Dennis Kucinich was against the invasion of Afghanistan.

[Guaranteed]

Osama bin Laden, training his terrorist group Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in conjunction with the country's ruling Taliban government, attacked us on September 11th, 2001, and killed almost 3,000 American civilians.

Dennis Kucinich was against invading Afghanistan in order to destroy Al Qaeda's infrastructure there and capture Osama bin Laden in response to this devastating attack.

Just thought I'd remind people of that.

[htuttle]

1. And did we destroy Al Queda's infrastructure and capture bin Laden?

No.

[Guaranteed]

2. We certainly should have. nt

[htuttle]

7. The Taliban offered bin Laden up to us several times

...on the condition that we present our case against him before they would agree to extradite him -- a request that ANY country would be expected to make before they allow extradition of a resident to another country.

We wouldn't even discuss it. Apparently taking custody of bin Laden was not the primary aim of the Afghanistan operation. Taking custody of Afghanistan was.

[Guaranteed]

11. That doesn't matter.

Yeah, Bush is totally incompetent. But we had to respond to what happened and do what we could to keep Osama from doing it again.

[mzmolly]

3. He was also against "choice" and demonstrations involving the "Meri-kun"

flag.

And, he was for imprisoning minors with adult inmates in public jails.

"True progressive???" :eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

4. And yet Kucinich was still not the peace candidate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3598540&mesg_id=3598540

[Guaranteed]

6. Well, maybe he just wasn't the right one. nt

[VelmaD]

5. Actually wasn't Bin Laden working in Pakistan as well...

and I didn't see us invading them?

Maybe Dennis just realized that ANY war undertaken by the current administration was a BAD idea.

[Guaranteed]

8. I would support any administration in directly responding to an attack

like we saw on that day.

[VelmaD]

12. Yes but it was not the people...

of Afghanistan that attacked us. It wasn't even their government that did. I was as opposed to the Taliban as anyone YEARS before most people had even heard of them. But the fact is we bombed a country even further back into the stone age and it had ZERO affect on the people who we've been told conducted the 9-11 attack.

[Guaranteed]

17. Their government was working very closely with Al Qaeda.

Again, incompetence is not the point.

[VelmaD]

20. So are many influential members of the Saudi royalty...

and we didn't bomb them.

[Guaranteed]

23. I've said many times maybe we should have. nt

[VelmaD]

27. So your solution to violence...

would be more violence then? Sad. I'm going home from work now and I don't think I'll be back to this thread.

[Guaranteed]

32. No, it's not a "solution"- but if you think you're going to stop

someone who just brutally and deliberately killed 3,000 civilians by not killing them, you're kidding yourself.

Terrorism is problem with a broad variety of causes. But that doesn't mean you don't respond to protect yourself.

[atreides1]

50. True

But perhaps you can tell us why the US provided the Taliban with
$42 million, prior to 9/11.

Perhaps for services soon to be rendered?

[htuttle]

13. Any violent response?

Or just the correct violent response?

[Guaranteed]

15. I believe I said DIRECTLY responding to an attack like that. nt

[htuttle]

9. Bin Laden was working with the Pakistani ISI (secret service)

And no, we didn't invade Pakistan. We just sold them more F-16s.

[Guaranteed]

14. We were inside Pakistan, too, I believe.

In any case, we needed to do whatever it took to get him.

[VelmaD]

16. Whatever it took?

That is a dangerous attitude.

[Guaranteed]

19. Short of nukes, yes. nt

[VelmaD]

21. So carpet bombing cities...

killing civilians, torturing people...those would all be ok to get Bin Laden as long as we don't use nukes?

[redqueen]

25. *crickets*

[Guaranteed]

26. We should avoid doing those things, of course.

But we have to do what we have to do to protect ourselves.

What would you do to protect your children?

[VelmaD]

30. My children (if I had any)...

were in no danger from teh vast majority of people that have been killed in Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq.

To protect my children I wouldn't go start wars that only INCREASE terrorist activity.

[Guaranteed]

33. Now you're projecting the Iraq War to the Afghanistan War.

We were perfectly justified in invading Afghanistan, and just about everyone knew that.

[redqueen]

51. Not true.

We were not threatened by the country of Afghanistan.

So what's the justification, again?

[Guaranteed]

54. We weren't?

So who was this guy that was in Afghanistan, working with the Afghanistan government, who organized a terrorist group that killed 3,000 civilians on American soil?

[redqueen]

58. He was working with some in the government.

The government itself posed no threat to us.

Using your logic, we should've bombed Saudi Arabia, too.

[htuttle]

18. But we didn't

And the point is, maybe invading Afghanistan and empowering a bunch of warlords who, while not as ambitious as bin Laden, are no less bloodthirsty, maybe that wasn't the thing we needed to to do to get to bin Laden?

As it played out, the whole military response to bin Laden has done nothing more than play into his hands. He needed to prove we were as bad as he said we were, and sure enough, we have.

[Guaranteed]

22. We needed to destoy the whole organization he had started there.

We did the right thing.

[VelmaD]

24. You still don't get it...

we did not destroy Bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan. The Taliban is alive and well and still fighting. Al-Quaeda still goes back and forth between there and Pakistan. And last time I checked Osama was still free.

[Guaranteed]

35. Again, we SHOULD have.

The invasion was justified on the premise that we needed to knock out the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

If the Bush administration didn't do that, they need to answer to the American people.

[frylock]

34. we needed to destoy the whole organization he had started there

I think you meant to say that we needed to destoy the whole organization WE had started there.

[Guaranteed]

36. Yes, that too. nt

[htuttle]

37. We didn't destroy the whole organization he started there

They just packed up the entire al Queda 'infrastructure' into a couple of trucks, and left town. That is sort of the nature of non-state criminal organizations -- you have to sneak up on them.

There were more effective responses to the attack on 9/11. We could have taken the Taliban up on their offer and extradited bin Laden. Even if he'd been sent to a 'third party' like Saudi Arabia or one of the Gulf States (as some Taliban had suggested), we could have put him on trial while the United States still had a tremendous amount of goodwill worldwide.

We could have put sanctions on the Taliban for their human rights crimes, instead of inviting them to Texas to talk pipelines. We could have really put the hammer down on the dictator of Pakistan, refused to support them militarily, and boosted support to India. That would have weakened the ISI/Taliban faction in Pakistan, instead of strengthening them.

There were more effective responses to what was essentially a crime of mass murder than what we did. And this is more than hindsight -- some people were saying these things even back then.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. htuttle talks sense

:thumbsup:

[redqueen]

53. DING DING DING DING DING!

:applause:

[Marnieworld]

57. *beatnik snap!*

:headbang:

[Guaranteed]

59. No, you have to respond to an attack like that directly.

You don't screw around when someone just killed 3,000 civilians in your country. If they're running, you chase them down.

Would you have advocated a similar approach to Japan when they attacked us in 1941? Sanctions?

[htuttle]

73. Japan is and was a country -- bin Laden is not a country

Yes, you could say that the Taliban were giving him 'shelter', but they were also willing to give him up, provided a case was made.

If you are saying that the 'government' of Afghanistan KNEW that bin Laden was secretly organizing an attack against the WTC, and were thus actual collaborators, then that's more than even the Bush administration has alleged.

BTW, the Taliban wasn't even the official government of Afghanistan at the time -- they just held much of the country. The legal government of Afghanistan, as recognized by the UN, was still Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was on the side of the Northern Alliance.

[Guaranteed]

75. If you could provide a link that the Taliban offered to give up

Osama after the attacks, that would be great.

I'm sure that the Taliban knew that Osama had attacked us before and was engaging in terrorist activities. They probably knew about his plans, too.

The official nature of the government doesn't matter, either- the Taliban were in control.

[htuttle]

78. Here was their final offer

They'd given up the demand to see the evidence first by the time this offer was made. We still turned them down.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,575593,00.html
Wednesday October 17, 2001

New offer on Bin Laden

Minister makes secret trip to offer trial in third country

Rory McCarthy in Islamabad
Wednesday October 17, 2001
The Guardian

A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night.

For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.

But US officials appear to have dismissed the proposal and are instead hoping to engineer a split within the Taliban leadership.

The offer was brought by Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban foreign minister and a man who is often regarded as a more moderate figure in the regime.

(more at link)

[Guaranteed]

79. So they offered to hand him over- but not to us.

What about the rest of the organization?

[redqueen]

81. Amazing... you ask for a link to Osama, that's provided.

So now that that's provided, you turn around and ask for more.

Perhaps you should consider doing some research on your own.

[Guaranteed]

86. The point is that Al Qaeda is a large organization.

Just Osama wouldn't have been enough. The whole organization needed to get taken out.

[htuttle]

82. They would have handed him over to the Saudis

Are they 'allies' or not? I don't know, but I do know the *ruling* Saudi royals hate bin Laden as much as the US does. The royals fear him as much, anyway. He would have seen a trial of some sort, and probably would have been executed. By Saudi Arabia, instead of us.

Do you think that would have been good or bad? I'd think it would have been good, since then he'd be less of a martyr against the US, and wouldn't play into the whole 'holy war' jive Osama bin Laden was trying to get going. However, many blinded by their anger would have preferred the US execute him, and to hell with intelligent geopolitical tactics.

[Guaranteed]

87. What about the rest of the organization?

I agree that capturing and putting Osama on trial would have been the best thing.

[htuttle]

91. Nothing could, or can, get rid of them in one fell swoop

In any conflict like this, however, the WAY we do things is as important as WHAT we do.

Bringing Osama out in handcuffs to sit through an embarrassing nuremburg-like trial before he's executed, or giving him a glorious martyr's death fighting the evil empire? Which would be more effective in the so-called 'war on terror'? Not what FEELS the best, but what would be more effective?

on edit: bad grammar.

on edit2: I can't believe I speled grammar wrong.

[Guaranteed]

93. I'm not sure about what you're saying we SHOULD have done.

I'm saying we needed to invade to capture him and destroy the Al Qaeda organization there and the government supporting them.

If we had allowed another country to take custody of him, what then? And what about the rest of the organization?

[htuttle]

95. What are we doing about the rest of the organization now?

They were never ALL in Afghanistan. They were and are all over.

Right now, the FBI is as likely to go after al Queda overseas as is the Marines. Several Western European countries have busted several al Queda cells in recent years. A number of collaborators in the 9/11 attacks were arrested and charged in Germany (but the US wouldn't provide access to evidence and witnesses, so I think the case fell apart). What have we done here? Moussaoui? One guy and that junkie-turned jihadist 'shoe bomber'?

What it's going to take is dogged, tenacious intelligence work and police work. And probably lots of international cooperation, not confrontation. We have to figure out WHO they are, and then WHERE they are before we sent F-16's in -- otherwise they'll get away. I think that if we hadn't gone on this whole New Crusade™, countries in the region could be a lot more forward about helping us catch al Queda and take down bin Laden. Now they have to worry about angry mobs in the streets in their own countries.

However, there is NO political glamor in this until you catch someone, and there's not many good photo-ops that come out of this approach. Hence, we don't use it.

Regarding what if we'd had another country take custody of him? If it were Saudi Arabia, do you think they would have let him go? Do you think they'd want him kept in prison there? This, a country that cuts off people's heads in a stadium for committing adultery? He's called for the death of the royal family. They didn't like that. Not at all.

[wuushew]

97. Why is 9/11 different from Iran 1979 or 1980s Libya?

The former had the benefit of measured response and the appearance that the process of international law still existed.

9/11 only differed in its scale and the degree to which established institutions were compromised for political gain and the whim of public opinion.

You unfairly criticize Dennis Kucinich for his ability to transcend the fog that obscures foreign policy.

[dweller]

10. why, what a novel idea

pass it along above.

thanks
dp

[redqueen]

28. That's right. He was for using a more sane tactic - not bombing civilians.

Fancy that.

on edit: I do understand that bloodlust and revenge are strong motivators, that doesn't, however, make them the right response.

[Guaranteed]

39. Cuz that's what we did, right?

We just went in and bombed civilians.

We didn't go in with 15,000 troops and hike through the mountains looking for the guy that did this.

[redqueen]

42. A little from column A, a little from column B

Kucinich's plan would've most likely worked better, IMO.

[mzmolly]

55. *

:)

[redqueen]

61. Oh, we're editing now?

I can do that, as well.

[mzmolly]

67. Welp, I deleted it.

But, I couldn't resist. ;)

[liberalpragmatist]

29. Are you sure? I don't think that's true

I'm well to the right of Kucinich. I admire some of his stands and I'm glad he's in Congress, but I don't even fantasize about the impossible idea that he would be president - I think he'd be disastrous if he were.

But even so, I think this attack is inaccurate. Could you find a quote by him? I'm pretty sure that the only vote against the Afghanistan invasion was Rep. Barbara Lee of the SF Bay Area.

[Guaranteed]

41. It's pretty well known.

You can see it vaguely in his "Prayer for America."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.23C.Kucinich.Prayer.htm

Alternatively, just google Kucinich Afghanistan.

[htuttle]

66. Kucinich voted FOR H. J. Res. 64, which authorized the invasion

Barbara Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against it.

Kucinich has been very critical of the WAY that the President proceeded in Afghanistan, but he voted to give him that authority.

[redqueen]

68. ROFL! So this whole thread is based on COMPLETE BS!

Oh, the lengths some will go to in order to trash Kucinich!

:rofl:

[Desertrose]

70. Thank you...thought I remembered he voted for it....

Gee...great thread...all based on....uh what the hell is it based on? Someone's dislike of Kucinich maybe...
LOL

[redqueen]

71. deleted

[Guaranteed]

94. Yeah, but then he changed his mind:

http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich/archives/007435.php

[frylock]

31. dk knows that there were plans to attack afghanistan prior to 911

A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October..... Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

[Guaranteed]

43. So that means we shouldn't respond to what he did? nt

[Disturbed]

47. Slight correction.

3,000 American civilians. Many were not American. Yeah, that does not justify anything, just a correction.

The Bush Junta should have actually attacked al Q. and not outsourced that task. Taking over Afghanistan has been a long term goal of the Bush Junta. Al Q. gave them the excuse to do it. Oil and gas pipelines were the agenda. All this Bushit about "freedom and democracy" is for the Amerikan sheep consumption.

[bvar22]

38. I would have preferred a Clinton initial approach.

There were many options available to deal with the people who perpetrated the attacks on 911.
Neither the Taliban, nor the country of Afghanistan attacked us on 911.

A small group of criminals with a training base in the Tribal hinterlands of Afghanistan atttacked us, and we could have responded with limited applied force instead of a full scale invasion. The results of this approach will always be arguable, but the ability to escalate if the limited approach was unsuccessful would always be available. Many more Afghani innocents would be alive today if a more limited approach was used.

You purposely imply that Dennis Kucinich was somehow against "destroy(ing) Al Qaeda's infrastructure there and capture(ing) Osama bin Laden". That is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!

There were other options available including treating it as a criminal mattter. Bill Clinton was able to capture and prosecute all of the criminals involved in the first bombing of the WTC without a full scale invasion of the killing of innocent civilians.

[Guaranteed]

45. I said he was against invading in order to get the job done.

And he was.

[redqueen]

56. Because it was an ineffective method to get the job done. n/t

[Guaranteed]

69. No, it was the best method, executed by an incompetent administration. nt

[redqueen]

72. Agree to disagree.

Besides, he did vote for the authorization, so... your point again?

:shrug:

[The_Casual_Observer]

40. "there and capture Osama bin Laden"

Seems to me all we did was drive out a few religious nut cases out of Kabul and now "own" the place. Maybe there was a better way?

[Guaranteed]

46. Bush is incompetent. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have done

it.

[The_Casual_Observer]

52. Done what? Finish what job? What job did we finish?

All we did was hand the place over to the opium trade. For all we know the place is crawling with terrorists ready to do you in. Do you feel safer now because of the invasion and occupation of Kabul?

[redqueen]

63. It doesn't matter. Trashing Kucinich is all that matters.

I don't know why, but it's been popular for years.

:shrug:

[Guaranteed]

64. You're all arguing incompetence. That's totally irrelevant.

That doesn't change the fact that we NEEDED to destroy Al Qaeda and capture Osama bin Laden.

[htuttle]

77. I'm not disagreeing with those goals

I'm saying that the invasion of Afghanistan was both a strategic and tactical error. If anything, it was a trap set by bin Laden (though it didn't work out the way he wanted either -- see below*).

Do you think, only a few years after getting some cruise missiles lobbed at him, that bin Laden wouldn't have predicted that we'd attack Afghanistan again after 9/11? Think about what bin Laden would have EXPECTED us to do after the attack?

Don't underestimate him and think he hadn't considered what our likely response would be.

*I think bin Laden expected to be able to draw us into a worse quagmire in Afghanistan, much as the Russians were stuck in previously. He'd almost failed until he was given the gift of the Iraq invasion.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. I was against the invasion of Afghanistan, too

1. It took the Bushies no time at all to decide that they needed to invade Afghanistan. If they were so damned sure that Bin Laden was hiding there and had that big command center, why couldn't they find it?

2. The Afghan people were not the problem, yet they were the ones who suffered, while Bin Laden (if that's who it was who planned 9/11, and I have my doubts) got away.

3. While "liberating the Afghan people from the Taliban" was one of the stated purposes of the invasion, in fact, the U.S. government was fine with the Taliban until they refused to allow the oil pipeline across their territory.

4. The CIA actually supported the Taliban up till that point, according to the BBC, because they "stabilized" the country.

5. The invasion of Afghanistan was nothing but a dress rehearsal for Iraq. If the Bushies had really been interested in bringing democracy to Afghanistan, they would have taken the money they spent on Iraq and used it to rebuild the civilian infrastructure of that wretched country. They would have built roads, schools, and hospitals, sent legions of Peace Corps workers in, especially those in health care and education, and encouraged aid workers from the more secular and reasonable Islamic countries to come in as well. They would have provided micro credit for Afghanis who wanted to get out of opium farming. This would have impressed the non-fanatical Muslim world.

But no--the U.S. forces just kept a token force in Afghanistan, and outside of Kabul, the warlords still reign and life is still miserable for the average person, especially for the average woman.

P.S. Am I missing something? Did Bush declare this Official Dogpile on Dennis Day?

[Guaranteed]

49. That's all totally irrelevant as to the justification for invading

and the actual NEED to do it.

[bvar22]

62. The fact that the Country of Afghanistan didn't attack us....

....is irrelevant to the Invasion of Afghanistan????
:shrug:

[Guaranteed]

74. The government of Afghanistan was working closely with Al Qaeda.

Totally justified and warranted.

[redqueen]

76. And he voted for it, so, again - what IS your point? n/t

[bvar22]

92. And you have what evidence to support your claim.

Afghanistan was (and is)a factionalized Tribal land with nothing more than a token central government in Kabul.
No evidence of a direct relationship between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda has ever been given to the World. The fact that a fundamentalist Muslim sect (Taliban) was the default government in Kabul and the South really does not prove a link to or support for Al-Qaeda. It would be alot like saying that since the Branch Davidians had a compound in Texas, the US Government supported them.

George Bush* did promise to give PROOF to the World, but he NEVER did.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. There was no need to go in like gangbusters

I know 9/11 called up feelings of revenge. We actually had a long-time poster seriously calling for the nuking of every Arab country. Really.

It may have felt good to THINK that U.S. forces were making the rubble bounce in Tora Bora, but going after terrorist cells with regular military is like going after ants with an elephant gun.

Reread htuttle's post above instead of just running your tape loop. There WERE alternatives but a PNACer would never have even considered them.

[Desertrose]

60. what a bullshit attack on Kucinich....and your point is??

You try to make it sound as though Kucinich was not full of bloodlust to attack someone just to even the score ofr 300+dead here....oh wait, he wasn't.

It wasn't Afghanistan nor was it the Taliban who did the attack. As far as BinLaden...what proof do we really have it was even him?? Awfully convenient to belive that however...takes the heat off the Saudis or anyone else, doesn't it?

All we know for sure was that it was a bunch of crazies from somewhere who attacked the WTC.

Seems as though you are just trying to get the old anger & hatred stirred up all over again.

BTW- if you are keeping score, I am pretty sure we killed/maimed & wounded a lot more than 3000+ innocent Afhani citizens not to mention bombing them back to the stone age. Are we even yet??(Guess georgie didn't think so since suddenly it was Iraq & evil Saddam who we had to "get" next :eyes: )

Oh yeah, the Afghan invasion was perfectly justified. :sarcasm: ...like more violence EVER made things better. I am glad Kucinich is aware of this...and to be honest, I am not so sure DK DID vote against the invasion, but hey, don't let facts get in your way of the point you want to make.

[Disturbed]

85. The Bush Junta is good at...

fooling the sheep. Dress up colonization in "Freedom and Democracy" and they get whatever they want. Attacking sovereign nations based upon lies has been a trend for years. The Bush Junta has elevated this to an extreme. Seems that the majority of Dems in Congress go along with whatever the Bush Junta wants.

Is Amerika still a Representative Republic?

I will answer that. No it is not. It is an Oligarchy moving to a Corporatist Police State.

[WhoDoYouTrust]

98. Thank you! This thread is f***ing BS!

.

[digno dave]

80. Never understood the fascination here with Kucinich

Well, i guess i do, considering most of the posters on this site. Just dissapointing i guess. He is probably an adequate Representative but would not make a good prez.

on edit...i felt this way all along, despite the bogus claim of this initial post.

[H2O Man]

83. Good point.

The United States should have responded within 24 hours with bombing of the section of Afghanistan where Usama bin Laden was located.

[Guaranteed]

84. I've requested that the thread be locked, considering

that Kucinich did, actually, vote for the authorization for use of force against those who attacked us on Sept. 11th:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.64:

He never specifically expressed support for the full invasion of Afghanistan, though, and has said it was "counterproductive," according to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-September_11_anti-war_movement

Also "not justified"- he "misspoke" (apparently he thinks his vote was wrong, too):

http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich/archives/007435.php

According to this article, Kucinich also understood Dean's position about the Iraq occupation (dated 11/20/2003):

"Asked about former Vermont governor Howard Dean, whose opposition to the war in Iraq has helped to propel him to an apparent lead in the crowded Democratic field, Kucinich said his differences with Dean centered on the continued occupation of Iraq. He quoted Dean as saying recently that he would keep at least 75,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and added, 'If I'm successful in this, I won't keep a single troop in Iraq.'"

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wuushew]

88. Afghanistan was illegal under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter

all this breaking the rules bullshit is why the United States is hated in the first place.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security


You will deduce from a careful reading that none of these justifications were met in the determination of using force in Afghanistan. The so called threat was not imminent nor on going. We went in a month after 9/11 on a thinly veiled revenge/power grab that was not sanctioned in any way by the Security council.

[redqueen]

90. Right wing response? "Clinton started it!"

The precedent for non-UN-sanctioned, US-led invasions was already set, I'm afraid.

[Clarkie1]

96. I am certainly glad he wasn't President of the U.S. at the time.

I respect Dennis a lot on other issues.

[last1standing]

99. Locking at Original Poster's request.

n/t