McChrystal Fired: Good.

I have no bone to pick with General Stanley McChrystal — I’m positive he’s a nice guy, good general, probably misunderstood.

But after the Rolling Stone interview that showed members of his staff insulting the president, and McChrystal himself dissing on the civilian leadership of the military, enough was enough. He had to go. Not so much for him, but because Obama has to bring the military to heel. And, fortunately for the nation, even Republicans like Sen. John McCain seem to be agreeing.

An example of the problem was a poster on one of my blogs last week, a 40-year military veteran and Air Force employee, who talked about other members of the military who said:

What the troops really want is for us to vote that pinhead they have to pretend to respect out of office. That would make them happy: to have a CiC who is a true patriot, not a pantywaist Marxist.

His attitude is hardly unique. The extreme polarization of politics in this country is, very dangerously, showing up all too often in the military. I know one civilian commander at Hill Air Force Base who, when he took office, had to remind the very GOP-leaning members of his staff that they WILL hang pictures of Obama in the office because, just like Bush whose pictures they reluctantly took down, Obama was their commander in chief.

This lack of respect for the civilian rule of the military by people in the military is beyond dangerous. It threatens the nation itself. We can’t have it. If McChrystal’s staff was showing lack of respect for the president and his civilian staff, he and they are in direct violation of the Military Code of Conduct and had to go.

I’m not the only one who sees this and is concerned. See this op-ed in today’s LA Times by Bruce Ackerman.

We simply cannot have a politically driven military. Yes, people in the military have every right to have political opinions, but when they join the military they take an oath to uphold the Constitution and that Constitution includes absolute respect and obedience to the President. When that fails, the nation fails.

The Uniform Code of Military Conduct makes this absolutely clear. If soldiers want to play politics, they need to get out and be civilians. This is doubly so for the officer corps.

Interestingly, Andrew Bacevich says McChrystal should not have been fired, but goes on to say Obama should rethink the Afghanistan strategy and get the heck out.  Bacevich is a well-known commentator, a conservative, a former military man and a father who lost a son in Iraq. He is highly critical of the US quasi-colonial power reach around the world, and I usually agree with him, so it’s interesting to see his take on all this.

Here’s what’s really scary: I agree with George Will 100 percent on this whole mess.

Will calls the war Sisyphean and a fools errand, but mess is a good word as well. A hopeless mess.  A FUBAR.

 It involves forces we do not understand and have no hope of controlling, such that our presence, at best, mitigates only in the areas covered by our guns. People who say we could win if our troops didn’t have rules of engagement that prevent them from shooting more but, as McChrystal said, the Russians killed a million Afghans and got their butts kicked out anyway.

We’re heading for the same fate so, for me, the time to leave is now.

Right behind McChrystal.

Share
This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to McChrystal Fired: Good.

  1. Lyle Braegger says:

    I am so tired of this polarizing climate in which we live. We need to pull together as a nation. An age old stratagy is to divide and conquer. Let’s not let this great country fall victim.

  2. laytonian says:

    I’m waiting for that “40 year veteran ” of the Air Force (double-dipper personified) to come here and defend McCrystall — just after he’s finished listening to Limbaugh and Beck: two men who are making millions by pre-digesting “news” for the continually uninformed.

    I’m not surprised by the number of veterans who lean towards the GOP (my husband definitely doesn’t, to his great credit).

    “War is good business” for the military and civilian employees.

    Having worked at Hill AFB for 28 years, I saw how many people hated peacetime, because they saw employment and funding cuts … and several high-ranking civilians and military would quietly campaign for the GOP. As one Colonel told me: “You’d better vote for Bush, because Clinton will put us out of business.”

  3. Abigail says:

    You’d think that members of the military would have sooner denounced Bush for disrespecting their life’s work by evading real service himself.

    Perhaps these folks would respect Obama more if he too played dress-up in a flight suit whilst the mission that was supposedly accomplished dragged on.

  4. laytonian says:

    Maureen Dowd makes several irrefutable points today in her New York Times column. I don’t care for the anti-military jabs she inserted, BUT she speaks the truth here:

    “So the commander in chief can be bad-mouthed as weak by the military but then he can’t punish the military because that would make him weak?”

    and

    “McChrystal publicly pressured Obama to do the surge, warning that without it, Afghanistan would be “Chaos-istan.” But the president did do the surge and Afghanistan is Chaos-istan.”

  5. Bob Becker says:

    I’d disagree with one point in your post, Charlie. This one: “He had to go. Not so much for him, but because Obama has to bring the military to heel.”

    I think that’s wrong. It was very much about the general [and some on his staff], and the removal was very much “for him.” The President…. any President [HST comes to mind of course] has to bring out-of-control officers to heel, but no President should never see as his job bringing “the military” to heel. He is, as you note, the constitutionally mandated C-in-C of that military. Removing officers who are incapable of respecting that is his job, but that’s a long way from his having to “bring the military to heel.” The President vs. rogue officers is one thing. The President vs. “the military” is quite another.

    One other element of all this worth thinking about, maybe. Post Viet-Nam, we went to an all-volunteer army. No more reluctant soldiers put into uniform by the draft. One of the concerns raised at the time was that having an all-volunteer professional army might make it more likely, not less, that the US would get involved in military adventures overseas it might otherwise have avoided. It’s one thing to send an all-volunteer professional army to a war-of-choice. It’s quite another to tell people across the country that their sons will be forced into the service to serve in that war. Seems to me now those concerns were not trivial ones.

    The problem of high ranking military involving themselves in politics goes back beyond even the ratification of the Constitution. When the Revolutionary War ended, under the weak Articles of Confederation, and it looked like Congress might reneg on its promise of half-pay for officers when the war ended, some of Washington’s officers at Newburgh sent delegates to Congress where they met with advocates of a stronger national government, one with the power to tax [which Congress did not have under the articles]. They struck a deal: the army would support a forced change in the Articles of Confederation giving Congress more powers in return for which the new Congress would take care of the army’s demands.

    When the Newburgh conspirators presented the idea to General Washington, he made plain his disappointment that any officers would be involved in such a thing, and he refused to have anything to do with a military-coerced change in the constitution. Without Washington’s backing, the conspiracy collapsed. Washington’s refusal to take part and his lecture to his officers on the importance of keeping the Officer Corps out of governing matters was, I’ve always thought, his greatest service to the Republic after his leading the Continental Army in the War for Independence. [Good book on the politics of the army in the Revolutionary period is Richard Kohn's The Eagle and the Sword.]

    Interesting too that the Hill AFB Col. who told Laytonian Clinton had to lose or he’d “put us out of business” turned out to be wrong. Clinton did win and Hill AFB was not shut down, nor was the Air Force nor was “the military.” The all grew instead. Experienced military men driven by political paranoia — and that’s what it is — is not a comforting thing to behold in a republic.

  6. Mcode says:

    For the second time in the history of your articles, you have written something I can almost agree with, I hate to say, but let’s make one thing clear on your statement: “OBAMA HAS TO BRING THE MILITARY TO HEEL.” That has to be the most ridiculous thing you have ever written and you have written some dozies in the past. That is like a columnist being called into the editors office and resigning because of a poorly written column and saying that the “EDITOR HAS TO BRING THE COLUMNISTS TO HEEL.”
    This is probably the first and only time that Obama has and will ever act like the Commander-in-Chief. However I doubt that he came up with the idea on his own, he must have actually listened to the military chiefs oh this one. HOOOORAHHHH.

  7. DHG says:

    My pedigree is 27 years in the USAF and a member of the GOP. That said, no CINC should suffer the behavior of Gen McChrystal. President Bush sent Generals packing that even gave a hint of lack of support. President Obama not only has the right, but the obligation to do the same.

  8. Michael Trujillo says:

    Truman fired MacArthur.

  9. The Lovely Jennifer says:

    Laytonian: why do you say a 40-year veteran of the Air Force is a double dipper personified? He gave 40 years serving his country and deserves a retirement allotment — period. Just like anyone who gives the best part of their lives to any private sector industry: they deserve the retirement package of a well-served career …. get a grip!

    TLJ

  10. ctrentelman says:

    jen — he worked in the military 20 years or so, retired, went back to work doing the same t hing as a civilian, being paid by you, the taxpayer, twice — his retirement AND his civilian wage.

    we call that double dipping when ogden’s chief of police does it.

  11. laytonian says:

    TLJ: the double dipper wasn’t in the Air Force for 40 years. He claims he retired, and went back to work for them as a civilian.

    NOW….IF you’re trying to credit his civilian job as “military service”, then **I** deserve such credit, because I worked as a civilian for the Air Force for longer than he was in the military, and for longer than he’s worked as a civilian.

    ON THE SUBJECT OF PRESIDENTS FIRING GENERALS: George W Bush fired Gen William J. Fallon.

  12. Annie says:

    I can understand why military personnel, both current and former, as well as civilians feel anger and/or resentment toward Obama: He chose NOT going to Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, he takes every opportunity to criticize America or apologize for it, and has cut the budget for military defense to pre-9/11 figures. I am deeply grateful to all the men and women who have served in the military. It sounds like a cliche, but freedom isn’t free, and the least our Commander in Chief can do is show respect to, and be thankful for, those who have served and/or fought for the country which has been so generous and rewarding to him and his family and friends.

  13. Bob Becker says:

    Anne:

    You wrote: ” He chose NOT going to Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.” So did Reagan. So did Bush I, who I think managed to miss all four Memorial Days at Arlington. So did Bush II. The only recent president with a perfect attendance record at Arlington during every year of his presidency was Bill Clinton… who we were also told was despised by the military. Get a grip.

    And President Obama has not “cut the military budget to pre 9/11 levels.” Where in the world are you getting this stuff?

  14. Bob Becker says:

    Annie:

    US military spending in 2000 [before 9/11] was $311.7 billion.

    The Obama administration’s military spending recommendation to congress for 2010: $534 billion.

    Took me less than three minutes to find the information.

    You really need to do some fact checking before you swallow outrageous claims like “Obama cut defense spending to pre-9/11 levels. “

  15. ken thomson says:

    The General was wrong. But I gotta believe it would be hard for a warrior to work for a wimp!

  16. laytonian says:

    ken thomson:

    It WOULD be hard for a soldier to work for a wimp like McChrystal, a man who doesn’t have the ballsack to stand up to his boss – but talks behind his back.

    Good point!
    McChrystal looks like every gay closeted male I’ve ever known: an outward show of testosterone fueled “manliness” hiding a terrified interior.

    McChrystal wimped out on Pat Tilman, too.

  17. laytonian says:

    Bob Becker speaks the truth.

    I can’t believe the people who come here, sput the latest Limbaugh-Beck, tea bag, Hannity, Michael Weiner (oops Savage) talking points, and think they can fool anyone.

    Wouldn’t it be embarrassing to continually be Anne or TLJ, people whose screeds are always challenged with FACTS — yet they come back time after time with more?

    It’s becoming clear that we are here to educate Anne and TLJ, because someone dropped the ball at their house.

    Maybe we should form a rehab team, focusing on those who believe every hoax email, every radio screamer, and every Fox News regurgitator?

  18. Mark Shenefelt says:

    Obama did attend a Memorial Day military service that weekend in Illinois, but it was cut short by rain and lightning. Here’s the Snopes fact check:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/memorialday.asp

  19. ctrentelman says:

    Mark, Laytonian, bob — you people who think opposition to President Obama is fact-based are such a hoot!

  20. Bob Becker says:

    Charlie:

    Granted, but when the ODS [Obama Derangement Syndrome] appears on a public blog like this, spreading misinformation as fact, it needs to be called on it. All the time, every time.

    At some point, perhaps Annie will realize that remaining willfully ignorant and spreading false information for political advantage is not patriotic, and is in fact a betrayal of the Founders who bequeathed her, and us, a republic — a messy, raucous, clamorous one sometimes, but a republic that enshrined the will of the people in place of the will of a divine right monarch, but which did it by protecting against the tyranny of the majority as well. That was not a small thing. I keep thinking more and more these days as the foam-flecked hyperventilated ranting on the right continues, of Franklin’s famous answer to someone who asked him, as the Constitutional Convention ended, what kind of government the founders had given the nation. “A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.”.

    I know, I know…. but hell, I’m a card-carrying liberal and so believe people, even Annie, can improve themselves and become more knowledgeable over time. Most of them. If they are patriotic enough to think it important.

  21. Jerome Borden says:

    Real reason to let Gen. McC go. This guy had a tin ear for security shown by the fact that he allowed Rolling Stone reporters inside his tent. Dumb.

  22. laytonian says:

    Jerome: you’re right. McChrystal’s 30-day friendship with the Rolling Stone reporter was so over-the-top, I’ve been imagining them rolling blunts together. It’s like McChrystal missed out on his own “Almost Famous” years…and tried to catch the tour bus.

    Charlie: bob, Mark and I are playing whack-a-troll. They pop up with their little lies, and we take the bait.
    No lie should ever go unchallenged. Even though Annie’s little diatribe was practically a cut/paste from one of Michael Wiener’s (oops, Savage’s) chain letter hoaxmail.

  23. Randall Patrick McMurphy says:

    It still amazes me the 180 turn many people have taken in response to speaking out about the President. When I protested and spoke about the folly of the Iraq war I was criticized for being anti-american and unpatrotic. I was toldythat I should support President Bush and the military during a time of war. Now that we have a Democratic president it appears that open criticism and false information is now appropriate and approved. We are still at war in Afghanistan and if a general critices the Commander In Chief many people support the dissent from a general.

  24. Michael Trujillo says:

    Anyone who thinks that Rolling Stone doesn’t have serious reporters who produce excellent articles about current events has been asleep for the past 20 years. Their coverage of the 2008 election was spot on.

    Maybe they get access to people and info that others don’t because everyone thinks, “Oh, it’s just a Rolling Stone reporter”.

  25. JJ Wilson says:

    Bob, laytonian, Mark – thank you for your well thoughtout and well worded comments.

    Without a mandatory draft eventually we will be hard-pressed to find a candidate WITH military service. So all I can say is get used to it Annie, ken and Mcode.

  26. Michael Trujillo says:

    Has anyone posting here actually read the article? It’s very interesting.

    Some points that would be of interesting to anyone defending or condemning MacChrystal:

    1. MacChrystal voted for Obama.
    2. President Obama is running the war in Afghanistan exactly the way the Pentagon, MacChrystal, and all the other counterinsurgency advocates want him to.
    3. Though they say some pretty harsh things about the Administration, their civilian chain of command, Washington politicians (including McCain), and NATO forces, Hilary Clinton receives good reviews from MacChrystal’s staff.
    4. MacChrystal was complicit in the cover up of Pat Tillman’s death. (I already knew this)

    Best quote in the article:
    Regarding a dinner he has to go to in order to sell the war strategy to NATO allies he says to his staff, “I’d rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner. Unfortunately, no one in this room could do it.”

    Saddest quote in the article:
    Regarding the increase in civilian casualties this year, he says, ““We’ve shot an amazing number of people.”

  27. laytonian says:

    I’m slogging through the Rolling Stone article right now, Michael.

    It’s available online here:
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=1

    As of page 2, I see the typical preening high-ranking military surrounded by aides, political to the max (even moreso than actual politicians) and completely self-absorbed. Always photographed in fatigues, exuding a common man persona, but actually less so than anyone else.

  28. laytonian says:

    JJ Wilson –

    You make a very good point. We have an all-volunteer military (unlike when our “patriot” ME claims to have joined the military).

    40 years ago (1970), you were either drafted into the Army…or joined the Air Force or Navy. My husband joined the Navy, and our little “super-patriot” ME evidently evaded Army service by joining the Air Force.

    By the way, where’s ME hiding lately?
    Under a new nym, having been shamed by reality?

  29. Annie says:

    I apologize, I didn’t realize that the only people who are entitled to their opinion are those whose opinions and views are exactly the same as yours. And of course personal attacks and name-calling are always the best – and most persuasive – methods of arguing your point of view.

    With regard to Obama missing the laying of the wreath ceremony at Arlington National Cemetary, I am glad to report that he made it back to the White House in time for a tribute to Paul McCartney on June 2, 2010.

    Now, back to your foaming at the mouth.

  30. laytonian says:

    Annie, opinions are different from facts.

    Why do you hate Paul McCartney?

  31. Al says:

    Annie notes “Now, back to your foaming at the mouth.”

    Self-aware, much?

  32. ctrentelman says:

    annie — feel free to have it as your opinion that obama does not respect the troops because he failed to go to arlington. However, you said that he was the first president in i forget how long to neglect to do that.

    That is a statement of fact. It is wrong.

    If you don’t like obama, fine and dandy, but try to be a bit more fact based. If you don’t think he should have been visiting with McCarthy, well, I am sure that there are many here who can find similar instances where reagan/bush/bush were having nice-nice with people while dire things were going on, so again i fail to see your point.

    but, as i did say, people who dislike obama are not fact based — and they seem to have a real admiration for useless symbols –flag pins on airplanes (McCain’s didn’t have one either), those idiot lapel pins, and so on.

    Back in the 60s someone wanted to institute loyalty oaths for all public employees. The hope was to prove everyone was patriotic and weed out traitors and spies. Then someone — probably a liberal — pointed out that spies and traitors were always the first in line to sign those things.

  33. Bob Becker says:

    Annie:

    If you’re going to post opinions on a public blog, you have to expect that people may disagree with your opinions, and say so. You also have to expect that if you post falsehood as fact — for example, if you claim President Obama’s defense budget involved less spending than the defense budgets before 9/11 — you have to expect as well that people will point out the errors you posted as fact. Pointing out falsehoods, like your post about the Obama defense budget, in no way denies you the right to your own opinion, or the right to express it.

    And we’ve all noticed that you’ve made no attempt to defend your claims about the Obama defense budget. And you’ve ignored the fact that Bush I in his four years attended no wreath laying at Arlington on Memorial day, and Bush II and Reagan also did not attend every one. If you were similarly outraged by their laying wreathes elsewhere on Memorial Day, as President Obama planed to do at a National Military Cemetery in Illinois, you didn’t say so.

    My dad [Tech Sgt, WWII, US Army/OSS CBI Theater] is buried at the Port Hudson National Cemetery in Louisiana. I’d consider it an honor if an American president, either party, choose to lay a wreath there some Memorial Day instead of at Arlington. I’m sorry you’d apparently consider it an insult to…. to what? Hard to figure.

  34. Willbike says:

    Annie,

    Obama has increased, not decreased defense spending. When you say things that are blatantly not true people assume that you get your information from forwarded emails, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. Don’t expect to be taken seriously.

    I met president Bush before I went to Iraq. Very cool to meet the president, an opportunity not many get. The picture would be hanging on the wall if it were Obama.

  35. Vince says:

    Civilians or non-military strategists should not be allowed to fire military leaders unless a wartime loss merits the firing. This is a bad analogy, but Hitler did not let his Generals run the war..had he let the military minds run the war we would’ve lost…

  36. Charles Trentelman says:

    mmmmm, not really, Vince. The generals didn’t want to invade the sudatenland, hitler did. If hitler HAD listened to his generals on how to run a fighting retreat out of Russia he might not have lost so badly, but hitler’s insanity was actually responsible for most of the successes they did have precisely becasue they did violate standard doctrine. His generals were more cautious.

    and saying civilians can’t fire military leaders unless they lose is dangerous thinking. Does that mean as long as the general wins he can disregard his c in c?

  37. Mcfly says:

    I love the blogs. So many people too far right and left. I didn’t vote for Obama and I don’t agree with many of his decisions. That said, I do agree with the firing of his General. I believe that Obama had to show that he was in charge. As far as all of the vitriol contained in the comments by all, this is the reason that we don’t find more common ground. The far left and the far right won’t agree with each other, not out of sound mind or logic, but out of fear and spite. I can poke holes in the philosophy of either left or right, but choose to be one who looks at the big picture, not the party line. Many of the educated blame the uneducated for blasting the party line, however hypocritical this might be.

  38. Blatant Bribes says:

    We all remember the TV show “Roots” could this have been the real inspiration for AmeriChoice Health. The 101 Dumbest Moments In Business 2003 EDITION Whiffed pitch No. 6: blatant stereotyping. By Mark Athitakis April 1, 2003 (Business 2.0)– GRAND PRIZE WINNER, DUMBEST MOMENT OF 2002
    In September, insurance company AmeriChoice brings trucks to blighted neighborhoods in New York City and gives away coupons for free chickens as an incentive for the underprivileged to switch their Medicare coverage. New York state senator Carl Kruger files a complaint with the state attorney general. The 101 Dumbest Moments In Business 2003 EDITION – April 1, 2003 Apr 1, 2003 … Just don’t tell him about the “Chinese health balls.” ….. In September, insurance company AmeriChoice brings trucks to blighted … New York state senator Carl Kruger files a complaint with the state attorney general….. Falling on his sword, Welch announces he’ll give up most of the perks,…

    2009 and 2010 $120,000 from your tax dollars at work
    Philadelphia PA Mayor Nutter received two years in a row $60,000 checks to help keep open and operate the city swimming pools. These checks came from AmeriChoice Health and on the surface seems like fine gifts. Yet, they are Bribes non the less, these checks come from a company who receives all its money from the Federal State Governments as a vendor for Medicare Medicaid services is not allowed to offer bribes kickbacks and money gifts of any kind in order to promote its share of the market place. This is also not allowed as a use of your taxpayers dollars yet it happens.What does it really cost the City of Philadelphia to receive this money? Americhoice Health has a long history of corruption over the years yet seems to be protected by those who are responsible to over see their actions why is that? Sorry must apologize just received a notice that AmeriChoice Health was under the impression they thought they were suppose to have started their very own stimulus and economic program package and the one they implemented, they had no idea it violated all the Stark ,Health and Kickbacks laws. Some one will have to notify the following departments it was all a mistake or error in judgement, the Department of Justice, CMS, Dept of health and Human resourses,the FBI,and IRS, and any other agency effected by this tragedy or unfortunate misunderstanding. No harm, no fowl, forgive and forget, OK, then how about some coupons for a free whole fried chicken…..

    Among its provisions, the anti-kickback statute penalizes anyone who knowingly and willfully solicits, receives, offers or pays remuneration in cash or in kind to induce, or in return for: A. Referring an individual to a person for the furnishing, or arranging for the furnishing, of any item or service payable under the Medicare or Medicaid program; or B. Purchasing, leasing or ordering , or arranging for or recommending purchasing, leasing or ordering, any goods, facility, service or item payable under the Medicare or Medicaid program. Violators are subject to criminal penalties, or exclusion from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid rograms, or both. A violation of the anti-kickback law is a felony offense that carries criminal fines of up to $25,000 per violation, imprisonment for up to five years and exclusion from government health care programs.The federal anti-kickback statute, 42 U.S.C.§ 1320a-7b(b), prohibits individuals or entities from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce referrals of items or services covered by Medicare, Medicaid or any other federally funded program.

    If this were any one person not a corporation they would be in jail now, if the FBI were called in on this matter they would be in jail now, if the IRS were notified they would be in jail now. Since all Ameri-Choice checks come from the United Health’s home office they should be held equally responsible for any bribes, kickbacks, Stark, Fraud and inducements violations that have occured. Federal and State Governments have developed such a depended position with this company that laws and rules no longer apply for them.This role is nothing new for the AmeriChoice people and its been going on for years, look at some of the prior news articles that date back for years only now they can afford to hire the best of Law firms and give the most for Political contributations all on the back of the taxpayer. Sure the Laws have become tighter but you can still dance away their problems.

    Three years ago they were reported to these Federal agency’s and as of todays date not only were they allowed to continue doing business but were never charged once. Protected vendor status sure, politics sure,limited government budgets sure, Federal and State officals looking the other way sure, and rather then stop these activities a strong desire not to rock the boat existed. Even with the vast changes in the laws and budgets,a hands off policy remains, you tell me what’s wrong with this picture? The Government created this monster and now they don’t know what to do about it, like shooting yourself in your own foot etc. Tons of money to advance their national growth, its market positions, tons of money for political donations, tons of money to send 75 millon back to its home office from New York state alone, tons of money to suppot National TV shows, tons of money to pay hugh State fines, tons of money to hire the very best law firms, tons of money to pay for bribes and kickbacks, tons of money for hugh salarys and bonuses, all done on the back of the American taxpayor, you see this company receives all its money from the Federal government. Should your tax dollars be held to a higher standard? Should the government agencys responsible for there review be held to that same standard?Should the IRS audit their corruption? Why has this company not been charged? How long can the buck be passed here in more ways then one? Hey, it’s your tax dollars don’t complain now then don’t complain later.tax dollars for bribes // Oct 6, 2010 at 8:57 am

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>