This is based on a comment I posted on a Yahoo news discussion relating to the recent killing of some Israelis.
==
No one can condone killing people going about their lives IF they are not occupiers or parts of a standing army or enslaving someone else. Killing children in a school, etc. should earn people a place in hell, regardless of what cause they claim to fight for... BUT, in regards to your dumb rant about killing Muslims, Palestinians, etc. starting with the text:
> Isreal has every right to protect their's.
I hope that one day soon, unlike Zionists, bigots, Palestinian or Israeli terrorists, good people on all sides can sit down and solve the problem of Occupied Palestine. Without freedom and a nation of their own for the Palestinians, I do not foresee an end to the killings on both sides. And, a good start would be for Israel to follow the United Nations resolutions... and for America to stop vetoing justice just to appease the American-Jewish and Zionist lobbies in the media.
> No more peace until all Palis are DEAD!
Oh, and the Palestinian's should just watch Israel continue to steal more of THEIR land, kill innocent civilians in retaliation to suicide bombers' acts, drop 1000 lb. bombs in NEIGHBORHOODS *hoping* to kill ONE terrorist (and missing him), KILLING teenagers with TANK SHELLS....? Hmmm... gee, I wonder why they don't just roll over and die...
I am sorry, if the Russians or the Chinese or the Martians invaded OUR country, took OUR land and did the same thing as Zionist Israilis do, I would HOPE you are man enough to stand up and fight for America.... even if we are all enslaved.
Oh, BTW, ISRAELIS also bulldoze AMERICAN peace activists to death, AND they are the ONLY "ALLY" with ACTIVE SPIES here in America... the country that feeds and arms them.
And, if you are a Zionist and think ISLAM or MUSLIMS are the problem, may God serve up a nice new Christian Adolf Hitler from Europe to deliver you to the place you ought to be... Ouch! Which?
Take a deep breath....the answer will come to you.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Monday, October 24, 2005
Watergate Or Spying Are "Technicalities" Too?
This is amazing. And, scary...
We are supposedly living in such dangerous times that you can get arrested for even having a camera on you crossing some bridges (pictures of which can easily be seen in postcards and online satellite photo banks)....
But, people who gave out STATE SECRETS (no matter how small), or names of CIA operatives, and/or abused power to start an illegal war are being defended, BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. Fitzgerald is prosecuting for justice, to punish those that abused power, or gave away names of CIA operatives, or obstructed justice, or commited similar CRIMES. These are being defended by some Republicans as "technicalities". You have got to be kidding me.
I wonder if, by the definition of some of these Republicans and their defenders, Watergate was a mere technicality. Would anyone next caught passing any kind of information to the Russians, or the Chinese, or any of our enemies, also enjoy the "technicality" defense? Would any President ever be impeached if he abrogated the Constitution, which, after all, could really be considered merely a technicality?
This is NOT about being Republican or Democrat (I am neither) but about being a PATRIOTIC American and LOYAL citizen. So, whose side are the Bush government and these "defenders" on? America's or Bush/Cheney/Rove/Libby's?
In my humble opinion, as an American, they're either for US (USA) or against us...
Imran
COMMENT ON YAHOO BOARD:
> By: the_coqui
> So where again is the crime?
IMRAN RESPONSE:
I am sure Mr. Fitzgerald will be happy to tell the Grand Jury. I am sure you will hear the details. Stay tuned, read newspapers (and please tell Bush, as he proudly tells everyone he does not (cannot?) read newspapers.)
If there is NO crime, I am sure the dictator/traitor team of Bush/Cheney/Rove/Libby have nothing to worry about.
And, if there was no crime, why are Republicans having to jump up to defend them....?
Let Fitzgerald make a case, or make a fool of himself.
After all, if he is going to indict a sitting President/VP or their staff for NON-Crimes, HE better have a good attorney to save his own skin AND have his unemployment benefits lined up.
Imran
We are supposedly living in such dangerous times that you can get arrested for even having a camera on you crossing some bridges (pictures of which can easily be seen in postcards and online satellite photo banks)....
But, people who gave out STATE SECRETS (no matter how small), or names of CIA operatives, and/or abused power to start an illegal war are being defended, BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. Fitzgerald is prosecuting for justice, to punish those that abused power, or gave away names of CIA operatives, or obstructed justice, or commited similar CRIMES. These are being defended by some Republicans as "technicalities". You have got to be kidding me.
I wonder if, by the definition of some of these Republicans and their defenders, Watergate was a mere technicality. Would anyone next caught passing any kind of information to the Russians, or the Chinese, or any of our enemies, also enjoy the "technicality" defense? Would any President ever be impeached if he abrogated the Constitution, which, after all, could really be considered merely a technicality?
This is NOT about being Republican or Democrat (I am neither) but about being a PATRIOTIC American and LOYAL citizen. So, whose side are the Bush government and these "defenders" on? America's or Bush/Cheney/Rove/Libby's?
In my humble opinion, as an American, they're either for US (USA) or against us...
Imran
COMMENT ON YAHOO BOARD:
> By: the_coqui
> So where again is the crime?
IMRAN RESPONSE:
I am sure Mr. Fitzgerald will be happy to tell the Grand Jury. I am sure you will hear the details. Stay tuned, read newspapers (and please tell Bush, as he proudly tells everyone he does not (cannot?) read newspapers.)
If there is NO crime, I am sure the dictator/traitor team of Bush/Cheney/Rove/Libby have nothing to worry about.
And, if there was no crime, why are Republicans having to jump up to defend them....?
Let Fitzgerald make a case, or make a fool of himself.
After all, if he is going to indict a sitting President/VP or their staff for NON-Crimes, HE better have a good attorney to save his own skin AND have his unemployment benefits lined up.
Imran
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Patently Getting Beaten Black & Blue(berry)
Reuters reports that Research in Motion Ltd. moved closer on Friday to an injunction that could halt U.S. sales of its popular BlackBerry wireless device after it lost a bid to suspend a patent case against it.
(I like to think that) I am an inventor. :-) So, I do see the value and need of patents. But, without commenting on the specific validity of this particular case, I do think the USPTO is issuing so many frivolous, duplicate, incorrect and incredibly broad patents that only lawyers must be happy. They make fees writing the absurd patents, and then make money challenging them and then make more money when cases go to court.
I think the USPTO should get a patent on how to issue frivolous, obvious, non-novel or overly broad patents that will eventually harm all industries, especially technology.
That's just IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. What do you think?
Imran
(I like to think that) I am an inventor. :-) So, I do see the value and need of patents. But, without commenting on the specific validity of this particular case, I do think the USPTO is issuing so many frivolous, duplicate, incorrect and incredibly broad patents that only lawyers must be happy. They make fees writing the absurd patents, and then make money challenging them and then make more money when cases go to court.
I think the USPTO should get a patent on how to issue frivolous, obvious, non-novel or overly broad patents that will eventually harm all industries, especially technology.
That's just IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. What do you think?
Imran
Friday, October 21, 2005
Fight The ADIZ: Freedom to fly = Freedom from fear
I am a pilot, though I have not had much opportunity to fly recently. But, the ability, and freedom to fly anywhere in this great nation, the home of general aviation, is one of my cherished freedoms. It is freedom from the bounds of earth, and freedom from fear. It is freedom from crazy, fearful, dictatorial governments where "ordinary" people cannot have planes or fly wherever they want.
Yet, that is exactly what the government is now slowly trying to do in the USA. To curtail the areas where general aviation pilots can fly. To curtail who can fly. To curtail flying itself.
That it is all being done in the name of security in a post 9/11 world is even more ridiculous because no small planes were used in the attacks.
As anyone can calculate, a rental truck like the one used by Timothy McVeigh (the Christian terrorist) in Oklahoma was much more devastating than a small plane flown by some (Muslim?) terrorist would be. It would have been a lot easier for the 19 hijackers of 9/11 to steal 19 small GA planes than to expect to even succeed in hijacking 5 airliners. But they chose the jet airplanes obviously because they could do a lot more damage.
Everyone probably remembers that stupid Florida teenager who flew a Cessna into a building. He died but the plane did not even manage to destroy ONE ROOM on ONE FLOOR of ONE SMALL BUILDING.
Yet, that is the "picture" the government is painting as it tries to curtail one of America's great freedoms, the freedom to fly anywhere (except obvious places like military installations, the White House, nuclear reactors, etc.) as a private pilot that a commercial airplane can fly. The following is a comment I posted (alongside more than 10,000 others) at a government web site discussing the "ADIZ" areas that are popping up to limit where we can fly:
How ironic is it that the 19 now dead terrorist hijackers not only used our civilian (COMMERCIAL NOT GA) aircraft against our civilians in NY and DC, but seem to be also succeeding in
a) having our government departments create policies seeming to be based on living in a state of constant fear,
b) managed to make us try to destroy instead of develop general aviation,
c) made us look like fearful living in cities with virtual ADIZ type moats around us,
d) helped set in motion the actions that would eventually kill off one of the greatest contributions of our country to the world, aviation and
e) make us more and more likely to get used to living under constantly changing and onerous rules that one would expect from governments in Cuba or Russia or Pakistan or Iraq, not the United States of America.
I am a pilot in NY, with family and friends in the DC area. I had been close to buying a plane to see them regularly, but have held off doing so because of these ADIZ regulations.
How many others are held back, I can only imagine. How many planes will rust away, I can only imagine. How many new planes will not be sold, I can only imagine. How many skilled workers capable of making new planes will lose jobs, I can only imagine. How many mechanics and ground crew who support a thriving GA industry would lose jobs, I can only imagine.
How loudly the dead terrorists and their supporters must be laughing at us, I can only imagine. Can you?
Please support us living, and flying, in a nation of freedom, freedom from fear and freedom from dictatorial rules.
Imran Anwar
http://imran.com/flying/
Yet, that is exactly what the government is now slowly trying to do in the USA. To curtail the areas where general aviation pilots can fly. To curtail who can fly. To curtail flying itself.
That it is all being done in the name of security in a post 9/11 world is even more ridiculous because no small planes were used in the attacks.
As anyone can calculate, a rental truck like the one used by Timothy McVeigh (the Christian terrorist) in Oklahoma was much more devastating than a small plane flown by some (Muslim?) terrorist would be. It would have been a lot easier for the 19 hijackers of 9/11 to steal 19 small GA planes than to expect to even succeed in hijacking 5 airliners. But they chose the jet airplanes obviously because they could do a lot more damage.
Everyone probably remembers that stupid Florida teenager who flew a Cessna into a building. He died but the plane did not even manage to destroy ONE ROOM on ONE FLOOR of ONE SMALL BUILDING.
Yet, that is the "picture" the government is painting as it tries to curtail one of America's great freedoms, the freedom to fly anywhere (except obvious places like military installations, the White House, nuclear reactors, etc.) as a private pilot that a commercial airplane can fly. The following is a comment I posted (alongside more than 10,000 others) at a government web site discussing the "ADIZ" areas that are popping up to limit where we can fly:
How ironic is it that the 19 now dead terrorist hijackers not only used our civilian (COMMERCIAL NOT GA) aircraft against our civilians in NY and DC, but seem to be also succeeding in
a) having our government departments create policies seeming to be based on living in a state of constant fear,
b) managed to make us try to destroy instead of develop general aviation,
c) made us look like fearful living in cities with virtual ADIZ type moats around us,
d) helped set in motion the actions that would eventually kill off one of the greatest contributions of our country to the world, aviation and
e) make us more and more likely to get used to living under constantly changing and onerous rules that one would expect from governments in Cuba or Russia or Pakistan or Iraq, not the United States of America.
I am a pilot in NY, with family and friends in the DC area. I had been close to buying a plane to see them regularly, but have held off doing so because of these ADIZ regulations.
How many others are held back, I can only imagine. How many planes will rust away, I can only imagine. How many new planes will not be sold, I can only imagine. How many skilled workers capable of making new planes will lose jobs, I can only imagine. How many mechanics and ground crew who support a thriving GA industry would lose jobs, I can only imagine.
How loudly the dead terrorists and their supporters must be laughing at us, I can only imagine. Can you?
Please support us living, and flying, in a nation of freedom, freedom from fear and freedom from dictatorial rules.
Imran Anwar
http://imran.com/flying/
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
2Buy/Not2Buy: Sony Ericsson P990
Comment on Sony Ericsson P990 Camera Phone PDA WiFi Handheld:
My brother (who will start posting to his own blog any YEAR now) and I have a Sony Ericsson P900 & P910.
I still LOVE the P900 as one of the coolest gadgets ever. and chose not to move up to the 910 because the 910 had a lousy numeric keypad compared to the P900. I see that in the P990 SE has decided to bring the P900 style numeric keypad instead of the P910 type. Enough said on that.
They seem to have done the WORST disservice to users by moving the P910's keyboard from the inside flip portion onto the screen area, reducing significantly the beauty and usability of the screen, compared to the P900, on which I can literally view full web pages on Opera.
The P900 and 910 had PATHETIC cameras so this P990's camera enhancement is good, but still not enough to make me leave my P900. Yes, WiFI is useful, but I already have that on my Nokia 9500 Communicator.
I HATE Nokia (even as a one time unhappy shareholder) as a designer of low performing SLOOOOOW CPU based phones, but for keyboard, decent camera and WiFi the 9500 is more than enough for my needs. Its mini-laptop size makes it larger than the P900 but typing on it is so great, it is worth carrying around.
So, dear buyer, if you intend to spend $1200 on the P990, be VERY sure you are using it for LOTS and LOTS of WiFi based TYPING applications, otherwise the smaller screen makes it much less usable (at least to me) than the now old but still great P900.
That's just IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. Comments welcome.
Imran
My brother (who will start posting to his own blog any YEAR now) and I have a Sony Ericsson P900 & P910.
I still LOVE the P900 as one of the coolest gadgets ever. and chose not to move up to the 910 because the 910 had a lousy numeric keypad compared to the P900. I see that in the P990 SE has decided to bring the P900 style numeric keypad instead of the P910 type. Enough said on that.
They seem to have done the WORST disservice to users by moving the P910's keyboard from the inside flip portion onto the screen area, reducing significantly the beauty and usability of the screen, compared to the P900, on which I can literally view full web pages on Opera.
The P900 and 910 had PATHETIC cameras so this P990's camera enhancement is good, but still not enough to make me leave my P900. Yes, WiFI is useful, but I already have that on my Nokia 9500 Communicator.
I HATE Nokia (even as a one time unhappy shareholder) as a designer of low performing SLOOOOOW CPU based phones, but for keyboard, decent camera and WiFi the 9500 is more than enough for my needs. Its mini-laptop size makes it larger than the P900 but typing on it is so great, it is worth carrying around.
So, dear buyer, if you intend to spend $1200 on the P990, be VERY sure you are using it for LOTS and LOTS of WiFi based TYPING applications, otherwise the smaller screen makes it much less usable (at least to me) than the now old but still great P900.
That's just IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. Comments welcome.
Imran
To Buy Or Not To Buy: New Section
As somewhat of a gadget lover, I often give advice on things to buy or not to buy. I am considering adding a new blog but for now it is just easier to post here. So, if you enjoy my political and social commentaries, please do not mind an occasional post about consumer goods and things. Comments welcome.
Imran
Imran
Monday, October 17, 2005
God, please help these people evolve!
First things first. As a (not so great) Muslim, I do believe in God. And, yes, even though I believe that evolution is a force at work, I also believe that there is some higher power that shaped us to be intelligent creatures. So, I am not your typical religion-bashing Evolution-touting scientist.
That being said, I do NOT believe that "Intelligent Design" has any place being taught in SCIENCE classes as some fanatic and fundamentalist religious folks are pushing for.
Yahoo's message boards have a great thread going on about this. One particularly interesting one is a response by someone (senafrancais) very eloquently and intelligently responding to one such ID poster... a 43 year old male, as I am. :-)
The original poster ventured:
>>>In this age of intellectual and technological advancements, why should we NOT allow our students to hear other theories on creation? Why must it be 'religion' to propose that there is something smarter and bigger at play?<<<
to which senafrancais (43/M) replied:
[SIGH] OK, for the billionth time....the scientific method requires anyone to support their claims with EVIDENCE. If you can't show evidence to support your arguments, then it CANNOT be taught in science class. Beliefs in a "higher power" are simply that - BELIEFS. They are not facts, nor can they be proven with any physical evidence.
I had to respond, one, in appreciation for senafrancais (whom I do not know) and, two, to add one more aspect.... that is:
I would just add one more word to the mix.... people are talking about Intelligent Design as a Theory, which, as you said, is really about Beliefs... the additional word they need to know is HYPOTHESIS. So, if they BELIEVE there is Intelligent Design at work, they can and should be welcome to HYPOTHESIZE (spelling?) that some great power is shaping our beings... (and is also responsible for our cancers and pains and evil aspects).... THEN, if they can show some PROOFS, then they can talk about ID as a THEORY.... and then they should be welcome in the classroom. Otherwise, I hope God's intelligent design will help these people evolve to be less of a threat to what makes America a great place to live for everyone... the separation of a majority's religious beliefs from every day life for everyone. Amen/Aameen.
Just In My Humble Opinion.... What do you think?
Imran
http://imran.TV
That being said, I do NOT believe that "Intelligent Design" has any place being taught in SCIENCE classes as some fanatic and fundamentalist religious folks are pushing for.
Yahoo's message boards have a great thread going on about this. One particularly interesting one is a response by someone (senafrancais) very eloquently and intelligently responding to one such ID poster... a 43 year old male, as I am. :-)
The original poster ventured:
>>>In this age of intellectual and technological advancements, why should we NOT allow our students to hear other theories on creation? Why must it be 'religion' to propose that there is something smarter and bigger at play?<<<
to which senafrancais (43/M) replied:
[SIGH] OK, for the billionth time....the scientific method requires anyone to support their claims with EVIDENCE. If you can't show evidence to support your arguments, then it CANNOT be taught in science class. Beliefs in a "higher power" are simply that - BELIEFS. They are not facts, nor can they be proven with any physical evidence.
I had to respond, one, in appreciation for senafrancais (whom I do not know) and, two, to add one more aspect.... that is:
I would just add one more word to the mix.... people are talking about Intelligent Design as a Theory, which, as you said, is really about Beliefs... the additional word they need to know is HYPOTHESIS. So, if they BELIEVE there is Intelligent Design at work, they can and should be welcome to HYPOTHESIZE (spelling?) that some great power is shaping our beings... (and is also responsible for our cancers and pains and evil aspects).... THEN, if they can show some PROOFS, then they can talk about ID as a THEORY.... and then they should be welcome in the classroom. Otherwise, I hope God's intelligent design will help these people evolve to be less of a threat to what makes America a great place to live for everyone... the separation of a majority's religious beliefs from every day life for everyone. Amen/Aameen.
Just In My Humble Opinion.... What do you think?
Imran
http://imran.TV
More on making the iPod a Computing Platform
Carl Wolf commented: Are you saying the iPod is a "hybrid platform'? Are you saying the success of the iPod will lead Apple to develop yet another computer paradigm? Please help me understand - your blog didn't.
----
Good point, Carl. The blog comment on Apple's iPod tended to focus more on countering some negative points I saw in a Forbes article. You are correct, it did not state this hybrid platform idea in much detail. Sorry. Here is just a brief idea.
Right now people are counting Apple's success based on the Mac's market share --- and complaining that it is so small. (Though, in reality, Apple's maintaining market share in a growing market could be considered a positive too.)
Anyway, there is no way someone is currently going to count the 20 (?) million iPods out there as having any relevance to the Mac's market share. Sure, we all hope that the "halo" effect --- which I have witnessed in my own family and friends now looking at the Mac again ---- will add to Mac sales, but what if the iPod goes a step further.
In one case, supposing a video capability can be given to iPods (which has since been proven true), then later perhaps it can have a mini-Mac OS X version on its hard disc that enables you to at least run some "Mac" (like) applications, e.g. PIM, etc. With a few iterations, such a machine could become less and less different from a Mac mini (which is larger also because of video circuitry, CD, etc. enabling such devices to help Apple claim some more of the "computing" market share with what would otherwise simply be "MP3 player" sales.
Even if iPod does (had) not become a video player, it already has the ability to boot up my machines in OS X and run as my pocket Mac. It can already display output to a TV so enabling more video display options could be done. It already has audio in and out ability (so many third party vendors offer such things) so (with a more speech recognition driven interface) it could conceivably be useful even before a small external (like iPaq external) keyboard or a full keyboard can be connected to it via USB.
So, people could even literally carry their music AND their Mac in their jeans pocket, basically plugging it into a display and keyboard at work and do the same back at home.
Thanks for your comment and question, it forced me to think more clearly and express it in more detail.
I actually have to leave for a trip in a few hours and it is already midnight so I hope this will give a better idea of what I meant. I will add this to the blog also to better explain what I am thinking of this new hybrid platform/paradigm.
Sincerely
Imran
----
Good point, Carl. The blog comment on Apple's iPod tended to focus more on countering some negative points I saw in a Forbes article. You are correct, it did not state this hybrid platform idea in much detail. Sorry. Here is just a brief idea.
Right now people are counting Apple's success based on the Mac's market share --- and complaining that it is so small. (Though, in reality, Apple's maintaining market share in a growing market could be considered a positive too.)
Anyway, there is no way someone is currently going to count the 20 (?) million iPods out there as having any relevance to the Mac's market share. Sure, we all hope that the "halo" effect --- which I have witnessed in my own family and friends now looking at the Mac again ---- will add to Mac sales, but what if the iPod goes a step further.
In one case, supposing a video capability can be given to iPods (which has since been proven true), then later perhaps it can have a mini-Mac OS X version on its hard disc that enables you to at least run some "Mac" (like) applications, e.g. PIM, etc. With a few iterations, such a machine could become less and less different from a Mac mini (which is larger also because of video circuitry, CD, etc. enabling such devices to help Apple claim some more of the "computing" market share with what would otherwise simply be "MP3 player" sales.
Even if iPod does (had) not become a video player, it already has the ability to boot up my machines in OS X and run as my pocket Mac. It can already display output to a TV so enabling more video display options could be done. It already has audio in and out ability (so many third party vendors offer such things) so (with a more speech recognition driven interface) it could conceivably be useful even before a small external (like iPaq external) keyboard or a full keyboard can be connected to it via USB.
So, people could even literally carry their music AND their Mac in their jeans pocket, basically plugging it into a display and keyboard at work and do the same back at home.
Thanks for your comment and question, it forced me to think more clearly and express it in more detail.
I actually have to leave for a trip in a few hours and it is already midnight so I hope this will give a better idea of what I meant. I will add this to the blog also to better explain what I am thinking of this new hybrid platform/paradigm.
Sincerely
Imran
Friday, October 14, 2005
Get The Book
During one of my regular radio interviews this morning, one of the hosts tried to slide in a comment about how Pakistan trained the Taliban... and I was quick to respond "Paid for by the CIA and George Bush Sr." Here is a really good book that is inexpensive but offers a great explanation of how the US is today paying the price for creating terrorists in the first place. Please use the link below and get the book. Thanks.
Imran
Imran
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Thanks to Bush, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft...
I read this subject "Thanks to Bush, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft..." and "post" on a Yahoo newsgroup and had to respond.
> by:utsoo
>Only place al Qaidas can Not funtion is U.S.A.
Huh? Are you for real? Not only is the BUSH family friends and business partners with the BIN LADEN family, George W. Bush is the best friend Osama Bin Laden ever had. From only having a hellhole stone quarry basketcase Afghanistan cave to eat, sleep, sh!t and operate in... Bin Laden now has oil-rich, central, well developed cities of Iraq to thrive in.
> U.S. law enforcemnent agencies did Hard Works
Yes. It took a lot of hard work to miss all the hijackers who were running around here planning 9/11. Thank God our President is "Hard Works" on the Golf Course.....
The score? 2000 MORE Americans dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, no Iraqis involved in 9/11, no WMD, no Bin Laden... the terrorists reload their canon while Bush practices his Golf swing.
Imran
http://imran.com <-- View blog & comments welcome.
> by:utsoo
>Only place al Qaidas can Not funtion is U.S.A.
Huh? Are you for real? Not only is the BUSH family friends and business partners with the BIN LADEN family, George W. Bush is the best friend Osama Bin Laden ever had. From only having a hellhole stone quarry basketcase Afghanistan cave to eat, sleep, sh!t and operate in... Bin Laden now has oil-rich, central, well developed cities of Iraq to thrive in.
> U.S. law enforcemnent agencies did Hard Works
Yes. It took a lot of hard work to miss all the hijackers who were running around here planning 9/11. Thank God our President is "Hard Works" on the Golf Course.....
The score? 2000 MORE Americans dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, no Iraqis involved in 9/11, no WMD, no Bin Laden... the terrorists reload their canon while Bush practices his Golf swing.
Imran
http://imran.com <-- View blog & comments welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)