Rumsfeld resigning? Anyone else hear this? sm
Posted By: LVMT on 2006-11-08
In Reply to:
Replacement supposed to be Bob Gates.
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
I don't really care about Rumsfeld.
The part about Rumsfeld was actually the only part I disagreed with her about because if Rummy wasn't doing exactly what Bush wanted, Bush would have fired him a long time ago. I believe it's Bush's policies that are the problem. If he fires Rummy, he will only hire someone else that he can hide behind and let take the heat for his failed war scheme.
I loved the pig comment, too. LoL
The day Rumsfeld resigned. sm
Britney Spears divorce received millions more hits on the net than the news of Rumsfeld's resignation. And the divorce thing was days old. I think that puts into perspective where people's minds are. Rome is burning and this time, a large portion of the American population are fiddling.
All this said, I agree with you that Cheney, Rumsfeld
and Bush should be punished for what they did. Guards in Abu Ghraib who followed orders were put on trial and imprisoned.
Torture is never justified and brings often useless, coerced confessions and devastating revenge.
Those subjected to physical torture usually conceive undying hatred for their torturers. One must therefore also consider the greater likelihood that American civilians (here or especially abroad) and American troops overseas will be subject to torture (or terror) by aggrieved enemies.'
Keith Olbermann responds to Rumsfeld
One of Keith's best moments, IMO.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/
Rumsfeld's Handshake Deal With Saddam Hussein
Rumsfeld is full of history (among other substances), but he neglected to share this piece of history with the American majority he criticized.
(I suggest Breaking Up Is Hard To Do as the perfect background music for this.)
Published on Thursday, December 8, 2005 by CommonDreams.org |
Rumsfeld's Handshake Deal with Saddam |
by Norman Solomon |
|
Christmas came 11 days early for Donald Rumsfeld two years ago when the news broke that American forces had pulled Saddam Hussein from a spidery hole. During interviews about the capture, on CBS and ABC, the Pentagon's top man was upbeat. And he didn't have to deal with a question that Lesley Stahl or Peter Jennings could have logically chosen to ask: Secretary Rumsfeld, you met with Saddam almost exactly 20 years ago and shook his hand. What kind of guy was he?
Now, Saddam Hussein has gone on trial, but such questions remain unasked by mainstream U.S. journalists. Rumsfeld met with Hussein in Baghdad on behalf of the Reagan administration, opening up strong diplomatic and military ties that lasted through six more years of Saddam's murderous brutality.
As it happens, the initial trial of Saddam and co-defendants is focusing on grisly crimes that occurred the year before Rumsfeld gripped his hand. The first witness, Ahmad Hassan Muhammad, 38, riveted the courtroom with the scenes of torture he witnessed after his arrest in 1982, including a meat grinder with human hair and blood under it, the New York Times reported Tuesday. And: At one point, Mr. Muhammad briefly broke down in tears as he recalled how his brother was tortured with electrical shocks in front of their 77-year-old father.
The victims were Shiites -- 143 men and adolescent boys, according to the charges -- tortured and killed in the Iraqi town of Dujail after an assassination attempt against Saddam in early July of 1982. Donald Rumsfeld became the Reagan administration's Middle East special envoy 15 months later.
On Dec. 20, 1983, the Washington Post reported that Rumsfeld visited Iraq in what U.S. officials said was an attempt to bolster the already improving U.S. relations with that country. A couple of days later, the New York Times cited a senior American official who said that the United States remained ready to establish full diplomatic relations with Iraq and that it was up to the Iraqis.
On March 29, 1984, the Times reported: American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name. Washington had some goodies for Saddam's regime, the Times account noted, including agricultural-commodity credits totaling $840 million. And while no results of the talks have been announced after the Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad three months earlier, Western European diplomats assume that the United States now exchanges some intelligence on Iran with Iraq.
A few months later, on July 17, 1984, a Times article with a Baghdad dateline sketchily filled in a bit more information, saying that the U.S. government granted Iraq about $2 billion in commodity credits to buy food over the last two years. The story recalled that Donald Rumsfeld, the former Middle East special envoy, held two private meetings with the Iraqi president here, and the dispatch mentioned in passing that State Department human rights reports have been uniformly critical of the Iraqi President, contending that he ran a police state.
Full diplomatic relations between Washington and Baghdad were restored 11 months after Rumsfeld's December 1983 visit with Saddam. He went on to use poison gas later in the decade, actions which scarcely harmed relations with the Reagan administration.
As the most senior U.S. official to visit Iraq in six years, Rumsfeld had served as Reagan's point man for warming relations with Saddam. In 1984, the administration engineered the sale to Baghdad of 45 ostensibly civilian-use Bell 214ST helicopters. Saddam's military found them quite useful for attacking Kurdish civilians with poison gas in 1988, according to U.S. intelligence sources. In response to the gassing, journalist Jeremy Scahill has pointed out, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most U.S. technology. The measure was killed by the White House.
The USA's big media institutions did little to illuminate how Washington and business interests combined to strengthen and arm Saddam Hussein during many of his worst crimes. In the 1980s and afterward, the United States underwrote 24 American corporations so they could sell to Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction, which he used against Iran, at that time the prime Middle Eastern enemy of the United States, writes Ben Bagdikian, a former assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, in his book The New Media Monopoly. Hussein used U.S.-supplied poison gas against Iranians and Kurds while the United States looked the other way.
Of course the crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime were not just in the future when Rumsfeld came bearing gifts in 1983. Saddam's large-scale atrocities had been going on for a long time. Among them were the methodical torture and murders in Dujail that have been front-paged this week in coverage of the former dictator's trial; they occurred 17 months before Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad.
Today, inside the corporate media frame, history can be supremely relevant when it focuses on Hussein's torture and genocide. But the historic assistance of the U.S. government and American firms is largely off the subject and beside the point.
A photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand on Dec. 20, 1983, is easily available. (It takes a few seconds to find via Google.) But the picture has been notably absent from the array of historic images that U.S. media outlets are providing to viewers and readers in coverage of the Saddam Hussein trial. And journalistic mention of Rumsfeld's key role in aiding the Iraqi tyrant has been similarly absent. Apparently, in the world according to U.S. mass media, some history matters profoundly and some doesn't matter at all.
Norman Solomon is the author of the new book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com. |
Germany seek charges against Rumsfeld for prison abuse sm
Friday, Nov. 10, 2006
Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
By ADAM ZAGORIN
Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called 20th hijacker and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a special interrogation plan, personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld .
A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.
Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.
Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides universal jurisdiction allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a a big, big problem. U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.
In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue has been proven wrong.
The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer, says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.
Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.
U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against war criminals could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.
For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.
Germany, who killed millions of Jews wants to prosecute Rumsfeld.
That makes sense.
Hear, hear! He is an exceptional person for an ....sm
exceptionable time. They say that God is watching us from a distance and I believe that is true. I think that Obama has a good pure heart, extraordinary intelligence, does truly want to improve our lives, and my prayers are with him. How about that he has Bobby Kennedy's desk (my hero).
Hear ye, hear ye. We don't want to be scared.
nm
Do you hear yourself?
You drive even other Democrats off this board. There hasn't been logical debate here in weeks. You have no idea how you appear on the conservative board. Like a bunch of grade schoolers. They have stayed away from the most part from here, but you have not afforded them the same courtesy. And yet you think YOU have taken the higher ground. It's just amazing your lack of insight into your own behavior. Just as you were accused, so was I. By one of YOU. Unbelieveable.
My God, do you hear yourself? NM
You won't hear that in the MSM!
Thanks for posting the article!
So what I hear you saying is...
...that you're terribly proud of youself because when you beat up on people and they bite back at you that you don't whine about it? And also that you beat up on the libs because of their feelings about the troops and the war. Seems like you lash out indiscriminately on this board without really knowing what most folks believe.
And you are deceitful in saying I saw someone on the conservative board being wished to die and burn in hell once. ACtually I wrote the post you refer to and that is NOT what I wrote. Do you recall the game folks play at parties where a story is whispered in the ear of one person after another and then the story is read as it started out and then read as it ended up? And then everyone marvels over how much it changed? Well, that's what has happened here. So you are lying when you provide a quote of that post as the truth.
I did not hear this but it was probably said
in reference to global warming, not Bush, causing more numerous and more severe hurricanes. The water in the Gulf of Mexico is right now around 90 degrees Fahrenheit. The warmth of the water is what restrengthed the hurricane.
I hear ya.
Reading your post, I think you'd be shocked if you realized how close you came to describing MY life!
Do you hear yourself?
Talk about talking points...you were firing them like crazy yesterday. And again...the moderator has said over and over and over again anyone who wants to post on either board can. I guess at least the moderator still believes in free speech, even if liberals do not. Liberals, who profess to be tolerant, are the most INtolerant group I have ever seen (at least most of the ones who come here). You ask a question, counter a point, ask them to defend a belief, and they go nuts. At least you finally put the truth into words...separate. I guess that is what liberals want. Well, my friend, I have news for you. This is America. COnservatives have just as much right to be here as liberals. If you are firm in your beliefs, you should have no problem debating. There is 1 who posts here who still believes that conservatives have the same rights liberals do, and is able to look past idealistic rhetoric to get to the real truth of things. Extremely refreshing. As to bothered...you do not bother me at all. You have every right to say what you want to say....but you should not expect it to go unchallenged.
That is another thing I do not understand about liberals...and why live and let live rings hollow. What you really mean is....we live over here on this board and we let you live over there on that board and don't you DARE to come over to this board because we don't want you to live over here.
That is the definition of intolerant...segregation.
I hear ya, DW....
but it does seem like the Republicans recognize those in their midst who claim to be Republican but their actions do not follow...and they call them out on it. RINOs. Obviously there are those on the liberal side as well. Makes sense there would be. It is just that I have never seen them separate themselves before...especially to the extent of a couple of posters who answered my question a couple of weeks ago. Very interesting. And actually very encouraging.
I hear what you are saying....
and I agree it would be difficult. You are right; the statistics I find say that 40% of the "convenience abortions" are not the first or even the second abortion for the woman. That being the case, I am not content to say because it would be hard to sort out, just go ahead and kill'em all anyway. So I will continue to vote for a man who will at least take a stab at trying to fix it.
And so myself and others with agree to disagree...and some of us will agree, at least, that abortion is wrong but fixing it won't be easy...
God bless!
Not that you want to hear from me, but...
actually I did watch it. From a completely objective viewpoint, just looking at the performance and content per se, I agree with you. Hillary, I thought, was much stronger and did not let the others run over her like before. Again, objectively, I think Obama talked too much, meaning, took forever to get to his point and the way he delivers things might go over the heads of some people, or they stop listening waiting for the point. Biden was strong, and he looks presidential, and to some people that is really important. I know Hillary is not a tall person, and I know Obama is, but it was really striking in a couple of the shots...she really had the head back so she could look up at him and he had the head down ya-yaing at her. Just an observation. But I think she handled herself well. As much flak as Hillary has gotten over the driver's licenses to illegals thing, I thought the way she answered the question if she was for it, was priceless...after Obama went on and on, she just said "No." I think that was a bit of a coup DE grace for her, as an objective "observer." lol
How sad to hear that....
This country was founded on a belief of being "free", allowing freedom from government involvement and corruption. Obama has stated he wants bigger government, more government to tell you how to act/feel/breath, all at your expense. Now, where is the freedom in that? Taxation, taxation, taxation.....it is sad to hear citizens of the US say they would rather be a socialist than fascist, when what one should be saying is I don't want government in my life at all...period!!!
No, what I am saying is if I want to hear anything about the ...
conservative side of things along with the liberal/Democrat side of things, Fox is the only alternative. Democrats/liberals are not the only people who tell the "Truth." So far I have not caught Fox in an outright lie, and they chose NOT to run that ad about Obama and Ayers that the guy in Texas made up, which I thought was fair, and if they were indeed as they are described here they would be running it every hour. Geez.
i hear ya
The unique thing about conservatives is that they form their own opinions. Savage came out against Palin, and yesterday he was still against her. I don't need anyone to decide or think for me. But his stories are so worth the time. This is one area where he's completely different from all of them. That's why he wrote this current book and did every bit of it himself. No editing, no publisher, just his words. Gotta respect that, I say. His dog (Teddy) has become a big star, too, and has his own section on his w/s.
Would rather hear a few ers and uhs
a polished, poised parrot delivering scripted speech from mysterious authors. It may be shocking to some, but we like our leaders to show us a glimpse of original thought and inspired vision all on their own from time to time.
I hear ya.......... sm
you want to see a stagnated salary? Just look at my paycheck!!
The thing that really fries my taters is that we are the ones who will ultimately pay for these raises.
Hear, Hear!
thx
I hear ya...lol (nm)
nm
you can HEAR me?
rapidly progressing . . .
Do you hear yourself?
Adultry is okay as long as you say it out loud. Now dictatorship is okay as long as the candidate has the "decency" to say it out loud? Democrats are not socialists, no matter how persistently you try to assert that claim. Scare tactics are boring and downright insulting in view of the crisis the country now finds itself in. These pathetic distractions will end up costing your party any chance it may have once had of winning this race. Enjoy your descent and your ultimate defeat. Your party has earned it....10 times over.
What exactly do you want to hear.....
For the sake of pretending you didn't just read how VP nominee Biden can't stand his own presidential running mate, we'll do this again.
Now, that being said why do you automatically assume I am pushing the McCain ticket?
I am pointing out why Obama is a joke. If a man's character cannot be upheld, why in the heck would you want him running your country. There are numerous FACTS, yes, FACTS where this man is associated with horrible people, questionable organizations, and now he and Biden are great friends, all this without question. I'm sorry to say at this point our economy won't be worth crap in a pot if we have a corrupt man heading up this country. He and McCain can't get anything straight on the economics issue because it is a mess and they know it. There is no one thing that will make this all turnaround. They cannot make any promises without those monies coming from somewhere to pay for all those monies.
McCain has said he wants to cut taxes.....haven't heard that with Obama and no way we will. Socialists do not do that. Everything about his history screams socialist and that should be very frightening to everyone. There is nothing about McCain's history that scream socialist views and you cannot tie him in with terrorists, no matter how hard you try. So there are my choices, socialist or capitalist, very questionable associations or not.
McCain said he wanted to create an alternative system for paying income taxes and double the income tax exemption for dependents. Have an income tax system that offers two basic rates and a generous standard deduction. McCain would let Americans choose between the new system and the present one.
This is what he said and sounds better than anything I've heard from Obama.
"Americans do not resent paying their rightful share of taxes -- what they do resent is being subjected to thousands of pages of needless and often irrational rules and demands" from the Internal Revenue Service, he said. "We are going to create a new and simpler tax system -- and give the American people a choice."
McCain said he also would like eventually to phase out the alternative minimum tax, and says this will save more than 25 million middle-class families more than 2,000 dollars every year.
McCain said he plans to overhaul the tax code, close costly, unfair corporate loopholes and veto every bill containing earmarks "until the Congress stops sending bills with earmarks because lawmakers always use earmarks -- spending initiatives attached to unrelated bills -- to fund pet projects and curry favor with constituents and donors.
He wants to enact a one-year pause in discretionary spending and have the governmentw investigate each department's and agency's budget. Military spending and veterans benefits would be exempt.
McCain said he would use the money saved from these proposals to ease the burden on employers by lowering the business income tax from 35 percent to 25 percent. He said, "As it is, we have the second-highest tax on business in the industrialized world. High tax rates are driving many businesses and jobs overseas -- and, of course, our foreign competitors wouldn't mind if we kept it that way," he said.
Not all, but most from what I hear.
.
You say what you say. I hear what I hear. Must have been
pouring out of the red camp hate macine for weeks on end, so much so that it is all becoming just one big slur blur. Did you see the Johnstown PA McCain rally clip? How about republicans who hang Obama in effigy in front of their house by tying a noose around a Halloween ghost wearing an Obama T-shirt and let him swing from a tree branch for all those world, including their own children, to see? Yeah. Not a racist amoungst you.
i hear ya
x
I hear you on that one!
Why is is that we have to vote in a new president every four years, but Congress gets to stay in for life? They'll probably have to tear Nancy Pelosi's cold dead body out of her chair, not to mention some of the other cronies that have been there forever. Term limits on Congress? An idea to think over.
If I hear that (sm)
I'm moving because I am SOOOO in a horror movie....LOL.
Because I believe NOTHING I hear
and only half of what I see. 
I am sorry to hear that. nm
Sorry to hear
that you condone racism coming from one church but one someone points it out you accuse them of racism. In all forms it needs to be eliminated.
I hear ya, GP. (sm)
Every day, same old, same old. It's disheartening. 
Actually we just don't want to hear him at all
Until he is sworn and and "legally" president.
sorry to hear that
but not too much.
I don't think the right wants to hear her either. (sm)
Check out how well Fox treated her.....ROFL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZLfLmncPEc
I am very sorry to hear.....(sm)
about your stepson. However, respectfully, I don't think that's a very good comparison. I would agree with you except for the fact that it has been proven that Bush did receive notice of an eminent threat repeatedly, which included the use of commercial airplanes. He chose to ignore those threats.
Proof of this is easy to find. It's all over the internet and in the backlog of most network sites. However, one in particular that comes to mind is below.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/27/flashback-biden-on-91001-warned-the-real-threat-may-come-in-the-belly-of-a-plane/
Oh, you better believe it!! You would hear
NM
And where did you hear that...(sm)
like I don't already know..
I hear ya!
My dad retired from GM, my brother currently works for GM, and my husband runs a Chevy dealership. You will never see me buying a foreign car.
I hear ya!!
Believe me, I know where you are coming from. For right now, I'm trying to stay positive. Don't get mad at me when I join you in the screaming in a couple of months...LOL!!
Anybody hear that
American crew took the boat back from the Somali pirates?
Everybody else the Somalis have hijacked just gave up like it was a game of tag, 'oh wow, you caught us, we give up' but US sailors kicked butt! Guess they didn't need Obama to fix it and this isn't his big test after all. Bummer. Wonder what happens to the pirate they're holding. World court?
You did hear about how the US
executed Japanese prisoners of war for torture, I think they called it waterboarding back then. Shame on the US and I will say it. The repubs try to put a spin on it, it saved us from another 9/11, where would you be without, bunch of malarky.
I don't see or hear
of any crimes against people who engage in homosexual behavior. It's not making the news and I'm sure the media would love it if it was. Lets take the Big Bad for example... he/she makes up lies. I never said I called anyone names. I do call bad behaviors bad. And if you choose to call yourself a homosexual, then that behavior will be called bad. My kids think that homosexuality is bad and well they should, because it is. Once again, poor misguided person, tolerance is not the same as acceptance. My kids are taught to tolerate, not to accept. If the schools continue to teach what is not their business to teach, there will be many who home school.
Did not hear about that, yet, thanks....nm
nm
I hear ya on that one.
I'm torn on that issue because I think if they start regulating everything that is a free choice in this country, where will it end? Will Big Macs and fries be next?
On the other hand, I can see where alcohol is a dangerous drug and does affect the lives of everyone around the person who drinks - I know because I live with an alcoholic and sometimes wish all that crap were illegal.
I do find it interesting, though, that we're working so hard to regulate the tobacco industry, yet many states are considering making marijuana legal - the smoke from that is just as harmful to the smoker as cigarettes - some studies say its even more harmful.
|
