Why did we go into Iraq?

[lookout123]

Rumsfeld overrode his generalss recommendations for overwhelming numbers.

some truth to this, but more accurately he caved to the generals in some regards (tactics) but still tried to keep his own view in place (strategy). the two were working from completely different starting points, so in the end you get FUBAR.

Rumsfeld and some of the senior military leadership belong to the school of thought that Col. John Boyd (USAF ret) spent his life developing, preaching, teaching, and cramming down everyone's throats. (ever hear of the OODA loop?) Boyd was the man behind the strategy for Gulf War I.

the basic idea is that you don't need overwhelming numbers to defeat an enemy, rather approach the enemy as water running down a hill. give most of the control to the people at the lowest level to do what needs to be done, sweep through an area, destroy any resistance, and move on to the next - QUICKLY. pockets of strong resistance should not hold up the momentum of the main force. surround them, cut them off with a smaller amount of assets, crush them into rubble if necessary, but move on quickly. only combat troops enter the fray - REMFs and soft personnel need not apply.

in this way, a small number of combatants can defeat much larger enemy forces.

things that weren't addressed: 1) to this day, only the marines have decided that everyone in their uniform must learn this and live this. a majority of the army and air force senior leadership cringe at the mention of Boyd. 2) this strategy requires a willingness to destroy the enemy, not just disarm and discourage them. 3) this strategy only deals with the battle plan, occupation of a nation requires more police, civil engineers, etc.

rumsfeld attempted to prosecute this war using Boyd's method without broadbased support from senior army leadership (who also effed it up in Gulf War I). this is something even Tommy Franks bitched about at the time - the Jt Chiefs were trying to get involved and scratch out their own territories. if everyone is not on the same page, you got no chance.

going back over this, it is extremely obvious that Boyd can't be summarized in a post. I recommend a biography that was released a couple of years ago simply titled, BOYD.

here is an article by one of his acolytes immediately following the war.

This has plenty of info and good links to keep you busy for days, possibly weeks.

[headsplice]

Fair enough. But it still equals shite management if you can't even get the people whose job it is to kill your enemies to agree.

[lookout123]

ever been in the military?

Boyd worked in the pentagon throughout the 70's and 80's. the F-15 and
F-16 were his creations, although he hated the piles of shit that were produced after the brass and bureaucracy got their hands on them. he was at the center of a movement to shake things up, this went through congress before being killed off. (cheney first made a national name for himself as part of that group). Boyd spent his entire life trying to get some very simple points across. he was a pariah in the air force, persona non grata in the army, the antichrist for the navy. the only ones who accepted and believed in this Air Force colonel were the US Marines. they all teach his principles in basic officer courses now. of course the only ones who acknowledge his name are the US Marines.

all that to say this - the top echelon of military commanders exist for one purpose alone - to protect and preserve their little empires. a change in the core responsibilities of a specific branch will be met with extreme opposition. that is why it takes several generations to get changes pushed through.

[warch]

So you agree that Rumsfeld is a bad leader?

Headsplice, you mention the protection of cultural sites: I know a bit about one.
I met a woman that served as the army's cultural liason officer to the Iraq National Museum. She was there within months of the invasion working with the small staff and had the support of soldiers, MPs and even Italian curators! (but frustratingly, no conservators) Stuff was done. The order was not to fire on these sites unless fired upon from them, and that seems to have been followed, back then. The looting of objects was way overblown by the press, by the time looters got there, it was mostly huge artworks and office equipment. Lots of tiny cylinder seals are still missing.
She had some great stories that I cant do justice. She returned to the states and retired from the army reserves. Looting does occur at archeological sites but is impossible to inforce when so much else takes precident.

The Iraqi museum staff did a good, and rather heroic job of hiding stuff- the press didnt note that the empty glass cases in their photos were not broken. There is a recognition that the custody of historical property poses the next most important economic asset, beyond oil. The museum now has a team of Iraqi guards, some new fortification. They get some care packages of supplies from other countries, but are on their own. Hearing her, I got how much the perception and reality of safety in Bagdad has changed. She was there before it got really deadly. You can forget how much the climate has changed.

This now retired officer, who lost people close to her and worries about those still serving, made one political comment, "We should never have gone into this without the plan and the troops to do it right."

[tw]

Originally Posted by headsplice

Fair enough. But it still equals shite management if you can't even get the people whose job it is to kill your enemies to agree.

All (the principles of Boyd, the decisions of Rumsfeld, etc) is totally irrelevant to your original question. The discussion has now bogged down on tactical objective; not about the question which is one of strategic objectives.

So, why isn't anyone beyond 'crazy liberals' standing up and saying, "What the fuck happened here?"

In many ways, this discussion has also bogged down into the irrelevant. Demonstrates why America invaded Iraq that was a diminishing threat. Clearly there were no facts that Saddam had WMDs. Our own spies (ie Syria, et al) said such weapons probably did not exist; were fictions created by Saddam so that his enemies would not attack. The UN inspectors could not find WMDs. Indeed, when past inspectors admitted same publicly, then people such as UT would accuse them of being child molesters. How does child molestation related to strategic concepts. It does not. It was provided because so many Americans could not compartmentalize - keep things in perspective - separate the irrelevant from analysis of America's strategic objectives.

The concept is demonstrated by fractals. Take a satellite picture of England. Measure England's perimeter. Now get closer - airplane perspective. The coastline perimeter increases? Why? Perspective changes. Now walk England's beaches. That coastline becomes even longer. Now measure the coastline using microscopes. Again the perimeter is even longer. Perspective changes the overall conclusion. Furthermore England from a microscopic viewpoint looks nothing like England from the satellite. Welcome to fractals - and the concept of perspective.

Propaganda is to confuse an issue using tools such as lying by telling half truths and by changing perspective. That England coastline from a satellite looks nothing like the same coast using a microscope. So propaganda argues from a microscopic viewpoint. How can the same thing appear so different using two different perspectives? All this nonsense about Rumsfeld's tactical objectives is totally irrelevant to the question. Topics about Rumsfeld and Boyd demonstrate how to confuse an issue - Rush Limbaugh style.

Fundamental to the issue is why we so screwed up during the liberation of Kuwait - ending the war too early for political purposes AND not making any plans for the peace. Those same neocons so needed an excuse to change history - to correct the mistake they made by not doing their job; by not first learning a basic concept - the purpose of war. Logic says those neocons in 1990 failed to perform their job - creating 10+ years of military involvement (ie no-fly zones patrols, trade embargos) and leaving Saddam fully empowered in Iraq. The same logic also says those same neocons did not plan for the peace in 2002. One would have expected them to have learned from their first mistake. They made the exact same mistake again - having not learned basic strategic concepts from both history and their own previous mistake.

Your question can only be answered from a strategic perspective. How Rumsfeld planned for war is only to confuse the issue and to avoid the 'perspective' of the original question. However those answers demonstrate why do many let a lying president unilaterally 'Pearl Harbor' another sovereign nation - and the people did not complain. Your answers demonstrate why so many Americans think emotionally rather than first demand facts. Many conveniently let the propaganda micromanage facts into discussions of irrelevant details.

The strategic objective: those neocons screwed up the political settlement in 1991 AND they did the same mistake in 2002 resulting in widespread looting. Did the looting exist? Obviously. So again, they deflected any accusation of incompetence. They denied the looting existed so that no one would ask, "Why they again had no plan for the peace." - a violation even of principles defined in 500 BC.

It’s called propaganda. Confuse the issue with irrelevant nonsense about how Rumsfeld planned for the war - so we don't ask why Rumsfeld, et al never bothered to plan for the peace.

[lookout123]

All this nonsense about Rumsfeld's tactical objectives is totally irrelevant to the question. Topics about Rumsfeld and Boyd demonstrate how to confuse an issue - Rush Limbaugh style.

MWUHAHAHAHA. yes tw. that was my plan. confuse the issue to hide the truth - because lord knows, that no cellar thread ever shifts focus but for the evil machinations of a conservative.

FWIW i brought up Boyd and the like because of this statement -

Rumsfeld overrode his generalss recommendations for overwhelming numbers.

So you agree that Rumsfeld is a bad leader?

uh, hyeah! i don't believe he deliberately orchestrating the destruction of mankind. i do believe that he is too arrogant and shortsighted to take stock of his own abilities and shortfalls. without that knowledge he has been unable to build a support team to compliment his strengths.

[warch]

What is relevant? I'm not saying that reviewing the original case, looking for factual truth with the help of history isnt worthy, but...
We're way into Iraq. What is our current mission statement, today? How do strategically succeed, now? What would success look like? What kind of Iraq is acceptable? How do we get there? You cannot kill them all. You might think you can, but there are always more. How do you best manage terror at home and around the world?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

MWUHAHAHAHA. yes tw. that was my plan. confuse the issue to hide the truth - because lord knows, that no cellar thread ever shifts focus but for the evil machinations of a conservative.

FWIW i brought up Boyd and the like because of this statement -

"Rumsfeld overrode his generalss recommendations for overwhelming numbers."

"So you agree that Rumsfeld is a bad leader? "

Oppurtunities to avoid the original question - to diffuse the issue into things totally irrelevant. The question is "Why did we go into Iraq?" More specifically, the question is

So, why isn't anyone beyond 'crazy liberals' standing up and saying, "What the fuck happened here?"

Why is bandwidth wasted on what Boyd tried to accomplish or what Rumsfeld did with troop numbers. Demonstrated again by lookout123 is why reasons for a screwed up "Mission Accomplished" war are not being discussed.

The discussion spins into one about troop numbers rather than into the strategic objective of that military action. Looking at the "Mission Accomplished" war microscopically rather than in its proper (and flawed) objectives therefore avoids an embarrassing answer. Most specifically, "planning for the peace" is intentionally ignored here AND was intentionally ignored back in 2002. 'Strategic objective' (lack of one) is the answer.

To measure Rumsfeld's competence: why did he subvert any planning for the peace? There was planning for the peace. The people who were doing that planning were simply transferred - then dismissed. Logic just like in Vietnam: if we blow things up, then we will win. Tactical objectives are sufficient to win a war. The means justifies the ends (along with 'light at the end of the tunnel'). Reasoning that caused a stunning US defeat in Vietnam. Appreciate the concepts of tactical and strategic. The US military won virtually every battle - militarily. But was soundly defeated - strategically.

There was no planning for the peace in 1991 AND in 2002 by the same neocons. They even stifled such plans. Demonstrated are political types that wasted such good military work. A warning even within a recently leaked UK memo. George Jr administration had no plans for the peace because the strategic objective was flawed. He did not even have a 'smoking gun' to justify the unilateral invasion. So he lied.

Lookout123 again avoids the purpose of a "Mission Accomplished" war - headsplice's original question. Lookout123 posts repeatedly ignoring the primary (and embarrassing) topic - the strategic objective. Even Rumsfeld’s competence should have been answered by discussing Rumsfeld’s 'planning for the peace' – the strategic objective. Instead it was answered with nonsense about size of a military force and Boyd’s accomplishments. How to avoid answering the damning question: the strategic objective - planning for peace. Discuss troop numbers so this question (and Rumsfeld's competence) need not be answered:

Why did we go into Iraq?

[tw]

Originally Posted by warch

We're way into Iraq. What is our current mission statement, today? How do strategically succeed, now? What would success look like? What kind of Iraq is acceptable? How do we get there? You cannot kill them all. You might think you can, but there are always more. How do you best manage terror at home and around the world?

One need only go back to history to answer your question. Currently the same answer is found in Nigeria, Congo, and Haiti. There is no solution until the people there want a solution. Brent Scowcroft (who so often reflects the viewpoint of George Sr) basically stated what may be necessary - civil war. One very possible solution is total withdrawl. Either they will suddenly find no enemy (Americans), or the resulting civil war (just like in Lebanon) is necessary for the people to want peace. Also, as in Lebanon, the neighboring powers successfully brought about the desired end of violence. An Iraqi solution is better found in Arab states - and not in American occupation that even requires Green zones.

The current American attitude of military might solving political problems is historically wrong. They must 'want' a solution. We cannot impose it. Currently America is trying to impose a solution on Iraq. It will not happen as demonstrated by how Iraq is slowly falling into the same pattern of Vietnam.

Warch - your question was the exact same question we asked in Vietnam. What was the answer? Admit defeat? The American strategic objective in Vietnam was flawed - could not work. If you think the status quo is Iraq is solving the problem, well then explain why safe cities such as Mosul and Kirkuk are even failing into violence - just like in Vietnam.

First ask - what really is our strategic objective? To impose a government, or to setup a puppet government? Again, civil war may be necessary so that Iraqis can agree they want a common government. One cannot honestly anwer when one blindly believes America has provided freedom. Listen to Iraqis. They did not like Saddam. But most Iraqis had more freedoms back then. They had freedom of movement. They had electricity and water. Outside of rebel areas, Iraqis were not dying so routinely. All part of a country that cannot even agree yet on what it wants. Even the Kurds were doing business with Saddam back then. It was not as bad as poltical extremists in America would have us believe - just like in the days of Vietnam.

I don't find the 'politically incorrect' solution of total withdrawl that wrong. Others who Iraqis trust may then be so shocked as to move in - to provide a real solution as Syria did in Lebanon. At some point, Americans must admit the status quo is not making things better. And just like in Vietnam, the American public perception was otherwise.

Are you ready for 20 years in Iraq? If denying reality as Nixon did in Vietnam, then expect Americans to be dying in Iraq for decades - followed by a country not that friendly to Americans.

A realistic strategic objective would also make an exit strategy obvious. Where is the exit strategy? None existed because there was no strategic thinking by poltical extremists. None currently exists. There comes a time (even in business), that a threshold is defined. Sometimes the only solution is bankruptcy. Funny thing about bankruptcy. It suddenly creates solutions (ie Chrysler, NY City, Ford, etc) where others did not have the balls to face facts. We should have a timetable that says, "after this point we leave no matter what". But that would require a president with balls; not one with political agendas. Notice how brutal and realistic my thinking is - because it has contempt for both left and right wing rhetoric. If you want a solution, your thinking better be that ruthless. Most of us are not ready to be so realistic. We even deny those lessons of history; never even bothered to read the Pentagon Papers.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I hope you don't really believe that, and are just using a metaphor for how Fox News operates as a whole. "Edited for clarity" is an official copyediting phrase when writing transcripts. It means they took out all the "uh, er, soo--I mean, see..." crap that normal people say. If you've ever read a real unedited transcript, they can be pretty hard to understand.

I do understand that.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

If you're just being facetious about how Fox News chooses what they say as compared to other news stations, fine.

Partly facetious. Because in this case, this post, it's about two different interviews, and even I can't fairly compare them in the way I have. So, half credit for effort at humor. But the NON-facetious half is ominous.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

But don't imply that they're literally changing the words coming out of their own spokespersons in their transcripts, that doesn't even make sense.

I was implying that, for the unflattering humorous effect, but I'll leave the attempts at humor aside and plainly affirm your statement. I do believe that FOXNews can, has, and does say what they want, when they want, how they want. And to let the different interpretations of many of the words we (FOX and you and I) all use lie unexamined, to OUR disadvantage.

I mean words that you and I almost certainly share a common definition for, like, "transcript" and "report" and "news" and "fair" and "journalism". To me, and to you, I'm certain, these are pretty concrete terms, objective. Probably "fair" is the most subjective term in the list. But take "report" for example. To me that means what I read in the dictionary: to say what happened. I'm sure you and I agree on this point. I contend that FOX does not, not in a strict, consistent way.

The common term for this is "spin" and it's present in everything FOX touches. The most prominent example, to me, is their title: FOXNews, implying, well, "news". There is enough of what reasonable people would agree on qualifies as "news" to give that appearance at first glance. But paying closer attention clearly reveals a substantial difference. They call themselves a news program, but they are an entertainment program. Their function is to get you stay tuned through the commercials. Whatever it takes to get that to happen is what they'll do, and if that means calling it news, so be it.

When I go fishing, I call that little worm a "meal". It could probably stand up in court, too. But I am certain the fish would have a considerably different opinion, even if, no, especially if he actually ate the worm.

FOXNews is to news as Jay Leno's monologue is to news. They're both topical (there's the "news" ingredient), but Leno plays it for laughs and FOX plays it for spin favorable to it's corporate sponors and self-interests.

It's not just words like news, report, fair, transcript, but everything that comes from their corporate mouth. Don't believe me? Check this out. This is the story of FOX going to court, and winning, to protect their right to LIE. (How could I make this shit up?!) An excerpt:

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

...

FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”

They call it news, I call bullshit.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It's not a left-wing media conspiracy, it never has been.

http://www2.eou.edu/socprob/lecture/sp03/bias2.htm

This is a good opening analysis of the starting point you make.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It is simply the natural, unavoidable bias of reporters doing what they believe is right--it is a statistical fact that a large majority of journalists vote democratic, just like it is a statistical fact that security in Iraq has not improved. Nobody at BBC thinks to themselves, "Oooh, yes, today we're gonna really ream that Cheney guy!" and nobody at Fox News says, "Yes, we all know this war was a complete mistake, but let's release a few stories pretending we believe otherwise."

Indvidual bias, a person's point of view that they bring is acceptable, it has to be since it's unavoidable. An individual's biases can be observered and be compensated for, to the extent that you know that person. But this can be difficult if the listener is anticipating for one set of biases and a different set of biases are at work. But you make an important and in this case dangerous mistake in your argument above. By starting with the individual's biases, and filtering accordingly, you can miss the biases of the organization that produces and delivers the content.

You and I see and hear the reporters and interview subjects and think about the biases at work in these people. The biases of the news organization are easily overlooked. This can lead to the mistake described. By attributing the individual's biases to the story and compensating accordingly, you miss the company line. And in every case from independent producers to GalacticMedia, it is the company's biases that trump the individual's (reporter's) biases. Every. Time.

It is possible for the distance from the reporter to the CEO to be quite small, even zero for bloggers, for example. And it is also possible for the company's biases to be neutral or neutral leaning. This can let more of the reporter's biases shine through. But it's the company that has the final say. And to fail to recognize that can lead to some pretty serious disconnects.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

We're dealing with what these journalists truly believe to be right in their hearts, and it is impossible for that bias not to come out one way or another. That's why we have multiple news sources.

Clodfobble, your optimism gladdens my heart. I am not being sarcastic, I wish to pay you a thankful compliment. I see this remark as hopeful, bordering on naive. Your other posts don't reveal a naive streak that I can detect, so hopeful it is.

[tw]

So why did we go into Iraq? Clearly Saddam was conspiring with Al Qaeda. Apparently top anti-terrorist officials who get promoted don't know the difference between Al Qaeda (which is blamed for everything excepting ending the world) and other entities. No wonder the administration would put out repeated Orange Alerts for threats that did not exist. No wonder this nation's top anti-terrorist investigator was all but driven out of the FBI by the George Jr administration. When propaganda demands blaming everything on Al Qaeda, then no wonder the George Jr administration never mentions Muslim Brotherhood. Apparently they even don't trust FBI agents that speak fluent Arabic. Apparently they don't yet know what the Muslim Brotherhood is. Or maybe its just too convenient to pretend Muslim Brotherhood does not exist.

from NY Times of 19 Jun 2005
In Letter to Senators, Lawyer Criticizes Top F.B.I. Officials
In a 15-page letter, the lawyer, Stephen M. Kohn, wrote that the F.B.I.'s top counterterrorism officials said in sworn depositions that they did not know the relationship between Al Qaeda and Jamal Islamia, a South Asia offshoot of the terror network. Nor were they aware of the linkage between Osama bin Laden and Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a spiritual adviser to Mr. bin Laden with whom he had been closely associated since the 1980's.

Mr. Kohn said that F.B.I. Director Robert S. Mueller III, in his deposition, seemed unsure of Mr. bin Laden's relationship to Sheik Rahman, who is better known as the blind sheik and was convicted in 1996 on terrorism charges. Asked if he was aware of their relationship, Mr. Mueller is quoted in Mr. Kohn's letter as saying he was not.

[wolf]

Now, TW, if you'd been keeping up with your conspiracy theories you'd know that Bin Laden suddenly having access to lots of money coincided with the UN relaxing the Oil for Food restrictions on Iraq in 1996.

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

Now, TW, if you'd been keeping up with your conspiracy theories you'd know that Bin Laden suddenly having access to lots of money coincided with the UN relaxing the Oil for Food restrictions on Iraq in 1996.

I here he has also taken on a new alias: Farmer Laden. Even sounds plausible.

[OnyxCougar]

From my rep last week:

Dear Fellow Eastern North Carolinian,

In recent days there has been considerable press coverage on my position on America’s presence in Iraq. Despite what some media accounts have said, I want to make it crystal clear that I am NOT in favor of any immediate withdrawal nor do I support setting an end date at which time all troops must be out of Iraq.

What I do support is a public discussion of our goals and the future of our military involvement in that country. The non-binding resolution I am co-sponsoring will do no more than call on the President to set a plan and a date to begin reducing the number of troops we have in Iraq. It does not in any way, shape or form set a date certain for complete withdrawal. This approach should give the President the flexibility he needs to reduce our presence in a way that protects U.S. troops and allows Iraqis to pick up the fight. No one is talking about “cutting and running.”

In my opinion, this is the appropriate action to take for our troops, for our national security and for the Iraqi people. America faces many other threats that can easily escalate into conflicts that require military action. Iraq's neighbor, Iran, is a constant nuclear threat. A madman ruling North Korea has openly admitted to having nuclear weapons. Communist China is sucking up American jobs, using its booming economy to rapidly expand its military, and threatening Taiwan and other Asian allies. Even at home, every week 16,000 illegal aliens stream over our weakly guarded Mexican border, and any one of them could be a terrorist. With this in mind, we need a plan to begin a gradual reduction of our presence in Iraq so that our military, which is the most potent fighting force in the world, is ready to address these other threats.

No one is prouder of our military men and women in Iraq, or more grateful for their service and sacrifice, than I. They deposed one of the most ruthless tyrants in human history. They have trained, and continue to train, thousands of Iraqis in the skills necessary to defend their country against insurgents. They allowed Iraqis to freely cast their ballots in the country’s first democratic election in decades. And because of them, Iraq is on track to establish a new Constitution in October of this year, and to elect a permanent government in December.

As Brigadier General Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week: “ . . . this insurgency is not going to be settled . . . through military options or military operations. It's going to be settled in the political process." With that political process now reaching its maturity, and with the number of trained Iraqi security forces increasing daily, it is perfectly reasonable for the American military presence in Iraq to, at some point, begin to decrease.

Conservatives across the spectrum from Robert Novak to Patrick Buchanan to the godfather of modern conservatism, William F. Buckley, have come to a similar conclusion. In fact, on May 6th Buckley wrote: “The day has to come, and the advent of that day has to be heralded, when we say that our part of the job is done as well as it can be done... It is an Iraqi responsibility to move on to wherever Iraq intends to go."

Clearly, we are giving Iraqis every reasonable chance for a democracy, but at some time in the near future, the ultimate fate of Iraq will, and should, rest in the hands of the Iraqis. We will continue to support them in their efforts, but we cannot forever be depended upon as the primary defense force in Iraq, nor can we compromise the ability of our armed forces to adequately respond to the other emerging threats that endanger America.

May God bless our men and women in uniform and continue to bless America.

Sincerely,
Walter B. Jones
U.S. Congressman, NC-03

[warch]

...see, its not just me...I'm not flip flopping...I am a conservative and a christian....I just....I just.....want to be reelected.