam are. I know there are those out there who stereotype like that very well indeed, therefore, if USA is such a fair example of democracy, why don't the American people and other people from the rest of the countries in this world demand for their country to have ties with Muslim countries? Because I assure you there are people who have hatred towards the people of Islam and the religion itself, and that's fine by me as long as those people who do can stop having close ties with countries like Saudi Arabia. People yap and they get big shares of resources..so why the yapping? I am not specifically aiming this at USA but USA is involved with Muslim ties for oil like every other country has, which actually annoys the hell out of me. If the country is really democratic, and many people hate the guts of Muslims/Islam who insult them everyday, then they can bug off from the oil in the Middle East. My so called people aren't such excellent examples, nor are Aussies, Kiwis or even Americans..but as Muslims or Arabs have been the great attention lately, I have realized everyday that I am truly ashamed of them. Arabs generally are hot blooded and stubborn; when it doesn't go their way, they have to fight for it whether by words, swords or guns. What makes it worse is when they involve 'religion' into it, which is a big trigger for them to have or demand what they want. But just like the indecisive thoughts I have of the war on Iraq, I have love and hate for Arabs, Muslims and Iraqis at the same time. It's just impossible to simply hate them or love them. Things aren't that simple with this complex world and its diverse people.
However, you're fully right about most of what you said. You have fairly taken a better look at the situation than others do. The media is not the right place to rely on. But it does help when you have more than two sources to back the events, reasons and assumptions. One great source is people, not one person, but people, dozens of them.
The one big thing Iraq is so different from other countries USA had attacked, liberated or made war on is Iraqis have been oppressed for years. This war on Iraq has caused Iraqis to have an outburst. They were suppressed in all kinds of ways for years, they lost hope that they gave up on their end until Iraq was attacked. Iraqis who were only watching looked to religious leaders for advices on what to do. Others are still trying to 'express' their violent feelings of this long period of oppression and liberation. I never once doubted Iraqis are brainwashed from Saddam because my family had some situations with my aunts and uncles when they recently left Iraq not long from now, mainly about money and help. Since we left Iraq about 11 years from now, our family members looked to us like things were just fine for this family, that we had the money, the enjoyment, the real life. But we never really had it that way; we were just in trouble as they were, with their problem and ours.
Either way, whatever soldiers did to Iraq and Iraqis about being respectful of Iraqi rights, I still think that isn't the whole reason why they're acting this way. Al qaeda has been involved; insurgents are fighting off the future of Iraq with the 'USA'; other terrorist groups had asked for the female prisoners to be released? And one of them prisoners is a well respected Ba’athi. I wonder why!
I’m glad my last comment helped quite a bit about the ideology of veils and so on, which is really why I do comment to some extent. Now, the surprising thing is, I took your question about the Burka as a joke assuming you were being simply sarcastic. So the question again is, what do women wear under those burkas? Well, usually they wear the traditional dress similar to the ones men wear but rather the female traditional dresses have designs (they’re not white dresses like the men wear). That’s what they wore and still do, under the burkas in countries like Afghanistan. Other remaining Muslim countries, to what I see have gone astray, lol. I think Muslim women lost the plot of why they wear these garments, abayas or burkas. But usually those who wear burkas are more religious than the ones who just wear the black cloak which is the abaya. Hope that answers your question.
Sara.
Sorry, made a mistake…I meant to say ‘why don't the American people and other people from the rest of the countries in this world demand for their country to ‘stop’ having ties with Muslim countries?
My bad..
Maybe I just need to be clearer about when I'm joking and when I'm not. The post on Bush's reason for entering Iraq was said with a serious tone, but I assumed the meaning of what I was saying was ridiculous enough that people would recognise it as a joke. The post on what women wear under their burkas was serious, but I was a little embarrassed about the question, so I tried to make light of it, and I guess it looked more like a joke.
Anyway, I can't speak for the rest of the world, but at least in my small corner of it, people don't really blame all Muslims for the terrorism that's going on. Part of this might just be political correctness, but I really think most people understand that the people committing acts of terror are really only a small percentage of the Muslim population, and that most Muslims are as horrified as we are about it.
Now, I think it is true that most Americans feel that most Muslims are at least sympathetic with the reasons behind the terrorism, if not the terrorism itself. I also think that a lot of people will err on the side of caution when dealing with an unknown person who is clearly from the middle east, and may treat that person as if he/she could be a terrorist. I also think that, although the word "Muslim" is thrown around a lot, the real distinction is more racial than religious. There are millions of non-middle-eastern Muslims that would not arouse suspicion, whereas a Christian or Jew of middle-eastern origin might arouse suspicion.
I personally believe that there is justification for the animosity most middle-easterners feel towards the U.S. I think most of the terrorist groups are using that animosity to help get recruits, and that their main goal is to grab power for themselves, not to defeat Israel or the U.S., but the source of that animosity is valid. However, I think there are other courses of action that can be taken to try to correct the problem. Maybe some terrorism is necessary to get people attention initially, I'm not sure, but I think peaceful protest is a much more effective way of trying to correct tyranny. It worked in India when Ghandi was trying to kick the British out, and it worked in the U.S. when we protested the war in Vietnam.
I also like to think that this is what Jesus was trying to do when the Romans controlled Judea, but if so, it obviously didn't work for him. He was killed, and the Romans remained in Judea for several hundred more years.
I think Mohammad's method of going to war against the oppressors is valid in some situations. It obviously worked for him, and it worked for the U.S. when we broke away from the British. But I don't think it works against an enemy who is much more powerful that you are. Your attacks don't do enough damage and they turn public sentiment against you.
Where peaceful protest works best is when you have a society where the leadership's main justification for power is that they are working for the public's good, but where they are actually looking out for their own interests first. It is also most effective when you have freedom of speech. Without these criteria, you will probably lose as many lives in peaceful protest as you would through terrorism, but I still think your chances of success would be greater.
Anyway, I also wanted to comment on the Burkas. From what you said, it sounds like the burkas are something the women throw on before they go out in public, but at home they wear outfits similar to what the men wear. Is that correct?
The burkas have been in the news a lot lately, so I know what those are. I'm not sure I know exactly what an abaya is. Now I have seen two other outfits that Muslim women wear, one is black, which I must be what you're calling the abaya, and the other is white. The white one I've mostly seen in news stories about Saudi Arabia, so that may just be the Saudi version of the abaya.
This is just my opinion, but the black abaya looks very hot and uncomfortable, mostly because black tends to absorb heat from the sun a lot more. The white garment, to me, looks a lot more comfortable. I also think the white garment looks fairly attractive.
Anyway, I have to get back to work.
LeRoy
I took the post about bush seriously, only because every time I hear that name, I become quite frustrated of what good and bad Bush had done simultaneously. It’s not embarrassing to ask a question about a Burka, or the cultural life of a Muslim, man or woman. Everyone questions it, even I do. It’s actually a problem happening in the Middle East. But I am satisfied enough knowing that not all Middle Eastern countries demand for Muslim women and men to cover up, to the extent that people feel deeply suppressed that way.
The blame comes from sides; the people observing and the ones whose people are involved in the world situation of Terrorism. This life can’t have just one side or one group blamed. If you imagine thinking in someone’s shoes who is for the killing of foreigners in Iraq or the insurgency, they may believe what they are doing is good for their sake and others. So, now turn the table around as an observer, are the insurgencies and the killing of foreigners (as well as Iraqis) acceptable? No, not at all. No matter who does what, we are all human beings created by the one and only, whether Jesus or Allah. It’s just really how we see it; after all we are a great bunch of people in this world each owning a different set of views and opinions gained from observations and personal experiences. I call it impossible to just see the bad only…or the good only. Possibly the bad stands out more than any other but everything has its good and bad advantages to it, everything has its pain and pleasure. But unfortunately we are too one sided, we try to be one-sided but it’s difficult to be that way because something in your mind or eyes stands out more than the other, letting you take sides from it.
From what the world sees of Muslims that a majority of them do, is that Islam is about terror and killing. I may have thought and asked that myself at some point but I wouldn’t end up being a stubborn person believing my assumption is right. Because we do not have enough Muslims, men or women in Western countries or the Middle East speaking out against the Terrorism that has been going on, people begin to see that Muslims are proving their faith as a religion of terror and killing because they’re not speaking out against the action of their brothers and sisters who have done wrong. But it’s not like that, I think a majority, inside of them are supporting these violent steps to probably another World War. A majority of Muslims support 9/11, they support the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, and they support the insurgencies in Iraq. Surprisingly, I have met couple of people who aren’t Muslim that are ‘for’ all of these events. If only Muslims outside the Middle East spoke out louder, views would have changed…judgments would have changed, and possibly even actions from the USA government could have slightly changed. Gradually, after 9/11, many Americans began searching about the religion of Islam to find out more, many found out Islam was not the blame but many others as well used the wrong interpretations of the Quran and had made their lovely and shocking decisions from it. However, we Muslims in Western countries have sunk in to our little peaceful places that we don’t care much about what people think of us anymore. It’s just about us and only us now. No more sacrificing the blood of our brothers and sisters.
You are right though; the word Muslim has become more of a racial difference, rather than a religious one. There are little rumors assuming that most Muslims are Arabs, but originally that isn’t fully correct. Indonesia is a fair example that has more Muslims than the whole of the Middle East itself which I find quite amazing, in my perspective. Some of my friends had said that Arab Muslims make up only 20% of the whole Muslim population in the world… I cannot yet say it is true, they must have gotten it from the internet or something.
You personally believe that the terrorist group’s main goal is to grab power for themselves. Yes, it’s accurate enough but what makes you think that? Maybe it could have been revenge to some extent? I still think that terrorist groups like Al Qaeda are trying to isolate the Middle East from having connections and agreements with the West, particularly the USA. I still wonder though…Osama Bin Laden did have close relations with the CIA, was it?... how is it that Bin Laden just unleashed himself and ended up committing 9/11 just like that? Which reminds me, my mother has such incredible sarcastic ideas about politics…she thinks that the USA government brought Bin Laden to commit 9/11, so Bush can get up there and attack the Middle East in order to have more control of the Middle East for the ‘future’. And no, this isn’t one of the Al Jazeera stories lol.
When death is involved, people tend to change the direction of their eyes to the problem and ask ‘Why? How?’ …protests do bring people’s attentions eventually. As you said, they are effective for countries which have freedom of speech but it doesn’t work for everybody. I can bet…it doesn’t generally work for Muslims though and I’ll hope I am wrong on that. An act of Terrorism shows so much to us that it speaks louder than protests to some point. Terrorism can obviously be a faster way of proving something but since it’s so 'messy', it causes so much conflict as well.
You had mentioned of Mohammed’s method of going to war against oppressors. I may have taken what you said the wrong way but I want to remind you that war was the last option for him. You may believe it or not but at least I said it and that’s all I could do on my side. Many times, idol-worshippers and generally non-Muslims of all kinds and from all places had anonymously tried to kill Mohammed for being the way he was. Before Mohammed came to the world, there were Muslims but a small majority of them where Islam as their general belief was not an official religion until Mohammed discovered he was a prophet, the last prophet in Islam had come to complete it. Islam acknowledges the fact that the Middle East thousands of years ago had consisted of Jews, Christians, idol-worshippers and Muslims…where force wasn’t taken consistently. But as Mohammed came to this world just like a normal child, people didn’t believe him at first but he proved himself with the attitude he had. He was an honest and truthful man, a peaceful man who spoke the truth that people didn’t want to always hear. It’s rare that Mohammed had caught the attention of the world by the sword, so they say. People wouldn’t believe in him if he did force people to follow Islam and he would have lost that way eventually, but that didn’t necessarily happen until after his death where the conflicts we have now had begun from that time. Muslims became divided and had different assumptions about the point of Islam, about the prophets. These Sunni, Shiites divisions were all created after the death of the last prophet, the end of the prophecy for Islam where we people are and ‘should be’ given the right to do what we want, whether it is leaving Islam or converting to it. These divisions were created because tribes and groups of people wanted power of the next Caliphate. If people loved and committed their goals to their religion, there would be none of these conflicts but with luck, people in this life can’t be that close to being perfect in making decisions. However, each and every faith has had its time of problems or shall I say ‘bloodshed’? Its Islam’s turn now…I think Islam has had a lot of turns though, don’t you think? I admit Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East are backwards and what’s happening right now proves it. Islam can have its democracy and freedom, well it did and could have, but not now, not after all these divisions have been created by people.
In particular countries like Afghanistan, yes, burkas are something the women throw on before they go in public. You may have heard that women can’t even go out in public by themselves; they must have a ‘male escort’ who’s related to her. That’s how it was for Afghanistan before USA had attacked the country which has somehow considerably done well, more than it has for Iraqis actually. Women wear outfits that are similar to what men wear at home, but they’re also used when worn under the burka as well. You obviously stated that Muslim women wouldn’t wear anything under the burka...therefore, the long dress, which is called the dishdasha much like the men wear but has more designs, is worn under the burka when they go out in public.
Abayas are robe-like garments that can come in all colors, styles, and fabrics. They also include a normal headscarf that covers the hair particularly. The white one which you’ve seen in news stories in Saudi Arabia most likely relate to the pilgrimage to Hajj where women and men would wear something white as part of the cleansing and enjoyment (since that’s the whole point of Hajj). I don’t want to confuse you but each Muslim country does have its kind of abaya but they’re usually similar. However, the burkas and abayas are quite different. A normal hijab which I consider very appropriate are ones which just simply cover the hair and neck. You can also wear what you want, whether it may be pants or long skirts, as long as it doesn’t show much of the woman’s body figure. A Hijab is simply about avoiding lust and attraction. It should go both ways, by men and women.
If you’re comparing the abaya and burka, burkas are so much hotter while abayas which I myself do wear when I go to the mosque are more comfortable and less hot since they’re like robes that slightly cover the body figure. The abayas are also two pieces; the robe and a headscarf that covers your hair only. But yes, obviously the white ones are much better in all ways. I don’t think it matters what colour of abaya you have as long as it doesn’t attract so much attention. That’s the whole point of the general ideology of it.
PS: From your grateful comment about my latest post, it seems like a lot of Muslims are whining about how they long have fast while, we in New Zealand fast for more than 12 hours everyday. I know how it goes for them, even Muslims in the Middle East whine about how their sunset is ‘late’ even though it’s about 4 to 5pm! Bring those Muslims over here so I could teach them a lesson on what fasting really is lol.
Sorry if my reply was long. Better try to shorten it from now on.
Sara.
Boy, that was a long post :)
Let me see if I can comment on some of the points you made.
You mentioned that you'd heard that only 20% of Muslims are Arabs. This is probably true. I know that Islam in the dominant religion in many African countries, and you mentioned Indonesia. However, statistics can be misleading. For example, how do they (the people who came up with statistic) define 'Arab'? Most Iranians, when they come here, identify themselves as Persian, not Arabic. Also, when we were attacking Afganistan, there was a lot of talk about the Arabs who were coming into Afganistan, so the Afganis apparently don't consider themselves to be Arabic either. With that definition of 'Arab', I can easily see them being 20% or less of the total Muslim population. However, at least from the point of view of the people in the U.S., we see many of these countries as being in the same group. I originally wrote "all Middle Easteners" here, but certainly the Israelites are Middle Easteners but are considered in a different group. Also, I think most of us see Jordan and Egypt as being a little bit different as well.
I think the Palestinians have a legitimate beef against the Jews in Israel. We don't see very much of this in our news, but every once in a while we see a news article about the Jews are systematically destroying the homes of Palestinians in Israel. There is a lot of news about the wall that Sharon is building, and how he is cutting off families's access to their farms or schools, but there is also always the justification that the wall is needed to keep terrorists out of Israel. I think the wall is a good idea for security reasons, but I can't tell whether or not the wall is purposely being placed to cause hardship to the Palestinians, or if the problems we're hearing about are just isolated cases.
Thank you for your treatise on Mohammad. I won't say that you've entirely convinced me that Mohammad was a man of peace, but I am open to that possibility. It is certainly a very interesting question, and one that I wish I had the time to really investigate. However, I am very aware that most Muslims right now would like to see an equitable peace in the Middle East.
You are very right about all religions having their "time of bloodshed", but I think the jury is still out about whether it's Islam's turn right now. I don't know the exact numbers, but I know that every time I hear about an Islamic attack that kills an Israeli, I hear about an Israeli counter-attack that kills twenty Pallestinians. Certainly we've killed far more Afganis and Iraqis in the last two wars than the number of citizens that were lost in the World Trade Center combined with the number of military casualty's we've suffered in Iraq and Afganistan. And that is my main point. The terrorists and their supporters cannot win this battle through violence. There are too many of us. If they want to win this war, they need to convince the majority of people in the world that they are in the right, and they can't do that through suicide bombers and beheadings.
As to my comment that the terrorists are only out to gain power for themselves, I do believe that they started with an altruistic goal of defending their own rights. However, once the power structure of the terrorist organization was created, it needed to maintain a state of being persecuted in order to maintain itself. Once the state of Palestine was created, the terrorist activities should have stopped, and all future struggles should have been political. They had their foot in the door. They had a base from which they could have continued to fight for what they needed. However, if this had happened, all of the leaders of the other terrorist organizations would have suddenly been left without a purpose, and without a power base. Therefore, in order to maintain their power, they had to say that whatever gains they made weren't good enough, and that they still needed to fight for more.
Anyway, I'm still not all of the way through your post, and my sister is going to be on T.V. in about 8 minutes, so I have to go. I'll try to finish up later.
Thanks for the comment,
LeRoy
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
well, bush was doing the best thing, i mean, you know.... if saddam had really had nuclear ambitions, then we could had one hell of a problem
Post a Comment
<< Home