JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
1
Why do Japanese change their attitude when they communicate with foreigners?
-
2
U.S. Navy investigating how parts fell off aircraft near Atsugi
-
3
Confrontation
-
4
California court to decide if SeaWorld whales are illegal 'slaves'
-
5
Kuroki reported pregnant 2 weeks after denying relationship with Akanishi
-
- Assistant Language Teacher (ALT) in Kanto region
- RCS (RCSコーポレーション), Kanto
- Salary: ¥180,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month includes performance bonus
-
- Assistant Language Teacher - TOKYO - late-March start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥230,000 ~ ¥255,000 / Month
-
- Assistant Language Teacher - Kanagawa Prefecture - late-March start
- Interac, Kanagawa
- Salary: ¥230,000 ~ ¥255,000 / Month
0
Jahdog
adaydream, thanks for the info not mentioned in the article. I was thinking "Only 2500?" but of course that's because they were told they'd be arrested.
"Protesters need permission to march near parliament and the police have told the campaigners that their march will not be allowed. A Stop the War spokesman said: 'It seems that when George Bush visits this country, traditional rights of assembly and movement are removed from the people.'" http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/10/foreignpolicy.iraq
When "free speech zones" are the rule, the country is no longer free. W has made them more common than during the height of the Vietnam War protests. W's legacy will be the erosion of US leadership strengthening of Iran and radical Islam (and numerous other negatives, from the perspective of US citizens).
Posted in: 2,500 protest against Bush in London
0
Jahdog
Bush/Cheney strategy: lose.
The outgoing top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan said Friday that attacks increased 50 percent in April in the country's eastern region, where U.S. troops primarily operate, as a spreading Taliban insurgency across the border in Pakistan fueled a surge in violence.
In a sober assessment, Gen. Dan K. McNeill, who departed June 3 after 16 months commanding NATO's International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, said that although record levels of foreign and Afghan troops have constrained repeated Taliban offensives, stabilizing Afghanistan will be impossible without a more robust military campaign against insurgent havens in Pakistan...
McNeill declined to endorse a U.S.-funded program to train and equip Pakistan's Frontier Corps, which guards the border, questioning the effectiveness and loyalty of the tribally recruited guards...McNeill raised two instances in which the guards have shot and killed U.S. soldiers...
Posted in: Afhhan, int'l troops hunt 1,100 after Taliban jail breakout
0
Jahdog
"Most teachers, like most journalists, are left-of-center." Hey, that explains how all the major media hired former generals who were working for Rumsfeld and weapons makers to hype the invasion! because they're owned by leftists! ...and, uh, they wanted to discredit movement conservatism by getting the public to support neoconservative policies that subvert the Constitution and bring America to its knees, economically and politically, so that people would repudiate the current administration and all it represents. Those devious lefties....
Posted in: Anti-Americanism at record levels worldwide, report shows
0
Jahdog
The reason the White House is so hell-bent on signing a long-term Status Of Forces Agreement: it would seemingly allow the U.S. to brand Iran as an enemy of Iraq and attack Iran in the name of defending Iraq pursuant a legal obligation under the status of forces agreement. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40372.html
Other details from press accounts confirm that the Bush administration has one eye on Iran in the course of its negotiations with Iraqis. The Washington Post explains that the administration is seeking “the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government.”
The American negotiators also called for continued control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air, adding to concerns that the United States was preparing to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran.
Since the administration is unlikely to get an Iran war authorized through Congress, it’s instead trying to sneak it through the Iraqi parliament. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/11/iran-war-iraq-sofa/
Posted in: Bush tries to tighten squeeze on Iran
0
Jahdog
Full-circle: Righties proclaim they are happy that the US was duped into strengthening Iran...
Diplomats, counterterror analysts and a former top military commander agree that President Bush's attempt to secure Baghdad will only succeed in dragging out the conflict, creating something far beyond any Vietnam-style "quagmire." The surge won't bring an end to the sectarian cleansing that has ravaged Iraq, as the newly empowered Shiite majority seeks to settle scores built up during centuries of oppressive rule by the Sunni minority. It will do nothing to defuse the powder keg that an independence-minded Kurdistan, in Iraq's northern provinces, poses to the governments of Turkey, Syria and Iran, which have long brutalized their own Kurdish separatists. And it will only worsen the global war on terror.
"Our invasion and occupation has created a cauldron that will continue to draw in the players in the Middle East for the foreseeable future," says Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden. "By taking out Saddam, we have allowed the jihad to move 1,000 kilometers west, where it can project its power, its organizers, its theology into Turkey-- and from Turkey into Europe."
How bad will things get in Iraq--and what price will the world ultimately pay for the president's decision to prolong the war? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13710030/leavingiraqthegrimtruth/print
Posted in: Iraq's prime minister visits Iran
0
Jahdog
McCain: the one who wants to continue the policy of the President who was duped into strengthening Iran (fmr 3rd-rate power, w/whom US now plays zero-sum game)
Iran, which was a mortal enemy of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and fought a bloody eight-year war with Iraq during his reign, has been the primary beneficiary of U.S. policy in Iraq, where Iranian-backed groups now run much of the government and the security forces. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/40080.html
Nice going, righties. When the neocons gained control of Washington, full of hubris, they ignored or ousted any career intelligence people, or military, who contradicted the strategy derived from their self-serving ideology; the US then made a huge strategic blunder. W/McSame-supporters are really appreciated in Tehran.
As for the nukes, the immediate threat is the loose nukes in Qaeda hands, esp. from the fmr. Soviet Union, but also North Korea (2000: Donald Rumsfeld sat on the board of a company which sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/09/nuclear.northkorea)
"I think Iraq is finished. We'll just find a way to get out. I frankly don’t think we ever intended to win there. We certainly didn't send enough troops to close borders, to control the country. Rumsfeld was obsessed, apparently with his new, lighter, faster military. The inflow of fighters is growing. The pace of the insurgency, both there and in Afghanistan, is increasing. I don't hold much of a brief for Sen. John McCain, but he’s right, in an unpalatable way: Unless we greatly increase the number of troops we have in Iraq, we're going to have to leave. I think the question is how do we leave? Do we leave with some dignity, or do we leave by flying off the top of the embassy as we did in Saigon?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer
Righties: still fighting the Vietnam War--*any *Vietnam War.
Posted in: McCain, Obama both say Iran is other's weakness
0
Jahdog
Of course the Iraq war has made Iran stronger--Iran tricked neocons into it. Remember Ahmed Chalabi?
WASHINGTON — Defense Department counterintelligence investigators suspected that a small group of Pentagon officials who'd collected dubious intelligence on Iraq and Iran from Iranian exiles might have "been used as agents of a foreign intelligence service . . . to reach into and influence the highest levels of the U.S. government," a Senate Intelligence Committee report said Thursday.
A top aide to then-secretary of defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, however, shut down the 2003 investigation into the group's activities after only a month, and Pentagon officials never followed up on investigators' recommendation for a more thorough investigation, the Senate report said.
The revelation raises questions about whether Iran may have used a small cabal of officials in the Pentagon and in Vice President Dick Cheney's office to feed bogus intelligence on Iraq and Iran to senior policymakers in the Bush administration who were eager to oust the Iraqi dictator.
Iran, which was a mortal enemy of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and fought a bloody eight-year war with Iraq during his reign, has been the primary beneficiary of U.S. policy in Iraq, where Iranian-backed groups now run much of the government and the security forces. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/40080.html
Posted in: Obama says Iraq war makes Iran stronger, but U.S. and Israel less secure
0
Jahdog
An utterly false statement by W: "I’m credible because I read the intelligence...All of the intelligence I looked at…the Congress looked at, said the same thing,” Bush said in 2004. Unfortunately, it seems that Bush only selectively “looked at” the intelligence:
Today, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee released the final two sections of its pre-war intelligence report. As Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said, the report concludes “that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence.”
In today’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was dismissive of the report, explaining that President Bush made false statements before the Iraq war simply because he was kept in the dark:
PERINO: That dissent amongst experts within the intelligence community at some level did not reach the president.
Posted in: Obama says Iraq war makes Iran stronger, but U.S. and Israel less secure
0
Jahdog
Ditto that, Taka313. Liked your 3rd June post, usaexpat. As someone who abhors what W/Cheney/Rummy/neocons have wrought, I came the closest to having sympathy for the administration when listening to McClellan's interview with BillO: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/03/oreilly-goes-ballistic-on-scott-mcclellan/
McClellan: Let's look at the record. There's the question of how the intelligence was used to make the case for preemptive invasion. It was packaged to make the case seem more grave than it was.
The nuke threat: high-confidence and medium/low- intelligence was cherry-picked and stove-piped. With the nuke intelligence there was not high confidence.
Colin Powell's UN presentation re anthrax did not justify saying that Iraq constituted a grave and gathering threat to the US.
Do you think we were about to be attacked by Iraq? It may have been a justifiable mistake to invade, and can be so argued on other grounds, but do you think it was a mistake? It was not necessary.
The central theme of McClellan's book is that the permanent campaign culture of Washington DC must change. That culture was a main cause of the Iraq war.
There were many dissenters within the CIA and State, Dept. (not to mention poeple like Gen. Shinseki, who was forced out for advising the necessary minimum number of troops to carry out the postwar reconstruction of Iraq), who said "We don't believe this allows us to make a judgment" whether or not Saddam's reconstituting his nuke program (these people were shut out of the process and eased out of their jobs). The false question of whether or not Saddam had nukes put it over the top to sell the war, make the case.
The mainstream media did not do its job (ie, journalism).
Good people got caught up in the campaign culture of DC. The specific purpose of the White House Iraq Group was to sell the war--it was a marketing arm of the White House.
W had an overriding motivation to transform the ME (convinced that he was a Christian God's warrior agent, on Earth for that purpose--a fervent hope to which he clings). That, too, became part of the propaganda when it was packaged and distributed through the media (ie, pics of a "haloed" W in a church, along with the "cowboy" images), overstated, repeatedly hammered into people's brains through mainstream media.
On Valerie Plame: Rove denied "telling anyone about her," a distinction without a difference, as he did SAY her name to Matt Cooper and others in a context that revealed her secret status as a CIA agent. He revealed her identity.
W said in SOTU address that Saddam sent emissaries to Niger to acquire yellowcake uranium ("the British gov't has learned that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium...") but the CIA didn't stand by that because it was based on forged documents (reiterated publicly by Joe Wilson) had no evidence that he had actually acquired any. (Saddam even told his own generals that he had nukes when he didn't)
The CIA told the White House three months before SOTU not to use that claim in any of W's speeches. Yet it was used in the SOTU address to sell the war to enough Americans to give W the political clout to launch it.
Posted in: McClellan: Bush should have fired Rove over CIA leak
0
Jahdog
Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the man who led American ground forces in Iraq from 2003-2004 (that's bargain-basement anti-American to you, SuperLib)
"Wiser in Battle: A Soldier’s Story" takes aim at the Bush administration with some of the strongest criticism to date from a former Iraq commander.
"In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, I watched helplessly as the Bush administration led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions. It became painfully obvious that the executive branch of our government did not trust its military. It relied instead on a neoconservative ideology developed by men and women with little, if any, military experience. Some senior military leaders did not challenge civilian decision makers at the appropriate times, and the courageous few who did take a stand were subsequently forced out of the service..."
Posted in: Suicide bomber kills 10 at police checkpoint in Iraq
0
Jahdog
Yes, Scheuer wants the army on the borders and the ports secured, because they are, seven years after 9/11, very porous, making importation of a nuke much more likely.
In fact, Scheuer advocates drastic action in enough areas that few people would agree 100%, and condemns Bushes and Clintons for their failures to take out OBL, but especially condemns W for blundering into Iraq.
February 2001: Al-Qaeda Is Expecting US to Invade Afghanistan, Wants War in Iraq and Somalia as Well
Ahmed Zaidan, a journalist for Al Jazeera, is invited to a wedding also attended by al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atef in Afghanistan, and while there he talks to Atef about al-Qaeda’s military strategy. He will later recall that Atef told him, “He was explaining to me what’s going to happen in the coming five years.… There are two or three places in the world which [are] the most suitable places to fight Americans: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. We are expecting the United States to invade Afghanistan. And we are preparing for that. We want them to come to Afghanistan.” Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, will later comment, “Did they want us involved in the war on the ground in Islamic countries? Absolutely. Part of the goal was to make sure that Muslims perceived America as the infidel invader of Muslim lands.” http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=michael_scheuer
"Terrorism should be seen as a strategic reaction to American power, an idea associated with Johnson's (2000) 'blowback' thesis...the powerful global position of the United States, particularly in its role of propping up repressive undemocratic regimes... [creates an environment conducive to] Arab-Islamic terrorism as a result. The causal mechanism here is that the projection of military power plants seeds of later terrorist reactions, as 'retaliation for previous American imperial actions'." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamicterrorism#Motivation.2Cideologyandtheology
Posted in: Al-Qaida's stance on women sparks extremist debate
0
Jahdog
Look at things in context: http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/01/int05001.html Michael Scheuer: ...the most basic thing for Americans to realize is that this war has nothing to do with who we are or what we believe, and everything to do with what we do in the Islamic world. Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush before Mr. Clinton--they all identified Islamic militancy as being based on the hatred of Western democracy and freedom, and that’s clearly not the case. They surely don’t like our way of life, but very few people are willing to die to keep us from having primary elections or because we have freedom of the press.
Universally in the Muslim world, at least according to the most recent polling data, American foreign policy in several specific areas is hated by Muslims. Majorities of 85-90 percent are registered as hating or resenting American policies, towards our support for Israel, our ability to keep oil prices low, or low enough to satisfy Western consumers, our support for Arab tyrannies from Morocco to the Indian Ocean, our support for Putin in Chechnya.
Posted in: Al-Qaida's stance on women sparks extremist debate
0
Jahdog
Super D, what are you talking about? I sure don't exonerate militant Muslims.
Posted in: Al-Qaida's stance on women sparks extremist debate
0
Jahdog
Superlib: "If a bomb were to go off in the US we'd hold our government responsible for not preventing it.," like you held Clinton responsible for 9/11, right?
That said, and as Michael Scheuer says, US administrations since 1973 bear responsibility for the current quagmire of Iraq/Muslim fundamentalism (just as they do for Christian fundamentalism). It's gonna get very ugly. http://www.amazon.com/Marching-Toward-Hell-America-Islam/dp/0743299698
A regenerated al-Qaeda will remain the leading terrorism threat, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Donald M. Kerr said. Pakistan's "inward" political focus and failure to control the tribal territories where al-Qaeda maintains a haven, he said, is "the number one thing we worry about." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002858.html?hpid=topnews
People shouldn't joke about the oppression of women (Would that all ideologies of oppression were gone, this moment). Bombing and oppressing only strengthens radical ideologies, and there are a billion Muslims around the world. PNAC (Cheney, Rummy, et al) should have thought harder about this...
Posted in: Al-Qaida's stance on women sparks extremist debate
0
Jahdog
Stunning:
From "We'll get him, dead or alive" to "he's irrelevant," eh? The tragic humor is that OBL is the best thing that ever happened to W, who is the worst thing that ever happened to America and the West.
But your point about "countless other" jihadis to take the place of OBL/AlQ is valid. Of course, by playing into OBL's strategy and invading a Muslim country for oil, W helped OBL gain this countless supply of jihadis.
Do you not yet understand that OBL wanted W and the GOP to remain in charge? By his actions, W has radicalized a billion Muslims, in the Middle East and around the planet. OBL will no doubt appear in a video before the 2008 election in an attempt to keep the war going and bleed the US dry.
The US economy is on the brink of meltdown as the price of oil continues to rise, Iran has already gained greatly, and you want to dig the hole deeper?
'...in the Middle East, Arabs and even Israel reckon with the limits of American power--and begin to cut their own deals..." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002517.html
Tell me this guy doesn't know what he's talking about: Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer, a 22-year CIA veteran who ran the Counterterrorist Center's bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999
"...the war in Iraq was like a 'Christmas gift' to bin Laden not just because it distracted the U.S. military from the war against al Qaeda, but more importantly because it has provided global jihadists a failed state from which to operate that is even more conducive to terrorism than Afghanistan. By attacking and occupying the second holiest place in Shi'a Islam, the U.S. has turned Iraq into a lightning rod for jihadists from around the globe to come attack the occupying armies...has provided credibility and substance to bin Laden's assertion that terrorists are waging a defensive jihad against foreign occupier bent on destroying Islam.
Scheuer: in Afghanistan, the Taliban was not defeated; it is simply biding its time for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops and the inevitable collapse of Hamid Karzai's government in Kabul. "Karzai's defeat may not come tomorrow...but come it will..."
Scheuer: AlQ will "inevitably" acquire WMD and try to use them; OBL is probably "comfortable" commanding his organisation from the mountainous tribal lands along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"Our choice of timing, moreover, shows an abject, even wilful failure to recognise the ideological power, lethality and growth potential of the threat personified by Bin Laden, as well as the impetus that threat has been given by the US-led invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq."
...the US missed its biggest chance to capture the al-Qaida leader at Tora Bora in the Afghan mountains in December 2001. Instead of sending large numbers of his own troops, General Tommy Franks relied on surrogates who proved to be unreliable. "For my money, the game was over at Tora Bora."
(6-19-04) Yesterday President Bush repeated his assertion that Bin Laden was cornered and that there was "no hole or cave deep enough to hide from American justice".
Scheuer: "What I think we're seeing in al-Qaida is a change of generation. The people who are leading al-Qaida now seem a lot more professional group. They are more bureaucratic, more management competent, certainly more literate. Certainly, this generation is more computer literate, more comfortable with the tools of modernity..."
"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now...One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president." Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner of spreading democracy. "It's going to take 10,000-15,000 dead Americans before we say to ourselves: 'What is going on'?"
May 29, 2008 "Why Doesn't al-Qaeda Attack the US?" http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/
Posted in: 100 rebels, 2 NATO soldiers killed in Afghanistan
0
Jahdog
Yeah, that's hilarious! They didn't believe a single word when he was repeating administration lies! then, when he says the administration lied the US into war, right after it's revealed that former generals posing as independent analysts at TV networks were working for weapons makers and Rumsfeld, they believe him. Go figure.
Confederacy of Dunces: a president swept up by his own propaganda and a grand plan of seeding democracy in the Middle East by overturning Saddam Hussein’s regime; aides so wrapped up in trying to shape the story to their political advantage that they ignored facts that did not fit the picture; national security adviser "more interested in figuring out where the president stood and just carrying out his wishes while expending only cursory effort on helping him understand all the considerations and potential consequences” of war...
6/97: PNAC statement: the use of military power and bold global leadership will be essential elements of any plan to bring peace and security to the world. (signed) Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2003/10/iraqiinvasion.html
7/11: FBI agent Kenneth Williams sends memo to bureau brass in Washington and New York warning of OBL disciples at U.S. flight schools... http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/04/nobodytoldus.html
9/11: NORAD commander Gen.Eberhart: planes could have been stopped had there been order within the chain of command. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/18/politics/18PANE.html http://www.truthout.org/article/norad-commander-911-planes-could-have-been-stopped
Posted in: McClellan says he believed in Bush as war started
0
Jahdog
Shoot messenger! Ignore history!
6/97: PNAC drafts a statement of principles to make the case that the US should use its position as the world's only superpower to shape the events of the 21st century...that the use of military power and bold global leadership will be essential elements of any plan to bring peace and security to the world....The 25 original signatories of the statement included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and former Minnesota Rep. Vin Weber...as the group became more active in their pronouncements, their motives became highly questionable..." http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2003/10/iraqiinvasion.html
7/11: FBI agent Kenneth Williams sends memo to bureau brass in Washington and New York warning that a cadre of Osama bin Laden disciples might be training at U.S. flight schools in preparation for future "terror activity against civil aviation targets." Williams suggested a nationwide FBI review to determine whether such a "coordinated effort" could be seen in other localities. The Williams memo was roundly ignored, of course, until after the World Trade Center was leveled. http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/04/nobodytoldus.html
9/11: How it was possible for four commercial airplanes to pierce the most formidable air defenses in history?...The commander of NORAD says those planes could have been stopped had there been order within the chain of command. ...W was in a grade school reading a children's book as the second plane struck the Towers...it was Cheney who gave the shoot-down order, way too late. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/18/politics/18PANE.html
The administration switched its focus from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein five months after 9/11.
The road to war took place over three phases: Sept. 12, 2001, to December 2001; January 2002, from Bush’s State of the Union address, to April 2002; and Sept. 12, 2002, to Oct. 11, 2002, the period from Bush’s address to the United Nations to Congress’s approval of the resolution to use force in Iraq.
The five main rationales: war on terror, prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, lack of weapons inspections, removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime, Saddam Hussein is evil.
Other rationales: Sen. Joe Lieberman’s “because Saddam Hussein hates us,” Colin Powell’s “because it’s a violation of international law,” and Richard Perle’s “because we can make Iraq an example and gain favor within the Middle East.” http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/05/studysaysbush.html
Posted in: Former spokesman bashes Bush in new book
0
Jahdog
W made the decision to rely on local forces to get Bin Laden in Tora Bora, over the CIA's explicit objections (They specifically told the president the local forces weren’t capable and shouldn't be relied upon, and we should nail him ourselves).
The local forces were bought off by bin Laden, allowing him and a small group to walk across the Pakistan border, which wasn't blocked. Gen. Musharraff had offered to move forces from Pakistan's eastern border, telling Gen. Tommy Franks in Islamabad that all he needed was a US airlift. Franks never sent it. (from fmr. Nat'l Coordinator for Security & Counterterrorism Richard Clarke's Your Government Failed You)
Afghanistan has not been stabilized to the point where civilian teams can safely rebuild the country, stop the drug trade, etc.
More history at http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/wardefense/index.html
The way to defeat alQaeda is to dry up their support. The US has been doing the opposite. The US is doing exactly what alQaeda said we would: invade and occupy an oil-rich country that had done nothing to justify such an action.
Posted in: 100 rebels, 2 NATO soldiers killed in Afghanistan
0
Jahdog
SuperLib, you don't know what are you talking about, or are simply repeating wingnut talking points. People protested, at least on college campuses, esp. about Saddam's using gas on Shiites and Kurds (of course, the weapons were sold to him by, uh...anyway) and that does nothing to erode the credibility of being against stealing elections, going to war based on lies, and the other great crimes of the Bush admin.
Posted in: McClellan says he believed in Bush as war started
0
Jahdog
The anti-war crowd discussed Saddam's crimes plenty. In a democracy, however, it makes more sense to protest one's own government's crimes, so as to effect a change in its policies and have the criminals brought to justice. But you knew that, right? (I can't believe the W supporters here can still believe what they write about his administration. They must be getting paid, or have other financial reasons for supporting this war that is ruining the US.) Is taniwha still out there? I'd like to hear his take on the situation...
Posted in: McClellan says he believed in Bush as war started