Bush 'Not Satisfied' With Iraq Progress

President Tells Key Shiite Leader That More Needs To Be Done To Stop Sectarian Violence

(CBS/AP)  President Bush told a key Iraqi power broker on Monday that the United States was not satisfied with the progress of efforts to stop the sharp escalation of violence in Iraq.

Mr. Bush met at the White House with Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the Shiite leader of the largest bloc in Iraq's parliament. Al-Hakim said that he "vehemently" opposes any regional or international effort to solve Iraq's problems that goes around the unity government in Baghdad.

"Iraq should be in a position to solve Iraq's problems," al-Hakim said.

The president said he spoke with al-Hakim for more than an hour and said they had a "very constructive conversation."

"I assured him that the U.S. supports his work and the work of the prime minister to unify the country," Mr. Bush said, referring to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

But CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reports that it was an odd scene. Al-Hakim, whom the U.S. government's own intelligence sources have linked to death squads, was being praised by the U.S. president.

"Part of unifying Iraq is for the elected leaders and society leaders to reject the extremists that are trying to stop the advance of this young democracy," Mr. Bush said.

Al-Hakim told Mr. Bush that the situation in Iraq is not as bad as it seems. He said the picture presented by many media sources "is profoundly different from reality," Axelrod reports.

"We talked about the need to give the government Iraq more capability as soon as possible so the elected government of Iraq can do that which the Iraqi people want to secure their country from extremists and murderers," Mr. Bush said. "I told his eminence that I was proud of the courage of the Iraqi people. I told him that we're not satisfied with the pace of progress in Iraq. And that we want to continue to work with the sovereign government of Iraq."

Al-Hakim, after what he called a "very clear" meeting earlier with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, told reporters in Arabic that "we have asked for the American forces to stay in Iraq" to enable Iraqi security to deal with terrorists.

Mr. Bush spoke with al-Hakim directly about Iran and Syria and the critical need for them to respect Iraqi sovereignty and stop destructive activity that undermines Iraq's unity government, a senior administration official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to divulge details of the meeting.

The official said it wasn't known whether al-Hakim specifically asked President Bush to enlist Iran's assistance. Al-Hakim told reporters that he vehemently opposes any regional or international effort to solve Iraq's problems that goes around the unity government in Baghdad.

"We reject any attempts to have a regional or international role in solving the Iraqi issue," the cleric, who speaks Arabic, said through a translator. "We cannot bypass the political process. Iraq should be in a position to solve Iraqi problems."

Later, in a speech at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington, al-Hakim said Iraq is interested in creating good relations with all neighboring nations, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Syria and Jordan.

But he said: "We do not want to distribute shares of power to neighboring countries, but rather we want balanced relations."

Al-Hakim said he talked with Mr. Bush about equipment, including armaments, that Iraqi security forces need. He pledged that the government would deal with all forms of terrorism, no matter where they originate.

He also said eliminating the danger of civil war in Iraq can be achieved only by decisive strikes against terrorist Baathists and extremist followers of Islam. "Otherwise we will continue to witness massacres being committed every now and then against the innocent Iraqis," he said.

Monday's developments came amid rising expectations about a new U.S. policy that Bush is crafting for Iraq — one that his advisers say will be announced within weeks. He is seeking information from reviews being done by the State Department, National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as the Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana.

It became increasingly clear that the administration was looking for Iraq alternatives well before the November elections, when Bush was adamantly defending his policies.

A day before the elections, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote a letter saying he had developed a list of alternative approaches for Iraq over a period of weeks. In his letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Monday, Rumsfeld said he and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had told the president "a number of weeks ago" that they were considering alternatives for Iraq policy because changes were needed.

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin spoke exclusively with a former Rumsfeld ally turned harsh critic, who says Rumsfeld's letter was long overdue.

Rumsfeld also wrote that at his request, Gen. John Abizaid, the top commander for U.S. forces in the Middle East, had assembled a group to work on the issue.

[juliehg-2009]

Iraq would not be in the state it is in had Mr. Bush not chosen to chase windmills.

Iraq = VietNam the Sequel; Mr. Bush will gift the next administration with a golden pooper scooper.

[nothappyatall]

"We have not failed in Iraq," Hadley said as he made the talk show rounds. "

CLUEBUS for Hadley: we already HAVE failed, read the reports, LISTEN to the committee, WATCH the news you moron!
Naturally BUSH will not listen, he is a texASS John Wayne wanna be who doesn't listen to ANYONE and claims god talks to him (he is hearing voices in his head, and it AINT god LOL)

[observantx]

What in blazes in IN that KOOLAID??

Hadley insists Iraq is salvageable despite the facts on the ground.

Fearless, excuse me, Clueless Leader says he plans to ignore the recommendations of the Iraq Study group.

This is willful blindness to reality on one hand and and irrational stubbornness on the other.

I am beginning to wonder if Haliburton & all the other parasites making money off this war have boy George%u2019s arm twisted up behind him, so that they can keep raking in the dough as long as they possibly can.

It doesn%u2019t matter to them that they money they are making is soaked in the blood of our sons and daughters in uniform.

We need to throw George and the rest of these creeps behind bars. This is wrong. These are crimes. They need to be answered for.

[mickeyjay31-2009]

What policy? In order to fail, a policy has to have been presented. The only thing this goof ball has presented is catch phrases, such as, "Stay the Course", "the people will welcome us with open arms", and, "Rumsfeld?? Who's Donald Rumsfeld?" Would someone please check on those running the government and if anyone is found alive, please report it.

[grumpas]

Do you believe these people?????? They are off in "LA-LA land" again trying to make us believe mission impossible II(ha! ha!)has a chance of surviving! I have a hard time believing anyone with any intelligence voted this mess into office!!! I always knew Bush was a moron, but even Hadley outdoes him!

[hhusted]

Both Bush and Hadley are morons in the biggest sense. I think that both of them should be fired. Bush should be impreached and Hadley should be fired. End of story.

[mrthornman]

What kills me is that none of them will give us straight talk. Bush clearly will not, probably because he is in denial about the whole stinking mess. Hadley makes the talk show rounds and clearly is not speaking the truth - his words bear no resemblance to his leaked memo. And good old mouthpiece Tony Snow just reads whatever talking points he is given. Surely they think we are a nation of idiots.

[rharrin1]

Come on everybody can't you see we are winning we got them on the run.

[frankly6]

The administration has never been honest about the Iraq debacle. Bush is more interested in saving his rear than saving American lives.

The truth about the Civil War in Iraq is that the real victors are Iran, Ossama, and Halliburton.

[mrthornman]

frankly6:

I agree, although I think it is too late for GWB to save his rear. His legacy will not be pretty.

[ceekuei]

Well, you cannot blame the Bush boys for trying again to deceive and double talk the average American. It worked in two elections that helped put an incompetent man and his team in the WH. Why not this time? There are still groups out there who think that an invasion of a sovereign country is a noble cause. When some other countries do the same, all hell would break loose. Fancy watching on TV hearing the sycophant talking heads warning Iran and Syria, and everyone in between not to interfere in Iraq. Talk about credibility and double standards when Bush invaded the country. Is that no worst than "interfering?" Iraq is a lost cause, a fool's errand and no amount of spin can "cure" it.

[frankly6]

Refusing to leave Iraq through the rest of his term means that Bush will never have to admit failure. He can just dump it in the lap of some other President and or a Democratic congress and blame them for his incompetence.

[mrthornman]

That is true, but think what a nightmare that would be for the Repub presidential candidates in 2008. GWB will be under intense pressure from his own party to get things cleaned up by then...

[mrthornman]

GWB, you don't have a son. Quit posting here.

[bluestardad]

What a bunch of loosers, Baghdad Bob was more truthful.

[sharncedar]

Ok, here's my attempt to help the neo-cons:

Yes we are winning the war in Iraq. We have achieved the first and primary goal, the goal given to us by Israel. That goal was to destroy the infrastructure and nationhood of Iraq, so they would be unable to construct any missles. That is now the case. The nation of Iraq is in ruins. Victory one for Bush.

The second goal was to distract attention from GWB and his involvement, or the involvement of his family and the CIA, in the 9/11 bombings. The Bushes and the CIA were both involved with Bin Laden, their policy backfired bigtime, and some of the blame for that problem clearly lies with them. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about Iraq, while Bin Laden has conveniently disappeared. Victory two for Bush.

The third goal is also mission accomplished. That was to crack down on America civil rights. We now have an intrusive police state, and a docile population that thinks its OK. Big change from what was once America. Big victory for Bush.

Bush is winning, why should he quit Iraq now.

[mrthornman]

Nah.

1) oil
2) revenge for saddam trying to kill father
3) strategic military presence in Middle East

[grazinggoat]

bushrocks1, You are a castr8, and you have no son to send to war. SO stopp filling up this blog with Sh*t.

[jn122736]

Re. SharnCedar at 12:54 PM,

You%u2019ll never be able to convince many Bush supporters or, for that matter, many average voters with your logical comments. As a matter of fact I plan to counter your comments myself%u2026that is, as soon as I can come up with something.

[usawarrior]

In past years, many of us have said that the Carter presidency was inept, naove, hesitant and we even gave President Carter labels that should no be said amongst people of good upbringing%u2026 All well deserved! But now; how should we label President Bush%u2026 blind, ignorant, naove, childish or %u201Call of the above%u201D? According to him, there is no global warming; the war in Iraq is a good idea and going well, his foreign policy is right on target%u2026 I%u2019m sure that by now he sent his annual letter to Santa. Wow!!!! A couple of years ago I used to be one of the %u201Cwilling%u201D.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[randalds]

The war in Iraq has been a rousing success for those it was fought for, the rich. Defense contractors are making money hand over fist and oil company profits have never been higher. Sure the war is costing human lives on both sides, but what do they care when none (or few) of their "class" are fighting and dying in it? Of course it's costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, but what do they care when the money is simply being transferred from us and into their bank accounts? Our soldiers deaths and those of Iraqi civilians are just a minor cost of doing war for them and they actually cost them nothing, so this has been a very profitable war indeed for Bush's handlers and those who control his puppet strings. I wonder how much of a payoff he and Cheney get?

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[shingles1]

I guess reporting bushrocks1's comments as spam hasn't worked.

[tucson23]

Hadley keeps saying, "we have been making adjustments, but the goals have not changed." What he doesn't seem to understand is that it's the goals that need to change. What the president wants is impossible, and even if it wasn't, it could never be achieved through military force--we all know it, but they're too stubborn, stupid, or both to see it.

[rsoxfan1123]

bush is "not satisfied with the progress of efforts to stop the sharp escalation of violence in Iraq."
Someone once posted on here that this is like the captain of the Titanic being "dissatisfied" with the iceberg situation. What a moron.

[patriotic9]

How nice a CHRISTIAN RADICAL(BUSH)sitting with an ISLAMIC RADICAL(AL-HAKIM).These ISLAMIC RADICALS are fooling these NON-SENSE CHRISTAIN RADICALS to kill the AMERICANS by AMERICANS'TAX PAYED MONEY and AMERICAN'S SODLIER'S LIVES but BUSH won't ever understand it as he doesn't find any description of this situation and complication in his BIBLE,oh by the way which version of BIBLE he should check?How would he know which version of the BIBLE is the one revealed on JESUS according to the RADICAL CHRISTIAN BELIEF.

[rharrin1]

USAWarrior

You forgot LIAR THIEF COWARD

[observantx]

Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim probably spent that hour in our White House amusing himself by running rings around Clueless Leader. As for the meeting with Condi, who made what clear to whom?

Here is a man from a family of spiritual leaders, who was active in the Safar Intifada, a founding member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, who headed its military wing while in exile there, and was the top candidate for the United Iraqi Coalition in 2005. Contrast that with boy George who couldn%u2019t manage a baseball team and couldn%u2019t bother to show up for duty in the Champagne Squadron.

January 2008 can%u2019t come quick enough.

[kalatur]

observantX: You said "January 2008 can

[sandycat2]

Patriot, Bush is not a radical. He's a moderate.

[sharncedar]

"President Bush ... was not satisfied with the progress of efforts to stop the sharp escalation of violence in Iraq"

Oh man - this guy sounds like a manager I had before. He messes the situation up, and then calls in the employee to tell him he's not satisfied.


We need to promote Bush, he has real management potential. He's not satisfied ... wow, that takes some supreme stupidity and arrogance. Wow.

Put this guy in charge of Ford Motor Company. He would sink the entire product line into som insane vehicles like 100,000 pound super-SUV's, then fire 38,000 employees when no one buys them. I can see Bush calling all 38,000 Ford employees into his office. Bush - "I'm not satisfied with the sales numbers, no one is buying that wonderful car I designed, the 100,000 pound super-SUV, so you are all fired. Next time do a better job or I'll fire you again. (satisfied smirk). Hmmm ... what was the number for that Chinese manufacturing plant ... "

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[patriotic9]

sandycat2
You are right.Now Bush is a moderate after realizing the falsehood of the RADICAL CHRISTIANITY when he lost the IRAQ WAR which instead of bringing CHRIST back in the world made ISLAMIC RADICAL POWERFULL and SUCCESSFUL in their plans.Now BUSH doesn't refer to GOD or BIBLE in his speeches like he used to do in the past.He will be a moderate when he will take all the UNCONSTITUTIONAL REMARKS out of our politics like"One nation under GOD" and "In GOD we trust",he will allow the homosexual couples to marry just like the HETEROSEXUAL CITIZENS,He will denounce the ILLEGITIMATE and UNJUSTIFIED EXISTANCE of ISRAEL which is based on RACISM and INJSUTICE,will announce that from today onward people will be treated on the basis of their actions,they won't be treated as GOD-CHOSEN or GOD-NEGLECTED on the basis of the RACE or FAMILY they are born in.AMERICANS won't be treated as GOD-NEGLECTED and NON-AMERICANS won't be treated as GOD-CHOSEN,United States won't be considered as UNHOLY LAND and ISRAEL which is not a US territory will not be treated as a HOLY LAND.U.S Constitution will be the SUPREME LAW,not that BIBLE which discriminates against the AMERICANS by not promisisng them a SINGLE PENNY and PROMISING the NON AMERICAN EUROPEAN INVADERS in PALESTINE a LAND in the MIDDLE EAST

[themooniac]

Bushrocks troll alert.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[patriotic9]

superchez1
"Leave the muslim animals alone to slaughter themselves"
You are absolutely right.But what should we do with the EXTREMIST CHRISTIAN ANIMALS who SEXUALLY MOLEST and SODOMIZE our YOUNG LITTLE AMERICAN BOYS in those CHURCHES where they frist preach against the evils of HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVOIR then tear the ANAL SPHINCTERS of those INNOCENT AMERICAN BOYS.What should we do with the REPUBLICANS like FOLEY who SEXUALLY harasses AMERICAN boys.What should we do with the people like BILL O'RIELLY who preaches people about MORAL VALUES and then SEXUALLY HARASS a female at work and then gives her ten million dollars to keep her mouth shut.We can't leave these EXTREMIST WILD CHRISTIAN ANIMALS alone because the people who suffer by their hands are our entire nation.If we leave them alone they will keep on doing what they doing and if we give them the chance to participate in POLITICS,they screw up the whole country on the name of SECOND COMING OF CHRIST.

[sandycat2]

Patiotic, Bush has always been a moderate. What rock have you been under? Do you really believe all that BS you are spouting?

[patriotic9]

sandycat2
You have a right to claim my comments as BS but you should prove your points with reasons like I did.I hope you will do that.I wish you all the best.

[fascistusa]

Lord Bush is a FASCIST.

I'm not even sure he's human. If he is, I think he was born without a soul.

[agnim]

"Danes acquitted over Iraq secrets"

Denmark, what a country!

Now, that's national media and court of "public interest" worthy of their names.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6206848.stm

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[grazinggoat]

whose hand is Walking-liar shaking? It's all confusing... whose hand is this leader shaking?, the devil's?

[olebd]

Wouldn't the walking liar be shaking a hoof if it were truly the devil?

[grazinggoat]

'We talked about the need to give the government Iraq more capability as soon as possible so the elected government of Iraq can do that which the Iraqi people want to secure their country from extremists and murderers'

Walking-liar forgot to mention the LIARS as well.

[arthurcl1]

This is a very odd scene with Bush! Al-Hakim, whom the U.S. government's own intelligence sources have linked to death squads, was being praised by the U.S. president.

[patriotic9]

Wasn't it better to shake Saddam's hands then this RADICAL ISLAMIST's hand whose purpose of life is to kill infidels.I bet Bush&Co. don't know very basics of how these RADICAL ISLAMIST SHIA will keep on taking our tax payed money and our weapons to kill our soldiers in Iraq and to supply those weapons to their RADICAL HEZBOLLAH brothers in LEBANON.I feel so frustrated when I see how stupid people in our govt are how our country is going towards hell hole because of lack of knowlege and undersatnding of these RADICAL MUSLIMS and to start a war in a way which only benifits RADICAL ISLAM AND RADICAL MUSLIMS.
I bet these NON-SENSE CHRISTIAN RADICALS who have started a war in a way which only help their RADICAL MUSLIM BROTHERS in achieving their ultimate goal of forming an ISLAMIC EMPIRE by our tax money and weapons,don't even know that the SHIA ISLAM is based on a concept called TUQIYYAH which means telling lies to the infidels or to keep INFIDELS in darkness by showing a friendly face but to stab at the back is one of the most rewarding action in SHIA ISLAM.Our terrorism experts waste their time in researching about how SHIA and SUNNI sects were fromed 1400 years ago but they are not taught about concept like TUQIYYAH which makes a big difference in how the fight against a SHIA RADICAL should be different in the way we should fight against a SUNNI RADICAL.

[grazinggoat]

Al-Hakim is gonna do the ARM-JOB as long as the Iranian masters counter-part agree on the said JOB. Iran providing the men and the martyrs and Walking-Liar providing the Tools. Nice team-work. This is the walking-liar's way of liberating the Iraqi population.

[arthurcl1]

Bush has big smiles on his face as Al-Hakim, whom the U.S. government's own intelligence sources have linked to death squads, was being praised by Bush! Bush is friends with the ones who want to destroy us!

[patriotic9]

I think the only people who were capable to understand and fight the RADICAL ISLAM were the ATHEIST RUSSIANS who were defeated by the EXTREMIST RADICAL MUSLIMS by the help of their EXTREMSIT RADICAL CHRISTIAN BROTHERS in the REAGAN ADMINISTRATION.