Hmm, a question of threat huh?
How about allowing a man who we already has made attempts to assassinate an ex US president, someone who shows that he has already used it.
I think we'll be seeing lot of change in the stance from the Antiwar crowd from "no proof of WMD" to no "proof of threat from WMD" in the next few weaks as they attempt to shore up their rapidly eroding position.
How about allowing a man who we already has made attempts to assassinate an ex US president, someone who shows that he has already used it.
I think we'll be seeing lot of change in the stance from the Antiwar crowd from "no proof of WMD" to no "proof of threat from WMD" in the next few weaks as they attempt to shore up their rapidly eroding position.
