View Full Version : Oil for Food
US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals'
Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms
Julian Borger and Jamie Wilson in Washington
Tuesday May 17, 2005
The Guardian
The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.
A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.
The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.
"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1485648,00.html
kenwoodallpromos
05-17-2005, 12:25 PM
Which administration?
From the article
"A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them."
The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.
"However, Saddam was allowed to choose which companies were given the highly lucrative oil contracts. Between September 2000 and September 2002 (when the practice was stopped) the regime demanded kickbacks of 10 to 30 US cents a barrel in return for oil allocations."
JustRalph
05-17-2005, 06:28 PM
I would say invading the country........was putting a stop to it.End of problem
It also stopped the billioins of dollars Putin, Chirrac, and other Euro-stooges were raking in fro tnier PARTNER, Sadamm Hussein.
Tom,
All nations involved in the oil for food program are dirty.
And Hypocrisy is the name of the game.
Steve Soto at The Left Coaster:
" We already know that Bush let Zarqawi get away several times in the year before the war, and now the man is killing our soldiers. We now find out that Bush allowed Hussein to enrich himself illegally at a time when Bush was planning to invade his country and commit our troops to toppling him. Worse yet, Bush had the US Navy provide escort to the ships of Odin Marine, who were shipping Saddam's crude from an unauthorized Iraqi port to Jordan, with Saddam getting kickbacks for these transactions as late as early 2003. Bush was helping Saddam line his pockets in the months leading up to the invasion, and some of that money probably helped finance what our soldiers are enduring now. What was the reason for allowing Saddam to profit from illicit oil deals circumventing the UN program? To allow Jordan and Turkey to get a source of oil that was hindered by the UN sanctions against Iraq,and to buy their support in other areas. Yet the US not only knew about it and condoned the enrichment of Saddam, but provided a navy escort for the oil shipments.
Bush and the GOP have the gall to call for Kofi Annan’s head over the administration of the Oil for Food program, and now it turns out that Bush let a member of the Axis of Evil profit from illegal transactions when just months later it was Saddam’s noncompliance with UN requirements that was cited by Bush as a reason for going to war? And we now find out that the Bush Treasury Department stonewalled the Volcker Commission's efforts to find out the US role in these illicit transactions, even after Colin Powell's State Department pressed Treasury.
BTW did you ever get the PM I sent you?
ElKabong
05-18-2005, 11:23 AM
So the Oil for Food Scandal will be summed up as so...
"Began under the Clinton adminstration. Ended under the Bush administration."
Thank George W someday. You'll feel better about yourself afterwards.
Secretariat
05-18-2005, 12:04 PM
It is amazing HCAP, that a few here on the board were scandalized by the UN problems with the oil for food program, but when it is tied into the Bush admin as your article illustrates, then they all of a sudden have no problem with such a scandal, and begin trying to go back to Clinton. It's not surprising, just hypocritical.
lsbets
05-18-2005, 12:25 PM
"just months later it was Saddam’s noncompliance with UN requirements that was cited by Bush as a reason for going to war"
Make up your mind guys - you said the only reason given for war was WMDs. You're slipping, I like your normal consistancy.
Equineer
05-18-2005, 03:08 PM
Most reports on the findings released by or leaked from official investigations (i.e., Senate and House committees, Duelfer report, Volcker inquiry) indicate widespread complicity that allowed Saddam to circumvent oil export restrictions. The most significant breach seems to have been massive and ongoing exports through Jordan, Turkey, and Syria that virtually everyone tolerated in order to avoid punitive economic impact on various foreign economies dependent on Iraqi oil. In particular, U.S. policy makers essentially sanctioned these unauthorized exports to Jordan and Turkey. The bulk of Saddam's illicit oil profiteering is alleged to have come from these exports.
At the same time, the U.N. Oil for Food program authorized 700 legitimate buyers as part of this humanitarian effort. Of course, Saddam corrupted this program by offering oil allocations to both authorized and unauthorized buyers that offered kickbacks and political support to forestall military action.
The investigations estimate that Saddam pocketed about $8-billion outside the Oil for Food from exports to Jordan, Turkey, and Syria that were tacitly sanctioned by the United States, Britain, Russia, and many other nations. Meanwhile, from the Oil for Food program, estimates of Saddam's illicit pilfering range from $228-million (Duelfer) to about twice that amount ($500-million).
There is a huge difference between $8-billion and $500-million, and no one claims that strangling the economies dependent on the unauthorized but tacitly sanctioned oil exports was a justification for invading Iraq. Indeed, the bulk of post-invasion Iraqi oil production is still piped to Jordan, Turkey, and Syria with typical Middle East questions being asked about murky dealings and accountability.
IMHO, using Saddam's $500-million in thievery from the Oil for Food program as a justification for the war is grasping at straws... a very poor investment decision by any stretch of the imagination considering the enormous costs and casualties.
Despite all denials and excuses, no WMDs, no ties to 9/11, and a bungled strategic plan will ultimately be what history remembers about Bush's war.
PaceAdvantage
05-19-2005, 03:29 AM
Thanks for stepping in and putting out the fire Equineer.....
Phew! That was a close one!
Your pleasant pal in non sequiturville,
==PA
Mr. Galloway Goes to Washington
"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims, did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to Al Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11, 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end but merely the end of the beginning.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong, and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
"If the world had listened to [UN Secretary General] Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to [French] President Chirac, who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the antiwar movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth," argued Galloway.
"Have a look at the fourteen months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first fourteen months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money but the money of the American taxpayer," Galloway said.
"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where. Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it. Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."
PaceAdvantage
05-20-2005, 02:32 AM
"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims, did not have weapons of mass destruction.
False. They certainly have had them in the past, and every reasonable person in the world believed they still had them. If it wasn't very reasonable to assume they had them, then why were there WEAPONS INSPECTORS still travelling Iraq inspecting? If they didn't have WMDs, why was there any need for inspectors up until the point of the invasion? What were they inspecting? Milk factories?
I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to Al Qaeda.
Absolutely false
I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11, 2001.
Certainly tough to prove one way or the other. I don't know how in the world you can come to such an absolute conclusion on something that is certainly in the realm of possibility.
Equineer
05-21-2005, 11:01 AM
The neo-cons must have been using a batch of authentic five-frog potions on the day they duped you. :)
Secretariat
05-22-2005, 01:17 PM
Hcap,
Excellent post on Galloway. I saw his testimony on CSPAN. He takes on anyone - Levin or Coleman regardless of party. The guys got balls and says it like it is. Very powerful man, and would not backdown to framed language. Democrats could learn a lot watching how he made Coleman look like a milquetoast idiot. Love to hear him with Rush.
In 2002 he had the courage to stand up to blair and bush. Called tony a liar and that both were behaving like "wolves" towards Iraq. For speaking the truth, he was basically thrown out of the labour party and smeared with allegations of corruption - at the same time as the US government was enriching Saddam Hussein's government with illegal kickbacks.
Galloway is back. Won a parliamentary seat previously controlled by the very party that evicted him. Won lawsuits for libel. Saw his testimony also as the ny post, a murdoch rag headline proclaimed...
"Brit fries senators in oil"
Reminder from the first article I posted
"In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story...1485648,00.html
A long read, but well worth it.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD505B.html
"Under the Oil-for-Food program, the Saddam regime was charging a hefty surcharge per barrel of oil—money that went directly into the bank accounts of Saddam and his closest officials. According to the Democratic minority report, while French company TotalFinaElf objected to paying the surcharge, American companies like ExxonMobil and Texaco began to acquire Iraqi oil through third parties that were paying the surcharge. These third parties included Bayoil.
In mid-February 2003, just weeks from the onset of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, oil tankers began loading Iraqi crude at the Iraqi port of Khor al-Amaya. The Bush administration-approved sanction-busting oil shipments involved a Jordanian company named Millenium, owned by the Shaheen Business Investment Group and a Connecticut-based shipbroker called Odin Marine, Inc. Oil tankers were permitted to off load their oil at the UAE port of Fujairah for reshipment on larger tankers without any interference from the U.S. Navy-led Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF), set up to enforce the sanctions. Giangrandi's company, Italtech, was involved in a number of the shipments as a U.N. contract holder (lifter).
When Iraq's Oil Minister expressed his suspicion that the oil shipments would never get by the U.S. Navy defenses, a mysterious high-ranking visitor told him the Iraqi oil was "for the sake of the people who work for the defense of the United States. It will pass through safely." When the unknown visitor later asked for additional oil shipments from Khor al-Amaya he assured the minister that "you will never hear about this in the press any more. The U.S. forces will make them be quiet."
"Minority report documents indicate that one of the largest recipients of Bayoil Iraqi oil shipments was Enron"
Secretariat
05-24-2005, 04:33 PM
Yet Hcap, this story and the UK intelligence memo are not even covered by the TV journalists. It is as if they never happened. I don't beleive i've ever seen this kind of TV media censorship in my lifetime. It used to be that reporters dug and dug to get at what lied beneath the surface. Now the TV media seems more like a watered down version of Sesame Street news. Are they that fearful anymore of government reprisal, OR is it that the reporters don't want to risk their personal financial situations, OR it is corproate pressure from above from the Murdochs and Disney's of the World? Honestly, after Bush's last press conference, and watching the new regular news (no matter what channel) it appears that "real" hard-hitting stories get no more TV coverage.
What is enron doing in the oil for food scandal?
And bush"s cousin?
We were led to believe Kofi Annan was THE bad guy. Turns out the bush administration is, from the looks of it, deeply involved and in dollars, dwarfs the what the neocons were crying about. Remember the UN and most of the world were against our foolishness. Not to mention the 8 BILLION missapropriated in Iraq.
I guess the bogus newsweek fiasco was just one of the latest smokescreens designed to take the focus off everything that is going wrong.
Whether you were for this misadventure or against, the aftermath of our invasion is not a pretty picture. No matter all the original crowing and "good" spinning from stories like Jessica Lynch, to Pat Tillman, eventually the fakeness shows it face. How long will it be before congress investigates without it's tail between it's legs? Time to clean house
PaceAdvantage
05-24-2005, 08:01 PM
I keep asking when the impeachment is going to initiated by our courageous minority Democrat brothers-in-arms, but all I get is silence. I guess Bush ain't that bad after all....
I guess Chenney scares the fight out of them! :D
kenwoodallpromos
05-24-2005, 10:38 PM
Neither side will wake up until a 3rd party wins ther presidency!
ElKabong
05-25-2005, 01:05 AM
I guess the bogus newsweek fiasco was just one of the latest smokescreens designed to take the focus off everything that is going wrong.
Which Newsweak fiasco are you talking about? The one where 15 or 16 individuals died from protests of the unfounded 'koran in the chitter' story, or the fiasco that Newsweak began with putting the image of the American flag in a trash can?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44397
Secretariat
05-25-2005, 01:53 AM
I keep asking when the impeachment is going to initiated by our courageous minority Democrat brothers-in-arms, but all I get is silence. I guess Bush ain't that bad after all....
I guess those Republicans who voted for embryonic stem cell research in the House today, which passed due to their vote, obviously feel maybe Mr. Bush is that bad, at least on this issue. Frankly, the man should be impeached. Anyone CEO who created deficits like him would be looking for a job at Wendys.
PaceAdvantage
05-25-2005, 03:45 AM
I guess those Republicans who voted for embryonic stem cell research in the House today, which passed due to their vote, obviously feel maybe Mr. Bush is that bad, at least on this issue. Frankly, the man should be impeached. Anyone CEO who created deficits like him would be looking for a job at Wendys.
I have no problem with Republicans voting for embryonic stem cell research.
And as for impeachment, where is it? Let's go already. BRING IT ON. Are the Dems too afraid to stand up for their true beliefs? Too chicken to reveal their true colors? Too busy reading their foreign edition of Newsweek with the American Flag in the trash can?
Which is it Sec? Why won't the Democrats tell the American people what a horrible President we have? Come on, the Repubs impeached Dem Clinton over a little BJ action in the oval office, and then lying about said action. Sounds to me like you think Bush is guility of much worse offenses.....
So.....where is the Democrat rallying cry for impeachment? Let's go already! Shit or get off the pot (didn't Nixon once say this??)!!!
ElKabong Which Newsweak fiasco are you talking about? The one where 15 or 16 individuals died from protests of the unfounded 'koran in the chitter' story, or the fiasco that Newsweak began with putting the image of the American flag in a trash can?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44397
http://www.wnd.com/images2/NewsweekFlagTrash.jpg
Well if newsweek did that say circa 1940, maybe it would have affected pearl harbor. The japs would have realized that the american press had betrayed and showcased a weakling US government, and invaded sooner!! Man, Roosevelt would have really been pissed
Now of course 65 years later the slimy japs only buy up US money and along with the pinko chinese and a dozen other evil powers, and destroy us by owning real estate and using walmart as the invading army. :jump: :jump: :jump: :jump: :jump:
So elkie your point was pertinent pre WWII.
Better late than never
Also I think you better get with program. Your leaders have changed talking points. My guess is the PR dept in the WH is thinking the original bull is kinda not working....
"McClellan Backs Away from Claims that 'Newsweek' Story Cost Afghan Lives
By E&P Staff
Published: May 24, 2005 1:10 PM ET
NEW YORK At a White House press briefing Monday, Press Secretary Scott McClellan, pressed by reporters and with Afghan President Karzai in disagreement, retreated on claims that Newsweek's retracted story on Koran abuse cost lives in Afghanistan.
He also claimed that he had never said it did, even though a check of transcripts disputes that. On May 16, for example, he said, "people have lost their lives." On May 17, he said, "People did lose their lives," and, "People lost their lives" due to the Newsweek report.
Another day in PEE-WEE's funhouse
Equineer
05-25-2005, 07:29 AM
Newsweek Japan Covers & Stories
The domestic U.S. market for magazines is driven by subscription sales.
In many other countries, like Japan, the market is driven by newsstand sales, and massive advertizing is used to preview cover photos and featured headlines before the magazines hit the newsstands... and before the contents have been editorially reviewed and approved.
Tabloid marketing tactics prevail wherever newsstand sales drive the market... the first order of business is to put the cover image and headlines to bed so that a provocative advertisement can be released.
The way this works in the Japanese market is explained in this article (http://www.japanmediareview.com/japan/research/1092348051_3.php), including remarks by Keigo Takeda, editor-in-chief of Newsweek Japan.
As it turns out, Newsweek Japan covers and feature stories are extremely tame by Japanese standards.
By American standards, wherever a newsstand magazine market prevails, tabloid sensationalism becomes the norm at the expense of objectivity. Like our worst supermarket rags, the cover images and headlines are always provocative and often misleading. And like our supermarket tabloids, extensive headlining often contextualizes stories in a sensational manner that may not be congruous with actual content. In Japan and elsewhere, it has been observed that large casual audiences are often exposed only to the multitude of advertisements and newsstand displays, resulting in a much more superficial interpretation of world affairs than that derived by serious readers who actually buy and read the publications.
Nevertheless, what Sean Hannity and many other commentators seem unwilling to comprehend is that the Bush administration has alienated worldwide public opinion on a scale unprecedented in American history. In this regard, Newsweek Japan is as much a Japanese magazine as domestic editions of Newsweek, Time, and U.S. News & World Report are American magazines, and what currently appears in the foreign press will frequently reflect an alienated perspective of America. To expect otherwise is naive.
Secretariat
05-25-2005, 07:57 AM
I have no problem with Republicans voting for embryonic stem cell research.
And as for impeachment, where is it? Let's go already. BRING IT ON. Are the Dems too afraid to stand up for their true beliefs? Too chicken to reveal their true colors? Too busy reading their foreign edition of Newsweek with the American Flag in the trash can?
Which is it Sec? Why won't the Democrats tell the American people what a horrible President we have? Come on, the Repubs impeached Dem Clinton over a little BJ action in the oval office, and then lying about said action. Sounds to me like you think Bush is guility of much worse offenses.....
So.....where is the Democrat rallying cry for impeachment? Let's go already! Shit or get off the pot (didn't Nixon once say this??)!!!
Hcap's and Eq's point elude you. Go to John Conyers website....The Dems are trying to reveal the truth about Bush, but the conservative media has refused to air the Oil for food Bush ties, has failed to air the UK intelligence memo, did not even announce the Sibel Edmonds incident with her attorneys prior to her appeal to the Supreme Court. Why is that do you think? Why do they ignore John Conyers continued pleas for information, but have no problem covering the Washington state election issues?
Some Dem's are trying to get the info out. Some, like "Sun" owner Murdoch, continually try to get the stories onto other things such as Saddam's underwear. I suppose it'll be Michael Jackson today, like anyone gives a crap.
Your taunting belies any understanding. I said he should be impeached for the fiscal deficts he's caused, and for the Iraq deception as revrealed in the UK documents. Will he? Well, we have a very right wing legislature currently, and you need more than a majority to impeach sucessfully. I am just hoping that the mid-term elections see some legislature changes, and perhaps then Mr. Frist will back to the minority. Mr. Bush is at an all-time low in hhis numbers. If Iraq continues to break out into civil war, that'll continie as it did for Johnson as in 68.
btw..I am glad you are for embryonic stem cell research. Hopefully, it will slow the exodus of scientists from the US, and lead to some "life-saving" cures.
PaceAdvantage
05-25-2005, 03:16 PM
Trying to reveal? How about holding a press conference on the steps of the Capitol. I betcha it will make the news....
You guys aren't trying hard enough. I guess it's not that important.
JustRalph
05-25-2005, 03:23 PM
Hcap's and Eq's point elude you. Go to John Conyers website....The Dems are trying to reveal the truth about Bush, but the conservative media has refused to air the Oil for food Bush ties, has failed to air the UK intelligence memo, did not even announce the Sibel Edmonds incident with her attorneys prior to her appeal to the Supreme Court. Why is that do you think? Why do they ignore John Conyers continued pleas for information, but have no problem covering the Washington state election issues?
I cannot believe you are using John Conyers as an example. This shows exactly where you live and breath. Conyers is an idiot who gets laughed at on a regular basis.
ElKabong
05-25-2005, 03:27 PM
ElKabong
[img]
Now of course 65 years later the slimy japs....
Nice wording there Little facepaint girl. I'll tell your mommy to wash your mouth out with soap next time I see her.
Funny stuff. My post was non political. It was about Newsweak...But you couldn't resist with your One Trick Pony show, and go on a rant about the White House.
You must bore the shit out of people at parties.
This is what I saidNow of course 65 years later the slimy japs only buy up US money and along with the pinko chinese and a dozen other evil powers, and destroy us by owning real estate and using walmart as the invading army.
So elkie your point was pertinent pre WWII.
Better late than never. :jump: :jump: :jump: :jump: :jump: You see the jumpers? Tongue in cheek
If I offended any japanese board members I apologize.
Slimy was also used in the context of 65 years ago, when the japs were the enemy du jour, French for current. The enemy is always slimy, gookie, jerries or other demeaning adjectives. Generally used to paint a people in a simplistic way. Tends to be practiced by gung ho types. Tends to evaporate when enemies become friends.
Of course the ironic thing is now the French are slimy.
And not even the enemy. Go figure. By the way, anyone know what
happened to freedom fries? Can you buy a big mac with a side order yet?
Anyway your point about Newsweek in Japan does not compute.
If it did, then Rupert Murdoch publisher of the new york post,would also be a bad guy. Sometime in 2002, the New York Post headlined "BUSH KNEW"....
05-17 WASHINGTON (AP)
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Friday he had called the editor of the New York Post to complain about a front-page tabloid headline that said "9/11 bombshell: BUSH KNEW."
The headline in Thursday's Post referred to revelations that President Bush had been told in August about a possible hijacking of American airplanes by terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden.
The headline said: "9/11 Bombshell: BUSH KNEW. Prez was warned of possible hijackings before terror attacks."
Sooo, here we have Murdoch trashing the prez. In the dumpster goes his rep.
Like the flag in the can. How is this any different?
Slimy is also another word to describe the New York Post, Faux news, and the brit newspaper the Sun-also published by Murdoch. Yellow journalism is best practised when your buddy buddy with the guys in power
On the other hand, maybe Murdoch got one thing right.
Speaking of freedom fries...
French Fries Protester Regrets War Jibe
by Jamie Wilson in Washington
It was a culinary rebuke that echoed around the world, heightening the sense of tension between Washington and Paris in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. But now the US politician who led the campaign to change the name of french fries to "freedom fries" has turned against the war.
Walter Jones, the Republican congressman for North Carolina who was also the brains behind french toast becoming freedom toast in Capitol Hill restaurants, told a local newspaper the US went to war "with no justification".
That's it. The final proof that "give peace a chance" and "kumbaya" will be playing again, regardless of the neo-cons bad mouthing both.
I still like Joan Baez and John Lennon. Shoot me
Wearing flowers in my hair tho, nada-missing half the recipe :rolleyes:
ElKabong
05-25-2005, 07:16 PM
This is what I said You see the jumpers? Tongue in cheek
If I offended any japanese board members I apologize.
.[/B]
"Slimy japs"....Yes, you offended. Apologize often, apologize more.
That emoticon is "jump for joy" not tongue in cheek. Do You always celebrate the racist terms you use?
Secretariat
05-25-2005, 07:25 PM
Speaking of freedom fries...
Walter Jones, the Republican congressman for North Carolina who was also the brains behind french toast becoming freedom toast in Capitol Hill restaurants, told a local newspaper the US went to war "with no justification".
Well, there is hope Hcap. When a conservative like Jones can say that, there is hope.
Kabong,
If you think I was serious about the japanese, you have no reading skills
You attempted to shift the conversation insinuating I am a bigot.
Typical wingnuttery.
And what about Murdoch and "Bush knew"??
Published in our own country. In the very city where 911 occured.
About our president's honor or lack thereof??
Now about your literal interpretation of "emoticons".
:kiss: my ass
If you are :confused: , well there is no need to be :blush: .
Now do us all a favor and get some :sleeping: before you make other :confused: remarks
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.