The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.
The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

I am not well read on this but I will try to relay a decent opinion on what I know. First of all I don’t think we should close any embassies. The closing of any of our embassies sends a message that we are afraid and can be bullied. When we close several or all of them we send a message that we are running scared.

I feel that if we protect their embassies here, they have an obligation to protect ours there. If they refuse to help defend ours, then we should abandon it and then close up their embassy here and deport their ambassador and his staff back to their country of origin.

For those countries that will assist us, there should also be a number of our own troops with enough fire power to defend the embassy, I don’t just mean hand weapons, I mean some high-powered armored guns, sending a clear message, shoot at us; we will shoot back with extreme prejudice.

I don’t think it should be left up to a foreign people alone to protect our citizens, we are not their people they won’t feel the need to defend as strongly as our own, but they should still have a part in it.

The reason the Al Qaeda is doing this to us and no one else is because our president is not respected by them nor by most of the world leaders. He so far has proven himself to be a liar, who is unreliable, untrustworthy, and a traitor to this country.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

I recall several times Obama touting the demise of al Qaeda. He said that “al Qaeda has been decimated” and that “al Qaeda is on the run.” Yet recently it seems that the United States is the one on the run, not al Qaeda.

You concentrated your efforts on getting bin Laden and on a scale of one to ten with ten being the best, I would give you a 5.1 for that accomplishment (only because anything less than 5.0 would mean that getting him was a bad idea and I don’t think it was a bad idea).

Getting bin Laden would and should rate at least 8.5 or more but considering how much you damaged this country by establishing the notion that you can release classified information and be praised as a hero for doing so, you lose some points.

You lose even more points when you did your victory lap and tried to fool the American people into believing that al Qaeda was “decimated and on the run.” These are not the acts of a good commander-in-chief who is constitutionally charged with defending our freedom over and above ANYTHING else he does.

The single best thing you have done in your presidency has been getting bin Laden but you have gone out of your way to discredit that action, so what do you have left for your resume’? Cash-for-clunkers?

Mr. President, your foreign policy of weakness and cowardness in front of the enemy is not working. We should be without-doubt the number one power in the world, yet we are running from fights all over the world; closing all these embassies is the most recent example.

Avoiding a fight sometimes is the right thing to do but sometimes it is the wrong thing to do. When our very country and freedoms are at stake the honorable thing to do is defend them, not run away. In fact our Constitution demands that you defend them and makes this your NUMBER ONE job.

The Constitution, yes that document you swore an oath to uphold and defend, gives you control over ALL of our national defenses, hence your title as Commander-in-Chief. We give you these awesome tools in order to carry out that huge responsibility and we, as a free nation demand that you use them wisely.

Our national honor and freedom/values were attacked by terrorists in Benghazi and yet we ran from that and almost a year later we are still running away like a scared school girl. In Benghazi there were a few honorable exceptions to the cowardness but sadly you Mr. President, the Commander-in-Chief, weren’t one of them.

It may not work to mobilize United States defenses to protect a single American on vacation in a country he was advised not to enter, but to fail to even attempt to defend our official diplomatic presence in any country, especially when they have asked over and over for more security, is shameful and un-American.

You can claim that there was no chance of getting there with enough force in time to save the U.S. Ambassador and you might be right, we may never know. However, you didn’t even try. Even if our forces arrived too late to save the life of the United States Ambassador who is our official presence in another country and therefore an extension of America itself, getting forces there at any time would have served our nation. It is almost one year later and they still aren’t there.

Trying and succeeding is the American way. However, when it comes to our country and our freedoms any patriot would rather try and fail than not try at all. As extremely current evidence of that I suggest you ask Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, both of whom are patriots of the highest magnitude. Oh wait, you can’t ask them and the reason you can’t ask them is because they proved how far a true patriot will go to defend freedom. Hundreds of thousands of patriotic Americans have proved this time and time again throughout our history. Where were you?

Due to the current geopolitical environment closing all these embassies might be the correct thing to do on a tactical level; you certainly have more intel than I have. Notice that I didn’t say that you are more intelligent because you raise doubts on that every day. However, on a strategic level one could ask “how did we arrive at this point where we, the strongest nation on earth, feel the need to run away like a scared puppy?”

Leading from behind does not work and carries a high risk of getting good people killed. You have set our country back several years in matters of foreign policy, defense, economics, race relations, and several other areas. You treat our Constitution as if it were a list of suggestions that needn’t be followed.

Rational and respectful public debate supported by evidence and reason, at the individual voter level (not conducted by any politician with an agenda) needs to take place so we can start making informed decisions at the voting booth.

Profile photo of Gary
Gary @grand-vizier

As you might guess I agree with both of you but keep in mind that the protection and defense of our embassies is the OBLIGATION of the foreign government and a condition of having an US Embassy in the host country.
Other than military personnel on the actual embassy grounds for internal security we are not allowed a military presence offsite, except specifically authorized by the host country.
Clearly many of these countries don’t have the means to protect our Embassies therefore agreements either are or should be in place for us to protect ourselves.
It says a lot about being a “Superpower ” if we can’t protect our Embassies.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

Yes, I understand that it is their obligation to protect our embassy that is why I said that if they are unwilling to protect our embassy we should close ours down and then close theirs down in our country and send their people back to their country of origin. Also, any U.S. troops would remain on embassy grounds, my point being that foreign troops would not be willing to stand and fight to defend us as our own troops would.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar


Gary, good post but let me add to it if I may. You are correct that there is an agreement with the host nation to provide security and that there is also a security contingent of our own, mainly Marines. We may or may not be authorized a military presence offsite, that depends on the agreement with the host nation, all things are negotiable. The better your State Department is the better that arrangement should be, which is why our arrangement in this case failed.

That said our embassies are basically like American soil and should be treated as such. Just as California is American soil. Additionally our ambassadors are the official representative of the United States in that country just as the Stars and Stripes are the symbol of the United States. We respect the sovereignty of other nations and do not expect to interfere with that sovereignty. However, we also reserve the right to defend ourselves and our nation. Our constitution gives us the right to do that.

These two issues, the sovereignty of other nations and our right to self defense should never compete with each other but sometimes they do. There comes a point when our national existence takes precedence over the sovereignty of another nation.

We were attacked by terrorists and lost some 3,000 Americans on 9/11/2001 and we did not ask Afghanistan for permission to enter their sovereign territory to defend ourselves, we just did it. General Doolittle did not ask the Japanese for permission to bomb Tokyo after Pearl Harbor and we didn’t ask the Germans for permission to enter Germany in WWII either.

This power/right to self defense is not to be taken lightly and I don’t suggest that we should have taken a large force and invade Libya after we were attacked in Benghazi. That would probably not be necessary because the attack on us was not on the scale of 9/11/2001.

Instead, I suggest that we should have brought forth a force adequate to overwhelm whatever threat we thought we might face in the aftermath of the attacks and as that force is enroute to Benghazi we could inform the Libyan government of their impending and imminent arrival in country.

We would not need to ask permission to defend ourselves because as you correctly said that was the job of the Libyan government and they failed. Advising them and not taking “no” for an answer in this case would have been the correct method.

If the Libyan government had a problem with that, and they certainly might have had a problem, we would remind them that because of their inability to do their job we lost part of our nationality (not only did we lose people but we lost our official national representation).

Diplomacy is nice but national survival trumps diplomacy and I think even Obama probably knows that. At least as President/Commander-in-Chief he should know that because our survival as a nation depends on him knowing that.

Sometimes though I question if Obama really does know that national survival trumps diplomacy because he is taking us down a path where no matter how serious we are about defending ourselves, we might not be able for reasons of diplomacy.

I am talking about the enormous amount of debt he is piling up for the nation. A good portion of this borrowed money came from China. Suppose in the near future we need to mount a defense of our nation against a crackpot dictator, perhaps an alliance between Iran and North Korea.

We don’t have the money to mount that defense so we go to China and ask them nicely if they will loan us some money so that we can defend ourselves against this aggression. China looks at us and says “no, we don’t think it is in our (China’s) best interest to see the United States defend herself.” What then?

Profile photo of nathalie
nathalie @nathaliedacosta

just a side note — it wasn’t solely US embassies that closed; there are UK, French, and German embassies in Yemen that were also shut down for a matter of time. Perhaps we went a bit overboard shutting down so many across the Middle East and North Africa…but at some level it was an international decision, too. I know that these countries have an obligation to provide security for our embassies, but certain things may be beyond control (not to shift the blame from any governments, they hold it completely, it just may be unrealistic to expect certain things when resources are unavailable)

decisions dont get made because Obama sits at his desk and points to a map and tells people what to do in the world. There are lots of people/countries/committees that weigh in…

Also, I don’t condone flexible policy in the face of terrorism because it will never be beaten if we put up with threats. With regards to the embassies though (and I should probably do some research on this) something tells me its not so simple. Although with our government in its current state, nothing ever is.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar


Good observation Nathalie. Other countries did close embassies so it wasn’t just the United States. However, the primary reason for everyone was the same, and that was the terrorist threat. The United States is, like it or not, the leader of the free world in the fight against terrorism and if that fight is not going well the finger pointing will come back to us, and unfortunately the danger will come back to us.

That said not many people are second guessing the decision to evacuate and close the embassies. Certainly the threat may warrant such a move. However, there are two things to consider. One is the message this conveys to the terrorists that they might have us on the run. This is a hotly debated point but a valid point; we might be playing into the hands of the terrorists in several ways. Still, if the threat warrants such action then that is what you do.

Second and probably more important is how we and our allies in the war on terrorism came to be in this situation in the first place. Again, we are the leader in the Global War on Terrorism and that is not going well. Obama claims to have “decimated” al Qaeda, and that “al Qaeda is on the run.”

Many would disagree with those statements by Obama. Many believe that all these intelligence leaks have only helped al Qaeda and there is ample evidence to support this. The Obama administration has leaked a considerable amount of classified information but there is also a considerable amount leaked by other than administration operatives.

In addition to the administration leaking national security material I am talking about people like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. Obama may or may not have been able to prevent these disclosures but the way he has handled them in the aftermath serves to put people on notice that damaging the national security of the United States is nothing more than an “inconvenience” or as some might say a “phony scandal.”

Obama treats this stuff as a law-enforcement matter when it needs to be treated as a breach of national security in time of war and dealt with accordingly. I am talking about the use of force and a lot of it, not the use of extradition orders and subpoenas.

I am not talking about invading Russia who has given asylum to Snowden. I am talking about deleting Snowden before he ever got to Russia. Many people will cry “due process” and I absolutely support due process. If you get a speeding ticket and want to fight it then you should be able to do so using “due process” which is your Fifth Amendment right.

However, when national security has been breached and that breach widens every day, you treat it as an act of war and the only “due process” in war is a bullet. When the security of the United States is in jeopardy you take whatever measures necessary to STOP that immediately. If Snowden wants “due process” in court as the constitution provides then he must turn himself in to authorities and that is the ONLY way.

This becomes difficult to do when you have spent the first four years of your presidency squandering the leadership position the United States has always had and destroying any and all respect the rest of the world has for the United States. Because of these past indiscretions maybe running-away is all we can do now.

The bottom line Nathalie is that we are where we are because of a series of decisions we have made. Most uninformed people believe those decisions were the correct decisions because they refuse to use rational thought and conduct their own research. On the other hand many people, myself included, are very skeptical and as a result worried about the future of our country. Each and every day we are seeing new evidence to suggest that the foreign policy of this administration has actually hurt the United States.

Again, the immediate decision to evacuate and close the embassies may be a valid decision because you have to deal with what is in front of you. When presented with a gun in your face what happened over the last four years seems irrelevant. The problem is that we should not have found ourselves in a position where the threat dictated evacuation and closing embassies in the first place.

One more thing, even though the host country is obligated to provide security that does not relieve the Commander-in-Chief from defending the United States and our freedom. Defending our freedom is the sole purpose for us even having a government to start with; this concept is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.

If we didn’t want our freedom protected we would have no reason for government. If we had no reason for a government we would have no reason for a president and Obama would probably be selling shoes or something like that.

Mobilizing our defense forces to defend an American citizen who is on vacation in a country he was officially advised to avoid is not what I am talking about. However, mobilizing our defenses as required in order to defend our OFFICIAL United States presence in another country is the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief. In fact that is the single most important duty of the President/Commander-in-Chief of a government whose only reason to exist is to defend our freedom.

The last three paragraphs have special meaning for the Benghazi attacks almost a year ago and this is what puts teeth into the very likely impeachable offenses by the President from that dereliction of duty. The real question is does congress have the stomach to defend our freedom when the President won’t?

Profile photo of Two Cents
Two Cents @twocents

Another interesting point on this topic, is the escape of 2,000 Al Qaeda operatives, due to Al Qaeda attacks on prisons in Libya, Pakistan, and Iraq. @Kevlar @Nathaliedacosta I already posted this link on another topic so @Grand-Vizier and @Jlriggs57aol-com you may have seen this but its a good read from a site called Vice about the attacks and prison breaks:

I think Nathalie has a good point about other countries closing embassies, and I think the reason other countries decided to take their people out wasn’t because of a “CALL” I think it was because of the prison breaks.

However, after the mysterious initial calls the administration is talking about, we did intercept a meeting with over 20 Al Qaeda members from around the world. So what I think happened, and this is just speculation, but I think that we closed our embassies because of the prison breaks and chaotic situation in the Middle East, then we intercepted the call and over heard the meeting. But who knows if we ever would have over heard any conversation if their wasn’t a reason like the prison break. What do you guys think?

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar


Two Cents:

First of all your post made me chuckle. Not that you intended to do that but it did. As you guys know by now I tend to get wordy and can’t stop typing once I start – yet you still want my opinion? Well, it was funny in my head!

I have no doubt that there was a tactical justification to close those embassies, and the prison breaks were probably part of that decision. Current threats probably entered into that decision as well so I don’t second guess the decision to act although a valid question would be “what message did closing the embassies send to our enemies?” Did we over-react? Who knows but the concept of “better safe than sorry” comes to mind.

Again, I don’t second guess that decision but I do adamantly question why we, the strongest nation in the world, are in a position where we are running from an enemy that we had on the run only five years ago.

Our President, Barak Obama, assured us not long ago that al Qaeda had been decimated and was on the run. In case you missed it the first fifty times he said it he repeated that message in many of his speeches and so did Joe Biden. In case someone missed all that Obama even had his minions out there telling us that al Qaeda was “decimated and on the run.”

I think it was comedian/commentator Dennis Miller who pointed out that the definition of “decimated” (according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary) is “to select by lot and kill every tenth man of” the group.” Key point being the killing of only 10%, which leaves 90% intact.

If that is the definition Obama used he sure pulled the wool over the eyes of the American public – AGAIN!

Reducing your enemy by only 10% is hardly damaging to them and does very little to render the enemy insignificant. We are seeing this come true as we speak. The American public being misled by President Obama is nothing new.

If we have reduced al Qaeda by only 10% (we had them reduced more than that until Obama took over) they are still a formidable force. Ironically there was a 32% combined death rate in Gettysburg and that did not end the war. That also does not count wounded which makes the casualty rate even higher. The Confederate Army alone suffered a death rate of some 37% and kept fighting.

An interesting contrast to that is Desert Storm in 1991. Desert Shield, the build-up, lasted about six months and then Desert Storm, the war, after a one month air campaign to soften the battlefield, took only 100 hours to win the ground war. We had a casualty rate significantly less than 1%.

This is an example of how to fight a war. Politicians, once they conclude that they cannot resolve the issue diplomatically, give the military the goal and parameters within which to act. The military then conducts the war as military strategic and tactical planning dictate with the politicians staying out of the way (unlike Vietnam). Mission accomplished at very little cost of lives (successful use of the military as an extension of politics but by other means).

It is my opinion that Obama is not trustworthy and he has provided us ample evidence over the years to support that opinion. I don’t just automatically assume he is wrong but if Obama told me that it was daytime I would look out the window to verify that the sun was up.

A leader who does not have the trust of his followers cannot lead, he can only force. This is apparent more each day with new regulations and such, many not passed by congress (our representation) but implemented against the will of the people by the use of Executive Order.

I am not a conspiracy theorist although a few conspiracies might have merit. An example would be TWA flight 800 and the real reason it crashed. Another example is the Constitutional qualification of Obama to even be president. For the record it is my opinion that Obama was probably born in Hawaii just as he said he was. Nobody knows this for sure because all we have to go by is a fake birth certificate.

I believe he probably has a real birth certificate that will probably show that he was born in Hawaii. HOWEVER, he is constitutionally required to be a NATURAL-BORN citizen and he is not (being born in Hawaii makes him a citizen but not a natural-born citizen).

I read the article on the link you provided, thank you. It was interesting and makes one think about how effective our foreign policy has been, which is to say it has generally been horrible.

One point of interest was a statement by Ayman al-Zawahiri. He said that breaking the prison in GITMO is on their list of things to do. I find this especially interesting because it actually fits into Obama’s playbook well. Obama campaigned and won election in part because he promised to close the prison in GITMO. When he won election he saw that closing that prison was impossible and it has been a major thorn in his side ever since.

What has been happening recently in GITMO? Obama lifted the moratorium on releasing GITMO detainees in an effort to get them out of GITMO so it would be easier to close the prison since he can’t close it any other way. And he is, even in the face of prison breaks by known terrorists and the increased threat (evidence by the embassies closing), standing by that decision. Something about our releasing terrorists whose only goal is to kill us just begs the question “What are you thinking?”

Are there any parallels that can be drawn between an attack on the GITMO prison and what happened in Bengazi when our Ambassador was killed? I don’t know but you asked me what I thought (you might regret doing so).

Obama got the United States a war in Libya in 2011 solely for political reasons. Wars are justified if they are in the national security interests of the United States and there is considerable room to define what constitutes a national security interest. However, the dictator of a country, in this case Qadaffi, killing his own people DOES NOT constitute a national security interest of the United States.

Ok, but you can do other things with the military in terms of “humanitarian” missions and helping out in the earthquake/tsunami in Japan in 2011 is a perfect example of a Humanitarian mission. That’s true. However, you CANNOT use the United States military in an offensive combat role in a humanitarian mission. If anyone dies due to your action that is MURDER. How many Libyans did we murder in the name of humanity in 2011? Talk about an illegal war – the liberals have no idea!

Don’t misunderstand me here. The murder of innocent people by anyone or any government angers me. However, unless it is either self defense or in the case of our military the defense of a United States national security interest, killing people just to satisfy an emotion is nothing short of murder.

Could we have found a national security reason to get involved in the sovereign issues of Libya? You bet we could. How about securing Libya’s weapons and especially their weapons of mass destruction (chemicals and such) from falling into the hands of terrorists who would gladly use them against us? That is absolutely in our national security interest and would absolutely justify the United States penetrating the sovereignty of the nation of Libya. So why didn’t we do that? If I had a dollar for every time I ask that question I would be rich.

So now we have involved the good name of the United States in a hog-squalor. We have asked our military to kill people when there was no national security reason (I am not concerned about a “declared war” as long as our actions can be justified as defending our national security).

We have abused our constitutional powers and gotten away with it because congress has no stomach for the constitution either.

Ok, at least tell us about the good that came out of all of this. Tell us how those weapons and WMDs are now secure and can never be used to harm Americans. I wish I could but we have done nothing to secure those weapons. In fact some of them were used to kill our United States citizens in the Benghazi attack the next year (kinda reminds you of Fast and Furious doesn’t it).

By the way, this is also the ONLY legal justification to get involved in Syria and so far we have ignored it. I guess defending our national security doesn’t fit the big plan.

So, why did Obama take the risk of an illegal war and murdering people? The character of those people is irrelevant. First he assumed that the American people would not see it this way and instead let their emotions about those “poor helpless” Libyans hide the fact that we were killing people in the name of “humanity.” So far he has been pretty successful with that because the American public as a whole is very uninformed.

So how does this relate to the killing of the Ambassador in Benghazi the following year on the anniversary of 9/11? Our involvement in killing people in the name of “humanity” in Libya in 2011 established the notion that it is “OK” to use the United States military to satisfy an “emotional” need, that of interfering in the sovereignty of another country when there is no national security reason for doing so.

Fast forward to Benghazi on 9/11/2012, the night of the attack. There is an understanding starting to develop that the United States was participating in an operation to supply arms to the Syrian rebels and using the compound in Benghazi to do so. Helping the Syrian rebels fight the government is an emotional need of Obama. I believe he wants, make that needs, to get involved because just as in the Libya involvement in 2011, he believes his involvement in Syria under the guise of “saving lives” will garner him popular support. He even has John McCain helping him on this.

Have you ever wondered why the investigation into this is taking so long and is stalled by Obama at every opportunity? Have you ever wondered why the most powerful person in the world (Obama) who is in charge of the most powerful military in the world, who is constitutionally charged, over and above ALL ELSE with defending the freedoms of our nation and people, refused to even lift a finger the night of the attack where four Americans gave their lives for their country, and our OFFICIAL presence in that country was attacked? I believe he had his hand in the cookie jar and didn’t want to get caught and the lives of four Americans, to include the official representative of the United States in that country, was, in the mind of our president a “small price to pay.”

Let me tie this all together and bring it back to GITMO and Zawahari wanting to break the prisoners out of prison (you didn’t think I could do this but just watch, after all you did ask me what I thought).

Obama knows he can boost his popularity if he gets involved in the business of others in order to “save lives.” He confirmed this in his participation in the air-war in Libya in which the United States military killed people of a sovereign nation when there was no U.S. national security justification. I believe he wants to do this again, this time in Syria protecting the lives of the Syrian rebels. In order to do this he needs to get arms to the rebels but knows he can’t legally do that.

All this establishes the notion that Obama will go to great lengths to secure the support of the American people. A President should strive to get the support of the American people but do it by leading them and protecting their freedom; not by illegally and immorally playing on their emotions.

If only he could close that darn prison in GITMO as he promised to do the first day of his presidency. He has tried very hard to close it but those rascally Republicans (using logic, precedent, and the constitution) just keep getting in his way.

Perhaps he could actually close the prison if he just let everyone free so they could return to their country of origin, or perhaps return to the battlefield. After all, if there are no prisoners it would make sense to “CLOSE THE PRISON.” This would make ALL his supporters happy. However, those darn Republicans and their inconvenient Constitution will raise the BS flag on him and he knows it.

Is there any way he could get someone to help him empty out that prison so he could then close it once and for all? I wonder what Zawahiri is doing? Oh, that’s right, he is planning an operation to break into the GITMO prison and release the prisoners. Coincidence? You decide.

I am not saying that Obama and Zawahiri are in cahoots and planning things together. In fact I would adamantly say that Obama is NOT in cahoots with Zawahiri over this. However, this could be a great help to Obama if it happened because he would finally get to carry out his ill-conceived promise to close the GITMO prison.

We saw no attempt by the commander-in-chief to defend the United States when we were attacked in Benghazi and I doubt we will see much effort on the part of Obama to stop al Qaeda from breaking into the GITMO prison to release their fellow terrorists.

Politics is a rough sport. Dirty politics is a dirty rough sport. If you want to succeed in dirty politics you need an uninformed public. And that we have plenty of that.

One last thing and I will stop this runaway thinking thing. I read a few of the comments at the end of the article you referenced and some people seem to think that we are fighting the terrorists because of oil (and gas). Well I have news for these people. We are fighting to defend our freedom. The terrorists, in an unprovoked attack, killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11/2001. We are a free nation and as long as there people who would pick up arms to take those freedoms away from us we will be at war because without freedom we do not have a country.

Does oil factor into this? You bet it does! Our major source of energy comes from oil and as long as our way of life depends on energy, we will fight to ensure the free flow of that precious energy/oil. Many people think we want to take oil fields from other countries so we can sell it. We had every opportunity to do just that in Iraq but we never took it. We don’t want to control the world’s oil but we absolutely have an interest in the free flow of that oil (free flow meaning not impeded by terrorist’s threats). Because of the direct tie of energy to our way of life and freedom, we will go to war to ensure that free flow. If you want to reduce war then stop the threat of people interfering with that oil flow.

How about the United States converting to green energy (before it is ready for prime time)? Fine although very expensive and damaging to the economy (which could collapse as a result), but even if the United States used zero foreign oil we would still go to war to ensure the free-flow of oil to those countries with which we trade.

I am kinda shy and I hate to type but if you want my opinions on something else just ask (and send me a ream of paper – LOL).

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar


Try this on for size. Perhaps there is an advantage to being an uninformed American. They will sleep well tonight… I won’t.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

Kevlar@kevlar, there is an old saying that goes, “Ignorance is bliss”. I am sure the uninformed will have a blissful sleep. I, like you, will toss and turn. Let’s hope the future will hold some sound sleep for those who are informed and have a light conscience about the state of our country.

But for now, up is down, wrong is right, and the truth is a lie.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

In order to comment you must: