April 19th, 1944
WASHINGTON (Routers) President Roosevelt celebrated the first anniversary of the death of Isoroku Yamamoto with a national radio address on Tuesday, declaring the war essentially won as a result, despite the fact that Congress approved the extension of the Lend-Lease Act for another year today.
Yamamoto was the mastermind of the terrorist attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawai’i two-and-a-half years ago, that killed both civilian and military personnel. His air transport was supposedly shot down last April 18th by several “Allied” P-38 “Lightning” fighters after the Army received intelligence of his whereabouts on the island of Rabaul in the southern Pacific Ocean. Some are skeptical of his death, however, because the War Department has never released photos of the dead commander, despite rumors that they exist in Japanese hands.
Many view it as a controversial action, because the intelligence that allowed the Lightnings to surprise the aerial armada was obtained through the cracking of Japanese codes [Full disclosure: this news agency was the only one brave enough to report this]. However, the administration continues to defend such practices, and has expressed outrage at publication of the fact that they have done so, claiming that it would somehow compromise the war effort. Skeptics, however, have complained that such behavior is a violation of the rules of war. They say that the enemy deserves to be treated with respect and honesty, and that the nation loses its moral standing in the world with such tactics.
In his speech, the president also said that the terror leader would still be alive had someone else been in the White House at the time. Referring to Governor Thomas Dewey, the presumptive Republican nominee in the coming fall election, he said that “…the little man on the wedding cake wouldn’t have had the guts to order that mission, as I did. He won’t even debate on foreign policy.” Many say that the president has a point, given that Dewey only wants to discuss domestic policy and the possibility of communists in key posts in the Roosevelt administration.
Republicans, however, say that the president’s speech is unseemly and un-presidential. “Certainly the president deserves credit for the death of Yamamoto, but the notion that Governor Dewey wouldn’t have done the same thing is ludicrous,” said a campaign staffer. “He can’t possibly know that, and any president, even Woodrow “League of Nations” Wilson would have done so. This is nothing but politics in an election year where the president feels vulnerable.”
An unnamed senior official at the War Department followed up with the president’s speech, stating on background that, “…the ‘War on Aircraft Carriers’ is over.” He went on, “”Now that we have killed tens of thousands of Japanese troops with the president’s brutal island-hopping strategy, and destroyed their morale with the death of their leader, the Japanese people have come to see the potential for legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into the Japanese Imperial Forces now see an opportunity for a legitimate Shintoism.”
Administration critics scoff at the notion. “Yes, I suppose you could say ‘the War on Aircraft Carriers is over’ if you ignore the fact that the Japanese still have fifteen of them, and continue to commission new ones almost every month,” said one Republican Senate staffer. “We’re slowly taking back the Pacific, island by island, but it’s a long bloody mess ahead, and the Nazis still control the continent of Europe. If this is a war that’s ‘over,’ I’d hate to see one that was raging.”
Brilliant, as usual. I wish the muse would come over you more often. This is a signature of this blog.
Second.
* witty reply ruined by shortness filter.
Filter?
Actually, I think we ought to give full, complete, and total credit to our President for the death of Osama bin Laden. He is personally responsible for the murder of the hero of Islam, the noble Jihadist who struck a crippling blow against the great Satan America. It is as if the President himself pulled the trigger of the gun which martyred the Son of Mohammed, taking from the Muslim world its most beloved figure. The responsibility for bin Laden’s murder can be given to one and only one person: President Barack Hussein Obama.
Tack that one up at your local mosque…
I’ll pay for 1000 of those posters if someone will go the postage.
So your saying we should take up a collection and send our supreme leader a lifetime supply of bomb turban Mohamad T-shirts?
Thanks for fixing my italics screwup…
Brilliant! If this space policy thing doesn’t work out there is a fine future for you in comedy/parallel history writing.
Spot on Sir, spot on!
Shine on, you crazy diamond…
One thing both President Obama and President Roosevelt had in common was that the attacks were successful due to tight security in the chain of command.
By contrast the attempt by President Reagan to kill Moamer Gaddafi appears to have failed due to the U.S. attempt to use Italy as a base and tipping off their Prime Minister who tipped off Gaddafi…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-10-30-2307921200_x.htm/Italy_helped_"save"_Gaddafi_by_warning_of_US_air_raid__Extra__
So even if they didn’t “pull the trigger” they at least deserve credit for keeping a lid on the attack…
What a difference five years makes.
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/009477.html
Here’s a round-up of similar criticism from 2007:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/01/barack-obama-macho-man/
What a difference five years makes.
Yes, it does.
Your foolishness knows no bounds.
Six years ago, Osama bin Laden moved into his compound in Abbottabad.
Five years ago, Obama said “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” You criticized Obama for wanting to “invade a key ally”.
I don’t think Obama or our “key ally” Pakistan changed as much as your criticisms of Obama did.
But hey, just like everyone else, I do enjoy your alt-WWII satire – it is really well done.
No one is actually criticizing Obama for ordering the mission, just for constantly taking credit for it. Just as no one REALLY thinks Roosevelt was wrong in having Yamamoto killed (he was part of the enemy’s command and control structure during a time of war), the point is that Roosevelt didn’t see the need to crow about it. Yamamoto (like Osama) was an enemy combatant who was dealt with, end of story.
Bob, there’s a cognitive problem here. Mine is WTF is your point? Yours is that everybody gets what Chris L. is saying.
Obama did a good thing ordering the attack on Osama.
You are fixated on criticism regarding invasion of an ally. Do you think any president should publicly announce a willingness to invade allies? Is that, in general, good foreign policy?
Is it even a good idea to publicly announce we are going to invade an enemy until right before we do?
Now Pakistan is an interesting case. We send them money to help us fight terrorism, but elements (if not all) of their govt. supports terrorist. Which means they are sort of an ally and sort of not. I personally would rather we call a spade a spade; I think it’s important that we let India know we are their ally. This would mean taking sides, but there is a case to be made (keep friends close, enemies closer.) We do get some help from Pakistan, it’s just not wholehearted, which is to say they actively support the terrorists against our interests.
I prefer things be a bit more black and white.
So the inconsistency you imagine is not there. It’s wrong to invade allies. It’s right to invade those that have proved they are not allies. Obama made the right call. Obama said the wrong thing. No inconsistency.
I would prefer we don’t continue to call countries allies that are not. Even when some elements in their govt. seem to ally with our cause. Obama must agree (in some sense) because he didn’t tell Pakistan about the raid before it happened.
I don’t think Obama or our “key ally” Pakistan changed as much as your criticisms of Obama did.
And I should care what you think because…?
Rand, you should care what I think because I’m pointing out a weakness in your argument.
You made various criticisms of Obama in your Yamamoto piece, but the one I’m focusing on is the idea that Obama shouldn’t be campaigning on his decision to go into Pakistan because he only did what any president would have done. If it is true that any president would have done it, then why did you criticize the very idea of going into Pakistan, a key ally, in 2007?
Ken addresses the idea that going into Pakistan was a good idea,, but that it should not be telegraphed ahead of time. That’s a separate argument (one I’m happy to address, but not in this comment).
In 2007, your argument, Rand, was that going into Pakistan is a bad idea, one that a less naive candidate wouldn’t make. Your argument in 2007 articulated why, unlike the killing of Yamamoto, going into Pakistan wasn’t the obvious course. A sitting president shouldn’t campaign on decisions that any president would have made. But, unlike killing Yamamato, this wasn’t that kind of decision.
And, in fact, it was pointed out in Politico, that Rumsfeld (and ultimately Bush) vetoed a similar choice to go into Pakistan:
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08intel.html?pagewanted=all
A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.
The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.
But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.
Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.
The decision to halt the planned “snatch and grab” operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military’s secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda.
You made various criticisms of Obama in your Yamamoto piece, but the one I’m focusing on is the idea that Obama shouldn’t be campaigning on his decision to go into Pakistan because he only did what any president would have done.
That idea doesn’t appear in my piece. This kind of straw man is why I don’t care what you think.
Paragraphs four and five of your seven paragraph piece address the idea that the President only did what any President would have done, and shouldn’t be campaigning on the decision.
It would be admirable of you to say “Yeah, you know, I was wrong five years ago, invading Pakistan wasn’t a bad idea after all, and the President isn’t wrong to campaign on his decision, since it does distinguish him from his two predecessors.”
It doesn’t say that he shouldn’t be campaigning on the decision. It says that he shouldn’t be campaigning on the ludicrous premise that his opponent wouldn’t have made the same decision.
And I’m not seeking your admiration.
the ludicrous premise that his opponent wouldn’t have made the same decision.
The article I linked to details the frustration the special ops community felt with both Bush and Clinton – they felt both Presidents weren’t being bold enough in going after Al Queda’s leadership. Unless you think that Romney would be a much bolder President than Bush (or Clinton), the premise isn’t ludicrous.
Romney is known for his caution (which isn’t a bad trait, but that’s not relevant here). Can anyone here explain why Romney would be much bolder than President Bush?
Romney is known for his caution (which isn’t a bad trait, but that’s not relevant here). Can anyone here explain why Romney would be much bolder than President Bush?
I have no idea whether or not Romney would be “bolder” than Bush. What I am questioning is the premise that given the information that Obama had, giving the order to get bin Laden was “bold.”
No one was sure that they had identified Bin Laden. Obama was told the mission had only a 50-50 chance of success. Every one of his top advisors was hesitant except for Panetta. If Bin Laden hadn’t lived there at all, if he hadn’t been home at the time, if uninvolved civilians had been killed, if the Pakistani military had gotten involved, if a war had erupted with India, if any number of catastrophes had occurred, this blog would be full of criticism.
Here’s one difference between killing Yamamoto and killing Bin Laden: If it hadn’t been Yamamoto on that plane, civilians back home in America wouldn’t have known about it, and they wouldn’t have been at all critical if they found out. If the compound in Abbottabad hadn’t been Bin Laden’s home, if some tall rich bearded civilian had been attacked instead, it would have been an extremely serious blow to America, and, less importantly, to Obama’s presidency. That’s why it was “bold”.
If Bin Laden hadn’t lived there at all
We knew his courier was there.
if he hadn’t been home at the time
Yeah, he might have been out on a beer run.
if uninvolved civilians had been killed
They were.
if the Pakistani military had gotten involved
From the local academy?
if a war had erupted with India
Well, in that case cats and dogs would have begun shacking up together as well.
this blog would be full of criticism.
Not about a failed SEAL team hit it wouldn’t. But I guess one sees “criticism” where one chooses to. Hope it helps you sleep at night Bob.
Curt,
Everyone involved in the story has repeatedly said they weren’t sure it was bin Laden until after he was killed.
Not a beer run, but a lamb, chicken curry, and rice run:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138579/Did-Osama-Bin-Laden-sneak-hiding-midnight-feast-tribal-Pakistan.html
We really don’t know whether bin Laden stayed in the compound all the time or not.
The Pakistani military almost got involved – they did scrambled F-16s.
The notion of accidentally sparking a war with India is my own, but it doesn’t take much brains to think of it — Pakistan will always reflexively suspect India when there is a report of military activity. I just googled for confirmation that the Obama administration was worried about this possibility, and sure enough, the head of the National Counter Terrorism Center Michael Leiter had the same concern, as did Pakistani generals. See this link:
http://www.firstpost.com/world/post-osama-raid-kayani-demanded-public-explanation-from-obama-297227.html
(Note that Lieter was hired by Bush, retained by Obama, and was a US Navy pilot – which is relevant given his comments in the article)
From your link:
Leiter: “An American F-16 couldn’t have found them in the time they needed to. It was just a non-risk. Some people were more nervous than I was,” he added.
But thanks for making a cobalt-strength point that Romney, with his 574 combat hours experience in F-16’s, would probably have known better and would never have given the go-ahead.
Obama was told the mission had only a 50-50 chance of success.
He was also told that there was a chance that:
a) Bin Laden is there.
b) He’s moving next week. And we don’t know where.
c) This is being recorded. What do you want to do?
… and probably… “There’s this guy here who used to work for Clinton, he’d like to make a bold recommendation…”
Thomas, not only do we give credit for the things Obama does right. We actually look for such things.
This is part of the difference between the left and the right.
While not always true…
The left slanders the right with lies (in a shameless echo chamber from which apologies hardly ever appear.)
The right tells the truth about the left (as much as they know. We’re still waiting for Obama to be forthcoming or for the left media to do their job. If it includes an army going through garbage cans in Alaska it should probably include interviews with people that know Obama’s past.)
Ken,
[[[The left slanders the right with lies (in a shameless echo chamber from which apologies hardly ever appear.)
The right tells the truth about the left (as much as they know. We’re still waiting for Obama to be forthcoming or for the left media to do their job. ]]]
That’s for the laugh.
You also illustrate the saddest thing about the R3, they actually believe the spin they put on stories about President Obama is the truth no matter how much evidence to the contrary is provided.
I’m not talking about spin. I’m talking about clear facts. The left is notorious for making stuff up. They don’t really care if the mud sticks because they’re always ready to ‘move on’ with new mud. It’s always much ado about nothing when they get caught. That you are either blind to this or deceitfully deny this is amazing. Some on the right might jump to conclusions based on little evidence, but that’s not the same thing at all.
The right certainly does try to go after the left. The difference is anybody that just makes stuff up is going to be discredited… not by the left, but more so by the right. The fact is, that many on the right go too far the other way, very often not coming to the defense of someone that turns out to be correct after all. Breitbart correctly identified these as eunuchs.
This is why, being it is so rare, we are in awe of someone on the left acknowledging some truth that is obvious to those on the right.
But you keep laughing. A conservative is somebody that’s been mugged. We can wait.
Feh, this is nothing in the humor department.
Remember when the New York Times blew the “cover” on the the tracking of financial assets of the terrorists? All of the Right Blogosphere was calling for treason charges against the publisher of the Times and to everyone else it was “inside baseball” and something people didn’t get. That was not long after 9-11.
Someone did a gag Paul Revere edition of the Times where the Grey Lady reveals the “secret Lantern Code” to warn of the deployment of “the Redcoats.” Now that was funny . . .
Tell me Rand, why is it bad for President Obama to use the killing of Bin Laden in his campaign and OK for the Republicans to use the capture of Saddam in President Bush’s Re-election? Again, why the double standard for Republicans and Democrats?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/04/is_obama_s_bin_laden_video_a_partisan_exploitation_of_war_so_was_the_2004_bush_campaign_.html
Bin Laden’s Scalp
It’s wrong to exploit military success for partisan advantage, unless you’re a Republican.
By William Saletan|Posted Monday, April 30, 2012, at 9:04 AM ET
Tell me Rand, why is it bad for President Obama to use the killing of Bin Laden in his campaign and OK for the Republicans to use the capture of Saddam in President Bush’s Re-election?
I didn’t say it was bad for President Obama to use the killing of bin Laden in his campaign. When are you going to stop beating your wife?
When you stop beating yours 🙂
So then why this thread if you think its acceptable for President Obama to use it in his campaign speeches?
I’m sorry you have such difficulty with reading comprehension.
I read fine, its you that have the fixation with everything the President does.
I read fine
Obviously you don’t, since you still fail to get the point, and continue to deploy a straw man, despite the fact that it’s been repeated several times.
Rand,
Since the point of this thread was using the Yamamoto example as a way to mock President Obama on his statements about the raid on Osama Bin Laden so my comments are on target despite how you try to spin it.
There were several points to the thread. Mocking Obama for campaigning on the issue per se was not one of them. But as I said, reading comprehension’s never been your strong suit.
Rand,
So, in your words, was was the point of this thread?
So, in your words, was was the point of this thread?
I will take that as an admission of your reading malfunction (Hint: don’t attempt an LSAT).
The two primary points of this post were a) that it was a mistake for Obama to claim the counterfactual that his political opponent wouldn’t have made the same decision that he did, given the same information at the same time, because there was no way for him to know that and b) that he was an asshole for taking credit for an action that wouldn’t have been possible absent intelligence that he claimed in the past was immoral to even gather.
The point not made, but worth making, was that he was even more of a jerk by making such a big deal out of what a political risk this was, while ignoring the risk of the lives of those who actually carried out the mission.
Was that clear enough for you?
Or do I have to use smaller words?
Rand,
[[[a) that it was a mistake for Obama to claim the counterfactual that his political opponent wouldn’t have made the same decision that he did, given the same information at the same time, because there was no way for him to know that]]]
True, there is no way to know what Governor Romney would have done, but given this statement from 2007 you could assign a probability to it.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2007/08/04/idINIndia-28811520070804
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON | Sat Aug 4, 2007 6:50am IST
[[[(Reuters) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan.]]]
[[[“I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours… I don’t think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort,” Romney told reporters on the campaign trail.
Obama on Wednesday said if elected president in November 2008 he would be willing to launch military strikes against al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf.
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said.]]]
Since you seem to have trouble reading due to your Anti-Obama derangement disorder I will translate. Candidate Obama stated he would so after Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan without informing the Pakistan government. Governor Romney stated he wouldn’t and attacked candidate Obama for even suggesting it. Now of course, after its done Governor (etch-a-sketch) Romney is claiming he would.
Now of course you are not able to prove he wouldn’t, but a reason person without Anti-Obama Derangement would see grounds for questioning Governor Romney Monday morning quarter backing.
[[[b) that he was an asshole for taking credit for an action that wouldn’t have been possible absent intelligence that he claimed in the past was immoral to even gather.]]]
And exactly what are you claiming here, that torture was used? If so they you are also saying Senator McCain lied on the Senate floor…
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/john-mccain-waterboarding-torture-did-not-help-hunt-for-osama-bin-laden/
[[[“It was not torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden,” McCain said in a stirring 22-minute speech from the Senate floor. ]]]
One would assume that Senator McCain would have access to the classified information needed to make that statement while I doubt you do…
As for using it in the campaign. Again as the first link showed, Candidate Obama promised to go into Pakistan to get Al Qaeda targets a promise Governor Romney attacked him on. As President he did. So its a campaign promise kept. So why shouldn’t he be allowed to use it to point to the difference between his policy and Governor Romney’s 2007 statements, statements he is not denying.
Or putting it another way President Obama did exactly as he said he would do as a candidate in 2007 while your statement implies that Governor Romney was lying about what he said he would do in 2007.
So if these three items are your points its time to admit you were wrong on them. But of course you won’t as you and your anti-Obama followers are too far gone in your derangement to accept any facts to the contrary, which is actually very sad.
ludicrous premise that his opponent wouldn’t have made the same decision
Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.
At this point everyone will say that they’d have made the same decision, but that’s just the magic of hindsight. The more interesting question is what people said for before the raid about the idea of targeting someone inside Pakistan without Pakistan’s permission, and at that point Obama was pretty much alone in considering it a good idea, much less an easy call.
By the same token, no one today will claim that they’d have ordered the Iranian hostage rescue attempt, were they in Carter’s shoes. The success of the Bin Laden raid was no more assured than that of the hostage rescue, and Obama knew that a failure might hurt his re-election chances as much as Desert One hurt Carter’s. He made a risky call. There’s no reason to believe that Romney — who had denounced the idea of conducting such an operation, and demonstrated a pronounced aversion to risk in his business and political careers — would have done the same.
Jim,
Your are right on target, and the lost of one of the helicopters in the raid shows how close it came to being a failure. President Obama deserves credit for both making the call and for not informing Pakistan so there would be no leaks. Pity folks like Rand feel they must look for ways to mock him as with this thread.
Tom, why don’t you just turn in whatever is left of your fake Republican card, and you and Jim just get a room?
Rand,
And exactly how many Republican presidential candidates have YOU voted for?
I don’t know the point of this question, but the answer is one.
Unlike you, I don’t pretend to be a Republican.
Rand,
[[[[[[Unlike you, I don’t pretend to be a Republican.]]]]
Sorry Rand, Americans are not like Europeans who put loyalty to their party above loyalty to their country which is why I will vote against Republicans whose views and policy are bad for America.
I also guess making such a commitment to the political process would be in conflict with your constant ducking of responsibility. Its far easier to complain on a blog then to make a commit to actually do something.
Pity folks like Rand feel they must look for ways to mock him as with this thread.
One rarely has to look hard. His eminent mockability is one of his few useful characteristics.
The way he’s doing it though makes it obvious is more worried about the possibility of ‘political mud’ splattering him than on doing the right thing.
Because the ‘gutsy’ part was -entirely- political. Not physical.
Nice to see the Obama supporters no longer think invading other countries or waging shadow drone wars, all without congressional approval, is no big deal and totally cool for Obama to do.
I’m glad we, yes I said we, got bin laden. Obama deserves credit for it and so does Bush who laid the groundwork. But this doesn’t put Obama above any criticism in how he is politicizing the event. Sure take credit but he should also thank Bush and not blame Bush as he did in his campaign speech from Kabul.
Killing bin laden should have been an event to bring americans closer to each other and Obama used it to spread blame and sow division.
It took Obama something like 8 months after the discovery of bin laden to take action against him. Let’s not pretend that a president from either party would not have found a way to take action either.
But it is also telling that many on Obama’s staff didn’t want to take any action and that many Democrats think Osama worked for the cia and that 9-11 was an inside job so that we could go to war in Iraq so that Bush could lie about wmd so that he could spend a trillion dollars so that Halliburton would put a couple million dollars in Cheney’s retirement account.
Wodun,
Americans have been “invading” other countries when necessary for national defense without Congressional authorization since the country was founded. Just look at how Jefferson implemented a regime change in Tripoli 🙂
So exactly what is different today except the technology being used?
TM, not sure what you said has to do with the supposedly anti-war views of Obama and his supporters. Glad to see you have been eating your trollios.
Rand certainly hit the mark.
I agree Wodun, it is good to see the left now support military action in the US interest. I’m not sure how much I like the idea of lacking Congressional approval, but for the Bin Laden strike, I’m good with it. I just didn’t think Progressives would be happy that the President can also order the assissination of US citizens abroad without Congressional approval or even oversight. But it is allowed now.
But Wodun, that last paragraph certainly is the truth, or should I say truther. If we go with what we been told, then Obama assissinated Osama to hide Bush’s inside take down of the WTC towers. Perhaps, that is the gutsy call that I’m missing. I mean, shouldn’t we be consistent to the narrative?
Leland,
[[[But Wodun, that last paragraph certainly is the truth, or should I say truther. If we go with what we been told, then Obama assissinated Osama to hide Bush’s inside take down of the WTC towers. Perhaps, that is the gutsy call that I’m missing. I mean, shouldn’t we be consistent to the narrative?]]]
It looks like you fellows are even worst off than I thought, buying into to those nutty 9/11 conspiracy theories. Next thing I know you will be claiming that President Roosevelt knew about the Admiral Yamamoto’s Pearl Harbor plans and killed him to cover it up…
[[[But Wodun, that last paragraph certainly is the truth, or should I say truther. If we go with what we been told, then Obama assissinated Osama to hide Bush’s inside take down of the WTC towers. Perhaps, that is the gutsy call that I’m missing. I mean, shouldn’t we be consistent to the narrative?]]]
Go visit your English department and ask for a refresher class.
Leland,
Maybe you should take your own advice.
I wouldn’t be interested in your college’s English department. They take subsidies from the federal government. 🙂
Leland,
I am sure you could order one of those ESL course from the Internet 🙂