|
Roker
Stranger



Registered: 11/02/05
Posts: 343
Loc: outer spiral arm
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
#5570750 - 04/29/06 03:44 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Its always been my theory that Phred is a spook stationed in South America to look after Illuminati interests...
I think you may be right! It's an insidious plan to get the global counter culture on-side with big business and the military industrial complex! (I have it on good authority that Phred is actually Ari Fleischer).
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
#5570985 - 04/29/06 04:49 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
"Alex213, it is a source of constant amazement to me how little you care for your own credibility."
World class smackage. Not likely to significantly impact the rock that is Alex's brain but very strong research, which will hopefully drive away some of the fallacious demons that seem to have possessed the more impressionable of our members.
--------------------
|
Slooch
Lead Apprentice


Registered: 03/07/06
Posts: 246
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
|
Suggested reasons to impeach George bush
*NSA warrantless surveillance
*Invasion of Iraq --The case put forward by John Bonifaz in the book Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush is the same as the grounds for his John Doe I v. President Bush lawsuit; namely, that Bush invaded Iraq without a clear Congressional declaration of war. The argument is that the Congressional resolution to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq was unconstitutional because it "confers discretion upon the President to wage war", contrary to the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.
Edited by Slooch (04/30/06 01:22 AM)
|
Slooch
Lead Apprentice


Registered: 03/07/06
Posts: 246
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Slooch]
#5572809 - 04/30/06 01:19 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
JUSTIFICATION FOR INVASION
Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq the possession and development of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda have been found to be false, according to all official reports. The Bush administration advocated that this was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it has become clear that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed, which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. Until today, an in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies has been frustrated. Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war. The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation. Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry. A report by the Washington Post on April 12, 2006, corroborates that view. It states that the Bush administration advocated that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "biological laboratories," despite evidence to the contrary.
"The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories."
Activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, both by withholding information which he ought to have communicated, and by supplying information, in his States of the Union speeches, that he should have known to be incorrect. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath.[citation needed]
John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- asserts that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime.
***** A WAR CRIME
**Geneva Conventions controversy
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration advocated that suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members would be designated as unlawful combatants. They suggested that, as such, they were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. To address the mandatory review by a "competent tribunal" as defined by article five of the Third Geneva Convention, Combatant Status Review Tribunals were established. The American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, the Council on Foreign Relations and Joanne Mariner from FindLaw have dismissed the use of the unlawful combatant status as not compatible with U.S. and international law.
Representative John Conyers has advocated investigating the abuses to see if they violate the Geneva Conventions and are thus cause for impeachment, while Francis A. Boyle and Veterans For Peace hold that impeachment proceedings should be started.
*** Any ONE of these topics are grounds for impeachment, JUST ONE.
Now PLEASE tell me Phred how you still support this president?!!
HOW CAN SOMEONE. ANYONE?! Support this president? THERE HAS NEVER BEEN a president like this one. Sure other presidents have done some-things wrong but NOTHING like this one.
So how is it that you can even TRY to argue what he has done? All you are doing is showing how much you support this president, which MOST of the people on this forum DONT support.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Slooch]
#5573475 - 04/30/06 08:47 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Slooch said: Suggested reasons to impeach George bush
*NSA warrantless surveillance
They happen to be quite legal and I only regret that the idiot whore- monger Clinton and his jackass advisor Gorelick had had the foresight to actually monitor the assholes who blew up our buildings.
Quote:
*Invasion of Iraq --The case put forward by John Bonifaz in the book Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush is the same as the grounds for his John Doe I v. President Bush lawsuit; namely, that Bush invaded Iraq without a clear Congressional declaration of war. The argument is that the Congressional resolution to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq was unconstitutional because it "confers discretion upon the President to wage war", contrary to the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.
John Bonifaz can put forward any case he wants to. Unfortunately for him (but fortunately for the rest of us) this argument is a loser. At any rate, it seems that his issue is with the actions of Congress here and not the President,"the Congressional resolution......... was unconstitutional." Why he thinks an unconstitutional act by the Congress should lead to a Bush impeachment is a pretty clear effort to contort anything into an impeachment call. Let's see, Congress authorizes the use of force and Bush uses it. Who does this asshole think should be determining this policy? The elected representatives of the people, who overwhelmingly chose this course, or some judge, unelected and unaccountable to the people? I know who I would chose. By the way, how is that lawsuit going anyway?
Bonifaz is a wanker. But what kind of wanker is he? Why he is a partisan hack wanker, of course. Go see here http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2005/01/john-bonifaz-remarks-at-fanueil-hall.html where he raises the same old loser bullshit that Bush stole two elections, Left-wing nonsense that is no longer supported even by the NYTimes. Voter fraud? Actually seems to be more of a Democrat tactic. http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=434
--------------------
|
exclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Slooch]
#5573476 - 04/30/06 08:48 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Slooch said:
*** Any ONE of these topics are grounds for impeachment, JUST ONE.
Now PLEASE tell me Phred how you still support this president?!!
HOW CAN SOMEONE. ANYONE?! Support this president? THERE HAS NEVER BEEN a president like this one. Sure other presidents have done some-things wrong but NOTHING like this one.
My guess is, some people have been making lots of money off of what has been going on. Its very obvious that for some people, financial interests rule and all sense of compassion or solidarity or humanism goes out the window. Its called greed. Nothing new.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Slooch said: JUSTIFICATION FOR INVASION
Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq the possession and development of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda have been found to be false, according to all official reports.
We'll get to the WMDs a little later. Please find any quote wherein any administration official made a statement that there was an active link between al Qaeda and Hussein. I'll save you some time. It doesn't exist. Never has. What was asserted is that Hussein had ties to terrororists. This is clearly true. Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization in the world, nor is it even the only one to attack us. Additionally, documents have been found wherein Hussein made an offer, which was declined at the time, for safe harbor for bin Laden and friends. Quote:
The Bush administration advocated that this was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it has become clear that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed, which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. Until today, an in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies has been frustrated. Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war. The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.
The national intelligence agencies have a huge number of employees, among whom you can find a broad range of opinions. I have no doubt whatsoever that quite a few thought Hussein's capabilites were exaggerated. So what? From the Downing street memo, which you seem to hold as some sort of bible http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_3,00.html "On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."
They seem to be assuming the unquestioned existence of WMD, don't they? Further, this in today's NY Times, from page 7 Week in Review section: "In 2002, therefor, when the United States intercepted a message between two Iraqi Republican Guard corps commandersdiscussing the removal of the words "nerve agents" from the "wireless instructions," or learned of instructions to "search the area surrounding the headquarters camp and [the unit] for any chemical agents, make sure the area is free of chemical containers, and write a report on it," United States analysts viewed this information through the prism of a decade of prior deceit. They had no way of knowing that this time the information reflected the regime's attempt to ensure it was in compliance...." "What was meant to prevent suspicion thus ended up heightening it."
Here's the process. Gather as much information asyou can, analyze it, make a decision on what to do, then make your case to the people for your decision. You do not endlessly waffle about. Carter and Clinton proved the uselessness of that course. No deception involved.
Quote:
Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry. A report by the Washington Post on April 12, 2006, corroborates that view. It states that the Bush administration advocated that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "biological laboratories," despite evidence to the contrary.
As there was evidence to support that conclusion. Anybody who thinks that all evidence only points one way is a fool.
Quote:
"The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories."
I don't know about that.
Quote:
Activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, both by withholding information which he ought to have communicated, and by supplying information, in his States of the Union speeches, that he should have known to be incorrect. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath.[citation needed]
Activists can "charge" anything they want. It has absolutely no bearing on reality. They are quite selective in their choice of evidence, far more than the administration, in their afforts to make their case that he "should have known." They are in fact in no position to know what he "should have known." A handful of Congresspeople from both sides of the aisle are, though, and they don't seem interested in this blather.Quote:
John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- asserts that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime.
John Conyers is not one of those Congresspeople. He is a widely ignored loon. There are umpteen lawyers who say that their position is bullshit. Yipee.
Quote:
***** A WAR CRIME
**Geneva Conventions controversy
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration advocated that suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members would be designated as unlawful combatants. They suggested that, as such, they were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. To address the mandatory review by a "competent tribunal" as defined by article five of the Third Geneva Convention, Combatant Status Review Tribunals were established. The American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, the Council on Foreign Relations and Joanne Mariner from FindLaw have dismissed the use of the unlawful combatant status as not compatible with U.S. and international law.
And umpteen other lawyers disagree. Yipee again.
Quote:
Representative John Conyers has advocated investigating the abuses to see if they violate the Geneva Conventions and are thus cause for impeachment, while Francis A. Boyle and Veterans For Peace hold that impeachment proceedings should be started.
This is good. In one breath you assert that they are violations. In the next you support the call for an investigation to determine if they are. Why investigate what you already know? Further, I fail to see why the acts of the entire government should trigger any spurious impeachment activity. Why stop at Bush? Impeach everybody on the Armed Forces commitee and the intelligence commiteesQuote:
*** Any ONE of these topics are grounds for impeachment, JUST ONE.
No, they are not. Thankfully, there are enough adults in the government that this bullshit is receiving the action it deserves, which is none.
Quote:
Now PLEASE tell me Phred how you still support this president?!!
HOW CAN SOMEONE. ANYONE?! Support this president? THERE HAS NEVER BEEN a president like this one. Sure other presidents have done some-things wrong but NOTHING like this one.
So how is it that you can even TRY to argue what he has done? All you are doing is showing how much you support this president, which MOST of the people on this forum DONT support.
I cannot speak for Phred. I support the decision to go to war in Iraq because I wanted it done long ago. He has finally done what should have been done the day after the first time he kicked the inspectors out. This is not fucking Romper Room. You either adhere to the cease fire or you get removed. That's it. How about this for an idea. We finish the job the first time. There are no troops in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden doesn't go crazy over our troops in Saudi Arabia. The Towers still stand and 3,000 murdered people are still alive. Not to mention the people killed by Hussein in our decade of inaction. Better late than never.
--------------------
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
#5576202 - 05/01/06 01:48 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Alex213, it is a source of constant amazement to me how little you care for your own credibility
LOL!
Coming from the one man who still believes that Iraq had WMD I can only take this as a compliment.
The use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Let me simplify this for you.
1) Did Bush claim this or not?
2) If he did then please explain how an attack on Iraq can be consistent with action taken against the perpetrators of 9/11.
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
|
Not likely to significantly impact the rock that is Alex's brain
Will this flame recieve the same response from Phred as left-wingers who flame I wonder... 
He has finally done what should have been done the day after the first time he kicked the inspectors out.
Every "fact" you alledge in your post is completely wrong but just to clarify this one for you. Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out. The UN withdrew them. Fact.
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
|
Bin Laden doesn't go crazy over our troops in Saudi Arabia. The Towers still stand and 3,000 murdered people are still alive. Not to mention the people killed by Hussein in our decade of inaction. Better late than never.
LOL!
I only just saw this gem!
So you invade Iraq in 1991, slaughter countless thousands of innocent people, occupy the country and that makes Bin Laden happy does it? 
Try and THINK things through a little more.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
#5576417 - 05/01/06 05:51 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Alex213 writes:
Quote:
Let me simplify this for you.
I simplified it for you almost to the point of insult when I led you by hand through the process using color-coded quotes and everything. If The Shroomery would support Power Point presentations in its forums I guess I could have made it easier for you to follow, but since The Shroomery lacks such support I did the best I could.
Bottom line is that if Bush had NOT sent the mandatory notification, you and your ilk would be claiming he should be impeached for defying Congressional instructions. Since he DID send the mandatory notification, you instead whine that he's somehow trying to convince people that Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- despite the fact (and yes, Alex213, it IS a fact) his notification did nothing more than meet the absolute bare bones notification requirements as specified by Congress -- to the point of using identical wording and nothing more. You want to be angry with Congress for using what you personally consider to be misleading wording? Be my guest. But trying to lay it off on Bush is intellectually dishonest.
Every other reader who read my post understands that the sentence fragment from the March 21, 2003 notification you quoted (without sourcing it, I should note) does not fit what I asked for -- an example of a statement by someone in the Bush administration claiming Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. It seems you're the only one here who doesn't grasp this. What conclusion can we draw from this? Either:
a) You are honestly unable to grasp what has been so painstakingly laid out for you, which reflects poorly on your intellect
or
2) You do indeed recognize your contention has been proven false but pretend you don't, which reflects poorly on your honesty
Which conclusion are you more comfortable with?
Phred
--------------------
|
JonnyOnTheSpot
Sober Surfer


Registered: 01/27/02
Posts: 11,527
Loc: North Carolina
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
#5577545 - 05/01/06 02:54 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
i think the plane was shot down. i've thought so since 9/11 when i was staring at the news for hours while reporters interviewed numerous witnesses who claimed to see an explosion in the sky, and who found debris from the plane up to 8 miles away. Then there is the picture of the crash site...there are two in circulation i think. both are from a couple hundred yards away so it's hard to see what's going on, but there isn't much debris visible, and it doesn't look like a typical plane crash (to those who have seen pictures of plane crashes)
anyways, after a day or so the media stop interviewing people who witnessed strange occurrences related to flight 93, and the official widely believed story changed to a inspiring and inspirational story of self sacrifice.
the voice recordings complicate things because it makes it sound like the terrorists crashed on purpose. i don't think they released the entire transcript though. here's a website about it all. http://www.flight93crash.com/
is it really possible for debris to bounce 8 miles when a plane crashes? if you ask yourself that then the whole thing becomes a little suspect.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
#5577678 - 05/01/06 03:34 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex213 said: Not likely to significantly impact the rock that is Alex's brain
Will this flame recieve the same response from Phred as left-wingers who flame I wonder... 
He has finally done what should have been done the day after the first time he kicked the inspectors out.
Every "fact" you alledge in your post is completely wrong but just to clarify this one for you. Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out. The UN withdrew them. Fact.
Ok, from the first time he kicked them out of a site they wanted to inspect. Does that make it clearer for you?
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
Quote:
he voice recordings complicate things because it makes it sound like the terrorists crashed on purpose.
Yeah. Too bad facts are such pesky things, isn't it? "Damn those facts for messing up my perfectly good tinfoil beanie storyline!"
Quote:
is it really possible for debris to bounce 8 miles when a plane crashes?
Depends what you call "debris". The accounts I've read say the "debris" was paper and other light material such as insulation fibers. It's not as if we're talking about chunks of landing gear or engine parts. It's been confirmed by all weather sources that the winds that day at ground level were very strong, and all the so-called "debris" was found directly downwind of the crash site.
Phred
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
#5577708 - 05/01/06 03:45 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex213 said: Bin Laden doesn't go crazy over our troops in Saudi Arabia. The Towers still stand and 3,000 murdered people are still alive. Not to mention the people killed by Hussein in our decade of inaction. Better late than never.
LOL!
I only just saw this gem!
So you invade Iraq in 1991, slaughter countless thousands of innocent people, occupy the country and that makes Bin Laden happy does it? 
We did that anyway, didn't we? The "countless thousands" is bullshit but that's fine, probably would have been less the first time and Hussein wouldn't have had an extra decade of his own murders. Make bin Laden happy? I don't think anything makes him happy except dead infidels. But every report I have ever heard is that he despised Hussein and only despised us enough to go crazy because we had troops in his country (who were there proetecting his country from Hussein)
Quote:
Try and THINK things through a little more.
Coming from the arch Galloway parrot, that's pretty funny.
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
#5577717 - 05/01/06 03:49 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Alex213 writes:
Quote:
Try and THINK things through a little more.
^^^
The PA&L forum irony meter is pegged so hard the needle bends double.
Phred
--------------------
|
JonnyOnTheSpot
Sober Surfer


Registered: 01/27/02
Posts: 11,527
Loc: North Carolina
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
#5578429 - 05/01/06 06:53 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
actually from what i've read a whole intact engine was found far away from the crash site, along with human remains, luggage, and metal debris miles away from the crater. the wind was only 10 mph so i'm not sure how that's supposed to work. apparently dozens of people living in the area found this stuff, and some saw fiery debris raining down from the sky miles from the crash site. i wouldn't put so much faith in "conspiracy" theory like this if i'd just read it on the net after the fact, but i remember seeing reporters interviewing some of the witnesses that were making these claims. it was only later, in the next day or two, that these accounts stopped getting reported, which to me suggests a black out or cover up of some sort.
i'm not sure why the truth is being covered up. it's possible the plane was disabled by a missle or machine gun fire, there were many eye witness accounts of a fighter jet in the area apparently. it's possible that the terrorists actually detonated a bomb, after all the only thing the limited black box recording provides is that the terrorists said "lets bring it down", which is pretty vague and could mean they were arming a bomb for detonation. it's also possible that as the terrorists were crashing the plane and it overstressed and fell apart in mid air, but that's not as likely. whatever the case may be, the government is dishonoring the victims and their families by hiding the truth with some BS story, and now there's a movie too...The facts just don't fit. human remains and 747 engines don't blow away because of a 10 mph breeze. So while the "facts" of the black box recording suggest a crash, the eye witness accounts of the event contradict it. So many eye witnesses can't just be ignored.
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
#5580231 - 05/02/06 02:41 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I asked you two questions. You evaded them. Here they are again:
1) Did Bush claim this or not?
2) If he did then please explain how an attack on Iraq can be consistent with action taken against the perpetrators of 9/11.
Please answer this time. Thank you.
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
#5580234 - 05/02/06 02:44 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
The PA&L forum irony meter is pegged so hard the needle bends double
No response to the flame from a right-winger I see. How surprising
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
|
The "countless thousands" is bullshit but that's fine, probably would have been less the first time
Invading Iraq would have been easier in 1991 than after 12 years of crippling sanctions? Don't be silly.
Ok, from the first time he kicked them out of a site they wanted to inspect. Does that make it clearer for you?
You need to read more about this. This came about in December 1998 when Clinton was facing impeachment and needed another big news story. The UN was aware that the inspections teams had been totally compromised by CIA spies who were trying to provoke the Iraqis into giving an excuse for a bombing campaign. Butler then unilaterally withdrew the inspectors to protect them from the subsequent US bombing.
|
|