Political history being re wrote as we watch

[JRK]

Well it is JRK who keeps posting a series of half truths about the Iraq invasion and occupation designed to validate this strategic blunder.

Finding 500 war heads with banned material in them is I admit is a 1/2 truth. The rest of the truth is Saddam was not suppose to have had any in any condition
Ridding the world of Saddam was only 1/2 of the truth, it was also a under reported fact much of the fighting that was done in Iraq was with AL Qaeda
Blunder? Its over Boo, we won OK.

Well at least you admit the first two, now about that al Queda in Iraq business.....

But some students of the insurgency say Mr. McCain is making a dangerous generalization. “The U.S. has not been fighting Al Qaeda, it’s been fighting Iraqis,” said Juan Cole, a fierce critic of the war who is the author of “Sacred Space and Holy War: The Politics, Culture and History of Shi’ite Islam” and a professor of history at the University of Michigan. A member of Al Qaeda “is technically defined as someone who pledges fealty to Osama bin Laden and is given a terror operation to carry out. It’s kind of like the Mafia,” Mr. Cole said. “You make your bones, and you’re loyal to a capo. And I don’t know if anyone in Iraq quite fits that technical definition.”

McCain, Iraq War and the Threat of ‘Al Qaeda’ - New York Times

I am a fairly simple man
When it comes to Iraq, chasing the spam only confuses the issues we over came there
Its kind of like walking up o a total stranger and saying to him, "you know I could understand why you would want to beat your wife"
Once you make the accusation that has nothing to do with anything, those who hear it no matter how hard you try to undo it, it will all ways be there

That is the same thing you keep doing. You keep bringing items into this event that have no place in them
"what-ifs"
its like saying that Iraq's president is loyal to Iran because he had some discussions with them (I guess, not sure why anyone would keep saying that)
there is no proof one way or the other with that. But keeping making the what -ifs and bam, the truth has lost its place with many

 

[BlindBoo]

Finding 500 war heads with banned material in them is I admit is a 1/2 truth. The rest of the truth is Saddam was not suppose to have had any in any condition
Ridding the world of Saddam was only 1/2 of the truth, it was also a under reported fact much of the fighting that was done in Iraq was with AL Qaeda
Blunder? Its over Boo, we won OK.

Well at least you admit the first two, now about that al Queda in Iraq business.....

But some students of the insurgency say Mr. McCain is making a dangerous generalization. “The U.S. has not been fighting Al Qaeda, it’s been fighting Iraqis,” said Juan Cole, a fierce critic of the war who is the author of “Sacred Space and Holy War: The Politics, Culture and History of Shi’ite Islam” and a professor of history at the University of Michigan. A member of Al Qaeda “is technically defined as someone who pledges fealty to Osama bin Laden and is given a terror operation to carry out. It’s kind of like the Mafia,” Mr. Cole said. “You make your bones, and you’re loyal to a capo. And I don’t know if anyone in Iraq quite fits that technical definition.”

McCain, Iraq War and the Threat of ‘Al Qaeda’ - New York Times

I am a fairly simple man
When it comes to Iraq, chasing the spam only confuses the issues we over came there
Its kind of like walking up o a total stranger and saying to him, "you know I could understand why you would want to beat your wife"
Once you make the accusation that has nothing to do with anything, those who hear it no matter how hard you try to undo it, it will all ways be there

That is the same thing you keep doing. You keep bringing items into this event that have no place in them
"what-ifs"
its like saying that Iraq's president is loyal to Iran because he had some discussions with them (I guess, not sure why anyone would keep saying that)
there is no proof one way or the other with that. But keeping making the what -ifs and bam, the truth has lost its place with many

I'm fairly certain that only a simple man (or a partisan) would buy into your "The Iraq war justified on half truths" thesis.

 

[JRK]

Well at least you admit the first two, now about that al Queda in Iraq business.....

But some students of the insurgency say Mr. McCain is making a dangerous generalization. “The U.S. has not been fighting Al Qaeda, it’s been fighting Iraqis,” said Juan Cole, a fierce critic of the war who is the author of “Sacred Space and Holy War: The Politics, Culture and History of Shi’ite Islam” and a professor of history at the University of Michigan. A member of Al Qaeda “is technically defined as someone who pledges fealty to Osama bin Laden and is given a terror operation to carry out. It’s kind of like the Mafia,” Mr. Cole said. “You make your bones, and you’re loyal to a capo. And I don’t know if anyone in Iraq quite fits that technical definition.”

McCain, Iraq War and the Threat of ‘Al Qaeda’ - New York Times

I am a fairly simple man
When it comes to Iraq, chasing the spam only confuses the issues we over came there
Its kind of like walking up o a total stranger and saying to him, "you know I could understand why you would want to beat your wife"
Once you make the accusation that has nothing to do with anything, those who hear it no matter how hard you try to undo it, it will all ways be there

That is the same thing you keep doing. You keep bringing items into this event that have no place in them
"what-ifs"
its like saying that Iraq's president is loyal to Iran because he had some discussions with them (I guess, not sure why anyone would keep saying that)
there is no proof one way or the other with that. But keeping making the what -ifs and bam, the truth has lost its place with many

I'm fairly certain that only a simple man (or a partisan) would buy into your "The Iraq war justified on half truths" thesis.

Iraq was based on Saddam's lies, now Boo you can continue to make things into thing there not
Its not me its bringing harm to Boo
You sure have made this personal Boo, we find that intresting

 

[BlindBoo]

I am a fairly simple man
When it comes to Iraq, chasing the spam only confuses the issues we over came there
Its kind of like walking up o a total stranger and saying to him, "you know I could understand why you would want to beat your wife"
Once you make the accusation that has nothing to do with anything, those who hear it no matter how hard you try to undo it, it will all ways be there

That is the same thing you keep doing. You keep bringing items into this event that have no place in them
"what-ifs"
its like saying that Iraq's president is loyal to Iran because he had some discussions with them (I guess, not sure why anyone would keep saying that)
there is no proof one way or the other with that. But keeping making the what -ifs and bam, the truth has lost its place with many

I'm fairly certain that only a simple man (or a partisan) would buy into your "The Iraq war justified on half truths" thesis.

Iraq was based on Saddam's lies, now Boo you can continue to make things into thing there not
Its not me its bringing harm to Boo
You sure have made this personal Boo, we find that intresting

Funny thing is I don't recall President Bush stating that the reason he wanted to invade Iraq was because of Saddams' lies?

Nope, it (Iraq) was a dire threat because of their continue production and stockpiling of WMD, and the probability of them being part of the 9-11 attacks and the possiblity that they would give these WMD to al Queda to attack us. They hammered that message for more than a year before the invasion. Funny you now claim it was because of Saddam's lies in a threat about the re-write of history(not funny in a haha way but funny because "that's odd").

Oh btw who is we?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm fairly certain that only a simple man (or a partisan) would buy into your "The Iraq war justified on half truths" thesis.

Iraq was based on Saddam's lies, now Boo you can continue to make things into thing there not
Its not me its bringing harm to Boo
You sure have made this personal Boo, we find that intresting

Funny thing is I don't recall President Bush stating that the reason he wanted to invade Iraq was because of Saddams' lies?

Nope, it (Iraq) was a dire threat because of their continue production and stockpiling of WMD, and the probability of them being part of the 9-11 attacks and the possiblity that they would give these WMD to al Queda to attack us. They hammered that message for more than a year before the invasion. Funny you now claim it was because of Saddam's lies in a threat about the re-write of history(not funny in a haha way but funny because "that's odd").

Oh btw who is we?

You are not "we", JRK. You are you, an universe of one, who the rest of us find very risible. You lost this OP so long ago, so that now we play along to watch you continue to act so silly.

 

[JRK]

Iraq was based on Saddam's lies, now Boo you can continue to make things into thing there not
Its not me its bringing harm to Boo
You sure have made this personal Boo, we find that intresting

Funny thing is I don't recall President Bush stating that the reason he wanted to invade Iraq was because of Saddams' lies?

Nope, it (Iraq) was a dire threat because of their continue production and stockpiling of WMD, and the probability of them being part of the 9-11 attacks and the possiblity that they would give these WMD to al Queda to attack us. They hammered that message for more than a year before the invasion. Funny you now claim it was because of Saddam's lies in a threat about the re-write of history(not funny in a haha way but funny because "that's odd").

Oh btw who is we?

You are not "we", JRK. You are you, an universe of one, who the rest of us find very risible. You lost this OP so long ago, so that now we play along to watch you continue to act so silly.

Yes he did state we were invading Iraq on Saddam's lies
He never would come clean on weapons
He lied to the UN
Congress thru it resolution stated that to enforce the UNs resolutions, we could attack
You need to pay attention to the facts guys. The VERY REASON we invaded Iraq was no-one could trust Saddam any-more

 

[Mr. Shaman]

5% UE
deficits in the 100 billions with 2 war, 7 major hurricanes, 2 recessions and 9-11
won Iraq
removed Saddam

And the left wing media still are trying to claim GWB was one of the worst.

Yeah.....

....pretty-MUCH!!!!

​

 

[BlindBoo]

Funny thing is I don't recall President Bush stating that the reason he wanted to invade Iraq was because of Saddams' lies?

Nope, it (Iraq) was a dire threat because of their continue production and stockpiling of WMD, and the probability of them being part of the 9-11 attacks and the possiblity that they would give these WMD to al Queda to attack us. They hammered that message for more than a year before the invasion. Funny you now claim it was because of Saddam's lies in a threat about the re-write of history(not funny in a haha way but funny because "that's odd").

Oh btw who is we?

You are not "we", JRK. You are you, an universe of one, who the rest of us find very risible. You lost this OP so long ago, so that now we play along to watch you continue to act so silly.

Yes he did state we were invading Iraq on Saddam's lies
He never would come clean on weapons
He lied to the UN
Congress thru it resolution stated that to enforce the UNs resolutions, we could attack
You need to pay attention to the facts guys. The VERY REASON we invaded Iraq was no-one could trust Saddam any-more

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

The relevant SCR was 1441 and it was still being implemented. By voting for SCR 1441 and then renigging on our obligation to through, President Bushs' invasion was a war of aggression.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Funny thing is I don't recall President Bush stating that the reason he wanted to invade Iraq was because of Saddams' lies?

Nope, it (Iraq) was a dire threat because of their continue production and stockpiling of WMD, and the probability of them being part of the 9-11 attacks and the possiblity that they would give these WMD to al Queda to attack us. They hammered that message for more than a year before the invasion. Funny you now claim it was because of Saddam's lies in a threat about the re-write of history(not funny in a haha way but funny because "that's odd").

Oh btw who is we?

You are not "we", JRK. You are you, an universe of one, who the rest of us find very risible. You lost this OP so long ago, so that now we play along to watch you continue to act so silly.

Yes he did state we were invading Iraq on Saddam's lies
He never would come clean on weapons
He lied to the UN
Congress thru it resolution stated that to enforce the UNs resolutions, we could attack
You need to pay attention to the facts guys. The VERY REASON we invaded Iraq was no-one could trust Saddam any-more

JRK, look at me. In the eyes, kids. That's better. Listen.

GWB said we were invading becasue of WMDs, which we never found that would justify his statement.

Lying to the UN was not grounds for us invading.

Congress AoF will not protect senior bushies from international war crimes tribinuals. That is why they don't travel.

Your efforts remain risible.

 

[JRK]

I'm fairly certain that only a simple man (or a partisan) would buy into your "The Iraq war justified on half truths" thesis.

Iraq was based on Saddam's lies, now Boo you can continue to make things into thing there not
Its not me its bringing harm to Boo
You sure have made this personal Boo, we find that intresting

Funny thing is I don't recall President Bush stating that the reason he wanted to invade Iraq was because of Saddams' lies?

Nope, it (Iraq) was a dire threat because of their continue production and stockpiling of WMD, and the probability of them being part of the 9-11 attacks and the possiblity that they would give these WMD to al Queda to attack us. They hammered that message for more than a year before the invasion. Funny you now claim it was because of Saddam's lies in a threat about the re-write of history(not funny in a haha way but funny because "that's odd").

Oh btw who is we?

Proved my point better than I could ever. Saddam had 18 months to prove to (really 11 years) the UN/Congress/CIA/FBI/England/sate dept as well as the white house both before 01 and after we were wrong
Like I said, Saddam lied and it cost him. that's not re writing history BOO. It was his place in life to provide the proof required and as mandated by all resolutions, READ THEM

He had no records of destroying weapons as Blix pointed out on 1-27-2003. He had records he had them prior to 1-27-2003. It was his place to destroy them
Now no matter what position you take with these events, Saddam was lying and thats why we invaded
Also he had contact with Al-Qaeda and OBL which was confirmed in the 9-11 commission report prior to 03
We find out now that Al Qaeda was building up there forces in 2002 also

There is no need to re write history BOO. Those lies and deceit brought down Saddam and was the very reason we invaded. If he was not doing the things the UN and every-one else was saying he was doing, then what and why was he hiding so much?
Now be careful. if you say he was not hiding anything, then your saying he was lying just as much as if he was hiding stuff.
You see what i have been trying to tell you for 6 months now? you been bighting of a little bit at a time

It is all spam about GWB lied and people died, the only person who was resp for all of this in Iraq was Saddam and in Afghanistan was OBL

 

[BlindBoo]

Iraq was based on Saddam's lies, now Boo you can continue to make things into thing there not
Its not me its bringing harm to Boo
You sure have made this personal Boo, we find that intresting

Funny thing is I don't recall President Bush stating that the reason he wanted to invade Iraq was because of Saddams' lies?

Nope, it (Iraq) was a dire threat because of their continue production and stockpiling of WMD, and the probability of them being part of the 9-11 attacks and the possiblity that they would give these WMD to al Queda to attack us. They hammered that message for more than a year before the invasion. Funny you now claim it was because of Saddam's lies in a threat about the re-write of history(not funny in a haha way but funny because "that's odd").

Oh btw who is we?

Proved my point better than I could ever. Saddam had 18 months to prove to (really 11 years) the UN/Congress/CIA/FBI/England/sate dept as well as the white house both before 01 and after we were wrong
Like I said, Saddam lied and it cost him. that's not re writing history BOO. It was his place in life to provide the proof required and as mandated by all resolutions, READ THEM

He had no records of destroying weapons as Blix pointed out on 1-27-2003. He had records he had them prior to 1-27-2003. It was his place to destroy them
Now no matter what position you take with these events, Saddam was lying and thats why we invaded
Also he had contact with Al-Qaeda and OBL which was confirmed in the 9-11 commission report prior to 03
We find out now that Al Qaeda was building up there forces in 2002 also

There is no need to re write history BOO. Those lies and deceit brought down Saddam and was the very reason we invaded. If he was not doing the things the UN and every-one else was saying he was doing, then what and why was he hiding so much?
Now be careful. if you say he was not hiding anything, then your saying he was lying just as much as if he was hiding stuff.
You see what i have been trying to tell you for 6 months now? you been bighting of a little bit at a time

It is all spam about GWB lied and people died, the only person who was resp for all of this in Iraq was Saddam and in Afghanistan was OBL

the U.S. and Britain published documents and provided briefings detailing their conclusions concerning Iraq's WMD programs and its attempts to deceive other nations about those programs.

Lets see Saddam said he had no new WMD production facilities or massive stockpiles of weapons. The Iraqi admitted that there were some small discrepancies in thier 1200 page report detailing the destruction of their former arsenal of WMD. And guess what, they were not producing any new WMD, he wasn't lying. The Bush Administration claimed he was and said they knew where the weapons and production plants were. So guess who was really lying!

If there is no need to re-write it why did you? It's clear at this point they were going to invade no matter what.

As a result of the U.S. and British campaign, and after prolonged negotiations between the United States, Britain, France, Russia and other U.N. Security Council members, the United Nations declared that Iraq would have to accept even more intrusive inspections than under the previous inspection regime - to be carried out by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - or face "serious consequences." Iraq agreed to accept the U.N. decision and inspections resumed in late November 2002. On December 7, 2002, Iraq submitted its 12,000 page declaration, which claimed that it had no current WMD programs. Intelligence analysts from the United States and other nations immediately began to scrutinize the document, and senior U.S. officials quickly rejected the claims. (Note 2)

Over the next several months, inspections continued in Iraq, and the chief inspectors, Hans Blix (UNMOVIC) and Mohammed El Baradei (IAEA) provided periodic updates to the U.N. Security Council concerning the extent of Iraqi cooperation, what they had or had not discovered, and what they believed remained to be done. During that period the Bush administration, as well as the Tony Blair administration in the United Kingdom, charged that Iraq was not living up to the requirement that it fully disclose its WMD activities, and declared that if it continued along that path, "serious consequences" - that is, invasion - should follow.

The trigger for military action preferred by the British government, other allies, and at least some segments of the Bush administration, was a second U.N. resolution that would authorize an armed response. Other key U.N. Security Council members - including France, Germany, and Russia - argued that the inspections were working and that the inspectors should be allowed to continue. When it became apparent that the Council would not approve a second resolution, the United States and Britain terminated their attempts to obtain it. Instead, they, along with other allies, launched Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 19, 2003 - a military campaign that quickly brought about the end of Saddam Hussein's regime and ultimately resulted in his capture. (Note 3)

Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction

 

[JakeStarkey]

Iraq was based on Saddam's lies, now Boo you can continue to make things into thing there not
Its not me its bringing harm to Boo
You sure have made this personal Boo, we find that intresting

Funny thing is I don't recall President Bush stating that the reason he wanted to invade Iraq was because of Saddams' lies?

Nope, it (Iraq) was a dire threat because of their continue production and stockpiling of WMD, and the probability of them being part of the 9-11 attacks and the possiblity that they would give these WMD to al Queda to attack us. They hammered that message for more than a year before the invasion. Funny you now claim it was because of Saddam's lies in a threat about the re-write of history(not funny in a haha way but funny because "that's odd").

Oh btw who is we?

Proved my point better than I could ever. <SNIP>

No need to rewrite history, JRK, because you will never be permitted to succeed.

It is what it is.

 

[JRK]

There seems to be a new rash of false accusations that there are some who think with Saddam being a liar some how is a new spin on why we invaded Iraq

We invaded Iraq to enforce UN sanction, something the UN by there own admission was failing in doing. Now people can make up all the BS that want to, read what congress approved and get over it. Saddam made the records that stated all of those weapons existed, Saddam made no effort to change that fact nor any effort to provide proof he had destroyed those weapons as it was his place in life to do.

Saddam lied and his lies is exactly why we invade
how many weapons never existed
was buried in the desert, was really destroyed, were sent to other countries, were part of the 500 that was found, who knows? who will ever know?
Saddam was lying, I am not sure why anyone would think there was any other reason to invade

 

[BlindBoo]

There seems to be a new rash of false accusations that there are some who think with Saddam being a liar some how is a new spin on why we invaded Iraq

We invaded Iraq to enforce UN sanction, something the UN by there own admission was failing in doing. Now people can make up all the BS that want to, read what congress approved and get over it. Saddam made the records that stated all of those weapons existed, Saddam made no effort to change that fact nor any effort to provide proof he had destroyed those weapons as it was his place in life to do.

Saddam lied and his lies is exactly why we invade
how many weapons never existedwas buried in the desert, was really destroyed, were sent to other countries, were part of the 500 that was found, who knows? who will ever know?
Saddam was lying, I am not sure why anyone would think there was any other reason to invade

There was no UN Resolution that authorized any member state to remove the Iraqi government from power. There was not one coming from the UN either.

Iraq claimed it did not have any active WMD programs. They were not lying. Those who made the claim were wrong.

An infinite number of weapons never existed......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

5% UE

Thanks to Clinton.

deficits in the 100 billions with 2 war, 7 major hurricanes, 2 recessions and 9-11

Inherited a surplus which he and Congressional republicans squandered.

won Iraq

Illegally

removed Saddam

Needlessly

And the left wing media still are trying to claim GWB was one of the worst.

It’s not a ‘claim,’ it’s a fact, per the above.

What does this make BHO?

The ‘benefactor’ of GWB’s incompetence.

Seriously

Seriously

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Inherited a surplus which he and Congressional republicans squandered.

You really don't have a clue do you? Clinton had about as much "surplus" on the national deficit, as someone making the claim he paid off his house by putting it on his credit card. Try looking at the amount of National Debt that was aquired under Clinton and you will come to a different conclusion.

Date . . . . . . . . . Dollar Amount
09/30/1999 . . . . 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 . . . . 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 . . . . 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 . . . . 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 . . . . 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 . . . . 4,692,749,910,013.32

(where is this surplus?)

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.thm
Government Spending Chart in United States 1900-2016 - Federal State Local
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spendin_chart_1792_2016USp_12s1li0181283_739cs_H0f

And the left wing media still are trying to claim GWB was one of the worst

It&#8217;s not a &#8216;claim,&#8217; it's a fact, per above.

Considering we didn't see another attact on American soil by terrorists, after 911, until Fort Hood (under Obama), I think GWB did a great job. He did a better job at protecting this country than President Clinton, who saw terrorists bombings on:

Feb 1993 The World Trade Center (killing 6, wounding 1,042) - no response

Nov 1995 car bomb in Riyadh, Saudia Arabia - (5 US military killed) - no response

June 25, 1996 Fuel truck bomb explodes on an Air Force instillation in Dhahran, Saudia Arabia (19 US military killed in Khubar buildings, 240 Americans wounded) - no response

Aug 7 1998 US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya (12 Americans of 301 killed, with 7 Americans among 5077 wounded) - President Clinton launched a cruise missile destroying a pharmaceutical facility in Khartoum, Sudan (was that ever a HUGE threat)

Oct 2000 USS Cole bombed at the port of Aden, Yemen (killing 17 sailors, injuring 39) - no response

What does this make BHO?

The &#8216;benefactor&#8217; of GWB&#8217;s incompetence.

It's quite interesting to note how quick the left placed blame on President Bush for what happened on 9-11, only months into GWB first year as President. Yet Obama can't stop "whining" about blaming GWB for the CURRENT state of the economy he still "claims" to have inherited 3 YEARS later into his term. Can liberals be found really balling this much? Do they ever grow up? Care to have a tissue as you cry me a river?

 

[JRK]

The left use the yearly deficit with Clinton and then use the total debt with GWB
I like to see it when they get it back in there face, also congress makes the budget, all the president can do is ask. This why the 2009 budget GWB would not sign

 

[JakeStarkey]

We invaded Iraq to enforce UN sanction, something the UN by there own admission was failing in doing.

The UN did not give us legal authority to act in its name or on its behalf.

We invaded a sovereign country without authority, and our leaders then are war criminals now.

It is what it is.

 

[JRK]

We invaded Iraq to enforce UN sanction, something the UN by there own admission was failing in doing.

The UN did not give us legal authority to act in its name or on its behalf.

We invaded a sovereign country without authority, and our leaders then are war criminals now.

It is what it is.

Jake give it a rest. No-one cares what you have to say including me. Congress approved,if it was illegal they would have impeached GWB in the drop of a hate bud
GIVE IT A REST JAKE, CHILL OUT

 

[JakeStarkey]

We invaded Iraq to enforce UN sanction, something the UN by there own admission was failing in doing.

The UN did not give us legal authority to act in its name or on its behalf.

We invaded a sovereign country without authority, and our leaders then are war criminals now.

It is what it is.

Jake give it a rest. No-one cares what you have to say including me. Congress approved,if it was illegal they would have impeached GWB in the drop of a hate bud
GIVE IT A REST JAKE, CHILL OUT

JRK, son, come here . . . closer. Look at me. In the eyes.

You are not in charge here, along with being wrong as well.

Our leaders then are war criminals now. Nothing you say changes that.