Assumptions And Consequences
A lot of hash has been made lately regarding certain expectations in the economy, politics, world events etc. that I feel compelled to expose some of these fallacies of public opinion. Many people have a rather shall I say ignorant and perhaps even an arrogant certitude that certain things will repeat themselves "in a positive way" as if politics or human interactions have a "four-seasons" cycle to them. Though I tend to agree that history often repeats itself it never follows the same course as its predecessor. In other words, there will always be slight variations in the current moment so that we don't "repeat" history exactly one hundred percent of the time but return to it at a later date and then go forward on a slightly different trajectory not riding on the same historical line but slightly off course, if you will. So with out further ado lets go over the list of assumptions that so many are convinced will occur on schedule:
1) Economic Assumption: "the economy will bounce back in a year or two". People are so convinced that the economy runs without due deference to which political party controls Congress however history has indeed shown that in fact it does matter which political party is at the helm and what policies are being followed that determines when the economy comes humming back to life from a period of a moribund economic cycle. Simply put, the economy is a responder to what is demanded by those in political power. Politics drives the economy not the other way around. If policies are being pursued that hurts big, medium and small business with excessive taxation, fees, duties and harmful legislation like "cap and trade" then businesses of all sizes will simply spend more time holding on to what they do have instead of research and development and expansion which is so critical to the economy.
FDR is a prime example of politics leading the way towards attacking businesses rather then helping them become stronger. The crash of 1929 did not happen on FDR's watch however the Democrat President was inculcated with anti-commercial tendencies that his policies completely choked off any incentive for business to expand during the 1930's. In fact, his policies brought back the depressionary levels of unemployment, low stock market numbers, and heavy taxation in 1937-38 that the depression appeared to have no end in sight. FDR's "solutions" always involved excessive federal government spending and high taxation and it wasn't till the advent of the Second World War that halted these lousy policies from Washington D.C. (FDR had no choice- either attack American businesses or attack America's enemies) that we see a turn in the economy. However, the war itself did not stop the flatlining of the economy for even after the war was won we see the return to high unemployment and very little economic activity that was the hallmark of the FDR era. Only with the advent of the Republican President Eisenhower and Republican congress in 1952 do we see a reversal of these anti-commercial policies and the concomitant rise in the economy. The depression was a 24-year curse (1929 - 1953) of low economic activity, high taxation, and excessive government spending and expansion at the expense of the private sector due to Democrat inspired legislation in Congress and in the Presidency itself that the bad times kept on going and going and going until it hit a brick wall that was the Republican administration of Eisenhower after the Korean War. Let's see, depression, World War II and the Korean War was the era of Roosevelt/Truman and this is the era we want to return to under Obama?
The advent of Ronald Reagan also had the same effect when the economy was suffering under the Carter era policies that returned to FDR inspired programs of high taxation and government expansion that resulted in high interest rates that stifled nearly every business model from manufacturing and financials to small business and start-ups . Bad foreign policy decisions also contributed to the bad economic picture when the United States cut off funding to our South Vietnam ally in 1974 (by a democrat led congress) resulting in her capitulation to the communists of North Vietnam by 1975. This in turn brought about a tidal wave of unrest (coincidentally only against our allies) from Iran to Nicaragua and Afghanistan in particular to Africa in general. On top of all this was the Arab-Oil Embargo of 1973 that the United States was still suffering from when Carter came to power in January of 1977. I have a feeling on this last point that Jimmy Carter would not find fault with the Arabs and thus blame the United States for this embargo since we decided to belatedly support on only true ally in the Middle East, Israel, during the Yom Kippur War started by Egypt herself.
Could the Carter Era have been another 24-year recessionary/depressionary curse as it had been under FDR/Truman? Most certainly it would have been had it not been for the business friendly Republican in the man that we know as Ronald Reagan that ended the Carter/Mondale era in 1980. Nevertheless, Reagan still had a bad economy on his hands and though Carters' critics did blame him for what Reagan inherited from the Carter malaise, the policies that Reagan put into place under the tutelage of a business friendly congress helped turn around a very ugly economic situation and instead of a 24-year economic curse we actually created a 25-year mother lode of economic expansion and growth not seen since the golden years of industrial expansion of the early 20th century.
Today, the Obama Administration blames GW Bush for what "they inherited" however, let it be known that Senator Obama voted for nearly all the policies while in Congress during his tenure there that have contributed to the situation we are in today! Obama objected to President Bush's "deficit" spending and yet after only being in the Oval Office a few months Obama has outdone the previous President's spending by four-fold!
There are no guarantee's that the economy will come back to the heady days of Reagan/Bush. Just because the economy rebounded after Reagan came to power does not mean that it will do so under Obama. The attitude and tenor of both Obama and his Democrat controlled House of Representatives and Senate will ensure that an "anti-commercial" environment will reign supreme so long as Democrats retain power in Washington D.C. and thus we are more likely to see a repeat of history along the lines of a 24-year depression of an FDR Era rather than a 25-year bonanza of a Ronald Reagan Era.
2) Political Assumption: "Republicans will take control of Congress in 2010". Once again, I know there are a lot of pundits that believe the "pendulum" theory of American politics, however, though political power may switch hands in Washington, what we see in fact that policies don't waver as much and in many ways remain the same in spite of the pendulum swings in domestic politics. More often than not it really doesn't make much difference politically if both parties are espousing the same thing domestically as was the case during the 30's and in the 60's and consequently even now in the late 2000's.
Once again, even though the past has shown that Republicans can retake the house two years after a major Democrat takeover, I don't see this possibility repeating itself anytime soon. The trend line shows that once Democrats take over they usually retain their power for 10 years or more with 1994 being an off year for Democrat "success" at the ballot box. The Republicans must stake out a difference between themselves and their democrat opponents, however, today Republicans are not sounding that much different in terms of social spending and taxation. Thus, strategically, Republicans are still showing anti-business tendencies themselves and are contributing to a fractured message that only serves to confuse voters and allow the Democrats to retain their power.
Republican leadership is also lacking and I cannot see any person that can actually use the full force of his intellect and oratory to turn the government socialist ideal that is now so pervasive in Republican ranks as well as in the country among the voters. Is this the revenge of the "Rockefeller republican" for the rise and advent of Ronald Reagan that occurred in 1976? Perhaps. Revenge and envy are a path to the dark side and I'm afraid the Republican Party is still suffering from internecine fighting that has not spent itself in spite of the fall of prominent moderate Republicans such as Specter (switched to democrat), Ensign (fornicator) and Sanford (adulterer) and the complete gutting of the party from old timers that have decided to not run for re-election. It doesn't look good for a Republican return to power in 2010 nor in 2012 I'm afraid.
3) Foreign Policy Assumption: "Obama will bring change to the world!". Is there anything Obama has done that G.W. Bush hasn't already done in the arena of foreign policy? I mean really, we have already "talked" to Iran and North Korea to death and nothing has come of it except their continued malfeseance towards the United States and that was before Obama and company came onto the scene last January. The so called elections in Iran brought about a near total revolt but certainly no "revolution" but this should have not been countenanced since only an outside force, like the United States military, could actually bring "change" in both spirit and letter to the Persian people.
Obama's arrogance only barely outstrips his naivety towards our allies as well as our enemies. Just because he thinks he is the "anti-Bush" doesn't automatically make him friends with Russia, Europe, Al-Arabia, China, Japan and even Africa. These regimes understand only one thing: power! Military power, political power and economic power. This is what GW was able to deliver in his tenure as President. GW didn't speak well but then again when you have the most powerful military excercising their assigned duties in Iraq and Afghanistan then your GPS guided munitions and blood thirsty Marines will do just fine, thank you. Obama on the other has eschewed the military option other than a few missles lobbed here and there under the watchful eyes of our predator drones. If Obama had been President after 9/11 then I could most surely guarantee you that Saddam Hussein Al Tikriti would still be in power today. Not to mention I'm quite certain we would not be in Afghanistan today and the Taliban would still be in power in Kabul.
Barack Hussein Obama is a complete woose and nothing more. Only our enemies will be glad that someone like Obama is in power because he is a complete buffoon and will surrender American hedgemony to the third world like some Manchurian Candidate who secretly abhors the power and prestige that is the United States of America.
The world has not changed however the American administration certainly has changed hands to a more docile, incompetent, naive and just plain stupid man being supported by a pacficist party hell bent on bringing America down to third world parity so as not to "offend" anyone. The last time we were there was under a moron named Jimmy Carter.
4) Foreign Policy Assumption: "Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake in the history of America!". There is no more naive assumption in foreign policy than this one. In light of that deceitful attack on the United States on 9/11/01, the time it took to get our forces in place for the invasion of Iraq was over 2 years in the making! So there was plenty of time to think of the ramifications of this invasion and no it was not a cowboy "kneejerk" GW Bush reaction to 9/11. The first Gulf War was a direct result of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the resultant destruction and complete route of the Iraqi military before the massive AMERICAN force made the United States the prime target of any retaliation by Iraq. When we consider as well that Saddam tried to have President G. H. Bush assassinated while he visited Kuwait in 1992, as well as the first attack on the World Trade Center (remember those buildings?) in 1993, as well as the destruction of the F Murray Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 on the very day that Iraq's Baath Party celebrates their ascension to the throne under Saddam and the fact that we know very well that these types of attacks are the modus operandi of all Arab/Islamic regimes in the Middle East alone points the arrow to the only perpetrator WILLING to align himself with Islamic terror groups (who would have no problem killing the likes of a Saddam if they could) to strike at the United States and recoup any loss of prestige suffered in 1991 in Kuwait, makes the Iraqi Invasion after 9/11 the most logical outcome for America's response to this terror hit in the heart of New York City and Pentagon on the morning of September 11th, 2001.
Iraqi forces were constantly firing their SAM anti-aircraft missiles at AMERICAN aircraft flying over the "No Fly Zone" over Iraq established after the First Gulf War. This cat and mouse game played by Baghdad was unacceptable after 9/11 and any attempt to fire on an ENRAGED AND ANGRY America thus brought the whole might and power of the greatest military force in the world as well as history upon your head! Now that was the greatest and dumbest mistake in foreign policy ever assumed by a sitting head of state: Saddam Hussein the moron. Consider as well, that whatever the reasons were for the invasion (and there were many not just the 'WMD' location) these pale in comparison to the fact that we, the United States of America, had to establish a PRECEDENT that you don't attack us in the wee hours on a morning of a cloudless sky and GET AWAY WITH IT!!! Facts are facts and Saddam clearly had a history of nuclear/chemical/biological weapons programs and was WILLING to use them not only against his own people (Kurds) but certainly against his neighbors (Iran). Of course, in the Gulf War Saddam Hussien of Iraq fired SCUD missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel (hmmm, the arch enemies of Al Qaida as well) then certainly we see a mad tyrant that should have and did suffer the demise of all tyrants who dare raise their hand against America: death and destruction to yourself, your regime and your country.
The regime fell within a matter of weeks after our glorious armed forces invaded and yes it was indeed MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The War On Terror SHOULD HAVE continued into the hell holes called Iran and Syria and because we didn't do this is the reason why the OCCUPATION of Iraq became mired in a pathetic attempt by Moslems of every stripe and country within AL ARABIA to terrorize America into leaving Iraq. In spite of the losses we suffered (greater than the invasion itself) we came out on top (as expected by me) and gloriously succeeded without necessarily having to rely on the so called "surge" that followed in 2006 to effect an outcome that was already there but not yet came to fruition that year: namely the standing up of the reconstituted army of Iraq.
The Left in America and Europe despises Iraq for all the SUCCESSES that have come to light due to President Bush and the AMERICAN military that began in March 2003: the fall of the Saddam Hussien Regime; death of his heirs ensuring the regime doesn't rise again; the capture, conviction and execution of the Ace of Spades himself, Saddam Hussien Al Tikriti; the elections that followed in which all of Iraq could participate in the future of their own country; the DEFEAT of Al Qaida in Iraq; and the successful implementation of the "surge"; Lybia's Mohmmar Guadaffi surrendering his nuclear program and the Syrian army retreat from Lebanon all point to great successes that only Democrats could possibly dream of had it occurred under their watch. But most of all, the fact the United States of America triumphed over her enemies in such a magnificent way has shamed the Left in America and Europe into a bitter reactionary and deliberate worldview in which they despise America and its commercial, Christian, and constitutional way of life have become anathema to their very political core.
This assumption by the Left specifically will be their undoing in the coming years as their response to Iraq will be DRAMATICALLY different to the point that all of the gains made by the USA since 2003 will be pissed away by a vengeful and ungrateful leftwing that will be happier seeing America lose in Iraq than give any credit to a domestic political foe (GW Bush) and capitalizing on our past success. The question will be then: Which Democrat will "lose" Iraq like we lost China, Iran, Southeast Asia, and Cuba?
1) Economic Assumption: "the economy will bounce back in a year or two". People are so convinced that the economy runs without due deference to which political party controls Congress however history has indeed shown that in fact it does matter which political party is at the helm and what policies are being followed that determines when the economy comes humming back to life from a period of a moribund economic cycle. Simply put, the economy is a responder to what is demanded by those in political power. Politics drives the economy not the other way around. If policies are being pursued that hurts big, medium and small business with excessive taxation, fees, duties and harmful legislation like "cap and trade" then businesses of all sizes will simply spend more time holding on to what they do have instead of research and development and expansion which is so critical to the economy.
FDR is a prime example of politics leading the way towards attacking businesses rather then helping them become stronger. The crash of 1929 did not happen on FDR's watch however the Democrat President was inculcated with anti-commercial tendencies that his policies completely choked off any incentive for business to expand during the 1930's. In fact, his policies brought back the depressionary levels of unemployment, low stock market numbers, and heavy taxation in 1937-38 that the depression appeared to have no end in sight. FDR's "solutions" always involved excessive federal government spending and high taxation and it wasn't till the advent of the Second World War that halted these lousy policies from Washington D.C. (FDR had no choice- either attack American businesses or attack America's enemies) that we see a turn in the economy. However, the war itself did not stop the flatlining of the economy for even after the war was won we see the return to high unemployment and very little economic activity that was the hallmark of the FDR era. Only with the advent of the Republican President Eisenhower and Republican congress in 1952 do we see a reversal of these anti-commercial policies and the concomitant rise in the economy. The depression was a 24-year curse (1929 - 1953) of low economic activity, high taxation, and excessive government spending and expansion at the expense of the private sector due to Democrat inspired legislation in Congress and in the Presidency itself that the bad times kept on going and going and going until it hit a brick wall that was the Republican administration of Eisenhower after the Korean War. Let's see, depression, World War II and the Korean War was the era of Roosevelt/Truman and this is the era we want to return to under Obama?
The advent of Ronald Reagan also had the same effect when the economy was suffering under the Carter era policies that returned to FDR inspired programs of high taxation and government expansion that resulted in high interest rates that stifled nearly every business model from manufacturing and financials to small business and start-ups . Bad foreign policy decisions also contributed to the bad economic picture when the United States cut off funding to our South Vietnam ally in 1974 (by a democrat led congress) resulting in her capitulation to the communists of North Vietnam by 1975. This in turn brought about a tidal wave of unrest (coincidentally only against our allies) from Iran to Nicaragua and Afghanistan in particular to Africa in general. On top of all this was the Arab-Oil Embargo of 1973 that the United States was still suffering from when Carter came to power in January of 1977. I have a feeling on this last point that Jimmy Carter would not find fault with the Arabs and thus blame the United States for this embargo since we decided to belatedly support on only true ally in the Middle East, Israel, during the Yom Kippur War started by Egypt herself.
Could the Carter Era have been another 24-year recessionary/depressionary curse as it had been under FDR/Truman? Most certainly it would have been had it not been for the business friendly Republican in the man that we know as Ronald Reagan that ended the Carter/Mondale era in 1980. Nevertheless, Reagan still had a bad economy on his hands and though Carters' critics did blame him for what Reagan inherited from the Carter malaise, the policies that Reagan put into place under the tutelage of a business friendly congress helped turn around a very ugly economic situation and instead of a 24-year economic curse we actually created a 25-year mother lode of economic expansion and growth not seen since the golden years of industrial expansion of the early 20th century.
Today, the Obama Administration blames GW Bush for what "they inherited" however, let it be known that Senator Obama voted for nearly all the policies while in Congress during his tenure there that have contributed to the situation we are in today! Obama objected to President Bush's "deficit" spending and yet after only being in the Oval Office a few months Obama has outdone the previous President's spending by four-fold!
There are no guarantee's that the economy will come back to the heady days of Reagan/Bush. Just because the economy rebounded after Reagan came to power does not mean that it will do so under Obama. The attitude and tenor of both Obama and his Democrat controlled House of Representatives and Senate will ensure that an "anti-commercial" environment will reign supreme so long as Democrats retain power in Washington D.C. and thus we are more likely to see a repeat of history along the lines of a 24-year depression of an FDR Era rather than a 25-year bonanza of a Ronald Reagan Era.
2) Political Assumption: "Republicans will take control of Congress in 2010". Once again, I know there are a lot of pundits that believe the "pendulum" theory of American politics, however, though political power may switch hands in Washington, what we see in fact that policies don't waver as much and in many ways remain the same in spite of the pendulum swings in domestic politics. More often than not it really doesn't make much difference politically if both parties are espousing the same thing domestically as was the case during the 30's and in the 60's and consequently even now in the late 2000's.
Once again, even though the past has shown that Republicans can retake the house two years after a major Democrat takeover, I don't see this possibility repeating itself anytime soon. The trend line shows that once Democrats take over they usually retain their power for 10 years or more with 1994 being an off year for Democrat "success" at the ballot box. The Republicans must stake out a difference between themselves and their democrat opponents, however, today Republicans are not sounding that much different in terms of social spending and taxation. Thus, strategically, Republicans are still showing anti-business tendencies themselves and are contributing to a fractured message that only serves to confuse voters and allow the Democrats to retain their power.
Republican leadership is also lacking and I cannot see any person that can actually use the full force of his intellect and oratory to turn the government socialist ideal that is now so pervasive in Republican ranks as well as in the country among the voters. Is this the revenge of the "Rockefeller republican" for the rise and advent of Ronald Reagan that occurred in 1976? Perhaps. Revenge and envy are a path to the dark side and I'm afraid the Republican Party is still suffering from internecine fighting that has not spent itself in spite of the fall of prominent moderate Republicans such as Specter (switched to democrat), Ensign (fornicator) and Sanford (adulterer) and the complete gutting of the party from old timers that have decided to not run for re-election. It doesn't look good for a Republican return to power in 2010 nor in 2012 I'm afraid.
3) Foreign Policy Assumption: "Obama will bring change to the world!". Is there anything Obama has done that G.W. Bush hasn't already done in the arena of foreign policy? I mean really, we have already "talked" to Iran and North Korea to death and nothing has come of it except their continued malfeseance towards the United States and that was before Obama and company came onto the scene last January. The so called elections in Iran brought about a near total revolt but certainly no "revolution" but this should have not been countenanced since only an outside force, like the United States military, could actually bring "change" in both spirit and letter to the Persian people.
Obama's arrogance only barely outstrips his naivety towards our allies as well as our enemies. Just because he thinks he is the "anti-Bush" doesn't automatically make him friends with Russia, Europe, Al-Arabia, China, Japan and even Africa. These regimes understand only one thing: power! Military power, political power and economic power. This is what GW was able to deliver in his tenure as President. GW didn't speak well but then again when you have the most powerful military excercising their assigned duties in Iraq and Afghanistan then your GPS guided munitions and blood thirsty Marines will do just fine, thank you. Obama on the other has eschewed the military option other than a few missles lobbed here and there under the watchful eyes of our predator drones. If Obama had been President after 9/11 then I could most surely guarantee you that Saddam Hussein Al Tikriti would still be in power today. Not to mention I'm quite certain we would not be in Afghanistan today and the Taliban would still be in power in Kabul.
Barack Hussein Obama is a complete woose and nothing more. Only our enemies will be glad that someone like Obama is in power because he is a complete buffoon and will surrender American hedgemony to the third world like some Manchurian Candidate who secretly abhors the power and prestige that is the United States of America.
The world has not changed however the American administration certainly has changed hands to a more docile, incompetent, naive and just plain stupid man being supported by a pacficist party hell bent on bringing America down to third world parity so as not to "offend" anyone. The last time we were there was under a moron named Jimmy Carter.
4) Foreign Policy Assumption: "Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake in the history of America!". There is no more naive assumption in foreign policy than this one. In light of that deceitful attack on the United States on 9/11/01, the time it took to get our forces in place for the invasion of Iraq was over 2 years in the making! So there was plenty of time to think of the ramifications of this invasion and no it was not a cowboy "kneejerk" GW Bush reaction to 9/11. The first Gulf War was a direct result of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the resultant destruction and complete route of the Iraqi military before the massive AMERICAN force made the United States the prime target of any retaliation by Iraq. When we consider as well that Saddam tried to have President G. H. Bush assassinated while he visited Kuwait in 1992, as well as the first attack on the World Trade Center (remember those buildings?) in 1993, as well as the destruction of the F Murray Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 on the very day that Iraq's Baath Party celebrates their ascension to the throne under Saddam and the fact that we know very well that these types of attacks are the modus operandi of all Arab/Islamic regimes in the Middle East alone points the arrow to the only perpetrator WILLING to align himself with Islamic terror groups (who would have no problem killing the likes of a Saddam if they could) to strike at the United States and recoup any loss of prestige suffered in 1991 in Kuwait, makes the Iraqi Invasion after 9/11 the most logical outcome for America's response to this terror hit in the heart of New York City and Pentagon on the morning of September 11th, 2001.
Iraqi forces were constantly firing their SAM anti-aircraft missiles at AMERICAN aircraft flying over the "No Fly Zone" over Iraq established after the First Gulf War. This cat and mouse game played by Baghdad was unacceptable after 9/11 and any attempt to fire on an ENRAGED AND ANGRY America thus brought the whole might and power of the greatest military force in the world as well as history upon your head! Now that was the greatest and dumbest mistake in foreign policy ever assumed by a sitting head of state: Saddam Hussein the moron. Consider as well, that whatever the reasons were for the invasion (and there were many not just the 'WMD' location) these pale in comparison to the fact that we, the United States of America, had to establish a PRECEDENT that you don't attack us in the wee hours on a morning of a cloudless sky and GET AWAY WITH IT!!! Facts are facts and Saddam clearly had a history of nuclear/chemical/biological weapons programs and was WILLING to use them not only against his own people (Kurds) but certainly against his neighbors (Iran). Of course, in the Gulf War Saddam Hussien of Iraq fired SCUD missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel (hmmm, the arch enemies of Al Qaida as well) then certainly we see a mad tyrant that should have and did suffer the demise of all tyrants who dare raise their hand against America: death and destruction to yourself, your regime and your country.
The regime fell within a matter of weeks after our glorious armed forces invaded and yes it was indeed MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The War On Terror SHOULD HAVE continued into the hell holes called Iran and Syria and because we didn't do this is the reason why the OCCUPATION of Iraq became mired in a pathetic attempt by Moslems of every stripe and country within AL ARABIA to terrorize America into leaving Iraq. In spite of the losses we suffered (greater than the invasion itself) we came out on top (as expected by me) and gloriously succeeded without necessarily having to rely on the so called "surge" that followed in 2006 to effect an outcome that was already there but not yet came to fruition that year: namely the standing up of the reconstituted army of Iraq.
The Left in America and Europe despises Iraq for all the SUCCESSES that have come to light due to President Bush and the AMERICAN military that began in March 2003: the fall of the Saddam Hussien Regime; death of his heirs ensuring the regime doesn't rise again; the capture, conviction and execution of the Ace of Spades himself, Saddam Hussien Al Tikriti; the elections that followed in which all of Iraq could participate in the future of their own country; the DEFEAT of Al Qaida in Iraq; and the successful implementation of the "surge"; Lybia's Mohmmar Guadaffi surrendering his nuclear program and the Syrian army retreat from Lebanon all point to great successes that only Democrats could possibly dream of had it occurred under their watch. But most of all, the fact the United States of America triumphed over her enemies in such a magnificent way has shamed the Left in America and Europe into a bitter reactionary and deliberate worldview in which they despise America and its commercial, Christian, and constitutional way of life have become anathema to their very political core.
This assumption by the Left specifically will be their undoing in the coming years as their response to Iraq will be DRAMATICALLY different to the point that all of the gains made by the USA since 2003 will be pissed away by a vengeful and ungrateful leftwing that will be happier seeing America lose in Iraq than give any credit to a domestic political foe (GW Bush) and capitalizing on our past success. The question will be then: Which Democrat will "lose" Iraq like we lost China, Iran, Southeast Asia, and Cuba?
posted by Bruce R. McConnell | 8:12 AM
|
0 comments
