United states (perhaps) will not see such a foolish president again on its soil as Bush is today. Bush is a face of disaster for Americans.
Bush is a nightmare for the United States.

Bush’s mental capacity has no bridge connecting him with knowledge. He talks about hope while he does not know whether hope starts with ‘h’ or ‘o’. he has become ho..ho.

He cannot decide between coffee and tea and he is deciding world.
He cannot recognize right and left and he is deciding ‘right path’.
He cannot convince Laura and he is convincing world.
He cannot root out his extra hairs and he is rooting out terror.
He cannot fix his back on the toilet and he is fixing the world.
He has pulled American army into the war on terror while United States could have managed it better without involving American troops.

For Example:

If, there is terror in Africa, African troops should have fought against them…why American troops???
If, there is terror in middle east then middle eastern troops should have fought against them…why American troops???

You know? when we change blood in a body, we need the same group.

When we transplant kidney, we need a same group.
You know? when bacteria attack on a human body, the specific part itself creates anti-bacteria that fights. When bacteria attack lungs, then kidney does not produce anti-bacteria, but lungs produce it itself.

This is the basic natural process.

But, Bush tried to reverse this process. He tried to kill lung-bacteria with kidney-bacteria. He is a man with thousands of years old mentality.

The terrorists in Iraq should be handled by Iraqis.

By inserting American troops everywhere, what Bush got:
Hatred, conspiracies, mistrust, credibility loss, life loss, etc.

If, United States helped the affected countries with financial and weapon support without involving its army, then United States could have managed war on terror more effectively without losing any thing. Even, United State’s prestige and honor would increase in the whole world.

Bush’s policy of dragging American troops in, actually have spoiled everything.
He must be questioned of his actions and impeached.

So we should have armed Iraq to deal with Saddam? haha, you are so delusional. Those countries you would like to arm, ARE THE TERRORISTS. Those countries support terrorism, so what other option did we have? How can we get rid of terrorism by giving the terrorists money and weapons? Read a F'ing book will ya!

is turkey terrorist ?? egypt? jordan? you had various options. but, you missed all because of Bush.

You sound like a broken record that's been discarded because no one liked the song. (Yawn)

If you are so vehement against Bush, and from reading all your posts, I'm more inclined than ever to think he's doing an outstanding job to make vermin such as yourself come out of the woodwork to condemn him.

No bugs like bug killers, you know? And, that's exactly where your hate speech has gotten you.

"I wrote decades ago that those who call themselves 'supporters of Israel' are in reality supporters of its moral degeneration and probable ultimate destruction." Noam Chomsky says. 07 Jun 2008

“George W. Bush has adopted wrong policies on Iran--a country that plays an important role in the Middle East and the world” Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison says. 14 Jun 2008

“George W. Bush 'led America into a strategic blunder’ of historic proportions.” Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez says. 03 June 2008

“Bush is a piece of human garbage.” Diego Maradona says. 21 May 2008

“we watched in distress as George Bush won the US presidential election in 2000.” Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair's wife says. 15 May 2008

“This is always the case when someone acts 'without a brain and a heart' and kills thousands by starting wars.” Oscar winning actor Sean Penn says. 14 May 2008

"I seriously believe we have to start asking questions about his (bush) mental health,There's something wrong. He does not seem to understand his words have real impact. There's a lot of people who need care. He might be one of them. If there isn't something wrong with him, then there's something wrong with us. This, to me, is a very serious question." US presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich says. 31 Oct 2007

"Bush is probably the worst president in the history of the United States. There's only one person you can blame, and that's our current president." Real Estate Mogul Donald Trump says. March 17, 2007

Gore Vidal says the Bush regime has killed all of the constitutional links that made the US a republic. June 28, 2008.

So, they are all ignorant, but you and bush are the only genuine ???
Is that it ??
You think that whoever opposes bush is against usa ???

You remind me a person, who once had a dialogue with a patriot:

“what are you doing?”
“oh I am drinking water” patriot said.
“Why” he asked.
“oh because I am thirsty” patriot replied.
Then he said:
“Thirst is a weakness of human being. When you drink water, you surrender to your weakness. Water is a resemblance of your surrender. So..throw out water from your hands. How can you surrender yourself while you are a patriot?”
These words turned patriot on. he stood up, saluted Abraham Lincoln, and threw out water from the window.
Since then, the patriot never drank water. Until he died he was solely on Alcohol.

And, your alcohol is bush.

I have no idea of what you've just written. I have you on Ignore.

then my dear! please return to your baby sitter and continue to learn how to suck milk from bottle.

ok?

Word up, my Muslim brother. Gay Jews and Muslims should get together and create world peace.

TQ:

Perhaps you didn't know it but being gay is not a badge of honor in the Islamic religion. As a matter of fact, they have been known to execute gay types in a number of countries over here.

In addition, being a Jew is not exactly a ringing endorsement for inclusion in the roaring crowd in the Middle East.

Being a gay Jew is a guarantee of prison time and probably death in most of the Middle East.

You might want to rethink your offer to our new little friend, Hussain.

we are discussing bush here but not his ranch, aren't we?

No, Hussain, we are discussing the "war on terror".

Are you afraid to discuss the Jewish/Gay issues?

Why do you want to keep it about Bush?

Why are you afraid to point the finger of blame toward Carter?

What if we mentioned Clinton? Are you afraid of that discussion as well?

Why do you not point the finger of blame toward Islamic Fundamentalists?

You need to seriously put some thought into your posts before you make them. You are not coming across as any sort of genius on this subject.

Yes! you are absolutely correct that we are discussing war on the terror.
i dont afraid to discuss any thing. but, at least, it should be relevent. how can you mix up war on terror with the issues of gay ??

i want to keep it on on bush because i am from people and i am suffering from his foolish policies like other people of the world. his policies have ended up with petrol and other price hikes. every one is suffering. whenever we face new problem we say: "oh, this is bush again". this is the situation. Carter was much better than bush. both Clintons are good smiling flowers but they are useless.

Yes! the basic problem is islamic fundamentalists. there is no doubt about it.

they are educationless, but who kept them away from education? the puppet regimes.
they irritate easily, but who irritate them? the puppet regimes.
they are poor, but who kept them in poverty? the puppet regimes.
they are futureless, but who cut them from future? the puppet regimes.

when, govt supports dictators worldwide, then this is your duty to correct govt policies. you Know? when pakistani dictator zia was creating 'fundamentalists' to fight in afghanistan then usa govt was in full support to him. Now, a whole generation of fundamentalists is there.

when we analyse problem, we should analyse it from all angles. if, we need a comprehensive solution.

No, Hussain, you want to keep it on Bush because he is the easiest scapegoat you can use to detail how miserable your life is without accepting any responsibility for it.

You claim his policies have caused gas prices to spike yet you completely ignore the role of both the US Congress and commodities traders world wide for their part in this. You are completely overlooking the increased demand for oil by China, India and other developing nations and the lack of refining capacity world wide.

You say the fundamentalists are lacking in education and he is the cause of it. I might remind you that Bush has been in office 7 1/2 years and I know of very few suicide bombers that are under the age of 8. The lack of education can hardly be blamed on Bush.

You seem to be blaming Bush for the problems caused your country by PM Zia. Since he was PM from 1977 to 1988 when he was killed, I fail to connect the dots in this case. Bush was inaugurated in 2001, which is more than 12 years after Zia died. Can you explain?

I can tell you have a hatred for Bush but to blame him for your ills is hardly a smart tghing to do. You need to look for your solution closer to home than this.

Since I went through the Iranian revolution in 1978/79m I won't even address the "Carter better than Bush" idiocy you posted.

GOOD REPLY, CHUCKD!

Yes, I am well aware. I was joking. I oppose both American fascists like you and Islamo totalitarian states like Iran, though I know for a fact many of the people are quite lovely.

This is not scapegoat. You can not reject all objections against bush in the pretext of scapegoat.

Around one million Iraqis have been either killed or wounded and you call it scapegoat??
Afghanistan has become the world’s top producer of narcotics and you call it scapegoat??

On one hand you share war on terror, on the other hand, usa and Britain are the top suppliers of arms and weaponry in the world, and you call it scapegoat??

On one hand you claim to minimize terror, and on the other hand you spread deadly weapons all around the world, and you call it scapegoat??

Why, today, terrorists have American or british arms on their hands? Who is responsible? What kind of war on terror is this ??

You know? all members of ben laden family were silently allowed to leave usa without any questioning and investigation by Bush, and whole Iraqi nation was bombed with a doubt that they may involve with qaeda. That proved wrong later. What is this? And you call it scapegoat ??

You executed saddam because he was a brutal ruler, but even today, how many rulers of saddam’s type are being protected by usa, why? And you call it scapegoat??

Numerous numbers of families have been vanished from the surface of earth in the pretext of 911, but ben laden family is still flourishing and growing with good business ties with bushchaney. And you call it scapegoat ??

A 70-year old Iraqi mother is killed under the charge of evil, yet, ben laden family is a business partner? And you call it scapegoat??

So, what do you mean by scapegoat my dear??
Do you think that “scapegoat” is a Japanese toy???

Bush wrote, while approving death sentence of Pvt. Ronald A. Gray, convicted by court-martial in rapes and killings at Fort Bragg, N.C. in 1986-87.

"While approving a sentence of death for a member of our armed services is a serious and difficult decision for a commander in chief, the president believes the facts of this case leave no doubt that the sentence is just and warranted." According to a statement by Dana Perino.

According to commonsense and land laws, when a person commits crime, he or she immediately becomes non-member of any govt or non-govt organization. This is common law.

I ask a simple question.
This is:

What was the purpose to mention in the statement that:

“While approving a sentence of death for a member of our armed services is a serious decision…”

What was the logic behind it ?
What was the relevance behind it ?
What was the reason behind it ?

I see this as backward, foolish, and incompetent statement that serves nothing to the national interests.

My God!
I am seriously concerned about the level of competency of white house officials under bush.

If, you analyze, you will find this statement as a direct threat to the national security and prestige.
I simply can’t believe it.

I have analyzed both his statement and your post.

The only one that is full of bull s--t is your post.

i didn't ask you, so please do not burden yourself. its not for you actually.

please go and find out that what is the price of sony ps 4, ok?

Iran suspended uranium enrichment in 2003.

What package, then, you presented?
What incentives, then, you offered?
What sanctions, then, you removed?

Iran continued to suspend its uranium enrichment for three years, there was no progress but silence, why?
Now, you say about incentives on the conditions of suspension ?

But, when Iran suspended peaceful enrichment, then you kept silence and even tightened sanctions ???
Is this justice ???

The fact is: few Saudi wahabi puppets in united states want to destroy a respectable civilization of Iran in any way on the orders of wahabi Saudi Arabia, just for the greed of few oil business like dicky and bushy.

You destroyed all Iraq in the pretext of 911, while bushdicky very silently allowed all laden family members to leave United States without entering into any kind of investigation after 911.

Is this justice???

Wherever there is terrorism in the world, you will find wahabis behind.

If, you really want war on the terror to succeed, then isolate those, who manage and spread hatred among world communities and organize terrorist activities.

How?

Make holy muslim cities of maccah and madinah a separate entity, just like Vatican,
And,
Separate shia majority province from Saudi Arabia.

Then, you will see a complete isolation of terrorists.
Then, they will have no influence on muslims.
Then, they will not be able to fund and finance terrorists worldwide.
Then, there will be a complete peace in the world.

No hatred…no terrorism…no bloodshed.

Guaranteed.

15 of the 9/11 terrorist were from Saudi Arabia. SAUDi Arabia is ruled by the house of SAUD, has been almost continuously since the 1700s. We could only be so lucky if they were our pupets, they are not.

Year 1811, Sultan Mahmed II from Ottoman Empire sent Muhammad Ali Pasha, an Albanian, to remove ‘Saud Gangsters’. Sauds were defeated and captured and sent back to Istanbul. Saudi terrorist power was completely countered by the year 1818.

Saudis again started to reshape in the year 1865, when Britons first contacted them and helped them to re-organize against Ottoman Empire.

Britons and Al-Saud got into an agreement in 1915. Then, ww1, Ottoman Empire destroyed.

With the assistance of St. John Philby (a british spy), Al-Saud terrorists again re-captured Arab Lands including Maccah and Madinah, in which millions of Arabs were massacred across Arabia.

Therefore, this is not true that house of saudi terrorists have been ruling arabia since the year 1700.

If, they do not fit to be puppet then who are fit ???
Jordanian King???

I said they ruled "almost continuously". First Saudi state is usually considered to be from 1744- 1818, the second 1824-1891, the third from 1902 to the present. And I did not say they were not fit to be our puppets. I said they are not our puppet. Did you have a point relevant to the post youve decided to respond to?

Hussain, Hussain:

Do you know what a public forum is? That means anybody in the public can post anything they want in response to another post. You can't restrict somebody from posting just because you want to.

What's this about sony ps4? Why do you want to know the price in Saudi Arabia for one? Do you want me to get one for you?

I am also curious since your name is Hussain and Obama's middle name is Hussein, are the two of you related someway? The curious need to know?

what is the difference between "continuously" and "almost continuously" ???

would you call "Tamil Rebels" as the "continuously" or "almost continuously" ruling party in Nagaland, Bharat ???

would you call "Tamil Tigers" as the "continuously" or "almost continuously" ruling party in Sri Lanka ???

as you call then "Saudi Rebels" as "almost continuously" ruling party of Arabia ???

if, "Saudi Rebels" had been ruling in Arabia since 1700 then why they massacred millions of Arabs later ???

for refreshment ???

i said this: "i didn't ask you, so please do not burden yourself. its not for you actually".

when you said: "The only one that is full of bull s--t is your post".

in public forums people do not use such language, or do they?

exactly thats why, i listen obama carefully.

however, if you got an idea that seemed negative then i apologize without further insistence.
happy?

Continuously would be 1744 to the present. Almost continuously would be 1744-1818, 1824-1891 and 1902 to the present





I dont know about the Tamil Tigers, And yes the house of saud was ""almost continuously" ruling party of Arabia"
I'll take your response as a no in answer to my question.

you dont know about Tamil Rebels, which is the on going situation at the moment.
but, you are hundred percent sure about what had been happening since 1700 to date.
do you think that that your argument bears any logic.

while, my argument is:

as tamil rabels are behaving at the moment, saudi rabels were behaving in the same manner then.
so, neither tamil rabels can be considered as rulers of sri lanka and tamil nadu, nor saudi rabels can be accepted as rulers of arabia.
this is my argument.

the proof is:

if, saudi rabels were the rulers then, then why they had to invade arabia later by massacring millions of arabs???

it means, they had never been the ruler of arabia.
this is saudi rebel's false propaganda.

saudi rabels invaded arabia the same way, as bush has invaded iraq. there is no difference at all. at least, bush has such courage that he has offered an agreement to iraqis, while saudi rabels have been ruling arabia illegally without offering any agreement with the people of arabia. saudi rabels have been ruling arabia without reason and without support from the people of the lands. saudi rabels are nothing but plunders of arab wealth.

What ARE you going on about? Who are the "saudi rabels"? I didnt say the Saudi rebels ruled Saudi Arabia. I said the "house of SAUD" ruled. Its a family. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab made his deal with Ibn Saud in 1740. The Wahhabs are in charge of religion, Sauds in charge of politics. Separation of church and state Islamic style. His descendants rule Saudi Arabia today.




Have you not yet grasped the connection between the house of SAUD and SAUDi Arabia.

Apparently not. Be careful, though, this guy has TWO masters.

Glad to see you dixon, where have you been?

the only difference is:

what saudis call "house of saud",
the people call them "saudi rabels".

house of saud never ruled, it was shameful brutal power that ruled and is still ruling.

you own said that wahab made deal with sauds in 1740, it means there was no wahab's influence in 1739, so after such deal in 1740 between wahab and saud transformed the whole arabian peninsula within few years ??? could it be happened with out brutal power of sword ???

Whether they were brutal or not has nothing to do with my claim that the house of Saud has ruled Saudi Arabia almost continuously since the 1700s. And your not helping your arguement that



When these troops are commanded by "house of saudi terrorists"




The ways of the prophet.

if, you believe in this theory what you have been presenting, then, its your choice. if, you admire saudis, then ok. if, you praise saudis, then you are free. but, the fact is that time to time disruptions against saudi royal's rule show that people do not like them and people were never with them ever. but, you call it 'almost'. ok, its your way of thinking. its your poster of freedom. who objects.

what you know, never think, is complete.

No! saudis have no troops. they have bank accounts.

Ya blithering freakin idiot. Its called ######ing history, Reciting history isnt an expression of admiration of its characters. Ive made no statements regarding whether the people were with them or not. And the disruptions didnt come from the people, they came from the Egyptians, Ottomans and other families competing for the power held by the house of Saud.
Does all this crap from you have ANYTHING to do with your claims that the house of Saud is our puppet or your theory that the US should just let the Saudis fight the terrorists?

Najd is a very small piece of land near today's Riyadh.

Najd, comprising a mainly rocky plateau sloping eastward from the mountains of the Hejaz. On the northern, eastern, and southern sides, it is bounded by the sand deserts of an-Nafūd, ad-Dahnāʾ, and the Rubʿ al-Khali. It is sparsely settled, except for the fertile oases strung along the escarpment of Jabal (mountains) Ṭuwayq and the al-ʿAramah plateau.

Muhammad ibn Saud was the local emir of Najd. Najd is not all Arabia. In 1744, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab came to Najd and cut a deal with al-saud. According to the deal, saud will endorse al-wahab and in return al-saud will get political legitimacy. This deal is still on.

But in 1818, forces of the Ottoman Empire sack the capital, Riyadh, and execute many of the religious and political leaders. Over the next 80 years the Al Saud attempt to reestablish their rule on the Arabian Peninsula without success.

In 1902, twenty-year-old Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, rides out of the desert with 60 of his brothers and cousins to restore the rule of Al Saud and to conquer all of the Arabian Peninsula, he starts organizing the Ikhwan.

Who were Ikhwan?

Ikhwan consist of various tribesmen. They were settled in colonies known as hijrahs. The hijrahs, whose populations ranged from 10 to 10,000, offered tribesmen living quarters, mosques, schools, agricultural equipment and instruction, and arms and ammunition. By 1918 they were ready to enter Ibn Sa'ud's elite army. This all organization takes place with the all out assistance of Britain. Even, when a part of Ikhwan provoked an international incident by destroying an Iraqi force that had violated a neutral zone established by Great Britain and Ibn Sa'ud between Iraq and Arabia (1927-28); the British bombed Najd in retaliation, and Ibn Sa'ud in October 1928 deposed Ibn Humayd, ad-Dawish, and Ibn Hithlayn, the leaders of that group of Ikhwan. Later, The Ikhwan leaders, ad-Dawish and Ibn Hithlayn's cousin Nayif, were subsequently imprisoned in Riyadh. The loyal Ikhwan were eventually absorbed into the Saudi Arabian National Guard.

With the Ikhwan by his side, Abd al-Aziz captures province after province of the vast desert. He captures Mecca in 1924 and Medina in 1925. To keep his new kingdom united, he marries, a daughter from every tribe as well as from the influential clerical families.

Saudi Arabia and the U.S. establish diplomatic relations, and in 1933. The Americans pay $170,000 in gold for land concessions that turn out to contain the biggest oil fields on earth. The oil companies and the Saudi government set up a joint enterprise that later becomes the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco). Its shareholders include America's four largest oil corporations.

In the late 50s, one of King Abd al-Aziz's younger sons, Prince Talal, begins a movement for political reform in the kingdom. In 1958, he drafts a new Saudi constitution to establish a national consultative council, a first step toward establishing a constitutional monarchy. But his proposal is rejected by King Saud and in 1961 he is forced from his position as transportation minister.

In late 60s and 70s, King Faisal allows Saudia Arabia to become a sanctuary for extremist Muslims from Egypt and Syria where the governments are cracking down on fundamentalist scholars and professionals. Faisal invites them to teach Saudi Arabia's youth. His decision will have far-reaching consequences; many of today's Saudi radicals studied under Egyptian and Syrian fundamentalists.

On November 20, 1979. Several hundred Saudi fundamentalists take over al-Haram, the Great Mosque at Mecca and the holiest site in Islam. The leader of the insurgents is Juhayman al-Utaybi, a direct descendant of the Ikhwan, the Wahhabi warriors who helped the Al Saud family take power in the early 1920s. The standoff lasts for several weeks before the Saudi military can remove the insurgents. More than 200 troops and dissidents are killed in the attacks and, to set an example, over sixty of the zealots are publicly beheaded in their hometowns.

This same year, Thousands of young Saudis are sent to fight alongside the mujahideen in Afghanistan For the next decade, some 45,000 young Saudi volunteers will trek to Afghanistan where they acquire military skills and come to believe that dedicated Islamic fighters can defeat a superpower. One of their leaders is Osama bin Laden.

This starts the play of terror, that, we see now, started by Ikhwan in 1920s with the all out help and assistance of Britain. Al-qaeda is a more advance product of Ikhwan. Who are the prime producers ??? of course, sauds and Britain.

So, this is the story of invasion of Arabia. I never said that the invasion was not successful neither I refused to accept the history ever.

What I merely said is: "the invasion of Arabia was illegal."

Soooo the saudis are Britains puppet and








And it is these terrorist puppets who should fight the terrorists, not the US



Your arguements make no sense. Unless of course your goal here is that no one fight the terrorists so they can get on with their work.

Hussiman is a nutcase. He doesn't make sense with his posts. I think he just likes to talk to men and call them sweet names.

The arguments are kinduv like ....... foreplay.

good day lady!

so, i am your nutcase...?
oh, girls always talk like that in the begining,
then, things become better.
even, they honor our gifts later.

solo! are you different?

my arguments are more clear than sun at 12.00noon.


where i said that sauds should fight war on terror ?
sauds are the biggest terror themselves,
they have been terrorizing own people of the soil, the same way like saddam,
you have been fighting war on terror, here and there, while you treate sauds, the same way as a banker treates its capital.

war on terror demands sauds on the other side.

middle east also has qaeda,
so, would you conclude that i said qaeda should fight war on the terror ???

No! your conclusion is not in line what i said.

what i said: "If, there is terror in middle east then middle eastern troops should have fought against them…why American troops???" means that the forces in middle east, who oppose terrorism, should be brought in front to counter terrorism.

for example:

talibans attacked northern alliance in afghanistan to eliminate them. but, after continuous fight for five years, talibans failed to eliminate northern alliance. so, who countered terror? who successfully stopped and blocked talibans ??? if, america aided and trained northern alliance properly, then it was better instead bringing american forces in afghanistan and creating a big chaos.

for example:

saddam attacked iran. but with 8 years of continuous war and with all kinds of terror, saddam could not achieve even single victory. who countered saddam's terrorism ??? of course, the Iraqis and regional forces themselves. who stopped usa to not help and assist and strengthen these countering forces of terrorism, instead bringing american forces there creating a huge chaos ???

do you know?

sauds sent around 50,000 warriors in afghanistan for fighting alongside afghans against ussr.

where are these fighters now ???
what are their whereabouts ???
what are they doing at the moment??
how many more have been trained by these warriors up to now ??

has bush ever demanded sauds the whereabout of these warriors ???
even, bush silently allowed all laden family members to leave usa without investigation???
why?
these ladens were the financers of the terrorists, but bush debarred them from scrutiny and investigation, why?

Dude, scroll up a couple messages to my post you are responding to. I quoted these very words of yours. You are simply repeating what I just said, and at the same time semmingly disagreeing. Your an odd one.




In case you havent noticed, before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, these "forces" were not fighting them. They were harbouring them.

No Bush did not. That was Richard Clarkes doing and they were investigated. And Ive not seen any evidence that the Bin Laden family is funding Usama.

No! i am not simply repeating what you said, but i have continuously been arguing with you what i said since you entered into the arena of debate for the first time. you have continuously been trying to protect terrorists, while i have continuously been trying to expose terrorists. the problem with you is: that you have two types of terrorists. one are those, who are your allies. and another one who are not your allies.

i say that: "terrorists are terrorists, and they do not deserve to be allied with."
while you say: "leave them...leave them, dont touch them...dont touch them, we have business with them."

so, this is your own way.
this is your way of thought.
and, of course, you are free to choose your arguments that suit you.
but, what suit you, does not fit on the basics of justice.
but, of course, justice is not important if business is involved. right?

what do you mean "these forces" ???

kurds were harbouring saddam's terrorists, is that what you mean ???
shias were harbouring saddam's terrorists, is that what you mean ???
northern alliance in afghanistan were 'enjoying fun' with talibans, is that what you mean ???

so, where is that investigation report please ???
in which newspaper, such report or part of such report was published ???

when such report was submitted in senate committee? please provide date, and who submitted it??
and, has senate oked it???