Frank Gaffney: Regret and Delight at the Necessary Death of Americans. . .

-

coffins soldiers.jpg
There is a dark truth in the national security establishment. Generals, intelligence directors, national security advisors, and the President prepare themselves to make judgments that may cost American lives. Part of their world involves very tough choices and occasional tragedies.
But none of these would ever say that they were “delighted” sending Americans to their death, even if a greater good was accomplished and a major policy objective secured.
gaffney twn.jpgAnd yet that is exactly what Frank Gaffney said on MSNBC’s Hardball tonight. . .Unbelievable.
From a transcript posted at Crooks and Liars (the video is also available at this site):

MATTHEWS: You guys sold the war as a nuclear threat to the United States. You sold every trick you could to get us into this war. And now you’re backpedaling. And I do find it astounding….four thousand people are dead because of the way you feel and, Frank Gaffney, you’re wrong about this.
GAFFNEY: It is regrettable that they had to die, but I believe they did have to die. The danger was inaction could have resulted in the death of a great many more Americans than 4,000. And that’s the reason I’m still delighted that we did what we did.

Delighted. . .? Very bad framing. Very sad and tragic message from those who helped concoct the Iraq invasion.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

31 comments on “Frank Gaffney: Regret and Delight at the Necessary Death of Americans. . .

  1. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Its fairly telling that Rich’s post will not elicit a response from the two posters that he addressed. Its a shame our media is not so concise, accurate, and honest when it confronts the architects of this debacle in Iraq.
    The arguments, rationales, justifications and deceptions used to acquit the Bush Administration of high crimes and treason are unbelievably shallow, and cannot possibly be defended when faced with cold facts and the historical record. This simple truth makes the lack of indictments a sad commentary on just how far this nation has strayed from its self proffessed moral high standing, and its foundation in the rule of law. We are but an illusion of what we claim to be, and when the covers are stripped off, we find a corrupt and murderous empire, led by monsters, thieves, and tyrants. Without holding our leaders accountable, we will never be what we claim to be.

    Reply

  2. rich says:

    Patrick Schneider and notashallowreader,
    Did you actually watch the video clip?
    Granted, Gaffney stated that 4,000 American dead soldiers were “regrettable,” but maintains he’s “delighted” they made the decision to go to war. You gloss over Mr. Gaffney’s entirely cavalier attitude to the cost in blood of his patent, ongoing lies. Worse, to make a technical point about Mr. Clemons’ reading of Gaffney’s stance, you ignore the close connection between Gaffney’s irresponsible actions, the resulting dead American soldiers in a horrendous debacle, and the overt pleasure Gaffney takes in that chain of events.
    Gaffney’s not only delighted in the whole package, he’s more than insolent in presuming to sell the same post-hoc lies he used to sell this country–and our soldiers–down the river.
    You should both be ashamed to resort to a technical objection when the substantive violation is so plain and so offensive.
    Further, check the video: Mr. Gaffney’s performance is much, much worse than Steve indicates.
    Gaffney makes a series of assertions about WMDs and the ‘case’ for invading Iraq — each of which were disproven before or after the war. He claims the decision was made “on the basis of the same information everybody else had.” Problem is, “everyone” could pick up Newsweek and learn that our foremost nuclear weapons experts knew the aluminum tubes claim was a load of sh!t. Houghton Woods and Greg Thielmann stated they were not intended for and could not be used for enriching uranium. Various other pieces of ‘evidence’ cited to justify the war were proven to be forgeries or otherwise discredited–pre-invasion. Yet Gaffney lies, and you defend him on technical grounds.
    Gaffney’s post-hoc justification erodes to “the kind [bio] agent that was in those laboratories that was being prepared to be put into aerosol cans to kill people in America and in Europe.” This too is a flat-out lie–based on forged intel and paid-off con artists who were desperate for a fig leaf to cover the blood on their hands. Colin Powell’s “mobile bio-labs” were proven nothing of the sort. But, hey, nice Powerpoint.
    Gaffney’s own admission is most telling: when Matthews challenges him on his and Cheney’s claims there was a “mortal threat to America,” Gaffney is reduced to saying if some Americans die, “it’s a mortal threat to the people you’re killing.” He never meant Iraq was an existential or imminent threat the United States at all, you see. Right. Believe what I say now, not your lyin’ eyes & ears.
    Listen, when faced with this insidious sophistry, you are not in a position to indict Steve’s larger, accurate observation on a mere technical point — especially one without any foundation, I might add.
    Your hair-splitting is an evasive tactic, and it’s loser’s game: Gaffney used the passive voice “It is regrettable that Americans had to die.” He never said HE regrets it.
    Gaffney still maintains Americans “had to die,” will NOT say he regrets the deaths his lies have caused, and still maintains a cost/benefit calculus shows it was all worth it. That defies every fact we know. We lose every cost/benefit measure possible: we’re multi-trillions in the hole; our economy is fvcked; the Iraq Occupation is unwinnable; our military says Afghanistan is unwinnable if not already lost; we’ve created more enemies and terrorists and worldwide condemnation; and didn’t have a noble cause, didn’t care to liberate anybody, shattered a nation and our own principles in the process.
    And you two want us to lay off poor old Frank Gaffney because he chose his words poorly?
    Matthews: “Your facts were wrong and you don’t seem to care.” Gaffney knows what he’s doing with the English language. If he gave a rat’s ass about choosing his words carefully, he’d’ve told the truth, pre-war. He would’ve had the integrity to insist on a Congressional Declaration of War.
    Instead, he’s desperately propping up the same body of lies to pretend a cost/benefit supports his decision. Problem is, it was never his, nor Bush’s, decision to make. That decision belonged to Congress. That is the crime here. Lying about the evidence for war is treason enough, but usurping the Power mandated to Congress outweighs those lies, and far outweighs the errors of judgement about whether it was a bright idea or how to execute the brilliant plan. Notwithstanding popular belief, usurping Congressional prerogative is treason, an intrinsic, foundational violation.
    As for VX, Gaffney’s frantic justification is a joke. We didn’t find WMDs. We came up with nothing. Yet Frank Gaffney lies and lies and lies as though he’s not a national laughingstock. Rumsfeld knew he was shoveling sh!t.
    And they’re not alone: keep in mind that Brent Scowroft helped arm Saddam Hussein with illegal agricultural loans through the Banco Lavoro’s Atlanta branch, interceding to halt investigator and let the loans go through. Those loans were used to build Iraq’s conventional WMD capacity–illegally.
    No one can claim there’s no profit motive or that Brent Scowcroft doesn’t have a conflict of interest, given his employment with the Carlyle Group, Kissinger Associates and PennzOil over the years. Sorry ’bout that, Steve, but it’s part of the equation.
    I understand the set-em-up & knock-em-down strategy here — but it’s failed us again and again, benefiting parochial interests at a huge cost to the national interest. Now that cost is catastrophic, and the chickens are coming home to roost for deviating from our original governance structures defined by the supreme law of the land. Knowingly attempting to legislate the Congressional Power to Declare War out of existence is just a codified, paper treason: it doesn’t erase the clear intent and operational function of the supreme law of the land. That dissembling approach to the clear logic of the issue is what has got us into this mess — and hamstrung the national interest for the past six decades.

    Reply

  3. notashallowreader says:

    Patrick Schneider, thank you for your clear and accurate interpretation of Mr. Gaffney’s remarks. I do believe his word choice could have been better in this instance, but it is absurd and unproductive to draw attention to what is essentially a superficial reading of one or two sentences.

    Reply

  4. truthynesslover says:

    I used to think the neo cons were just sociopaths.Now i know their just old fashoned run of the mill sadists.

    Reply

  5. JP Carter says:

    Steve,
    This guy is not in the same solar system as you and me. I appreciate that he has his opinions, but come on! This D-bag says:
    My commentary is in ( )
    “It is regrettable that they” (not him or his relatives?) “had to die, but I believe they” (the people that should die instead of him/relatives?)” did have to die. The danger was inaction could have resulted in the death of a great many more Americans than 4,000.” (Nice number – not including all the other casualties/dead, etc..) “And that’s the reason I’m still delighted”(criminal in its eagerness!) “that we” (We? How about every other person that directly responsible for your foolishness and avarice? Are we party to your crime too?)”did what we did” (because I just convinced someone that I was right about this scam/farce/ponzi scheme! At least Madoof, didn’t kill people!)
    ENOUGH! THIS IS CRIMINAL!
    (Steve, this man is a traitor and should be treated as such. He has put the needs of his narrow ideology ahead of the well-being of our country.)
    I am usually all hugs and kisses, but this is bullshit!
    Sorry for the profanity…

    Reply

  6. Carroll says:

    Gaffney, Feith, Perle, Leeden, ‘so what Cheney’ and all the cabal.. think they can brazen it out by mouthing the same load of crap.
    (* Cheney has asked congress to give him SS protection after he leaves the WH..this isn’t normally given to VPs. Parniod much?)
    Pat Tyler has a book out, “A World of Trouble”…one passage in it describes George Tenent at Prince Bandar’s estate in the swimming pool where Tenent is slightly tipsy and telling Bandar how the jews are setting him up to take the fall for the phony intell on Iraq.
    When Tenent was asked to comment on the book’s revelations he said…”I don’t recall”.
    But he’s not suing Tyler for revealing the incident so someone had a bird’s eye view of that swimming pool party….and maybe even a tape. I wonder if Bandar is into taping his guest. Wouldn’t be surprised.
    Still nothing is done about these criminals. That is as big a crime as the war crimes.

    Reply

  7. Bob h says:

    The hundreds of thousands of excess Iraqi deaths are not mentioned, because to racist Necons they are not people.

    Reply

  8. TonyForesta says:

    We all need to revisit the PNAC document. Outside of the overtly fascists supremist blandishments, the mention of a PearlHarborlikeevent, should send chills down the spine of every American. Recall if you dare how the fascists in the bushgov ghoulishly exploited the dead and the horrors of 9/11 to terrorize America, ruthlessly brute, and implement the PNAC pipedreams and all the illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional policies including the crime scene in Iraq to achieve their preconcieved fascist objectives.
    They (the Vulcans, neocons, fascists including Gaffney) are delighted by all the blood and treasure wasted in Iraq. They relish in the warmongering of chickenhawk academics who gleefully send our daughters and sons to fight wars for thier singular wanton profiteering.
    It is a grotesque perversion of facts to mangle language in anyway to defend support, or appologize for the most ruthless lurch for wealth and power by cronies cabals, and coteries of oligarchs in the history of America who have wantonly profited from the crime scene in Iraq.

    Reply

  9. C.S. says:

    Patrick Schneider: He didn’t say he was ‘”delighted” sending Americans to their death’ – he is delighted about ‘what [they] did’,
    No. This is flat, flat wrong. You’ve bracketed the most important word and inserted the word you wish he said — not the one he actually said. He said, quite clearly, “I’m still delighted that we did what we did.” And since the question was directed at his actions in his position at DoD, it is quite clear that by “we” he meant those who, in Matthew’s words “sold the war as a nuclear threat to the United States” and “sold every trick you could to get us into this war.”
    That you would employ such transparent means to defend this guy is reprehensible, and not a little bit sickening.

    Reply

  10. SansS says:

    Quick questions:
    If Gaffney is like many of the other PNAC signatories, found to be a Likud supporter, would there be an argument to be made that he is a foreign agent?
    And if he is not registerd as one, should he be investigated for treason?
    Then shouldn’t all PNAC signatories be under the looking glass for their seemingly poor judgement?

    Reply

  11. Linda says:

    Pacos,
    It may take 20 years or more years, but originally the Nixon Library told history from his point of view, but for a few years now at least, it’s had a new executive director and been taken over by the National Archives–and now portrays history and Watergate more accurately.

    Reply

  12. Pacos_gal says:

    More and more often I find myself in agreement with what POA is saying. I do not think that history will look well upon any within the Bush administration who set us on this course of action, while using tragedy of 9/11 as a reason.
    I don’t think we can reach a conclusion yet upon what the Obama administration will be like. Only time will tell, as it told with Bush, as it always tells, only after the fact.
    I do think that what is of the utmost concern has to be where we go from here in a forward direction. I personally see nothing of value in giving the perpetrators from within the Bush administration a platform to continue to try and excuse their actions, and rewrite history. They can use the Bush Library for that, as they are in fact doing.

    Reply

  13. JohnH says:

    “I believe history will eventually understand the importance of the mission.” But George Bush will not be the one to reveal why the mission was important. And neither will anyone else of prominence.
    This fact, more than anything else, attests to the mob mentality of Congress, the foreign policy and national security establishment, their pundits, hired pens and think tanks. They are bound together by a code of silence, refusing to state why America is doing what it is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Yes, some perform their ritual protests or objections to current policy, whatever it is, but few are willing to openly defy or even define it.
    Gaffney may be “delighted that we did what we did.” As for the rest of the mob, they are more than happy to be complicit in continuing the mission and covering up any plausible reasons for doing it. “Good Germans” all.

    Reply

  14. Don Bacon says:

    “I believe history will eventually understand the importance of the mission and the fact that their loved one sacrificed for peace.” — George Bush, Dec 11, 2008
    Gaffney is a part of the historical revision effort for people to “eventually understand” the current US military exploits.
    Human sacrifice has been a political tool for autocrats going back to at least the Aztec culture. The US KIA were part of this, and it goes unsaid that Iraqis and Afghans too had to sacrifice their lives for “peace.” Human sacrifice somehow, to these people, sanctifies the effort. How little we’ve advanced as humans!
    The Pentagon now refers to US KIA as “Fallen Warriors” which calls into play socio-psychological factors which have also been exploited by past militaristic nation-states. “Sacrificial lambs” and “cannon fodder” would perhaps be inappropriate.

    Reply

  15. Paul Norheim says:

    Ignoring lost lives abroad is a reflection of seeing everything that
    does not concern national interest as irrelevant.
    This is actually very simple: If the US government and fourth
    estate is serious about human rights, about certain universal
    values, then they`ll have to count the casualties of other nations
    meticulously, in every conflict where the superpower is involved.
    Until then, raising the issue of human rights will be interpreted as
    propaganda on behalf of national interest.
    At the moment, the prospects are bleak, as the men in charge
    tend to ignore even the core values and lives of their own nation.

    Reply

  16. Bil says:

    Gaffney was one of the original signers of the, gag me, statement
    of Principles for the Project for the New American Century.
    Lots of SissyHawk armchair killers on this list.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Centu
    ry

    Reply

  17. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “What is it about us that we effortlessly ignore the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives that were lost? Is there a moral bankruptcy at the core of our nation that we only value ourselves and no one else?”
    Your’s is a point that needs to be driven home. I note that all media outlets continually refer to the Iraqi casualties as numbering in nthe “tens of thousands”, despite the FACT that it is KNOWN that the figures are in the hundreds of thousands, and that there is highly credible evidence that it is well over a million. And that number will grow exponentially as the presence of DU dust works its insidious effects on future generations of Iraqi innocents.

    Reply

  18. alan says:

    After watching Gaffney’s cool acknowledgement that lives were lost – but for a greater purpose – it really got me thinking. He made no mention of the tragic losses suffered by innocent Iraqis: civilians, refugees. What is it about us that we effortlessly ignore the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives that were lost? Is there a moral bankruptcy at the core of our nation that we only value ourselves and no one else?

    Reply

  19. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Watching the entire segment, Gaffney’s “delighted” statement is actually just one despicable small aspect of his whole rap. His entire argument was based on bullshit, known lies, purposeful deception, and self excusals. I found myself loathing him more and more as each syllable left his lips. This man has no redeemable qualities, and is a cancer on mankind. It is truly terrifying when one considers that a man such as this found the ear of our nation’s highest leaders, and has a legion of compatriots that share his tumorous ideologies. It is people like Gaffney that lubricate policies that march Jews into ovens, or Muslims into torture camps. Time will place these modern day Imins like Gaffney into the chapters devoted to history’s monsters.
    When considering the Bush Administration, its advisors, the think tanks that fed their depraved policy decisions, the media that marketed their evil, and the mewling, cowardly, abetting, and complicit leadership on the left side of the aisle, one can only draw the conclusion that we have had a “perfect storm” of bad events and worse people, all coming together to bring this nation to the edge of an abyss. And it looks like Obama is reaching into the same stagnant pool from which to draw his people.

    Reply

  20. Homer says:

    Gafney helped **inadvertently** thrust the hands of power into the hands of Maliki who is a religious fanatic who has dedicated his entire adult life to transforming Iraq into a Shiite fundamentalist state which has long and intimate ties to extremist elements in Iran.
    Al-Dawa, Maliki’s party, founded at the behest of Khomenei, an ally of Hezbollah in the 1980s and later has had American blood on its hands since the 1980s (remember: Marines … barracks).
    Back then, though, that blood was drawn from Americans through terrorists attacks.
    Now that blood has been drawn from Americans who have been maimed and killed for the sake of empowering Al-Dawa and religious fanatics.
    For Gafney, American soldiers are like sacrificial lambs!!!
    Gafney:
    Line ’em up!!!
    Bring me the tired, the poor, the uneducated, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free
    Onward Poor Uneducated Christian Soldiers!!

    Reply

  21. jon says:

    Not such a surprising word choice from someone who has never
    served in the military, placed his own life at risk, or faced battle.
    Pretty true to form for a stalwart of the PNAC and a fully vested
    neocon.
    Tell me again why all of these folks who have been so
    profoundly and disastrously wrong are being sought after by the
    media and being paid attention to, much less have jobs?
    For people like this the only respectable acts and justifiable
    media attention should be notice of their paying a substantial
    sum of their own worth into the treasury and offering their
    children into military service. Humble contrition and self
    abasement are the only appropriate acts to be seen for people
    of his class.
    And I care far less about his stunningly poor choice of words,
    than I care about his acts which have led to that statement.

    Reply

  22. Ambika says:

    Poor choice of words yes. But I have to agree with Patrick and David. What I found more glaring, interms of mistakes is what
    he said about inaction. I think Gaffney and others perhaps need a simple re look at the situation in 2001-2003, as Toney says.
    And if Gaffney is so worried about inaction resulting in americans death, perhaps he needs to look at the world with a wider lens, and realize that there are far worse tension points which could serve to create more terror in the future.

    Reply

  23. ... says:

    it was a poor choice of a word… what i find disturbing with americans is how they focus on how many americans have died but often times forget to mention how many iraqis have died which is quite significant… it is just a general view and it not applicable to everyone but do americans think the soldiers who die in iraq are more special then those who have been born and lived in iraq? it seems like they do with their adulation of american soldiers… i guess this is what happens when a culture idolizes war and those who serve in war, probably never being exposed to the hardship and suffering that it causes, especially when it isn’t on your own soil..

    Reply

  24. ryan says:

    Mr. Gaffney executed an sensational job of painting a picture that many Americans don’t take the time to stop and understand. 70% of Americans want to leave Iraq? Of these 70% I find it highly unlikely that more than 5% have ever been there to begin with. Instead the information citizens us to formulate opinions and views on the war are provided mainly by the media. As a special operations soldier I was actively engaged in missions across the country that allowed me to see first hand the good we were doing in Iraq which in the long run benefites Americas security. Unfortunately not many Americans, citizen and soldier alike, are afforded the opportunity to live in the country amongst the people to see this first hand.

    Reply

  25. Sam Thornton says:

    Sometimes there’s just no polite way to put it;
    Frank Gaffney seems absolutely insane. Anyone who
    gives him the least credence is a fool.

    Reply

  26. DavidT says:

    I agree with Patrick Schneider. But then Steve you’ve always been more comfortable with a manichean approach to this administration or anyone that was sympathetic to it unless they faced Senator Obama in a race for the presidency.
    If you believe that the Iraq invasion was the right move then you believe that the lives given by the soldiers in pursuit of that venture were not lost in vain. Similarly, if you believe that WWII was a “good war” or that we needed to fight it then as much as you might regret that American boys lost their lives, you would feel that those lives weren’t given in vain.
    This puts aside whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. However we all know what side you’re on on that issue (and I share your view). However that Mr. Gaffney feels this way given he feels the invasion was the right thing to do is no more revealing than that many liberals (and I’m not including you) were delighted to see an Iraqi throw a shoe at the President.
    One other thing. The word delight is not an ideal word to use in this situation. But then you wondered a day or two after the election whether the president-elect would appoint a “competent” cabinet in spite of the fact that if anything the Obama candidacy was probably the most professional and competent Democratic operation that’s ever run for the presidency. But maybe that’s a point for Frank Gaffney to make in his counter blog post :).
    Thanks for keeping a watch on foreign policy. It would be so nice, however if you were less preoccupied with who you don’t like and personalities than on what you like, what specific efforts have been undertaken by those outside of your network of obvious favorites (like Chuck Hagel, Joe Biden, and Leo Hindery).
    For example, what would be the best way to close Guantanamo (putting aside who was bone-headed enough to defend torture there)? What ways can Hillary Clinton build confidence in her new boss so that they have a strong working relationship and she can show she speaks for him and her country when meeting with foreign leaders. What sorts of things might Obama do to nudge the implacable foes of any concessions by Israel even if without such concessions peace is out of the question. What role can former president Clinton take on that will serve his country, the interests of the incoming administration, and the interests of his wife all at the same time?
    Thanks.

    Reply

  27. TonyForesta says:

    How does wanton profiteering fit into your calculus Patrick Schnieder? The mangling of language is one of the most grievous abuses of the fascists in the bushgov. Is your issue rhetorical or do you have any concern for the oceans of blood spilled for no good reason, and the hundreds of thousands of families in Iraq and America that have lost their loved ones, or seen their loved ones maimed and butchered for the wanton profiteering of the fascists in the bushgov?
    Symantics is irrelevent now. The fascists in the bushgov have so retarded and mangled language that nothing means anything now. Words mean nothing. There is only air. No word or term has any more significance than a shout. What does have significance however, is the oceans of blood spilled, and the billions of the peoples dollars wasted in a war the was never justified, and that should not have been fought.
    Mangle language to your cold hard hearts content, but you will never legitimately defend, excuse, apologize for, or justify the costly, bloody crime scene in Iraq.

    Reply

  28. Patrick Schneider says:

    He didn’t say he was ‘”delighted” sending Americans to their death’ – he is delighted about ‘what [they] did’, which i assume refers to sending troops to Iraq; whereas the deaths are ‘regrettable’.
    Rhetorically, it is bad framing to have reference to the deaths of soldiers and the word ‘delighted’ in the same paragraph, but the two don’t directly apply to each other in this circumstance.

    Reply

  29. JohnH says:

    And yet no one questions why Congress appears to be delighted to continue to fund this Occupation, which everyone agrees was such a bad idea!
    Gaffney lied, but the rest of the national security mob was delighted to act on the lies. And now that the lies have been disproven, they are delighted to carry on for no reason whatsoever.
    And if they are not delighted with what has happened in Iraq, why don’t they join the 70% of Americans who want to leave?
    Gaffney is a convenient whipping boy, but it’s official Washington that really has a lot to answer for.

    Reply

  30. Caitlyn says:

    I know that military service is no longer expected of officials and
    think tank advisors in the national security field, but Mr. Gaffney’s
    comment is a pointed example of the attitude of someone who
    never took the opportunity to put his on life on the line being
    delighted that other people have accepted that duty and paid the
    price that he never risked, I would have a modicum of respect if,
    while at Georgetown, Mr. Gaffney had enrolled in ROTC and took
    his is place on the front lines before he expressed delight that
    other people would risk, and some lose, their lives doing the job
    that he avoided.

    Reply

  31. TonyForesta says:

    Creepy choice of words. The fascists in the bushgov are attempting to rewrite history and hoist all the blame for thier failures and wanton profiteering on the intelligence community. You, Mr Clemons and other insiders can and must cut this revisionism off and remind all Americans that there was no consensus from any intelligence apparatus anywhere on earth regarding Iraq’s weapons capability. That Iraq in 2003 was economically, militarily, and politically nuetered and HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, OR AL QUAIDA. That no intelligence community anywhere on earth, including here in the land of Oz in any way suggested or promoted invading and occupying Iraq. That Fieth and Rumsfeld, and Cheney contaminated the intelligence product to conform to their preconcieved policies. The OSP/OSI conjurings of sexedup, dodgey, singlesourced, unvetted, cherrypicked, unsubstantiated, hype, exaggerations, and patent lies were the basis of the fascists in the bushgov’s imperialist predatory designs in Iraq.
    We cannot allow these pathological liars to rewrite or distort history, and deny accountability for the oceans of LIES bruted and pimped by the fascists in the bushgov to terrorize the American people, ghoulishly exploit the horrors and dead of 9/11, and justify the wanton profiteering in the prosecution of the Iraq war.
    Iraq was, is, and always will be a crime scene, and an excuse for wanton profiteering.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *