Cheney's the One »
Posted By elzorro2162 1 year, 8 months ago in NewsThe nation is abuzz with talk of Presidential impeachment.House speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken the subject "off the table."The reason she gives is compelling: the Democratic majority will be overplaying its hand, just as the Gingrich crowd did in 1998.The voters expect less partisanship and more actual accomplishments from the newly-insta
Read Full Story at commondreams.org »
Submitted By:
elzorro2162
I am Latino, I love watching and practicing sports (especially baseball), enjoy working out and living a healthy lifestyle. I also enjoy movies and acting ...
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 456
-
0%
elzorro21621 year, 8 months ago
Maybe this is a good idea, since some dems don't have the guts to get Bush impeached. Instead of getting the puppet, get the puppetmaster. It'll be enough to keep this administration in check from NeoCon loonies and their Machiavellic schemes.
Z
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
blackolives1 year, 8 months ago
Even Nancy Pelosi is smart enough not to listen to the left wing wackjobs. If the Dems were to cave into the loonies and try to impeach, they would completely alienate the average voter and ruin any chance to win back the White House. Besides most Democrats are to cowardly to actually defend the country, and to cowardly to take a stand on principle that might cost them votes. Keep dreaming.
Reply-
75%
donald511 year, 8 months ago
...funny how many more of those Dems in Congress served in the military versus Repugs who have done likewise. Does experience in war make one more hesitant to want future war? - YOU BETCHA! Coward is not the issue, but you can live with your delusions in a BUSH America (the one that created Abu Ghraib and Gitmo). Lets impeach the both of them for absolute leadership failures in all they've done, any good company would have done so long ago!
Reply -
0%
LeftTurn1 year, 8 months ago
Much truth in your words BlackOlives, although the article was too opinionated and biased.
And don't jump on your "cowardly" horse so soon, because your ability to be an effective politician depends on being able to live and fight another day, it is more important to know who you are up against. Jr may not be great at reading speeches, but let's just say, it's all in WHO you know, and he knows the people that matter. All Cheney has to do is lie through his teeth, but if he gets purged under oath, through other testimony, he really may have to tell the truth or face severe consequences, one would think since it's a "national security" issue.
Reply -
-
0%
jaern1 year, 8 months ago
"Besides most Democrats are to cowardly to actually defend the country, and to cowardly to take a stand on principle that might cost them votes. "I will admit, Repub,icans 'talk the talk' but history shows they don't tend to 'walk the walk'.
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
mcarpentry1 year, 8 months ago
elzorro2162, Again I must say, NO CRIME, NO IMPEACHMENT, quit with the left wing mantras.
Reply-
0%
hamy1 year, 8 months ago
But he did commit crimes. Crimes against his own people. Just like Saddam Hussein. Isn't that why we are in this mess? Because Saddam was hurting his own people?
Maybe someday someone will come and occupy our country to save us from our ruthless dictator.
Reply-
-
0%
ScottMiller1 year, 8 months ago
You guys don't know what a dictator is. You have lived here spoiled your whole life and you think government oppression is having to go through a DUI road block.
The fact is that if any of you had spoken up in Iraq like you do on these forums, you would have been shot in the street. You spew hate and discontent on these forums because the government doesn't do what some talking head told you they should be doing yet statistics show that half of you don't even vote.
The politicians on the right and the left act the way they do because the electorate is more concerned with what happened on American Idol than they are as to whether the policies being proposed in our government are in our best interest or simply crafted as fortresses to secure power for what ever right or left wing group is promoting them.
You guys want to blame Bush or Pelosi, I say we got no one to blame but ourselves.
Reply-
0%
donald511 year, 8 months ago
Scott, so you weren't fooled by the media and Cheney claiming WMD falsely? Any media that didn't go along lost access and was declared unpatriotic. Most hard working Americans evidently feel victim to Rove'scheme because they only have time to get the big picture and because they want to trust their government. You sir need to place the blame where it is due on this manipulative, corrupt administration that has also defined torture as only that which kills and conducted pre-emptive war in contravention of international law. You need to wake up!
Reply-
0%
MrPlumber1 year, 8 months ago
Again, you're all over the place here. Does this ranting come easily for you or do you feel pain when you try to think?
Although, this time I'll bite. Just curious, who lost access? When someone is declared unpatriotic, is that an official decree? Who does the declaring and why do you care? Do you want them censored?
Reply-
0%
LeftTurn1 year, 8 months ago
The thing is, you are ALL correct in this last thread, which means we stand on the same ground, and there IS no argument after that. Once we learn to take each others advice, and compromise with each other, is when society works for everyone.
United we stand, divided we fall...
Dictators rule in the "divided" part and they can be on any side of the fence, you figure it out.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
ONEMEMPHISDUDE1 year, 8 months ago
My intent, honestly, was to just look at the comments tonight. I can't believe there are so many out in left field! "The Nation abuzz with talk of Impeachment"???? This is incredibly stupid! No one will be impeached. Nancy Pelosi has now told you fools that it won't happen.
For the sake of The Dems...please bring on your leadership quickly and get the troops in order! If not soon, you'll awake to another lost Presidential Election and be screaming, once again, about having it stolen.
p.s. "Commondreams.org"? Pipe Dreams is a more appropriate moniker.
Reply -
0%
ConquerorWyrm1 year, 8 months ago
And your solution? Perhaps we should all, since half of us don't vote, we have food in our bellies and American Idol is the current fad (bread and circuses), just shut are mouths?
Or are you suggesting that since we don't know what a dictator is and we're spoiled, we perhaps should have a dictator?
Sir, I don't think we who regularly exchange barbs and ideas here (netscape audience in question) fit very well the stereotype you've put forth. From both the political right, left and other, I suspect we're mostly voters in these forums and are here to a) engage in this next step in the Democratic Experiment {instant nationwide public discourse}, b) learn, c) blow off steam...one way or another.
But, since we're to blame ourselves, what should we do to show our collective acceptance of guilt? How shall we shrive our sins (shortcomings) concerning our spoiled, lazy and ignorant lives?
Or were you just blowing off steam?
Reply-
67%
LeftTurn1 year, 8 months ago
Maybe we should have an independent voice that includes everyones ideas. A Netscape blog of the best shared ideas we have here to be sent to our senators and congressman of every state, in care of our blog, The Unified Citizens of America Blog...
Well, it had a nice ring anyway.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
jeffery11 year, 8 months ago
Sorry, but we went to Iraq because the administration lied about the threat Saddam posed. They claimed he had WMDs. Slam dunk.
You're a great example of the kind of buffoon that the right-wing needs: no need for truth only tough nationalistic talk and shows of military might. We need to see exactly why people like you are so dangerous to our Republic and you continually provide tht evidence.
Reply-
0%
jeffery11 year, 8 months ago
Oh, I see, you just say anything that pops into your head that is opposite the truth. Pretty slick, I must say.
Reply-
0%
mivan41 year, 8 months ago
Actually it is the TRUTH and you can add the Clintons to Pelosi and Schumer.
Reply -
-
0%
jeffery11 year, 8 months ago
Um. Manorak wrote "Actually it was the DEMS like Pelosi and Schumer who lied about WMD's" He did not write that the Dems were "for going against WMDs".
Read the fool's post before you write yours.
Besides, the fact that no WMDs were found and Saddam had no oprational WMD program is proof that the administration lied. In fact the Pentagon itself admitted that Rummy and staff lied. Bush mandated that Saddam step down which forced the UN weapons inspectors to pull-out, Bush had to do this because he couldn't afford to have the UN prove Saddam had no WMDs because he'd loose the reason to invade.
And it was all to control the Middle East through yet another compliant puppet government. PNAC said so!
Reply-
93%
mivan41 year, 8 months ago
He was pointing out if GWB lied then so did a Few of your Favorites . You can't have it both ways. But if there weren't
WMD's and no ONE is actually sure even to this day, 500 tons of Yellow Cake Uranium found in Baghdad definatley showed Saddam had the intent of making some more and even bigger ones.
Reply-
-
0%
mivan41 year, 8 months ago
He has indicated such, but there is still evidence that
shows that Saddam may indeed have had them such as the Syria link
Reply -
0%
mivan41 year, 7 months ago
Actually this is President Bushes exact words
"Weapons of destruction MAY not exsist"
This does not say they do not exsist.
I like however that you have descovered president
Bush tells the Truth since you now believe him!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
slate1 year, 8 months ago
Your doing the crawfish there Jeffery and it's not quite mud bug season!!!!!
I know what he wrote,,, the Dems were for going after Saddam and WMDs when Billy Bob was Lobbing cruise missiles to redirect attention from this infamous stained dress thing. If trying to do something about WMDs is good enough for Billy it should for W as well. And with that assertion,,,, if W lied so did, Both Clintons, Pelosi, Kerry and the Hallelujah chorus!!!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Candida1 year, 8 months ago
manorak,
Here you go again. A lot happened between 1998 and 2003. In 2003 the UN weapons inspectors found nothing.
However, the more important point is that it makes no difference whether people believed that those weapons existed. There was no reason to rush into war becasue Saddam was contained, and that's why the US avoided a second UN vote. Even those who believed that Saddam had WMD did not believe that he posed an imminent threat. That's why President Bush had to play up the danger and use the colourful language describing the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Reply-
0%
injest1 year, 8 months ago
Here you go again. A lot happened between 1998 and 2003. In 2003 the UN weapons inspectors found nothing
Exactly but you missed the point. UN inspectors were forced out of Iraq in 1998. The inspectors still believed Iraq had WMDs when they were forced out, as did all these Pols. No UN inspectors were back in Iraq till just before the war. It wasn't till Saddam was removed and we had control that we found out he "apparently" has no weapons. If you like I can bring up the Quote's and votes from 1998 to 2001 that said paraphrasing " Hey Mr. President either sh*t or get off the pot as it related to Iraq and the Iraq liberation act.
This whole Bush lied claim seeks to ignore the reality that Iraq has been a problem long before Bush ever took office. Its lame and stupid, it gets us nowhere.
Reply-
83%
Candida1 year, 8 months ago
I believe all the quotes from 1998 to 2003, but the war started in 2003 and the weapons inspectors were back in Iraq immediately before the war and found nothing. The administration insisted that they knew where the weapons were, and the inspectors were asking for that information so that they could go and check. They received nothing. Instead, they were told to get out if they didn't want to get blown to pieces.
I don't even want to find excuses for the Democrats who voted for the war. This is not a partisan issue. They all should have done their homework and should have used their heads. I believed that Saddam had WMD in 2003 and still found the war unjustified and illegal. Letting the weapons inspectors work in Iraq for a few more months with the best intelligence available would have presented no danger to anyone.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
injest1 year, 8 months ago
Does this help jeffery?
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Reply
-
-
0%
blackolives1 year, 8 months ago
No, we went to Iraq because an overwhelming majority of U.S. Senators, 98 of 100, or 98% for the brain dead left wing, voted to approve military action. After the first Gulf War, which was also approved by the U.S. Congress, as cease fire was signed. The agreements of this cease fire were repeatedly violated by Iraq, and over 20 worthless U.N. resolution were passed condemning Iraq. Every country in the world believed Iraq had WMD, including Bill Clinton who stated it as a fact. It was also repeated by Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, and every presidential candidate the Democrats put up for office. They all stated that Saddam was a threat, and if you didn't believe that don't vote for them. At least you lefties should have some intellectual honesty, but why let the truth get in the way of your rantings.
Reply-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 8 months ago
This page contradicts your statement.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s200
You gentlemen are getting the resolutions confused. The AUF that got the 98-0 votes was the one to go into Afghanistan on September 18, 2001 but the AUF, of October 11,2002, to go into Iraq was passed by 77-23 which didn't have the support that all you conservatives try to say it had.
Reply -
0%
ConquerorWyrm1 year, 8 months ago
Didn't Mr. Bush tell us, the U.S. public, that he would return to the U.N. one more time before he began operations? Yes, he did, in his own words. Then he never returned to the U.N. but began aggressive operations.
By not going back to the U.N. one last time, even for show, Mr. Bush went against his word that he had given the American public. This is commonly known as a lie.
Others can be provided as example, and have, but I wanted to point this little one out since it fit into the time period and circumstances in question.
When ranting, please include (and this is just a helpful hint so that your credibility stays intact) at least least one example of error when attempting to build a case. It helps to present a more humble, and thus apparently honest, persona. By presenting only aggressively damning evidence and none defensive, you suffer as does your argument. Attempting to pin the tail on the political donkey with purjured pachyderms present is also pointless.
Reply-
0%
Candida1 year, 8 months ago
"By not going back to the U.N. one last time, even for show"
You are right, but it wouldn't have been for show. He couldn't go back to the UN because at least one veto was waiting for him, and even the votes of quite a few countries would have been negative. That would have been the end of his ambitions in Iraq. With a negative Security Council vote, it would have been really difficult to justify attacking Iraq.
Reply-
-
0%
Candida1 year, 8 months ago
I agree that there is no justification for the Iraqi war, but don't you remember all the rhetoric about enforcing an earlier UN resolution? With a clear UN vote against the war, it would have been that much more difficult to convince the public that this war was for "protection."
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
elzorro21621 year, 8 months ago
froggy57: There are plenty of bad dictators and regimes around the world. If the excuse was Saddam's crimes, these pale in comparison to the genocide in Darfur, and the starving under Kim Jong Il in Korea. But waht is the difference, froggy57, between these 2 regimes and Saddam? OIL!!!!! I will be the first to give you an accolade when that realization is acepted by you as fact. If we are to begin elminating dictators, by all means lets begin with the most evil and dangerous ones, Saddam's just chump change, buddy!
Z
Reply-
100%
jeffery11 year, 8 months ago
With morons like froggy, at least we know that "bringing democracy" couldn't be a valid reason for invading Iraq, it wasn't anyway, because froggy obviously hates the Iraqis and all people in the Middle East. It's just too bad that he posts his crap because now everyone in the Middle East can see just how sick and pathetic the right-wing in the U.S. is. It gives them more fuel for their fire.
Reply -
0%
epcookjr1 year, 8 months ago
the terrorist didn't come from north Korea. they came from the middle east. Saddam was a terrorist. he terrorized his own people. he terrorized the nations around him. he was the essence of evil. and we did the right thing removing him from power and helping to establish 2 democratic nations in that region. regardless of what reason was given, there were many very real and justifiable reasons why we should have done what we did. justifiable in the eyes God and man.
Reply-
-
0%
epcookjr1 year, 8 months ago
we built the democratic country that japan enjoyes now and the deomcratic germany. creating those governments was not without loss of life or difficuty. and if the democratic congress will let us get on with our job instead of playing politics with it like they did in Vietnam when the democrates committed treason and were directly responsible for the loss of American lives, we will succeed here also.
Reply-
-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 8 months ago
Better read up pal, the Taliban is building up in strength and have taken over a town that once was secure by the British and American forces.
Reply
-
-
0%
Watchemoket1 year, 8 months ago
Those successes were not the result of unilateral action by the US against a country that had not attacked us, but of a coalition of Allied nations who defended themselves from unprovoked and vicious attacks, defeated the aggressor nations and then (with predominately but not solely American leadership and money) rebuilt one and a half of the three Axis nations. Italy had changed sides, and Germany was divided by the Soviets.
Those countries were not torn apart by sectarian violence driven by centuries of hatred and bloodshed, as Iraq is. Those countries were viable nations long before the 20th century (Japan for centuries, Germany for decades), but Iraq only became a country after WW1 and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. There is little or no viable 'national identity' in Iraq without a powerful leader to spark it (no, I don't mean Saddam was good, but he served that purpose for the Iraqis).
No amount of perserverence will accomplish an undefined goal in an artifical country.
Reply-
100%
epcookjr1 year, 8 months ago
japan was totally unilateral. russia tried to grab some territory at the end of the war but did nothing to help us win it and America was solely responsable for the founding of that nations democratic government
on the european front, it was America and england with a sprinkling of french against the axis of evil at that time. all other countries had been crushed by germany.we provided the money and the driving force in creating a democracy in germany that still stands today. i would note that the democratic policy today was america's policy before we entered wwII and was a mistake then too. and germany did not attack us either.
also, i remind you we are part of a colision fighting in iraq under the same circumstances as wwII
Reply-
0%
Candida1 year, 8 months ago
My vote was a mistake, I meant to respond.
Although there is the coalition of the willing in Iraq, their numbers are dwindling, and the circumstances are certainly not the same as in WWII. Iraq didn't attack anybody in 2003, nor was it already in any war with anybody.
In terms of winning WWII, you seem to be forgetting the Soviet Union, which was an ally and fought quite a hard fight against the Germans. There were also a number of smaller countries, such as Canada or Rumania. The US did help build democracy in half of Germany, but it abandoned all of Eastern Europe to dictatorships. I can understand why it happened at the time; I just don't like the rhetoric: We stamp out dictatorships wherever we find it, and build democracies in its place.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
Sabretooth1 year, 8 months ago
Great work, i was misinformed and thought the fight was about liberating the oilfields from russian and french contractors and giving it to exxon where it rightly belongs. Now that i realize this was about a repressive regime change and bringing about democracy i would like to inquire about your timetable for Saudi Arabia. I understand that they have been thwarting you and arming the sunni insurgency against the liberated Shiites. Not to mention sending all those terrorists on 911.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
jeffery11 year, 8 months ago
The invasion was illegal. Bush is a war criminal. That you support the administration doesn't change those facts. One fact is that Bush lied about the threat Saddam posed and that is why we invaded. The other excuses were required because the original lies were shown to be lies. And you bought them, hook line and sinker.
There were other ways to achieve the ends you claim are so right without the devastation but you right-wingers are wholly incapable of understanding them. So, we are where we are.
Reply -
80%
epcookjr1 year, 8 months ago
as far as dicky chaney is concern, he is a criminal. he stole from the American people. wheather or not they impeach him is political. they should prosecute him under the law. also gonsales should be prosecuted for lying to congressmen and with holding evidence in a legal case concerning the boarder guards.
Reply-
0%
terrestrial1 year, 8 months ago
I'm amazed that I totally disagreed with your first comment, and now completely agree with this one. I can only add that criminals shouldn't hold office, and therefore should be impeached.
Reply
-
-
0%
terrestrial1 year, 8 months ago
I wonder what it's like not being able to distiguish real dangers from imagined ones epcookjr. It's like cheering for someone who attacked a shadow that is the size and shape of a rabid bear, when turning on the lights for a clearer view would have resolved the problem. You ignore the complicity of Saddams aggression. You fail to notice that none of the villians of Sept. 11th were from Iraq, fail to realize that there are non-military ways of dealing with tyrants, and fail to address the problems that resulting in deposing Saddam. Indeed, Saddam was a tyrant of the worst pedigree, but a plan without action is a dream and action without a plan is a nightmare.
You conflate Afghanistan with Iraq, which are two totally different wars, although both are being fought on the cheap. You get an F.
Reply -
0%
hamy1 year, 8 months ago
What's worse about North Korea is that they have missiles that can reach us. Saddam couldn't. They can reach us and our allies without having to come onto our soil Much worse.
No justification. No provocation. Only oil and money for their own pockets.
Reply
-
-
0%
blackolives1 year, 8 months ago
How is Darfur worse than Iraq? Saddam gassed tortured and killed thousand of his people. Do you lefties care about human rights or not? Clinton and the U.N. allowed 800,000 Africans to die in Rhawanda and did nothing. All you people can do is talk. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
Reply-
0%
RedstateLib1 year, 8 months ago
Well what about those of us who believe war is sometimes needed such as Afgahnastan, and sometimes an unnecessary fools mission such as Iraq? Are we Vets that think this way the cowards you speak of? Are you one of those better men that are defending our freedom that we have already proven our willingness to defend?
Reply -
0%
Candida1 year, 8 months ago
blackolives,
So why is Iraq worth fighting for? It posed no threat to the US. The people Saddam killed have been dead for more than a decade, and they won't live again. Now the war has added a few hundred thousands more dead Iraqis to their numbers at the cost of more than 3000 American lives and countless injured. The place is a mess and may never become a real Western style democracy. Explain to me how this is better for anyone?
You pretend to care about human rights, but you don't care one bit about human beings.
Reply
-
-
0%
deathray1 year, 8 months ago
Ostensibly, froggy, Saddam is why we went into Iraq. The terrorsits were elsewhere. Our own government has stated this.
Our adventure into Iraq was not a matter of necessity (for the American people.) It was 100% elective.
We freed the Iraqis from Saddam, and we've given them the trappings of democracy, and they are using those trappings to revive centuries old tribal vendettas.
We are assisting in the change of oppression in Iraq. We are a Sunni secular dictator with theocratic Shia oligarchs, because those really were the government options in Iraq.
The larger Middle East is a different issue. We've dealt with good and bad governments everywhere, and I guarantee that we will continue to do so. It is HOW this Administration deal with foreign policy that I object to. Our foreign policy is utterly ham handed. I'm not saying there isn't a time to be tough, but this isn't getting us where we want to be.
We may learn a powerful lesson before this is all over.
Reply-
-
-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 8 months ago
What would have been correct would have been to finish the job in Afghanistan first by finding the man accused of the WTC attack and that would have sent a message to all that you are not safe if you attack this country. This man is still free and making fun of the American military. There was plenty of time for Iraq but Bush Jr have a chip on his shoulder.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 8 months ago
They didn't fly the planes into the WTC did they? Bin Laden was a Saudi and many of the highjackers that captured and flew the planes into the buildings.
Reply
-
-
-
-
20%
jeffery11 year, 8 months ago
Impeachment is a political process not a legal one. Didn't you learn anything from the travesty Clinton suffered? No crime there yet he was impeached and then aquitted. How can the right-wing be so wrong and hypocritical? Go figure, all that talk about "liberty", "freedom", "justice", and other empty platitudes.
Reply-
-
-
0%
oneeyewillie1 year, 8 months ago
OK its like deja-vu took 7 years to investigate a crook that spent the whole time lying about everything. Now I remember this reminds me of Sen. Kennedy after he killed his Boiler room girl and drove her body off a bridge and forgot that it happened and didn't report it till after he swam across a 500 meter channel and spoke to his lawyer and friends avoiding the use of phones. Kennedy entered a plea of guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. He received a sentence of two months in jail, which was suspended. The sentence was notable in that the statute for the crime provided only for mandatory jail time and not the discretion of a suspended sentence Democrats get away with murder and if you don't you hypocrites allow yourselves to get out of jail (cause your so rehabilitated) to commit your crimes again. Is it any wonder that CNN took a poll on which way inmates would vote if they were given a chance to - Democrat.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
mivan41 year, 8 months ago
Clinton plea bargained to get off, He lost his Bar License for
four years for Perjury, Actually that was EASY on him, anyone else commiting PERJURY goes to jail since it is a FELONY.
There were also alot of other things he was being investigated for, but mysterioulsy the Key state witnesses either died (violently and suddenly) or stopped talking. Among the investigation, Illegal investments
called White Water, Rape of several women and several other sexual crimes!! For the Uninformed (usually liberals since they don't like hearing the TRUTH about their leader) Loss
of his bar License Means he was no longer allowed to Practise Law, not that he couldn't own a BAR
Reply-
0%
oneeyewillie1 year, 8 months ago
Damn straight he was horrible and for that matter so is she. I don't even blame the guy for cheating on his wife. I would have to if I was married to that hag of a femi Nazi he called a wife. The part that yanks my chain is that he looked dead in your eyes with his happy stain on the dress and said he didn't do it. Just like his never inhaled line or his rape stories that run from his college years all the way to Monica. I could type and never stop if I went into all the crap Hillary and him did or plan to do. They suck. Liberals just get to scream louder when they have something to say because the media is generally very liberal.
Reply
-
-
0%
oneeyewillie1 year, 8 months ago
My whole squad here at FT. Campbell just gave you a big Hoooah! Leftist are the main reasons why the enemy hates us. Osama was even quoted for saying it wasn't the freedom the Americans have he hates but it's what the Americans do with their freedom that he hates. Even though I will/would draw great personal satisfaction from striking the skull of the idiot with the butt of my rifle, I have to admit he's got a point. I just want to get things wrapped up with out all the PC politics. Come home and start focusing on ourselves. This extreme left crap has got to stop.
Reply-
20%
oneeyewillie1 year, 8 months ago
Ubetcha! 101st Airborne more than willing to get the job done! Just need to be given the command to take the hill instead of secure the hill.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
-
