PDA

View Full Version : Harmony Amongst the Ranks



road kill
03-21-2011, 06:15 AM
Liberal Democrats in Uproar over Libya Action

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.

While other Democratic lawmakers have publicly backed Obama — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees — the objections from a vocal group of anti-war Democrats on Capitol Hill could become a political problem for Obama, especially if “Operation Odyssey Dawn” fails to topple Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi, leads to significant American casualties, or provokes a wider conflict in the troubled region of North Africa.

(Pelosi did not participate in Saturday’s call; she is in Afghanistan to meet with U.S. military and diplomatic officials.)

U.S. warships fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missles on Saturday in a bid to knock out Libya’s air-defense systems, targeting command-and-control and radar units near Tripoli, the Libyan capital, and the city of Misurata, according to Pentagon officials and media reports. French aircraft attacked armored units loyal to Qadhafi around the city of Benghazi after they ignored international calls for a cease-fire.

Saturday’s conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”

“Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called,” added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html#ixzz1HEAFb5K8

__________________________________________________ _______

It appears Obama tlaked with every body available, except the US Congress!!!!


RK

cotts135
03-21-2011, 06:41 AM
Liberal Democrats in Uproar over Libya Action

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.

While other Democratic lawmakers have publicly backed Obama — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees — the objections from a vocal group of anti-war Democrats on Capitol Hill could become a political problem for Obama, especially if “Operation Odyssey Dawn” fails to topple Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi, leads to significant American casualties, or provokes a wider conflict in the troubled region of North Africa.

(Pelosi did not participate in Saturday’s call; she is in Afghanistan to meet with U.S. military and diplomatic officials.)

U.S. warships fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missles on Saturday in a bid to knock out Libya’s air-defense systems, targeting command-and-control and radar units near Tripoli, the Libyan capital, and the city of Misurata, according to Pentagon officials and media reports. French aircraft attacked armored units loyal to Qadhafi around the city of Benghazi after they ignored international calls for a cease-fire.

Saturday’s conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”

“Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called,” added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html#ixzz1HEAFb5K8

__________________________________________________ _______

It appears Obama tlaked with every body available, except the US Congress!!!!


RK

Just wondering what your position on this is?

road kill
03-21-2011, 06:53 AM
Just wondering what your position on this is?

I have to be honest.

I don't know.:confused:

To me, just take out Ghadaffy, but I know that is illegal etc.

I am admitting where I stand.

I have not been critical on this.
I am just curious where all the cries for impeachment are??

WEll, here they are.

I'll give Kucinich that he is consistant.
I respect him for that.

Because when Bush had the APPROVAL of Congress you leftys were screamin' bloody murder.
But when Obama does it without approval or even conferring with Congress......oooooooh aaaaaaah what masterful diplomacy.


stan b

cotts135
03-21-2011, 08:19 AM
This is a tough issue as you have pointed out. I appreciate your honesty also, some might think that not taking a stand one way or the other is a sign of weakness, at least some on this forum might think that. However the issue is more complex than just what appears on the surface.
Your point that the left was screaming about going to war even with the approval of Congress is well taken. My primary concern with this whole issue is since when has the UN General Assembly preempt our Constitution, and then the whole idea of a President, whether Republican or Democrat, sending troops into conflict without the peoples approval is very troublesome. The founding fathers has some strong thoughts and feelings about going to war and the importance of involving the people. We would be well served to remember what they said

BonMallari
03-21-2011, 08:21 AM
Just wondering what your position on this is?

not RK but here is my take: I think everyone agrees that Kadafy has to go but these Congresspersons are doing nothing more than grandstanding, their concern or disapproval doesnt mean squat..In Kucinich,Waters and Jackson Lee they all like to play contrarian, especially when a microphone is put in front of their mug...there are certain lawmakers that will always give the media their take on any subject and give a sound bite, but its means absolutely nothing...

charly_t
03-21-2011, 08:25 AM
RK, I agree with you 100%. I'm getting old enough to really question myself at times. And the thing that really bothers me is most of these we have elected to office don't appear any smarter than myself. Now that scares me to death !

First time I read the first post was shortly after you started this thread. Not sure about my eyesight anymore........I read "Banks" instead of "Ranks" at first glance. It was too early for me to be reading anything, vbg.

road kill
03-21-2011, 05:36 PM
Hmmmmm, the leftys (ooops, I mean middle of the road independents;-)) silence is deafening.


RK

dnf777
03-21-2011, 09:56 PM
Hmmmmm, the leftys (ooops, I mean middle of the road independents;-)) silence is deafening.


RK

This exact topic was discussed days ago, that a few said they weren't sure if this was the right course of action.

There are two very coherent and valid schools of thought on this.

But there is a huge difference between this and 2003, in terms of congressional approval. As Bush claimed (and he was correct) the CIC has the ability to maneuver troops and order missions. To commit to a long-term war is different. How exactly one defines these actions is up for debate of course, but if we indeed offer support for several days or a week or two, then disengage, that would likely be within the powers of the president. Clearly, Iraq and its hefty price tag to the US taxpayer needs the consent of congress.

cotts135
03-22-2011, 08:19 AM
This exact topic was discussed days ago, that a few said they weren't sure if this was the right course of action.

There are two very coherent and valid schools of thought on this.

But there is a huge difference between this and 2003, in terms of congressional approval. As Bush claimed (and he was correct) the CIC has the ability to maneuver troops and order missions. To commit to a long-term war is different. How exactly one defines these actions is up for debate of course, but if we indeed offer support for several days or a week or two, then disengage, that would likely be within the powers of the president. Clearly, Iraq and its hefty price tag to the US taxpayer needs the consent of congress.

I disagree with you on this. First though let's go back to when Obama was a candidate for President.


Charlie Savage, then of The Boston Globe:

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.






Not exactly what he is saying now.

More important to me though is the Constitutionality of it.

John Jay in Federalist #4 argued that President's are more likely to engage in wars for their own self serving interest than the people would. That's why the need for Congressional approval:

" But the safety of the people of America against dangers from foreign force depends not only on their forbearing to give just causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are pretended as well as just causes of war.

It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people."

Is there really any reason why their should not be any debate before Congress on this issue? This is to important to not let the people be involved.

Hew
03-22-2011, 08:34 AM
Is there really any reason why their should not be any debate before Congress on this issue? This is to important to not let the people be involved.
As always, I appreciate your non-hypocritical and consistant point of view. I'm not surprised that all the other libs on this board are as quiet as church mice (and at least one has the unmitigated gall to start a thread cheerleading Obama when just a few weeks ago he/she was saying we had no business in Libya).

And as almost always, I disagree with you re: Congressional debate on this particular issue. If we can entrust our elected President with the ability to effectively end the world with nuclear weapons at his discretion, I believe that granting him the leeway and uthority to take limited action when time of the essence is a no-brainer. If Congress doesn't agree then they're free to kill the funds.

road kill
03-22-2011, 08:42 AM
Just wondering what your position on this is?

Mr. Cotts,

I have decided what my position on this is.

The same as it is on Afghanistan.

GET OUT NOW!!!

Somethings are just not our business.

Thank you for your quality posts.


stan b

dnf777
03-22-2011, 09:28 AM
Mr. Cotts,

I have decided what my position on this is.

The same as it is on Afghanistan.

GET OUT NOW!!!

Somethings are just not our business.

Thank you for your quality posts.


stan b


Me too.

It is ironic however, that when the UN and world was telling us to "wait and try further diplomacy" we bombed and invaded. Now that they're telling us to bomb, the proper thing to do seems to be stay the hell out.

Glad its not my call.

And BTW, he should get is a$$ back home in the oval office, where it belongs when we launch an attack of any size!

no church mice regards...

M&K's Retrievers
03-22-2011, 09:43 AM
Aw, leave him alone. He's having fun. :rolleyes:

Hew
03-22-2011, 09:46 AM
And BTW, he should get is a$$ back home in the oval office, where it belongs when we launch an attack of any size!
If he makes a big deal over it by interrupting plans, returning to DC, calling a press conference, going into "war footing," etc. he'd be sending a message he doesn't want sent. To Americans and the rest of the world, by not making a big deal of the strikes he's telling everyone "this isn't a big deal...we're not going to be there long, there's not a whole lot to worry about, chill dudes, etc." To Khadafy he's saying, "I can rock your world as an afterthought between my morning coffee and lunch. I'm not cancelling scoping out the chicks in Rio to worry about you. Now quit f'ing around and stop killing your own people or I will get really pissed."

dnf777
03-22-2011, 10:07 AM
If he makes a big deal over it by interrupting plans, returning to DC, calling a press conference, going into "war footing," etc. he'd be sending a message he doesn't want sent. To Americans and the rest of the world, by not making a big deal of the strikes he's telling everyone "this isn't a big deal...we're not going to be there long, there's not a whole lot to worry about, chill dudes, etc." To Khadafy he's saying, "I can rock your world as an afterthought between my morning coffee and lunch. I'm not cancelling scoping out the chicks in Rio to worry about you. Now quit f'ing around and stop killing your own people or I will get really pissed."

Good point.
Its amazing how not just everything the president does, but everything he doesn't do, sends a message!

One thing that folks on either side of this should remember, WE are the UNITED STATES. The world leader, and all eyes are on us, no matter what we say about diminutive roles, etc...

WE ARE DAMNED IF WE DO, AND DAMNED IF WE DON'T.

With that in mind, I'd just as soon "we don't" and keep our $100,000,000 to pay those poor teachers in WI.

Roger Perry
03-22-2011, 12:18 PM
A far different reaction from the people of Libya. The people there are actually calling the United States military men friends.

A Marine Corps Osprey search and rescue aircraft retrieved the pilot, while the second crew member, a weapon's officer, was recovered by rebel forces and is now in American hands, another U.S. official said in Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Story: CNN calls Fox's human shield accusation ‘nuts’ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42211683/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/)
The two were separated after ejecting from the crippled F-15E Strike Eaglehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_11pxw.gif (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42206805/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/#) jet at high altitude and drifting down to different locations, Crawley said, adding they sustained minor injuries.
One of the airmen landed in a field and approached a crowd of people, not knowing whether they were supporters of Moammar Gadhafi or members of the opposition, Britain's Daily Telegraph reported (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8397953/US-jet-crashes-in-Libya-airman-would-not-have-known-if-he-approached-friend-or-foe.html).
It turned out they were locals who opposed the Libyan leader, the paper said. "I hugged him and said, 'Don't be scared, we are your friends,'" witness Younis Amruni told the Telegraph.
Locals reportedly lined up to shake the airman's hands in thanks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8397953/US-jet-crashes-in-Libya-airman-would-not-have-known-if-he-approached-friend-or-foe.html).
"We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies," Amruni said. "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42206805/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

road kill
03-22-2011, 01:18 PM
More harmony!!!!

Michael Moore To Obama: "Return Your Nobel Peace Prize!"


RK

road kill
03-22-2011, 01:20 PM
Even MORE harmony;

"Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?" Farrakhan Blasts Obama For Calling For Qaddafi to Step Down

http://www.hapblog.com/2011/03/who-hell-do-you-think-your-are.html



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


RK

dnf777
03-22-2011, 02:28 PM
I always knew RK and Farrahkan and Moore would end up on the same side! :D:D

road kill
03-22-2011, 02:37 PM
Throughout my lifetime, whenever a US President sent troops into harms way he announced it to the US citizens.
It is a solemn and serious occasion.

Kennedy
Johnson
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush I
Clinton
Bush II


Obama is in Brazil.......partying.

Sorry folks, it is what it is.......
CRAPOLA!!!!!
Respectfully....BM2 road kill, USCG/SFSG/PS/Cam Ranh Bay/1972

I beleive the blush is off this rose.

road kill
03-22-2011, 03:01 PM
Take Obama's Peace Prize
Updated: 19:58, Tuesday March 22, 2011

Bolivian President Evo Morales has called for US President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize to be revoked following his decision to attack Libya.

'Two years ago we heard that President Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, but is he defending peace in the world now, or isn't he instead fomenting violence?' Morales told reporters, days after Obama ordered the bombing of Libya military targets as part of an UN-approved effort to protect civilians.

'How is it possible to give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who has launched an invasion, a bombing? It's a violation, an assault, an aggression,' said Morales, one of Latin America's most left-leaning leaders and a vocal critic of the United States.

'Obama is the leader of group of thugs who led an assault and an invasion - and that has nothing to do with defending human rights,' he declared.

Obama receive the prize in December 2009, less than a year after taking office.

In his acceptance speech in Oslo, Obama referred to himself as 'the commander-in-chief of a nation in the midst of two wars' and said armed conflict was at times necessary.

Obama gave his $US1.4 million ($A1.4 million) Nobel Peace Prize award money to 10 charities, including groups working on Haiti relief and supporting military families.
__________________________________________________ ________________

RK

dnf777
03-22-2011, 03:24 PM
Throughout my lifetime, whenever a US President sent troops into harms way he announced it to the US citizens.
It is a solemn and serious occasion.

Kennedy
Johnson
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush I
Clinton
Bush II


Obama is in Brazil.......partying.

Sorry folks, it is what it is.......
CRAPOLA!!!!!
Respectfully....BM2 road kill, USCG/SFSG/PS/Cam Ranh Bay/1972

I beleive the blush is off this rose.

Agree. Its time to be solomn and decisive....from the Oval Office.

Respectfully...

(do I have to post my military campaigns? I'm afreed I'll get slammed for doing so!--you know, think I deserve a CMH for every battle since Nam?)

road kill
03-22-2011, 03:35 PM
Agree. Its time to be solomn and decisive....from the Oval Office.

Respectfully...

(do I have to post my military campaigns? I'm afreed I'll get slammed for doing so!--you know, think I deserve a CMH for every battle since Nam?)

You know how I feel about anyone who served.

I don't know what to say about this.
We are sending men into combat.
Don't try to minimize that by saying no "boots on the ground."
That term used by the media offends me.

Regardless of party, every President has realized the severity of a combat mission until now.

There is something wrong here folks.

If you, dnf, were mocking me for listing my military status, I really don't care.
I am proud of it and I didn't get the ribbon (CMH).

I wish the man sending troops into harms way understood the significance of what he was doing.

Just a tad too cavaliere for my liking.

stan b

dnf777
03-22-2011, 04:35 PM
You know how I feel about anyone who served.

I don't know what to say about this.
We are sending men into combat.
Don't try to minimize that by saying no "boots on the ground."
That term used by the media offends me.

Regardless of party, every President has realized the severity of a combat mission until now.

There is something wrong here folks.

If you, dnf, were mocking me for listing my military status, I really don't care.
I am proud of it and I didn't get the ribbon (CMH).

I wish the man sending troops into harms way understood the significance of what he was doing.

Just a tad too cavaliere for my liking.

stan b

You know I would never mock your service. I was referencing the hero who mocked me for mentioning my service. It seems only *some* are allowed to even mention their service, without being nailed for it.

I hope you took no offense, none was intended. From your comments regarding the lack of understanding from our CIC, I think you are beginning to understand how I felt for the past 10 years.

"Boots on the ground" was a term our PAD officer used in the daily staff briefings to the commander. As people would rotate in and out of Saudi Arabia, it was crucial to know exactly how many people were present in country, as the State Dept agreements only allowed for "x" number of infidels on holy soil at any given time. (ridiculous, but that's how they viewed it)

Roger Perry
03-23-2011, 09:54 AM
You know how I feel about anyone who served.

I don't know what to say about this.
We are sending men into combat.
Don't try to minimize that by saying no "boots on the ground."
That term used by the media offends me.

Regardless of party, every President has realized the severity of a combat mission until now.

There is something wrong here folks.

If you, dnf, were mocking me for listing my military status, I really don't care.
I am proud of it and I didn't get the ribbon (CMH).

I wish the man sending troops into harms way understood the significance of what he was doing.

Just a tad too cavaliere for my liking.

stan b

You are including GW Bush in that group of Presidents that has realized the severity of the combat mission???????He lied to Congress and the American people to start a war in Iraq killing over 4000 of our military men and women and maimed or wounded tens of thousands more. At least Obama does not have to make up lies and has not jumped into something without great thought and his listened to his advisors both pro and con. He has the approval of NATO countries and the arab countries to try to stop Gadaffi from killing more of the people of Libya. I am sure President Obama did not want the Middle Eastern people hating us any more than they did when we invaded Iraq under false pretences. The people of Libya are grateful of our assistance to them unlike the Iraqui's and Afghan's.
I saw on a news report that when the pilots of the Jet that crashed were on the ground and the U.S. dropped bombs to keep the people back from the airmen even though they were not Gadaffi's henchmen, one of the men helping rescue them had a son that was injured by the bombs he was not angry at us but said it was a price he was willing to make to free their country from Gadaffi. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

M&K's Retrievers
03-23-2011, 10:10 AM
You are including GW Bush in that group of Presidents that has realized the severity of the combat mission???????He lied to Congress and the American people to start a war in Iraq killing over 4000 of our military men and women and maimed or wounded tens of thousands more. At least Obama does not have to make up lies and has not jumped into something without great thought and his listened to his advisors both pro and con. He has the approval of NATO countries and the arab countries to try to stop Gadaffi from killing more of the people of Libya. I am sure President Obama did not want the Middle Eastern people hating us any more than they did when we invaded Iraq under false pretences. The people of Libya are grateful of our assistance to them unlike the Iraqui's and Afghan's.
I saw on a news report that when the pilots of the Jet that crashed were on the ground and the U.S. dropped bombs to keep the people back from the airmen even though they were not Gadaffi's henchmen, one of the men helping rescue them had a son that was injured by the bombs he was not angry at us but said it was a price he was willing to make to free their country from Gadaffi. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, exactly what lie did Bush tell Congress and the American people? Was it the one based on CIA and other intel? Was it the lie based on info that could not followed up on for 11/2 years which was ample time for Saddam to dispose of WMD? Those lies? Smoke that!

huntinman
03-23-2011, 11:31 AM
You are including GW Bush in that group of Presidents that has realized the severity of the combat mission???????He lied to Congress and the American people to start a war in Iraq killing over 4000 of our military men and women and maimed or wounded tens of thousands more. At least Obama does not have to make up lies and has not jumped into something without great thought and his listened to his advisors both pro and con. He has the approval of NATO countries and the arab countries to try to stop Gadaffi from killing more of the people of Libya. I am sure President Obama did not want the Middle Eastern people hating us any more than they did when we invaded Iraq under false pretences. The people of Libya are grateful of our assistance to them unlike the Iraqui's and Afghan's.
I saw on a news report that when the pilots of the Jet that crashed were on the ground and the U.S. dropped bombs to keep the people back from the airmen even though they were not Gadaffi's henchmen, one of the men helping rescue them had a son that was injured by the bombs he was not angry at us but said it was a price he was willing to make to free their country from Gadaffi. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

I will agree that you are definitely smoking something Roger...

Franco
03-23-2011, 12:07 PM
Ron Paul on Libya and other issues...

http://www.ronpaul.com/

The man just make too much sense!