When Obama Meets Harry

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by dbermanmd, Apr 26, 2007.

  1. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    I have a problem. Perhaps i am completely off base here. Let me explain and, as you guys always do, express yourselves freely.

    He has just succesfully completed pushing a controversial bill through the Senate setting a withdrawl date knowing well enough the President is going to veto it and the veto will be upheld.

    Last week Harry said the war was "lost". This was timed right after a very deadly day of suicide car bombings in Iraq.

    Harry says he "supports" American troops. I am sick to my stomach about what i believe to be his duplicity.

    How can this be possible?

    It seems to me that Harry encourages the enemy to bomb away - the greater the casualty count the greater the probability Harry will notice it and say something against the war.

    It seems to me Harry support of our troops is being demonstrated oddly. I think that if i were the enemy i would take advantage whenever possible of a person like harry - i would bomb away, try to maximize american casualties, try to maximize civilian casualties - the bigger the better - knowing that with each successful attack i perpetrate there is a good chance that harry will use it as evidence to hasten american withdrawl from the battlefield - knowing that the only force that is keeping me from success is american troops. The bigger my bang the greater the chance i make the front page or the opening of the evening news - and have harry - the majority leader - as my talking head. harry may not agree with me and my goals but his actions are going to benefit me nonetheless.

    that is what makes me sick - when i place myself in the position of the enemies leadership in iraq - it looks like harry even unwillingly gets me to my goals faster by his current actions.
     
  2. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    He supports them by trying to save their lives.
     
  3. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 26 2007, 03:42 PM) [snapback]430715[/snapback]</div>
    i disagree - he now places a premium on their deaths
     
  4. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,886
    1,163
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Hypothetically let's assume Harry Reid is correct and the war is, indeed, lost.

    Is it more duplicitous to admit such and work to bring them home or to deny it and leave them there to continue to die.



    Regarding your statment that his comments "encourgage more killing"...come on. They're killing as many Americans, Iraqis and anyone else who wanders within IED or mortar range as they possibly can already and his comments won't influence that.



    Now, I acknowledge that such comments, and even the passage of the funding bill with a deadline very well could be a serious moral booster for the insurgency and they could see it as surrender (which it is). I'm not really too pleased about that aspect.



    Do remember though Dr. B that it was YOU who said you wished the Dems would "Get some balls and pass a real bill to bring the troops home" (paraphrasing, couldn't find the original quote) Now they've done it and you're taking another tack.



    We are in a terrible situation in Iraq...widely acknowledge on all sides. A few repubs and some of the generals feel that this troop surge might help turn the tide, but even so that doesn't mean iminent victory. Definately means loss of more life of US soldiers for very questionable gain (long and short term). If the gain will be small or none, the cost in terms of life and money is high. The it seems to me the best wayto truely support the troops is to bring them home, alive and well to fight a better battle, for a better reason on another day.
     
  5. qbee42

    qbee42 My other car is a boat

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    18,059
    3,044
    7
    Location:
    Northern Michigan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 26 2007, 04:31 PM) [snapback]430744[/snapback]</div>
    When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. We've been digging this hole long enough. Either we find some completely new way to further our goals in Iraq, or get out. More of the same just means more deaths before our inevitable withdrawal. We did this once before in Vietnam, and I'm old enough to remember that one.

    Tom
     
  6. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,886
    1,163
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Apr 26 2007, 03:45 PM) [snapback]430749[/snapback]</div>
    It's against our values and pride to admit defeat in the US... It's even harder to admit a huge mistake. But we are defeated and we made a huge mistake in going into Iraq. This quagmire can only get worse.



    Unfortunately the repubs are correct in that by pulling out we'll give renewed energy to the terrorists and our Middle Eastern enemies. They've resisted...no they've absolutely refused...to use any sort of diplomacy to try to bring about a resolution and left us in this all or nothing situation. Had we bothered to build a few bridges we could pull out with some residual support and stability there. Instead we've weakened our support. We'll pull the bottom layer down from this house of cards and will long pay consequences for this.



    I don't pretend that a pull out is a solution and the world will be a happy place. But it's silly to think that staying there long enough will bring victory...the insurgents will use our presence to build their own support and strengthen their resistance. I think pulling out is the lesser of the evils than to leave our kids to die. We'll need and want them to fight another day soon enough.
     
  7. scargi01

    scargi01 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    783
    55
    0
    Location:
    Missouri
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Apr 26 2007, 03:45 PM) [snapback]430749[/snapback]</div>
    Agreed - There comes a point at which a measurement of progress towards a goal needs done. The elections that were held in Iraq were progress, but the Iraqui's (sp?) don't seem to be taking the next step in establishing a viable government, for whatever reason. This is what I see as the major failure to this point. As someone stated in a response to one of my earlier posts, we can't make them democratic only help them become democratic. One has to question whether they want to be democratic.
     
  8. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 26 2007, 02:36 PM) [snapback]430712[/snapback]</div>
    What would you consider a success in Iraq?Would stability be the main objective?
    I gather that last week the Bush Admin stated its no longer a priority to train Iraqi nationals to take over their own security forces.What a monumental flipflop!
    Americans are forever expected to provide "security " ?
    Is the objective to instill Democracy?If we allow freedom of choice ,Iraq will be a Shiite religious state under Shiara law.
    Is the objective to end terrorism?We are fomenting terrorism in the next generation of young Muslims.I would guess that we have already created ,many times over ,more terrorists than we have killed. If the objective is to win hearts and minds weve lost that battle a long time ago.
    We killed Saddam Hussein ,and stopped his threat of using WMDs.Lets declare "Mission Accomplished" and go home as victors .There is no real objective other than to occupy the region.
     
  9. Pinto Girl

    Pinto Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    3,093
    349
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    The war is lost, and was in fact never winnable, since we had no agreed upon definition of success before going in there in the first place.

    It's pretty clear that, militarily, this level of involvement (or less) is all that we're willing to tolerate...and that this level of involvement is not enough to do anything but prolong the agony.

    Additionally, there has been (relative to the war effort) quite little planning on how to rebuild Iraq (compared with how to destroy it). Which indicates to me that a realistic cost assessment of the full campaign has not been performed or communicated to us, the folks who will be paying for it all.

    Which, in turn, makes me wonder how many things were misstated.

    Further, it's becoming more and more clear that the Iraqis will not step up to take control of their government, at least not in the way we're expecting. So one of the tenets of the whole conflict, the transition of security responsibilities from 'us' to 'them,' has now changed.

    Bottom line: if we're not going to/can't escalate any further...and we have no real, strategic plans for putting their cities and towns back together again in any case (which seems paramount to ensuring stability in the region; making sure that the basic needs of human beings are met)...then the only other real choice is to put an end to it, take any lumps that come with the consequences of our previous decisions, and move on.

    That's how I see it.
     
  10. Sufferin' Prius Envy

    Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    3,998
    15
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 26 2007, 01:31 PM) [snapback]430744[/snapback]</div>
    Hypothetically let's assume Harry Reid is wrong and the war is, indeed, not lost.

    Is it more duplicitous of Mr. Reid to tell the troops, "I support you, but I am telling your enemy that we lost the war," or "I support you while you are in harms way, but I'm cutting off your funding."

    Would you also "support" your local police force by telling them that they have lost the war on crime (the war on crime has yet to be won ;) ) and that in a show of support for the officers . . . to spare their lives . . . you are going renew their funding as long as they get off the streets and go back to their barracks and police stations.
    Do you think crime rates would get better? (hey, if they aren't reported they WILL. :blink: )
    Do you thing the police would become demoralized?
    Do you think the police would have a harder, more dangerous job to do in the future???? ;)
     
  11. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,886
    1,163
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Apr 26 2007, 04:57 PM) [snapback]430788[/snapback]</div>
    Clearly, and I thought I tried to say that it's important that we commit to a decision what to do. I support a withdrawl...I think the war is lost. But he's saying it's lost and we should, thus, withdrawl the troops. That is supportive of our troops and is not duplicitous.



    If it's not lost, and we decide to continue, then yea, you gotta send money, you've gotta express support.

    If we're willing to commit to permanant occupation of Iraq, like we have to the 50 united states then we should continue our endless support. But, at some point one must decide if it's winnable or not. In my mind it's clear that this was lost before it started and it's still lost and getting worse. I support my troops and I'm pulling them back to friendly turf.
     
  12. IsrAmeriPrius

    IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    4,333
    6
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Why is it that I have a nagging feeling that this thread was started in order to divert attention from comments made earlier today by General Petraeus concerning the situation in Iraq:

    [Excerpts]
     
  13. Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    922
    10
    1
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    If Harry "dingy" Reid really believed that the war was lost, or if he had any sack, he would just pull the funding now!

    What is this BS about a deadline, if its lost NOW, then end it Now.

    Come on Dem's insist that the funding is pulled now and we'll see what the November vote really meant!
     
  14. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,886
    1,163
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Apr 26 2007, 05:46 PM) [snapback]430818[/snapback]</div>
    the first sign of defeat in a thread seems to be when the name calling begins.

    I suppose you might not understand, but pulling out of 100s of thousands of troops, all of our equipment and armament will take many months. It's not like emptying a movie theater.



    I think we all are holding out, against all logic and evidence, that somehow pieces will miraculously fall into place and the tide will start to turn in our favor and in the favor of the Iraqi people.



    Further, it's not in the perview of the legislature to start or end a war. While they hold the purse strings this entire issue of pulling funding and forcing troop withdrawl is pretty sketchy stuff. I still hold that it's more of a political move and an establishment of the dems dominance in DC. A means of saying "get your crap together, we do have power".



    The Bush admin and repubs can try to spin it however they will. You can pretend that it has something to do with the lack of adequately large testicles if you wish. But none of that changes the basic sad facts of the situation. It's bad and getting worse and we need to dramatically change course. Either get out, use more covert means of striking the insurgents, or use diplomacy even if that means making unpleasant compromises.
     
  15. danoday

    danoday Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    206
    0
    0
    Location:
    Incline Village, Nevada
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 26 2007, 11:36 AM) [snapback]430712[/snapback]</div>
    First, if you are going to quote Senator Reid, please use the entiure quote instead of a couple of words out of context. The quote, as delivered on the floor of the Senate was:

    <blockquote>
    "As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course and we must change course."

    </blockquote>
    I happen to believe that Senator Reid is correct in his assessment. The Bush Administration has failed the American people, and has failed our troops by placing them in an unwinnable war without a plan to succeed. President Bush ignored the recommendations of the Baker/Hamilton commission, sent more troops into harm's way knowing that he did not have the support of the American people or the Congress, and now expects Congress to fund an ill-conceived plan (which a strong majority of reasonable Americans believe is unwinnable). There is no reason to believe that the Bush administration can succeed in Iraq based on their past performance, and as an American voter, I believe that Congress should strip the administration of it's war powers regarding Iraq and let more reasonable heads take over and implement solutions which include diplomacy.

    Now, on a procedural basis, it is the right of the Congress to choose what to fund and what not to fund... they are representing the people, and are constitutionally granted the power of the purse. It is also the President's right to veto bills which are sent to him. Bottom line, if he vetos the bill, Congress is under no obligation to pass another, and President Bush must begin withdrawing the troops as soon as funding runs out in July.

    Congress is doing the job we elected them to do, and I personally am not disappointed that they have attached reasonable limitations to this bill.
    Now, can Harry Reid push for limits and timelines on this war and still support the troops? Despite what you assert, he can do this without the conflict you suggest. Ried is attempting to force the President to change policy... that has nothing to do with support or lack of support for the troops, or your perceived support of the enemy. It never has, and pushing this misperception is a desperate right-wing lie.

    Does Reid embolden the enemy? No. Reid isn't saying anything that the American people and the Iraqi people don't already know, and isn't saying anything that 'promotes' more attacks. To suggest so it more of the big right-wing lie, and shows that you are desperate. Did John McCain embolden the enemy by proclaiming a market to be as safe as a farmer's market in Indiana, only to see insurgents bomb that market the very next day? Did President Bush embolden the enemy by saying "Bring 'em on." a few years ago - apparently inviting attacks on our troops?

    Dr. Berman, you aren't an unintelligent person. You need to step back and examine your comments... look at them from a reasonable view (the view of the majority of Americans) instead of concentrating on right-wing talking points. You need to realize that the November elections were a clear mandate against the war, and against the policies of the Bush administration. The American people don't want this war, and don't like this administrations policies. They put Democrats into control to remedy that. Harry Reid is doing the job the American people want him to do, and I commend him for being the voice of the American people and standing up to this out-of-control administration.
     
  16. Pinto Girl

    Pinto Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    3,093
    349
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Apr 26 2007, 04:57 PM) [snapback]430788[/snapback]</div>
    The war on crime is actually a lot like the war in Iraq; without addressing some of the underlying issues for the conflicts, the 'war' (either one), will continue at a standoff.

    I'm feeling like your scenario is a bit simplistic in nature...wanting to win and figuring out HOW to win are two entirely different things.

    Also, supporting our local law enforcement agency is actually possible (neighborhood watch programs, becoming involved with the PD and taking courses, teaching our children to be law abiding citizens, etc.)...but, honestly, I don't really think it matters one way or another if I write in this forum that I'm for or against the war.

    I have to pay taxes and support the conflict, and that's it. What I say or write or do is (normally) of absolutely no consequence in deterring our war efforts...just as your remarks are of absolutely no consequence in supporting them. Tell me how, specifically, what I've written here has in any way influenced the outcome of events in Iraq. If I had that kind of power, you'd better believe I'd do something about the situation!
     
  17. danoday

    danoday Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    206
    0
    0
    Location:
    Incline Village, Nevada
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Incidentally, here's the transcript from the congressional record. These remarks were delivered by Senator Reid on April 19th, 2007. Read it in context - you'll find it enlightening:

    Madam President, the White House has been telling America that Democrats are doing the wrong thing by calling for a change of course in Iraq. They say holding the Iraqi Government accountable is wrong. They say finding a political solution in Iraq is wrong. They say redeploying troops out of a civil war is wrong. They have said even debating a strategy for changing course is dangerous, and many Senate Republicans have backed that up by blocking several of our attempts to debate this issue here on the Senate Floor.

    The American people want us to debate the war, and they want us to change the course. Listen to what the President's own Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in the last few hours, and I quote:

    "The debate in Congress has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited. The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment."

    The President and some of my Republican colleagues have also attempted to create a false crisis by claiming that Democrats are putting the troops in danger by not sending the supplemental bill immediately. But today, the Pentagon acknowledged what Democrats have long known - that President Bush continues to misstate the reality on the ground and in Iraq to score political points.

    Like the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the Pentagon now acknowledges that it can pay for the Iraq war at least through June with the funds that have already been provided.

    I hope the President and our Republican colleagues in Congress will put these false claims aside so we can get back to working toward a bipartisan solution.

    Yesterday I met with President Bush to express the will of the American people, senior military officials, and a bipartisan majority of Congress that we must change course in Iraq. I told President Bush that, going on to 5 years, more than 3,300 American soldiers lost, tens of thousands wounded, a third of them gravely wounded, and billions and billions of dollars depleted from our Treasury, we as a country must change course in Iraq.

    Conditions in Iraq get worse by the day. Now we find ourselves policing another nation's civil war. We are less secure from the many threats to our national security than we were when the war began. As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course and we must change course. No one wants us to succeed in the Middle East more than I do. But there must be a change of course. Our brave men and women overseas have passed every test with flying colors. They have earned our pride and our praise. More important, they deserve a strategy worthy of their sacrifice.

    The supplemental bill we passed with bipartisan support offers that. It includes a reasonable and attainable timeline to reduce combat missions and refocus our efforts on the real threats to our country's security. It offers a new path, a new direction forward. If we put politics aside, I believe we can find a way to make America safer and stronger.
     
  18. Sufferin' Prius Envy

    Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    3,998
    15
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Apr 26 2007, 05:42 PM) [snapback]430869[/snapback]</div>
    What Sen. Reid is actually saying . . . just not verbally:</span>

    "As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost"
    . . . ' but by following this arbitrary timeline of retreat and surrender, we guarantee that defeat.'

    "No one wants us to succeed in the Middle East more than I do"
    . . . . ' but that's only because I don't consider a military success, well, a success.'

    "The supplemental bill we passed with bipartisan support" . . .' but it was also met with bipartisan opposition. My fellow colleague, Sen. Joseph Lieberman does not agree with me. He stated, "In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost. But if we follow the plan in this legislation, it will be lost and so, I fear, will much of our hope for stability in the Mideast." - 'but personally, I don't care. I am now large and in-charge around these parts and I am going to demonstrate that fact with this legislation which is guaranteed to be vetoed by the president. I am going to play politics at the expense of our troops' morale.'

    "It includes a reasonable and attainable timeline to reduce combat missions and refocus our efforts on the real threats to our country's security" . . . ' and when we succeed in bolstering those threats , we will once again support our troops by surrendering and retreating further and further. War is icky, and I don't have the stomach for it.'

    <span style="color:#009900">* Lieberman quote . . .

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/26/con...iraq/index.html
     
  19. Proco

    Proco Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    2,570
    172
    28
    Location:
    The Beautiful NJ Shore
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    III
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Apr 27 2007, 03:22 AM) [snapback]431041[/snapback]</div>
    In the words of Charlie Brown ....
    [​IMG]
     
  20. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 26 2007, 04:31 PM) [snapback]430744[/snapback]</div>
    my comment about the dems and their gonads my good doctor was directly pointed at them to stop the funding and be a man about their convictions - not to "slow bleed" our troops into greater harms way. if they [the dems] stopped the war funding the bad guys would stop trying to kill them all together as an acknowledgement of thanks to the dems for their help in aiding their cause. by setting a date in the sand, and dont ask me how they pick a date - i guess just by throwing a dart at a calender, and by harry stepping up to the mike and saying the war is lost etc etc after each horrific attack on civilians or US troops - he is INCREASING the danger they face by POSITIVELY REINFORCING the enemies brutal tactics and occassional "successes".

    how we shall fight them when we retreat in defeat is another topic - a topic the dems have yet to explain beyond some vague catch phrases - but i do not see how we can defeat them if we leave their bases of operation [iraq if the dems win the day, and iran - and mind you those are the only one/two i can name making withdraw imo complete insane and also linking my views on iran] intact and thriving - makes no sense to me.

    on the brighter side tonight we a cracking open a bottle of liberty school - a cab that comes highly recommended by one of my cardiology friends - ever try it?

    have a good weekend. i hope your weather is not as wet as ours here - i am about to start building an ark and collecting two of every kind of animal :) it is getting very depressing here - wet and cold - kind of hoping for a little global warming soon.

    take care

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Apr 26 2007, 08:42 PM) [snapback]430869[/snapback]</div>
    i find nothin harry reid says enlighening - he can try enlighening me by detailing how he and the dems will win this war on terror once he and his dems retreat in defeat from iraq.

    somebody said the banner over harry's podium should read "defeat accomplished" - sad but true.

    i dont think he is even bothered about the spectre of genocide which most people agree will happen if we leave - do you not think if harry and his dems win the day and we leave iraq there will be mass slaughter - perhaps even greater when the dems brought south vietnam to defeat in about the same way? how many people were slaughtered after the dems lead us to defeat in vietnam -- i am seeing a trend here - are you?

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Apr 26 2007, 08:24 PM) [snapback]430857[/snapback]</div>
    thank you for your confidence in me :)

    i think the americans put the dems in slight control but not to looooose the war.

    the majority of americans does not equal reasonable view - they have been many wars where presidents fought against the majority of americans view points like lincoln and the civil war. and i dont believe polls of one to two thousand americans when they are extropolated to mean 300,000,000 of us.

    harry is not doing the job nor is congress which has a lower public opinion rating than the president - hence further disagreement about the desire of the american people to loooose this war.

    there was NO clear mandate against the war - hence the small dem majority - if there was i think i would be seeing much more public rioting and disenchantment.

    i really think harry and the dems are placing our troops in greater harms way - it KILLS me to see harry and his comment - the war is lost -- caught on video - making front page al jazeera news --- it is a shame that the goals of harry and al qaeda/islamofascists seem to be the same here.



    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Apr 26 2007, 06:46 PM) [snapback]430818[/snapback]</div>
    EXACTLY - if he thinks the war is lost the only way to "support" american troops is to get them the hell out of dodge asap.

    then we can go to the next election cycle and see what the american people think - when they poll 100,000,000 or so of us instead of a thousand or two:)

    harry is in my opinion aiding our enemies - and placing our troops in greater danger.
     
Loading...