"This is not America; this is not what America does..." unless you're a citizen, in which case the government can happily abuse the Patriot Act to do this very thing.
If Obama had made FOIA more difficult to employ as Limbaugh says Bush did, I can guarantee you that airheads like Limbaugh would be railing out against him in condemnation. The hypocrisy is mind-numbing, but I can't say I'm surprised.
Seriously Limbaugh doesn't believe or think about the things he says, his only motive is to consistently spit out right wing bullshit meant to demonize the Democrats and absolve and prop up the Republicans.
Had Clinton brought in the FOIA changes, you would find Rush frothing at the mouth with rage, his mention of Clinton here is to make Bush seem non partisan.
I love it when tired old republicans talk about the public getting information like it's a bad thing. That in itself speaks volumes about their real intentions.
I love how he implies that any changes Bush made, were to protect the outgoing Clinton administration, rather than protecting their own asses through the restriction of information.
America doesn't like people gathering information on a person suspected of war crimes...
I don't know why Rush didn't just race over to Dubbya's place and paint "murderer" on his door, it would have been a less obvious indicator than this synaptic misfire...
Yeah, if clinton was the one trying to hide something he would have made it tougher to use the freedom of information act, but George Bush did it, Hmmmm! In my opinion, if it was illegal, it would be better if we clean our own house rather than letting other countries do it. As much as I disagreed with his policies, I hope it doesn't happen, it will harm the idealogy of american democracy.
FOIA info makes little difference since left-wring "media" aren't journalists and don't report facts; why would they wait for incriminating documents when they already make up whatever shit they want? Zero credibility.
"Millions" of Iraqi civilians killed? Try 98,000. Americans lost more lives on the freeways in 3 years.
I'm sure Rush was just as passionate about presidential privacy and power when Clinton was being impeached.
One thing that this may do (which Rush pointed out) is give journalists the ability to obtain and expose information about Bush that we don't know already. Not only would that be enlightening and possibly entertaining (in a scary kinda way), but Obama wouldn't have to get his hands dirty with it.
Learn a little bit about the executive branch, and congressional commissions.
You know why Henry Kissinger resigned his post as Chairman? Because he would have to divulge his client list for his firm. What name could possibly be on that list, as to cause him to shirk his responsibility? Lets say its a well known Saudi.
Bush screwed himself, and all of his lackeys. He was his own worse enemy, or maybe Cheney and Rove were.
You guys have no sense of humor. He's obviously joking.
Even Rush wouldn't claim that it's a president's duty to do whatever's possible to prevent the citizens from knowing what their elected leaders have done on the country's behalf.
No one could possibly have a problem with a president announcing "Whatever I do will be public knowledge, as will anything any other president has done."
>> ^quantumushroom: "Millions" of Iraqi civilians killed? Try 98,000. Americans lost more lives on the freeways in 3 years.
Yep, same argument can be made about the whole "War on terrorism". Who cares about a mere 3 thousand dead when more people die of drowning or cancer each year?
The whole point of the attack was to empower men whose fears and ego made them happy to trade their souls for the illusion of security.
Are you purposely being stupid? Or were you born an idiot?
I'm not purposely being a liberal, nor was I born a Democrat. I didn't make up that number, that's YOUR side's estimate, DUMMY!
Yep, same argument can be made about the whole "War on terrorism". Who cares about a mere 3 thousand dead when more people die of drowning or cancer each year?
Nothing to say about the gross distortion of the numbers, eh? There's a large difference between the "millions" of Iraqi civilians killed statistic used by the left wing media and the reality. Thirty million Iraqis no longer live under the thumb of a dictator, I know that counts for nothing with the left, but, true all the same.
The whole point of the attack was to empower men whose fears and ego made them happy to trade their souls for the illusion of security.
Your "poetry of power" seems out of place post 9-11. I'm not against peace, but in an evil world, self-defense is necessary.
The people were foolish to elect an appeaser in a time of war, so I hope THE ONE proves me wrong.
P.S. Does that healthy distrust of government power automatically end when socialists take the reigns?
It should be clear to anyone with half a brain that Rush Limbaugh is an anti-patriot. He cares more for the Republican party than the good of the country, and that seems almost treasonous.
As roughy said, the man wants Obama to fail. Why? Is the sacrifice of the entire country worth any future benefit to the Republican party?
>> ^quantumushroom: FOIA info makes little difference since left-wring "media" aren't journalists and don't report facts; why would they wait for incriminating documents when they already make up whatever shit they want? Zero credibility.
"Millions" of Iraqi civilians killed? Try 98,000. Americans lost more lives on the freeways in 3 years.
That's like saying that since so many Americans lose their lives in car accidents, the ~3000 of those who died on 9/11 is inconsequential.
The first part of that is a comparison solely based on numbers, and is, for all intent and purpose, reasonable. The second part is a comparison based on unequal circumstance, and is completely unreasonable.
>> ^quantumushroom: Nothing to say about the gross distortion of the numbers, eh?
I didn't make the claim about the number of Iraqi casualties in the first place, though to be honest I think both the "over a million" and "under 100,000" numbers are distorted. I don't know what the truth is, but I'm certain we haven't heard it yet.
There's no number in the space between I wouldn't find horrifying, though.
There's a large difference between the "millions" of Iraqi civilians killed statistic used by the left wing media and the reality. Thirty million Iraqis no longer live under the thumb of a dictator, I know that counts for nothing with the left, but, true all the same.
It'd count for more if that had been the stated goal from the outset -- instead the goal was supposedly to nullify the threat of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" being used on us.
Personally, I would've been opposed to the war, even if the goal had always been to "liberate" the Iraqi people from a dictator. For one, I'd have never bought that as the real goal, and for another, I don't think we have the right to use military force in that way unilaterally.
Even so, I wouldn't say the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly happy with what we've done to their country, either.
Your "poetry of power" seems out of place post 9-11. I'm not against peace, but in an evil world, self-defense is necessary.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 -- it wasn't, and isn't self-defense.
Even if it were, violating our core principles is folly, whether it's done in the name of self-defense or not. We're less safe without those principles than we are with them.
The people were foolish to elect an appeaser in a time of war, so I hope THE ONE proves me wrong.
What part of "We will defeat you" in the inauguration speech sounded like appeasement? That was also in his victory speech on election night, and he echoed it again by saying "We will win this fight on our terms" when he signed the order to close Guantanamo.
Liberals have never wanted to "surrender", we just think the best way to take away the power of terrorists is to stop behaving as if we're terrified by them. We don't think we shouldn't yield the moral high ground, and confirm all the propaganda that the terrorists use to recruit people to fight us.
P.S. Does that healthy distrust of government power automatically end when socialists take the reigns?
Absolutely not. But we like what Obama's done with his power so far -- enhance FOIA, suspend the MCA tribunals, begin closing Gitmo, require the CIA to stick to the Army manual with regard to interrogation techniques.
We also like that he significantly limited executive privilege. A very conservative thing for him to do, I'd say.
Oh, and Obama isn't a socialist QM, unless you define "socialist" as "anyone who isn't in favor of laissez-faire capitalism". Socialists think Democrats are way too conservative.
To whoever said Rush supports the Republican party: he is not a Republican and has stated he isn't going to prop them up, they are sink or swim. Rush supports the Reagan Doctrine and--surprise!--this current crap crop of Republicans don't. That's why Obama is President.
Randomly insulting Limbaugh and Coulter just proves that left-wing programming works, as effectively as Big Brother made the Two Minutes Hate. I know "you've" not read any of his works or listened to his show, which BTW would take you a month of listening just to understand the context what's being talked about. Rush is not a soundbite guy.
>> ^quantumushroom: Nothing to say about the gross distortion of the numbers, eh?
I didn't make the claim about the number of Iraqi casualties in the first place, though to be honest I think both the "over a million" and "under 100,000" numbers are distorted. I don't know what the truth is, but I'm certain we haven't heard it yet.
There's no number in the space between I wouldn't find horrifying, though.
War is terrible thing but it's a part of life, and no battle or war has ever gone according to plan.
There's a large difference between the "millions" of Iraqi civilians killed statistic used by the left wing media and the reality. Thirty million Iraqis no longer live under the thumb of a dictator, I know that counts for nothing with the left, but, true all the same.
It'd count for more if that had been the stated goal from the outset -- instead the goal was supposedly to nullify the threat of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" being used on us.
For the millionth time, the whole world thought Saddam had 'em and he DID have them at one time.
Personally, I would've been opposed to the war, even if the goal had always been to "liberate" the Iraqi people from a dictator. For one, I'd have never bought that as the real goal, and for another, I don't think we have the right to use military force in that way unilaterally.
It was NOT done unilaterally. Remember the 12 years Sadddam thumbed his nose at the UN? Was that not long enough a grace period for him to surrender?
Even so, I wouldn't say the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly happy with what we've done to their country, either.
The problems of Iraq are now the problems of freedom. It's up to them. At this point even I'd be OK with reducing our forces on their timeline.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 -- it wasn't, and isn't self-defense.
I never said 9/11 was the reason we invaded Iraq, although Al Qaeda was in Iraq. I say the war was justified, others do not. History will prove one side correct.
Even if it were, violating our core principles is folly, whether it's done in the name of self-defense or not. We're less safe without those principles than we are with them.
Our core principles remain intact.
The people were foolish to elect an appeaser in a time of war, so I hope THE ONE proves me wrong.
What part of "We will defeat you" in the inauguration speech sounded like appeasement? That was also in his victory speech on election night, and he echoed it again by saying "We will win this fight on our terms" when he signed the order to close Guantanamo.
Obama says a lot of things. Now let's watch what he does. Gitmo WAS "our terms". How is bowing to gutless international appeasers in the hopes of being "liked" again OUR terms?
Liberals have never wanted to "surrender", we just think the best way to take away the power of terrorists is to stop behaving as if we're terrified by them. We don't think we shouldn't yield the moral high ground, and confirm all the propaganda that the terrorists use to recruit people to fight us.
Raising defenses and killing people trying to kill you are both acceptable for the survival of society. There's no point in polishing morality if your civilization is in danger of being destroyed.
P.S. Does that healthy distrust of government power automatically end when socialists take the reigns?
Absolutely not. But we like what Obama's done with his power so far -- enhance FOIA, suspend the MCA tribunals, begin closing Gitmo, require the CIA to stick to the Army manual with regard to interrogation techniques.
I like Obama's dynamism but I'm waiting to see if it does more harm than good.
We also like that he significantly limited executive privilege. A very conservative thing for him to do, I'd say.
Oh, and Obama isn't a socialist QM, unless you define "socialist" as "anyone who isn't in favor of laissez-faire capitalism". Socialists think Democrats are way too conservative.
I see little difference between a pure socialist and a Democrat (or Republican) in favor of nationalizing the health care, oil and the auto industries and throwing around bailouts. The Democrats sold their souls to the far left fringe more so than the right sold out to "fundamentalists". Again, just opinion.
Blah blah blah QM spitting rubbish... you're such a Rush fan, shit you used his own wording countless times especially the 35 Undeniable Truths.
If Limbaugh is not someone interested in propping up Republicans then explain Operation Chaos. Explain his support of McCain. Explain his precinct captain role in 94. Explain his push for right wing policies to 'save the Republican party'. Reagan Doctrine follower my ass.
There was no Al-Q in Iraq, you guys came in and created over 160+ insurgent groups one of which called itself Al-Q of Messapotamia. Then the right wing started jizzing, and then you claimed it was all Iran and yet the US government could never provided any proof of this both inside and outside of Iraq.
The problems of Iraq are not the problems of freedom they are problems of invading a nation with no solid plan of what to do afterwards. Don't go dumping a shot up corpse at the legs of liberty.
The whole world didn't think Saddam had WMDs at that time, you people just say they did. Tell me again why the Coalition of the willing only had the UK as a western allied partner (even though it had the 10th Downing Street memo). Why did NATO not support the effort in Iraq while it did in Afghanistan? What are you going to say Germany and France are defeatists or terrorist appeasers?
Gitmo has not provided a single operative breakthrough that the Bush administration hoped for; it has only painted the US as a unilateral hostile and as a torture nation to the international world.
I had to upvote this just because Rush's monologue is so incongruent. He manages to discredit himself.
Also, no amount of car accident related deaths makes lives lost in Iraq okay, I get that it's "just" a comparison, but it sounds like a rationalization to use it as a comparison. Secondly, I actually think we should do something about the amount of lives lost each year in car accidents. I think car accidents went down when gas was at it's highest priced, because people were driving more carefully and less often to save gas. Isn't that sad? More mass transportation sound good to anyone?
And as far as the "banana republic" comment . . .I just have to say that the U.S. has been very involved in the way a certain Central American country runs its government. And the biggest difference between "protecting the executive branch" as Clinton ran it, and as W ran it would be the controversial war that has cost 1/2 a trillion dollars. Yeah, I think that warrants disclosure.
Stumble This
Instructables has connections to instructions on how to
If Obama had made FOIA more difficult to employ as Limbaugh says Bush did, I can guarantee you that airheads like Limbaugh would be railing out against him in condemnation. The hypocrisy is mind-numbing, but I can't say I'm surprised.
Seriously Limbaugh doesn't believe or think about the things he says, his only motive is to consistently spit out right wing bullshit meant to demonize the Democrats and absolve and prop up the Republicans.
Had Clinton brought in the FOIA changes, you would find Rush frothing at the mouth with rage, his mention of Clinton here is to make Bush seem non partisan.
I like seeing Rush squirm.
Complaining about it being easier to see what your government doing.
In the USA, it should always be that you can see what your gov. is doing.
Its just weird watching a citizen say - "what the hell? whay make it easier for us to see the potential deceit a gov. may commit? I don't want that?!"
Well, if you don't want to know then just pretend everything is ok and USA! USA! USA! It worked for some people over that last 8 years...
Using conventional right-wing rhetoric, since he wants the President to fail, he wants America to fail.
Wishing failure on someone or something is a form of hatred.
Ergo, Limbaugh hates America.
And since he hates America, he also hates our troops.
Seriously, is he senile? Or is it the drugs?
I don't know why Rush didn't just race over to Dubbya's place and paint "murderer" on his door, it would have been a less obvious indicator than this synaptic misfire...
Well isn't that just the story of your life.
"Millions" of Iraqi civilians killed? Try 98,000. Americans lost more lives on the freeways in 3 years.
One thing that this may do (which Rush pointed out) is give journalists the ability to obtain and expose information about Bush that we don't know already. Not only would that be enlightening and possibly entertaining (in a scary kinda way), but Obama wouldn't have to get his hands dirty with it.
Learn a little bit about the executive branch, and congressional commissions.
You know why Henry Kissinger resigned his post as Chairman? Because he would have to divulge his client list for his firm. What name could possibly be on that list, as to cause him to shirk his responsibility? Lets say its a well known Saudi.
Bush screwed himself, and all of his lackeys. He was his own worse enemy, or maybe Cheney and Rove were.
Even Rush wouldn't claim that it's a president's duty to do whatever's possible to prevent the citizens from knowing what their elected leaders have done on the country's behalf.
No one could possibly have a problem with a president announcing "Whatever I do will be public knowledge, as will anything any other president has done."
Come now.
</sadthatimbeingfacetious>
Are you purposely being stupid? Or were you born an idiot?
Seriously, I'd like to know if there was some intended satire in your comment that I missed.
98,000? HAHAHA.
PS - Bush and Cheney each have gay fantasies about Obama. Just thought you should known.
"Millions" of Iraqi civilians killed? Try 98,000. Americans lost more lives on the freeways in 3 years.
Yep, same argument can be made about the whole "War on terrorism". Who cares about a mere 3 thousand dead when more people die of drowning or cancer each year?
The whole point of the attack was to empower men whose fears and ego made them happy to trade their souls for the illusion of security.
You're on the wrong side, as always, QM.
I'm not purposely being a liberal, nor was I born a Democrat. I didn't make up that number, that's YOUR side's estimate, DUMMY!
Yep, same argument can be made about the whole "War on terrorism". Who cares about a mere 3 thousand dead when more people die of drowning or cancer each year?
Nothing to say about the gross distortion of the numbers, eh? There's a large difference between the "millions" of Iraqi civilians killed statistic used by the left wing media and the reality. Thirty million Iraqis no longer live under the thumb of a dictator, I know that counts for nothing with the left, but, true all the same.
The whole point of the attack was to empower men whose fears and ego made them happy to trade their souls for the illusion of security.
Your "poetry of power" seems out of place post 9-11. I'm not against peace, but in an evil world, self-defense is necessary.
The people were foolish to elect an appeaser in a time of war, so I hope THE ONE proves me wrong.
P.S. Does that healthy distrust of government power automatically end when socialists take the reigns?
As roughy said, the man wants Obama to fail. Why? Is the sacrifice of the entire country worth any future benefit to the Republican party?
FOIA info makes little difference since left-wring "media" aren't journalists and don't report facts; why would they wait for incriminating documents when they already make up whatever shit they want? Zero credibility.
"Millions" of Iraqi civilians killed? Try 98,000. Americans lost more lives on the freeways in 3 years.
That's like saying that since so many Americans lose their lives in car accidents, the ~3000 of those who died on 9/11 is inconsequential.
>> ^quantumushroom:
"Millions" of Iraqi civilians killed? Try 98,000. Americans lost more lives on the freeways in 3 years.
Nothing to say about the gross distortion of the numbers, eh?
I didn't make the claim about the number of Iraqi casualties in the first place, though to be honest I think both the "over a million" and "under 100,000" numbers are distorted. I don't know what the truth is, but I'm certain we haven't heard it yet.
There's no number in the space between I wouldn't find horrifying, though.
There's a large difference between the "millions" of Iraqi civilians killed statistic used by the left wing media and the reality. Thirty million Iraqis no longer live under the thumb of a dictator, I know that counts for nothing with the left, but, true all the same.
It'd count for more if that had been the stated goal from the outset -- instead the goal was supposedly to nullify the threat of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" being used on us.
Personally, I would've been opposed to the war, even if the goal had always been to "liberate" the Iraqi people from a dictator. For one, I'd have never bought that as the real goal, and for another, I don't think we have the right to use military force in that way unilaterally.
Even so, I wouldn't say the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly happy with what we've done to their country, either.
Your "poetry of power" seems out of place post 9-11. I'm not against peace, but in an evil world, self-defense is necessary.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 -- it wasn't, and isn't self-defense.
Even if it were, violating our core principles is folly, whether it's done in the name of self-defense or not. We're less safe without those principles than we are with them.
The people were foolish to elect an appeaser in a time of war, so I hope THE ONE proves me wrong.
What part of "We will defeat you" in the inauguration speech sounded like appeasement? That was also in his victory speech on election night, and he echoed it again by saying "We will win this fight on our terms" when he signed the order to close Guantanamo.
Liberals have never wanted to "surrender", we just think the best way to take away the power of terrorists is to stop behaving as if we're terrified by them. We don't think we shouldn't yield the moral high ground, and confirm all the propaganda that the terrorists use to recruit people to fight us.
P.S. Does that healthy distrust of government power automatically end when socialists take the reigns?
Absolutely not. But we like what Obama's done with his power so far -- enhance FOIA, suspend the MCA tribunals, begin closing Gitmo, require the CIA to stick to the Army manual with regard to interrogation techniques.
We also like that he significantly limited executive privilege. A very conservative thing for him to do, I'd say.
Oh, and Obama isn't a socialist QM, unless you define "socialist" as "anyone who isn't in favor of laissez-faire capitalism". Socialists think Democrats are way too conservative.
Opening a well thought out and structured dialog will not work. Try something to this affect...
@quantumushroom
You liek teh gheys.
Randomly insulting Limbaugh and Coulter just proves that left-wing programming works, as effectively as Big Brother made the Two Minutes Hate. I know "you've" not read any of his works or listened to his show, which BTW would take you a month of listening just to understand the context what's being talked about. Rush is not a soundbite guy.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Nothing to say about the gross distortion of the numbers, eh?
I didn't make the claim about the number of Iraqi casualties in the first place, though to be honest I think both the "over a million" and "under 100,000" numbers are distorted. I don't know what the truth is, but I'm certain we haven't heard it yet.
There's no number in the space between I wouldn't find horrifying, though.
War is terrible thing but it's a part of life, and no battle or war has ever gone according to plan.
There's a large difference between the "millions" of Iraqi civilians killed statistic used by the left wing media and the reality. Thirty million Iraqis no longer live under the thumb of a dictator, I know that counts for nothing with the left, but, true all the same.
It'd count for more if that had been the stated goal from the outset -- instead the goal was supposedly to nullify the threat of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" being used on us.
For the millionth time, the whole world thought Saddam had 'em and he DID have them at one time.
Personally, I would've been opposed to the war, even if the goal had always been to "liberate" the Iraqi people from a dictator. For one, I'd have never bought that as the real goal, and for another, I don't think we have the right to use military force in that way unilaterally.
It was NOT done unilaterally. Remember the 12 years Sadddam thumbed his nose at the UN? Was that not long enough a grace period for him to surrender?
Even so, I wouldn't say the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly happy with what we've done to their country, either.
The problems of Iraq are now the problems of freedom. It's up to them. At this point even I'd be OK with reducing our forces on their timeline.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 -- it wasn't, and isn't self-defense.
I never said 9/11 was the reason we invaded Iraq, although Al Qaeda was in Iraq. I say the war was justified, others do not. History will prove one side correct.
Even if it were, violating our core principles is folly, whether it's done in the name of self-defense or not. We're less safe without those principles than we are with them.
Our core principles remain intact.
The people were foolish to elect an appeaser in a time of war, so I hope THE ONE proves me wrong.
What part of "We will defeat you" in the inauguration speech sounded like appeasement? That was also in his victory speech on election night, and he echoed it again by saying "We will win this fight on our terms" when he signed the order to close Guantanamo.
Obama says a lot of things. Now let's watch what he does. Gitmo WAS "our terms". How is bowing to gutless international appeasers in the hopes of being "liked" again OUR terms?
Liberals have never wanted to "surrender", we just think the best way to take away the power of terrorists is to stop behaving as if we're terrified by them. We don't think we shouldn't yield the moral high ground, and confirm all the propaganda that the terrorists use to recruit people to fight us.
Raising defenses and killing people trying to kill you are both acceptable for the survival of society. There's no point in polishing morality if your civilization is in danger of being destroyed.
P.S. Does that healthy distrust of government power automatically end when socialists take the reigns?
Absolutely not. But we like what Obama's done with his power so far -- enhance FOIA, suspend the MCA tribunals, begin closing Gitmo, require the CIA to stick to the Army manual with regard to interrogation techniques.
I like Obama's dynamism but I'm waiting to see if it does more harm than good.
We also like that he significantly limited executive privilege. A very conservative thing for him to do, I'd say.
Oh, and Obama isn't a socialist QM, unless you define "socialist" as "anyone who isn't in favor of laissez-faire capitalism". Socialists think Democrats are way too conservative.
I see little difference between a pure socialist and a Democrat (or Republican) in favor of nationalizing the health care, oil and the auto industries and throwing around bailouts. The Democrats sold their souls to the far left fringe more so than the right sold out to "fundamentalists". Again, just opinion.
If Limbaugh is not someone interested in propping up Republicans then explain Operation Chaos. Explain his support of McCain. Explain his precinct captain role in 94. Explain his push for right wing policies to 'save the Republican party'. Reagan Doctrine follower my ass.
There was no Al-Q in Iraq, you guys came in and created over 160+ insurgent groups one of which called itself Al-Q of Messapotamia. Then the right wing started jizzing, and then you claimed it was all Iran and yet the US government could never provided any proof of this both inside and outside of Iraq.
The problems of Iraq are not the problems of freedom they are problems of invading a nation with no solid plan of what to do afterwards. Don't go dumping a shot up corpse at the legs of liberty.
The whole world didn't think Saddam had WMDs at that time, you people just say they did. Tell me again why the Coalition of the willing only had the UK as a western allied partner (even though it had the 10th Downing Street memo). Why did NATO not support the effort in Iraq while it did in Afghanistan? What are you going to say Germany and France are defeatists or terrorist appeasers?
Gitmo has not provided a single operative breakthrough that the Bush administration hoped for; it has only painted the US as a unilateral hostile and as a torture nation to the international world.
Also, no amount of car accident related deaths makes lives lost in Iraq okay, I get that it's "just" a comparison, but it sounds like a rationalization to use it as a comparison. Secondly, I actually think we should do something about the amount of lives lost each year in car accidents. I think car accidents went down when gas was at it's highest priced, because people were driving more carefully and less often to save gas. Isn't that sad? More mass transportation sound good to anyone?
And as far as the "banana republic" comment . . .I just have to say that the U.S. has been very involved in the way a certain Central American country runs its government. And the biggest difference between "protecting the executive branch" as Clinton ran it, and as W ran it would be the controversial war that has cost 1/2 a trillion dollars. Yeah, I think that warrants disclosure.