Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/15/2005 2:32:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 2:42:51 PM EDT by ColtM4]
I'm a big supporter of President Bush and agree with his policy on Iraq. However as we all know some aspects of how this war has been carried out and resulting americans losses briing to question as to how this could have been done better etc...

So my question followed by a poll is :

Who is most responsible for the mistakes made in the war on Iraq ?

First and foremost we can all agree that the soldier , marine and airman on the ground has performed magnificantly.

My opinion is that mistakes were made by Generals too afraid to speak their mind , properely prepare and equip our soldiers and effect proper stragey against the terrorists and insurgents.


Again our soldier are our heroes and thanks to them we are prevailing, I just dont have much faith in our Generals and bureucrats.

ETA
Of course there is no choice for "terrorist" because thats not the subject , which is who in our chain of command dropped the ball.

The terrorist are the reason we are there.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:33:32 PM EDT
And what mistakes would you be talking about?
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:38:17 PM EDT
You don't have a choice for "terrorist"
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:38:36 PM EDT
Again what mistakes.

Kinda hard to say who might be to blame for what if you don’t know what what is.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:39:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:39:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GoBlue:
You don't have a choice for "terrorist"



+1!

SBG
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:39:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GoBlue:
You don't have a choice for "terrorist"



That's what I was thinking.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:40:18 PM EDT
Here's a couple to chew on

1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor
2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo
3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency
4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered.
5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war


just some to think about
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:41:23 PM EDT
MEDIA. YOur poll is incomplete.


Aviator
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:42:59 PM EDT
How about the UN and our own liberal traitors? Had Bush been able to go in quickly, who knows what in the way of WMD's we might have found.... How about Bill Clinton? He should have done this in 1996 or so.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:43:31 PM EDT
Saddam Hussien
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:44:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
Here's a couple to chew on

1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor


You fight with the army you have, not the army you want. Thank Clinton for not buying enough when we were at peace.


2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo


Yeah, that would have nothing to do with the dust storm.


3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency


Who says? You? The media?


4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered.


Again you fight with the army you have. Besides HMMWVs were not intended to be armored.


5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war


That wouldn't have anything to do with not having enough money to train and retain people during the "peace dividend."



just some to think about


Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:44:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
Here's a couple to chew on

1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor
2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo
3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency
4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered.
5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war


just some to think about



"You don't fight with the army you want, you fight with the army you got." Rummy---sometime last year
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:44:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 2:46:12 PM EDT by TheRedHorseman]

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
Here's a couple to chew on

1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor that is what happens when you start fielding a new issue item
2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo that was our own fault because we were moving faster than our supply trains could move
3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency it wasnt expected, but they should have had a plan
4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered. uhh, bullshit
5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war that is their own fault, they should have been prepared for war, reserve or not they are still in the damn military


just some to think about



but what do I know?
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:44:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 2:49:07 PM EDT by topgunpilot20]

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
Here's a couple to chew on

1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor
2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo
3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency
4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered.
5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war


just some to think about

The issue of body armor seems to come up a lot. IBA only began production in 1999. You can't get one to every soldier/Marine in the US military in a couple years. The only two options were: not go to war, or give them to the soldiers/Marines who would likely need them most and issue them to everyone else as it is being produced. Many wars have been fought and won without body armor.

Our soldiers are doing a damn fine job of fighting a counter-insurgency. The only "mistake" is that we didn't think saddam's army would go down so quickly. Not the worst type of mistake to have quite frankly.

You should really stop getting all your news from CNN and John Kerry (who voted AGAINST the money to buy more armor).
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:46:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 2:48:39 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
Here's a couple to chew on




1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor

Takes time to correct decision and lack of purchases made over the preceding years... Clinton if anybody.


2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo

That is the nature of running so fast the supplies cannot keep up... this is a good thing and not a mistake by anyone.


3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency

Who says the US Military has done damn well IMO cosidering the fluid situation.


4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered.

Same as #1. But this is mostly not true anyway. You fight with what you have on hand or you don't fight.


5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war

Again they seem to have done damn well.


just some to think about
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:48:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
Here's a couple to chew on

1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor
2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo
3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency
4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered.
5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war


just some to think about

The issue of body armor seems to come up a lot. IBA only began production in 1999. You can't get one to every soldier/Marine in the US military in a couple years. The only two options were: not go to war, or give them to the soldiers/Marines who would likely need them most and issue them everyone else as it is being prodused. Many wars have been fought and won without body armor.


IBA may have only been around since 1999; however, a heavier version had been available throughout the 90s. So we have to define our terms here. Do we want to bitch about the boys not having armor in general, thank Clinton. Or specifically IBA? In which case there wasn't a big lead up time to get them equipt.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:49:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
Here's a couple to chew on

1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor
2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo
3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency
4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered.
5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war


just some to think about



Shit happens in war. Nothing is ever perfect. Instead of trying affix blame, why not offer to do something to help out.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:49:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
Here's a couple to chew on

1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor
2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo
3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency
4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered.
5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war


just some to think about

The issue of body armor seems to come up a lot. IBA only began production in 1999. You can't get one to every soldier/Marine in the US military in a couple years. The only two options were: not go to war, or give them to the soldiers/Marines who would likely need them most and issue them everyone else as it is being prodused. Many wars have been fought and won without body armor.



You throw in the army never planned until OIF to buy 1 per solider, it hastens the delay in fielding.

But long after this was solved it was still in the media almost every day.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:49:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 2:50:43 PM EDT by Aviator]

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
Here's a couple to chew on

1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor
2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo
3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency
4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered.
5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war


just some to think about



1. This is the first war ever that I can think of that we were worried about giving EVERY soldier body armor. Ask a WWII vet about body armor and he would say "Huh?".

2. I think the Contenental Army was running out of food and ammo when they were in Valley Forge. Shit happens, you sometimes out run your supply lines, or if you are a rag tag bunch, you don't have supply lines. This is war, not a training excersize. Did that make Washington a Bad General?

3. I doubt anyone could.

4. See number 1.

5. I have heard that about active duty troops as well. It varies with the command. Not a Guard problem, Reserve problem, or AD Problem, it's an Army problem.

Aviator
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:50:27 PM EDT
Oh, yeah I forgot to add. This is war, shit happens. You cannot blame anyone that the enemy is exercising his independent will.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:51:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

IBA may have only been around since 1999; however, a heavier version had been available throughout the 90s. So we have to define our terms here. Do we want to bitch about the boys not having armor in general, thank Clinton. Or specifically IBA? In which case there wasn't a big lead up time to get them equipt.



keep in mind that the older Ranger Body Armor(RBA) weighed damn near 40 pounds, I wouldnt have worn that crap outside of the turret of my humvee
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:52:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
ETA
Of course there is no choice for "terrorist" because thats not the subject , which is who in our chain of command dropped the ball.



Why the hell do you presume that the ball has been dropped in the first place?
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:52:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
Here's a couple to chew on

1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor
2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo
3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency
4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered.
5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war


just some to think about

The issue of body armor seems to come up a lot. IBA only began production in 1999. You can't get one to every soldier/Marine in the US military in a couple years. The only two options were: not go to war, or give them to the soldiers/Marines who would likely need them most and issue them everyone else as it is being prodused. Many wars have been fought and won without body armor.


IBA may have only been around since 1999; however, a heavier version had been available throughout the 90s. So we have to define our terms here. Do we want to bitch about the boys not having armor in general, thank Clinton. Or specifically IBA? In which case there wasn't a big lead up time to get them equipt.

You are referring to the Ranger Body Armor which was produced to meet the operational needs of the 75th Ranger Regiment. I don't think it was ever intended for general issue. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:54:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
Here's a couple to chew on

1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor
2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo
3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency
4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered.
5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war


just some to think about



The last major war we fought, Vietnam, we didn't have body armor, other than flack vests, and ran around in open trucks. Flack vests did not stop bullets. Food and ammo were frequently scarce in the areas where they were used a lot. After initial training, all tactical training was OJT on the two-way range. We didn't know they had SAMs until helicopters started blowing up at 5,000 feet. We didn't know they had wire guided missiles until they found the wires draped over our defensive positions.

I can't really point fingers at ANYBODY for the equipment we sent to IRAQ, it's still the best in the world. We can't really develop tactics until we've been in theater for a few months, so I won't fault the training, either.

CIA has an enormous budget, but wouldn't certify their damn intelligence. They just spread money around and waited in the local bars for some bullshit artist to shoot their mouth off.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:54:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
Here's a couple to chew on

1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor
2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo
3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency
4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered.
5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war


just some to think about

The issue of body armor seems to come up a lot. IBA only began production in 1999. You can't get one to every soldier/Marine in the US military in a couple years. The only two options were: not go to war, or give them to the soldiers/Marines who would likely need them most and issue them everyone else as it is being prodused. Many wars have been fought and won without body armor.


IBA may have only been around since 1999; however, a heavier version had been available throughout the 90s. So we have to define our terms here. Do we want to bitch about the boys not having armor in general, thank Clinton. Or specifically IBA? In which case there wasn't a big lead up time to get them equipt.

You are referring to the Ranger Body Armor which was produced to meet the operational needs of the 75th Ranger Regiment. I don't think it was ever intended for general issue. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though.


Ah hell, if we're second guessing everyone then why not throw it out there? Surely that shows a failure on the generals' part to foresee the need. I mean don't we all want the very best protection for our troops?
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:55:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
Here's a couple to chew on

1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor
name any war that most soldiers had armor?

2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo
some units? i dont think u understand the amazing feat that was performed during the invasion.
it was a logistical accomplishment unmatched in warfare.


3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency
they have done a damn good job. wherre in the world can u show me an insurgency thast has been defeated?

4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered.
name one war that all the vehicles were armored. just one


5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war

units fault.


just some to think about

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 3:00:27 PM EDT
+1 for the Mr. and Mr. Clinton - aka the Klintonistas.

Clinton raped the military far worse than he ever did Juanita Broaddrick. And he/they did so in plain view, right in front of everyone, and no one even batted an eye when it was happening.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 3:03:15 PM EDT

Who is most to blame for any mistakes made in Iraq ?



Iraq
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 3:04:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FredM:

Who is most to blame for any mistakes made in Iraq ?



Iraq



You're not playing by ColtM4's rules! You have to blame America in some way, shape, or form!
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 3:08:42 PM EDT
What about Bill Clinton?
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 3:08:44 PM EDT
What's with all the armchair quarterbacking? This reminds me of that Frontline about the OIF invasion, and how everything didn't go perfectly or at least didn't happen under ideal conditions. They were blatently trying to portray the incredible conquest of a country of 25 million people, the size of California, on the other side of the world, by 150,000 US troops, who took 300 or so casualties, in under three weeks, as a monumental disaster.

The biggest thing that went wrong was Turkey's refusal to let the 4th ID transit through their territory so we could invade from the north and have another full strength division in Iraq. But that was the fault of Germany and France who bullied the Turks and threatened them that they could forget any hope of joining the EU if they helped the US. Since that's their pre-eminit foreign policy objective, they really had no choice. I hate and blame the Germans and French for that, no the Turks.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 3:16:16 PM EDT
As far as the NG troops and their preparedness, any of the units I've heard of deploying (including the 278th RCT from here in Tennessee) underwent an extensive train-up, up to 6 months worth. It isn't like they reported for drill one weekend and by Monday were in Iraq! And from everythng I've heard they've done quite well---hell, they're shouldering half the burden over there.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 3:19:16 PM EDT
Mistakes get made in wartime? Nawwwww!
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 3:22:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 3:24:30 PM EDT
THis is a retarded question. The highest ranking person takes the blame. Period.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 3:26:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sp0rk:
THis is a retarded question. The highest ranking person takes the blame. Period.




Again, that assumes there is something to be blamed for.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 3:26:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
Here's a couple to chew on

1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor <- Some did not initially have the cutting-edge armor, but the myth has grown to epic proportions of bake-sales to buy armor. We all got interceptors pretty quickly as soon as manufacturing could catch up. Meantime, you send what you got.

2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo <- happens every war

3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency <- we always start by fighting the previous war, then adapt

4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered. <- you send what you got. we started WII with deathtraps for tanks and got hammered, then adapted.

5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war <- well, I could write a book about that one. Some was, some wasn't.




As far as not all troops starting with the latest armor on their body or vehicle, imagine a bill to buy 8 zillion interceptor vests and uparmored humvees being presented to a peacetime legislature. It would be a "military pork" scandal from hell, demogogued by the likes of JF Kerry for as long as he could milk it.

Same kind of crap happens every peace/war cycle.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 3:28:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sp0rk:
THis is a retarded question. The highest ranking person takes the blame. Period.



Yes it was a stupid question, but not for that reason.

The question presumes that wars can be executed flawlessly, that we have finally overcome the last barrier, the hostile and independent will of the enemy. Only fools believe all the variables and unforseens can be accounted for.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 3:35:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 4:08:12 PM EDT by pbaeod]
(1) This was the first war that I can think of that we had practical body armor available that would stop bullets. Blaming someone else doesn't bring back the dead. We had IBA's but I saw alot of dismounts without plates or in old flak vests

(2) When your out of food and water having someone tell you this has happened before doesn't help nor does being dehydrated help you fight. Or pull RPG,s out of rucks attached to bradleys in my case.

(3) One of the big problems was the insurgency flared up during alot of TOAs and RIPs, with little continuity so it grew for quite a while unchecked witch made it harder to define and fight. I don't think any other country would have done a better job.

(4) Alot of units had tracked vehicles that they traded in for more pc HMMWVs. There are enough manufacteres in the us that if Rumsfield had wanted to we could have gotten armor on them alot faster, it was a matter of what it was worth to him.

(5) Not realy a subject I am familiar with but I train soldiers and get them ready to do their job how hard is for higher echelons?

I was attached to A Co 10 ENG 2nd Brigade Spartans 3rd ID C/S detonater1-2
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 3:36:58 PM EDT
well, different mistakes, different places to blame, so this poll basically is trying to be critical of the war in iraq with no specific issue.

As to who messed up the most, i'd say the CIA. I don't understand how those people get anything done. It sounds like a bunch of Jack Ryan types being bossed around by the boss from "The Office" or something.

"Arabis speaking agents? pffft, no need!"

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:15:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 4:18:39 PM EDT by ColtM4]
Listen , I have been on this site since 1999 , served my country (US ARMY 11B) have served my community as an LEO (retiring in 11 mos.)and am a conservative republican. I have no intent to put down our country or military, simply a question that has bothered me. I'm not saying that you can predict any posssiblility or make our troops invincible.

I am simply asking a question and looking for intelligent feedback and thoughts not personal attacks. If you'd like to join in by all means do so , I dont presume to have all the answers or even that I'm correct. I would appreciate intelligent responces not name calling which is very easy to do behind a keyboard.

The point some have made about not having body armor in previous wars just does'nt sit well as the same can be said that they didnt have M1 tanks either or were modern communications available as they are now. If something is/was available for our troops it shouild have been available. My buddy did the first 18 months as a NG MP with no body armor or armored vehicles. That should have been thought of.

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:19:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
I'm a big supporter of President Bush and agree with his policy on Iraq. However as we all know some aspects of how this war has been carried out and resulting americans losses briing to question as to how this could have been done better etc...




Suuuurrrreee, you are a big supporter of President Bush.

What aspects have been done wrong.

Gee, a war without casualties and does not run on schedule. Who'da thunk it.

So, mr. tactical expert, to what mistakes are you referring and how would you have done it with no casualties?
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:19:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
Here's a couple to chew on

1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor
2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo
3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency
4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered.
5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war


just some to think about



And YOU know all this to be true because................................CNN told you?
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:22:23 PM EDT
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Up to 15 million Iraqis — including large numbers of Sunnis, who boycotted the January elections — voted in historic parliamentary elections Thursday to establish a permanent democratic government amid only scattered violence.

The polls stayed open one hour later, until 6 p.m. local time (10 a.m. EST), because of such high turnout. Long lines were reported in some precincts, said commission official Munthur Abdelamir, some of which wrapped around neighborhood blocks. The commission said results will be announced within two weeks.

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:22:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
Here's a couple to chew on

1. Most soldiers did not have proper body armor
2. During the initial invasion some units were running out of food and ammo
3.The Generals did not properley prepare for fighting a counter-insurgency
4. They sent our soldiers around iraq in unarmored humvees resulting in the bulk of the caualties we have suffered.
5.Many NG and reserve units did not have proper training to prepare for the war


just some to think about



And YOU know all this to be true because................................CNN told you?



As always stupid , personal attacks from you .
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:23:46 PM EDT
I blame the muslims. How do you know who is friend and who is a foe? They got most of our casualties due to the fact that our guys are playing nice so to speak. They blow themselves up because we greet them and talk with them and let them get closer than need be. Which hadji is which?

Hard to win a war when you can't identify the enemy.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:25:34 PM EDT
1.2.3. I will say are true because I was there at tallill Rams, Peaches, jenkins, Saints, Larry, Curly, Moe,presidential Palace, and a couple of MS grids that I can't think of. # 4 I cleaned out and did alot of postblast on vehicles that creamed. From IEDs.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:26:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sp0rk:
THis is a retarded question. The highest ranking person takes the blame. Period.



In other words, the typical liberal mantra.................It's all Bush's fault.

Sheesh.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:27:15 PM EDT
john kerry
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:28:06 PM EDT
Hmmm... no choice for terrorists or media.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top