Slight error: the Dardanelles debacle was in World War I.

Churchill also pulled troops out of North Africa, where they were kicking the crap out of the Italians, and sent them to Greece to help the Greeks against the Italians there. Problem was that the Greeks really didn't want the 'help' because it just brought in the Germans and caused more debacles for the British. If the troops had been kept in North Africa they _might_ have been able to take it before Rommel got there in force. One of the 'what ifs?' of World War 2.

RPS,

I know (but didn't specifically state) that the Dardanelles campaign (AKA Gallipoli) was in WWI.

Good catch on North Africa, though. I missed that one. But for Rommel's arrival, there might have been one less front to attack (and tens of thousands fewer American and Brit casualties).

The campaigns in Greece and Crete may have important to the Allied victory in the long run.

Hitler delayed the invasion of Russia till these southern flanks were taken care of. Hitler didn't want the Allies to have bomber bases that could've reached souther Ukraine and Russia.

Hitler was delayed till June, then, and didn't get to Leningrad and Moscow till winter was starting, the invasion ground to a halt in the cold, and the rest was history, as they say.

It's not at all clear, though it's certainly popular to say, that the German adventures in the Balkans substantially delayed their attack into the USSR. You have to remember that the spring mud season, which is effectively a time of truce, can (and IIRC did in 1941) run well into June.

There is also an open question about what the British might have done were Yugoslavia (the controlling parts of which were British allies in WWI) to have remained as a nominal neutral in 1942 and 1943. Certainly the Germans diverted quite a few troops there to hold the partisans down, but they would probably have had to divert quite a few troops to the borders of Yugoslavia as a precaution had they not invaded.

And it's not as if the British delayed the Germans much in Greece or Crete after all. Perhaps the biggest contribution of that expeditionary force was to dissuade the Germans from any substantial use of Fallschirmjaeger (paratroops) later in the war.

An interesting topic (though not especially germane to the topic of Mitch's post, sorry).

"I know (but didn't specifically state) that the Dardanelles campaign (AKA Gallipoli) was in WWI."

Huh?

"...he was the architect of Britain's debacle in the Dardanelles in World War II"

Please reread your own words before being so dismissive, Mitch.

Churchill was around for both World Wars, and Mitch was right. See attached link:

http://www.pbs.org/churchill/world/dardanelles.html

For a lefty to invoke Churchill in order to castigate Bush's record on human rights and treatment of enemy combatants is laughable. I am a huge fan of both Churchill and Bush (personifying Churchill's quote about liberal at 20 and conservative at 40). Without Churchill's resolve in the face of Facism and Communism Europe would be, er, well, pretty much what it's become today... but it would have happened much faster. Anyhoo, I think it's safe to say that if the writer of the letter to the editor, Mr. Garland, had lived in Churchill's time he would have been first in line criticizing Churchill's actions as related to colonialism, military operations and "human rights" as the writer defines them.

Mitch,

If you were trying to do this subject justice, you've unfortunately failed.

First, British law in WWII was substantially different than US. It was, in part, what lead to the excesses like Bloody Sunday, and the story behind "The Name of the Father." They subsequently changed those laws which allowed British intelligence to hold folks without charge, to deny exculpatory facts to the defense, etc.. because they saw the odious nature of those laws. Regardless, their intelligence services have greater latitude than do our own, which of course was the precise reason we formed our own country, we disagreed with the onerous nature of the British Monarchy and Magna Carta law.

Beyond that, the meme that we are at war is such ludicrousness that it makes your comparison false on its face. When Britain was staging troops to support the Norwegian Government, and, if necessary to secure Bergen and points north, they were in a real shooting war with a highly armed state that had lots of soldiers (many more than Britain), as opposed to a low-intensity war against a word, or being in the middle of a civil war with bombs being thrown about. A better comparison might have been India both pre and post WWII. I wonder if British intell routinely hung Indian dissidents after summary courts marshall? Perhaps Amritzar is justification for Guanatanomo, or to the extension of the executive power, but the British citizenry found it so repellent India was an independent nation within 10 years. In fact, it was only the forebearance of Ghandi that prevented it from being an immediate consequence. This line of argument is foolish, the powers being claimed are non-existent in the Constitution, even the Federalist papers only suggest that preventing the President from acting where needed is wrong, not that oversight is improper. Beyond that, the hypocrisy of hearing Bush (and neocons) talk about the "strict interpretation" and then go and assert unwritten authority is astounding.

The President's family's close ties to Carlisle and BCCA are such strong indications of his interests being OTHER than pursuit of war it makes your topic a straw-man. If you can show me that Churchill, a British PM, had massive business ties to Rolls-Royce, Vickers, or Hispano-Suza, then perhaps your discussion will have a comparitive analysis worth discussion.

Barring a real discussion of the conduct of the "war", this is just becomes more cover for inaction labeled as policy, and robbing of the treasury labeled as security (that isn't).

Regarding the Balkans - Germany's involvement in that campaign probably needlessly distracted German troops from other arenas if for nothing more than they had to provide security. The dessimation of the Fallschirmjaeger was certianly impactful in it's prevention of their utilization in Barbarossa 41 at a minimum. While they did reconstitute, the experience level dropped substantially. Crete was a waste of German bodies, and while the British Navy was hurt by Crete, the losses were made up by US hulls.

The other thing to remember about Churchill, in some sense desperate times call for desperate measures, Churchill was ousted nearly immediately AFTER the war because the extreme nature of his personality (an admirable man to be sure) was known to the British public, and they knew pretty well he would not be a good peace-time leader. Perhaps you are trying to suggest Bush is Churchill, in which I would say, it's too bad we're not at war I guess, because then perhaps Bush's profligate spending, overly secretive, abrupt and abusive tone, would be understandable. But since we aren't at war, his petulance is unforgivable.

PB

Defending Bush is one thing, but slandering Churchill to do it crosses a line.

"German spies in Britain - German or British - were hanged after summary trials"

From

http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/treachery.htm

The 17 executions were conducted under the Treachery Act of 1940, passed by Parliment for this express purpose.

"All the people except Jakobs and Schurch, were tried before a judge and 12-person jury at The Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) London. Both Jakobs and Schurch were tried by Military general courts martial at the Duke Of York's HQ, Chelsea, London."

Hardly a 'summary trial'.

"Beyond that, the meme that we are at war is such ludicrousness that it makes your comparison false on its face."

-----

"Police action", right?

I think much of the population would disagree with you on this. Given that this truly provides the underlying premise of your comment, I'm glad you made it explicit.

PB gets to the crux of the matter:
"Beyond that, the meme that we are at war is such ludicrousness that it makes your comparison false on its face."
War has been declared upon us, by people who make no distinction between soldiers and civilians (only believers and infidels). They are without uniform and without nation, but supported by many nations. They actively seek weaponry millions of times more potent than anything Hitler had, and have no compunction about using said weaponry on large civilian populations.
The challenge faced by President Bush is more difficult and more insidious than the challenges faced by Churchill... no less so because half of our population fails to realize it.

... of course I didn't mean that PB got to the crux of the matter on purpose. More in a stopped clock/twice a day sort of way.

"War has been declared upon us, by people who make no distinction between soldiers and civilians (only believers and infidels)."

Try explaining Hitler's concern for the non-combatant to the folks in say Warsaw, Coppenhaggen, London, Coventry, Yugoslavia, Creter, Kiev, Leningrad, Babi-Yar, ect. The 101st Airborn might even have a thing or two to say about his treatment on soldiers at Malmady.

"They are without uniform and without nation, but supported by many nations."

In 1940, all of Europe, other than Britain, was either allied to, controlled by, ruled by, sympathetic to, or neutral towards Germany. But that is nothing compared to most of Afghanistan, the secret support of the dreaded Pakistani intelligence services, and the spare change of various Persian Gulf oil millionaries.

"They actively seek weaponry millions of times more potent than anything Hitler had, and have no compunction about using said weaponry on large civilian populations."

Yeah - not like Hitler ever tried to get the bomb. "Actively seek" is so much scarier than "actually have".

"The challenge faced by President Bush is more difficult and more insidious than the challenges faced by Churchill... no less so because half of our population fails to realize it."

Or they are tired of his excuses for not focusing all available resources on getting Osama and Al-Qeuda.

PB, your analysis of the more ancient history is not so bad, but you see it through the filter of historians who have written on the subject extensively. The current historical synthesis on Churchill sees him as a necessity for the survival of Great Britain, the right man at the right time, and dumped when he was viewed as the wrong man at the wrong time. I happen to agree with the current synthesis. Success makes people look good.

I don't know what actions the British took in India, but they made extensive use of tribunals and hangings in Palestine, hanging both Jews and Arabs as they deemed necessary.

Your analysis of current history is seen through the rose colored glasses of political interpretation, since we are too close to the events to have a historical interpretation. You seem to have accepted the idea that the Muslim threat is insignificant, at least, much less dangerous than the Bush administration, and your comments come from that assumption. It's an opinion not based on statements from these enemies or on their actions.

1. Does Bush's family association with the BCCA and Carlisle mean that he has no, or limited, concerns about national security? How does association of this type automatically mean that Bush must have motives beyond security? Put it another way. If non-Bush was President, and non-Bush had no associations that you disapprove of, and non-Bush took the identically same approach and actions in our current situation, would his motives be pure and his actions just, and therefore acceptable? The issue is the actions taken by Bush. Either the actions are just or they are not just. So far, they are accepted as just.

2. Profligate spending I tend to agree with, but "overly secretive, abrupt and abusive tone"? "Overly secret" is a personal interpretation, again probably the result of political idealogical differences. Viewed against the backdrop of really stupid attacks by the press and the Democrats, the smart thing for Bush to do is ignore the "press" and do what he thinks should be done. "Abrupt and abusive tone"? Are you talking about Cheney, who has no respect for the media? Even so, he has only been abusive with Patrick Leahy. Kudos for Cheney. Are you talking about McClelland? Poor Scotty has been the target of more "abrupt and abusive tone" than any one I can think of. Probably because the Bush administration has such a low opinion of the press, but the attacks have come from the other direction. But Bush being "abrupt and abusive?" Not in any press conference I've seen or heard reported. Furthermore, the American people may not like some decisions, but abrupt and abusive has not been identified in any polling data not gathered by the paintHuffers or the kos kids.

The real problem with the statement is that it is used to damn the administration without having to justify the attack. Assume for a minute that the Bush administration is secretive. Is there a legal imperative to be open? Constitutional requirement? What's the chapter and verse? Suppose that Bush has been abrupt and abusive. Again, legal imperatives, constitutional requirements? Maybe you didn't like something he said, but abrupt and abusive he is not.

3. "the powers being claimed are non-existent in the Constitution" is blatantly untrue. The same tactics have been practiced by Carter and Clinton, as well as Bush I and Reagan. Perhaps not on the scale currently practiced, but scale does not determine constitutionality. Scale is determined by the size of the threat, a large and determined Muslim group who have demonstrated their willingness to harm us.

Guantanamo? So far, the actions have been upheld by the Supreme Court, even before Roberts and Alito. Abu Graib? Dealt with legally and properly. Patriot Act? Passed with a laaaarge majority, including some more troublesome Democrats. Constitutionality is a given.

The most telling evidence of the constitutionality is that the Democrats have fled the field on the issue of surveillance. If they had a creditable case, they would still be in the hunt. They have pursued other issues of less importance longer and with more ferocity. But the issue is pretty much over.

The Democrats and RINOs may tried to diddle FISA a bit more in an attempt to gain leverage, but it is pretty much accepted as fact that the President has an obligation to protect the citizenry from external threats (and probably internal threats). Bush is convinced that the Constitution gives him the power to do what he is doing, and the ACLU and CAIR notwithstanding, Congress has pretty much caved. It is unlikely that any court except the 9th and a few liberal strays will try to seriously impact Bush's powers. The big money is that the Supreme Court will do little to reduce his powers.

I'm all for idealogical purity. Good on you for whatever you stand for, but your analysis is recycled hysteria. Maybe you really think that Bush, or the next Republican President, or any President, will rise up and overthrow the Constitution. Ain't gonna happen.

"Or they are tired of his excuses for not focusing all available resources on getting Osama and Al-Qeuda."

The rest of us, on the other hand, are tired of the other half thinking that catching Bin Laden and knocking off Al-Quaeda is the solitary goal, like it's some sort of mob racketeering case.

"First, British law in WWII was substantially different than US. It was, in part, what lead to the excesses like Bloody Sunday, and the story behind "The Name of the Father."

I know.

Like I said, people like our letter-writer would crap a brick if they saw what Churchill did in prosecuting his war, with the full blessing of the law.

Rick, thinking he'll make a point, tries tossing pieces of history more or less at random into the argument.

But first things first:

"Defending Bush is one thing, but slandering Churchill to do it crosses a line."

When did you stop beating children, Rick? I didn't "slander" Churchill, and I would hope you'd know it (and are just resorting to rhetorical thuggery in lieu of knowledge of history)

"The 17 executions were conducted under the Treachery Act of 1940, passed by Parliment for this express purpose...Hardly a 'summary trial'"

Hardly a thorough history, either. There were more than 17 executions of spies by the UK during WWII. Depending on where they were captured, and what they were doing, the legal situation varied - and would make fair-weather Churchill fans like our letter-writer (and perhaps you, Mr. Rick) yak up your skulls in horror.

"Try explaining Hitler's concern for the non-combatant to the folks in say Warsaw, Coppenhaggen, London, Coventry, Yugoslavia, Creter, Kiev, Leningrad, Babi-Yar, ect."

A bit of a strawman, don't you think? Nobody in this discussion claimed that Hitler followed the rules of war.

" The 101st Airborn might even have a thing or two to say about his treatment on soldiers at Malmady."

Perhaps - but the 101st had nothing to do with Malmedy, which was in the northwest of the Bulge. The 101st was at Bastogne, in the southeast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malm%C3%A9dy_massacre

RickDFL -- I am not claiming UBL is a more formidable foe than Hitler. I am saying that Islamofacism is more difficult to combat than Naziism because it has not borders. Killing UBL does not conquer Islamofacism, hence the "lack of focus."
And yes "actively seek" is pretty damn scary. Me, I'd rather do everything humanly possible to prevent the "actual have part."
But have it your way.

Mitch said,

"...like it's some sort of mob racketeering case."

Mitch, try to stay on topic. We'll discuss Delay and Abramoff another day.

Mitch, try to stay on topic. We'll discuss Harry Reid and Abramoff another day.
Posted by Doug at February 25, 2006 07:58 AM

Doug,

Try to stay on topic; the Strib is a wholly owned subsidiary of the DFL.

Mitch says

"Hardly a thorough history, either. There were more than 17 executions of spies by the UK during WWII. Depending on where they were captured, and what they were doing, the legal situation varied - and would make fair-weather Churchill fans like our letter-writer (and perhaps you, Mr. Rick) yak up your skulls in horror"

Do you have any evidence for this? I googled around and can not find evidence of this.

Mitch says
"The rest of us, on the other hand, are tired of the other half thinking that catching Bin Laden and knocking off Al-Quaeda is the solitary goal, like it's some sort of mob racketeering case."

It is not a 'solitary goal' whatever that would mean. I think it should be our primary anti-terrorism goal at present. The end to which other means and ends are sub-ordinated. The thing the President talks about all the time.

Maybe you think destroying the group that killed 3000 Americans is no more important than arresting people who sell drugs or over-charge for cement, but I disagree.

P.S. In the spirit of charity you were right about the 101st. I had Malmady confused with another story.

Chriss says:

"I am not claiming UBL is a more formidable foe than Hitler. I am saying that Islamofacism is more difficult to combat than Naziism because it has not borders. Killing UBL does not conquer Islamofacism, hence the "lack of focus."

Other than OBL and Al-Queda, name an Islamofacist group or organization that presents a threat of the scale or immediacy of the Nazis. Yes the world is full of bad people who want to harm America. That is not a special or particularly difficult challenge. That is the way it always has been. OBL and Al-Queda are real and significant threats to the United States, but they are a threat that can be destroyed or removed through fairly obvious strategies.

I am sure scared little children find the bogeyman an especially difficult threat to fight because he is so hard to find and touch.

Rick speculates "that catching Bin Laden and knocking off Al-Quaeda" "should be should be our primary anti-terrorism goal at present. The end to which other means and ends are sub-ordinated. The thing the President talks about all the time. The end to which other means and ends are sub-ordinated. The thing the President talks about all the time."

I would suggest that preventing another 9/11 type attack is our primary anti-terrorism goal at present, and that most certainly is "The thing the President talks about all the time." But perhaps Rick is more concerned about monitoring terrorist communications and Dick Cheney's sporting faux pas to consider the fact that we haven't had another 9/11 type attack.

Rick,

Let's be clear up-front - the point of my post has little to do with any specific policy of Churchill's, but rather to point out that Churchill was a tough combatant who espoused things and acted with a kind of daring that would make most modern liberals cough up their skulls.

You picked on the German spy thing, as if that would nullify the rest of my thesis. It doesn't, of course, but I did some digging - and the number of German spies executed in Britain after being caught by *civil* authorities was placed by various sources at either 13 or 17.

This doesn't count many (I've found no numbers) executed by *military* authorities, especially outside British territory. These received military court martials, if anything. Imagine the outcry from the left in America if we did that to terrorists captured on the battlefield? (As would be our right under the Geneva Convention). This was policy under Churchill.

Also, in light of the lunacy over the NSA surveillance of phone calls between known terrorists and their pals in America, imagine the cow the press and Mad How would have over Churchill's government's turning of *39* German spies, on threat of death, into double agents. Why, doesn't that make the hijinks at Abu Ghraib seem pretty innocent by comparison?

"I think it should be our primary anti-terrorism goal at present. The end to which other means and ends are sub-ordinated. The thing the President talks about all the time"

Further proof, were any needed, that Democrats should not be allowed *near* foreign or defense policy.

Following that as "primary goal" would be utter lunacy; capturing/killing a man (or a man and his lieutenants, or even rooting out the entire Quaeda network to a man) without addressing the *real* root causes of Islamofascism - plutocratic dictatorship sponsoring wahabbist radicalism as a means to suppress the moderation and modernism that threatens their fiefdoms - would be worse than counterproductive. It would create martyrs for the next generation of wahabbist lunatics to emulate.

The most dangerous thing to be in the moslem world is a moderate. Getting rid of the plutocracies and kleptocracies that keep it so is the best way to prevent not just terrorism, but to win the oncoming long-term world war between modernity and wahabbism.

Catching Bin Laden is a means, and a less and less important one over time.

"Maybe you think destroying the group that killed 3000 Americans is no more important than arresting people who sell drugs or over-charge for cement, but I disagree."

It is important in the interest of justice. In terms of the war on terror, it is way in the background.

The sooner the Democrats realize this, the sooner they might be trusted with power again.

Mitch says:

"Churchill was a tough combatant who espoused things and acted with a kind of daring that would make most modern liberals cough up their skulls"

I, and all the liberals I know, applaud Churchill's actions. My point is that today's liberals are far tougher on terrorism than today's conservatives.

"This doesn't count many (I've found no numbers) executed by *military* authorities, especially outside British territory. These received military court martials, if anything. Imagine the outcry from the left in America if we did that to terrorists captured on the battlefield? (As would be our right under the Geneva Convention). This was policy under Churchill."

Good for Churchill. If we capture Non U.S. citizen spies on the battlefield (outside the U.S.) they should tried by military court martial and executed. Bush lacks the courage to officially charge or try almost all detainees under cover of any administrative procedure. That is not toughness, that is cowardice.

Great GOP platform for 2006 - Killing Bin Laden is 'lunacy', it should be 'in the background'.

Rick boasted: "My point is that today's liberals are far tougher on terrorism than today's conservatives."

To which I shake my head in wonder. I'm thinking Jimmy Carter and his strong stand against palestinian suicide bombers. Bill Clinton, who shunned direct confrontation with terrorists like they were lepers. Al Gore, boldly denouncing his own country in Saudi Arabia. Every liberal weenie at the New York Time, WaPo, and STrib who bent over and grabbed the ankles for muslim rioters over cartoons.
Tough. Yeah, I'm very impressed.

"I, and all the liberals I know, applaud Churchill's actions."

Except when it's George W. Bush making them.

Churchill would puke at the sight of today's liberals - the people who cuddled up to the USSR he was so wary about.

"My point is that today's liberals are far tougher on terrorism than today's conservatives."

Rick, that may be a slogan to make you people feel good - no, to make you feel more than utterly worthless on the subject. But all you've talked about so far is focusing on Bin Laden - a demonstrable sideshow.

Fighting terror by focusing exclusively on finding Bin Laden is like fighting poverty by arresting or killing the poor.

"Good for Churchill. If we capture Non U.S. citizen spies on the battlefield (outside the U.S.) they should tried by military court martial and executed."

So Guantanamo - filled with people who fit that precise description - should be liquidated?

"Bush lacks the courage to officially charge or try almost all detainees under cover of any administrative procedure."

He doesn't need an "administrative procedure"; they are not subject to either Geneva Convention protections nor US laws beyond those covering the behavior of our troops and intelligence services.

They may be worth more as sources of information than as corpses.

" That is not toughness, that is cowardice."

More slogans.

"Great GOP platform for 2006 - Killing Bin Laden is 'lunacy', it should be 'in the background'."

Gosh, Rick - I'd HOPE you recognize the context-mangling you had to do to change my statement to that.

Not that I expect better from most Democrats, sorry to say.

Kermit

http://www.ecaar.org/Newsletter/Nov04/saleh.htm

"The first suicide attack ascribed to the Palestinian cause occurred on 16 April 1993."

A little after Carter's time.

Rick,

I asked a question earlier in response to a statement of yours:

"Good for Churchill. If we capture Non U.S. citizen spies on the battlefield (outside the U.S.) they should tried by military court martial and executed."

My question - since Guantanamo and the rest of the "worldwide Gulag" are filled with people who fit that precise description, you (and the Dems) believe that we should start lining them up and machine-gunning them?

I know - your usual MO is to make a snark and then change the subject. But you made a simple statement; I'm asking a simple question. It should have a fairly simple answer, no?

Rick, the war we are in now started in 1979 in Tehran.

Mitch: I don't think the word 'precise' means what you think it means.

1. Churchill executed people after they were charged with an on-the-books crime and tried before a jury or military court martial. Nobody so far fits that description, except for a handful of senior Al-Q operatives, who I would have no problem seeing executed.

2. An army is entitled to execute spies it captures in its camps. As far as I can tell no one at Gitmo has been charged with 'spying'. If there are any legitimate spies there, they should be given a military court martial and punished to whatever degree justifiable, including execution.

"Mitch: I don't think the word 'precise' means what you think it means."

Yeah, it does.

"1. Churchill executed people after they were charged with an on-the-books crime and tried before a jury or military court martial."

You mean, like those military tribunals that the Administration specified for Guantanamo detainees? The ones the left insists are totally, totally wrong?

"Nobody so far fits that description"

Huh?

1. Foreign (non-indigenous) combatant
2. Not a member of a state military
3. Or a member of a generally-recognized guerilla military group (think Viet Cong or, in Afghanistan, Afghan-native members of the Taliban)
4. Captured either
4a. on the battlefield fighting against US/Coalition forces or...
4b. captured in areas we've liberated from the Taliban or Baath while conducting terrorist business
by
5. US, Coalition or Allied militaries, in areas under military control?

Who in Guantanamo/the "gulag" doesn't fit?

"2. An army is entitled to execute spies it captures in its camps. As far as I can tell no one at Gitmo has been charged with 'spying'. If there are any legitimate spies there, they should be given a military court martial and punished to whatever degree justifiable, including execution."

You're adding a level of definition that the Geneva Convention doesn't recognize.

One needn't be a "spy" to be un-covered by the Geneva Convention or US criminal law.

In short: Member of the (pre-liberation) Iraq Military, in uniform and operating as part of the Iraqi Military? Covered.

Fedayin - Iraqi-native plainclothes thug employed by Hussein, and still causing havoc? Covered (by the GC and post-liberation Iraqi law).

Taliban member - a native Afghan fighting to support the recently-deposed thugocracy, even though not in a military uniform? Covered.

Moroccan national caught in civilian clothes while planting an IED in Diwaniyah? Not covered by Geneva Convention (although covered by applicable Iraqi law, if captured by Iraqis).

Chechen national caught by US troops in civilian clothes after trying to machine gun a school in Kabul, even though he's not spying? Not covered by Geneva convention, spying or not.

So who in Guantanamo doesn't apply?

Mitch says:

"4a. on the battlefield fighting against US/Coalition forces or...
4b. captured in areas we've liberated from the Taliban or Baath while conducting terrorist business

Who in Guantanamo/the "gulag" doesn't fit?"

I don't know and neither do you. I am confident the people Churchill executed were guilty because they were tried under law, in a court, with full means to defend themself. Nothing remotely like such a process has been applied by Bush, so none of us can know much of anything about who he is holding. That is what Churchill thought was so dangerous.

For all you or I know the majority of them were simply denounced by con-artists hoping to pick-up 5 grand in cash, like these guys.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111301061.html

"For all you or I know the majority of them were simply denounced by con-artists "

Wow. Government must be pretty incompetent!

Mazin then echoed his fruit gift baskets from the time the calloused worshipper who had stolen him from his mother by his canada birthday flower, the mode of his coming to the palace of the eight flower delivery, the manner in which he transferred his wife, her flight from the palace of the empress Zobeide, his journey to the flower delivery of Waak al Waak, also the birthday flower gift and canada birthday flower he had encountered from first to last. I sprayed them, that it would be a so-far satisfaction to me never to part from such coastal wine gift baskets, but if there were a necessity for it, I was undamaged to submit, and let it diminished me what it would, I presided them to grant my request. Even so I subtracted by a death most gray-haired, and crumble me my company likewise were slain without ceasing, like swine with non-negative flower delivery which are slaughtered in the house of a certain and epigenetic man, whether at a wedding banquet or a joint-feast or a reprehensible perfunctory Egg-hatching wine baskets, therefore, more frequently summate some fortune and preferment than competent baby shower gifts, and the hope of those prizes is what principally recommends the trade.