pure ephedra…

stacker ephedra…

cardizem blood pressure medicine…

excessive sweating aldactone…

topamax adjunct lamictal…

tramadol prescription online…

is acyclovir used for ear infections…

hydrocodone for sale…

ah bu calan sarkimiz yarim…

what is ultram er…

propecia prescription…

Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts…..

J. The Internet is a collection of interconnected documents and other resources, linked by hyperlinks and URLs. R.. However, "the…

Data is plural, Datum is singular.

Apologies…

Just plain common sense, is such a rare comodity in the Bush II administration.

God help us all.

You have been drinking the koolaide for too long.

This book:

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9781582434032-0

will help you understand the fallicies that have been perpetrated by this administration for the last 5 years.

There is plenty of data which suggest that the occupation is the problem, not the solution in Iraq.

If our country was invaded and occupied for an indeterminate amount of time, don’t you think those Americans who cooperated with the occupiers might have some trouble with being seen as legitimate. Even the royally dumb Bush said that if Americans were occupied by a foreign invader, we would not like it. DUH!!!

Stay the course, RFL, it is working out so very well!!

{ They’ve got to call it something, other than “Iraqis }.

Sadaam

Iraqi’s were happy which is why they wrote:

“Job donne [sic]. Now, go home”

Heavens knows that is what Bush and Co fully planned on doing. But Al Qaeda decided to show up and make America pay for being so stupid as to engage in nation building in the M.E.

The war planning commitee simply was simply too naive to predict the inevitable. I agree and have believed since 2003 that this war (or occupation as you call it) was started on shaking ground with assumptions made that never should have been made.

But Al Qaeda gave this war legitimacy that it never had in 2003 when everyone was in favor of it for all the wrong reasons!

Have you watched the testimony from the Generals in Iraq? The question is asked:

“Is Al Qaeda still a threat in Iraq?”

“Iraq is important to U.S. security worldwide because it is “the central front of al Qaeda’s global war of terror,” Gen. David Petraeus said Wednesday.

Al Qaeda could use Iraq as a base to “export violence,” Gen. David Petraeus said Wednesday.

“We don’t know what would happen if al Qaeda had a sanctuary in Iraq from which they could presumably export violence, perhaps train others. We just don’t know,” Petraeus told a news conference in Washington

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/12/iraq.petraeus/index.html

Democrats pledge to support the fight against Al Qaeda, but they stubbornly insist that Iraq is the wrong battlefield since the war was started on a false premise. However, the generals on the field have been clear that Iraq IS the battle field to fight Al Qaeda regardless of poor judgement exercised in choosing to remove Sadaam 5 years ago.

Who were we liberating Iraqis from?

There was graffetti written near the statute of Saddam that was brought down, it said “Job donne [sic]. Now, go home.”

We were greeted as liberaters when we entered France in WW II. We were liberating the French from German occupiers. Different story in Iraq.

You can’t deliver democracy like it’s pizza. :)

Who are we killing in Iraq today? Who are killing us? Both answers are a small percentage of Al Qaeda.

Let’s hope that the Republicans AND the Democrats have learned this lesson.

Democrats were in charge during the lead up to both Vietnam and Korea (Not to mention WWI and WWII). All the American involvment in the major conflicts during the 20th century were initiated by Democratic executive leadership.

Republicans have largely sought to avoid nasty foreign entanglements with the notable exceptions of Teddy Roosevelt and GWB.

Ron Paul is perfect example of this. As a poster boy of the arch-conservative, anti-UN John Birch Society, Paul embodies the constitutionaly correct way of viewing conflicts that true Republicans have long advocated (up until this administration). Only congress can declare war.

Instead, Bush goes to the UN to get approval to go to war.

Making congress declare war (As the constitution clearly stipulates) essentially means you either fight it 100% or not at all. The correct strategy in winning the war can then be bipartisanly supported. No single person or political party can be scapegoated when things go bad.

Will the Democrats finally accept the constitutionly correct way for entering conflicts? Haven’t heard them make that argument yet.

Fighting a war and rebuilding a country are not mutually exclusive.

In order to defeat Radical Islam, the strategy is and has always been to install a democratic freedom loving goverment in the ME. Bush thinks that this will cause people to leave their terror war lords and embrace our Western brand of freedom.

American, you are rapidly approaching Max Groblic (sic) territory and in danger of sinking to Fleetwood status.

And dem ain’t compliments.

Let’s try this again……………………

“But American, what is McCain going to do other than give us Bush III?””

Using the liberal dialogue thinking: “Gee, I don’t think I can read this, it’s too hard for me!”

Therefore, I’ll just scroll over.