REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Downing Street Memo: Just another empty Anti-War Leftist canard

POSTED BY: LYNCHAJ
UPDATED: Saturday, June 18, 2005 23:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 11144
PAGE 2 of 2

Monday, June 13, 2005 12:13 PM

NEUTRINOLAD


Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Jan 12, 1991 Congress votes to allow for US troops to be used in offensive operations.
Now you may say we didn't "Officially" Declare war in '91 because Congress didn't have every politician sign a piece of paper saying "Hey we are at war!". However, it's bullshit.


A government obeying the laws to which it is bound is bullshit?
Hmm, okay, interesting perspective.
Quote:

Those folks who spend time determining if every military action is "Legal" or not, are just muddying the waters.

Determining the legal status of actions undertaken by said government is "muddying the waters"?
Seems like a self-contradictory statement to me, but I'm not a member of any bar. Perhaps I lack the training necessary to comprehend this point.
Quote:

The fact is, that while the peaceniks and intellectuals debate on whether a "War" is legal or not, Our boys and girls go. It's a waste of time, they still go.

And prosecuting suspected crimes is a waste of time?
Knowing this, I feel misled by Edward Levi and the legal establishment in general.
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
So is declaring war a 'mere' legal formality?


It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it?
-Congress authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force to attack a foreign nation.
-You have dispensed with the more troublesome aspects of the rules.
-He has violated the public trust and feloniously abdicated the duties and responsibilities of his office.

I was confused, now all is clear. Or muddied. I forget which.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 13, 2005 3:12 PM

CONNORFLYNN


Neutrino -

I don't know any other way to say it LOL. It's a weak bullshit point to hang your hat on. You claim we only declared war on 11 occasions (Though you seem to have discounted our involvement in other wars..i.e Korean, Vietnam, Bosnia etc..etc.), and that is the only time it can possibly be "Legal" ROFLMAO.

My point is that it doesn't make a hill of beans whether you think it's legal or not. Our people in the service still go to war. It also doesn't help or achieve anything by debating the legality. You would achieve more by bringing to light and debating the reasons why we went to war, not whether we "Declared War". Thats what I'm saying.

Yes, I think fixating on the less important part, the formality of "Declaring War" is a waste of time and a very weak way to win any votes to bring our troops home.

I don't know what else to say LOL. Keep debating a point that noone will listen to, or try to expose the true issues behind the war in Iraq.

Also, I'd like to see what law we are bound by in terms of Military Conflict? I don't recall that we actually need a formal Decree of War to actually go to war. Enlighten me

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:01 AM

CONNORFLYNN


I have to say, it was one of the things that closed my ears to anyone on the left. All I ever hear/heard is that the Iraq war was an illegal war and a war for oil.

That is why I say it muddies the water. The one liners without any foundation are very difficult to follow and 9 times out of 10 turn people off, without ever getting to the heart of the truth. It just comes off as another radical movement trying to push their own political agenda (similar to PNAC) except that they don't know exactly what that agenda is and have to resort to quips.

I'm game to listen to anyone who approaches a debate with calm, a reasonable opinion supported by "some" facts and a lack of one liners.

It was only by looking for the facts that I was able to develop what I believe to be a viable opinion regarding the issues with Iraq. It wasn't anything I learned from MOVEON or any of these other political movements.

So ultimately I have to ask:

After reading the PNAC articles or at least some of them and the Downing Street Memo, Do you believe that The US was going into Iraq as of January 21st, 2001 regardless of future reasons given?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 7:40 AM

CONNORFLYNN


LOL

Ok?! I'm not sure how this deviates from the original topic. My question basically goes after the meat of the topic rather then the liberal versus conservative rhetoric.

DSM is all about whether the books were cooked per se.. to make a a case for war in Iraq. My question asks the right question outright. Were we going into Iraq as of Jan 21st, 2001. In other words, Did the Bush administration (PNAC) already have it's sights set on Iraq the day GWB took office?

Why would we need another topic about it? It all revolves around the same focus.

As for agreeing or disagreeing. It all depends on how open you are to someone elses viewpoint. I'm willing to listen to anyone.

My contention is that , Yes, we were going into Iraq regardless. 9/11 made it all that much easier to push the agenda and speed up the process.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 7:42 AM

NEUTRINOLAD


Quote:

I don't recall that we actually need a formal Decree of War to actually go to war. Enlighten me

There is no doubt that a nation can go to war without a formal declaration.
There is equally no doubt that under the Constitution of the United States, such an act is a violation of law.
Quote:

I believe the US Constitution gives Congress the ability to authorize a war via declaration of war but does not *require it* as the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the military.

You are mistaken. The Constitution gives the power to declare war only to Congress (U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11). Being Commander In Chief does not mean you can use the military in any way you wish, far from it. The CinC is subject to law, just the same as the lowliest private. I really do not understand how it can be at this advanced date that U.S. citizens do not understand this fundamental fact of our form of government. The only instances where a declaration of war is not required is, when necessary, "...to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15)
Quote:

When the President orders the military to drop munitions on enemy troops or terrorists they are going to die. If that is not war, then what is?

My point exactly.
Quote:

All I ever hear/heard is that the Iraq war was an illegal war and a war for oil.

The first point is, IMO, demonstrable fact, the second point mere speculation.
Quote:

After reading the PNAC articles or at least some of them and the Downing Street Memo, Do you believe that The US was going into Iraq as of January 21st, 2001 regardless of future reasons given?

There is certainly circumstantial evidence to support the claim. Unfortuantely, I am not privy to the same sources of information as the President. It is possible that he had substantial information that for some reason he cannot publicly expose which drove the decision to go to war, even at that early date.
What I am saying is that I have to be willing to allow the benefit of doubt to those who have access to data I do not. So I try to stick to those facts that I can know and avoid too much speculation, as fun as it is to speculate.
Quote:

In summary, the furor over the infamous "Downing Street Memo" (see http://downingstreetmemo.com/index.html for more) is more of the usual tricks associated with hysterical Anti-War Leftists: deliberate misinterpretation of ambiguous words to support a bogus conclusion...

Here is something about which I feel there is no need to speculate. Having read the article, it is clear to me that there is no ambiguity in the memo, but there is an attempt on the part of the author to suggest ambiguity where there is none in order to further his own purposes. This is a cynical, unethical, amoral attempt to take advantage of the common American's ignorance of a British idiom in order to create doubt where there is none. That behavior is inexcusable and undermines public debate. The deliberate misinterpretation is, without any doubt, being carried out by the author of the article. If you honestly understand the langauge in the memo, there can be no other conclusion. It is so very clear that any suggestion of ambiguity is mere wishful thinking.
Quote:

You claim we only declared war on 11 occasions (Though you seem to have discounted our involvement in other wars..i.e Korean, Vietnam, Bosnia etc..etc.), and that is the only time it can possibly be "Legal" ROFLMAO.

No, I did not discount those occasions. They were simply not pertinent, as I was enumerating the number of times the Congress actually made a declaration of war.
And I still fail to see what is so hilarious about requiring our elected representatives to obey the law. Undermining the very foundation of our society is humorous? I really do not get the joke.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 9:36 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:

There is no doubt that a nation can go to war without a formal declaration.
There is equally no doubt that under the Constitution of the United States, such an act is a violation of law.

The Constitution gives the power to declare war only to Congress (U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11). Being Commander In Chief does not mean you can use the military in any way you wish, far from it. The CinC is subject to law, just the same as the lowliest private. I really do not understand how it can be at this advanced date that U.S. citizens do not understand this fundamental fact of our form of government. The only instances where a declaration of war is not required is, when necessary, "...to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15)



Neutrinolad -

I am well aware of what the constitution says, having had to memorize it and all the ammendments in Highschool (Though I'm not sure they do that anymore). However, You have deftly left out the complete verbage, leaving it open to ambiguity and false interpretation, as well as "adding" verbage.

Article 1, Section 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Here is the actual verbage for your quoted passage:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

Lets look at the what Congress can do (Please note that the Constitution does not say "Only" )

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay[/].

Bush and Company had authorization by Congress to make war. Thus it was not "illegal" in the traditional sense. The premise for going to war was that the US was in imminent danger. In my opinion the CinC (Commander in Chief) can use the Military as he or she (Hillary will win in '08) feels is required. All they have to do is get Congress to agree that we are in imminent danger. Hell we could nuke Jamaica, if the President could "claim" we are in "Imminent Danger".

Quote:

The first point is, IMO, demonstrable fact, the second point mere speculation.

Quote:

There is certainly circumstantial evidence to support the claim. Unfortuantely, I am not privy to the same sources of information as the President. It is possible that he had substantial information that for some reason he cannot publicly expose which drove the decision to go to war, even at that early date.
What I am saying is that I have to be willing to allow the benefit of doubt to those who have access to data I do not. So I try to stick to those facts that I can know and avoid too much speculation, as fun as it is to speculate.



I agree, it is a demonstrable fact that Bush and Company followed/manipulated the rules as they were written. Yet you have declared that the war was illegal in the first place, because we did not have a formal "Declaration of War". Wrong reason in my opinion to pick.

Now if you said , that the reasons for war, based on current information make it illegal, because we weren't in imminent danger, THEN I might have to agree with you. This is one of the reasons why I have written to my congressman , asking for some accountability.

Quote:

Connor Flynn Wrote: You claim we only declared war on 11 occasions (Though you seem to have discounted our involvement in other wars..i.e Korean, Vietnam, Bosnia etc..etc.), and that is the only time it can possibly be "Legal" ROFLMAO.


Quote:

Neutrino Wrote: No, I did not discount those occasions. They were simply not pertinent, as I was enumerating the number of times the Congress actually made a declaration of war.
And I still fail to see what is so hilarious about requiring our elected representatives to obey the law. Undermining the very foundation of our society is humorous? I really do not get the joke.



Look you keep flip flopping here, one minute it is an important fact that we have only "Formally Declared War" 11 times, then say it is not pertinent that we didn't declare war on those other occasions. Which is it? Either we need to "Formally" Declare war, for it to be a legal military action OR as I contend, It doesn't make a hill of beans, because it won't change squat.

I don't find War hilarious. What I find hilarious is when someone picks a few choice phrases out to pass off an opinion and then proclaims that everyone who disagrees with the statement is ignorant.

Thanks.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:08 AM

SHINY


Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:
In summary, the furor over the infamous "Downing Street Memo" (see http://downingstreetmemo.com/index.html for more)



Thanks for the link! That site contains some good explanations as to why this is important to investigate, the status of corroborating evidence, rebuttals to (generally weak) arguments used to dismiss the DSM, and petitions to pressure the administration into answering the hard questions(and the media into actually asking them).

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 3:15 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Your last sentence gave me pause, and I gave it some thought, flipping Gore into the same situation that Bush is now. Quite honestly, I might have given Gore a couple months more benefit of the doubt, but I believe that if he had racked up the same record I would be saying the same things about Gore than I am about Bush.

The record consists of what appeared to be a deliberate escalation of rhetoric, shifting goals (he required Saddam to let in UNMOVIC inspectors, then wouldn't let the inspectors finish the job), had key Cabinet officers, allies, and intelligence staff allude to data fudging (as the Brits said about Blair, the data was "sexed up"), was ulitmately proven wrong and shifted rationale again.

Although I often vote Democrat, I don't always vote that way. I didn't vote for Clinton, and it had nothing to do with Monica, so I believe that I... and many other ppl on this baord- are fact-driven, not ideology-driven when it comes to questioning Bush's motives.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 3:24 PM

NEUTRINOLAD


Quote:

True only Congress has the authority to declare war but it is not required in all circumstances.

Yup, there are precisely three, and I noted those by quoting the correct clause from the Constitution. Do you think that we invaded Iraq in order to i)execute the laws of the Union (where we have no jurisdiction), ii) suppress insurrection (in a territory not part of the US), or iii) repel invasion (there having been no invasion of the US by the Iraqis since, oh, ever)? Those are the only three you get to choose from, and let's face it, none of them fit.
Quote:

The word "fixed" has about twelve separate meanings

The phrase was "fixed around", a turn of speech that has precisely one (1) meaning. Think of it this way, "loused up" is not proper English, but we all know what it means, it has exactly one meaning, and it has nothing to do with actual tangible louses.
I wish there was some ambiguity with regards to the memo so I could once again give the benefit of the doubt as to the author's meaning, but to do so would require an act of self-delusion that beggars the imagination.
As for the lack of a declaration of war in favor of granting the President certain temporary powers to deploy the troops to invade a foreign nation, that is nothing more than simple sophistry. Exceedingly simple. Insultingly simple. I do not approve of the legislature abdicating its responsibilities because to carry them out would be politically inconvenient for incumbents. The ballot initiative process, such as is used in California, is an abdication of that responsibility, as is the avoidance of declaring war, and all such cowardly acts of legislative jiggery-pokery.
BTW, I do not argue this point in order to garner votes, and certainly not for the Democrats who, I would remind you, were complicit in this affair and have their own rather severe problems with wildly unethical behavior on a regular basis. I argue this point because I see my country sliding into the sort of imperial corruption that so many successful republics have succumbed to in the past. I hope that we can remove the blinkers and see just how we are repeating those mistakes. Maybe believing that the law should be applied to all equally puts me squarely in the camp of the foolish optimists. I'm okay with that.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 3:34 PM

NEUTRINOLAD


Quote:

... just the usual cast of Saddam apologists doing what they do best.

How is indicating evidence of possible crimes by one party an apology for another, completely separate party's crimes?
To conflate the two in this manner is at the very least a fundamental misunderstanding, and may be construed as purposefully deceptive. Both of these suppositions may, but one of them must, be true.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 1:57 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Yup, there are precisely three, and I noted those by quoting the correct clause from the Constitution. Do you think that we invaded Iraq in order to i)execute the laws of the Union (where we have no jurisdiction), ii) suppress insurrection (in a territory not part of the US), or iii) repel invasion (there having been no invasion of the US by the Iraqis since, oh, ever)? Those are the only three you get to choose from, and let's face it, none of them fit.



There are NOT only 3, and as below states it is an INCREDIBLY grey area as there is no definition of what exactly entails "Imminent danger" and leaves it open to interpretation :

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Now if you choose to ignore this because it would not fit your agenda. So be it..LOL. But please don't completely discount ALL of what the Constitution says in these regards. You have used words like "ONLY" and "Just 3 choices" and that my friend is a flagrant and blatant falsehood, no different then the "Imminent danger" that Iraq posed to the US falsehood. The Administration used that EXACT verbage many many times in the run up to the Iraq War.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 2:14 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Although I often vote Democrat, I don't always vote that way. I didn't vote for Clinton, and it had nothing to do with Monica, so I believe that I... and many other ppl on this baord- are fact-driven, not ideology-driven when it comes to questioning Bush's motives.



That is an interesting statement. I think we can judge people on their actions and deeds but trying to judge them on their motives is extremely difficult at best.

Do you know for a fact that President Bush, in his heart, deliberately mislead the US? That is the essence of the "Bush Lied" mythos.

How could you or anyone possibly know that?

President Bush may have just been stuck in an impossible situation and doing the best he could with the intelligence he had at the time. No one could possibly know the difference because the actions would be similar.

Recall the situation the US found itself in 2002. The Al Qaeda terrorists had just done the most brazen attack on the west anyone had ever seen. It left people in the US literally stunned for weeks or months. Now, in that light, look at the intelligence at the time from Iraq. Yes, it was knowingly imperfect, as intelligence always is. Saddam did not help matters by obscuring the facts even more.

President Clinton and his administration was concerned about the "nexus" of rogue regimes, WMD, and terrorists. He struck Iraq on those facts in 1998. The "nexus" argument went from a theoretical possibility to a FACT on 9/11. It probably did not involve Saddam but likely did the Taliban (they at least gave Al Qaeda harbor), but all the pieces were there for another disaster, except next time even more horrific.

In the scenario I just outlined ANY president would have had to act against Iraq. The UN route just was not working.

Thanks!

Andrew Lynch



Except for the fact that Iraq was in no way shape or form insinuating that it was preparing to attack us. The Administration USED 9/11 to go into Iraq under the "theory" that they would rid Iraq of WMD's to prevent Iraq from selling them to terrorists. We would have been much better off finishing in Afghanistan and actually catching Bin Laden and securing our borders. While doing that we could also have spent the billions of dollars developing our intelligence so that the Intel we receive could at the very least be corraborated rather then fabricated.

I contend that, it never mattered whether or not Saddam had WMD's. The Administration was going to take Saddam down regardless of the cost prior to 9/11.

That's where we get into the issue, Is it up to the USA to throw their weight around, spend American lives to overthrow a dictator, who's own country should rise up against him and in due time would? Is it up to us to bear the cost burden of such an action based on the Ideology that we need to preserve American Dominance in the World?

No. It's not up to us to do that. It's a dangerous path to travel down. What do we achieve by trying to "Preserve American Dominance" ? The Ill will of the dominees.

Many people may think the lack of WMD's in Iraq is a small deal. To me, it was everything. It broke my trust in my government (Both Dems and Republicans). It broke the World's trust in the US (Contrary to popular opinion, the World's opinion does matter and I'm not talking about governments). It cost the valuable lives of Americans and Iraqis.

All for a pre-meditated Agenda.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:30 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:
Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Except for the fact that Iraq was in no way shape or form insinuating that it was preparing to attack us.



I have to press your assertion as it is the heart of the premise.

How do you know that? How CAN you know that?

Saddam was merrily marching around his "Feyadeen Saddam" militia, firing up the IIS, and busily making preparations for *something*. How could anyone have known for sure that a WMD revenge attack was not in the planning?

There is some evidence (not conclusive) that Iraq was involved in the 1993 WTC attack.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

Also, we didn't see the 9/11 attacks coming although maybe we should have in retrospect. How do you know a similiar "blind spot" was not being exploited?

Thanks!

Andrew Lynch



Look, How many of Saddam's Missiles could reach the US? How many jets did Saddam get off the ground? How many soldiers surrenderd before a shot was fired? How many of his missile batteries did we bomb PRIOR to actual Military invasion? Saddam was impotent. We mowed through his armies like fat kids through a cheesecake.

Nobody and I mean nobody in the US military or the US was even a little bit worried about Saddams military. The Administration used the fear generated from 9/11 to push forth their agenda to take Saddam out and establish centralized military bases. It wasn't because he was a threat.

Hans Blix and crew said there was NO evidence that WMD's existed in Iraq and the "tard" that I am, I didn't believe him because I placed trust in my government.

The fact that the "Some Non-conclusive evidence" about the '93 WTC attack is being brought up now, as a form of defense, is wrong in light of the REAL evidence which IS pretty damn conclusive. No WMD's were ever found in Iraq and Hans Blix was correct. They've stopped searching for them. Noone has been held accountable.

All I heard was a big "Oops, we screwed up" from Colin Powell.

I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-agenda war. We went into Iraq for an agenda. If you can truly tell me with a straight face, that GWB's Administration REALLY believed that Saddam was a REAL and credible threat to the US and weren't REALLY just focused on establishing long term bases in Iraq to pursue military goals within the Middle East. Then we can stop discussing this now.

It would be pointless to continue. You are set in your opinion and I'm still searching for the truth and some accountability.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:12 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I have been, I think, quite reasonable and factual in my responses. But at this point, the only ideology-driven person I see in this thread is AJ.

While there were uncertainties about whether Saddam has accounted for stockpiles of old, by-then-useless WMD, Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the USA in any way, shape, or form. That was perfectly well-known before the invasion no amount of data selection will ever show otherwise. Try it, AJ. Show us that Saddam posed an imminet threat to the USA I don't want to hear maybes and might-haves.

And then, Bush used assertions that had been proven wrong even before the invasion. Take yellowcake, for example. Tenet told Bush to remove references to that at least twice. But Bush persisted and inserted it into speeches again. The "explanation" for that? "We forgot"!

And then there was Bush's insistence that Saddam allow UNMOVIC inspectors in, and that he allow access to all of his palaces. That was granted but then UNMOVIC was forced out of Iraq, job near completion, by the pending US invasion.

The only person who does not seem to be taking facts into account is AJ. At this point, it's talking to an ideologue- there's no point in going further.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Also, we didn't see the 9/11 attacks coming although maybe we should have in retrospect. How do you know a similiar "blind spot" was not being exploited?


You are just pointing and gibbering at an emtpy box. After all, something might be there! Or might have been there! Following your logic- why, we could have been attacked by aliens! After all, there 's no data there either! Dang, they're incredibly sneaky, exploiting our blind spots like that!

If you didn't see 9-11 coming, then you are stupid. I saw it coming, I was not in the least surprised, and I don't have all the info that the President supposedly had (including, BTW, a memo pointing to attack on commercial jetliner). Don't you wonder why Bush resisted the 9-11 commission and had to be shamed into an investigation by the families of the victims? Why he refused to appear under oath, and had to have Cheney holding his hand? Why the air traffic control tapes, and the tapes of air traffic controller depositions, were destroyed? OF course you wouldn't wonder, because Bush is so honest!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 4:17 AM

SHINY


Here's a very balanced analysis from Slate:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2120886/

The verdict: the DSM is only mildly important when it comes to providing evidence about the administration's alleged duplicity, but it's quite important as a primary historical document and a case study of how government officials make bad decisions.

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The article may be "balanced", but not necessarily accurate. (That's may be like saying that starting with 2+2=5 and 2+2=6, a balanced conclusion is that 2+2=5.5) Here are three instances where the author may be drawing unwarranted conclusions.

First of all, the article says that "everybody" knew war was coming anyway. Then, it proceeds to quote articles from a very select group: left-of-center skeptics of the Bush administration who were willing to believe the worst of the Administration and who were, unfortunately, correct. Most people believed what the Administration was insisting on at the time- war was the last option. So, most people didn't know, and most people were in fact deceived.

The second error is where the author quotes various British... and by extension, American.... officials who were convinced that Saddam had WMD. These people may not have all been in the loop on the real deal. I got a smarmy reply from Feinstein, one of my Senators who sits on the Intelligence Committee, saying "I know things that you don't know". Well, it turns out she was misinformed by both the Office of Special Plans and Tenet who both reported back to the President through a very short chain of command. Although the various ministers and officials talked about what they believed to be true, their ultimate source of information may have not been independent of bias. I would need to know who got their information from whom, and whether it was first-hand or filtered.

The third thing that I find a little (quite frankly) stupid and un-insightful about the article is that it does not address the UNMOVIC inspections. No provisions were being made for what was to happen if UNMOVIC found Saddam in substantial compliance. The fact that the invasion was rushed to occur just before the final report tells me that Bush & Co had no intention to call off invasion under any circumstance. He showed no planning in this area ahead of time or even near-term. What was missing from the discussions is even more telling than what was discussed.

There is more to these memos than one or two words ("fixed" or "fixed around"). Superficial articles like Slate's don't add anything to the discussion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:58 AM

HKCAVALIER


Hey, Signy, or anyone else who can help me: I was o.d.-ing on MSNBC yesterday (God knows why, I've never done it before! I blame my old friend Ron Reagan who's got a show that comes on every couple of hours over there) and amidst the flashes of news about the "7 new memos" a quote, apparently from one of them, was flashed on the screen for about half a second talking about a discussion of how to phrase our demands so that Saddam would not comply. Anybody got a link?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:34 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


No, but it sure is a quote worth bird-dogging down. If I find it, I will definitely post it!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:37 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey, I found it!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html

"14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003."

I'm having a hard time coming up with the words to describe how this makes me feel. This is just disgusting. It's fraud. In no way was war a "last resort" for Bush & co. as they said it was. It was they're first priority, all they had to do was establish plausible deniability to move ahead. And they did. Y'know, AJ, I have never said I hate these people, but I hate them for this.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:57 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


This is pretty much what I figured. It sure is nice to see it confirmed. Thanks.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 3:29 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey, I found it!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html

"14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003."

I'm having a hard time coming up with the words to describe how this makes me feel. This is just disgusting. It's fraud. In no way was war a "last resort" for Bush & co. as they said it was. It was they're first priority, all they had to do was establish plausible deniability to move ahead. And they did. Y'know, AJ, I have never said I hate these people, but I hate them for this.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.



You know, I'm noticing a trend here. The people who seem most upset by this stuff are the people who really are proud to be Americans. Or at least people who want to be. The last thing they are is 'hate-filled' or ready to 'blame America' at the drop of a hat.

The reality of the situation is that, if anything, we're guilty of delusion. It doesn't take much study of history to realize that wars are almost always 'sold' on simplistic distractions that often have little to do with the real reasons behind them.

But most of us, us Americans that is, would like to think we're different. We'd like to think that our government acts in good faith with the intentions and values of the citizens. We'd like to think that our nation, born out of rebellion against imperialism, wouldn't be so quick to take advantage of it's powerful position.

Is that naive? Is there any way we'll ever get someone in office who respects REAL American values?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 6:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


AJ- Your last post (about the single missiles that "could" reach the USA via tramp freighter) is a great example of a paranoid scenario that doesn't make sense.

Saddam was not a stateless terrorist with nothing to lose. He was the leader of a large Middle Eastern nation that happens to be sitting on the world's second-largest proven oil reserves- a fact that he was highly aware of. All of his actions indicate that he wanted to continue being the leader of that country. Why would he tweak the nose of the USA as you describe? It would only provide the perfect justification for us to invade Iraq and depose him, whihc is the last thing he would want.

So-Use your imagination. I'll ask you, for the roughly eighth time- What do you think Saddam was actually doing, and what evidence do you have to support it? I don't want to hear yet another maybe that contradicts the half-dozen maybes that you've already suggested. The critical words in this question are "you" and "think". OK?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 3:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The concern was geniune.


Your concern is genuine, too. But it's misinformed, just like the average soldier's.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 8:41 AM

NEUTRINOLAD


Quote:

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


This is in regards to an individual state's power only, not the role of eithe the President or the Congress.
This case is, however, covered by the "repel invasion" clause, so the Federal executive, as well asthe State itself, may respond. Because an individual state did not "engage in War" because it was invaded, or in imminent Danger of such, this clause does not apply.
Nice red herring, though

Oh, and the other times we sent troops? I'm not ignoring those, I think most of those were clearly illegal.

My point being, our elected representatives should obey the law of the land and nnot abdicate their responsibilities because those responsibilities are politically inconvenient. That's it. That's all I meant. I think there is ample evidence that the COngress has done just that with respect to the War Powers, going all the way back to the Truman administration.

And LynchAJ? I agree, ascribing motives is a dangerous business. That's why it is so very difficult to prove intent in a court of law, and rightly so in my opinion.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 9:09 AM

DIONWR


*sigh*

Did IQ's suddenly drop while I was away?

This thread gives me much to write, because many of you, particularly the right-wing tool who started the thread, don't know anything of what you're writing about.

As a recently returned Iraq vet (with one less leg than I went in with), I can tell you that the average soldier in Iraq is actually better informed than you are.

The largest, growing group of anti-Bush folks I know of are my buddies in Iraq. It's obvious to us that Bush lied and is lying. We see it every day.

Were any of you even aware that we started bombing and throwing missiles into Iraq in 2002--BEFORE CONGRESS HAD EVEN VOTED ON THE USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ? The story is starting to come out now, but trust me, it's true--I know some of the pilots who did the sorties. Do a google search on "Charlie Clements," for just one testimony of this.

That story, too, is starting to come out now, albeit the right-wing dismissed it at the time as lies from the Saddam Hussein government. The current spin is that we were enforcing the "no fly" zones, but all the pilots involved will tell you that that just wasn't so. We systematically started taking out Iraq's ability to defend itself, and we did so before Congress even voted on the matter. Indeed, I have a desk paperweight that was part of the missile that took out the Bagdad central telephone exchange in early September, 2002.

But the big lie is the current one, that the war is going well. The war is NOT going well. It is NOT being won, and I don't think it's winnable. We should never have gone in to Iraq, we should have concentrated on Afghanistan and catching Osama bin Laden. At this point, we should cut our losses and leave.

Up until Iraq, I had been a lifelong Republican. But my Republican party was one of strict observance of the Constitution, balancing the budget, avoiding foreign wars unless absolutely necessary, and keeping government from interfering in people's lives except under the most extreme of circumstances. The current Republican party is one of pious lip-service to (while totally ignoring) the Constitution, childish economic policies that will come back to haunt us, reckless and stupid foreign adventurism, and changing government interference from the social programs the GOP hates, to propping up the fundamentalist Christian ethos.

War after 9/11 was inevitable and necessary, but not against Iraq. We should have stuck to it in Afghanistan and been on the ground to ensure bin Laden didn't get away. We should have followed wherever he led, including Pakistan. We should have accepted no substitute for finding and hanging that evil bastard. We should still do that.

Instead, we attacked a country that hadn't been a party to bin Laden's attack, stretched our resources to their absolute limit, threw away the good will of the entire world which had been freely given us after 9/11, and are creating more insurgents with every day that we stay there.

SERGEANTX:

I have to disagree with your belief that impeachment would only be a "foolish gesture." Bush's crimes are MUCH more serious than Clinton's getting his dick sucked, and they should be brought to the same forum, and him made to answer for them. Plus, and more importantly, it's the right thing to do. Bush lied, and he knew he was lying. He has committed the high crimes that impeachment calls for.

The folks in Congress should forego their partisan differences and address this. Instead, we're getting a silly, childish politics where our representatives are playing at politics as if it were a game, with no concern for truth or their responsibilities in the matter. It would also be a great litmus test as to who is more interested in scoring partisan points (like AJ) than in getting to the truth.

It's important to remember, in this context, that the Democrats, back when I was a boy, were smart enough to wait for Republicans to propose bills of impeachment against Nixon. They knew that there had to be a true bipartisan concensus on this.

As to its creating a neutered presidency for Clinton, I think that was the point. God knows, I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, but I was ashamed for my party, because they turned the highly serious matter of impeaching a president into a purely partisan action.

Now, no one expects impeachment, because the Congress is Republican, both House and Senate. But think what it says, folks, that we believe they will all put their party above any of their responsiblities to the Constitution and the country.

CONNORFLYNN:

While you seem to argue from my own position--someone too disgruntled with the Republicans, but wary of the Democrats--you also have a tendency to throw up your hands, figuratively, and argue, essentially, that fighting is of no use. I cannot agree.

What this administration has done must be fought. If we allow them to get away, with no accountability, then we might as well stop referring to ourselves as a free nation.

best,
diownr
(dee-uh-NOOR; it's Welsh)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 9:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

dee-uh-NOOR; it's Welsh
Ah. That accounts for the spelling. Thank you for your post. It's good to hear from someone who's been there.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 9:56 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by dionwr:
*sigh*

Did IQ's suddenly drop while I was away?

I have to disagree with your belief that impeachment would only be a "foolish gesture." Bush's crimes are MUCH more serious than Clinton's getting his dick sucked, and they should be brought to the same forum, and him made to answer for them. Plus, and more importantly, it's the right thing to do. Bush lied, and he knew he was lying. He has committed the high crimes that impeachment calls for.

The folks in Congress should forego their partisan differences and address this. Instead, we're getting a silly, childish politics where our representatives are playing at politics as if it were a game, with no concern for truth or their responsibilities in the matter. It would also be a great litmus test as to who is more interested in scoring partisan points (like AJ) than in getting to the truth....

..Now, no one expects impeachment, because the Congress is Republican, both House and Senate. But think what it says, folks, that we believe they will all put their party above any of their responsiblities to the Constitution and the country.



Thanks for the post. Your points are compelling and you've put me in the unusual position arguing pragmatism over idealism. The problem I see is with the repurcussions of an impeachment. I just think it would do more harm than good, just as the Clinton impeachment did.

If, IF, we could get wide ranging consensus among politicians on both sides of the isle, as was the case with Nixon, I'd say go for it. As it is, as long as Bush and his cronies maintain an atmosphere of 'plausible deniablity' for their supporters to cling to - the republicans will never let it go forward in any productive way.

But I agree, it IS the right thing to do.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 10:40 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by dionwr:

CONNORFLYNN:

While you seem to argue from my own position--someone too disgruntled with the Republicans, but wary of the Democrats--you also have a tendency to throw up your hands, figuratively, and argue, essentially, that fighting is of no use. I cannot agree.

What this administration has done must be fought. If we allow them to get away, with no accountability, then we might as well stop referring to ourselves as a free nation.

best,
diownr
(dee-uh-NOOR; it's Welsh)



I think you misunderstood me Dionwr. I agree there are times you just need to open a can of whoop-ass. I have no problem with us fighting for our freedoms. I'm far from a peacenik LOL. My point all along has been that our troops were forced into fighting a war in Iraq that they didn't NEED to fight.

I'm sorry to hear about your leg and wish you the best in recuperating and in life. Thanks for your service.

Connor

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 10:45 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Quote:

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


This is in regards to an individual state's power only, not the role of eithe the President or the Congress.
This case is, however, covered by the "repel invasion" clause, so the Federal executive, as well asthe State itself, may respond. Because an individual state did not "engage in War" because it was invaded, or in imminent Danger of such, this clause does not apply.
Nice red herring, though

Oh, and the other times we sent troops? I'm not ignoring those, I think most of those were clearly illegal.

My point being, our elected representatives should obey the law of the land and nnot abdicate their responsibilities because those responsibilities are politically inconvenient. That's it. That's all I meant. I think there is ample evidence that the COngress has done just that with respect to the War Powers, going all the way back to the Truman administration.

And LynchAJ? I agree, ascribing motives is a dangerous business. That's why it is so very difficult to prove intent in a court of law, and rightly so in my opinion.



Neutrino -

Dude, you keep using that word "Only" . WHy why why?

The word "only" ONLY appears 3 times in the entire constituion(along with all its happy ammendments) and NONE of those times does it appear in reference to Congress. You keep interpreting rather then looking at it factually.

The US is referred to often as the State or Union or United States. The words "consent of Congress" appear, yet you claim it has nothing to do with the role of Congress.

Please stop passing off your interpretations as fact. LOL

It's cracking me up. Thanks for the funny

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 3:26 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, that's another "How" but you missed my point: WHY? Why would Saddam do something like that? It was not in his interest. What he really wanted to do was stay in power in Iraq and skim lots of oil money. He already knew he couldn't beat the USA, and if he created such a disaster we'd bomb the snot out of him... with full international backing. His dreams of wealth would disappear. This seems to be a criticla flaw in your thinking- your suspicions are unbounded by any other consideration.

You know what? We've been through this before, several times. You have not come up with any rational, plausible scope to your suspicions. I'm going to quit discussing this with you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 18, 2005 1:03 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


Quote:

Originally posted by dionwr:

Did IQ's suddenly drop while I was away?

As a recently returned Iraq vet (with one less leg than I went in with), I can tell you that the average soldier in Iraq is actually better informed than you are....

...What this administration has done must be fought. If we allow them to get away, with no accountability, then we might as well stop referring to ourselves as a free nation

diownr
(dee-uh-NOOR; it's Welsh)



I think everyone on this board deeply appreciates your sacrifice. Thanks for letting us know what's really going on out there. God bless you man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 18, 2005 1:45 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


dionwr,

I thank you, though I know no amount of 'thank you's' will suffice.

Rue

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 18, 2005 1:52 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Now this, this I KNOW is completely false. The military was absolutely terrified of the Apocalypse Scenario where Saddam attacked US and coalition forces with massive WMD, primarily to provoke the anticipated US nuclear response.
Yuh.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=10773

The first time I clued into the fact it wasn't about WMD (well before the US attacked) was when I realized that Bush could not politically or strategically afford to send a couple of hundred thousand US personnel into a situation where tens of thousands were certain to die. (You know, from those massive stockpiles of WMD.)

Then when I saw him moving the goalposts every time Hussein complied with each new demand, it became completely clear that war was pre-ordained.

One motive, which set the timing, became clear to me when I learned that Iraq was about to sign oil development contracts with France and Russia, and that any contracts, once signed, were legally binding on any subsequent occupying force.

Powell's UN presentation, which I studied carefully, was a masterwork of deception, mixing old information with unsupported speculation, and relying heavily on 'information' that he 'couldn't' provide to the UN.

That US ground troops weren't directed at any time to investigate and secure WMD sites made the lie more apparent. (Also, that the US had to be pressured into formally looking for WMD at all, and only months after the 'end' of the war.)

I learned that Bush 'fixed intelligence around' his goal from carefully reading the Senate Report. That is how I knew years ago about Bush's specific lies about yellowcake, aluminum tubes, and CW and BW. What, when, where, who, and how.


Other people relied on other information to come to the same conclusions.

What BUSH told the military and what he thought were simply two different things.

But what he thought and what he did were congruent. The lack of adequate protective gear or detection equipment, quickly moving ground troops forward into what could have been harm's way, were all based on the knowledge there were NO WMDs.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 18, 2005 11:05 PM

HOTPOINT


The Sunday Times today (June 19th 2005) continues to produce interesting documentation:

Quote:

A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime” was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.

The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began “spikes of activity” designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.

The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was “not consistent with” UN law, despite American claims that it was.



Quote:


Elizabeth Wilmshurst, one of the Foreign Office lawyers who wrote the report, resigned in March 2003 in protest at the decision to go to war without a UN resolution specifically authorising military force.

Further intensification of the bombing, known in the Pentagon as the Blue Plan, began at the end of August, 2002, following a meeting of the US National Security Council at the White House that month.

General Tommy Franks, the allied commander, recalled in his autobiography, American Soldier, that during this meeting he rejected a call from Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to cut the bombing patrols because he wanted to use them to make Iraq’s defences “as weak as possible”.

The allied commander specifically used the term “spikes of activity” in his book. The upgrade to a full air war was also illegal, said Goodhart. “If, as Franks seems to suggest, the purpose was to soften up Iraq for a future invasion or even to intimidate Iraq, the coalition forces were acting without lawful authority,” he said.

Although the legality of the war has been more of an issue in Britain than in America, the revelations indicate Bush may also have acted illegally, since Congress did not authorise military action until October 11 2002.

The air war had already begun six weeks earlier and the spikes of activity had been underway for five months.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1660300,00.html

The full text of the legal advice is here. It's pretty long but worth reading.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1654697,00.html



...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL