Happy Birthday Mission Accomplished!!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by BrownShark, May 1, 2008.

  1. BrownShark

    BrownShark Banned

    'Mission Accomplished': How the Media Covered the Bush Pronouncement 5 Years Ago – and its Aftermath

    "Mission Accomplished", a military phrase associated with completing a mission, is in recent years particularly associated with a sign displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln during a televised address by United States President George W. Bush on May 1, 2003.
    Bush stated at the time that this was the end to major combat operations in Iraq. While this statement did coincide with an end to the conventional phase of the war, Bush's assertion — and the sign — became controversial after guerilla warfare in Iraq increased during the Iraqi insurgency. The vast majority of casualties, among both coalition (approximately 96% as of November 2007)[1] and Iraqi combatants, and among Iraqi civilians, have occurred after the speech. Due to this fact, "Mission Accomplished" is now a winged word for uncompleted operations with an unclear ending.


    This particular birthday cake has 4072 dead soldiers adorning it this year.

    1000 more will be added to next years republican celebration as the US military averages 1000 killed per year in Iraq.

    Hopefully, our goverment will find a way out and put an end to this ugly chapter in American history.

  2. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

  3. Bad Gas!

    Bad Gas! Active Member

    Awesome article...It's sad but true that you can't just cut and run like Hila-bama want to do..I wish there was a better way because everybody loses during wartimes...I mean everybody..
  4. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Two words nulify your argument, "could" and "if"'s, it's all speculation. These talking points are just getting drilled into your thought process over and over by the rt wing myth machine .

    "Look into my eyes and repeat after me"
  5. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    As if the left wing myth machine isn't firing on all cylinders. LOL! What happened in Vietnam could happen in Iraq. Speculation or not it has to be taken seriously. Ignoring a potential catastrophic event simply because it "could" happen is foolish.
  6. BrownShark

    BrownShark Banned

    Big Arrow,

    This is probably the best thing you have said in any post so far. So far, you are right on the money. Iraq is headed for the same outcome as in vietnam. Here are some vietnam FACTS for you, other than the "if we had stayed we would have won" speech that RUSH pounded into your head.

    The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, the Vietnam Conflict, and, in Vietnam, the American War, occurred from 1959 to April 30, 1975. The war was fought between the communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and its communist allies and the US-supported Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). It concluded with the defeat and dissolution of South Vietnam. For the United States, the war ended in the withdrawal of American troops and the failure of its foreign policy in Vietnam.[5][6]
    Over 1.4 million military personnel were killed in the war (only 6 percent were members of the United States armed forces), while estimates of civilian fatalities range up to 2 million. On April 30, 1975, the capital of South Vietnam, Saigon, fell to the communist forces of North Vietnam, effectively ending the Vietnam War.

    In the post-war, Americans struggled to absorb the lessons of the military intervention.[108] As General Maxwell Taylor, one of the principal architects of the war, noted "first, we didn't know ourselves. We thought that we were going into another Korean war, but this was a different country. Secondly, we didn't know our South Vietnamese allies … And we knew less about North Vietnam. Who was Ho Chi Minh? Nobody really knew. So, until we know the enemy and know our allies and know ourselves, we'd better keep out of this kind of dirty business. It's very dangerous."[109][110]
    In the decades since end of the conflict, discussions have ensued as to whether America's withdrawal was a political defeat rather than military defeat. Some have suggested that "the responsibility for the ultimate failure of this policy [America's withdrawal from Vietnam] lies not with the men who fought, but with those in Congress..."[111] Alternatively, the official history of the United States Army noted that "tactics have often seemed to exist apart from larger issues, strategies, and objectives. Yet in Vietnam the Army experienced tactical success and strategic failure … The … Vietnam War('s) … legacy may be the lesson that unique historical, political, cultural, and social factors always impinge on the military … Success rests not only on military progress but on correctly analyzing the nature of the particular conflict, understanding the enemy's strategy, and assessing the strengths and weaknesses of allies. A new humility and a new sophistication may form the best parts of a complex heritage left to the Army by the long, bitter war in Vietnam."[112] U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in a secret memo to President Gerald Ford that "in terms of military tactics, we cannot help draw the conclusion that our armed forces are not suited to this kind of war. Even the Special Forces who had been designed for it could not prevail."[113] Even Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concluded that "the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion."[
  7. BrownShark

    BrownShark Banned

    Big Arrow,

    So far, we are right on course for a repeat of history. There are already close to 300 thousand dead civilians in Iraq, 125 killed everyday. Bodies are piling up in bagdad and other morgues and no where to put them.

    We have lost over 4000 soldiers and no end in sight for losses (even though Defense secretary Dumsfeld openly stated casualties would be less than 1000 and take but 24 months to complete the job)

    We are at 500 billion spent and estimated by the Bush White House to be close to a trillion by 2010 and 3 trillion when its all said and done.

    With Vietnams duration, the economy at home crashed under both Nixon and Carter, just as its crashing on us now.

    The veterans of Vietnam were mistreated when they got home and the GOV failed them miserably over the next 20 years.

    The same will happen to these veterans of Iraq. There just wont be the money to take care of them. There numbers will be staggering. Amputees, Brain damage (aka av8), pyschological problems will run into the 10's of thousands of american troops.

    All the GOV will do is call them heroes then treat them like zeros when the money dries up.

    We will leave Iraq in a shambles, forcing those who assisted us to pay even further for our MISTAKE, just as in Vietnam where millions were killed for helping us.

    The mission has already been failed. The policy that initiated the invasion was flawed and exagerated. The outcome (welcoming us as liberators with american flags waving) has already demonstrated to be untrue.

    But then, there are guys like yourself and RUSH LImbaugh, both will dodge the conflict and avoid fighting in it. RUSH dodged the draft because of a boil on his ass that he sez needs constant medical attention.

    You, will only talk about protecting america, yet, you wont actually go fight for it. Someone else , like my son has to make up for your slack.

    Big mouths dont make good fighters in Iraq. You want to bring peace in the middle east??? You want to spread democracy because your beloved redneck in the white house believes its good policy??

    Well then BIG ARROW, enlist, enlist and stand a post, enlist and pick up a weapon and go clear the "terrorists" out of IRAQ.

    Enlist and show america what a sacrifice looks like.

    You are young enough to participate, the bush administration raised the age of enlisting to 45 years old. Thats how desparate they are.

    Maybe you could join the marines and be a part of the new 2009 slogan, THE FEW THE PROUD THE CONVICTED?

    Yes, convicted as the marines take ex convicts to iraq. Indeed someone who is a staunch supporter of BUSH policy should want to participate in this attempt to save the world from global terrorists.

    Dont just talk about it, if youre going to support it, then support it with action and dont sound like a spineless windbag of rhetoric as your mentor RUSH does everyday.

    Youth who support the republican foreign policies should be the first to see combat anywhere they want the troops to go.

    Instead, they hide behind illness, education and mommy and daddy. My son, opposes the war, but wrapping up his second tour and exiting the army. He is a staff sgt with the MP-Military Police.

    He served his country despite disagreeing with it, you have served yourself and those who brainwash you to think you know what youre talking about.

  8. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    thanks to your son for his service. Your challenge and your listing your sons service leads me to ask whether you served in the military? It almost sounds like you're putting his service out there as if it covers you too?
  9. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    You totally missed the point of the reason why I posted that article. Yes, we are head for a repeat if we REPEAT what happened then and let the Democrats lead us towards turning tail and running away before the job is complety finished.

    Can we put a price on rooting out a dangerous dictator? Or can we put a price on rooting out terrorists? Or how about staying in cleaning up the mess (some is ours and some is the Iraqis that aren't doing their part)? Does there have to be a price and a time table for everything?

    You can thank your left wingers that control the media for most of the problems with the economy. It's getting closer to election time and there isn't a Democratic president so they have thrown fuel on the fire by scaring the crap out of the general public (which mindlessly absorbs everything the liberal media spits at them) so they won't spend any many. Your pals have all but created a slipping economy. Or made it worse at the very least.

    That is a bipartisan problem. And are we supposed to half ass a war because of this? Man, if a Democrat sits in the Oval Office I hope we don't go into a major war with the likes of China, Russia, etc., with that mentality.

    Only if your kind takes control of the military and pulls us out too early. Again....that was the point of that article.

    Oh really? Toppling a vicious dictator and making it possible for women to vote was a failure? Making it possible for more and more children to get a good education was a failure? And how about making it possible for religions other than Islam to be practiced? We've turned neighborhoods that were once unsafe to walk the street of a few years ago into thriving areas. I could go on.....There is going to be a few bad apples here and there for quite a while. When the War on Terrorism started it was made very clear that it would take a very long time to completely wipe out the majority of the terrorists. It's apparent that some people in this country don't have the will it takes to endure the sacrifices it will take to win this thing.

    First of all....I don't listen to Rush often. Not enough to be considered a listener at all. Secondly....you don't know what you are talking about. I've served my time and continue to do so in the reserves. So, that more than shoots your pathetic attempt at painting a false picture that I, or anyone else like me, only talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk down in flames. And those Marines, "convicted" or not, are a much better men then you are because all you can do is sit here and flame them and their brothers and sisters in the other branches of the military with accusations that have little or no substance and do so with twisted facts and outright lies about crimes they've committed in Iraq. It doesn't matter if your son is in the military because you dishonor him with your ridiculous antics here. He sounds like a better person than his father. I don't even want to imagine the slander you commit outside the board in the real world. And as for your "Redneck" comment. All I can say, and all I need to say, to that is that too many of you city boys are too ignorant to realize that most Southern people consider that supposed slander a compliment. Ever heard the Hank Williams song "Country Boys Can Survive?" If things really got bad around here a "Redneck" would make the best of it while your kind stands around blaming the government for everything and waiting for handouts.
  10. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Interesting that you remind us of this day. It may have been Bush's greatest day as president. Flying in and landing on that carrier was a ballsey move that certainly will not be duplicated by any of todays candidates. Well maybe one.

    Diesel I love the pic of the shell shocked guy. You should label it "an obamian taxpayer"
  11. satellitedriver

    satellitedriver Moderator Staff Member

    Yes, Mr. B.S.
    A single mission,in an on going war, was accomplished.
    Sadly. the highest death rate of most wars are the civilians.
    In WWII, 52 million people died and 38 million of those were civilian deaths.
    The USA lost 440, 000 soldiers.
    As a nation we went to war, to win, and succeeded.
    Today, our enemy understands us and is in for the long fight.
    Fight or flight is a basic animal instinct.
    If we take flight from our enemy, they will follow us to our nest.
    As I see it, we have two choices.
    Attack or surrender.
    Like it or not, we are in a world war.
  12. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    For the war, Against the war or whatever, I just hope for the people of the Middle East that they can see an end to pictures like this.

    As a father of 4 I can't begin to even fathom what this father is feeling at this moment and what his feelings will be like in the days, weeks, months and years ahead.
  13. BrownShark

    BrownShark Banned

    So many believe in success, so many believe in the fear and hype, so many want to have a win, just to prevent another LOSS as in Vietnam. BUT....facts just get in the way!

    Ex-Iraq commander accuses Bush Administration of 'gross incompetence'

    In a new memoir set to be published May 6, the former commander of US forces in Iraq provides new intimate details of the goings-on at high levels of the Bush Administration in the first year of the Iraq war.
    His sharp tongued conclusion: "Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were unnecessarily spent, and worse yet, too many of our most precious military resource, our American soldiers, were unnecessarily wounded, maimed, and killed as a result. In my mind, this action by the Bush administration amounts to gross incompetence and dereliction of duty."
    An excerpt from Sanchez's book, Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story, published in TIME, buries the quotation on the third page of the article.
    Sanchez commanded the US military in Iraq from 2003-2004. The three-star general was relieved of his commander in 2004 following the Abu Ghraib scandal, and in 2005, was told his career was over and he wouldn't be promoted to a fourth star.
    The primary reason appears to be his involvement in authorizing harsh tactics for the treatment of Iraqi prisoners.
    In a memo acquired by the ACLU through a freedom of information act request, Sanchez authorized techniques to be used against prisoners which included "environmental manipulation," such as heating or cooling a room or using an "unpleasant smell," isolating prisoners, and disrupting sleep patterns. Sanchez later denied ever authorizing interrogators to "go to the outer limits" and called the ACLU "...a bunch of sensationalist liars, I mean lawyers, that will distort any and all information that they get to draw attention to their positions."
    Six months after he was told he would not receive a promotion -- in April 2006 -- he says he was called in for a meeting with then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In his book, he writes:
    "Ric, it's been a long time," Rumsfeld said, greeting me in a friendly manner. "I'm really sorry that your promotion didn't work out. We just couldn't make it work politically. Sending a nomination to the Senate would not be good for you, the Army, or the department."

    "I understand, sir," I replied.
    Rumsfeld then went on to offer Sanchez a post in Africa.
    In what Sanchez maintains was an effort by Rumsfeld to shrug off blame for mistakes in Iraq's first year, he says that the Secretary penned a memo which blamed failures on him.
    "I stopped reading after I read that last statement, because I knew it was total BS," he writes. "After a deep breath, I said, "Well, Mr. Secretary, the problem as you've stated it is generally accurate, but your memo does not accurately capture the magnitude of the problem. Furthermore, I just can't believe you didn't know that Franks's and McKiernan's staffs had pulled out and that the orders had been issued to redeploy the forces."
    Starting to get a little worked up," he adds, "I paused a moment, and then looked Rumsfeld straight in the eye. "Sir, I cannot believe that you didn't know I was being left in charge in Iraq...."
    After the meeting ended, I remember walking out of the Pentagon shaking my head and wondering how in the world Rumsfeld could have expected me to believe him. Everybody knew that CENTCOM had issued orders to drawdown the forces. The Department of Defense had printed public affairs guidance for how the military should answer press queries about the redeployment. There were victory parades being planned. And in mid-May 2003, Rumsfeld himself had sent out some of his famous "snowflake" memorandums to Gen. Franks asking how the general was going to redeploy all the forces in Kuwait. The Secretary knew. Everybody knew.
    He goes on to detail a report prepared by the Pentagon's Joint Warfighting Center. The Pentagon commissioned the report -- and it validated Sanchez's assertions that he was not to blame and that decisions had been made at other levels.
    "Say, did you guys ever complete that investigation?" I asked.

    "Oh, yes sir. We sure did," came the reply. "And let me tell you, it was ugly."

    "Ugly?" I asked.

    "Yes, sir. Our report validated everything you told us — that Franks issued the orders to discard the original twelve-to-eighteen-month occupation deployment, that the forces were drawing down, that we were walking away from the mission, and that everybody knew about it. And let me tell you, the Secretary did not like that one bit. After we went in to brief him, he just shut us down. 'This is not going anywhere,' he said. 'Oh, and by the way, leave all the copies right here and don't talk to anybody about it.'"

    "You mean he embargoed all the copies of the report?" I asked.

    "Yes, sir, he did...'

    ...It turned out that the investigative team was so thorough, they had actually gone back and looked at the original operational concept that had been prepared by CENTCOM (led by Gen. Franks) before the invasion of Iraq was launched. It was standard procedure to present such a plan, which included such things as: timing for predeployment, deployment, staging for major combat operations, and postdeployment. The concept was briefed up to the highest levels of the U.S. government, including the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, and the President of the United States.

    And the investigators were now telling me that the plan called for a Phase IV (after combat action) operation that would last twelve to eighteen months...
    "That decision set up the United States for a failed first year in Iraq," he concludes. "There is no question about it. And I was supposed to believe that neither the Secretary of Defense nor anybody above him knew anything about it? Impossible! Rumsfeld knew about it. Everybody on the NSC knew about it, including Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Colin Powell. Vice President Cheney knew about it. And President Bush knew about it."
    "In the meantime," he adds, "hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were unnecessarily spent, and worse yet, too many of our most precious military resource, our American soldiers, were unnecessarily wounded, maimed, and killed as a result. In my mind, this action by the Bush administration amounts to gross incompetence and dereliction of duty."
  14. BrownShark

    BrownShark Banned


    thanks for chiming in on these posts. You asked:

    Indeed, in 1977 I graduated high school and enlisted in the Air Force. I served my country at McCord Air Base in Washington state. I exited the service in 1981 and attended UCLA college where I recieved two degrees in 6 years.

    While my era was post Vietnam, I never had to leave the mainland.

    My son, a military policeman was in charge of detaining US soldiers held for crimes committed in Iraq. Most notable, detaining the soldiers who found hundreds of thousands of dollars in hidden cash and then stealing it "collectively" and then stashing it in their gear to bring back to the United States.

    For the record, many of my era veterans are opposed to this war and have been since inception.

    Lessons learned TieLie. Seems like the republican supporters failed to learn them.

  15. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Op-Ed yesterday in the Washington Post about "Mission Accomplished."


    I find digging through the voting record, legislative history and timeline a most informative exercise. When it comes to some speaking out against the Iraq war, there are some people in the corridors of power in Washington that should keep their mouths shut!

  16. BrownShark

    BrownShark Banned

    Have we prevailed? On the day when this speech was given?

    Have we prevailed since? Bush just asked congress to raise the debt for Iraq to $875 billion and rising..

    The speech, after reading, implies that the war is over, the military was victorious and all that was left was a mop up of a few hot spots.

    The ease that our troops blazed thru to Bagdad gave everyone a false sense of superiority. Once there, it was easy for the administration to declare victory, yet the commanders on the ground KNEW something was wrong. It was just too easy.

    They were right, the Iraqi's allowed the US to come deep into the country, then systematically attack the US military daily thru urban guerrilla tactics and thus put us in a quagmire that sees no end. The Iraqis knew they could not inflict as much damage or cause casualties man for man, machine for machine in a heads up battle, so they opted for a slow death of our troops.

    This was the lesson we as americans were suppose to learn after Vietnam.

    Those who believe we are winning and providing peace and security to Iraq have only diluted themselves in the rhetoric that keeps this war going. One only has to keep an eye on the daily totals of iraqi civilians killed and ask "are we really doing the right thing putting innocent people in the middle of a conflict that started between two men- Bush vs. Saddam"

    Why, if the people in Iraq had no quarrel with any american citizen and the citizens of the USA had no quarrel with any civilian in Iraq;why then must innocent men, women and children die for the sake of one mans argument with another man?

    If we believe that a conflict between leaders can result in the deaths of innocent civilians, then why are we upset over the american casualties suffered in the 911 attacks??

    One leader, Osama Bin Laden has a dispute with our goverment, not our people.

    He organizes attacks against legitimate military targets in the USA and civilians were killed. These attacks were acts of war but we call them murder, we drop large bombs in Iraq, miss our intended targets and kill civilians and we call them colateral damage?

    Is this right? How does the world view this hypocrisy?

    So many things have gone wrong in Iraq, almost every general who left the Iraqi theater has been critical of the handling of the war by the BUSH administration.

    Every top officer who disagrees with the Bush agenda has been removed or demoted. Each has been replaced by "YES" men who keep the war alive just to appease a president who seems to be clueless on combat operations.

    All I ask, is that people consider the amount of DEATH involved in this war. DEATH on both sides. "Freeing" a people shouldnt mean "freeing" them from life itself.

    Before we declare that we have won anything, we have to total what has been lost, only then can the summary of victory be established.

  17. BrownShark

    BrownShark Banned


    The rhetoric you posted is exactly the standard "message" speech given by White House spokesholes everyday and every year of this conflict.

    Lets take a quick analyst of what you

    This is the new explanation of the aircraft carrier speech, however, the same speech was given a month later to troops at a military base in Iraq by Preisident Bush where he uses the term "mission Accomplished".

    The term "mission accomplished" was originally in the speech and was suppose to be delivered to the american public on that day. The term was REMOVED shortly before the speech on the recommendation of Commanders on the ground and it was Donald Rumsfeld who removed it from the speech. The banner, which was made and paid for by the PR office of the White House was sent to the carrier in conjunction with the speech. The banner was overlooked and not taken down by the Navy.

    However the speech also said that:
    "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."[7] When he received an advance copy of the speech, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took care to remove any use of the phrase "Mission Accomplished" in the speech itself. Later, when journalist Bob Woodward asked him about his changes to the speech, Rumsfeld responded:"I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it's too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back… they fixed the speech, but not the sign."[8]
    Bush reiterated a "Mission Accomplished" message to the troops at Camp As Sayliyah on June 5, 2003 — about a month after the aircraft carrier incident: "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished."[9]

    Next you said:
    Yes, we did go to war in WWII to fight an evil empire. In the end, we did win, but we did not win alone. The coalition of Russian, English, Canadian and Americans won the war collectively.

    We could not have won alone. This little factoid you leave out. The USA could not have been successful without the totality of forces fighting the germans on all sides.

    I get your little twist of facts, but they dont make your point.

    Next you said:
    You had me on the floor with this one..... This is exactly the reason rhetoric works. This is called an implied sentence. It makes the listener draw a connection to facts that are not connected.

    From what you said, and keeping in mind we are talking about IRAQ, you expect anyone to believe that if we leave IRAQ, IRAQIS will make the trip to the USA to attack us? How? in their extensive air force? In their massive navy? Will they swim across the atlantic to breach our shores?

    What possesses you to believe that IRAQI's will come to the United States of America to continue the fight?

    Now, I know you will change your meaning to Al Qaeda, but remember, Gen Patreaus himself said there are less than 2000 Al Qaeda fighters in iraq. Hardly a fighting force.

    Rhetoric and its intentions are to keep you in fear, clearly you are.

    Next you said:
    WOW, Rush got you on this one. He said this but 3 days ago.

    A world war? This is where youre wrong. We are in a "concieved" pre-emptive world war. There is another term for this in history. Its called IMPERIALISM.

    Imperialism has two meanings, one describing an action and the other describing an attitude. Most commonly it is understood in relation to Empire building, as the forceful extension of a nation's authority by territorial conquest establishing economic and political domination of other nations. In its second meaning the term describes the imperialistic attitude of superiority, subordination and dominion over foreign peoples.

    Keep reading Sat, Ill give you an education for free.

  18. BrownShark

    BrownShark Banned


    you said:
    This wasnt a balsy move, it was a political stunt gone wrong.

    Bush's historic jet landing on the carrier, the first by a sitting president, was criticized by opponents as an overly theatrical and expensive stunt. For instance, they pointed to the fact that the carrier was well within range of Bush's helicopter, and that a jet landing was not needed.[2] Originally the White House had stated that the carrier was too far off the California coast for a helicopter landing and a jet would be needed to reach it. On the day of the speech, the Lincoln was only 30 miles (48 km) from shore but the administration still decided to go ahead with the jet landing. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer admitted that the president "could have helicoptered, but the plan was already in place. Plus, he wanted to see a landing the way aviators see a landing."[3] The Lincoln made a scheduled stop in Pearl Harbor shortly before the speech, docked in San Diego after the speech, and returned to its home base in Everett, Washington on May 6, 2003.

    It doesnt take "balls" to fool the American Public, its takes arrogance.

  19. BrownShark

    BrownShark Banned

    Big Arrow,

    you posted in part...
    Slander? is that what you call equilibrium nowadays?

    You guys been dishing this crap out for months and I come in and level the playing field and now your feelings are hurt?

    Dont make me laugh.

    Thank you for the "redneck" confirmation, it makes me want to sing "i can see clearly now" by Johnny Nash.

    Speaking of songs, I dont recall hearing the song by Hank Williams "Country Boys Can Survive?", but I did hear one called "I married my sister" by Chester Hatfield.

    Handouts? Again, dont make me laugh. You would soil yourself if you saw my home compared to yours.

    Man, how many times can you get "pinned" before you realize youre not a wrestler?

  20. BrownShark

    BrownShark Banned


    you want to go after someone or a group of someones for mis-statements or falsehoods, then check these out and go after them: