It's not that you got duped that interests me (although I couldn't believe how asleep I could have been to miss something like that). It's the responses of the 'opposition' that I get a chuckle out of. Regardless of whether we 'need' Chirac or (bahaha) Kennedy -- I think it's clear that, operationally at least, we do not -- such an event ocurring would certainly be a boon to our efforts in the Middle East. Yet, what is the response of the waggies of the world? Unprovoked, sniping cynicism. And the wag has the gall to talk about credibility. Lol.
Now it is the time to wield a big stick and iron fist in Iraq. We do not need sissy french troops to get in a way. Or fat ass democrats .
LOL Dark, Kennedy wouldn't do what's best for the troops and the American people unless you threatened to trash his Scotch supply. Chirac wouldn't support the US for all the baguettes in gay Paree.
I guess you really couldn't care less that our CIA was totally "prostituted" by the Bush Administration, nor could you give a rat's ass that General Shinseki was right all along that we'd need several hundred thousand troops for post war Iraq as opposed to Paul Wolfowitz's remark that his Army Chief of Staff was "wildly off the mark". Oh, and when it comes the end of June and it is time to "hand" over Iraq to the new Iraqi Congress that they will be embracing a democratic form of government and not a theocracy like Iran. I guess you believe in the tooth-fairy and were a big fan of Hermann Goebbels too.