Iraq did not attack America, as much as you want to lump it all in one pot - they didn't...sm
Posted By: Democrat on 2005-11-01
In Reply to: Democrats/Liberals - Proud conservative
It's that grasping at straws logic I don't understand fully. First though, I really enjoyed your post and I respect your point of view.
You say that we were not attacked but yet our troops were deployed all over the world under Clinton. Newsflash, they still are under Bush, so what's the point? That has been America's role since before Clinton - World Police. Clinton didn't ask for the role, it was already there. Second, we did not invade and occupy Bosnia or any other country under Clinton if I remember correctly. We helped people who were being slaughtered AT THE TIME. How could YOU support Iraq and not Bosnia? Matter of fact, I would have like to see Clinton do more, especially in Rwanda.
The thing about our *invasion and occupation* of Iraq is that they did not attack us on 911. Their country was stable when we attacked them. As far as I know, the mass murders and killings were not going on, there was not WMD, the sanctions were working. They were not at war among themselves. We had no right or reason to intervene this way. Sure, the people were oppresed (so are many other countries) but they weren't a terrorist breeding ground either. Don't get me wrong, I hope we or they are able to have stability in Iraq and soon, but I have many reservations that this will come to pass anytime soon.
You brought up something interesting though when you said the Al Qaeda terrorist organization is now down to 17,000?? I'm curious to know how many there were to start with? It's hard to see this as progress if we don't know how many there were to begin with.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Well the reason this war is illegal is because IRAQ did not attack AMERICA...sm
But that logic escapes its supporters so maybe that's the reason Starcat doesn't come out and say it. There's really noting more to it. There were other ways to take Saddam out, and I believe that. An all out preemptive war that is on year 3, because of WMD that is yet to be found. Effectively making that stretch of land a more fertile ground for violence. Of course you don't see a problem here.
Yeah, Iraq didn't attack us. There was a memo. nm
x
Bush didn't destroy Iraq. He helped to liberate Iraq.
m
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
Why do you feel the desperate need to attack, attack, attack....
what IS it about Obama that inspires this kind of thing? I guess you don't get it when someone is being facetious do you? Read the whole thread...including the part about celestial choirs, which was said by one of Obama's supporters.
The smoke machines and strobe lights was definitely a joke, one can only hope they would not do something so ridiculous but who knows....Britney Spears' set designer designed that set.
So much for no celebrity status. LOL.
And that statement is ridiculous, Iran and Iraq enemies, remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq would jus
nm
Please don't lump us all together
Not all Rebuplicans think of themselves as better than everyone else. I happen to be a Republican with some liberal views, but I'm certainly not a racist or an elitist and am far from thinking I'm better than everyone else. I have an open mind when it comes to politics and never vote for someone just because they are Republican - far from, actually, as last year I voted for a Democrat governor and a Democrat senator. So plese do not generalize - it really offends those of us who really try to get the facts and not get drawn into the sludge-fest.
I just don't think you can lump
Who knows if the republicans are to blame? Some people have credit cards that they did try and save but since the economy stinks and health insurance does not cover what it should, they've been forced to use credit and maybe think that getting a second job or working overtime could play for that. But, please do not say that because you are not one of those that does not have credit card debt, that you somehow made better choices.
Credit cards are just as much a part of this society crisis as these large corporations and mortgage companies delving out mortgages like it's no big deal, and then what happens when the mortgagee can't pay???? They wind up homeless.
Let's keep it here in the USA. We can help out when we can, but darn it we need it here for education, healthcare, and equal housing (as Biden put it), we didn't hear anything about those issues at the RNC.
I've read here on the internet for what it is worth about how Sarah Palin will put her special needs son out there and work for this cause, which is great, but let's work for all children whether they be special needs (that's obvious) or special needs because their Dad walked out because he got so depressed that he couldn't support his family and took to the "bottle." Let's help the children that their parents lost their good paying jobs because the company offshored. JMO.
I really am not trying to lump....(sm)
all pubs in with the extremists. And you're right, there are many pubs that don't fall into that category. However, when they start taking up for extremists (and not all, by any means did), they put themselves into that category.
FYI: Those southern democrats who started the KKK were what were known as "dixicrats," who eventually turned into the republican party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
I cannot and will not lump all Dems together...
however, several of the group who post here post like this. I don't understand it, because it doesn't follow what I thought democrats were all about. I am not a Republican by the way...am an Independent. I don't owe any party my vote...but I have Democrats in my family and they do not speak like this...
But, I could not say most Dems treat people this way. Just some of these do. :)
I just saw him on camera - there is no lump
He does have a set of jowls. Jowls are areas of fullness along the jawline that tend to increase with age.
Please don't lump all us liberals together
I don't like Ann Coulter but not for any of the reasons you said. I don't like her because I think she uses fear mongering tactics to get her point across and as she proved with the comment about Michelle Obama, she is unable to do it without resorting to name calling. That doesn't speak to any level of intelligence for me.
I don't like any of the pundits who are either so far right or far left that they are unable to see any other viewpoint but their own. Anyone like that is just scary to me.
So what's that giant lump on his left jaw?
Trying to lump the 2 wars into one and call Obama a liar is S-P-I-N
Unless you are really ignorant and do not realize that Iraq and Afghanistan are 2 separate countries. (The middle east......Obama was going to bring our troops home! Now he's sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan! He lied!) You try to incite "war" against Obama based on your inability to comprehend what you read and what you don't remember..........sounds like BS to me.
attack once again
I am not bitter, I am not hateful. I know what is good for the country and it isnt what is in Washington, DC right now. The proof is there by the way this country is going to hell in a handbasket. I want this country to turn around and become the country I grew up with, the country I was once proud to be a part of. Im fighting to turn the craziness around for future generations and the way to do it is to speak and debate and let the people know there is another way to run this country other than what we have right now. You are the one who is getting so hot headed and attacking me and calling me vile, hateful, etc. Im just debating and stating my political stance and putting the blame where it belongs..on this administration. When something is wrong, I say so. I do not give my respect blindly. The administration, whether republican or democrat, earns my respect and this administration has not earned my trust, loyalty or respect. The 1990s were a great time, we had a surplus, no major terrorist war going on, no terrorist breeding ground of our own making as we now have, Saddam was contained and his people at least had electricity, jobs, food, a stable life, we had low unemployment. The 1980s were a great time too. The reality now is we are in a terrible situation in this country and we are not respected around the world. We really have no friends that will help us in Iraq, the ones that are there are pulling out..Italy in 09/2005 and now the talking heads are stating the British might just put pressure on Blair to start pulling out. We are in a situation of this administrations doing and Im not willing to just sit quietly and let the powers that be continue to drive us deeper and deeper into world wide insanity.
why must you ALWAYS attack?
How does it feel, MT? How does it feel to be painted in the same picture as terrorists? Not too nice, hun? Well, that is how I felt when you said I would chain myself to the gates at the WH and blow myself up (not exact words), when you grouped me in with terrorists. You have a big habit of calling people insane, crazy, lunatic and this makes me wonder if your sanity is intact as when others post, they do not attack personally but you always do. If the poster does not agree with you or posts something that you do not like, they are labeled insane or other not so nice words. Cant you debate without attacking?
You have done nothing but attack
every single poster on this board. You are rude, crude, obnoxious, insulting and totally intolerant. I realize these are considered compliments in your narrow-minded circles, but most reasonable Americans don't care for people who behave as you insist on behaving.
How's it feel to be treated the way you treat others?
Nuff said.
once again a mad dog attack by the right
You dont think rationally. Where on this board did anyone state Bush caused the hurricane? Just fling your hate towards the liberals and your baseless arguments. First of all, Bush isnt doing anything to help the victims of the hurricane, the workers are, the police, fire fighters, government workers, etc.
Attack?
This is a bit of a quandry. Again, you feel the need to label me. What if I am none of those things? I have never attacked, used a harsh word, made an accusation, nor called a name on this board. I HAVE made observations based on what I see. I am not sure how you conduct discourse with people in your life outside of this board, but I would like to assume that others are allowed their own set of values and facts without being labeled and without specious statements being made against them.
to attack, I would have to
consider you a threat. Unfortunately, I just find your repetitive posts mind-numbingly feeble. You look up a word on Google like socialist, read the two-line definition and then post it over and over and over. You have no depth of knowledge on any of the subjects discussed here and so your posts are absolutely worthless. It is like having to tolerate a homely little first-grader at a book club discussing Shakesphere. You think you are cute and smart, but the adults loathe you.
Only the ones who continually attack and lie.
You're disturbed because I proved (yet again) that she's a liar, but you're not disturbed that she maliciously attacks each and every single poster who dares to even THINK about disagreeing with her?
Tells me pretty much all I need to know about you. 
If you like liars and bullies, go back to the Conservative boad.
May God help us all if we get another terror attack.
This president has ignored every single thing ever suggested to him, even as it regards terrorism. I wonder what the terrorists will be planning for us in the future and how much information and knowledge they've learned from this about our weak spots. They must see American frustration with Bush's incompetence, and they must really be enjoying that. This is AMERICA. We're supposed to have our act together.
I don't see this as an attack and obviously neither did Lurker. sm
Please look to your own back yard.
It was not meant as an attack, I
that it might not be the wisest idea to go to a *liberal* board and call yourself something that runs counter to their belief system, and then expect to be treated like a long-lost son.
Further, I said the Democrats frustrate me to no end, and it is precisely for the very reasons you stated. They were too afraid of being branded as **unpatriotic** and **unsupportive of the troops**, blah,blah,blah. In their defense, however, sometimes they simply have not had the votes to over ride the president's agenda. Thank goodness for people like Murtha.
I apologize if you felt I was attacking you, as I think we have found some common ground. I think the other thing that happens is that sometimes words, if not chosen extra carefully, can come off sounding what they are not.
see...that's the thing. It's your right to attack if you want....
and I defend that right. But your way of handling opposition is akin to jack-booted thugs and arm-twisting. If that is the way you choose to voice your opposition, more power to you. Don't understand it, but don't have to. It is certainly your right. Whatever floats your boat.
I don't care how much you attack me....
go ahead. Apparently that is what gets your ticker going. Knock yourself out.
attack the messenger
Here we go again - Rove's tactic of personal attacks on those who bring forth damaging information. Media matters states inaccuracies of the press on both sides. They back their statements up with proof and facts. You can argue they are "left" "right" "middle" or "ovoid" but they still present information and back it up with verifiable facts.
If you can't refute, attack.........nm
nm
If you can't refute, attack. lol. nm
nm
When you can't refute, you attack. lol. nm
nm
Again, you can't refute, so you attack....
which reflects more negatively on you than on me.
Your posts provide no useful information...you employ the Alinsky method, if you don't know anything about the subject you just attack. If you knew anything about socialism, about black liberation theology, had bothered to read Obama's agenda and still concluded he was not a socialist you are so far in denial a backhoe could not dig you out.
Actually, it is Shakespeare. Perhaps you would be better served to pay more attention to the homely first-grader...you adult, you. lol.
Sounded like an attack to me. And in the..
grand scheme of things, why is it important to you that I admit I am something I am not??
ACK! HEART ATTACK!
Did someone just apologize on this board?!?!??!
By golly I think we are gettin somewhere! Maybe we ain't all rurnt!
(South Georgia :-D )
You people who attack
Sarah Palin for her lack of experience just kill me here. You discredit all the experience she has by saying that being governor means nothing when previous presidents were governors prior to their presidency. She has run a state and has done a successful job at it and yet you Obama supports refuse to see that. You feel more compelled to discuss her clothes or how she should stay home with the kids instead of running for office. Which is a horribly sexist thing to say.
You refuse to see anything positive she has done in her career and cry that she lacks experience and yet you are so blind to see that Barrack Obama has very little experience himself. He has climbed the ladder through the help of various radicals and crooks. Obama has all these associations with radicals and racists people and you see nothing wrong with that? He has requested more spending for earmarks and pork in 4 years than John McCain has during his whole career. Obama wants to spend more of OUR money.
Government has really messed things up. Why do we want bigger government when government has already failed us? Yet here we are putting our trust in a man who has questionable associations just because he promises change.....change that he can't possibly deliver on and if he does......there goes the country. He wants more government spending, higher taxes, and bigger government.
I'm sorry but I want smaller government, less government spending, and don't raise taxes during a recession.
Or another terror attack. Or a
biological attack. Or a flu pandemic. Lots of scenarios available for his use. 
I share your fears 100%.
You must mean a terrorIST attack, because sm
We are attacked by people who call themselves terrorists. Unless of course, you have terror attacks like some people have panic attacks.
A financial attack?
Tell that to the thousands who lost their lives or their loved ones that day. Wow, how cold can you be?
Cyber attack has hit
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/20/pentagon-cyber-siege-unprecedented-attack/
The Pentagon has suffered from a cyber attack so alarming that it has taken the unprecedented step of banning the use of external hardware devices, such as flash drives and DVD's, FOX News has learned.
The attack came in the form of a global virus or worm that is spreading rapidly throughout a number of military networks.
"We have detected a global virus for which there has been alerts, and we have seen some of this on our networks," a Pentagon official told FOX News. "We are now taking steps to mitigate the virus."
The official could not reveal the source of the attack because that information remains classified.
"Daily there are millions of scans of the GIG, but for security reasons we don't discuss the number of actual intrusions or attempts, or discuss specific measures commanders in the field may be taking to protect and defend our networks," the department said in an official statement.
Military computers are often referred to as part of the Global Information Grid, or GIG, a system composed of 17 million computers, many of which house classified or sensitive information.
FOX News obtained a copy of one memo sent out last week to an Army division within the Pentagon warning of the cyber attack.
"Due to the presence of commercial malware, CDR USSTRATCOM has banned the use of removable media (thumb drives, CDRs/DVDRs, floppy disks) on all DoD networks and computers effective immediately."
how was that a personal attack?
telling you you aren't better than everyone? At least I'm not callng people mentally challenged. yes i know that wasn't you, you are the friend that just laughs along with the bully...
and if you wanna point fingers about me not responding the way you think I should have, i dont see you responding to the person giving their opinion on what trickle up means...
give it a rest it's freaking Christmas time
you obviously HAVE to have the last word so i'll let you have it. pretty pathetic that you spend your time trying to cut other people down... is that also a personal attack?
Right. Where they can plot again to attack us.
nm
It was more of an attack of the protestors by the
xx
No one seriously questions that the attack on
Actually, I'm embarassed that our notion of "torture" is so wimpy. "You can put a caterpillar in his cell, but you must inform him that it is not a stinging caterpillar". PUHLEEZE.
What is pathetic is you liberals calling any of this torture - which you are doing purely to make political points, pure and simple. How people like Jews who survived the Holocaust and who have really been tortured must laugh at your quaint ideas!
"Oooh - they gave a prisoner a nasty look! Oooh - they spoke loudly to a prisoner! Oooh - they piped bad music into their cells! Oooh - they burned the prisoner's toast! Oooh - they didn't fluff the prisoner's pillows! Oooh - they opened the prisoner's mail! Oooh - they didn't give the prisoner a second helping of Beef Wellington!"
You people make me sick, and it makes me sick to think that, thanks to Obama, what AL Qaida actually knows is that our notion of torture amounts to nothing more painful than making them watch old episodes of "I Love Lucy" (with a doctor in attendance, of course, in case the prisoner faints from boredom).
I just hope we can all survive it and that the next attack isn't
smallpox, because after 4 years, we STILL don't have enough vaccines to protect Americans. That's something that should have been a priority, but you're right. He doesn't care how many people die under his watch. He said so himself regarding his legacy: He'll be dead.
I'm sure not celebrating what he does. All I can do is hold my breath for the next 3 years and hope he can do no further HARM of a permanent nature.
I wonder how many American deaths he's going to be responsible for through neglect and obsession with Iraq before the end of 2008.
And yes, I'm angry because I think we're morally STUCK in Iraq. Bush broke it, and we will all be fixing it for generations to come.
Better than a yellow dog attack by a liberal. SM
And if you would look, Cindy Sheehan and Robert Kennedy Jr. said it.
How about stepping out of attack mode for just one sec. sm
You can't even put aside your Bush hatred. You use it to decry a human diaster just a few days old. I picture you perched on the edge of your DE-VAN, head thrust forward, scanning the channels for stories you can plug into the DU, get the info, and post it here. PEOPLE ARE DYING, SUFFERING. What is WRONG with you!!!!
lets debate, not attack
Do I, really? I only attack when I am attacked and anyone looking over the posts, archives and all, will see that..Post something to debate and I will debate, however, dont start throwing insults during the debate if it isnt going your way..which has happened..I can remember a debate on Global Warming..We debated, as soon as it was looking good towards my opinion, I was told I knew nothing, I was stupid, etc..You want a debate..lets do it..I belonged to the debate club of my college, I love debates..Come on..introduce something to debate on and I will debate you, as I bet so will other liberals..Lets debate and stop attacking..attacks gets us no where, debates just might open a few eyes..
You consider *it would be so nice if you weren't here* an attack? sm
Wow.
An example of your attack.. See below where I posted an editorial
w
That's the problem, they can't attack Fitzgerald...sm
I liked when one of the reports suggested that he would be seen as a political hack and he responded *to which party?* I think it's good that this not be a politically motivated special prosecutor just one who wants justice. I like Fitzgerald I think with his attitude and integrity he would make an awesome president!!!
Her true reason is to attack.
She made that abundantly clear in her post. I'm just ignoring her from now on. She's not worth the hassle. 
I think he is bracing himself for the attack dogs first.sm
Like everyone else, he knows what the consequences are for speaking out. I'm sure the MSM have a smear campaign planned if he does.
|
