Benghazi - The Nightmare Is Over!

maineman said:
word games? bullshit. words have meaning. THERE IS NO DOUBT means something entirely different than I HAVE NO DOUBT. When the President tells us about Saddam's WMD's, he has, at his disposal, a wealth of intelligence about that topic gathered from a wide variety of sources, and he has, at his disposal, detailed analysis of that intelligence. If, after reading all of that, he pats the pile of intelligence documents and says, THERE IS NO DOUBT IN HERE... that's a fucking lie. I could give a rat's ass whether or not HE did or did not believe that Saddam had WMD's... clearly he did... but that is not what he said. He lied. Gore lied. There WAS doubt. They both knew of the existence of that doubt, but they both chose to tell us there was none. The only difference being, of course, that Gore lied after he left office and was a private citizen. Bush lied while CinC and used that lie to lead us into an unnecessary war.

Words have meanings, unless, of course, you're bravo and you get caught and then, all of a sudden, words suddenly take on colloquial idiomatic meanings where they mean something different than what they actually do. THERE IS NO DOUBT is a statement of fact. period. I HAVE NO DOUBT is a statement of opinion. period.
Click to expand...

"THERE IS NO DOUBT means something entirely different than I HAVE NO DOUBT"........wrong...it means exactly the same thing to the speaker.

"THERE IS NO DOUBT IN HERE.".....he didn't 'in here'......thats your problem, you have to fudge the quotes to make your lies work for you.....

"believe that Saddam had WMD's... clearly he did... but that is not what he said."......thats exactly what he said, why?, because he believed it....just like Bill Clinton and
a host of other Democrats.....they all believed it.....being wrong is not lying, being wrong is being wrong.

The only lies in this post are yours.....

Here is your previous analogy...
and again, you are wrong. If I say, right now, THERE IS NO DOUBT that the Red Sox will win the AL East, that is a lie, because, there IS, in fact, doubt. It is a completely different statement if I were to say, right now, I HAVE NO DOUBT that the Red Sox will win the AL East. THAT is NOT a lie, because I am clearly stating my belief and NOT stating a matter of fact. Team Bush repeatedly said, THERE IS NO DOUBT that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's. That was a lie, because there WAS doubt... varying degrees of doubt throughout the intelligence community, and Team Bush was well aware that doubt existed. Your continued refusal to acknowledge that lie is quite pathetic...
Click to expand...

" If I say, right now, THERE IS NO DOUBT that the Red Sox will win the AL East, that is a lie, because, there IS, in fact, doubt."

If you do say that the Red Sox will win, that is not a lie if you truly believe that...
and to continue.....you say, "there IS, in fact, doubt".....of course if YOU believe there is doubt, then it is a lie....obviously if you have doubt and say the opposite
you're lying.
Because your neighbor says there is doubt is irrelevant, he isn't making the claim, who gives a shit what he believes....

Its plain English, and you can't understand your own words ?

"Team Bush repeatedly said, THERE IS NO DOUBT that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's. That was a lie, because there WAS doubt"

TEAM CLINTON said the same thing for 10 years, were they all lying for 10 years ?...thats all they talked about, Saddam and WMD.

Who the hell are you to say, without doubt, and with such certainly, that 'team Bush' thought there was any doubt....just about the entire world thought he had WMD....
dozens of resolutions from the UN all passed UNANIMOUSLY... the sanctions that killed a million people.....don't that tell you anything ?
Is your BDS that acute that you've lost all reason to think.
 
Howey said:
After weeks of prodding, conspiracies, lies, comparisons to Watergate, and McCarthyesque grilling of officials, the Benghazigate hearing are finally over.

What did they find? Nothing much...



Can we now, please, get to work on the issues really facing our country?

Nah...I guess not.
Click to expand...
Not yet Howey boy, THE HILLARY needs to splain those telephone calls she made as the first attack was going on and afterwards, there were more calls to her man in charge, who is one of the whistleblowers. THE HILLARY needs to be put under oath and then grilled like a cheese sandwich, make her talk........
 
NOVA said:
Who the hell are you to say, without doubt, and with such certainly, that 'team Bush' thought there was any doubt....just about the entire world thought he had WMD....
dozens of resolutions from the UN all passed UNANIMOUSLY... the sanctions that killed a million people.....don't that tell you anything ?
Is your BDS that acute that you've lost all reason to think.
Click to expand...

Of COURSE Team Bush THOUGHT that Saddam had WMD's. So what? That's not what the lie was all about... the lie was about the false statement that there was absolute certainty about his WMD's. Team Bush didn't THINK there was doubt. They KNEW full well that doubt existed. There were tons of caveats and qualifiers in every NIE on the subject. They KNEW there was doubt. So when they said "there is no doubt" they knew full well that was an inaccurate statement and they made that inaccurate statement anyway. When you make a statement that you know to be false, there is a name for that. It's called a FUCKING LIE!!!!!!! "There is no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" is a statement of fact like "there is no water in that glass" is a statement of fact. "I have no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" is a statement of opinion just like "I have no doubt that bravo is a total moron" is a statement of opinion. You need to either admit that you don't know shit from fat meat about the english language, or just admit that you have your head so far up Bush's ass that you can watch his ham sandwiches get digested. Your man lied. There is nothing that can be done about it now. We can't impeach him or send him to jail of chop off his head. He's safe... but his legacy sure as hell isn't. He will always be the president who lied us into a war we couldn't afford and ought not to have fought.
 
seriously bravo. you're a smart guy. you understand the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact. If you want to express an opinion, you phrase it in the form of an opinion. If you are stating a fact, you don't say something like, "in my own opinion, I believe that the earth rotates around the sun". You say, "the earth revolves around the sun". I would have had no problem if Bush had said, "I have seen all the intelligence, and while some analysts differ on this subject, I personally have no doubts that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction"... but that is not what he said. What he said was a lie. He stated as fact something he knew was not factually accurate. He knew that doubt existed within the intelligence community but he said that doubt did not exist. That's a lie.
 
NOVA said:
It doesn't matter what "others' believe, it matters what YOU believe.....now its more word games because he didn't specity "me, myself"......
Thats bogus....when I talk to people its assumed I'm speaking for myself unless I specify otherwise...not the other way around....
Is that the way it is in Mexico.....If I say, there is no doubt that cactus is big, who the hell do you think I'm speaking for, the rancher down the road ?

Man are you grasping at straws .... man up mate, you're embarrassing yourself...we all speak for ourselves unless you indicate otherwise....
Just as Al Gore did....."We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.".....do you think he was speaking for the previous Clinton Admin or the entire United States....who is 'we' ? Can you or I assign anyone we see fit to define who 'we' is ?

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. --Senator Graham....who is he speaking for, the entire senate maybe ?
Click to expand...

How long ago was it that everyone was talking about Saddam's underground bunker, that the Germans were supposed to have built for him?

Saddam's bunker can withstand nuke attack, says its designer

As US forces review their strategy by pausing their advance to Baghdad, the German designer of Saddam Hussein's underground bunker has warned it will take a modern miracle to eliminate the Iraqi president from his fortress beneath the Tigris.

US commander of allied forces, General Tommy Franks, insists there will be no let up in the assault on Baghdad, but frontline soldiers south of Baghdad have been digging trenches, laying mines and camouflaging vehicles to protect their positions, instead of preparing for an advance on the Iraqi capital.

Weekend reports indicate there could be a delay of about six days in US-led forces' advance to Baghdad to allow supplies and reinforcements to reach the front.

Some military officials have even hinted there could be a pause lasting more than two weeks.

The reason why the US-led allied forces have been forced to take a break is their long supply line stretching up to Kuwait, which has become vulnerable to attacks in towns such as Nasiriyah and Najaf.

Last Thursday, Pentagon announced that another 100,000 US soldiers would be sent to the Gulf by the end of next month to reinforce the 125,000 US and British troops already there.

The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, said: "The one thing that we have on our side and we are already using is patience."

Meanwhile, the German designer of Saddam Hussein's underground bunker has warned that targeting the Iraqi president in his hideout would require an attack using 16 cruise missiles directed to the same spot.

Karl Esser said in a statement that the Iraqi leader was "100 per cent safe" in the steel-and-concrete structure buried 100 metres below Baghdad.

"I am absolutely certain that Saddam Hussein will not be taken out by a rocket attack on his main palace in Baghdad as long as he remains underground in the bunker I designed," he was quoted as saying in the German media.

The Munich-born designer, whose grandmother built a bunker for Hitler, said he was proud of his work, which may prevent the coalition forces' stated aim of "decapitating" the Iraqi leadership.

The �60-million bunker was built 20 years ago, under the directions of Esser and Austrian architect, Lorenzo Buffalo, working for Boswau and Knauer of Germany.

Esser said: "I was asked [to build the bunker] as I had a lot of experience. My grandmother was responsible for Hitler's bunker under the Berlin Reich chancellery and I have continued in the family tradition."

He said he met Saddam on a number of occasions when the construction got underway in the early 1980s, including one three-hour session where the two discussed in detail the plans for the bunker.

He recalled, "If you see him, he doesn't make much of an impression. He looks like an Arab tax collector or banker. But when he speaks, you realise there is more to the man than meets the eye.

"Those around make it really clear that he is a man to be reckoned with. You could hear a needle drop when he walks into the room."

Esser said, "If they want to get at Saddam, they would have to level the palace completely and get rid of the debris. Then they would need to hit the site with their 80-kilo Tomahawks 16 times at the same spot to get through. That's 16 times. Then they need to know exactly where he is in the bunker. Is he in the toilet, or in bed?"

The Baghdad bunker is hidden beneath a swimming pool, walkways and parking areas of the presidential palace guest house. Its nine feet-thick walls are designed to withstand a nuclear explosion of the scale that destroyed Hiroshima at
the end of the World War-II.

The bunker, complete with a living room for Saddam and his family and bathrooms with gold fittings, has a command room with secure communication equipment. An escape tunnel under the Tigris river is protected by a three-ton door.

Esser concluded that it would be almost impossible to penetrate Saddam's bunker. "I'm pleased my bunker has proved up to the job," he said.
 
maineman said:
and who gives a shit about a fucking cactus and whether or not you think it's big or not? Do you honestly think that someone is going to get up in your grill about that and say, hey wait a minute... there may, in fact, be people who don't think that cactus is all that big... you LIED to me! Of course not. However, if you are a used car salesman and you tell me, there is no doubt that this car has never been in an accident and never had body work done and there is no doubt that you'll love it... and, after I drive it off the lot, the car starts falling apart and my mechanic looks at it and tells me it's a pile of rust and bondo and the frame is bent from a head on collision, THEN, I'm gonna get on your case. Bush lied about there being absolute certainty concerning the existence of stockpiles of WMD's. period. He fucking lied. There was not absolute certainty and he said there was. That's a lie whether he believed in his heart of hearts that stockpiles existed or not. That war was started on a lie and no amount of dixie-esque historical revision will ever change that fact.
Click to expand...


Well,who the fuck cares about the Red Sox, fool........you're making as ass of yourself with stupid analogy....the simple FACT remains.....if I BELIEVE what I'm telling
you is the truth, then by definition I am not lying....to be a lie, I'd have to KNOW and BELIEVE its not the truth......
Whether its correct or not is irrelevant.....

LIE
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.


v. lied, ly·ing (l
imacr.gif
prime.gif
ibreve.gif
ng), lies
v.intr.1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.

If you have the INTENTION to DELIBERATELY DECEIVE then you must have known what you claim is false
If you DON'T KNOW ITS FALSE, and can't have the intention to deliberately deceive.....therefore, you can't be lying.
How the hell did you ever pass your GED ?

Have one of those Mexicans explain English to you...even they wouldn't make the lame argument you have....
 
Here is your last English lesson for this term Maineman....pay attention, theres gonna be a test...

Did you know "listen" and "silent" use the same letters?

Do you know that the words "race car" spelled backwards
still spells "race car"?

And that "eat" is the only word that if you take the first
letter and move it to the last, it spells its past tense "ate"?


And have you noticed that if you rearrange the letters in
"illegal immigrants," and add just a few more letters,
it spells:


"Go home you free-loading, benefit-grabbing, resource-sucking, baby-making, non-English-speaking

jackasses and take those other hairy-faced, sandal-wearing, bomb-making, camel-riding, goat-loving,

raggedy-ass bastards with you.”



How weird is that?
 
NOVA said:
Well,who the fuck cares about the Red Sox, fool........you're making as ass of yourself with stupid analogy....the simple FACT remains.....if I BELIEVE what I'm telling
you is the truth, then by definition I am not lying....to be a lie, I'd have to KNOW and BELIEVE its not the truth......
Whether its correct or not is irrelevant.....

LIE
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.


v. lied, ly·ing (l
imacr.gif
prime.gif
ibreve.gif
ng), lies
v.intr.1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.

If you have the INTENTION to DELIBERATELY DECEIVE then you must have known what you claim is false
If you DON'T KNOW ITS FALSE, and can't have the intention to deliberately deceive.....therefore, you can't be lying.
How the hell did you ever pass your GED ?

Have one of those Mexicans explain English to you...even they wouldn't make the lame argument you have....
Click to expand...

no one is suggesting that George Bush didn't BELIEVE that Saddam had WMD's. When will you EVER get that through your fucking head???? What I am suggesting is that George Bush KNEW that there were many who had doubts as to the absolute certainty of Saddam's supposed stockpiles of WMD's. He KNEW that. He KNEW that others did not share his certainty. Yet... rather than saying "I personally have no doubt", which, as I have shown you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again... is a fucking OPINION, and if he had said THAT, it would NOT have been a lie... Instead, he chose to make a statement of fact. He did not believe that there was no doubt, because he had read plenty of intelligence reports that expressed doubt about that very thing. He KNEW there was doubt within his own administration... and yet, he told us that THERE IS NO DOUBT... that was a lie. Again. No one is suggesting that George Bush did not believe in his heart of hearts that Saddam had WMD's. I am suggesting that he knew full well that there were those within the intelligence community that had doubts about that certainty, and, knowing that, he lied to us when he told us that doubt did not exist.... because it did. He chose his words poorly, but, as you have said, words have meanings, and politicians need to stand by the meanings of their words and not expect the citizenry to read their minds and somehow discern what they were meaning to say when they failed to say it. THERE IS NO DOUBT means something significantly different than I HAVE NO DOUBT. You can claim they are synonymous until hell freezes over... they still won't be.
 
lol....PiMP follows me around groaning me all the time - fifteen groans in less than two days... one would think he had an adolescent man crush on me or something else equally weird. get a life homoboy.
 
two or three hundred more before I catch up to the Dude.....though will probably stop when your groans are more than your thanks......after that I can spread them around among other liberals.....

by the way, on this thread I groaned the posts where you tried to divert the conversation away from Benghazi.......if you had had the balls to actually debate the topic the groans would have gone to someone else.....
 
maineman said:
seriously bravo. you're a smart guy. you understand the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact. If you want to express an opinion, you phrase it in the form of an opinion. If you are stating a fact, you don't say something like, "in my own opinion, I believe that the earth rotates around the sun". You say, "the earth revolves around the sun". I would have had no problem if Bush had said, "I have seen all the intelligence, and while some analysts differ on this subject, I personally have no doubts that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction"... but that is not what he said. What he said was a lie. He stated as fact something he knew was not factually accurate. He knew that doubt existed within the intelligence community but he said that doubt did not exist. That's a lie.
Click to expand...

Because he didn't phrase in the words YOU prefer is irrelevant....You can't possibly claim to KNOW what he truly believed, dispute your opinion of yourself, you ain't God.
Its YOUR OPINION that he had doubt about what his claim....its quite ridiculous to tell another person what he meant...he already said what he meant....
And the telling point of this entire discussion is....Bush claimed EXACTLY what those Democrats had been telling the American people for the previous 10 years....
He was as convinced as all those Dems.....Saddam had WMD, Saddam was a threat, Saddam was dangerous.....don't those quotes register in your head at all ?....
You love to point out that Bush wasn't the most eloquent speaker when it suits your purpose, and then turn around and call him a liar because he didn't use
the words and phases you think he should have said...
Why insist he knew what he said wasn't factually accurate....despite the character assassination, he has 2 degrees from very prestigious schools....he flew jet
fighter aircraft, he served as a governor, he was the idiot you and others make him out to be, that don't even come close to his accomplishments....I realize BDS is
a hard illness to overcome, but you've got to face the facts of life sooner or later.....

You talk about doubts in the intelligence community?.....Of course, thats why its called Nat. Intelligence ESTIMATE.....intell. gathers what information they can,
(16 different orpanizations) pro and con on hundreds of issues....everything they conclude is an estimate, a guess, opinion and for them to state something as absolute is rare, very rare.
That would put them in a tenuous position if they did and then it was acted on and they miscalculated....ifs, ands, buts, maybes, mights and other cautious words are the norm in intelligence reports....that being said, the NIE Bush received around Oct. 2001 was pretty damning to Saddam and Iraq, caveats not withstanding.....
and there was intell from various countries throughout Europe that generally confirmed what the Dems were whining about for the past 10 years.....dozens of UN
resolutions, passed unanimously all tip the scales in my favor that what was believed about Saddam was true ......

anyway, as long as your BDS is in control, there is little we can say to each other.....this is getting like thingy and his obsession with the word "invasion" as if
it holds some magic power. There is no doubt, I am right and you are wrong.
 
maineman said:
no one is suggesting that George Bush didn't BELIEVE that Saddam had WMD's. When will you EVER get that through your fucking head???? What I am suggesting is that George Bush KNEW that there were many who had doubts as to the absolute certainty of Saddam's supposed stockpiles of WMD's. He KNEW that. He KNEW that others did not share his certainty. Yet... rather than saying "I personally have no doubt", which, as I have shown you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again... is a fucking OPINION, and if he had said THAT, it would NOT have been a lie... Instead, he chose to make a statement of fact. He did not believe that there was no doubt, because he had read plenty of intelligence reports that expressed doubt about that very thing. He KNEW there was doubt within his own administration... and yet, he told us that THERE IS NO DOUBT... that was a lie. Again. No one is suggesting that George Bush did not believe in his heart of hearts that Saddam had WMD's. I am suggesting that he knew full well that there were those within the intelligence community that had doubts about that certainty, and, knowing that, he lied to us when he told us that doubt did not exist.... because it did. He chose his words poorly, but, as you have said, words have meanings, and politicians need to stand by the meanings of their words and not expect the citizenry to read their minds and somehow discern what they were meaning to say when they failed to say it. THERE IS NO DOUBT means something significantly different than I HAVE NO DOUBT. You can claim they are synonymous until hell freezes over... they still won't be.
Click to expand...


no one is suggesting that George Bush didn't BELIEVE that Saddam had WMD's.?

Then how in the hell can he be accussed of lying for expressing that his belief.....his conclusion was "there was no doubt about it".....and thats exactly what he said....

Thats the whole point ..... to claim he lied because he didn't say it in the fashion you would is just ridiculous on its face.

He wasn't speaking for the CIA or FBI or the DOD or the State Dept.....he was telling you what HE BELIEVED.
 
NOVA said:
no one is suggesting that George Bush didn't BELIEVE that Saddam had WMD's.?

Then how in the hell can he be accussed of lying for expressing that his belief.....his conclusion was "there was no doubt about it".....and thats exactly what he said....

Thats the whole point ..... to claim he lied because he didn't say it in the fashion you would is just ridiculous on its face.
Click to expand...

words have meanings. He can be called a liar because the words he chose were not an expression of his personal belief, but rather a statement of fact. THERE IS NO DOUBT is a statement of fact. I HAVE NO DOUBT is the statement of an opinion. That's the way our language works. Don't like it? too bad.

Much like terrorize and terrorist might sound the same, but they mean different things.... words have meanings. Politicians need to chose their words with care. History will be watching. George Bush made a statement of fact that he was well aware was not true. That's a lie. pure and simple. I know you don't LIKE that, but it is true, and you can wiggle and waggle and piss and moan forever... it won't change that fact.
 
sort of like when you look at your wife across the dining room table and suddenly blurt out,"I hate my life and our relationship and I want a divorce"... you can't really go back and say, "honey... what I wanted those words to mean was more like, 'I love you and want to spend the rest of my life together'" because when you string words together in sentences they have meanings. And you can't go back, after the fact, and claim that they meant something else, or that you really meant to say something that meant something else. English is tough that way.
 
and ya know... Bush was surrounded by smart guys... he could have simply gotten the word out to Team Bush to not use that phrase. He could have said, "ya know, the other day I said that there is no doubt that Saddam has WMD's and, quite honestly, that is not entirely correct. Some of our intelligence analysts and authorities are not quite so sure that Saddam still has or is still making weapons of mass destruction. Others in those organizations look at the intelligence, from human sources on the ground, and from satellite imagery, and they think that those weapons are still there and that he is making more. I have listened to all of my intelligence analysts and I must say that I am more convinced by the arguments of those that say that WMD's DO still exist in Iraq, and, quite frankly, going with the other side, and then having that be wrong, might be disastrous." That would have been an accurate and honest statement by the president and I might not have agreed with him, but, at least I would have known he wasn't LYING to me. He might not have gotten the same level of public support, but, I can imagine he probably would have gotten enough to get majorities in both chambers for his silly war regardless. WHy he chose to lie and let that lie stand un-retracted is beyond me.
 
In the late '90's, Bush was thinking about writing an autobiography, and he told a ghostwriter that he didn't think a President could achieve "greatness" without a war.

As soon as 9/11 happened, one of the 1st things he said was "I'm a War President." I always thought the statement itself, as well as the way he said it, was a strange first reaction to have.

Then, when you hear about Paul O'Neil over-hearing things like "find me something on Iraq," and about the intel being fixed around the policy, it paints a pretty clear picture. Bush wanted to go to war. He wasn't a President who would bend over backwards trying to avoid it.

He wanted war.
 
exactly... and, after 9/11, all he really needed to do was to keep America scared and angry... now that's what I call leadership.
 
maineman said:
words have meanings. He can be called a liar because the words he chose were not an expression of his personal belief, but rather a statement of fact. THERE IS NO DOUBT is a statement of fact. I HAVE NO DOUBT is the statement of an opinion. That's the way our language works. Don't like it? too bad.

Much like terrorize and terrorist might sound the same, but they mean different things.... words have meanings. Politicians need to chose their words with care. History will be watching. George Bush made a statement of fact that he was well aware was not true. That's a lie. pure and simple. I know you don't LIKE that, but it is true, and you can wiggle and waggle and piss and moan forever... it won't change that fact.
Click to expand...

He can be called a liar because the words he chose were not an expression of his personal belief ?

Really ? Whose belief was he expressing ?

but rather a statement of fact.?

Of course, in his eyes, it was a fact.

George Bush made a statement of fact that he was well aware was not true.?

And YOU KNOW, he knew it wasn't true, HOW ?...are you a seer ?...a clairvoyant ? do you have supernatural powers ? YOU know his inner feelings ?
Maybe because he was actually agreeing with what Democrats said for the previous 10 years ?........AMAZING STUFF

The only pure and simple here is your making a complete ass of yourself....not once, but over and over.
I thought English was your native language, you're making a mockery of it ...
 
NOVA said:
He can be called a liar because the words he chose were not an expression of his personal belief ?

Really ? Whose belief was he expressing ?

but rather a statement of fact.?

Of course, in his eyes, it was a fact.

George Bush made a statement of fact that he was well aware was not true.?

And YOU KNOW, he knew it wasn't true, HOW ?...are you a seer ?...a clairvoyant ? do you have supernatural powers ? YOU know his inner feelings ?
Maybe because he was actually agreeing with what Democrats said for the previous 10 years ?........AMAZING STUFF

The only pure and simple here is your making a complete ass of yourself....not once, but over and over.
I thought English was your native language, you're making a mockery of it ...
Click to expand...

I don't need to be a seer or clairvoyant. He knew that there was doubt. He had been briefed about the caveats and qualifiers in the NIE. He knew that the intelligence community was not unanimous in their thinking about Saddam's WMD's. For him to turn around and say, "THERE IS NO DOUBT", when he was well aware of plenty of doubts about the certainty of Saddam's WMD stockpiles even within his own administration, was a lie.

No wiggling out of that. it is what it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top