Why al Qaeda endorses McCain

The endorsement of John McCain by an al Qaeda-affiliated Web site isnt a surprise to security specialists Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism director, and Joseph Nye, the former chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Both have suggested that Al Qaeda prefers Mr. McCain. Why? The same reason Osama bin Laden wanted Bush in '04:

"From their perspective, a continuation of Bush policies is best for recruiting," said Professor Nye, adding that Mr. McCain is far more likely to continue those policies.

Al Qaeda has simply outsmarted the feeble narrow minded alarmist and arrogant foreign policy of the Bush Administration. Al Qaeda welcomed the war in Iraq as a way to drain America's military resources and economy while building their real base in Afghanistan. Due to this Bush Administration blunder, they have been successful.

Bush obsesses about Islamic terrorism, understandably since he allowed the nation be attacked on 9/11 through gross negligence, he inclines toward military solutions and his antagonistic approach to other nations is an excellent recruiting tool for al Qaeda. In contrast, an African-American president with a Muslim grandfather and a penchant for building bridges rather than blowing them up would give Al Qaeda recruiters much less fertile ground.

McCain represents the cold war mentality, where the American ideological fear of communism led us to mistake every leftist for a Soviet pawn. This myopia helped lead to catastrophe in Vietnam. In the same way today, an exaggerated fear of Islamofascism leads us to overreact and damage our own interests. Perhaps the best example is one of the least-known failures in Bush administration foreign policy: Somalia.

NYT Nicholas Kristof explains:

Today, Somalia is the worlds greatest humanitarian disaster, worse even than Darfur or Congo. The crisis has complex roots, and Somali warlords bear primary blame. But Bush administration paranoia about Islamic radicals contributed to the disaster.

Somalia has been in chaos for many years, but in 2006 an umbrella movement called the Islamic Courts Union seemed close to uniting the country. The movement included both moderates and extremists, but it constituted the best hope for putting Somalia together again. Somalis were ecstatic at the prospect of having a functional government again.

Bush administration officials, however, were aghast at the rise of an Islamist movement that they feared would be uncooperative in the war on terror. So they gave Ethiopia, a longtime rival in the region, the green light to invade, and Somalias best hope for peace collapsed.

"A movement that looked as if it might end this long national nightmare was derailed, in part because of American and Ethiopian actions," said Ken Menkhaus, a Somalia expert at Davidson College. "As a result, Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism have surged, partly because Somalis blame Washington for the brutality of the Ethiopian occupiers."

"There's a level of anti-Americanism in Somalia today like nothing Ive seen over the last 20 years," Professor Menkhaus said. Somalis are furious with us for backing the Ethiopian intervention and occupation, provoking this huge humanitarian crisis.

Bottom line:

The only winner has been Islamic militancy. Thats probably the core reason why Al Qaeda militants prefer a McCain presidency: four more years of blindness to nuance in the Muslim world would be a tragedy for Americans and virtually everyone else, but a boon for radical groups trying to recruit suicide bombers.

Gen. Petraeus agrees with Obama - not McCain

Remember McCain demonizing Obama for wanting to talk with our enemies in the debate?

General Petreaus said at the Heritage Foundation yesterday:

"I do think you have to talk to enemies. ... I mean what we did do in Iraq ultimately was sit down with some of those that were shooting at us. What we tried to do was identify those who might be reconcilable."

Petraeus - McCain’s hero, agrees with Obama - not McCain.

McCain thinks the Iraq surge should be a model for the strategy in Afghanistan, according to McCain, “the same strategy that he [Obama] condemned in Iraq.” Wrong - according to both commanders - Petraeus and McKiernan.

Washington Independent: Petraeus Talk Bolsters Obama

Petraeus pointed to efforts by Hamid Karzai’s government to negotiate a deal with the Taliban that would potentially bring some Taliban members back to power, saying that if they are “willing to reconcile,” it would be “a positive step.”In saying that, Petraeus implicitly allied with U.S. Army Gen. David McKiernan, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Last week, McKiernan rejected the idea of replicating the blend of counterinsurgency strategy employed in Iraq. “The word that I don’t use in Afghanistan is the word ’surge,’” McKiernan said, opting against recruiting Pashtun tribal fighters to supplement Afghan security forces against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. “There are countless other differences between Iraq and Afghanistan,” he added.

McCain, however, has argued that the Afghanistan war is ripe for a direct replication of Petraeus’ Iraq strategy of population-centric counterinsurgency. “Sen. Obama calls for more troops,” McCain said in the Sept. 26 debate, “but what he doesn’t understand, it’s got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It’s going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.”

Jonah Goldberg and NRO fail to score hit on Obama over soldiers death

Jonah Goldberg delivers... Wingnutosphere swallows.



You would think right-wing bloggers would care enough about our military to not demagogue them, their families and their service. Such assholes... and I rarely use this word... still think they "own" the troops and their memories. They believe that those ultimate sacrifices are only "theirs" to be wielded for propaganda purposes when necessary. We can can see how much respect Jonah Goldberg has for the family, he never asked them. And you notice - it was McCain who brought it up - trying to score points on the death of a soldier. Obama just responded.

This is why the conservatives are losing. They don't want to know the truth, except when they can exploit a lie to hurt Obama.

AP: Soldier's mother 'ecstatic' about Obama's bracelet

MILWAUKEE (AP) -- The mother of a Wisconsin soldier who died in Iraq says she was "ecstatic" when Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama mentioned during Friday's debate the bracelet she gave him in honor of her son.

Tracy Jopek of Merrill told The Associated Press on Sunday she was honored that Obama remembered Sgt. Ryan David Jopek, who was killed in 2006 by a roadside bomb.

Jopek criticized Internet reports suggesting Obama, D-Ill., exploited her son for political purposes.

"I don't understand how people can take that and turn it into some garbage on the Internet," she said.

Jopek acknowledged e-mailing the Obama campaign in February asking that the presidential candidate not mention her son in speeches or debates. But she said Obama's mention on Friday was appropriate because he was responding after Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, said a soldier's mother gave him a bracelet.

Vote for McCain if you'd like to see terrorists flourish

Barack Obama has recognized all along that Afghanistan is central to the war on terror. John McSame, like Bush, seems unconcerned and is fixated on Iraq.

John McSame has consistently neglected Afghanistan while the Taliban have grown stronger. McSame has no policy plan for Afghanistan. He barely mentions Afghanistan in his National Security policy. "Look at his statements:

"...nobody in Afghanistan threatens the United States of America and nobody is running terrorist training camps to orchestrate attacks on the United States of America.” - John McCain [Fox News, “Hannity & Colmes,” 4/10/03]

“Afghanistan, we don’t read about anymore, because it’s succeeded. And by the way, there’s several reasons, including NATO participation and other reasons, why Afghanistan is doing as well as it is.” - John McCain [PBS, “The Charlie Rose Show,” 10/31/05]

Succeeded???? Doing as well as it is????

A Government report flatly states that an al Qaeda attack is now likely because the Bush Administration has not met US security goals to destroy the terrorist threat. A Pentagon report states the Taliban are flourishing in Afghanistan 7 years after 9/11. Coalition deaths reached an all-time high this year. Yet, believe it or not, there are actually people who are so delusional and in denial that they thank GW Bush for "winning two wars"!!

Hey guess what... John McSame is out of touch.

Not only is McSame out of touch with Iraq, he thinks the war on terror is Afghanistan has "succeeded"

US Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen has warned time was running out to defeat an intensifying insurgency in Afghanistan and said he was "not convinced we're winning" in Afghanistan.

Army Maj. Gen. Robert Cone told those gathered for a memorial ceremony at Camp Eggers that terrorists have struck in London, Russia and Indonesia since hitting the U.S., “These attacks are reminders that the threat of terrorism is real and still a danger to the entire world,” he said.

You want to trust the security of America to an out of touch old fart and a dumb young jesus chick who can't correctly pronounce the word "Iraq"?

Shawn's Olympic statement

In case you missed it, USA Gold Medal winning gymnast Shawn Johnson made a bold statement during her interview with Bob Costas. She also flashed a peace sign at the camera after one of her routines.

This says a lot to underscore the political strife in America...
"old, same, perpetual war" versus "new, young, hope, change, peace."

Which side are you on?

Too bad she isn't old enough to vote. 2012 .





The peace sign is back. America's youth is our future.

The Iraq war is making America less safe

Because of the Iraq war, there are not enough troops for Afghanistan or any other conflict that may arise that could threaten America.

While the Taliban and al Qaeda strengthen in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while the sabre rattling over Iran continues in Israel, the US military is stretched thin by defending America against .... Iraq?

America's top military man, Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was asked:

Question: "Admiral, can you talk about the number and type of troops, the extra troops that are expected to go to Afghanistan in 2009?"

Admiral Mullen: "I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach to send to Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq" (video)

What about Iran?

Admiral Mullen: "This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable. ... Opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us." (video)

So, considering the US is military is too stressed in Iraq to fight the growing al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan with more troops, how is the war in Iraq making us safer? What if another significant threat arises?

But, if you subscribe to the McCain plan, you'll want to stay in Iraq 100 years... or until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal—that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we’ll stay.

Great plan! Making America safer spending $330 million dollars a day fighting a war in a country that is no threat to America while the real threat of al Qaeda and the Taliban continues to grow. This is the insanity of GW Bush and John McSame.

Conservative talk radio host on Iraq: "We've let down 3000 individuals, 3000 innocent Americans ... we've squandered resources in Iraq."

"I have never voted for a Democrat for President. I could do it on the strength of this issue alone because of my disagreement with the Administration and my fear that John McCain represents more of the same."

-- Michael Smerconish sitting in for Bill O’Reilly to host the Radio Factor

Yesterday, conservative radio host Michael Smerconish sat in for Bill O’Reilly to host the Radio Factor and discussed the NYT story about how the Bush War on Terror has FAILED and al Qaeda has established a base of operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan. WATCH IT. As I had noted previously, this was also verified by a government report (pdf).

NYT:

Bin Laden Hunt at Dead End - "We're all hurting because of Iraq"

But it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world. ...

Just as it had on the day before 9/11, Al Qaeda now has a band of terrorist camps from which to plan and train for attacks against Western targets, including the United States.

When American military and intelligence officials requested additional Predator drones to survey the tribal areas, they were told no drones were available because they had been sent to Iraq.

“We had to put people out in the field who had less than ideal levels of experience,” one former senior C.I.A. official said. “But there wasn’t much to choose from.”

One reason for this, according to two former intelligence officials directly involved in the Qaeda hunt, was that by 2006 the Iraq war had drained away most of the C.I.A. officers with field experience in the Islamic world. “You had a very finite number” of experienced officers, said one former senior intelligence official. “Those people all went to Iraq. We were all hurting because of Iraq.”

“The United States faces a threat from Al Qaeda today that is comparable to what it faced on Sept. 11, 2001,” said Seth Jones, a Pentagon consultant and a terrorism expert at the RAND Corporation.

------------------------------

When looking at the progress of the War on Terror since 9/11 - what does this tell us about the rationality, awareness and intelligence of people who say, "Bush has won 2 wars"... and "the surge has worked" ... and "there's not a lot of anti-war sentiment out there"?? It is more than simple denial. It is a desperate authoritarian effort to save face and cling to the status quo.

McCain's "100 years in Iraq" problem

McCain sums up the confusion over his “100 years” remark by stating his case that he wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal—that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we’ll stay.

Got that?

Problem: McCain is a warrior that is dumb about war. No wonder he finished at the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy.

Like Bush, McCain thinks the solution is our presence in the Middle East. No, the problem is our presence in the Middle East. As long as we’re setting up shop in the heart of the Arab world, we’re not keeping America safer. Winning the War on Terror comes down to this: what will make us safer Arabs who are willing to die to kill Americans? There are a number of good answers to that question, but occupying their land for the next 100 years is not one of them.

Al Qaeda has us exactly where they want us, waging an expensive unilateral war, depleting our military in a war where there is no defense against suicide bombers, where our economy is being sucked dry slowly and surely while feeding the hate for America by our presence in Iraq - the best recruiting campaign that al Qaeda could hope for. That's what we can expect from John McCain.

Gen. Casey says the Army needs 3 or 4 years and substantial resources to recover from Iraq and that the “current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply."

America is less safe today because of the strain two wars, that aren't anywhere near conclusion, are straining the military to a point that the US could not handle an additional conflict if one where to arise according to Army Gen. Cody in Senate hearings three years ago.

We could be hiring 10,000 new border patrol guards for a year to protect this country from illegals with the amount that is spend in Iraq EVERY DAY. Think about that and what is best to defend America.

Bush war crimes confirmed

After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.

-- Maj. General Antonio Taguba

A new report released by Physicians for Human Rights: Broken Laws, Broken Lives, presents irrefutable medical evidence that confirms first-hand accounts of men who endured torture by US personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay. These men were never charged with any crime.

This year's Oscar winning documentary, Taxi to the Dark Side, also chronicles the Bush Administration's moral values on torture. The story is about the controversial death of an Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar. Dilawar was beaten to death by American soldiers while being held in detention at the Bagram Air Base.

Impeachment would not be a sufficient for such crimes. A war crimes tribunal is in order.

The authoritarian conservative war on America

They say, if you don't support Bush, you're a Democrat who is giving "aid to the enemy," "invested in defeat," and "not supporting our troops." It is a partisan attack, 'us and them', where all Democrats are the enemy and in support of 'surrender.'

Did it ever occur to these authoritarians that lifelong Republicans - like military generals who'd seen a lifetime of military service have called the Iraq venture "a night mare without end" (Gen. R. Sanchez), and "the war in Iraq has fueled recruitment of violent Islamic extremists" (Gen. John Batiste). They also said about Bush: "there has been a glaring, unfortunate, display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders" - Sanchez; and Bush has run a "failed strategy that is breaking our great Army" - Batiste.

Do these career Generals want to lose? Do they want to help the enemy? I can quote many more high ranking military that have spoken out. Included on this list are Generals Newbold, Eaton, Odom, Swannack, Zinni, Riggs, Clark and others. Many are life long Republicans. Below is a photo of General Charles Swannack, an Iraq vet and 30 year career soldier who spoke out against the incompetence of the Bush war plan. Does he look like a 'candy-ass liberal' invested in aiding the enemy?

And you Bush supporters have the balls to tell me I "don't support our troops"? If you support Bush, YOU certainly do not support the troops.

1. Bush sent in troops to Iraq with out adequate body armor or vehicle armor resulting in mass casualties including 320,000 brain injuries. A 2006 study showed that 80% of marines killed from upper body wounds would have survived, if they'd had adequate body armor.

2. Bush's "Stop-Loss policy" had prevented at least 50,000 troops from leaving the military when their service was scheduled to end - just since 2006.

3. Bush used National Guard troops for his surge that was overburdening units already stretched to their limits according to both Republican and Democratic governors.

4. Bush is sending troops in without adequate training. Two army brigades had to forgo their desert training to accommodate Bush's escalation schedule. Soldiers who were classified as medically unfit to fight are now being sent to war.

5. Bush has opposed pay raises for military, time and time again.

6. Bush proposed cutting funding for military housing and medical facilities. In the fiscal year 2004 budget the President Bush proposed spending nearly $1.5 billion less on these critical facilities than the previous year. (House Appropriation Committees)

7. Bush proposed rolling back increases for imminent-danger pay. Soldiers on the front lines recieve a small monthly payment as compensation for being placed in imminent danger. Bush proposed cutting this fee from $225 a month to $150 a month. (Army Times)

8. Bush eliminated aid to schools located on military bases. He sliced $125 million in federal subsidies for education children of troops. The cuts affected "about 900,000 children nationwide and 63 percent of children in military families." (Seattle Times)

9. Bush has said he would veto the Webb bill providing troops with increased education benefits. The first president in history to veto a benefits bill for those who served.

And you Bush supporters have the balls to tell me I'm "aiding the enemy"?

When a Government report flatly states that an al Qaeda attack is now likely because the Bush Administration has not met US security goals to destroy the terrorist threat and close the al Qaeda's safe haven. Further, the report states that the Bush Administration has no plans to eliminate this known terrorist threat.

87 months after Richard Clarke first insisted that the Bush Administration develop a strategy to combat Al Qaeda, 62 months after the Bush Administration announced its intention to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries, 45 months after the 9/11 Commission called for the Administration to develop a strategy to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries, 258 days after Congress required the Administration to submit a strategy to combat terrorist safe havens in Pakistan within 90 days, the GAO releases a report (pdf) finding:

No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the fight against terrorism has been developed, as stipulated by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (2003), called for by an independent commission (2004), and mandated by congressional legislation (2007).

Result: al Qaeda is stronger than ever

If you support Bush, you are either a misinformed idiot, you buy the unreasonable fear that is peddled to control you, or you are an authoritarian ass-kisser whose only interests are to yourself and your politics, not to the well being of America or our military - your only interests are to save face because you are not man enough to admit you made a mistake by supporting an incompetent president who has severely damaged America. And all they can talk about is Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, and the GOP swiftboat du jour... while trying to rationalize any & all failings of the Bush administration while they hide and tap dance - trying every way possible to avoid oversight, investigations, and accountability til time runs out in the term.

We must succeed in Iraq and with new and competent leadership, we can hopefully repair the damage of the Bush years, abandon the isolationist arrogant foreign policy and look to the world to build more partners in the war on terror. Gen Batiste has praised the recent gains in Iraq but notes: "Ultimately, however, these military gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy, political reconciliation, and economic recovery...tools yet sufficiently utilized." Without diplomacy, a willingness to reach out and a comprehensive world view, victory will be only temporary. This war should not have lasted this long and should not have been shouldered soley on the backs of our military. We have paid a terrible price due to the policies of GW Bush.

More incompetence - how Bush is spending our money and screwing the troops

KBR, the company that began under Dick Cheney's Halliburton, is the biggest contractor/war profiteer in Iraq. They have received $ billions in no bid contracts, thanks to Dick.

So how is KBR doing? Due to contaminated water being supplied to the troops by KBR, dozens of US soldiers experienced skin abscesses, cellulitis, skin infections, diarrhea and other illnesses after using discolored, smelly water for personal hygiene and laundry at five U.S. military sites in Iraq, according to the Defense Department's inspector general's report.

Even more disgusting, KBR has provided unsafe wiring in military barracks that has resulted in the electrocution deaths of 12 US soldiers. The case is under investigation and the House Oversight committee has requested documents from the Bush administration on the matter. I would not be surprised to see the Bush administration claim executive privilege and refuse to cooperate, protecting the contractor.

KBR has avoided paying up to a $ half billion in US taxes and Medicare by hiring workers through front companies in the Cayman Islands. In case you missed it, Halliburton moved it's headquarters to Dubai last year when they began to be investigated for contract fraud.

Today we hear the results of an investigation where a new company, AEY - run by a 22 yr old guy, was given a $300 million contract to supply ammunition to our troops. This is what the investigation found:

"the company has provided ammunition that is more than 40 years old and in decomposing packaging, according to an examination of the munitions by The New York Times and interviews with American and Afghan officials. Much of the ammunition comes from the aging stockpiles of the old Communist bloc, including stockpiles that the State Department and NATO have determined to be unreliable and obsolete, and have spent millions of dollars to have destroyed. In purchasing munitions, the contractor has also worked with middlemen and a shell company on a federal list of entities suspected of illegal arms trafficking."

This, in a time of a faltering economy is how the Bush Administration is spending our money and supporting the troops. And when they come home from Iraq without legs, they can go to Walter Reed. As if it wasn't bad enough sending them in without proper armor or an adequate plan. Not to mention how they're being stressed and abused with this back door draft - the stop loss program. Dick Cheney says he doesn't care what Americans think. Why should he? He's profited handsomely from the war he started.
------------------
crossposted at TNFree

The impossible situation in Afghanistan

An eye opening story from the front lines in Afghanistan in the Sunday Times Magazine from reporter Elizabeth Rubin who spent much of the fall in the Korengal Valley and elsewhere in Kunar province alongside soldiers who were making life-and-death decisions almost every day — decisions that led to the deaths of soldiers and of civilians.

The article speaks about how it has been impossible to wage war against the Taliban without killing civilians. Civilians play to both sides but now are mostly aiding the Taliban:

The insurgents regularly use civilians as shields, children as spotters and women as food suppliers. NATO killing civilians is great propaganda for the Taliban. At the same time, to Afghans with little technological sophistication, the scale and impersonality make the accidents seem intentional. Many are convinced the Americans are deliberately bombing them and even deliberately aiding a Taliban comeback.

The story also comments on US soldiers heavy use of psychiatric prescription medication like Prozac to deal with PTSD and extremely long tours of duty with very little time off, being pushed to their physical and psychological limits:

The soldiers were on a 15-month tour that included just 18 days off. Many of them were “stop-lossed,” meaning their contracts were extended because the army is stretched so thin. You are not allowed to refuse these extensions. ... Capt. Dan Kearney told his dad, “My boys are gonna go crazy out here.” The army sent a shrink...“I’ve got too many geeking out, wanting to go off the deep end and kill people,” he said. One of his lieutenants wanted to shoot every Afghan in the face. Kearney shook his head. He wished he could buy 20 goats and let the boys beat and burn them and let loose their rage. “I’m balancing plates on my goddamn nose is what I’m doing,” he said. “All it’s gonna take is for one of these guys to snap.”

Worst of all, with all the incredible amounts of money being spent, our soldiers still have to scrounge for supplies:

They felt eclipsed by Iraq. As Sgt. Erick Gallardo put it: “We don’t get supplies, assets. We scrounge for everything and live a lot more rugged. But we know the war is here. ”

If only we kept our eye on the ball - Afghanistan, instead of an incredibly draining venture into Iraq, we could have defeated the Taliban. Now, the Taliban is stronger than it has ever been and thanks to the incompetence of the Bush administration, our military is stretched to the breaking point.

Highlight of the GOP debate

The Democratic debate:
Electric atmosphere, contention, powerful dialog, good humor, tons of applause, laughter, and audience enthusiasm. CNN reports it’s the highest-rated primary debate in recorded history.

The Republican Debate:
Good tough questions by Russert, very little laughter or audience enthusiasm, almost no applause except for a big outburst after an anti-war comment by Ron Paul. ABC Live blog said McCain offered a “clunker of an answer” but credited him for offering Giuliani some ‘9/11 love’ that he craves. ABC live blog described the debate as a “snoozer” and “zzzzzzzz.”

Here was a rare moment of audience enthusiasm:

Protest banner of the day: "Same shit, different asshole"

This is in honor of Doc, who is fond of the term "Bu$hitler"

Here's a few links documenting Bush family history of war profiteering and the story of how our president's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power:

THE STORY of how Bush's grandfather built the family fortune by helping the Nazis.

The video documentary of the story.




Same shit, different asshole

Ron Paul reminds the neocons about this thing called 'The Constitution"

Ron Paul says:

"Why don't we just open up the constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war."

"The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous, there's no way, this is just war propaganda, continued war propaganda preparing this nation to go war and spread this war, not only in Iraq but into Iran, unconstitutionally. It is a road to disaster for us as a nation, it's a road to our financial disaster if we don't read the constitution."
- Ron Paul [10/09/07]