Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 12, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

MORE IRAN....So are we planning to go mano-a-mano with Iran? Everyone seems to think so, but Jim Webb decided to ask. During a hearing with Condoleezza Rice on Thursday, he asked if the president thinks he has the authority to launch an attack against Iran "in the absence of a direct threat without congressional approval." Rice declined to answer:

Senator, I'm really loathe to get into questions of the president's authorities without a rather more clear understanding of what we are actually talking about. So let me answer you, in fact, in writing. I think that would be the best thing to do.

There's probably less here than meets the eye. Matt Yglesias points out that "most recent administrations have claimed the authority to launch military actions without specific congressional authorization," but I'd go further. As far as I can tell, every single administration in American history has basically claimed the right to launch attacks on other countries without congressional approval. The War Powers Act has done precisely nothing to change this, and to be honest, I don't think Congress wants to change it. They'd just as soon not take the heat for this kind of stuff.

Of course, Congress can certainly try to pass legislation denying funding for operations in Iran if it wants to. And it might even be worth doing, if only as a shot across the bow -- though it's worth considering the downside of introducing a resolution that would not only fail, but would probably be opposed even by a fair number of Democrats. Still, maybe it's worth getting everyone on the record. And I suppose a narrowly worded resolution a la the Boland Amendment might have a chance of passage.

Kevin Drum 12:04 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I think the Drum resolution is a brilliant idea. Which Democrats will be on board with preventing American troops from defending themselves against Iranian aggression? Kennedy, Kucinich, every congresscritter from California... who am I missing?

Posted by: American Hawk on January 12, 2007 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

If the Iranians can't fire back, then who cares if Congress approves or not.

If they do fire back, all bets are off.

Posted by: Dave of Maryland on January 12, 2007 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

I think that if the US made a policy of renouncing aggressive war that we all might be a lot safer.

If the Iranians can't fire back, then who cares if Congress approves or not.

When a nation must respond to aggression, but cannot respond militarily, it must respond through other means...

Posted by: Wapiti on January 12, 2007 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

The idiocy of AH aside, I think a resolution can be worded well that would require congressional authorization for initiating military action against Iran that allows current U.S. forces to "defend themselves against Iranian aggression."

I also think it would be quite popular as I think the appetite in the country for widening the war to Iran is pretty small (not to mention the possible disasterous consequences for the troops in Iraq). The public clearly wants Bush reigned in, and Iran is the place to start.

Posted by: DP on January 12, 2007 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't the Authorization of the Use of Miliary Force of the War in Iraq already implicitly authorize attacking Iran? Certainly the law allows Bush to attack any other country which is arming and funding terrorists in Iraq. As Newsmax reported

"General Peter Pace, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, says Iran is clearly involved with the insurgents in Iraq, and U.S. forces will go after those who are arming them"

Democrats have been claiming for some time now, they want America to win in Iraq. But since Iran is arming the terrorists in Iraq, we must defeat Iran to win in Iraq. If liberals want America to win, why can't liberals support an attack on Iran then?

Posted by: Al on January 12, 2007 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Let's remember that attacking Iran and Syria requires no troops and comparatively little money.

Even with the high price of jet fuel, dropping bombs from 20,000 feet is pretty cheap'n'easy.

And effective, especially if they're nuclear bombs.

The Usurper is launching World War III, folks, and the only force that can stop him now is the generals.

Posted by: Yellow Dog on January 12, 2007 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, I think the War Powers Act implicitly gave the President authorization to make war without Congressional approval, as long as he went back to Congress for approval within the specified time period.

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 12, 2007 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

I doubt whether a coward like Ms. Rice will send a letter detailing the administration's authority to start wars. But if she does, Webb ought to publish it.

Posted by: Brojo on January 12, 2007 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Al:

Because an attack on Iran will only strengthen Islamic radicalism.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 12, 2007 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Suppose you have an outlaw president.

Would you be comfortable waiting to see what he does next (can you say "nukular"?) and then asking him to stop?

What if he also has a listening problem?

What if people are dying?

Posted by: Canary on January 12, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

A unilateral attack on Iran and/or Syria is more than an impeachable offense. It would in my opinion remove all decent Americans from their oath of allegiance to the United States. We would be free to dispose of a criminal government by any means.

Posted by: JMG on January 12, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Roosevelt went to congress the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked to ask them to declare war on Japan. He did not unilaterally make the decision himself.
I also think you're wrong about Iran. Bush wants to keep going with his "mission" in the Middle East & when has anybody ever thwarted him?

Posted by: zhak on January 12, 2007 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

The way I figure a resolution requiring the US airforce to protect Iraqi air space from unauthorized foreign overflights might be more to the point.

Posted by: B on January 12, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Post-Bush speech...

Poll: Americans oppose Bush Iraq plan 2 to 1

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Americans oppose President Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq by a two-to-one margin, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Friday.
Two-thirds of Americans also say Bush has no clear plan for Iraq....
Nearly half those who saw the speech say their minds were not changed, while the rest are evenly split over whether they'd be more or less likely to support his policies....
Asked their positions on sending more troops to Iraq, 66 percent said they oppose the move, while 32 percent said they favor it.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 12, 2007 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

No Congress-critter wants to make ANY decisions, especially none they'll be held accountable for.

Nevertheless, they LOVE looking "decisive," if they think there's short-term political mileage in it.

This is one of those situations. War opponents have the wind at their backs. So in this case, I would definitely look for more such posturing.

Posted by: bleh on January 12, 2007 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Such an air of unreality to it all.

Iran is a well-defended country. Think of Hezbollah, only with real weapons, such as surface to surface, surface to ship missiles, most (or all) of them mobile, most of them hidden away in the mountains.

Why are mountains important? Ever try to get radio & TV off the air in southern California?

Missiles in the mountains would be impossible to take out.

Naval assets in the Persian Gulf (two carrier groups, last I heard) are short-range, line-of-sight targets with limited maneuverability. They're not going to be all that hard to sink. A typical aircraft carrier has upwards of 5000 men & no, they don't have lifeboats. On-board countermeasures can stop a missile or two at a time. Salvos of twenty or thirty they cannot.

Airbases in Iraq are even easier targets. Their exact addresses are known. By the time the first jets reach their targets in Iran, the airstrips they flew from could well be cratered. Sure, there's Patriot missiles to defend them, but 1. Falling debris still has to fall somewhere and, 2. See above re: carriers & salvos.

Which only leaves us submarines.

If the Iranians want to go down without a wimper, that's one thing. If they fire back, that's another. These are the children of the guys who stormed our embassy & took everybody prisoner. They're the grandchildren of the folks we overthrew in the early 1950's. I wouldn't underestimate them.

Posted by: Dave of Maryland on January 12, 2007 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

from "War Room"

Sen. Ted Kennedy just asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to wait 10 days before implementing the president's plan to escalate the war in Iraq so that the Senate can determine "if the American people are behind it."

Gates said he'd pass the message along to Bush, but he made it clear that the answer would probably be no. "Quite honestly," he said, "I think [Bush] believes that sometimes the president has to take actions that contemporaneously don't have the broad support of the American people because sometimes he has a longer view."

Posted by: thersites on January 12, 2007 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

little too quick on the trigger there.

meant to ask: any Canadians out there need a software engineer with a superficial knowledge of the Classics?

Posted by: thersites on January 12, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

The absence of flags and no explicit mention of God in his deadpan speech has still got me wondering about all of this. He (GWB) almost appeared to show a hint of *reluctance* in some way-maybe that was just keeping the Gulf States audience in mind and just posturing, but... There was something a Saudi diplomat said a few months ago.. can't remember where.. but a reporter was asking him about the possibility of Iran having a nuclear weapon and his response was something like: "ABSOLUTELY unacceptable". Are we proxies of Saudi Arabia in this at bottom? If so, there had to have been a major deal made. I wonder what such a deal could have involved, just promises of plenty of oil production from Saudi to keep prices stable when everything breaks loose or something more?

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 12, 2007 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

an attack on Iran will only strengthen Islamic radicalism.

please, bob. a statement like that is about four links on the food chain above al's mental capacity.

Posted by: benjoya on January 12, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

As far as I can tell, every single administration in American history has basically claimed the right to launch attacks on other countries without congressional approval.

This abdication of the Constitutional duty has long pissed me off.

The Congress declares war. Attacking a sovereign nation is an act of war. Bush, or any other President, can NOT attack a sovereign nation without the order of Congress. Rice does not need to think about it, or respond in writing. It's very fucking clear what power Bush has here: none.

Period.

What's so fucking hard to understand about that? Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush have all usurped the Constitution at times.

WHAT. THE. FUCK?

George attacking Iran would be one of the most serious foreign policy decisions made in the last 100 hundred years.

He absolutely does not get to make that decision my himself. It's long past time for Congress to reassert that right, making it clear in no uncertain terms that Bush will be removed from office should he violate the US Constitution by attacking Iran or Syria.

He can do what he thinks is necessary inside the borders of Iraq. For anything in Iran or Syria, he is required by law to get the permission of Congress.

Let's quit pretending the very clear language of the US Constitution says anything else, OK? With a bozo this incompetent in office, it's time to wake the fuck up, and realize why separation of powers is a damn good, and necessary, thing.

I actually just wrote about this.

Posted by: teece on January 12, 2007 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

think the War Powers Act implicitly gave the President authorization to make war without Congressional approval

The War Powers Act is not an amendment to the US Constitution, and as such, it CAN NOT do any such thing, no matter what its intent was, and no matter what it says.

The Constitution can only be changed by amendment, and giving the President the right to wage war without Congressional approval would change the Constitution by 180º, so there is no way the War Powers Act could do any such thing legally.

For those that are unclear on what the US Constitution says:

-----------------
The Constitution of the United States of America

Article I, Section. 8.

[Who Declares War]
The Congress shall have Power To:
[...]
* To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
* To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
* To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
* To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions;
* To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article II, Section. 2.
[Who Commands the Army
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

[The only way to change this]
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Posted by: teece on January 12, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

I was going to say that great minds run on the same track, but my mind got derailed some time ago.

Something like the Boland Amendment might work, but I hope it isn't tried.

Give the Bush admin., Sens. McCain, Lieberman and Graham and the neo-con trailer park trash a good length of their own rope and let these SOBs hang themselves.

Posted by: Keith G on January 12, 2007 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Congress can certainly try to pass legislation denying funding for operations in Iran if it wants to. And it might even be worth doing, if only as a shot across the bow -- though it's worth considering the downside of introducing a resolution that would not only fail, but would probably be opposed even by a fair number of Democrats.

Doesn't the same reasoning apply to Congressional attempts to get the U.S. out of Iraq? I think you said last week that the best approach to Bush's surge in Iraq is to support it and let Bush take the blame for it, and besides the surge might work. Since Congress does not know/agree what it wants Bush to do regarding Iraq, the same guarded approach to Bush's plans for Iran would seem to follow.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on January 12, 2007 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

There's probably less here than meets the eye. Matt Yglesias points out that "most recent administrations have claimed the authority to launch military actions without specific congressional authorization," but I'd go further. As far as I can tell, every single administration in American history has basically claimed the right to launch attacks on other countries without congressional approval.

There is a difference between "launching attacks" and "initiating war"; the power to take necessary actions to repel invasions or otherwise in self-defense, including launching attacks on other nations, is clearly inherent in the executive, and clearly may be exercised without Congressional approval in exigent circumstances, though where practical securing such approval (as in the WWII declarations of war) is desirable as a means of demonstrating and reinforcing the national commitment to the effort.

OTOH, the Constitution clearly intends to limit to Congress the authority to initiate war. Now, the distinction is, perforce, less than crystal clear in many practical circumstances, and not the kind of thing that can be enforced in the courts. And it is certainly the kind of thing that, where the President's decision is perceived as correct, or even defensible, policy, is unlikely to result in any substantial negative response from Congress, or the American people beyond normal political activity, for incorrect procedure. But, were the President to attempt to initiate on his own war that was politically unpopular in the nation and widely opposed in Congress, the story could well be—and ought to be—quite different.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 12, 2007 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

John asks: "The Boland Amendment was arguably unconstitutional. Why don't you wussies defund or impeach?"

Excellent plan! Let's take it stepwise:

1. a "Boland Amendment"

2. defund

3. impeach

4. prosecute the profiteers

5. thank John

Posted by: fourhorse on January 12, 2007 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

There is a difference between "launch attacks" and "invade" or "make war".

Posted by: Google_This on January 12, 2007 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

the power to take necessary actions to repel invasions or otherwise in self-defense, including launching attacks on other nations, is clearly inherent in the executive, and clearly may be exercised without Congressional approval in exigent circumstances

That is pretty clearly NOT in the text of the Constitution. IIRC, you are studying law, cmdicely. Has this really become the consensus opinion of legal scholars? If so, can Constitutional scholars read? Do such scholars accept this with a wink and a nod? Do they discuss the fact that current thinking is clearly un-Constitutinoal? Or do lawyers really buy into the idea that words don't mean what they seem to mean, and that the President can attack another nation in "self defense?"

I could see that defending an attack on the US could be done by the President without Congressional approval (even though the Constitution puts that language in the Congress's duties, but there is no way launching an attack on an other nation could be deemed self defense except in extremely rare and bizarre circumstances. Even if you take that view, it would still clearly require an amendment to the Constitution to make it so.

Attacking another nation is very clearly an act of war, and declaring wars is very clearly the duty of the Congress. Only the most dishonest of word parsers would claim that attacking another nation, under any circumstances, was not an act of war.

Posted by: teece on January 12, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

You couldn't be more wrong Kevin. The early presidents all acknowledged that they needed congressional authorization. Go read Louis Fisher's Presidential War Power.

Also, for what its worth, it's in the Constitution. But only if you read its construction strictly and consider the authors' original intent.

Posted by: The Fool on January 12, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

No, the Authorization of the Use of Miliary Force of the War in Iraq DID NOT already implicitly authorize attacking Iran. It was specifically reworded, precisely so it wouldn't be read that way.

Posted by: The Fool on January 12, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Congress already declared war

Not really, John (they explicitly did not declare war, because that has legal ramifications that Bush et al. did not want, especially regarding prisoners).

But in any event, I'm not talking about Iraq, I'm talking about Iran.

H.J.RES.114
Title: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces againsIraq.

Even the "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES" of lame, as it should be a declaration of war.

Posted by: teece on January 12, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

dicely:

NOTHING is "clearly" inherently in executive power. The phrase "executive power" does not refer to any natural object whose inherent natural properties can be empirically examined. Executive power is whatever we define it as.

Posted by: The Fool on January 12, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Bye-bye, Chuckles!!!

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State on January 12, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

dicely:

since the words "executive" and "power" are both vague, the only thing "executive power" is inherently, is vague.

Posted by: The Fool on January 12, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

I don't want to debate the Constitutional ramifications, but one of the legacies of the Cold War was the recognition that the President would not have the time to consult with Congress in the time needed to retaliate to a nuclear strike. Thus, the "football" stays with the President, not in the Capitol.

Posted by: Gregory on January 12, 2007 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory: the Founders wanted the president to be able to repel invasions but it was reserved to Congress to start new wars.

Posted by: The Fool on January 12, 2007 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

the Founders wanted the president to be able to repel invasions but it was reserved to Congress to start new wars.

Oh, of course. The Founders never anticipated nuclear weapons, obviously, but I think it's clear that even that power is granted in the same spirit. We're talking responding to an immediate threat (not "gathering" or any other mealy-mouthed, vaguely-ominous-sounding bullshit -- a clear and present danger) that can't be done in consultation with Congress.

If Bush plans to attack Syria and/or Iran, and acts unilaterally, then he's in violation of the constitution no matter what expediencies "ex-liberal" would like to imagine.

Posted by: Gregory on January 12, 2007 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

If Congress passed a resolution denying funds to an invasion of Iran, Bush would issue a secret signing statement saying he would interpret it in light of the president's constitutional right to do whatever he wants to do.

Posted by: anandine on January 12, 2007 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory: I agree with you

Posted by: The Fool on January 12, 2007 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

Impeachment is the only way to stop the criminals.

Posted by: Bob M on January 12, 2007 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

"Congress can certainly try to pass legislation denying funding for operations in Iran if it wants to. And it might even be worth doing, if only as a shot across the bow -- though it's worth considering the downside of introducing a resolution that would not only fail, but would probably be opposed even by a fair number of Democrats."

Denying funding would be political suicide for the Democrats, giving the GOP a ready handle to re-start the meme "Democrats love terrorists".

Entertaining such notions is the path to minority status. I think we should let President Bush send and the GOP own Iraq and the coming fight with Iran. Let them explain it all to the American people on election day. Say "We will not tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief, for all that we disagree with his actions."

It's a concession to reality. President Bush can have troops on the ground in Iran, and missiles in Iranian air space before any Congressional action can take place. Once our troops are engaged, any talk of defunding will be played heavily as abandoning our troops. And Congress has no stomach for strong, Constitutional action anyway.

Posted by: zak822 on January 12, 2007 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

I think the Constitution is ambiguous and should be interpreted as ambiguous. Presidents have always had some leeway to attack immediately, in proportion to their power and in proportion to the provocation. Truman however defied precedent by launching a full scale war on his own authority. He was subsequently as unpopular as Bush, but now lionized. I agree with Bush that future court historians will probably rationalize his crimes too.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on January 12, 2007 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

Bush's failures are much grander and will have more immediate consequences than Truman's, not only in human lives but in the immediate decline of American power and influence. Squawk and Al-bot want this; they just don't realize it yet. Because they hate freedom (too confusing) and would like to see it end soon.

Posted by: Kenji on January 12, 2007 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

Guess the boys better get busy cooking up some emergency that requires die Fuhrer attack Iran in self-defense. ( Remembering it only has to establish plausible deniability : in the minds of the arrogant ). That's what some of the argument around here seems to reduce to.
Myself, I don't see any scenario that would induce circumspect responsible behaviour from the current occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. short of being driven with whips.

Posted by: opit on January 13, 2007 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

If liberals want America to win, why can't liberals support an attack on Iran then?

Posted by: Al on January 12, 2007 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Because THIS administration has lost its warmaking PRIVILEGES. Maybe the NEXT administration can be trusted if it says Iran absolutely has to be attacked, but not THIS one. This administration is STUPID.
Short of answering a beachfront attack in San Diego, this administration can't be allowed to do anything, any more. Period. End of topic.

Posted by: secularhuman on January 13, 2007 at 1:53 AM | PERMALINK

teece is correct. Moreover, U.S. involvement in the Korean War and the Vietnam War, and every war since, was and is unconstitutional, because only Congress has the power to declare war. Congress should pass joint resolution — not a bill, which would be subject to presidential veto — declaring that Congress will no longer abdicate its Constitutional authority to declare war, and with a temporary and limited exception for existing, current involvements, no further military efforts will be tolerated; Congress will regard any such action as grounds for immediate impeachment.

This is what Congress should do; the Framers would be appalled at the current executive usurping of congressional authority to declare war, so this is what honest strict constructionist would demand.

Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on January 13, 2007 at 2:14 AM | PERMALINK

There never was a War Powers Act but a War Powers Resolution. Legislatively and legally speaking, there is great difference in the two, primarily that an "act" is positively made law, to be expressly followed by the executive (in theory, at least). If you read the language of the Resolution, it never really requires the President to do anything. It only encourages and wishes for the President to take certain acts

Posted by: Carl on January 13, 2007 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

This is the same BS Drum pulled with the IIraq war. Pretending not to support it even while he does, and tut-tuting anyone who suggests anyone do anything to stop it. Anyone who doesn't see through this guy by now never will.

Why introduce a resolution? To get on record those who support and oppose this war, so that in 4 years we can have them all removed from office. Republicans, Democrats, whoever. As long s people like Kevin Drum who never want to lift a finger in preventing this countried slide into ruin are run out of congress, then the country will be better off.

Posted by: soullite on January 13, 2007 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

An Iran war would likely be the end of Republican electoral hopes for a decade. If Democrats don't oppose it through, what would be the difference? Why would anyone vote for weak, pathetic people who base their votes on fear and weakness? They won't. People in this blog PRETEND to be strong. People like me ARE strong. Theres a difference. You all know the difference, even from highschool. You're the dork kids who volunteer to be designated drivers and run errands for the "cool" kids. It's all you ever know, and you have no idea how many people will always laugh at you for it. don't think that people don't still know it when you talk and posture.You're fake as hell.

Posted by: soullite on January 13, 2007 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

soullite:

In high school you were on of those preppy kids who came from a soulless family where your mother married your father for his money and your father ran around on your mother. Your mother was little more than a high priced whore and your father was a slave to his career. You took out your anger on the kids whom you considered dorky. I was one of the redneck kids who hated preppies. I was the guy who got drunk at the high school party and kicked your sorry little preppy ass. You're dumb as hell.

Posted by: The Fool on January 13, 2007 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

I'd wager Soullite never served, either- or if so he did as a REMF.

Posted by: john manyjars on January 15, 2007 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly