Are You Proud Of Being American

[xrayzebra]

I debated if I should start a new thread with this column from Mr. Sowell,
or should I have included it in the NYT thread. But it has two other aspects
to it that made me decide on a separate thread. One about the Roman
Empire and citizenship and that so many no longer are proud of what they
are. Americans!

Anyhow I found this a very good read I hope you enjoy it and take heed
of some of his thoughts.


Is patriotism obsolete?
By Thomas Sowell
Friday, July 7, 2006

On the eve of a holiday that used to stir patriotic emotions -- the Fourth of July -- it has been painful to see examples of how little remains of that glue that holds a society together.

Perhaps the worst of these signs of national disintegration was the New York Times' recent revealing to the whole world the covert methods by which the American government has been tracking the money that finances international terrorism.

The usual excuses about "the public's right to know" ring even more hollow than usual in this case. The public was not dying to know the methods by which their lives were being safeguarded. Only the terrorists were helped by these revelations.

Americans may in fact be dying literally now because of what the terrorists have been told -- and ultimately because a jerk inherited the New York Times. As usual, the mainstream media circled the wagons around one of their own. The media spin is that the terrorists were already bound to know that we were monitoring their international transfers of money. The Times says terrorists had to "suspect" this.

This is an all-or-nothing argument. There are vast numbers of terrorists around the world and not all of them are affiliated with the same organizations. Nor is there any reason to believe that they all have the same level of knowledge or sophistication.

Whatever knowledge or suspicions some of the terrorist leaders may have had about American surveillance of the money transfers that finance their operations, that does not mean that all the terrorists knew about all the methods or about all the countries that were cooperating to track them down by their money trails.

After all, so many of these terrorists would not have been captured or killed if they were infallible.

The media may not publicize the casualties we inflict on the terrorists but they are vastly greater than the casualties that terrorists inflict on Americans, even though too many in the media focus almost exclusively on the latter.

Not only do the terrorists now know how they are being tracked, some of the countries that have secretly helped in that tracking may now back off from helping, now that the New York Times' revelations can create internal political problems or fear of terrorist retaliation in those countries.

The all-or-nothing idea that secrets are either secret from everybody or secret from nobody will not stand up under scrutiny. Back during World War II, the Chicago Tribune made the devastating revelation that the United States had broken the Japanese code and could read their military plans in advance.

This was an enormously important secret, especially during the early days of the war, when Japan had overwhelming naval superiority in the Pacific and was seeking to destroy the remnants of the American Pacific fleet that had not already been destroyed in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Fortunately for this country, the Japanese did not read the Chicago Tribune or did not believe it. In other words, the secret was out, but it was not out very far. There are degrees of secrecy, as with everything else.

New York Times has spread the secret of American financial surveillance of terrorists around the world, undermining or destroying this method of tracking them, as well as undermining the cooperation that can be expected in the future from countries fearful of political or terrorist repercussions.

Patriotism is not chic in the circles of those who assume the role of citizens of the world, whether they are discussing immigration or giving aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime.

The decline and fall of the Roman Empire was as much due to the internal disintegration of the ties that bind a society together as to the assaults of the Romans' external enemies.

The pride of being a Roman citizen was destroyed by cheapening that citizenship by giving it to too many other people. The sense of duty and loyalty eroded among both the elites and the masses.

Without such things, there could be no Roman Empire. Ultimately, without such things, there can be no United States of America. In neither case have tangible wealth and power been enough to save a country or a civilization, for the tangibles do not work without the intangibles.


Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

[spurster]

Yes, I am proud to be an American. One reason for me is freedom of the press. Another reason is that the President is not above the law.

[Latka]

Give me a green card and I'll tell you!

[FromWayDowntown]

I think most of us know that hallmarks of a thriving democracy are deep governmental secrecy that fosters an acquiesence by the People to the slow but steady erosion of their civil rights and civil liberties in the name of fighting an amorphous war against a faceless enemy. It's all about being sheparded into an acceptance that we should be glad to have our Constitutional rights ignored because we can't be safe without government using those means to protect us. In the end, patriotism is all about allowing the government to do whatever it claims is necessary, by whatever means it chooses, to save our bacon. Safety is far more precious than freedom.

[boutons_]

"It's all about being sheparded ..... to save our bacon"

mixed metaphor!

Try" "It's all about being sheeple herded .... to save our lambchops" :)

[George Gervin's Afro]

Proud to be an American? Absolutely. Ashamed to be an American at this point? Absolutely!

[Yonivore]

Proud to be an American? Absolutely. Ashamed to be an American at this point? Absolutely!
Shameful pride. And oxymoron, I believe.

[Trainwreck2100]

Shameful pride. And oxymoron, I believe.


I'm proud to be a Spurs fan, I am happy they won three titles. I'm ashamed that they lost to those pussy mavs though.

[Yonivore]

I'm proud to be a Spurs fan, I am happy they won three titles. I'm ashamed that they lost to those pussy mavs though.
Not the same.

Proud to be a Spurs Fan and being ashamed they lost (even if that's a bit silly) are not mutually exclusive sentiments.

Proud to be an American while being ashamed to be an American are mutually exclusive.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Not the same.

Proud to be a Spurs Fan and being ashamed they lost (even if that's a bit silly) are not mutually exclusive sentiments.

Proud to be an American while being ashamed to be an American are mutually exclusive.


I'm proud to be an American but I am ashamed of what the GOP has done to her. Better?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Not the same.

Proud to be a Spurs Fan and being ashamed they lost (even if that's a bit silly) are not mutually exclusive sentiments.

Proud to be an American while being ashamed to be an American are mutually exclusive.


I assume you are one of those folks who say you can't support the troops if you don't support the mission.

Example of how you can:

I support the Spurs but I don't like Pop. I support the players but I do not support the game plan that their leader has given them. Just because I don't like Pop does not mean I don't support the players.

I support the troops but I abhor Bush. I support our troops but I do not support our leader's game plan.

[Yonivore]

I'm proud to be an American but I am ashamed of what the GOP has done to her. Better?
Why would you be ashamed of the actions of a group to which you don't belong?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why would you be ashamed of the actions of a group to which you don't belong?


Because that group has shamed what I love.

[Yonivore]

I assume you are one of those folks who say you can't support the troops if you don't support the mission.
No. I'm one of those folks that say rabid, unreasonable, and traitorous opposition to the mission (such as intelligence leaks) is undermining the security of our troops.


Example of how you can:

I support the Spurs but I don't like Pop. I support the players but I do not support the game plan that their leader has given them. Just because I don't like Pop does not mean I don't support the players.

I support the troops but I abhor Bush. I support our troops but I do not support our leader's game plan.
But it's the game plan they have to work with and by undermining it, you're putting their security at risk.

[Yonivore]

Because that group has shamed what I love.
Still doesn't explain your shame.

[gtownspur]

I think most of us know that hallmarks of a thriving democracy are deep governmental secrecy that fosters an acquiesence by the People to the slow but steady erosion of their civil rights and civil liberties in the name of fighting an amorphous war against a faceless enemy. It's all about being sheparded into an acceptance that we should be glad to have our Constitutional rights ignored because we can't be safe without government using those means to protect us. In the end, patriotism is all about allowing the government to do whatever it claims is necessary, by whatever means it chooses, to save our bacon. Safety is far more precious than freedom.

Whose we?

For your info, we're the longest standing Republic Democracy after the good days of Greece and Rome. And what era of "bogus safeguarding vestigal rights to our enemies and potential suspects" did this country ever participate.

Rights!

As a lawyer do you not know that during times of war rights like freedom of speech are suspended somewhat, and that the supreme court has distinguished between times of war and peace?

Give me a time when our government has not overreached its duties to protect us. You can't even point that out can you? Not even the Clinton Administration was saintly in these matters.

[Yonivore]

Oh, and if the team you support told you they support Pop and to shut the fuck up because you're bringing down morale and undermining their chances to win games, would you?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Still doesn't explain your shame.


I am ashamed the Bush eroded any credibility this country has accrued. I am ashamed to be associated with people who have sold their intellectual honesty in order to support the party in power.

[gtownspur]

I am ashamed the Bush eroded any credibility this country has accrued. I am ashamed to be associated with people who have sold their intellectual honesty in order to support the party in power.


I'm ashamed that the moral "pompousity" of this board has reached an all time high.

[Yonivore]

I am ashamed the Bush eroded any credibility this country has accrued. I am ashamed to be associated with people who have sold their intellectual honesty in order to support the party in power.
I think you're misusing the word ashamed.

But, nevertheless, you should be ashamed of your association with people who have sold their intellectual honesty in order to oppose the war in Iraq. People on the left who, before the March 2003 invasion voted for the use of force, who stated on the record that they too believed Saddam Hussein to have weapons of mass destruction, who supported the Clinton administration in its condemnation of the regime and supported the official policy of regime change in that country.

You should be even more ashamed because of your antics in light of the recent revelations that Iraq did have at least a Chemical weapons program that he was hiding as late as 1999.

So, even though your shame is misplaced, it is appropriate.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Oh, and if the team you support told you they support Pop and to shut the fuck up because you're bringing down morale and undermining their chances to win games, would you?


No. It is my right as a fan to hate the coach regardless of what some players say. I would like to ask the team how my comments bring down the morale considering I hate Popovich. The you would have to assume the players can't think for themselves and they need Pop in order to win games when Pop never plays one down.

[xrayzebra]

I think most of us know that hallmarks of a thriving democracy are deep governmental secrecy that fosters an acquiesence by the People to the slow but steady erosion of their civil rights and civil liberties in the name of fighting an amorphous war against a faceless enemy. It's all about being sheparded into an acceptance that we should be glad to have our Constitutional rights ignored because we can't be safe without government using those means to protect us. In the end, patriotism is all about allowing the government to do whatever it claims is necessary, by whatever means it chooses, to save our bacon. Safety is far more precious than freedom.


You know you continually spout this crap. No one has had their civil
liberties violated. You and the ACLU or anyother organization can cite
one, just one, incident where it has occured. So give it a rest.

You are so wrong and you damn well know it.

[xrayzebra]

Because that group has shamed what I love.


You are full of crap. Just like your argument.

[Yonivore]

No. It is my right as a fan to hate the coach regardless of what some players say. I would like to ask the team how my comments bring down the morale considering I hate Popovich. The you would have to assume the players can't think for themselves and they need Pop in order to win games when Pop never plays one down.
You're obviously not a team player. Why have a coach at all?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think you're misusing the word ashamed.

But, nevertheless, you should be ashamed of your association with people who have sold their intellectual honesty in order to oppose the war in Iraq. People on the left who, before the March 2003 invasion voted for the use of force, who stated on the record that they too believed Saddam Hussein to have weapons of mass destruction, who supported the Clinton administration in its condemnation of the regime and supported the official policy of regime change in that country.

You should be even more ashamed because of your antics in light of the recent revelations that Iraq did have at least a Chemical weapons program that he was hiding as late as 1999.

So, even though your shame is misplaced, it is appropriate.



Programs that existed on paper. You should be ashamed. You should be ashemd because you allowed the President to cherry pick his reasons for war and you turn around and criticize those who choose not to accept them.Those same people also stated that they assumed Bush would use force as a last resort but instead that was his first option.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You're obviously not a team player. Why have a coach at all?

Because Pop is not bigger than the team. The team will exist long after Pop leaves..

[Yonivore]

Because Pop is not bigger than the team. The team will exist long after Pop leaves..
It will exist long after the players are gone, as well. What's your point?

[xrayzebra]

I'm ashamed that the moral "pompousity" of this board has reached an all time high.

You are a lawyer. What do you practice. Malfeasance?

How bout if our Government wasn't protecting you sorry butt. What would
you say then.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You are full of crap. Just like your argument.


Ok I will slow down. Bush and his cowboy policies have harmed this country.

[xrayzebra]

Programs that existed on paper. You should be ashamed. You should be ashemd because you allowed the President to cherry pick his reasons for war and you turn around and criticize those who choose not to accept them.Those same people also stated that they assumed Bush would use force as a last resort but instead that was his first option.


Who is Cherry Picking? Hell that is all you folks on the left do. Is cherry
pick. Give it a rest. It is a tired argument. You have been proven wrong
in all cases. You use the same arguments in all cases.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It will exist long after the players are gone, as well. What's your point?


That I don't have to support Pop in order to supprt the Spurs.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Who is Cherry Picking? Hell that is all you folks on the left do. Is cherry
pick. Give it a rest. It is a tired argument. You have been proven wrong
in all cases. You use the same arguments in all cases.



Bush used intel that was refutable. Very simple. The typical conservative response is "well we went to war for other reasons as well'. Then my question would be why knowingly use bad intel if the case is so strong?

And the tired argument from the right that "we fight for our freedom" in Iraq is old and false. Even the most ardent supporters of Bush scratch their heads when they try and reconcile the "fighting for our freedom in Iraq".

[xrayzebra]

Bush used intel that was refutable. Very simple. The typical conservative response is "well we went to war for other reasons as well'. Then my question would be why knowingly use bad intel if the case is so strong?

And the tired argument from the right that "we fight for our freedom" in Iraq is old and false. Even the most ardent supporters of Bush scratch their heads when they try and reconcile the "fighting for our freedom in Iraq".


Like I said, you use the same old tired arguments, which have been proven
wrong in case after case after case.

Like I have told you before, get a haircut so you can pull your head out
or where the sun don't shine.

You have little knowledge of what actually happened. Just the damn
dimm-o-crap line. And even they have to kinda hang their head, why,
because the said the same thing. In spades. Facts are facts and that
is a fact.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Like I said, you use the same old tired arguments, which have been proven
wrong in case after case after case.

Like I have told you before, get a haircut so you can pull your head out
or where the sun don't shine.

You have little knowledge of what actually happened. Just the damn
dimm-o-crap line. And even they have to kinda hang their head, why,
because the said the same thing. In spades. Facts are facts and that
is a fact.


facts? Like Rumsfeld stating we knew exactly where the wmds were? (One of my favorites). If we knew then where they were what happened to them? Of course the talking point play book response is "well he probably moved them". So then we can surmise that either we lost them or we really did not know where they located to begin with. so which is it?

So then either he lied or he does not want to own up to the fact that he was wrong. Of course let's not delve into the fact we had no post war plan in place...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Like I said, you use the same old tired arguments, which have been proven
wrong in case after case after case.

Like I have told you before, get a haircut so you can pull your head out
or where the sun don't shine.

You have little knowledge of what actually happened. Just the damn
dimm-o-crap line. And even they have to kinda hang their head, why,
because the said the same thing. In spades. Facts are facts and that
is a fact.


Then can you explain how our fighting in Iraq has anything to do with our freedom? In a couple of sentences or less? Or are you going to have to get into the geopolitical ramifications of hoping Iraq becomes a democracy that hopefully leads to transforming the region. Therefore a peaceful region could erase terrorism hence our affect freedom?

[xrayzebra]

^^Well mr haircut. WMD was found. WMD was used by the Iraq's. Those are
facts. Clinton, both Bill and Hillary, said they were there. Albright said they
were there. France said they were there, Germany said they were there and
Britain said they were there. Where were you when they ALL said that? What he
did with the bulk of it, we don't know. But some 500 WMD have been found, any
one of which could kill many people.

Now why Bush and his bunch have played it down I don't know. Maybe much
we wont know for years.

As far as Rush is concerned. He is good at what he does. He only "reads" what
others are saying and plays clips of what others say and gives his opinion. Much
of what goes on here day in and day out. Except he gets paid some big bucks to
do it. Envy him, you betcha your booties I do. And you do too. Enjoy him, I do. I have
no shame in listening to him. Obviously you do. That is your problems, not mine.

[Yonivore]

Then can you explain how our fighting in Iraq has anything to do with our freedom? In a couple of sentences or less? Or are you going to have to get into the geopolitical ramifications of hoping Iraq becomes a democracy that hopefully leads to transforming the region. Therefore a peaceful region could erase terrorism hence our affect freedom?
Well, with the recent revelations that tend to confirm an Iraqi/al Qaeda relationship going back to as far as 1994 and an active WMD program as late as 1999, I'd say our national security was more at risk than you care to admit.

[George Gervin's Afro]

^^Well mr haircut. WMD was found. WMD was used by the Iraq's. Those are
facts. Clinton, both Bill and Hillary, said they were there. Albright said they
were there. France said they were there, Germany said they were there and
Britain said they were there. Where were you when they ALL said that? What he
did with the bulk of it, we don't know. But some 500 WMD have been found, any
one of which could kill many people.

Now why Bush and his bunch have played it down I don't know. Maybe much
we wont know for years.

As far as Rush is concerned. He is good at what he does. He only "reads" what
others are saying and plays clips of what others say and gives his opinion. Much
of what goes on here day in and day out. Except he gets paid some big bucks to
do it. Envy him, you betcha your booties I do. And you do too. Enjoy him, I do. I have
no shame in listening to him. Obviously you do. That is your problems, not mine.



facts? Like Rumsfeld stating we knew exactly where the wmds were? (One of my favorites). If we knew then where they were what happened to them? Of course the talking point play book response is "well he probably moved them". So then we can surmise that either we lost them or we really did not know where they located to begin with. so which is it?

So then either he lied or he does not want to own up to the fact that he was wrong. Of course let's not delve into the fact we had no post war plan in place...


Who's talking about rush. I am referring to the Sec. of Defense.

Oh yea from the people who claim that dems use the same 'tired old arguments' fall back on their primary justification for the unecessary war.."The dems said it too"!

[Yonivore]

[B]facts? Like Rumsfeld stating we knew exactly where the wmds were? (One of my favorites).
Taken out of context of a interview in which he immediately stated they could have since been moved, destroyed, or hidden. I'm glad it's one of your favorites.

Oh, and he never said "exactly" but talked about the area where they were located. He also talked (in the same interview -- not later when) about satellite photography showing convoys of trucks probably taking materials away.


If we knew then where they were what happened to them?
Well, as Secretary Rumsfeld said at the same time, probably moved, destroyed, or hidden.


Of course the talking point play book response is "well he probably moved them". So then we can surmise that either we lost them or we really did not know where they located to begin with. so which is it?
Wow, you don't operate in a dynamic, fluid world very well, I bet.


So then either he lied or he does not want to own up to the fact that he was wrong. Of course let's not delve into the fact we had no post war plan in place...
I suggest you google the interview and read exactly what was said. I believe it was with George Stephanopolous (I could be wrong.) If I find the link, I'll post it. In any case the facts don't comport with your Leftist view of Secretary Rumsfeld's statements.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Taken out of context of a interview in which he immediately stated they could have since been moved, destroyed, or hidden. I'm glad it's one of your favorites.

Oh, and he never said "exactly" but talked about the area where they were located. He also talked (in the same interview -- not later when) about satellite photography showing convoys of trucks probably taking materials away.


Well, as Secretary Rumsfeld said at the same time, probably moved, destroyed, or hidden.


Wow, you don't operate in a dynamic, fluid world very well, I bet.


I suggest you google the interview and read exactly what was said. I believe it was with George Stephanopolous (I could be wrong.) If I find the link, I'll post it. In any case the facts don't comport with your Leftist view of Secretary Rumsfeld's statements.

No it was not an interview he was speaking at a press conference .He used his hands to help us figure out where the wmds were located outside of Tikkrit. This was during the time that I supported the possibility of miltary action against Iraq because I agreed that Saddam could give these weapons away to terrorists. I was sold on a rock solid case that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMDs. They had Mobile Bio labs and we even had pictures of them! It was only after the war started that some of the information I was given turned out to be less than reliable. I started to question why we were given bad information..

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I'm proud to be an American

[Crookshanks]

I am extremely proud to be an American! We have more liberties in this country than anywhere else on earth.

With very few limitations, we can say what we want, wear whatever we want, live wherever we want, and have just about any job we want. We can also marry whomever we want (as long as they are not the same sex!), and have as few or as many children as we want. In many other countries, these same liberties that we take for granted are severly limited.

Those who are so ashamed of being American should pack their bags and move to another country, where they can be proud citizens!!

[Yonivore]

Here's what I mean by taking the quote out of context and trying to paint the Secretary as a liar. And, it's a prime example of the behavior of the left on all things related to the Bush Presidency:

From a Liberal website (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/04/rumsfeld-called-out/) trying to prove that Rumsfeld lied:



VIDEO: Rumsfeld Called Out On Lies About WMD

Speaking in Atlanta today, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was sharply questioned about his pre-war claims about WMD in Iraq. An audience member confronted Rumsfeld with his 2003 claim about WMD, “We know where they are.” Rumsfeld falsely claimed he never said it. The audience member then read Rumsfeld’s quote back to him, leaving the defense secretary speechless. Watch it (http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/rum.320.240.mov):

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/rumsfeldspeech.jpg (http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/rum.320.240.mov)

Of course, Rumsfeld did say he knew where the WMD were. From ABC’s This Week, 3/30/03:


STEPHANOPOULOS: And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: …We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Read the full transcript HERE (http://thinkprogress.org/rumsfeld-called-tscript/).

I didn't follow the link that purported to show the whole transcript because, well, frankly, after that mischaracterization, I didn't trust them. So, I got a transcript from another source.

Here's what Secretary Rumsfeld actually said (I've painted the excerpts red and have bolded those things that might have been useful to the person calling Rumsfeld a liar:

I think it speaks for itself and further shames you by association. :o)



MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
I don't think that qualifies as knowing "EXACTLY" where they are. Back to the Secretary's response.


Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes.

I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.
The great American Press.

And GGA, you have to watch those sly ellipses...they'll make a liar out of anyone.

[Yonivore]

No it was not an interview he was speaking at a press conference .He used his hands to help us figure out where the wmds were located outside of Tikkrit. This was during the time that I supported the possibility of miltary action against Iraq because I agreed that Saddam could give these weapons away to terrorists. I was sold on a rock solid case that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMDs. They had Mobile Bio labs and we even had pictures of them! It was only after the war started that some of the information I was given turned out to be less than reliable. I started to question why we were given bad information..
When was that press conference?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown] It's all about being sheparded into an acceptance that we should be glad to have our Constitutional rights ignored because we can't be safe without government using those means to protect us.
Which of your Constitutional rights have been ignored and how has that adversely affected you?
If by chance you happen to come up with something explain to me why that minor inconvenience to you should be viewed as more important than the lives of our troops, fellow citizens and everyone else in the Free World who is a potential target and victim of terrorism.





In the end, patriotism is all about allowing the government to do whatever it claims is necessary, by whatever means it chooses, to save our bacon. Safety is far more precious than freedom.

Explain to me what good this freedom is to those who are certain to become casualties of terrorism because of the NYT's traitorous release of information that has breached International Security?

[Trainwreck2100]

I'll be honest, I'm ashamed that leadership of this country came down to George W. Bush and John Kerry. The better man won that election, but that's not saying much.

[DarkReign]

Gee-dub (http://georgebushmistakes.ytmnd.com/)

[xrayzebra]

DR, don't know what your point was suppose to be. The site wanted additional
plug-ins and I don't install things sites say I need. Sorry.

[DarkReign]

DR, don't know what your point was suppose to be. The site wanted additional
plug-ins and I don't install things sites say I need. Sorry.

Nevermind. I have no idea what it could possibly be asking you to install. Its just a .gif and a .wav file.

Its just GWb being GWB (which turns out to be funnier more often than it isnt).