So, let me get this straight. Bush critics have been whining for years that the president wasn’t doing enough to kill bin Laden and his deputies — that he should essentially invade Pakistan, Syria and other places to kill him or Zawahiri if US officials get the right intel.
And now the New York Times — after Obama wins largely on an anti-Bush referendum — decides to publish a story that shows all the way back in 2004, the much-maligned Donald Rumsfeld secured an executive order form the president to allow the same kind of commando raids administration critics have been saying should have been pursued all along? And don’t tell me the NYT didn’t have a good portion of this story a month ago…this is an evergreen piece that didn’t have any news hook to it other than the recent Syria raid, which is probably when Mazzetti and Schmitt fleshed out most of the sourcing.
Secret Order Lets U.S. Raid Al Qaeda in Many Countries
WASHINGTON The United States military since 2004 has used broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, according to senior American officials.
These military raids, typically carried out by Special Operations forces, were authorized by a classified order that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed in the spring of 2004 with the approval of President Bush, the officials said. The secret order gave the military new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States.
In 2006, for example, a Navy Seal team raided a suspected militants compound in the Bajaur region of Pakistan, according to a former top official of the Central Intelligence Agency. Officials watched the entire mission captured by the video camera of a remotely piloted Predator aircraft in real time in the C.I.A.s Counterterrorist Center at the agencys headquarters in Virginia 7,000 miles away.
Some of the military missions have been conducted in close coordination with the C.I.A., according to senior American officials, who said that in others, like the Special Operations raid in Syria on Oct. 26 of this year, the military commandos acted in support of C.I.A.-directed operations.
But as many as a dozen additional operations have been canceled in the past four years, often to the dismay of military commanders, senior military officials said. They said senior administration officials had decided in these cases that the missions were too risky, were too diplomatically explosive or relied on insufficient evidence.
More than a half-dozen officials, including current and former military and intelligence officials as well as senior Bush administration policy makers, described details of the 2004 military order on the condition of anonymity because of its politically delicate nature. Spokesmen for the White House, the Defense Department and the military declined to comment.
Apart from the 2006 raid into Pakistan, the American officials refused to describe in detail what they said had been nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks, except to say they had been carried out in Syria, Pakistan and other countries. They made clear that there had been no raids into Iran using that authority, but they suggested that American forces had carried out reconnaissance missions in Iran using other classified directives.
According to a senior administration official, the new authority was spelled out in a classified document called Al Qaeda Network Exord, or execute order, that streamlined the approval process for the military to act outside officially declared war zones. Where in the past the Pentagon needed to get approval for missions on a case-by-case basis, which could take days when there were only hours to act, the new order specified a way for Pentagon planners to get the green light for a mission far more quickly, the official said.
Be sure to read the rest of the story HERE…
– Christian
“So, let me get this straight. Bush critics have been whining for years that the president wasn’t doing enough to kill bin Laden and his deputies“
– no, people (and not just Bush critics) have been complaining about the lack of results as far as getting bin Laden “dead or alive” goes.
If they’ve been putting a vast amount of effort and to get the negative results we’ve seen it’s not any more impressive.
.
And ordering military raids in other countries is by no means the best way of doing it. Look at the amount of trouble caused in Syria and Pakistan.
.
byw, I must have missed Obama winning on the ‘anti-Bush’ ticket — I thought he won because we was beter than the other guy.
“let me get this straight. Bush critics have been whining for years that the president wasn’t doing enough to kill bin Laden“
Yes, people have been complaining for years that 1) The guy who planned and funded the killing of 3000 Americans is still at liberty 2) that the commitment of resources to Iraq distracted from the effort to change #1
Nothing in the NY Times article changes either one of those things, but good try at winning “The Most Petulant After-Election Post Yet.”
…“but good try at winning ‘The Most Petulant After-Election Post Yet.’ “…
aaahhh, mission accomplished…
so predictable!
I don’t think the option of targeted killing should explicitly be taken off the table as long as the intelligence is good, and I suspect this new administration thinks the same. What worries me are allegations of other more secret directives regarding our working with terrorists in Iran.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all
“byw, I must have missed Obama winning on the ‘anti-Bush’ ticket — I thought he won because we was beter than the other guy.“
Wembley,
Try to stay with me on this. Baraq Obama made the anti Bush theme central to his campaign; “change”, “hope” and all of the other slogans were directed at the McCain/Bush connection. One of his last (and probably most effective) ad campaigns featured a voter looking in the rearview mirror and seeing Bush and McCain together. Baraq has yet to do anything other than write, talk and evade issues. All of this aside though he is our next president and we all need to support him, especially in light of his inexperience. Next time we will hopefully make a more logical, less emotional decision on election day. In the meantime though let’s give Baraq a little slack on the issues sure to arise while he he goes through his personal growth experience.
Its Barack, not Baraq. And even if this article had come out before the election, I don’t think it would have changed anything. For the majority of voters, the poor economy has trumped the war as the most important issue.
And just because they’ve been trying to kill bin Laden doesn’t take away the fact that they still haven’t gotten him. And if getting bin Laden was the most important issue to you, Obama appeared to be more gung-ho about catching him than McCain.
Just because a few secret raids were launched over the last 7 years doesn’t mean the people upset that Iraq took over from Afghanistan were wrong. Those people (including military personnel involved in Afghanistan) complained that planning staffs, ISR assets, and the overall focus were taken away from getting Bin Laden. The Afghan campaign has been fought on the cheap compared to Iraq, and I’m sure that involves hunting Mr. “Dead or Alive.”
I wonder if you could realize that you missed the point of those Americans who have said the Iraq war was a mistake.
It’s difficult to let other people’s arguments count for something — even when they are backed by a landslide electoral victory of those wanting change. It’s easier to wage your battles against a straw man, the way you have here.
What would it take for you to feel comfortable taking a bigger, more inclusive view of things?
I didn’t realize when I first came here that this site was so political.
Let me get this straight: Bush authorizes covert actions to get Osama bin Laden should his location be determined, but SYSTEMATICALLY STARVES THE EFFORT TO FIND HIS LOCATION OF RESOURCES, and this is by your definition doing enough to get him.
Bush took his eye off the ball, and continued to keep it off the ball. The fact that he authorized action if we somehow blundered into actionable intel does not change that.
“so predictable!“
Sadly, yes, the post was kind of predictable.
Matthew G. said it well, so I’ll just quote him:
“Let me get this straight: Bush authorizes covert actions to get Osama bin Laden should his location be determined, but SYSTEMATICALLY STARVES THE EFFORT TO FIND HIS LOCATION OF RESOURCES, and this is by your definition doing enough to get him.”
Explains why the AQ have been quiet these past few years.
Too bad this could not have been done in 2002.
“Its Barack, not Baraq. And even if this article had come out before the election, I don’t think it would have changed anything. For the majority of voters, the poor economy has trumped the war as the most important issue“
Hibbid,
I am well aware how he spells it but I use Baraq to get the libs going. Also the poor economy was the primary reason for a narrow popular vote victory and a landslide electoral college victory. The economy, for anyone interested, has crashed due almost exclusively due to the mortgage collapse and ensuing credit shutdown. The cost of the war on terror (financially not in lives)is nowhere near the cost of the financial crises if you consider the bailout (all costs now approaching 1.75 trillion dollars in additon to the lower value of the stock market and the scarcity of startup and R&D capital)so please don’t bring out that tired old subject. If you care to do a little research this is obvious. Baraq is not a bad man, just misguided and inexperienced. The voters who followed Chris Mathews and the talking heads over the cliff like lemmings did so for idealogy, emotional reasons or ignorance. Again, Baraq is not a bad man but nobody has yet to articulate to me how he will undo all of the financial mess by more government control (this is what started the mortgage meltdown) and penalizing those who create wealth in the economy with higher taxes. And BTW I am just a working guy, not someone who will be paying the higher taxes. It is just simple economics; if you raise taxes on those who create jobs then fewer jobs will be created, more jobs will be lost and the economy will sink even lower. Baraq is a very smart man and hopefully he will figure this out quickly.
Also getting Bin Laden is not the most important issue to me or most as he has become increasingly irrelevant over the years due to the obvious fact that he is no longer running this organization and is probably already dead. It was my intent to correct Wembley in his belief as to how Baraq ran his campaign.
I’ll try to keep off of politics now but it is a very scary time for anyone involved with the military or military contractors as we have just elected a man who has no love for the military.
Thanks, Steve.
“man who has no love for the military.“
So how’d the last eight years go with someone who ‘loved’ the military? Well? Really?
Total,
The man in the office the last 8 years spent like a drunken Kennedy, streched things way too thin and made a mess of many things. That’s how I feel. If you think I am an apologist for W you have never read any of my posts. It is my desire to get the very best for the military, focus on the sub human vermin that are killing our soldiers and citizens from hiding and see us protected from all possible threats.
And to get back on topic we need to go after these targets when they present themselves. That is something that any honest american should agree on whether there is a conservative or a liberal (like Baraq or Bush)in power.
“I use Baraq to get the libs going“
Actually I just assumed you were illiterate.
But from reading your description of what you think Obama stands for, I’m willing to upgrade that to ‘wrong’.
“The man in the office the last 8 years spent like a drunken Kennedy, streched things way too thin and made a mess of many things.“
And he loved the military–or ran on a platform of loving the military. What I’d like is not a President who mouthes platitudes about mission accomplished while wearing a jump suit, but a President who actually figures out how best to use the military and pushes the military (and all other government organizations) to be the best that it can at it’s job (like making sure that it continues to study counterinsurgency after Iraq is over and not retreat into a conventional-war-wish-fulfillment-fantasy as it did after Vietnam.)
Yes Christian, we are like the dogs of Pavlov. Thanks for making me drool there big boy.
Timeline:
2001 Attack on NYC
2002 Invasion of Afghanistan
2003 Invasion of Iraq
2004 Authorization to kill AQ anywhere anytime
Nope, can’t see how Iraq war planning diverted resources and even could have prevented this decision from being made in a more timely fashion.
Thanks for the meatball Christian.
DC2
I remeber the VERY DAY we began the war to liberate Iraq. The VERY SAME DAY saw a MAJOR surge in Afghanistan. Shortly after & up until the Iraq surge, Al-Qieda (& others) concentrated the bulk of its effort in Iraq, not Afghanistan. With the sucess of the Iraq surge that has now been reversed & Al-Qieda has turned it attention AWAY from Iraq & back to Afghanistan…
Watch it Christian; this is DefenseTech not DefensePol.…
I guess everyone missed the fact that it was bin Laden who chose Iraq as the main battlefront in his jihad against the West, not George Bush.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=17024D6A-A4E6-4FE9-A9DA-1C4F1E422964
I guess everyone missed the fact that it was bin Laden who chose Iraq as the main battlefront in his jihad against the West, not George Bush.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=17024D6A-A4E6-4FE9-A9DA-1C4F1E422964
No, Bin Laden didn’t. Bin Laden wasn’t choosing anything in 2002-03 because he was too busy running away. But rather than focusing all our efforts on catching him, Bush went off and invaded Iraq. Handed that, Bin Laden took advantage of it.
Front Page is not, as we say, reality-based.
It is disappointing to see partisan tripe sneaking its way onto this otherwise enlightening blog.
What I want to know is why Fox news wasn’t the first to report this rather than the Times. After all Fox’s access is greater than the Times.
Blaming the Times for publishing this now is unnecessary.
You should be blaming Fox for not shouting this from the roof tops earlier, Fox dropped the Ball.
Or perhaps there is a good, pro-conservative reason they waited til now to release this. Perhaps because the majority of Americans would see this sort of action as not in the best interests of the US. Most Americans are law abiding folk, and like to think that their Government is Law abiding also. So the US Governments sanctioning of attacks on foreign soil, without a declaration of war, in violation of another countries sovereignty and the conventions of war and peace, could be seen in a bad light and could lead to people voting against the GOP.
The Times were fair in publishing this now, they allowed McCain not to be tainted by Bush, more than he already had been.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m for this kind of action, but black ops should stay that way.
Equally, I am for freedom of the Press. If they get the info, they should be allowed to print it.
The Press lucked out in this instance.
No I am not schizophrenic.
“No, Bin Laden didn’t. Bin Laden wasn’t choosing anything in 2002-03 because he was too busy running away. But rather than focusing all our efforts on catching him, Bush went off and invaded Iraq. Handed that, Bin Laden took advantage of it.“
–So you’re saying from 2002–2003 we focused all our efforts in getting bin Laden but still couldn’t? If we did that and still couldn’t get him, should we still be shirking all other global responsibilities and only pursuing him?
I don’t know what country you live in, but the one I live in, the US, is more than capable of carrying out two simultaneous operations for national security purposes.
“So you’re saying from 2002–2003 we focused all our efforts in getting bin Laden but still couldn’t? If we did that and still couldn’t get him, should we still be shirking all other global responsibilities and only pursuing him?“
I’m not clear on this; you think that giving up on Bin Laden’s a good idea just because we were having trouble tracking him down? So ‘when the tough get going’ ends with ‘until it gets a little difficult and I have to deal with something else.‘
“I don’t know what country you live in, but the one I live in, the US, is more than capable of carrying out two simultaneous operations for national security purposes.“
Are we now? So Bin Laden’s in captivity somewhere and it just hasn’t been mentioned?
The utter stupidity of such a comment is remarkable given that *we didn’t manage either.* Genius. Do you want to try again?
Is it Barack or Baraq?
I answer this question with another question:
Is it Koran or Quran?
Arabic does not translate into English letter for letter.
Uncle Sam wasted a lot of troops and materiel getting blown up, maimed and sniped in Iraq, all under false pretenses. All that wasted manpower could have been deployed to stabilise Afghanistan, shut down the Taliban and capture Bin Laden.
I don’t understand how you can watch your troops getting picked off by snipers and IEDs, while Iraq becomes an Iranian puppet, and still claim that it was worthwhile.
Being in Iraq was a waste of time, money and blood.
The question of whether we would have “gotten bin Laden” or “wiped out al Qaeda” is moot. Our war is with militant Islamic terror itself, not one group or individual. Countries that support militant Islamic terror are in our crosshairs — the President has been saying this all along.
We would not be any safer if we got bin Laden, or even wiped out al Qaeda’s entire leadership. The threat that like-minded fanatics pose would still be undiminished.
Anyone who thinks that the war would be over the minute we get bin Laden is kidding themselves. The war will continue until Islamic militancy is dead, along with all who subscribe to it.
Steve,
Please don’t explain the obvious to the libs; it’s above their pay grade.
The leash has been taken off the CIA, and now they are feared again. Thats good, SF should chase them to the gates of hell if they had to. Any country, wherever they are, kill them. Obama has said he will take it into P-stan if intel says so and thats right. I wish US air power would bomb those 157+camps to dust. Why hasn’t the PAK AF done it? Coz thier playing BOTH sides. No more. Get out of the f-ing way or you die. Better find another logistics route, coz thats the 1st thing they will stop.
OK enough is enough people. You all can second guess what the Bush Admin. did are didn’t do. The one thing I know for a fact is this; We have not been attacked again since 911 on US Soil. Yes this is because of the Bush Admin. and not the President elect or his cronies… With the intel that was presented from various sources, I believe by going to War with Iraq was the right thing to do. Was mistakes made you bet however, by taking the war to the terrorist has stopped them from coming here. Oh, by the way you Bush critics voted for whats to come, not me.…
“byw, I must have missed Obama winning on the ‘anti-Bush’ ticket — I thought he won because we was beter than the other guy.” — Wembly
If you mean a guy who avoided military service and experience, a sparse resume working with the Chicago political and crime bosses, who were endorsed by all of America’s recognized enemies, and also with ZERO executive level experience, then, yes by YOUR definition Obama is “better than the other guy.“
That is some powerful pixie dust you keep breathing. I wonder how in your personal life you can figure out which car, house, mortgage (FannieMae/FreddieMac/FHA-right?), TV, radio, or what is better than the next with that extremely discerning expertise you have. All I can say is you are welcome to all of that pixie dust you can handle.
“The question of whether we would have “gotten bin Laden” or “wiped out al Qaeda” is moot. Our war is with militant Islamic terror itself, not one group or individual. Countries that support militant Islamic terror are in our crosshairs — the President has been saying this all along.“
Uh, then why did we go after Iraq? You are aware that Hussein and Bin Laden hated each other and that Hussein _didn’t want_ the jihadis in Iraq because he saw them as a threat to his power?
“We would not be any safer if we got bin Laden, or even wiped out al Qaeda’s entire leadership. The threat that like-minded fanatics pose would still be undiminished.“
Really? What lesson do you suppose they took from the fact that we essentially gave up on going after Bin Laden? That they could continue to attack us and have a chance of getting away. What lesson would they have taken from us getting Bin Laden ASAP? That you can attack the U.S. but you’re going down for it.
Which lesson would you prefer they learned?
“Anyone who thinks that the war would be over the minute we get bin Laden is kidding themselves. The war will continue until Islamic militancy is dead, along with all who subscribe to it.“
Nobody’s arguing that the war would suddenly end if OBL got taken. What they are arguing is that it’s terrible precedent to let someone get away with killing 3000 Americans.
Dalton hanks,
Don’t worry, the Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It’s their legacy and trademark.
“‘t worry, the Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It’s their legacy and trademark.“
Yeah, I noticed how that happened in WWI & WWII (Democratic Presidents) and *didn’t* happen in Vietnam (Republican President)
”. They then were bulldozed over. The history channel showed that and also not only mustard gas was used but sarin and other chem/Bio weapons. Hum could this be the weapons the military went looking for? “
Hey, genius, there was an event between the Kurdish gassings and now. It was called the “First Gulf War.” It had some minor effects on Hussein’s government.
#Total
You have a nasty way of putting your words in people’s mouths as well as twisting their words to set up a straw man for yourself.
For example:
“I’m not clear on this; you think that giving up on Bin Laden’s a good idea just because we were having trouble tracking him down?“
Who said anything about giving up on bin Laden? We went after both Osama and Hussein because a nation like ours can undertake two operations at once, especially when the goals are the same: combating terrorism. Under your logic, we could never engage an enemy until bin Laden was dead or captured.
Your assertion that Hussein hated bin Laden and wanted nothing to do with him is preposterous.
Here’s a couple articles to get you started on the road to reality:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3033&R=C56218AEE
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378&R=13CD72243D
And here’s about 150 more:
http://www.newspundit.net/saddamalqaedawmd.html
Saddam mass murdered his people, gave Abdul Rahman Yasin asylum after the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, gave a home to both the Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas terror networks, paid $25,000 to the families of each Palestinian suicide bomber, and set up a terrorist training camp in Salman Pak to teach terrorists how to take over planes without weapons (thanks to the information provided by the former Iraqi army captain Sabah Khodada). And that’s just the beginning of Saddam’s ties to Al Qaeda and worldwide terror.
Need more? http://www.husseinandterror.com/
“Who said anything about giving up on bin Laden?“
If you don’t like what your words mean, you shouldn’t write them.
“We went after both Osama and Hussein because a nation like ours can undertake two operations at once, especially when the goals are the same: combating terrorism.“
This was laughable the first time you said, and it remains so. We diverted resources from chasing Bin Laden to Iraq and thus managed to do neither job successfully. Saying ‘we can undertake two operations at once’ as evidence in a case where we *couldn’t* do it is the height of silliness.
We used to be able to recognize that, as in WWII with the “Germany First” policy.
“Your assertion that Hussein hated bin Laden and wanted nothing to do with him is preposterous.“
Using the Weekly Standard as evidence for anything is ridiculous. Of course they argue that Hussein and OBL loved each other. They have a vested interest in doing so.
How about an actual military source. Parameters is the official journal of the Army War College and they seem to think that there was little connection between Hussein and OBL:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/03spring/record.htm
“Interesting view of history.,“
Accurate view of history. As far as I can see, you’re only response is that you like the Nazis better than the Communists. Impressive.
“you’re“
Should have been ‘your.’
“the Parameters article/Jeffrey Record“
And yet, Dr. Record appears to be employed by that liberal bastion, the Air War College. Damnit! I knew there was something suspicious about the U.S. Air Force.
And _Parameters_, the official journal of the Army War College? I’m shocked. Now we have to worry about 2 of the services being captive of the vast left-wing conspiracy?
Oh, and gee, Record has written a review of Moyar’s book. It’s pretty harsh, but on both sides: Record thinks that both Moyar and the “liberal orthodoxy” are “ideologically contaminated. Pretty harsh, but hardly the words of a crazed left-winger.
(http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/ssq/bookreviews/moyar.pdf)
Shockingly, Record (and the Air Force and the Army War College) might be more interested in _the truth_ than partisan posturing. I realize that’s just a crazy thing to say, but see if you can absorb it.
“Shockingly, Record (and the Air Force and the Army War College) might be more interested in _the truth_ than partisan posturing. I realize that’s just a crazy thing to say, but see if you can absorb it.“
–The guy worked for left-wing think-tanks and partisan Democrats who opposed the Gulf War, he constantly denigrates the administration as a bunch of “neo-cons” and then goes on to publish a paper that attempts to undermine the credibility of a war that administration is currently engaged in. But he’s just seeking the truth…
“and they stumbled, blindly, in the darkness.”
“-Look Einstein, I hate to point this out because it’s so glaringly obvious, but these articles are the academic opinion pieces of individuals, not the opinions or policies of the school, the government, or the military.“
Look, genius, I hate to point this out because it’s so glaringly obvious, but do you really think that the Army War College is going to publish just *any* academic opinion piece? Ward Churchill got something coming up in Parameters, does he?
In fact, Record’s thinking was so distinct from the Army War College’s that they went ahead and published one of his books:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=207
No, the reality is that Hussein and Bin Laden hated each other, and the linkage between the two was a fantasy created by the Bush Administration to stampede the American people into supporting the invasion of Iraq. Five years later and you’re still stampeding, right off the cliff. What you may not have noticed is that you’ve only got a few people left with you, and it’s a long fall.
From the Army War College’s professional reading list, Ward Churchill certainly wouldn’t be out of place. Noam Chomsky(!?!?!), Bob Woodward, Thomas Friedman, a whole host of left-wing New York Times and Washington Post reporters, etc. Good grief.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/library/professional_reading_lists.htm
I realize for someone of your towering intellect this might be hard for you to grasp, but the Army War College obviously tries to expose its students to a full range of thought from liberal to conservative for the purposes of academic inquiry. Jeffrey Record is one of the leftist academics; he was a visiting research
fellow at the Air War College and they published his work as an ACADEMIC OPINION PIECE.
Unfortunately, propagandists like you then hold it up and say, “Look, look, the Army War college disagrees with BusHitler!!!1!“
This is like a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
“If you mean a guy who avoided military service “
No, the draft-dodger was the other one, that W guy.
“a sparse resume working with the Chicago political and crime bosses“
That’ll be politics. Presidents have to be good at it.
“who were endorsed by all of America’s recognized enemies“
What, all of them ?
I think you mean, people who you don’t like — the other 95% of the world, in fact — rate him highly too.
The American people chose Obama. I suspect they chose wisely — but that you will never give him any credit whatever he does.
“Really? You really want to go the intelligence route after 8 years of Bush? Y’all support the dumbest president *ever* and now you’re getting huffy about smarts?“
Total,
Someone has offended your sense of pride and I certainly hope it was not me. Having been out for a couple of days I don’t want to go back through all of the posts so please help me out by finding where I’ve claimed Bush was a great intellectual. In fact if you have a careful eye you will find where I stated “spent like a drunken Kennedy, streched things way too thin”. Of course I will support him until he is out of office and then will support president elect Obama when he is sworn is as our president. It is not my duty as an American to agree with either of them but Bush has been our president the last 8 years and Obama will be our president for at least the next 4, maybe 8 so we had BETTER support him. I am certain that I’ve not insulted you but Speaker Pelosi is a public figure (like W and Obama) and is fair game. I truly believe she is one of the least intelligent members of the House. Surely you are not Speaker Pelosi posting with a ghost name. While it is entertaining to read your responses and see how upset you are I feel it is time to move to another post that has to do with defense.
Christian,
Sorry to perpetuate the political noise. I’ll try to leave it alone for a while. It was a timely article that provided tons of entertainment. Perhaps you could start a new blog; PoliTech.
BD,
You should let him off the mat. He has even stated that “This is like a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent” so show some mercy and move on before he has a heart attack.
“By the way, when someone on your side says the above, what it really means is that I
You’re right Steve, I’ll let it die. Good sparring with you, Total. –bw