Obama Doctrine? Who Is Bullshitting Who Here?

Obama Doctrine? Who Is Bullshitting Who Here?

CNN's Wolf Blitzer utters the term "the Obama Doctrine" and voila, all of a sudden we have a doctrine? Who the hell is bullshitting who here? President Barack Obama has no doctrine! Hopelessly stuck sitting on the fence and hoping that he doesn't have to make a tough decision while trying to appease everyone in the world, isn't exactly a plan let alone a doctrine. As for Blitzer, perhaps a short history of America can jog the memory. He should start with the Monroe Doctrine for its simplicity; i.e. he warned European powers to stay out of the affairs in the Western Hemisphere, period! Very Clear, Very Succinct.

President Obama has been lost when it comes to foreign policy and diplomacy from the outset. Having a White House filled with advisers that haven't donned an American military uniform doesn't help either. Where I will give the president some credit, though, is that he got other allies to commit to an operation. But, then again, maybe it was really France and Britain that got the US to commit to an operation that they were antsy to prosecute in Libya!

The Presidential Address the other night did nothing to convince me of Obama's prowess as a Commander-In-Chief. The finger wagging of a lecturing president doesn't go over well with me either as he stumbled on his words from the teleprompter. I don't know about you, but from the beginning you knew that this speech was hardly anything near the entire truth. Why he omitted his "presidential finding order" that put CIA advisers on the ground is beyond me too. Why not just talk squarely with the people?

Did the President not think that many in audience may have been veterans that know exactly how this game of war is played? No pin-point bombing missions like this begin without some "boots on the ground." Whether you want to call them CIA Advisers or US Navy SEALS, it is they who ensure the success of those bombing missions. Americans were entitled to know that any military engagement of this nature resulted in human deployment, however limited. He failed to do that! As for telling us that the US will turn over Operation Odyssey Dawn to NATO, well, isn't that disingenuous too? We are NATO!

The reality is clear, we are now fighting a war on three fronts at a time when our economy cannot stand the strain. Still, President Obama now wants to arm the rebels, but, we have yet to figure out exactly who those rebels are. Doesn't the US have enough black-eyes when it comes to arming rebels? Think of the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviets, and others in the past, who have only wound up turning on us somewhere down the line. Has it been forgotten that some of those Mujahideen evolved into al-Qaeda? It seems to me that arming unknown rebels will only lead to bigger problems.

This notion of Obama having a doctrine, though really bugged me. The President avoided speaking to the American people for nine full days, or even seeking congressional approval for the Libyan assault. All the while he was giving his family a spring break trip to Latin America. Not until discontent at home rang loudly in his ears, did he decide to cut short this trip in the most minimalist of ways.

Obama has demonstrated  nothing but an aloofness during the advent of the Arab Spring, and that has to concern everyone. The current unrest in the Middle East will have far-reaching implications when it comes to the geopolitics of the world. Does Obama really understand the gravity of further American involvement in a region that has viewed America as imperialist? Well, I am not so sure that he does.

When Obama ran for office he guaranteed the American people that his Administration would be completely transparent. However, that lasted about 30 seconds as he signed his first Executive Order, to the uncertainties surrounding the true costs associated with his Health Care Reform we have seen a pattern that does not resemble anything close to transparency. Just more of the same political rhetoric that has crippled our two party system. His administration routinely obstructs the true nature of his decisions, or lack thereof. If President Barack Obama truly has a doctrine, then it is one of perpetual campaigning and indecision.

Obama Doctrine or An Obama Illusions?

Comments

Leave a comment
  • The sad reality is that Obama is an old style centrist Republican, to the right of say, Nelson Rockefeller or Richard Nixon. The American political center has been moving rightward for decades and today's Republican Party is now the lunatic fringe of a few decades ago. We had 8 years of stunning incompetence, the pillaging of the economy, wars of choice which were disastrous at every level imaginable, the trashing of the constitution with FISA, the Patriot Act etc etc, and yet two years later the American public in their wisdom voted them back into power. Is it any wonder Obama is acting like a decaffeinated version of the same?

  • In reply to Celt:

    That is an interesting observation Celt. I am not sure though if he is a centrist anything, although it may appear that way. I felt a long time ago that Obama possessed the ability to be a good president, but he cannot afford to squander opportunities right or left. It almost looks like the Arab Spring caught him off guard in many ways. Also, he really needs to be direct with the American People about his intentions which elude him consistently.

    That very 1st Executive Order literally revealed what he was about and turned his campaign promises into pure rhetoric. As for the lunatic fringe, I can't disagree with you either. But like the song says - the further to the right you go it eventually brings you to the left. Either extreme is not desirable.

    Thanks for commenting Celt.

  • In reply to maciric:

    Celt's comment typifies what's the far left's problem. It was sure easy for them to put up signs and post on the Internet "Protect our troops--Bring them home safe now" during the Bush years. However, whether or not Obama wants to own this one, it is his operation.

    I also understand that the left always said that we had to protect the downtrodden against dictators, and work in concert with our allies instead of going it alone as we did in Iraq. Well, we are doing that now (letting France, then NATO, take the lead, supposedly), but the left is unhappy.

    Let's also rest assured that Obama, by taking on health care, certainly isn't centerist, unless one can say that he was because he didn't nationalize the insurance companies. Nixon and Rockefeller wouldn't have or at least didn't do either.

    Of course, if one takes it to the state level, I guess that Daley and Emanuel are centrists Republicans, while Blago and Quinn are at least superficial socialists. See where the latter has gotten the state.

  • In reply to jack:

    Well Again The Further You Go In Either Direction The Closer One Is To Either Extreme, right? The left is upset with Obama, but I actually understand it because he has waffled so much after being elected. There has been no clear doctrine so to speak. Sure he ram-rodded the Health Reform, ARRA and Credit Card Reform then again he then opens up oil drilling which most on the left didn't want. I don't care much for Kass, but he made a good point about Civil Wars From Lincoln to Obama, clearly Obama preached that he wouldn't engage in a senseless war - yet................ So yes this his war.

    But clearly went against everything he said.

    Quinn the socialist, yea I see that but so is Obama on one side of his brain while utterly confused on the other side of the brain. Daley and Emanuel for all their faults know they have to deal to get and that is their position. They are Eunuch politically.

  • In reply to maciric:

    Strange that you equate eunuch with pragmatist. Especially, since they steamrollered their elections.

    Maybe, though, you mean not so ideological as, say, the ineffective political fops.

  • In reply to jack:

    You are a smart man Jack - indeed the latter.

  • In reply to jack:

    Obama's health care reform is corporate welfare and guarantees that 33% of all money spent on Health care goes to a parasitic middleman which provides zero healthcare. Emanuel is a blue dog DLC type and could only be a leftist in some through the looking glass world were Obama is a socialist. No leftist I know ever believed the US was remotely interested in protecting the downtrodden from dictators, see the Clinton / Obama support for Mubarak until the last moment or continuing support for middle east kings and Emirs and every other dictator with the exception of Castro for the last 60 years. Blago a socialist is too funny. Kleptocrats have no ideology.

  • In reply to Celt:

    You won't get an argument there Celt. The middleman will dog the program and people will ultimately lose out. I am not so sure about the leftist not concerning themselves though; at least the stereotypical bleeding heart. Doves vs Hawks fits I think. But this Libyan thing is not what they pretend it to be - that is for sure. So I guess in that context it fits. Blago is all things to all people - socialist? Its an act I think. You have to admit Left or Right - our policies suck and are not designed to protect the people as much as special interests.

    Ideology is only in the mind of the voter - not the politician.

  • In reply to Celt:

    MC, I don't really see a left in our politics, just right and far right. Bernie Saunders and a few labor democrats would represent the left, I guess, but they have no power. look at the current debate on cutting spending. Nobody on either side talks about cutting the defense budget, bigger now than when the USSR existed and bigger than the rest of the world combined. Ditto for bailing out Wall street, for by law not allowing bulk buy discounts from big Pharma despite spending billions. I can get a discount on a case of wine but the government pays full price for drugs. They also paid Goldman Sachs 100 cents on the dollar from AIG, a bankrupt company, Subsidize big oil 40 billion, agribusiness, etc etc etc. And remember, Obama is a socialist. This is incoherence masquerading as a political philosophy, Astro Turf in drag as grass roots. We are screwed.

  • In reply to Celt:

    So, instead of telling us how politicians have failed the Left, why don't you tell us what the Left stands for?

    Also, rest assured, that if it is Nancy Pelosi or Jan Schakowsky that symbolizes the Left, neither is going to be elected President. Maybe you should also tell us how Quinn has failed you, since he is as fuzzy a thinking politician, but as professed a populist, as anyone else in government.

    Admittedly, Blago's socialism and populism were false, given his f'n grandmother and f'n kids diatribe. A whole lot of people in Illinois bought it, though.

  • In reply to jack:

    Could it be that we may not be comparing apples to apples? Like I have said over and over, ideology is not what politicians practice in spite of their claims to the voter. I think Celt makes some valid points if put into the context of the abstract model of government we have today. It really is hard to discern what is left and what is right coming out of Washington.

    Pelosi, et al surely are left-minded and would prefer to drive that agenda, but Obama himself hasn't played along entirely either which has infuriated those in his party. There is a definite difference between right and left ideology - the question is, is it really being practiced given the special interests increasing control over policy?

    I think we all have some valid arguments, but it sure has gotten wacky from a political agenda on both sides. Perhaps it is what we miss of what transpires in the Hell Halls of Congress?

  • In reply to jack:

    politicians of both parties represent their corporate masters, and have failed the people they are supposed to represent, not so so called left. Schakowsy and Peloisi both signed a letter denouncing the Goldstone Report which documented war crimes in Gaza and the slaughter of 14,000 Palestinians, including over 300 children, as well as the use of white phosphorous. In what universe is this considered a left position? Tweedle D and Tweedle R, peas in a pod except these days the R's couldn't pass a rabies test.

  • In reply to Celt:

    That's 1,400+ Palestinians, not 14,000, not that the numbers would make a difference to the politicians involved.

  • In reply to Celt:

    I suppose I can see your argument as it stands between the Obama and Bush Administrations based on the defense budget, and big business. Government is surely controlled by the special interests; i.e. big business. Certainly too your assertion on Big Pharma is dead on.

    But there is a left element as there is the right; the far left will continue to advocate for more government and layers of bureaucracy (although Bushes tenure didn't do much to dispel that either). Welfare and its rampant fraud continues to be problematic and that premise is based on a left principle. Not that I think it is entirely wrong because government does have an obligation for those legitimately in need. The far right, meanwhile, would rather do without any of it at all. So there is a difference in philosophy for sure. Maybe just for us saps that believe that there some virtue remaining in our views of ideology.

    What I believe we are seeing is the enormity of special interests gobbling up both sides of the aisle in defense of their agenda. The special interests have no regard for ideology and like you said - We Are Screwed.

  • In reply to maciric:

    The far right support big government in it's most dictatorial sense, spying without warrants, torture, secret trials, etc. see Jose Padilla. What the right want is no counter balance to big money, to corporate power, and to eviscerate all advances made by working people in the last century. I'm sure there is fraud in all programs, but to focus on welfare rather than say, welfare for billionaires or the defense budget is suspect at best. The red states, especially the old confederacy, are welfare states which receive more dollars from bad big government than they send to DC. The blue states subsidize these cretins who vote against their own interests. I for one would love to give them the politics they vote for. They would die of hunger. Alas, it doesn't work that way and so the rest of us, for example, had to pay for Texas and its laIssez faire approach to Savings and loans in the 80's, rather than let Texans reap what they had sown. Smaller government my ass.

  • In reply to Celt:

    Forgot to add the Reagan and Bush 2 gave us the biggest deficits and increase in the national debt the nation has ever seen. Reagan quadrupled the national debt and we all know what Bush did, even if we ignore 2 wars off the books. It must be the so called liberal media that push the big spending liberal trope which survives all facts to the contrary. And of course the most recent national debt will be the biggest, the sum total of what went before.

  • In reply to maciric:

    While on the topic, let's look at the left element. Universal secondary education, the 5 day week, 40 hour week, workplace and food safety, clean air and water, Medicare and medicaid so your aging parents do not live in abject poverty, civil rights for all including sexual orientation, consumer protection,union rights, indeed every element that created the standard of living of the middle and working class. All opposed at the time and still opposed by the right. By special interests you mean big money and these interests own both parties: as I said, right and reactionary is the choice we are offered.

  • In reply to Celt:

    At least you answered. However, with civil unions, I think we have all of that. At least legally.

    So, I guess we can't legislate nirvana for you. In the meantime, leftists like Quinn think that they can create wealth by increasing our taxes and paying public workers more. It doesn't work that way.

    So, I see that you are ranting, but you don't really have an agenda. That's called REACTIONARY. Michael is right--there is no difference between the ideologues on either side.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack here is an email I got and somehow has an air of truth to it when it comes to waste:

    "Bread Winner... I was speaking to an emergency room physician this morning. He told me that a woman in her 20s came to the ER with her 8th pregnancy. She stated, "my momma told me that I am the breadwinner for the family." He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money for the family. It goes like this: The grandma calls the Department of Child and Family Services and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for these children. DCFS agrees and states that the child or children will need to go to foster care.

    The grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and thus receives a check for $1500 per child per month in Illinois. Total yearly income: $144,000 tax-free, not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid) plus a monthly card entitling her to free groceries, etc, and a voucher for 250 free cell phone minutes per month. This does not even include WIC and other welfare programs. Indeed, grandma was correct in that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" for the family.

    This is how the ruling class spends our tax dollars.

    Sebastian J. Ciancio, M.D. Urologist, Danville Polyclinic, LTD Is this a GREAT COUNTRY or what... Don't forget to pay your taxes!!! There are a lot of "Breadwinners" depending on you & me"

  • In reply to maciric:

    repeating urban legends from rush Limbaugh is not the road to credibility. A doctor who heard from a doctor etc. All this talk of the left is likewise revealing. Any opinions on the tooth fairy and Unicorns? I guess poor people are really the problem, all those fake mortgages that took advantage of big banks and brought down the world economy and all because of "lefty" laws passed 40 years ago that forced banks to lend to the poor, or should we just say black? Who new the poor were the problem, except Rush and new GOP governors. bye.

  • In reply to Celt:

    Whoa Whoa - screw the urban legend shit. Illinois All Kids' has a 75% enrollment of illegals CONFIRMED ( I wrote about it) - Medicaid is rife with fraud so you can say whatever but it isn't that I have a problem with poor people it is the fact that we are subsidizing people who don't pay into the system at all. So far as welfare goes, we know how that works and states like Wisconsin stopped the fraud and now it is under control (the Democrats did that). So no, it isn't about urban legend it is reality and you cannot ignore it. As far as the GOP goes - their idea that everyone should own a home was stupid and agree there.

    You can't cherry-pick reality. BOTH sides of the aisle have done their damage and you cannot attach sole blame. I don't agree with bad policy from either side. So knock off all the ills are right borne, that tells me you don't pay attention to the nuts and bolts of legislation or its unintended consequences.

  • In reply to maciric:

    MC, my disagreement with you is over the conflation of Democrats and the left. They are not left, there is no left with any power in American politics. Your leftists would be European conservatives. it is a distorted
    Measuring stick and getting more distorted by the day. hence Obama is called a socialist. This is through the looking glass stuff.

  • In reply to Celt:

    That I will agree with you on Celt, as that is inline with my firm beliefs that ideology, at least in our two-party system, is negligible and indistinguishable from one another. Unfortunately, what the average person grew up believing as being a distinct difference in political thought and/or philosophy is left disillusioned but clinging to the fringes.

    Obama, at least in my mind, got a bad wrap when it comes to being "a so-called socialist." Democracy by its very nature has socialist tendencies, but people get confused as to what that really means; i.e. is it Marx' Manifesto? It is the furthest from the truth. Government has an obligation for the social well-being of its populace. Even Obama's health care reform was a principle a long time in coming, and I don't think it was a bad idea to keep insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, etc.. Every American deserves access to quality health care as a fundamental right.

    Big business, of course, doesn't want that for obvious reasons.

    Now, where I did disagree with Obama was in how it was applied, the fine print that no one knew the details of, etc. I even wrote a piece where I said it was a good idea, but that it would have gone over better had the economy and joblessness been addressed first. but that is semantics I suppose. The idea of health care has been stale-mated for so long that Obama felt that "hey the time has come and we need to get off the fence on this." So, I do understand it all - and I am in favor of the protections it offers. At the end of the day, though, they still let the health special interests drive major aspects of the legislation. Why for instance, can government not negotiate decent reductions for bulk drug purchases?

    Because Big Business drives our domestic and foreign policy and sadly that has nothing to do with any ideology. Campaign contributions by the major industry lobbies are evenly distributed to both parties - so whose agenda is it, right?

    Is it a Democratic or Republican agenda? No, it is a Special Interest agenda.

    You said it early on - we are screwed - indeed we are because there is now discernible difference between mainstream Democrats or Republicans. The extreme fringes, meanwhile, offer us rhetoric but, in theory, they have been cancelled out.

  • In reply to maciric:

    agree, hence my no left just right and far right claim. Only tea baggers or the illiterate think Obama is a socialist and they have no idea what that even means.I doubt they could spell it. An illiterate populace does not bode well for a Republic.

  • In reply to Celt:

    Why are you ignoring Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank and Dick Durbin? They are by all definition far left. Again, you are ignoring that both sides have extreme ends, that cannot be ignored by any rational person. You continue to place all the blame squarely to the right (and in many cases accurately) but the aforementioned are no better and have added to the dysfunction in Washington. I refuse to view our politik with blinders on. Unless of course you are lumping them in with the extreme right.

  • In reply to maciric:

    Harry Reid far left?? name one far left policy of any of the people you name?

  • In reply to Celt:

    D-R-E-A-M Act and Staunch support for illegal immigration and sanctuary. I don't know if you are local or not, but the impact of sanctuary in Chicago has been a tremendous strain on local and state budgets, Medicaid & Illinois All Kids Fraud. That is a far left agenda.

    Sadly, that is where the ideology stops though, particularly for Pelosi whose husband has profited mightily from illegal hiring in his canning business.

    And yes I am aware that the GOP offered amnesty under Reagan - but it is still a left position. Even Reagan had left inclinations, especially while governor of California and as head of the Actors Guild. The far right agenda is to stop illegal immigration and deny benefits for any already here. Both are extreme positions.

    Maybe one day they will strike a real solution? The economy does benefit from illegals and migrants but the offset in government benefits do not justify it. That is why I have always advocated for a National ID that would serve as a multiple use identification, much like Japan does for their National Health Plan - while not perfect it strikes a more favorable balance than the European or UK system where lengthy waits and/or other glitches are common.

    ** If you are interested, PBS' Front Line had an interesting comparison of the various National Health Models. Japan took the best of those models and scrapped the worst as they adapted it to their society. But it did center on the use of an identity card and was used for other vital information to ensure that citizens and legal residents had the privileges. It is something that I would hope our government would look into. Of course everyone fears the idea of Big brother - but hell, Big Brother already exists in many areas of our society.

    They also advocate excessive restrictions to legal gun ownership - that too is a far left position. I could except reasonable gun controls; i.e., no need for a citizen to own an AK-47 but I certainly do not like the left's attempt to place unreasonable costs and licensing to make ownership economically difficult either. That is exactly what Daley & Durbin have advocated and tried to usurp the constitutional rights of citizens.

    While many of the official party platforms of the two parties are nearly identical and making the them indistinguishable from one another, there are differences between the two far sides on certain key issues. Now whether you want to accept it or not is your choice, but it has been clearly documented for anyone wanting to check the legislative record of any of the players on both sides.

  • In reply to Celt:

    I know you like playing the devils advocate, but come on you seem intelligent enough to see the differences and insanity?

  • In reply to maciric:

    I am against illegal immigration, who isn't. McCain supported the dream act before getting cold feet. We will have to disagree on gun control as far left. It seems to me to have no real political ideology And I know many right wing Chicago Policemen who favor restrictive gun ownership. These are distractions for the gays, god and guns crowd. As you say, there is no real substantive differences between the two parties and given this long true fact, all governments have been controlled by the center right, the bulk of both parties. The American left, in terms of power, is a mythological creature.

  • In reply to Celt:

    Your last statement I can accept. It is like the primary where the Democratic Candidate will start out left in order to win the party nomination, then once it is wrapped up, you will hear the political pundits say "now the candidate must move to the center for any chance to win the general election." Vice Versa for the right, unless of course they want to smashed like Barry Goldwater in the 60's.

    The gun issue is a "personal choice for many" so I will concede that point, however I will say that the extreme left fringe does use it as one of their talking points, and vice versa for the extreme right. That is the rhetoric and scare tactics we all live with.

    Personally, I am in favor of, and own, guns. However, I also believe that their must be sensible controls. As I said earlier, what is the point of an individual owning an AK-47? There is only one use for that. Banning guns have never been effective - criminals will get their hands on them irregardless of any law. Gun ownership just levels the playing field. I believe the founding fathers had it right with their reasoning. There is always the possibility for any state to suppress its citizenry. Maybe it is out of the realm here in America, but certainly in other areas of the globe we have seen coups. There is never a guarantee that a republic will survive forever and people should have the right to remain vigilant and offer a deterrent.

    Celt, it is just a difference of opinion and I don't hold it against anyone. Both camps have valid arguments and I certainly understand the pros and cons.

    I do not, however, agree with your casual stereotype of "gays. guns and God crowds." That is erroneous. Although I may not believe in same sex relationships or marriages, I refuse to discriminate on that issue. People are people and they will make personal choices that is best for them; same thing for a woman's right to an abortion.

    So, I don't fit your demographic in the least.

  • In reply to Celt:

    Oh yea - there are many people who would like to see illegals granted amnesty. It is after all, a contentious issue. Some are out right bigoted while others just look at the rule of law as their guiding light. I am in the latter because of the high cost of subsidizing that idea. Amnesties haven't worked either, so we do need to find an equitable solution that will allow seasonal workers to enter, yet not scam the system at the same time. But building a fence isn't a policy you know?

  • In reply to Celt:

    "Ranting" Pray tell, how is anything I said a rant? I notice you don't answer any claim I made but rather go for the ad hominem, ranting. You may want to look up rant, reactionary and ideologue, the latter dependent on beliefs impervious to facts. What facts do I have wrong?

  • In reply to Celt:

    Sorry it took a while to get back to the thread, I was running back and forth to the car dealer test driving cars with the wife yesterday trying to decide between two models. Anyhow, I am grateful that both of you guys have created some, what I think, good points. Celt, I was a DEM way back and still subscribe to many of the principles that LBJ wanted out of his "Great Society." Naturally though, there is a fine, fine line between enacting law and policy that helps the people to where those policies get taken advantage of. As such, my belief has been that while I am left enough to know what and where government should be, I am also smart enough to know that there must be safeguards put in place so that we don't have a runaway train.

    Center Left and Center Right understand that premise, whereas far left and far right have a different understanding - either scenario is not good for the people. There have been good points and counter-points made here and neither is entirely wrong, or right. It is about balance and that is something we cannot get from our politicians.

    They are all wolves in sheep's clothing. That is reality and both have expanded the debt. And yes even Clinton's so-called surplus was based on fuzzy math. Now saying that, I am no fan of Reaganomics and that had a bearing on our dreadful economy, but the far left doesn't help when they use that policy to expand spending on programs that, while on the surface are noble - run into waste. BOTH SIDES bear the blame. You cannot simply bring it down to an A vs B. It is too complex an illusion for that.

    What we need are politicians limited in term and free from special interests without that we continue to point fingers as both sides of the aisle profess a false ideology to their constituents.

    Both sides are no different period - never mind what they say - it is what they do!

  • In reply to Celt:

    It is a rant because all you do is complain about the parties' corporate masters, but then, when asked what is the left's agenda, you do not have a new one.

    The only new one would be to cut off funding to Texas, but that seems to be a conservative philosophy. Heck, for reasons such as the "breadwinner," I have no objection to a government shutdown. After all, in a shutdown or a snow day, they say that nonessential government workers need not report. Most government workers don't, so they are nonessential.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack I don't know if either side has the answers but they both know how to spend. One thing that does disturb me is this GOP push to eliminate costs that legitimate people have paid into; i.e. Social Security and there are other programs that should be there -

    What they forget to do is cut their own waste including their benefits that we can't get. And that is both sides looking at nailing us as opposed to them. I think they should clean up their house and then attack the fraud like in "Breadwinner." All in all, none of the yokels we have in politics ever listen to the people until forced to.

  • In reply to maciric:

    breadwinner is like voter fraud, a necessary bogieman for the credulous, so don't hold your breath on the clean up their own house agenda.It's better to look at the pimple and ignore the malignant tumor.

Leave a comment