Well, Iraq may not be as stable (yet) as it will be, but at least the rape rooms
and the torture chambers (real ones,not waterboarding)are gone. So are Sadam and
his sons who murdered millions of his own people. Iraqis voted for the first
time too. How long did it take for USA to become stable after the war of
independance? We still have challenges and so will Iraq. By the way, is NBC
still reporting that we lost the war in Iraq?
IRAQ is not stable, you need to take your sun glasses off and see the reality
the war is still going on and the American setup government is a failure,
puppets that have lose strings just like the Bush regime
Liberals think we are in a horrible mess. I have a suggestion. Move to Cuba! You
would love it there! And most of us don't really care if you liberals laugh at
us. We don't want your approval, in fact to have your approval would be very
embarassing. If you don't like Utah, leave, please! Just because most of us
don't agree with your clouded views of life, it doesn't mean we don't think. If
you disagree with a liberal, you must be too stupid to think for yourself. Yet
Al Frankin doesn't do your thinking for you? LOL The rest of us are laughing at
you! Can you hear it?
getting more and more of a hoot to listen to the shrill voices of the soon to be
in the wilderness arch conservative branch of the republican party who infest
utah and make it a laughing stalk. you've had your day and what a horrible mess
we are in, see ya..
Otherwise sensible, reasonable, thoughtful individuals tend to turn off their
brain and simply speak or act according to instructions when it comes to
religion and politics. It is just too overwhelming for many humans to actually
think through all aspects of an issue and make a choice based on their God-given
sense of reasoning and intelligence.
Their agenda is for Socialism/Communisum. Any other political news is printed
with a liberial-elitest negative slant, and for the most part called "political
claptrap" by knowledgable Americans.Can you visualize China's largest
newspaper printing pro-democratic news? Only in America!
Yes, the surge has created some very positive things in Iraq. It reminds me of
how nice I thought my neighbors porch looked after I spent the entire day
cleaning it with my brother after we had put a paper bag full of dog poop on it
and lit it on fire. We have a moral responsibility to clean up the mess in Iraq
but whatever postives come from that cleaning do not justify the mess in the
first place. Could we have gotten the same result with a concerted international
effort (at a time we actually had international support and respect) and
increased fly-overs and inspections while our military efforts focused on
Afgahnistan/Pakistan? I think the answer is a resounding yes. McCain has been a
large part of the surge effort. It is not an effort that the Bush administration
should take any credit for. Others much more competent have had to clean up his
disaster behind the scenes. And don't be surprised when Iraq is simply a
democratic muslim state voting
8 years and Bush and his cronies still can't catch a crippled guy with bad
I think you are right! Certain "officials" have wanted into Iraq since 1991,
they was pressure on Clinton, and luckily he kept us out of there. But yeah, it
was wayyyyy to tempting for W to do something daddy couldnt do-get Sadam.
please never run for any sort of office, ha.
So for some of you folks it's the source of the information that troubles you.
I certainly hope you consider your sources when you read the insidious
'information' so often circulating throughout the internet.
You can never hit a ball you can't see - an old baseball phrase. American took
it's eye off of Bin Laden - thanks to our ill-advised misadventure into Iraq.
Pretty simple really. Had we not gone to Iraq we most likely would have already
found and killed Bin Laden and his bunch of thugs. But here we are - embroiled
in a self inflicted civil war in Iraq while our real enemy grows stronger in
Afghanistan. Bush will forever be remembered (along with Lindon Johnson and
Vietnam)as the president who got us into another un-winnable sink hole.
The New York Times is only believed here in the city of New York. No credibility
anymore regardless of your political slant.
I'm so tired of the "Obama has no experience" cries, that he's young and "wet
behind the ears".Yes, Obama has only served one term in Washington,
having gotten most of his political experience in the Illinois state
legislature. Many inexperienced statesmen have successfully led our
country in the past. In fact, off-hand I can think of a president who also only
served one term in Washington before running for president, whose primary
experience in politics came from work in the state legislature (Illinois, as it
happens). He was an upstart who wanted to change things, and who ended up
guiding this country through the very worst of times and truly changing the
United States forever. His name was Abraham Lincoln.Discount Obama
if you wish, but don't rely on "inexperience" as a way to do so. It's not a
reliable indicator of success.
The New York Times has never agreed anything thing with George Bush the past 7
yrs. So why should we be surprised about this article. After all, it was the
NYT that concluded the Iraq was in a civil war (ref: Thomas Friedman). RE: timjPosters like you always meet someone (a veteran,
soldier, etc.) that somehow matchup perfectly with the article at hand and your
views. It is surprising how many misinformed individuals continue to confuse
the reason why the US went into Iraq in the first place. For some reason, if
Iraq never would have ocurred the liberals in the country would be giving the
fire hose treatment to President Bush concerning Afghanistan.If
liberals believe that it is such a mess--why would you want a rookie like Obama
in there to try to fix what you percieve as the problem? Obama might be a good
public speaker but he isn't the wisest man in the room. I can hardly wait for
my schadenfreude moment with liberals if Obama ever becomes president and messes
up. Democrats are never good for anybody except themselves.
Saddam Hussien is gone, a stable, democratically-elected government is in place,
and the armed forces of said government are beginning to take the place of US
forces throughout the country.You know, you libs need to put down
your 2006 playbook. The Surge worked. Even most Democrats in Congress admit
it.While 4,000 dead soldiers are a tragic price to pay, it's tiny
compared when compared to our previous efforts to overthrow tyrants and spread
democracy.Heaven knows what you modern lefties would have said had
you been writing the headlines on June 7, 1944.
I thought his name was actually McBush.In any case, I won't be
voting for him. The sad thing is that I won't be voting for Obama either.Its the same problem every election.
Not only am I younger and more smarter and better edumacted than John McCain but
I could easily beat him at one-on-one Basket-m-ball even if I gave him 10 points
start .. vote BO ..
It's a proven fact that The New York Times can't be trusted.
I must ask the question, what is worse--a borderline senile seventy-year-old
with a young, able vice-president or a young, charismatic forty-year old
flip-flop, flim-flam artist who is beginning to see the handwriting on the wall
and is trying through lies, deception and denial of his previous leftist voting
record to become a moderate. He will do or say anything to be elected and,
therefore, can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything.Also,
it is obvious from the article written by Mark Mazzetti and David Rohde of the
NEW TIMES NEWS SERVICE that they salivated at the thought of belittling and
denigrating the U.S. efforts to capture OBL. One should consider the source, the
leftist propaganda machine, and take the entire article with a grain of salt.
As for "I agree...stipulated," Those who use pejorative names to
describe those with whom they don't agree usually deserve those same labels.
Get real! Bush is not an idiot; McCain is not senile. Bush was never a cocaine
addict. And learn how to spell cognitive while you're at it. Let's
use some logic here. Granted, the U.S. has made mistakes in the war on
terrorism. Mistakes are made in all wars because humans, particularly criminal
humans, are unpredictable. Now, which presidential candidate will fight the
terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Will Obama authorize the huge expense,
the additional losses of life, the risk and the resources necessary to defeat
the terrorists? I doubt it. Will McCain? Again, I doubt it, though he is
probably more likely than Obama to finish the job that Bush started. Keep in
mind that Bush's War has resulted in the deaths of many terrorists, mostly in
Iraq. And it has kept the terrorists off our shores. If Obama or McCain pull
our troops out of the Middle East and fail to leave enough resources for the
freedom lovers remaining behind, expect Al Quaida to try to detonate a nuclear
weapon in NYC or Washington.
John McCain is not Bush, any more than Bush is Reagan. Those who equate voting
for John McCain to voting for another 4 years of Bush are just trying to stir up
support for B. Hussein Obama.Obama does NOT have the experience to
lead the greatest nation on earth, which also happens to be the largest
corporation on earth. He has ZERO experience and is completely UNQUALIFIED for
this critically important job while we're AT WAR. John McCain, while I'm not a
fan of his more liberal viewpoints, has FAR MORE experience to deal with all of
this. The prospect of a wet-behind-the-ears Obama actually getting the reigns
of the United States is VERY SCARY. Please, please PLEASE don't even
consider baby Obama, even if you're a liberal! There's just too much at stake
for a beginner!!!Last, I am incredibly disappointed in Bush for his
domestic big-government policies and spending, his lack of spine when dealing
with those across the aisle, and his total lack of international leadership.
It's time to get a Republican with some backbone in the office, it's time to
elect President McCain.
Please don't let Rush or Sean think for you.
I agree...stipulated. Bush has failed to finish the job on terrorism and is a
certifiable idiot. I actually voted for McCain in the Michigan primary before
Bush won the Republican nomination prior to his first election (99 or 00). I
thought then, and am sure now, that the guy did not have what it took to be an
effective president. Sadly time has shown this to be correct. I don't say these
things lightly, I want to respect our leader, but he has little about him to
respect. He is a former alcoholic and cocaine addict and apparently these
addictions damaged his cognative abilities. He can not speak clearly, he is
unduly influenced by those around him and the actual results have been
disasterous. I think John McCain is borderline senile. It is a
medical fact that cognative abilities decline rapidly after age 70 for most
people. He has made several notable gaffes. I just think he is too old and
will likely die in office from a melanoma relapse. Anyway, I don't think he has
much chance to win. So let's get behind Obama and help him be successful. His
success will be our success.
I am former military and as conservative as they come. I'd rather move out of
this country than vote Democrat. But I do think. I do expect the leader of my
party to have integrity, intelligence, and wisdom. George Bush is the worse
thing to have happened to the conservative movement in history!!! I am ashamed
of my fellow Republicans who stand by such a failure of a President just for the
sake of their party. I am willing to speak out against his incredible ineptitude
FOR the sake of my party. I have renewed hope and faith with John McCain but I
hope he has the strength to distance himself from Bush through this election.
There is nothing positive that can come from positioning himself at all close to
Bush. Wake up Republicans and have some integrity rather than just supporting
Bush because he is the leader of our party. He has been a disaster of great
magnitude and his incredible lack of judgement and ability to listen to and
consider ALL critical information has resulted in unnecessary deaths of our
bravest and finest young men and women. I am sickened by Republican leadership
and so should you!!
Wait, you think 4,000 dead soldiers and no real progress isn't a disaster?
Matthew--You're right. Either of our two choices this year will be much
better than G.W. Bush.Something to be grateful for.
Priceless. George "W" (The W stands for Worst Ever) Bush proves
himself to be grossly inept in every way possible with regards to being a
"president", has stood by while allowing gas prices to skyrocket (Gee, don't the
Bush's have VAST amounts of stock in oil companies?)which have helped ruin the
economy, drive up unemployment, export jobs overseas, ignore a growing illegal
immigration problem, involve us in muliple conflicts worldwide that either could
have been implemented with much more competence and or weren't needed at all,
and turned just about the whole world against us.We are talking
about an idiot who says so many innane things that a daily calendar has been
made every year since he took office making fun of his "Bushisms" (Do you
realize how many stupid things you have to say to support 8 years of 365 daily
quotes?), thinks he's the supreme ruler of the entire world, thinks that he's
been chosen by God to spread democracy to other countries (Whether they want it
or not) and this is all somehow CLINTON'S fault????Like I said,
Whichever party you affiliate with there can only be one conclusion from this,
and that is the government is very inefficient at whatever they try to do.Anyone that supports more government for ANYTHING or believe that these
beauacracies could actually be useful has no logical thought process.80% of the US government should be eliminated and then maybe we could get
something done. All members of congress should be allowed one term. The
longer these people remain in office the less "good" gets done. We need people
that have an interest in doing something constructive instead of positioning
themselves for more power on their next committee appointment.Both
parties are guilty, one just slightly less than the other. Ridiculous.Wake up people--throw them ALL out. Lets start over.
We actually are actively working on the nuclear power/hydrogen thing. Look up
the Nuclear 2010 program. It will use new reactor designs which will eliminate
the need for uranium enrichment, thus significantly decreasing the already low
(4 cents/kwh) cost of electricity from a nuclear power plant.
Amen to "Wondering"! We all know where the NYT stands and that is far far left,
so why use them as a source of news for ANYTHING?
Looked at the headline and realized immediately this is an New York Times story.
Didn't bother to read any further. I like my fairy tale reading with pictures
I really, really hope that I'm right when I say that either of our two choices
this year will be much better than G.W. Bush. What a disaster. I realy feel
sorry for those that can't give up their support for him. They are textbook
cases of Cognative Dissonance at work.It truly speaks volumes about the
strength of our society and system of government that we have been able to
survive seven-and-one-half years under the "leadership" of G.W. Bush and his
So if we know where Al-Qaida is located--why don't we just go bomb the heck out
of the mountians and end this thing? OR maybe you should ask this question, are
we the greatest nation or not? If we are then no one would mess with us. It is
sad, but I question that everyday. "God Bless America" Does anyone have an
Major Problem: PAKISTAN HAS NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES, AFGHANISTAN did not! As I have
keenly WARNED IF Democrats get the White House you WILL SEE A MAJOR TERRORIST
ATTACK on US SOIL AGAIN IN THE FIRST 2 Years of His Presidency! Sadly whenever
you Compromise with evil, Evil sadly does win! I came out of the
"Civil Defense Drill" era in schools, and grand children and youngest children
will have deal with "Terrorist Defense Drills" in their schools which will be
similar to what we did for Civil Defense. Ronald Reagan took his defense model
from the Book of Mormon believe it or not, a man (Or Character if you wish)
named Captain Moroni. A powerful military is the best way to keep the peace.McCain is a poor choice too, but we "the republican party" put him
Barack Obama wants to invade Pakistan, with or without their permission.
Neo Cons bash Obama as wanting to negotiate with terrorists, like Kim Jong Il.
Then Bush eases restrictions on North Korea. But that's not negotiating with
After having been so wrong in predicting disaster in Iraq, the NYT tries its
hand at predicting disaster in Afghanistan.The only thing that will
change this dynamic is the election of Barack Obama. Not because Obama will do
anything differently or better than George Bush, but because he is a Democrat
the Big Media types such as Hersh will automatically start looking on the bright
The facts are these. Bush has not finished the war in Afghanistan and has mucked
up the war in Iraq. He's made Al Qaida stronger and hasn't captured or killed
Osama. Those are facts regardless of who prints them. Now you may not like those
facts, but they are facts nonetheless. Bush and his gang of neocons has had 8
years of rule and they've failed on every front. Now they want to go into Iran.
We have a village idiot for a president, and a gang of clowns advising him.
Anyone who wants more of the same failure is delusional and should run down and
vote for John McBush McCain.
"The New York Times up to it's usual junk. They know so much but why aren't they
in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of their comfortable air conditioned
offices in New York."This past week I was visiting with extended family
and met an army guy. Extended family was surprised when he said he's voting for
Obama. "We're not doing much good there," he said, about Iraq.And then
there are the stats of which political campaigns have gotten money from people
in the military (Paul and Obama, who both favor pulling out from Iraq, got the
most money).Sounds like the New York Times is saying the same stuff that
people in the military are saying.
Maybe we need another approach. Let's be clear first...these are despicable
people and I don't like their religious views. BUT, if our goal is to not be
hurt by them perhaps we can look at WHY they hate us. The why part is
easy...they don't like our culture, they don't like our success, they don't like
our power and influence, and they don't like our foreign policy (ie, support of
Israel). I believe that radical Islaam will fail, if left to its own devices.
People do not want to be so restricted in their lifestyle, even poor, uneducated
people. We "bump up" against these people because the world economy we have is
built on petroleum. If we subtract the need for petroluem (at least from their
regions...) we stand a chance of letting them be as they will. We could do
this, the solution is known (hydrogen replacing petroleum, with nuclear power to
supply the electricity for hydrogen extraction and production). This would take
some time, but it is doable within 10 years. If all the world powers did this,
these folks would become unimportant, worthless nomads fighting and killing each
other in the sands of Arabia. Nice thought huh?
If I had wanted to subscribe to the New York Times I would have done it myself.
Is the Des News short of writers?
the only thing and i mean the only thing that will bring peace in the middle
east is a u.s. brokered, and maintained peace agreement between isreal and the
arabs that brings security and peace to both sides.this is like getting
mormons and baptists, or necons and liberals to agree on fundamental principles
of both religion and governance, but only this will defuse the anger enough to
take away the base of hatered of the radicals on both sides of the question.we say we are fighting evil, so do the muslims, so did the yankees and the
confederates. the irgun was considered a radical terrorist group by the british
when they fought the jewish state.there has been virtually nothing but
window dressing from washington for 8 years, that has to change. we learned in
viet nam, you don't kill enemies fast enough to prevail, but you do convince
them to give in when they see improvement is their lot by embracing democracy.
Getting ready to enlist your children if not grandchildren because if Bush
brings on the 3rd World War no one will be exempt as the battle will come to
roost right on your doorstep folks of the Bush alliance
Why are we chasing dissidents around the globe? Just bring our military back
home and put them on border defense like most other countries have. Isn't
defending our borders a military objective? Americans don't object to border
control and are willing to abide by it even if there are delays. With so many
countries around the world that don't like US policy invading their country they
have a right to defend their homeland. Just as americans want thier homes
protected from foreign nationals coming in and dictating what our laws and their
rights are. Border control is suited to the use of military personnel with
military laws and rules employed. Border control is not a civil matter but a
military matter with military enforcements. Bush or any administration will ever
gain the upperhand in this World War on terrorism, it is a never ending battle.
All we can do is protect our borders and punish with death those that try to
invade or harm us. The US constitution and government policies do not apply to
all nations and all peoples of the world, they only apply on US soil. Homeland
security can be used effectively internally and at our borders.
Nice analogy but could you be a little more specific by stating examples like
where Seymor Hersh was wrong in his middle east reporting and comentary?I'm intersted in your opinion
"I'm not too happy about Bush but how is this article supposed to derail my
support for McCain?"Well, see, right now we're inside Iraq. Which is
silly, really, since Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.Obama was
wise enough to see this before we went in.McCain wasn't.McCain wants
to leave our troops in Iraq.Obama wants to pull them out...but he is also
willing to attack targets in Pakistan (al Qaeda targets). Osama bin Laden's
friends (and possibly bin Laden himself) are still hiding in Pakistan. Bush is
unwilling to go after them, and I doubt McCain will go after them.Obama
understands that we need to go after the real enemy. That's difficult, with our
troops currently involved in this endless war in Iraq.
Exasperated ... "The increasingly plausible likelihood of a nefarious grand
design" is the key phrase. It was a long a painful journey for me to conclude
that the whole grand design is the Caspian Basin, which lends even a more
plausible likelihood that 9-11 was in fact part of that nefarious grand design.
The Bin Laden boogey man is part of the plan until the oil mission
(not the capture or killing of Bin Laden) is accomplished. GWB himself declared
on more than one occasion that it wasn't important whether Bin Laden was ever
captured or killed. This after saying that we will hunt him down to the ends of
the earth after 9-11. So even though it doesn't matter whether this
ghost is ever captured or killed the drum beat continues to keep his face at the
forefront of this so called 100 year war on terror. Dick Cheney said it is not a
matter of if but a matter of when we have a nuke go off in this country yet we
leave our borders open. This ghost defeats the most sophisticated technology and
alludes the greatest army known to man from a cave?Not buying it.
Wake up America -"According to Seymor Hersh..." Well, there's
your problem right there. Getting news from Hersh is like buying koolaide from
To Ridgerunner,You obviously don't give talking with your enemy any
merit, despite the fact that this administration's most recent and significant
diplomatic triumph was the result of talking with the one of the three members
of the "Axis of Evil."Last week North Korea blew up their cooling
tower and gave signs that they are willing to move towards peace and
accommodation with their neighbors and the West. Is the situation perfect? No,
far from it. There is still hard work and vigilance ahead.But, and
this is important, the Bush administration made progress after they followed one
under-Secretary of State and began a direct dialog with the North Koreans.If in Obama is a pansy for wanting to negotiate with our enemies, then
please put George W. Bush and Condi Rice in that same category.My
hat is off to the Bush administration for trying and succeeding at a more
peaceful, fruitful approach.
I believe that Bush had plans to go into Iraq before 911. However, I believe
that Bush really wanted to make a full out attack on the Terrorist but the
liberal democrats in congress that stop him are guiding this war to be a lot
like Vietnam. We won several wars prior to it because we fought them
differently. We took over the country and not groups. Then we rebuild that
country and give it back. When will we face the fact that Clinton is to blame
for this mess and not Bush? If Clinton had done his job then Osama would have
been captured long ago. Thanks a lot Clinton!
I'm not too happy about Bush but how is this article supposed to derail my
support for McCain?If anything it solidifies my opposition to Obama
because of his weak anti-terrorist strategies.Coming from a military
background McCain will take care of Bush's mess.Obama will attempt
to bring troops home and in the mean time watch mass murdering, tribal dissent,
and more terrorist camps thrive in the middle east. He'll do nothing and then
pass on the next Sept 11th to the next president 4-8 yrs down the road.
More one sided journalism from the NYT. So they found a few frustrated people
and let them vent, then put it in print. Blah, blah, blah. Did the
authors ever consider including a discussion of the repercussions of American
military missions that were not authorized by the government of Pakistan? The
issue seems more complex than they present, there's no perspective from the Dept
of State, which I'm sure had a significant influence on decisions. Where's the
pros and cons of unwanted operations in a country that we're not at war with?
Where's the discussion of ways that were tried and not tried to persuade the
Pakistani government to allow US independent operations?Instead all
we get is another "Bush screwed up" whine journalism that has become the now
Anyone who supports still supports Bush, or is planning on voting for McCain,
needs to read this article.The enemy is at large...in Pakistan.So
why are we in Iraq?
The New York Times up to it's usual junk. They know so much but why aren't they
in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of their comfortable air conditioned
offices in New York.The media for the most part is nothing but a
bunch of half truth reporters.
President Bush has shown absolutely NO leadership on this or any other issue in
the last three years.His entire presidency is turning out to be one giant
miscalculation.Very, very sad.
Poor Bush. He has been in many battles. One with Al'Qaida, and one is with the
nutheads here at home.
But as McCain advisor Charlie Black said about a new terror attack "certainly
would be a big advantage to him (McCain)."That is the apparent GOP
strategy to retain power, leave al Qauda alone and when there is a terror attack
tell the people that they need to elect Republicans to fight future terror
It is my opinion that we never should have lost signt of Afghanistan and invaded
Iraq.I also believe that President Bush wanted to invade Iraq long
before 9/11According to Seymor Hersh in an article in July's New
Yorker magazine we now have special forces troopers on the ground in Iran.What are they doing there? They are supporting the opposition forces ub
Iran, They are providing weapons, money, communication gear and training. They are indirectly involved in bombings, kidnapping and assination of
high value targets.It seems to me that the Bush/Cheney forces, the
neo cons, the boys from the project for a new American century and the friends
of Israel are salivating for an event that would give them the reason to bomb
Iran.An event will occur probably aritifically created which will
justify the above pressure groups to bomb Iran and I know you will not like the
consequences.Iran will respond by closing the straits of Hormutz
depriving Europe of much of its oil and we will respond by sharing our oil from
Venezuela, Mexico and Canada.You will look back on days of 4 dollar
a gallon gas with fond memories.
Where's Osama? That's a very important question. It was rumored that Bin Laden
had to have necessary kidney dialysis to prevent kidney failure. How do you get
necessary kidney dialysis in a cave in Pakistan?? Inquring minds want to know!!
How do you do it with the stresses and strains of fighting a war and being moved
from Tora Bora to western Pakistan? Hmmmmm..........
Obama wants to "negotiate" with terrorists. Gee, if we would just get to know
them, and be nicer to them, maybe they wouldn't keep trying to kill us! Liberal views of war reminds me of a woman I know whose live in boyfriend
beats her. He tells her that if she just wouldn't irritate him so much, he
wouldn't have to beat her. Death to the infidels! The attacked us (many time
before anyone did anything to stop them) remember? GWB is right about how to
deal with these murderers. There is only one good reason for war: to stop evil!
Liberals have no hope whatsoever of remaining free, unless kept so by far better
men and women than themselves!
It's nearly election time. Let the "Get Osama" sweepstakes resume in earnest.
Shakespeare himself couldn't do justice to the tragicomedy of this
country's War on Terror. To continue to couch the failures, miscalculations and
missed opportunities as a colossal botched job neglects the increasingly
plausible likelihood of a nefarious grand design accounting for the same. To wit, we can't close the deal on two wars against countries that were
already broken when we invaded, we can't so much as catch a whiff of the most
conspicuous man on the planet, we can't rebuild the basic infrastructure of the
country's we've demolished, we can't gin up cases against the so-called "worst
of the worst" held at Guantanamo Bay let alone decide on a proper forum to try
said cases, and we can't even properly pillage the natural resources of the most
oil-rich country on the planet as promised. Even a broken watch is
right twice a day. But the same can not be said for the United States' execution
of its wars abroad. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, even if you're among the
increasing minority who believe the wars are justified.Wake up,