Carter says comments were 'careless' »
Posted by: monte-g 1 year, 3 months ago493 Comments Report this Story
39th president had blasted Bush administration as 'worst in history'
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 493
-
-
-
-
0%
SantaM1 year, 3 months ago
I think he just realized that he was attacking a man and an adminitration and not a policy in the way his words were interpretted, and whether or not he believes it is personal is neither here nor there, he shouldn't, out of respect for decency and teh office he held, make personal attacks... even if they were unintentional.
i think carter is constantly showing humility in how vulnerable he allows himself to be with regards to opening himself to attacks from opposition for simply doing what he thinks is right.
in this case, apologizing for what was innappropriate if not true, is the RIGHT thing to do.
but go ahead and attack him for it. He knows you're going to. thats all you can do when your own policies are complete failures.
Unlike carter's. Whose policies of peace in the middle east, untangling ourselves from their mess, and getting the country to kick its oil addiction were right on the money. and 30 years ahead of the problems we find ourselves in now.
Reply-
-
89%
SantaM1 year, 3 months ago
Fair enough. But the point is that an apology for maing comments that were interpretted as personal attacks and not policy judgement is appropriate and a sign of strength and personal honor and humility.
thats all.
Reply -
63%
LordyLordy1 year, 3 months ago
Darn peanut farmer?
I tried having a turkey farm once. Bought a 100 turkeys. 8 days later they were all dead. Bought 200 more. Within a week they were all dead. Could never figure out if I was watering them too much or planting them too deep?
Just too much BS in here...lighten up on poor old Jimmy. He has oldhimers now.
Reply
-
-
30%
nccneon1 year, 3 months ago
IMO George Bush, the individual, deserved the attack I heard from Carter. I was proud of him for speaking his mind so forcefully. If it weren't for George Bush, the individual, we wouldn't be enduring the policies of the George Bush regime.
I was really disappointed to hear of Carter's retraction.
Reply-
-
63%
SantaM1 year, 3 months ago
whether george bush DESERVED the attack or not, i think is beside the point. the insinuation of a personal attack at all, whatever the intent, was felt to be ouside the realm of policy criticism and therefor innappropriate. carter, if he felt this way, did the right thing in apologizing for the miscommunication and stressing the policy comparison he was intending to make.
if i could use a horrible non-equivalent as an example... someone makes fun of your sister and you beat the crap out of them. what you did is wrong and whether or not the person deserved it is irrelevent.
Reply
-
-
-
-
83%
worthlesswhiteman1 year, 3 months ago
I'll take careless comments over careless actions any day of the week. Go eat another gut sandwich.
Reply-
0%
LordyLordy1 year, 3 months ago
I liked Jimmy Carter but he was surrounded by buffoons when he was in the white house. I think Jimmy should confine himself to giving away houses free of charge to those who won't work. That seems his positive side. At this stage though he should shut up before someone reminds him of what he did not do in Iran.
Reply-
100%
LordyLordy1 year, 3 months ago
Be sure and wave your flag. I believe the colors of yours is yellow, not red white and blue? The colors of my flag don't fade and they don't run.
Jimmy Carter's Adminstration was responsbile for the bungling fiasco of the Iran hostage deal, which ended up being more than just a black eye for this country due to his lack of resolve.
I'm tired of watching gutless politicians who do nothing, especially when their country is attacked. I guess you'd just watch while your wife and daughter are raped? Sorry, not me bud. I was content on letting our far too kind leadership continue dealing with problems like Bierut, USS Cole, but when they leveled the WTC, sorry, that was their Pearl Harbor. I'd put a bounty on those SOB's and give the rednecks $1000 each for bagging them. I'd prefer their company over a cowards any day of the week.
I actually liked Jimmy Carter but he was surrounded by buffoons.
Reply-
0%
Jaydee401 year, 3 months ago
The colors red, white, and blue, do run and do fade so don't talk so crazy. Americans forces, can and have been defeated and have also been made to retreat. You are not a nation of supermen so don't think you can run your foreign policy that way, the world is not berger king and you can't always have it your way every day. What would you have done any different than Carter?
The failed attempt shows the military's abilities at that time for a small strike and to mount a full scale attack would have been impossible to do without tipping the Iranians of resulting almost surely in the deaths of the hostages. When Reagen started his own negotiations before being elected the fate of the hostages were doomed to stay until the election was over. I remember some people, and rightly so called it treasonous, but it showed just how low Reagen would sink to win the election,
Reply -
-
88%
LordyLordy1 year, 3 months ago
I never said Jimmy Carter was a coward, just surrounded by fools and buffons. Jimmy was a peanut farmer and personally I like goober peas, once I figured out they weren't really peas after all but small round peanuts!
Heck the French were probably to blame for it. Every war we've managed to get sucked into in the last 100 years, they've been there first, rabble rousing and whatever else it is that they do. Maybe we should just learn to do without French Toast. Flapjacks for me instead.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
LordyLordy1 year, 3 months ago
Anyone who does not believe Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 are clearly smoking those funny little cigarettes. You only need to connect the dots, follow the money, and follow the terrorists. I suspect there are more countries involved, although none of them, including Saudia Arabia will admit their citizens were involved as well.
We just cannot and could not continue sitting back while they indiscriminately attacked our country. I think we've had about all the diplomacy we can stand. It's time, as the marines say it, to lock and load, hunt those terrorists down like the dirty rotten criminal scum they are. These are no enemy combatents...they kill women and children, and they could care less whose. These are not freedom fighters, these terrorists are simply sick criminals, and they need to be hunted down like rabid dogs and killed. Its too late for the rabies shot...they're already too sick to help.
Reply
-
-
0%
not2needy1 year, 3 months ago
One major difference in Bush and Carter is...... Carter gives and asks for nothing in return, like any good Christian would. Bush claims to be a Christian and steals from the US everything his greedy hands can grab, and gives nothing back but body bags.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
jdhatl1 year, 3 months ago
that means that mass murder of foreign populations is considered classy, opening up a foreign country for a genocidal civil war is good 'form'. Liberals come in all types these days, since by your definition that would include anyone who opposes Bush and/or the war. Neo-cons only come in one style: jackboot hate-driven wannabe nazis
Reply-
0%
NoSpinDave1 year, 3 months ago
Your assertion of "mass murder" is absurd....unless you mean the TERRORISTS setting of all the IED's killing civilians.....oh, its all good when its them. I forgot. Up is down and right is wrong in liby land.
FYI...I dont support everything Bush does or has done....I know its easy for people like you to assume such things though since you probably arent capable of independent though outside of the liberal "group think" talking points.
So what makes me a Neo-con as opposed to just a regular conservative anyway (or even a moderate with conservative views on national security)? Just curious. I support many liberal social views. So how am I a neo- (ohh so evil sounding) con again?
I know these are hard questions for a dope smoking, left wing terrorist sympathizer such as yourself, so try not to fall into a "bad trip" when you read this and think....if you are capable of thought.
Reply -
78%
LordyLordy1 year, 3 months ago
What I find amusing is the fact that the liberals are all attacking Bush, when he is one of the most liberal Republicans to hold office in 20 plus years. It's just hate speech. I swear, some of these left winger wackos, would surrender before a fight even started because they might break a nail or get a black eye. Bush is a liberal.
I don't think anyone likes a war. Nobody wants to serve, to risk their lives in combat, but we have brave heroes, both now and in Viet Nam, and these wackso are willing to spit in their faces. But there comes a time when you can only watch so much before you do something. Did you see the news cast where the 80 year old man was being beaten up and robbed in front of about a dozen young healthy males? They did nothing. They were too scared to act. Sorry, if I'm a jackboot, I would have helped, even if I had to throw a rock! A good purse alongside this guy's head would have gotten him off that poor old man. He only had $20 on him!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
LordyLordy1 year, 3 months ago
I'd say the buck stops there, but you never got the buck. It was already taxed out of you, to give to people who refuse to work....or to the illegal who will not pay taxes on it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
60%
beachboy60001 year, 3 months ago
-
0%
Charlson1 year, 3 months ago
Oh that's right, he's created a huge budget deficit, started a war on false pretenses, staffed his administration with incompetent and greedy people, smirked with his born again smile and threw the finger at the camera before a speech, condoned torture and refuses to hold anyone in his administration responsible.
Reply-
-
100%
LordyLordy1 year, 3 months ago
Lately I've heard that Jimmy Carter has become so wierd that even his far left wing wacko staff are now jumping ship? They cannot believe some of the things he is saying and doing. Ya don't suppose oldhimers has attacked the poor man?
"Jimmy Carter destroyed an economy."
"Slick Willie didn't do much for it either, unless you like the kind of jobs where your response is "will there be fries with that Ma'am? Or do you want to supersize it?"
In other words, neither man really created any real jobs, just service industry jobs. My daughter once asked me how to tell if she had a career and not just a job. I replied, "If you see someone under 20 or over 65 working there, that is a job they are doing while they are going to school to better themselves or trying to make sure they can make ends meet because their meager pension isn't buying enough to make ends meet. If you see someone between 25-50 working there, chances are it might be a career."
Reply
-
-
0%
UBCONFUSE1 year, 3 months ago
Actually, Old Mr. Peanut, almost humped by a wild and crazy rabbit, just acted like an ordinary Democrat when he stood by wringing his hands after the US Embassy was attacked by Iran. Carter's simple act of sticking his head up his azz and hoping the whole affair was just a bad dream is exactly what got the US labeled as a paper tiger in the Arab world.
The course of history would have changed if Carter had called in the Sec of Defense and said, "Go kick azz and kill every Mullah you can get your hands on, and any one else with a weapon". If Carter had taken action, he would be revered rather than living his life after being President as a bumbling idiot. However, he is a typical Democrat.
Here is a question for you. Which Democrat running for President in 2008 puts the maximum fear in the Jihaddist?
Obama or Hillary? Answer- Neither! Election of either one will get Americans killed in large numbers.
Reply-
0%
contrast1 year, 3 months ago
UBC
I dunno. While I agree that no democrat really wants to talk about how they will fight this enemy saying people will die under a deomcratic president is a stretch. Al Qaeda and Co. have been dissrupted for six years. They are in no position to launch attacks. Does that mean we should return to complacency? That's up to the voter.
Reply-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 3 months ago
"They are in no position to launch attacks"
Yeah! Bali, Madrid, and London might want to agree with you after they were bombed but I'm not sure that the leader of Iraq is ready to brush off Al Qaeda as being disrupted for six years when they are being attacked nearly every day by someone. For him to say it isn't Al Qaeda, he would have to admit that he doesn't have control of his people. Which is it?
Reply-
0%
contrast1 year, 3 months ago
Maybe those countries you listed should actually fight them back. With the exception of the London attacks no agressor has been hit. (Spain was in the throws of retreating when hit)
Reply-
-
-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 3 months ago
I understand what you are saying but what does that have to do with Al Qaeda's ability to launch attacks. Just as they did in the USA, they wait until the moment is right for them and launch the attack and no one knows how many or where they can strike. Even homeland security has said they we are not safe. But wait, that was around election time so never mind.
Reply-
100%
contrast1 year, 3 months ago
think about it. fi the WHOLE WORLD said enough with terrorist organizations and waged war on ALL of them. We (the civilized world) would out number and kick the hell out of them. being attacked by cowards and doing nothing? Come on you have to at least retaliate. We the civilized world could win this if we wanted to.
Reply-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 3 months ago
With that I agree 100%. If we would have went into Afghanistan and got OBL and his merry ole men while he was there, then the whole world would have supported the USA for a fight into any country that harbored terrorist even Pakistan. That didn't happened and the USA is losing my creditability every time more soldiers are killed in Iraq. No one has ever questioned the soldiers lost in Afghanistan because that was going after the people that brought down the WTC.
Reply-
78%
LordyLordy1 year, 3 months ago
At least someone knows the score or at least knows who is on the playing field!
Reply
-
-
89%
Jaydee401 year, 3 months ago
Who are you retaliating against? Your not hurting them in Iraq, your helping them recruit more members is all. Bush in all his wisdom pulled most of your troops out of Afghanistan in order to beat the French and Germans to Iraqi oil. Your mission in Iraq is a failure and still you don't know what to do and you have the nerve to say Carter should have done what you are doing know. Your upset with his failure and in turn suggest he should have taken a step that has been shown to fail, do you not find this odd.
Reply -
100%
Candida1 year, 3 months ago
contrast: "fi the WHOLE WORLD said enough with terrorist organizations and waged war on ALL of them. We (the civilized world) would out number and kick the hell out of them."
Too late for that. The US has alienated practicaly the whole world by its unilateral invasion of Iraq.
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
libsRfunny1 year, 3 months ago
"Whether they fight them or not doesn't change the fact that they are in a position to launch attacks."
Must be why they run and hide from U.S. troops as often as possible. At least you now admit we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq.
It's sad Carter and the defeatist dems like Harry "Gimme land, lots of land" Reid are so willing to stop the fight and pull out troops, which only will embolden al-Qaeda instead of keeping them scurrying like the rodents they are.
You sound like you root for those bastards.
Reply-
0%
Candida1 year, 3 months ago
libsRfunny: "Must be why they run and hide from U.S. troops as often as possible."
Guerrillas have always fought guerrilla warfare and always will. Blanding into the local population is what makes them effective, and that's why they cannot be defeated without the help of the locals.
"At least you now admit we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq" you say.
Yes, they are active now, thanks to the invasion, but they weren't under Saddam Hussein. He didn't much like rivals in ruling the country.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
injest1 year, 3 months ago
contrast said
"Maybe those countries you listed should actually fight them back. With the exception of the London attacks no agressor has been hit. (Spain was in the throws of retreating when hit)"
So you're claiming that the Bush doctrine is an outstanding success?
No attacks on nations taking the fight to the terrorist. Spain was hit when they were retreatingâ;¦Lesson learnedâ;¦. Don't retreat
Apparently your saying weakness invites attacks hummm You got a point that's hard to counter, Ill have to think about this.
Reply-
100%
LordyLordy1 year, 3 months ago
The street thugs rarely ever attack a person who they perceive might resist and do them harm. Burglars really detest coming into a home and discovering the occupants are armed and willing to take them out. They prefer neighborhoods where the residents are wussies, cower in fear wait for the police to help, who usually arrrive only after the crime has been committed. Its called bully mentality. If you are physically weak yourself, you need an edge.
God may have created man but Colonel Colt made a 225 lb man and a 90 lb woman equals. A gaping chest wound usually has her assailant forget about raping her.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
70%
NewsWarrior1 year, 3 months ago
Ooo Boy! Where'd ah put ma gun! Where'd ah put ma gun!
Don't TELL me we still have idiots deFENDing the Shrub administration's phony War on Everything! God, help us.
We Americans are being ripped off...thousands and millions of dollars at a time by the military (and other) industries, and I'm not awware of a time in history when THAT's been made more obvious.
It's the incredibly arrogant Bush toadies who are "reckless" beyond reason, and (thankfully) becoming more "irrelevent."
Cheny's got an 8-percent approval rating! LOL! Get a clue!
Signed,
A Staunch Republican!
Reply -
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
contrast1 year, 3 months ago
the deficit was not created under Bush...only made really huge. I never knew a smirk was worthy of including when talking about how bad someone performs their job. Dont visit me I smirk all the time.
Condoned torture? eh not quite. Show me where Bush says more or less "it is good that we hurt people in custody" I dont think I've ever heard that from his mouth. Yeah Bush is not a great president but it's when people get a little too fast with the typing that I have to say something.
Reply-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 3 months ago
"the deficit was not created under Bush."
When Bush took office, there was a projected balanced budget which indicates no deficit. Bush gave a tax cut and went to war to create the present deficit of 8.8 trillion dollars.
"Condoned torture? eh not quite"
Yeah, they're having a ball in Gitmo these days. Like Bush said before, "You are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror." so the same holds true with the use of torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib prison. He is either for it or against it.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/torture_pow.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/02/10834...
"Yeah Bush is not a great president but it's when people get a little too fast with the typing that I have to say something."
Yeah, me too.
Reply-
100%
contrast1 year, 3 months ago
fregie show me HIS words condoning torture not a .com
. com is short for COMMERCIAL as in the site is for sale.
Reply-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 3 months ago
Read the statements of torture being used and tell me why, if he doesn't condone it, he hasn't issued an order to stop it. Anyone knows that he isn't going to make a speech approving it but in a case like this, action speaks louder than words. Or in this case, the lack of action speaks louder than words.
Reply-
100%
contrast1 year, 3 months ago
here's the thing. What IS torture? is it sleep deprivation? bright lights? loud music? Personally I think torture is anything that involves bodily harm. Hot pokers to the eyes, beatings etc. you knw torture not playing the red hot chili peppers really loud for 10 hours.
Reply-
100%
lfergie8121 year, 3 months ago
That is all spin. Read the list of issues of torture that were preformed in the link I provided.
Reply-
0%
contrast1 year, 3 months ago
spin it is not deciding WHAT is torture is the HEART of the issue ferg stay with me.
Reply-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 3 months ago
Which of these are acceptable??
a. Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;
b. Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;
c. Pouring cold water on naked detainees;
d. Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;
e. Threatening male detainees with rape;
f. Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;
g. Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
Reply-
83%
contrast1 year, 3 months ago
a. yeah if it burns
b. Thats fine by me as long as you dont actually shot them
c. thats fine I go for cold dips all the time...could use one right now!
d. Beatings arent cool but why use a broom handle if you're in the army cant we afford better clubs? that seems like a flase claim.
e. threats are threats just like OBL comes on my TV and tells me I will die for being an infidel.
f. stitched means closiong the wound-medical procedure. I thought these guys have it bad? theyre gettig medical treatment!
g. I saw a girl in this movie once and she-no you know what what? no thats not cool.
whats funny is Ferg that my Lt. Colonel friend told me about b, c, e, and other methods. All this other crap? like Im going to believe a guy sworn to kill me that someone rammed something up his bunghole? Sorry you lost all credability when caught shooting at our soldiers.
Reply-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 3 months ago
"Sorry you lost all credability when caught shooting at our soldiers."
contrast, some of these people did not shoot at our soldiers. Some were just "taken" because some else reported them as terrorist. If you believe that Gitmo is a resort, give me you name and address and I'll try to accommodate you by getting you a free all expense paid trip there. LMAO
Reply
-
-
-
0%
JasonVA1 year, 3 months ago
Latest "torture" at Gitmo. Looks like they are having a ball there these days. One that don't bounce, but a ball no less. Ilfergie, get real.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/183413...
Reply-
-
0%
JasonVA1 year, 3 months ago
Associated Press and Fox News then? Surely, you aren't that stupid about the truth. Quit living in denial and trying to spin everything your way. You're just making yourself look like a retard to all us "sane" members of society.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272492,00.html
Reply-
-
-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 3 months ago
There's not any room there while you're there. LOL Must mean you don't have a creditable site. When I worked for this company, they always had a "house cleaning" when visitors were expected so any news by a visitor is meaningless unless it's a surprise visit.
Reply
-
-
0%
B1BLancer1 year, 3 months ago
Liberals hate Fox News, because unlike the liberal mainstream, they tell the truth. Dan Rather, anyone?
Reply -
75%
libsRfunny1 year, 3 months ago
"I think I just wet myself laughing so hard."
Most children do wet themselves, you silly lib. lol
Fox News is way better than you ever wopuld give it credit. Funny how you attack the messenger when you have nothing real to discuss - which is often.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
_-m-_1 year, 3 months ago
If you're confused about that, obviously you've never suffered sleep deprivation, lights so bright that you're blinded even with your eyes closed, and music so loud that it causes a physical reaction in the rest of your body.
Yes, those are all methods of torture.
Reply-
80%
contrast1 year, 3 months ago
then in essence firing an AK-47 at our soldiers classifies as a fomr of torture then. These men were caught doing that. They lose a night's sleep and have to listen to loud music? damn my heart goes out to them. Why dont you sympathize with the american Gi who has to put up with their bullsh!t and yours?
Reply-
71%
_-m-_1 year, 3 months ago
I do sympathize with the members of the American military that are subjected to enemy fire, to fight an illegal war, based entirely upon the lies of the current administration.
I'm also aware of, and agree with, General Colin Powell's assessment (and that of many other generals and senior staff who also oppose this administration's position), that our blatant disregard of the Geneva Conventions only serves to expose our soldiers to greater risk, since it both serves as a rallying point to help recruit other to fight against the U.S., and also as a justification for others to disregard those Conventions when dealing with our own troops.
You, on the other hand, are trying (poorly) to defend a position that exposes them to that greater risk.
Reply-
0%
contrast1 year, 3 months ago
yeah uh huh let's not make this about me and Bush and etc. Geneva that convention right to the nearest subway and kiss it goodbye. The enemy must abide by wearing a uniform fightinf roa flag/country before receiving such treatment. If you ask me my tax dollars going to give them Taco Bell is insulting.
Reply
-
-
50%
Jaydee401 year, 3 months ago
When combat stops we have an obligation to treat prisoners with basic human rights, the same with criminal prisoners. If a civilized country does not keep up these standards they have become what they are fighting against. Bush has brought America to an all time low.
Reply -
0%
Candida1 year, 3 months ago
contrast: "They lose a night's sleep and have to listen to loud music?"
You don't know what you are talking about. They are not losing a night's sleep, as if they had partied all night. You should try sleep deprivation sometime. After about five days, you start to go crazy. I mean really crazy, in the clinical sense.
Reply
-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
_.- M -._
If you're confused about that, obviously you've never suffered sleep deprivation, and music so loud that it causes a physical reaction in the rest of your body.
Yes, those are all methods of torture.
That happens all the time around here when the cars roll by blasting rapcrap music at earth shaking levels.......
Reply
-
-
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
tiredofnonsense1 year, 3 months ago
"When Bush took office, there was a projected balanced budget which indicates no deficit. Bush gave a tax cut and went to war to create the present deficit of 8.8 trillion dollars."
A ballanced budget doesn't mean no debt. The trillion dollar debt existed even in Kennedy's time. Balance only that no additon to the debt.
BUDGET TOTALS THROUGH APRIL
(Billions of dollars)
Actual Preliminary Estimated
FY2006 FY2007 Change
Receipts 1,353 1,506 153
Outlays 1,537 1,589 52
Deficit (-) -184 -83 101
Sources: Department of the Treasury; CBO.
current debt as compared to GNP puts the Debt really low (Thanks to the tax cuts and the economic boom it created)
Reply -
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
lfergie812:
When Bush took office, there was a projected balanced budget which indicates no deficit.
A projected balanced budgiet 10 years or more down the road and only by using the Social Security fund to do it....Bush had to cut taxes first to offset the Clinton-Gore recession that started in March 200, and then to help the economy after 9/11....
Reply -
0%
injest1 year, 3 months ago
Ifergie812 said:
When Bush took office, there was a projected balanced budget
A "projected" (Note: not an actual) balanced budget. Is that kinda like it works on paper? In the real world projected, anticipated, hope for, wish for usually comes up short when faced with fact. The only thing a "projection" indicates is a "hope for" that's it, and the tooth fairy is not real either.
ROFLMAO
Reply
-
-
0%
scott42611 year, 3 months ago
Oh, so I suppose the surplus Clinton left Bush was non-existent? And how about the tax "rebate" Bush handed out in the summer of 2001, not foreseeing the possibility of a 9/11? I even got a small check.
And what is gitmo? A RESORT for terrorists? Of course this administration has condoned torture! And in the process, added just one more reason for the world to despise us...
Reply-
-
88%
Jaydee401 year, 3 months ago
The very fact that it is off American soil and the people detained are denied their day in a proper court shows the Administrations fall from the civilized treatment and respect for human rights the US once stood for. Congratulations, you have become what you have preached against for years.
Reply-
0%
contrast1 year, 3 months ago
you didnt answer me about your eyes and ears in Gitmo yet still talk like you driv
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
