Howard County Maryland Blog

Local Politics and Current Events

Jane Fonda in DC, Will Jon Carry Be There Too?

Posted by Ed C on Saturday, January 27, 2007

The AP is reporting that:

WASHINGTON (AP) – Protesters energized by fresh congressional skepticism about the Iraq war demanded a withdrawal of U.S. troops in a demonstration Saturday that drew tens of thousands and brought Jane Fonda back to the streets.

A sampling of celebrities, a half dozen members of Congress and busloads of demonstrators from distant states joined in a spirited rally under a sunny sky, seeing opportunity to press their cause in a country that has turned against the war.

No word if Jon Carry is going to borrow some ribbons or medals and reenact his 1971 publicity stunt protest .

For those that want to compare Vietnam with Iraq may want to read The Vietnam history you haven’t heard by Mark Moyar. The closing paragraphs:

These are just a few of the numerous cases where the writings of Halberstam, Sheehan, and Karnow got it wrong. The record shows they were wrong, as well, to portray North Vietnam’s revolutionary leader, Ho Chi Minh, as a xenophobic nationalist who put national interests ahead of global communism’s interests. They were wrong to accuse America’s military leaders of employing faulty military tactics. And they were wrong to claim that the US could not have won the war.

So, has Iraq become another Vietnam? For all the apparent similarities – and differences – it is much too early to tell. For all the books on the Iraq war, many critical facts are not yet known. As with Vietnam, it may take 40 years or more to uncover them. Most important, we do not yet know how Iraq will end. Ultimately, it was the contest of wills – not predestination – that determined the outcome of the Vietnam War. A similar contest will determine whether Iraq is one day remembered as another Vietnam.

Read the whole thing.

Along the same theme, Mark Steyn writing about John O’Sullivan’s new book The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister

Now as then, America seems less a sleeping giant than a helpless one, ensnared by Lilliputians and longing for release. Some Republicans distance themselves from the President’s “surge” in Iraq, others dutifully string along with it, but without any great confidence it will make a difference. Democrats, meanwhile, are all but urging on defeat. Explicitly threatening to cut off funds for “Bush’s war,” Senator Ted Kennedy trotted out the old Vietnam “quagmire” analogies but added a new charge, bizarrely formulated: “In Vietnam,” he recalled, “the White House grew increasingly obsessed with victory, and increasingly divorced from the will of the people and any rational policy.”

“Obsessed with victory”? In the history of warfare, most parties have been “obsessed with victory” to one degree or another, ever since Caveman Ug first clubbed Caveman Glug. If you’re not “obsessed with victory,” you probably shouldn’t have got into the war in the first place. It would be more accurate to say that Kennedy and his multiplying ilk are obsessed with defeat, and they’re prepared to do what’s necessary to help inflict it.

Advertisements

27 Responses to “Jane Fonda in DC, Will Jon Carry Be There Too?”

  1. Hanoi Jane Fonda: Traitor Then and Now

    Not much has changed for JANE FONDA …..

    She shows her true anti-American, traitorous colors again today in a pathetically attended ‘peace rally’ in Washington. The attendance was primarily 60 somethings reliving the 1960s. People who…

  2. Freemarket said

    Blue Star- How is someone who attends a peace rally an anti-American traitor? Martin Luther King Jr. attended countless rallies in protest of the Viet Nam War. I suppose MLK is an anti-American traitor as well? How about showing a little intellectual substance and attack someone on the merits of their opinions instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks against their personal character.

  3. cindy vaillancourt said

    “pathetically attended” ?

    “primarily 60 somethings?” even if that were true …. the denegrating characterization of these folks strikes me as a conveniently selective and inconsistant ploy which we have seen before.

    for example – when one wants to criticize Ulman and his appointees – we ask where are they grown-ups? the grey hairs? — However, if one disagrees with the opinions of the “60 somethings” then they become some kind of dottering fools.

    or when an individual American criticizes the war — their opinions are dismissed if they are not in uniform —- but if a soldier criticizes, he is dismissed as a lone nut or a cowardly whiner.

    or If an American protests the loss of life – she might be dismissed as having no standing since her child has not been killed – but when a mother with a dead soldier/child protests (ie Cindy Sheehan) she is denigrated and dismissed as a nut or publicity seeking attention mongering glory hound.

    While I strongly agree that every American is entitled to his opinion – no matter how insipid – a little consistancy is necessary if you are to have any credibility.

    cindy v.

  4. Dan Burdette said

    Hey Ed C,

    What branch of the service were you in? The same branch as Cheney and Wolfowitz? Unless you have earned a purle heart for wounds suffered in combat, don’t you dare criticise someone who has; you have not earned the right.

    One thing that was striking at yesterday’s march in Washington D.C. was the number of Iraq veterans and the number of military parents and relatives of men and women who are currently in Iraq or who have lost loved ones in this senseless war.

    I hope your children are not there Ed C. You might have a different view of this chicken-hawk administration if they were.

  5. cindy vaillancourt said

    I’d have to call foul on this logic as well.

    When you start assigning relative values to individual rights to comment you start down a treacherous path.

    The writer above says if you have not earned a purple heart – you “have not earned the right” to disagree with someone who has. If that is true – then what about the person who was there but not wounded…. do they have less right to an opinion? Or the soldier who was in Iraq but did not see “action”? Even less standing?

    Then you get to the second tier of “rights to opine” – military families. Do the parents have a greater or lesser right than a spouse? Does a legal spouse have a greater or lesser right to comment than an unmarried partner (with children or without – who has better standing?)

    How about within each sub-group. Does a parent whose kid was killed have more of a right to comment than one whose kid was only wounded? (or is their right only as great as whether they agree with you or not?) Does the parent with a woounded child have more standing than one whose kid was not wounded? Do we take into consideration the degree of the wound? Does losing a limb give you more crediblity than losing an internal organ? Legs more valuable than arms?

    Do we really want to require individual Americans to prove their bona fides to comment, opine, or protest public policy?

    I refuse to be sucked into that “game” of credibility one upsmanship. Most of us have personal connections and stories which might “buy us” momentary “street cred” — but my personal life is not for sale for the momentary boost – I don’t trade in that currency, and I would encourage others not to either.

    Every individual American is not only entitled – but obligated –to be aware of what our leaders are doing in the name of our country — to have an informed opinion, and to act on it.

    Those who have sons, daughters, loved ones of any connection may well find themselves becoming more actively aware – which is a good thing.

    As members of our society who have in many cases given more thought, and educated themselves more thoroughly on the issues – those more directly effected by military actions may well have more enlightening comments or more well researched opinions. We should give them the resepct they deserve.

    We should give all Americans the respect they deserve – and not get so wrapped up in trying to determine relative standing — which is often then manipulated to fit the purposes of those who want to disagree anyway.

    As momentarily satisfying as it may be to engage in reality tv ambush declarations such as – “my brother was killed by an ied” when some hawk derides a protester … it cheapens everyone.

    Cindy V.

  6. Serena Joy said

    It is a bit disrespectful of Ed C. to intentionally misspell Kerry’s name and imply that his protest of throwing back metals was a publicity stunt. The Vietnam War was not abstract to Kerry, he was there. Whether you agree or disagree with Kerry’s point of view, it is worthy of respectful analysis, not arrogant attacks on his integrity.

  7. cindy vaillancourt said

    While I agree with Serena Joy – it pretty much proves my point that when it suits their purpose, folks who would otherwise beat the “how dare you speak ill of the war unless you were a soldier….” folks will turn on a soldier who disagree with them —- please note the link Ed C provided which explains the intentional misspelling of Kerry’s name.

    Along the same lines – may I point out that there are many quotes from active GIs in Iraq that they’d rather be called stupid than be dead… or in Iraq.

    Also – any fairminded person would acknowledge the genesis of Kerry’s comment as the “botched joke” it was …. George Bush being the “c” (or was it “d”) student who is stuck in Iraq.

    Cindy Vaillancourt

  8. numbers.girl said

    Cindy- case in point, the young man in St. Mary’s County who, over Xmas, barricaded himself in his parents’ house and threatened suicide rather than return to Iraq. He was killed by police. I can’t believe this was an isolated emotion.

  9. cynthia vaillancourt said

    Numbers- now that individual’s “commentary” would be dismissed under the cowardly whiner category.

    cv

  10. timactual said

    “Whether you agree or disagree with Kerry’s point of view, it is worthy of respectful analysis, not arrogant attacks on his integrity.”

    They are indeed separate subjects.
    I myself both disagree with his point of view and attack his integrity.

  11. timactual said

    ” I can’t believe this was an isolated emotion.”

    It is certainly rare, otherwise there would obviously be a heck of a lot of suicides since many troops have spent at least two tours in Iraq.

  12. bsflag2007 said

    Oh, but there have been terrible trubles with suicide and mentl health among the troops serving in Iraq- the suicides just aren’t publicized or in many cases documented as such.

    Army probes soldier suicides
    by Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY

    Alarmed by the number of suicides among soldiers in Iraq, the Army has asked a team of doctors to determine whether the stress of combat and long deployments is contributing to the

    deathshttp://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-10-13-army-suicides-usat_x.htm

    cindy vaillancourt

  13. bsflag2007 said

    link above not accurate – try:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-10-13-army-suicides-usat_x.htm

  14. timactual said

    “In the past seven months, at least 11 soldiers and three Marines have committed suicide in Iraq, military officials say. That is an annual rate of 17 per 100,000. The Navy also is investigating one possible suicide. And about a dozen other Army deaths are under investigation and could include suicides.

    The numbers suggest the rate in Iraq is above normal. Last year, the military services reported 8 to 9 suicides per 100,000 people. The Army rate is usually higher, 10 to 13 per 100,000. That mirrors the rate for the same age group in the general population.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-10-13-army-suicides-usat_x.htm

    “Despite the spike, officials said these figures remain lower than the national average of 21.5 per 100,000 for males ages 20 to 34. This is the age bracket for most U.S. soldiers in Iraq.”

    http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/terrorism/a/arsuicide.htm

    For more detail;
    http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/death-su.html

    It is certainly a terrible problem and tragic for those involved, but it doesn’t seem to be a major problem for the military. According to the figures I have seen, the suicide rate is actually higher among the general population in the US. Even Austria and Canada seem to have a higher suicide rate in the relevant demographic category.

  15. pzguru said

    The whole nature of war has changed since Vietnam. That war was the first war during which the media mounted an endless criticism campaign against an Administration, and eventually led to the humiliating treatment bestowed upon the military upon there return home (eg: being spit on and called “baby killer”). The fact that people like Jane Fonda befriended the enemy instead of supporting the military is why so many people still harbor ill will toward Hanoi Jane. What she did was unforgiveable in my opinion.

    It’s not the fact that she disagreed with the war, it’s how she said it and what she said that is the problem. And it’s the same problem that is happening today. Too many people and politicians see the war as an opportunity to damage Bush, his Adminsitration, and so on, for their own political gain. The want to be sideline quarterbacks and not act like part of a team during the game. If they have issues with the President, then they should be discussed with himin private, not in the media for the whole world (and the enemy) to see. It emboldens the enemy and it embarasses this Country.

    If you want to argue about the justifications for the war then consider these points, which unfortunately Bush has done a horrible job of conveying to the public.

    First, the UN sanctions against Iraq were riddled with loopholes. The UN had to give advanced notice of inspections. That’s like the police having to notify a suspected criminal of a pending search warrant. It’s no surprise then that little to no WMD’s were found. Iraq always had time to hide or move the weapons.

    Second, the human rights violations being inflcited upon the Iraqi people were horrible. If you were an IRaqi woman, you had no rights. How is what is trying to be accomplished here any different than what was done in Bosnia? Or different from what the UN is contemplating doing in Sudan?

    Last, if any of the protesters were an Iraqi woman, man, or child, being tortured or starved, are you really going to tell me that you would not want someone to help you?

    The war has gone better than the media conveys/portrays, but I’m not saying that I think the war has gone as well as one would hope. But hindsight is 20/20.

    The notion that Democrats are obsessed with defeat might sound harsh, but it certainly seems that way. After all, if Bush succeeds in Iraq, what issue would the Democrats have to run on in 2008? Such is the nature of politics that one side would hope for the failure/ruin of the other side’s actions. It’s the reason why very little is accomplished by Congress/Senate/President – neither side will allow the other side to implement a policy or program that might be viewed as having fixed a problem. Isn’t it great?

  16. cindy vaillancourt said

    Pzguru-
    I think you lay out one “faction’s” argument fairly well —- and it is probably a pretty accurate depiction of that group. However, imho that depiction only applies to a fairly small percentage of Americans. Probably a smaller group than the right wing extremests whose views have gotten disproportionate media coverage and administration attention.

    I suspect the “great majority” of Americans are somewhere in the middle on most things – including the Iraq situation.

    That means, regarding Iraq, that most of “us” were in agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threatening menace in the world – a barbaric murderer who was more than a thorn in the side of America with his verbal ranting and threats and encouragement to attack America and Americans – and his history of violence and “crimes against humanity” – who needed to be arrested and stopped.

    On that basis alone – many of us would have supported American military action to rid the world of this ongoing violence against the Iraqi people and his neighbors… and his efforts to incite and support violence against us. A humanitarian mission would have been understandable and supported by “the American People”.

    The problem is that we also believed our President – myself included even though I didn’t vote for him and personally consider him a morally corrupt idiot – when he (and is administration) told us that Saddam Hussein was involved in supporting the 9/11 attackers and had also developed (or was very close to developing) the actual capability to make good on his many threats against America and American interests (not just oil but embassies-people).

    Even though I didn’t vote for him – and wouldn’t vote for him – I still considered him “our President” and was reasonably comfortable “trusting” that what he was telling us was basically true. I was willing to “assume” there were details and particulars that we did not need to be privvy to – that in the interest of national security there are things which need to be secret. That requires TRUST.

    It is not now, and it will never be OK for the President to LIE to the American people in this way, even under these circumstance – no matter how much he “really truly believed it was in the best interest of the country”.

    It is an insult to every American – especially the soldiers who have volunteered to put their very lives on the line to defend our country and the values we all hold dear.

    If I were a young person following 9/11 I would have considered enlisting to be in a position to defend my country against potential attacks and to help people around the world who were being terrorized, enslaved or killed —- as many did.

    It is criminal beyond words that their bravery and sacrifice has been wasted by this manipulation. We all owe it to every individual who ever puts on a uniform for this country to make certain that the “call to action” is an honest and legitimate call.

    It seems that Mr. Bush was not confident that the American people would support military action based on the “actual” facts —- so he embellished them.

    I think he was wrong on two counts — first – there might have been enough support for a mission to eliminate/arrest the criminal Hussein even without the lying and exaggerating.

    Second- Bush was wrong – and continues to be wrong – in his interpretation of his rights, obligations and duties as the President of The United States of America. He cannot “legally” lie, ignore laws and treaties, and suspend the civil rights of Americans or non-Americans … no matter how much of a “good faith” basis he has based on his direct conversations with God.

    Bush paid for the temporary support of the American People with TRUST and CREDIBILITY – not just his, but ours, America’s. It is too high a price.

    “Most” Americans are still glad Saddam Hussein has been arrested, tried and convicted. But “most” Americans understand the difference between being told the truth and being lied to.

    Consider this — the next time a Democrat is in the White House —- how would you feel if he (or she) asserts the same claims and rights as Bush?

    Cindy Vaillancourt

  17. timactual said

    “when he (and is administration) told us that Saddam Hussein was involved in supporting the 9/11 attacker”

    That is news to me. Got a source?

  18. timactual said

    “If they have issues with the President, then they should be discussed with himin private, not in the media for the whole world (and the enemy) to see.”

    I tried that, but he claims his schedule is full.

  19. cindy vaillancourt said

    Timactual- when you question the following statement:
    “when he (and is administration) told us that Saddam Hussein was involved in supporting the 9/11 attackers”

    That is news to me. Got a source?

    it seems you are trying to play the same semantic “game” as Mr. Bush – but did not read closely enough—- although Mr. Bush may not have stated publicly that saddam hussein was “behind the 9/11 attacks” – he is quoted in numerous ways at numerous times asserting that Hussein had ties to the hijackers organization (Al Qaeda) — and provided support.

    In this age of immediate access to transcripts of speeches and video clips – finding reliable “sources” to back uo my original statement that Bush and his administration – including Cheney and other “senior officials” – made repeated statements linking hussein and Al Qaeda and “terrorists” in general – is as easy as a quick internet search.

    Did Bush ever say publicly that “saddam hussein planned and executed the 9/11 attacks)? Not that I know of —- but he and his senior officers link hussein to terrorists in general and Al Qaeda in particular? Yes.

    It is interesting to me that in spite of Bush supporters claims that there is somehow a difference between Bush alluding to links between Al Qaeda and the terrorists — and actually blaming Hussein for 9/11 — you are as easily confused as the American people were intended to be.

    Cindy Vaillancourt

  20. pzguru said

    CV – very good points. I am essentially agreeing with you, although I don’t share your same opinion of Bush. I think the mistake he made was only offering 1 reason for the war, when in fact there are/were many reasons for it. Over the last 5 years, he has never tried to clarify the rationale, and that’s why he appears to have no credibility. I don’t think he was intentionally trying to deceive the public, and I certainly don’t think he takes lightly the deaths of servicemen and servicewomen in the war. I think he truly believed that there was a connection between Iraq and AlQaeda. Bush is not as sharp a speaker as other politicians, but that’s what makes him less of a politician, which is good in my mind.

    It sounds like you support the goal of the war but not the reason for going to war. If you and many other citizens feel that way, I have to ask, why does it matter what reason Bush gave? And, why villify Bush so much? I think there are many more citizens who don’t support the war, and that’s what I don’t quite understand. I don’t want to the US to be the world’s policeman, but I don’t think that genocidal dictators should be ignored (that’s how Hitler rose to power and started WW II).

  21. bsflag2007 said

    I suspect most Americans agree with the mission to get rid of Saddam Hussein because he was a barbaric criminal and we “thought” a credible threat to the United States. (Though there are those who make a very good argument for not “pre-emptively” attacking bullies who make threats.)

    I don’t think most Americans support the current situation – which is not the same thing as having a cogent mission that is reasonably attainable or even our responsibility.

    If we can believe what we are hearing or seeing … (which is questionable when it comes filtered through our own elected government – which is its’ own tragedy)…. it is time for the Iraqii people to stand up for themselves or not. We cannot make people take charge of their own lives – at some point they have to handle it for themselves. We can help – but we can’t do it for them. We have already helped – we removed the evil dictator, hunted him down and turned him over to the authorities for trial. We can help rebuild stuff and provide supplies and support — but not while all sides are shooting at us. But that is another thread.

    Using your Hitler analogy alone, you start running into the same arguments that kept us out of WWII for so long — (even though not stopping a megalomanical foreign leader early makes him harder to stop later seems like a “lesson” we should have learned from history) —- we have to have a legitimate reason to use military force on other countries…. the same credible justifications we might accept for them using military force on us.

    But if any country “gets to” attack a sovereign nation and depose its’ leader only because it doesn’t like the way it treats its’ own people or runs its’ own affairs then, or has a habit of taking it’s military on the road then “we” (the USA) better take a good look in the mirror.

    Of course, I would have thought the United States was “above” the kind of criticism that would lend any credibility to that argument — but not so fast.

    Under the Bush administration the United States has lied to the world about its’ intent and its’ “proof” — which may be why we had so much trouble getting the rest of the world “on board” this time (maybe the rest of the world isn’t as gullible or need to be patronized as much as “we” think) – begun systematically interring foreign nationals without reasonable due process – engaged in torture (in violation of international treaties to which we are signatories in addition to being ineffective and morally repugnant) – and have given reasonable credibility to those nations who question our integrity and “righteousness”.

    But forget about the international issues for a minute…

    You say “I have to ask, why does it matter what reason Bush gave?”
    — you seem to have a greater tolerance to being lied to than I do. I don’t subscribe to the theory that it is appropriate for our elected government to take such a paternalistic approach in any event … and certainly not to lie to us to garner our support.

    Your willingness to acquiesce to that kind of paternalistic government is predicated on being in agreement with the direction and philosophical intent of the government — which I don’t. Put another way – would you be willing to grant the same latitude to Hillary Clinton if she were elected president? If it’s ok for Bush to lie to advance what he really truly thinks is right then will it be ok for Hillary to do the same?

    I would go further and say that if the mission had been honestly stated – it might have been more accurately and effectively planned and executed. “We are going in to arrest a criminal charged with crimes against humanity”. It may also have had something akin to a beginning and an end. But “might have beens” are easy.

    Finally – Bush using the “really truly believed it – lied to us in good faith” argument doesn’t fly for me. First – I don’t believe he did not know he was lying — and second, he needed to embellish the “lie” in the specific ways he did in order to “technically” make the case to strike a sovereign nation …. the “he’s a bad guy and making threats” basis was not enough.

    The “lie” was calculated to “fit” the necessary forms — this “charade” perpetrated by mr. Bush was a calculated manipulation on many levels …not a simple single layered misunderstanding or miscalculation.

    As far as Bush being an amatuer politician — I’ll agree with that on many levels — even if he is the puppet some think he is —- that doesn’t make him any less culpable for his errors, ommissions, outright lies, calculations and manipulations. Nor does Bush being the “president” excuse the legions of facillitators who helped this situation along. Every other elected official, officer, leader, advisor, etc who had information or knowledge and did not make every effort to make sure it came to light was complicit in a fraud on the American People — a treason to the ideals of the USA.

    Yes, I feel very strongly about this. I believe history will be very unkind to Mr Bush.

    Cindy V.

  22. timactual said

    “he is quoted in numerous ways at numerous times asserting that Hussein had ties to the hijackers organization (Al Qaeda) — and provided support.”

    “is as easy as a quick internet search.”

    Then it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide one of these quotes.

    I do not understand your last paragraph. Perhaps it is because I am so easily confused. Are you saying that Al Qaeda are not terrorists? Are you saying there is no difference between having links to various terrorists such as Abu Nidal and directly supporting a particular terrorist attack by a particular terrorist group?

  23. bsflag2007 said

    I appreciate that you read all the way to the last paragraph of my little treatise.

    As I said – finding the references to the statements made over the past several years is not hard —- though the tactic of requiring “proof” of this nature has only limited effectiveness. The proof is there — you could find it if you were so inclined – but I’ll go ahead respond to your request for assistance.

    For your “convenience” I have provided some excerpts. One of several “claim” versus “fact” summaries is listed first. The reference link provides additional links to the actual texts of the referenced speeches/transcripts/documents (though when I pasted it here the links did not come through fully so you’ll have to go to the source for the working links … if you are actually interested) where Bush and various senior level officials made statements that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked, that Hussein provided support/haven/was in cahoots with Al Qaeda:

    ————————————————————————————————-
    Claims and Facts: Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections

    SADDAM-AL QAEDA CONNECTION

    http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/priraqclaimfact1029.htm

    ————————————————————————————————-
    Even while Bush backpedalled on his earlier efforts to link Hussein to the actual 9/11 attacks – he continued to insist Hussein and AlQaeda were linked:

    (9/17/03) Bush’s statement was the latest in a flurry of remarks this week by top administration officials after Vice President Dick Cheney resurrected a number of contentious allegations about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda in an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th,” Bush said in an impromptu session with reporters. He contended, however, that “there’s no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties.”

    In his appearance Sunday (september 2003) on “Meet the Press,” Cheney vigorously defended every aspect of the war, saying the administration’s prewar claims about banned weapons held by Iraq would be proved true. He argued that Iraq was the “heart of the base” of the terrorist threat that culminated on Sept. 11. “If we’re successful in Iraq then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11,” Cheney said.

    (10/03)speech in Cincinnati in October, the president said: “…. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.”

    Cheney has repeatedly cited the allegation that the ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Mohamed Atta, met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague several months before the attacks. “It’s been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April,” Cheney said in an appearance on “Meet the Press” three months after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

    The CIA says it can find no evidence that such a meeting took place.
    The FBI says that financial and other records indicate that Atta was in Florida when the meeting allegedly took place.
    White House Quotes Past and Present
    [Compiled by Times researchers Cary Schneider and Joan Wolff. Sources: Facts on File, news reports.]

    President Bush

    Oct. 14, 2002: “After September the 11th, we’ve entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man [Hussein] that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army.”

    Sept. 17, 2003: “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties. We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11” attacks.

    Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

    Sept. 26, 2002: “Yes, there is a linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq.”

    Sept. 16, 2003: “I’ve not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that” Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

    National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

    Sept. 25, 2002: There “have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time.”

    Sept. 16, 2003: “And we have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11. What we have said is that this was someone who supported terrorists, helped train them.”
    ——————————————————————————————
    U.S. Not Claiming Iraqi Link To Terror

    By Dana Priest
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, September 10, 2002; Page A01

    As it makes its case against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration has for now dropped what had been one of the central arguments presented by supporters of a military campaign against Baghdad: Iraq’s links to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

    Hussein “has in the past had some dealings with terrorists, clearly,” Vice President Cheney told the Council on Foreign Relations in February, mentioning Abu Nidal by name. The latest State Department report concluded that Abu Nidal had not been involved in known acts of terrorism since the early 1990s and had “not attacked Western targets since the late 1980s.”

    The administration’s attempt to link Iraq to terrorism has been criticized by former military, intelligence and national security officials who monitored terrorism in both Democratic and Republican administrations.
    ————————————————————————————————-

    The bottom line is that I find it hard to imagine that the otherwise intelligent, well informed folks (like timactual) who keep abreast of current events —

    ( even if they have chosen for there own personal reasons to support the current republican party)

    — were not aware of, or do not remember, the gist (if not the actual words) of the Bush administration following the 9/11 attacks and the run-up the the invasion of Iraq —

    —that linked the individual Saddam Hussein, as well as the country Iraq, to terrorism in general and to the specific terrorists and the specific terrorist organization (AlQaeda) involved in the 9/11 attacks as the basis for the justification for the United States of America to emplloy it military in defense of our country.

    Is it that they cannot admit to having been fooled/tricked/misled? Do they feel embarrassed or foolish?

    I know I do. And I don’t like it. My friends in other countries made comments at the time which I found offensive – like about how Americans are willing to believe whatever they hear on the network news — to accept the conclusions of single, biased sources of information.

    They pointed out other news gathering and research organizations from around the world that were already providing documentation that refuted the claims the Bush adminsitratin was spoon feeding the American people —- like, the WMD program in Iraq had been disabled to the point of impotence — that the facts were already available disproving the claims Bush was making about Iraqs efforts to get “yellow cake” from Nigeria (you might recall that we now know our own people were debunking that info at the time as well) —

    — and in spite of some pretty persuasive information coming from around the world — I was not alone in my decision to assume that “our government must know things we don’t….” to cling to a basic trust that “we” would not act in anything other than genuine “good faith”.

    I also suspect that one of the reasons so many folks continue to resist acknowledging that Bush et al probably intentionally manipulated us is that “we” still believe (deep down) that Hussein and his buddies probably were sitting in front of their tv’s high fiving each other while the trade center fell —- that even if he didn’t have Osama’s private phone number he probably could have figured out how to send an “atta boy” and a box of cigars to him.

    Sort of like we see on HBO that Tony Soprano has an info pipeline to other, unaffiliated, organized crime leaders around the world — didn’t he import an Italian hit man…. and didn’t he send stolen cars to nigeria or somewhere exotic like that?

    The “super bad guy club” must have some connections, right? But is that really enough? And if you think it is – then by all means, have the uhhh… guts… to just state it right out. Don;t try to pretty up your case with embellishments, half-truths, fiction, or clever wordsmithing.

    It is in part embarrassing and in part insulting — but the new challenge is to figure out how to move forward, try to make sure it doesn’t happen again — and figure out how to rebuild trust and credibility.

    I don’t think that can be done until people – both officials and citizens – are willing to take a head on, honest look at what has happened — not play word games — not engage in clever “it depends on what the definition of “it” is” or clever debate manipulations.

    Can you honestly say that between the 9/11 attacks and our invastion of Iraq that you – as an individual – never felt like the president and the adminsitration were trying to tell you that Iraq and Saddam Hussein played some part in the attacks on this country …. and that made his (husseins) constant harangue and threats seem more possible?

    That’s all I’m asking. Well, that, and that my friends’ kids, and my kids, and my neighbors don’t ship off to a combat zone under false pretenses.

    Cindy V.

  24. timactual said

    “The proof is there — you could find it if you were so inclined ”

    That is one reason I asked you too, as I knew that if I claimed I couldn’t find any, you would say that I was either not inclined to do so, or perhaps I was too confused to do so. In any case, since you made the accusation it is up to you to provide the proof.

    ” Even while Bush backpedalled on his earlier efforts to link Hussein to the actual 9/11 attacks”

    There you go again. And yet you provide this (unsourced) quote of Bush;

    “We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11″ attacks.”

    Where is this alledged effort to link Hussein to the actual 9/11 attack?

    Two excerpts from the source YOU cited, with links, both of which seem to contradict your accusations.

    ” We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda.”

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html

    “MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

    VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

    We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

    Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know”

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

    I guess it must be fun for you to do all that writing, but it does not constitute proof of your accusations. Nor does the article by a Washington Post reporter. Providing an actual quote of Bush saying what you claim he said would be proof. Your comment and interpretation is just that, and not proof. You are wasting my time, having me dig through your links on a wild goose chase, but I suppose that amuses you.

  25. cindy vaillancourt said

    Timactual:
    Assuming for a moment that you are genuinely unaware of – and have never actually heard for yourself – statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and others over the past several years stating, hinting, implying and/or suggesting that Iraq, Hussein, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and 9/11, WMD, terrorism etc are linked in various and assorted ways …. or particularly that Bush, Cheney et al have said Iraq and Hussein had links to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorists – even though they have since made “contradictory statements” — which I refer to above as “backpedalling” —

    and since you are correct – that the cites, quotes, etc taken from the Washington Post, Meet the Press, etc are not completely and clearly documented above – and could have been misstated, misquoted, or somehow tainted… by the sources I linked (though they came from Time, the Washington Post, The White House etc) I will attempt to provide more specific links for you that you may have more confidence in: the white house, NPR, and the speeches of George W. Bush as posted on the official white house web site, for example.

    However, before you go off on another of “my wild goose chases” – please explain how demonstrating that the President has made statements that contradict his own earlier statements — is somehow proof that he did not make the earlier statements. How do you conclude I have contradicted my own accusations by including later parts of the the evolving stream of statements?

    And finally – I’m not sure how insisting that Mr. Bush never actually used a particular phraseology changes the substance of what he conveyed – and what actions were taken. Isn’t this the same president who campaigned with a promise to not quibble over technicalities in wording (define “it”) and to do what is right-

    quoting from CNN transcript of video clip which I have seen (and which I suspect the rest of us have also seen”

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0010/29/le.00.html

    BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    BUSH: In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal, but what is right.

    (APPLAUSE)

    Not just what the lawyers allow. We’ll make it clear there is the controlling legal authority of conscience.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    And now all this attention is paid to what the specific language used to connect Iraq, Hussein, AlQaeda and 9/11 was — and how it morphed over the last several years.

    How does that jibe with having the guts to stand by what one believes — to be a straight shooter — to do what is right and not play legalistic semantics games?

    And, if one wants to argue that he never said it (or implied or suggested or conveyed the idea) then why make the parallel argument that he had good reason to believe it was true when he did (not) say it? Talk about a lagalese exercise… (I didn’t do it, and if I did you can’t prove it, and if you can, I wasn’t in my right mind at the time….”)

    I do think you are correct, however, about the chasing ones tail nature of this part of the “debate”.

    Trying to argue that the claims were never made is intellectually dishonest and undermines the credibility of those who try to make them.

    At that cost, I am not sure what this stance buys…. it seems to me it would be more effective to try to persuade those who have lost confidence in this administration that there have been adequate changes in attitudes or positions that might help rebuild credibility and trust.

    Of course, that would require that some changes in attitude and position have occurred. Is the President still asserting that it is OK for the USA to capture folks and send them to countries where “torture” is legal so that they can be “legally” tortured?

    Is our president still asserting that he has the authority – moral and legal – to escalate this military action/war/conflict “no matter what the congress says”…. even if the only people left standing by him are his “wife and his dog”?

    Cindy V.

    now- for “reliable sources”:

    2002

    “The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq.” – George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002) – BushOnIraq.com

    “We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” – President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) – Whitehouse.gov

    “I think they’re both equally important, and they’re both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We’ve got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm.” – President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) – Whitehouse.gov

    “This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He’s a threat.” – Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) – Whitehouse.gov

    “He’s a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint.” – President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002) – BushOnIraq.gov

    “He’s had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates.” – Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) – BushOnIraq.com

    2003

    “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own.” – President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003) – Whitehouse.gov

    “Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.” – President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003) – Whitehouse.gov

    “Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” – President Bush: “World Can Rise to This Moment”, White House (2/6/2003) – Whitehouse.gov

    Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” – President’s Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003) – BushOnIraq.com

    “He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.” – President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003) – BushOnIraq.com

    “The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.” President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003) -BushOnIraq.com

    “The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.” – President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) – BushOnIraq.com

    “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.” – President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) – BushOnIraq.com

    Dick Cheney

    2002

    “In Afghanistan we found confirmation that bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network were seriously interested in nuclear and radiological weapons, and in biological and chemical agents. We are especially concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction.” – Vice President Delivers Remarks to the National Academy of Home Builders, White House (6/6/2002) – BushOnIraq.com

    “His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists.” – Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) – BushOnIraq.com

    “There is also a grave danger that al Qaeda or other terrorists will join with outlaw regimes that have these weapons to attack their common enemy, the United States of America. That is why confronting the threat posed by Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror.” – Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) – BushOnIraq.com

    2003

    “His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.” – Vice President’s Remarks at 30th Political Action Conference, White House (1/30/2003) – BushOnIraq.com

    “And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons. . . We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization.” – Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003) – BushOnIraq.com

    “I have argued in the past, and would again, if we had been able to pre-empt the attacks of 9/11 would we have done it? And I think absolutely. We have to be prepared now to take the kind of bold action that’s being contemplated with respect to Iraq in order to ensure that we don’t get hit with a devastating attack when the terrorists’ organization gets married up with a rogue state that’s willing to provide it with the kinds of deadly capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed and used over the years.” – Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003) – BushOnIraq.com

    “If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” – Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003) – BushOnIraq.com

    “(Since September 11) We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.” – Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003) – BushOnIraq.com

    “And the reason we had to do Iraq, if you hark back and think about that link between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was the place where we were most fearful that that was most likely to occur, because in Iraq we’ve had a government — not only was it one of the worst dictatorships in modern times, but had oftentimes hosted terrorists in the past . . . but also an established relationship with the al Qaeda organization . . . .” – Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003) – BushOnIraq.com

    “(I)f we had not paid any attention to the fact that al Qaeda was being hosted in Northeastern Iraq, part of poisons network producing ricin and cyanide that was intended to be used in attacks both in Europe, as well as in North Africa and ignored it, we would have been derelict in our duties and responsibilities.” – Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003) – BushOnIraq.com

    “He cultivated ties to terror, hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He also had an established relationship with al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs.” – Remarks by Vice President Dick Cheney at the Heritage Foundation, White House (10/10/2003) – BushOnIraq.com

    “Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. He cultivated ties to terror — hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, and making payments to the families of suicide bombers. He also had an established relationship with Al Qaida — providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction.” – Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003) – BushOnIraq.com

    2004

    “We’ll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions.” – Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004) – BushOnIraq.com

    “We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of ’01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been — we’ve never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11.” – Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004) – BushOnIraq.com

    “Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction.” – Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, White House (1/14/2004) – BushOnIraq.com

    “Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction.” – Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to Veterans at the Arizona Wing Museum, White House (1/15/2004) – BushOnIraq.com

    “I continue to believe. I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We’ve discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in ’93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That’s public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I’m very confident that there was an established relationship there.” – Dick Cheney, Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004) – BushOnIraq.com

  26. timactual said

    “please explain how demonstrating that the President has made statements that contradict his own earlier statements — is somehow proof that he did not make the earlier statements.”

    *sigh*

    ” Even while Bush backpedalled on his earlier efforts to link Hussein to the actual 9/11 attacks”

    I am assuming those are the earlier statements you refer to. First of all, you have still not shown that these earlier statements actually exist. That is the point.

    “And finally – I’m not sure how insisting that Mr. Bush never actually used a particular phraseology changes the substance of what he conveyed -”

    Ah, I think I am finally beginning to understand. It really does not matter whether he actually made the statements; Like Dan Rather and the forged documents, “fake but accurate” is sufficient.

    “then why make the parallel argument that he had good reason to believe it was true when he did (not) say it?”

    Okay, I’ll bite. Who made that parallel argument?

    “Trying to argue that the claims were never made is intellectually dishonest and undermines the credibility of those who try to make them.”

    I am not arguing either way, I just want to see the actual quotes that you stated were so easily obtainable three days ago.

    Perhaps you can explain why arguing that these claims were never made would be dishonest? If you wish to talk about dishonesty, in my opinion calling people liars without any evidence is dishonest, as is calling people dishonest without good cause.

    Once again, I shall quote you;

    ” Even while Bush backpedalled on his earlier efforts to link Hussein to the actual 9/11 attacks”

    None of the extensive list of statements you have provided, even if they come from reliable sources, support your accusation.

    I am beginning to see a pattern here. In a previous thread you made accusations that the White House was involved in some misdeeds of Haliburton in Iraq. There, too, you said that evidence was easily and quickly obtainable on the internet, and there, too, you didn’t provide any. Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of “intellectual dishonesty”?

  27. loan payday uk payday loan uk

    Always loan till payday hour loan online payday

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: