Bush Calls Dems "Irresponsible" On Iraq...

[quote name='gunm']Pot Meet Kettle:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

I hear what Bush is saying, but damn if him trying to make Dems look bad because they no longer support the war he started (and regardless of what happened in previous administrations, he did send our troops over there) is just head scratching.[/QUOTE]


he also sent over the troops without enough equipment in the first place, and lets not forget he also didnt send enough troops in the first place to secure a whole country, and disband all trained Iraqis, and etc..
 
[quote name='gunm']I hear what Bush is saying, but damn if him trying to make Dems look bad because they no longer support the war he started (and regardless of what happened in previous administrations, he did send our troops over there) is just head scratching.[/QUOTE]

Ah, but remember that many of your precious Dems, including Hillary Clinton, expressly voted to authorize force to be used in Iraq. In other words, the president's argument that the Democrats voted for the war and now, when the going has gotten rough, want to abandon the endeavor (which may or may not be the right course of action at this time depending on your point of view) is not without merit.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Ah, but remember that many of your precious Dems, including Hillary Clinton, expressly voted to authorize force to be used in Iraq. In other words, the president's argument that the Democrats voted for the war and now, when the going has gotten rough, want to abandon the endeavor (which may or may not be the right course of action at this time depending on your point of view) is not without merit.[/QUOTE]


how can you blame them when they were lied to in the first place
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

BUSH IS SO FUNNY!

Oh wait, this is a fucking war and people are dieing pointlessly.

So fuck off you god damn jackass Bush. I hope you choke on a pretzel!
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']how can you blame them when they were lied to in the first place[/quote]
Bush outwitted us all.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Ah, but remember that many of your precious Dems, including Hillary Clinton, expressly voted to authorize force to be used in Iraq. In other words, the president's argument that the Democrats voted for the war and now, when the going has gotten rough, want to abandon the endeavor (which may or may not be the right course of action at this time depending on your point of view) is not without merit.[/quote]

In other words - fliiiiiiiip floppers! (seems I've heard this somewhere before...)
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']how can you blame them when they were lied to in the first place[/QUOTE]

Aside from the thread title being the funniest thing ever posted on here...


I can't call it lies. I'd call it stretched truth and assumption personally. They had gaps in the information, and filled it in with guesses and patchwork intel. I'd bet 98% of the US thought that Iraq had WMD, because we gave it to them. Hard to blame anyone for not trying to bridge that gap, regardless of political party.
 
Bush has already shown himself to be a shameless liar with no morals. He's the type of person who knowingly commit terrible crimes for fun and blame it on the policeman who caught him because he knows he can get away with it using his daddy.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Aside from the thread title being the funniest thing ever posted on here...

I can't call it lies. I'd call it stretched truth and assumption personally. They had gaps in the information, and filled it in with guesses and patchwork intel. I'd bet 98% of the US thought that Iraq had WMD, because we gave it to them. Hard to blame anyone for not trying to bridge that gap, regardless of political party.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't agree with that, entirely. There were copious amounts of evidence suggesting they had nothing (UN weapon inspectors, Joe Wilson, the CIA themselves disagreeing with the White House's assessment of the intel, the fact that we were there ten years prior and destroyed everything, and on and on), but the administration selected the smaller amount of less credible evidence to go with, because it backed up what they already wanted to do. So yeah, if it's not lying, it's at least intentional dishonesty.

That point aside, Bush isn't entirely wrong -- many moderate Dems wanted to seal their centrist positions by seeming tough on terror, so they voted accordingly. They were opportunists, and if half a million people could protest in the streets of New York, in part because the evidence was obviously shoddy, then professional politicians have no excuse for being "gulled."

Dubya is at least PARTIALY wrong, though -- he's shown no ability or desire to compromise on the war issue (they couldn't even let a non-binding resolution that says "we think the war is a bad idea" pass), so when the people he can't grant one inch to step up and take a foot, he's only reaping what he's sown.
 
Read the CIA report, Joe Wilson didn't prove ANYTHING to the CIA.

On the whole, intelligence is based on consensus. There is no Jack Bauer who is always right here. If "shoddy" is "less than 100% proven" then you have no business in intelligence work.

Or, really, running a country. We cannot be paralyzed making ourselves SUPER DUPER ULTRA SURE when the civilized world was merely pretty dang sure.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']

On the whole, intelligence is based on consensus. [/QUOTE]

You know, I said the exact same thing and got called out by the mental midget here.

trq: The entire Congress and House had access to the same intel that the White House used to start the war. The WH wasn't misleading, it was the intel itself. As for the UN inspectors, I've not seen so much telegraphing since before AG Bell.

'Hey, we're coming to inspect you. Sure hope you don't do anything in the meantime.'

Just because they couldn't find them, doesn't mean they didn't have them. That line of thinking picked up some serious steam when we found fully functional fighter jets buried in the sand. He had the weapons, not all of it was used. So that left two possibilities: it left the country at some point in the last ten years, or it's still there. We hardly did anything when we were there the first time, aside from take prisoners and deal with oil fires. The man gassed his own citizens, then proceeded to poison the entire region with toxic gases from the oil field fires. You don't always add A+B and get C, but in this case it was a good bet to think you would. It's not as if chemicals are hard to come by. The only reason the 1993 WTC bombs weren't chlorine-based was that the people didn't have enough money.

Hindsight is 20/20, but IIRC the very small amount of people who dissented were severely drowned out by those who went with the logical assumptions.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Read the CIA report, Joe Wilson didn't prove ANYTHING to the CIA.[/QUOTE]

"Prove" is a big word. "Cast doubts" is a little more reasonable, perhaps. The short form is that the CIA was neither sure he had weapons or that he didn't. Considering how hard it is to prove a negative, that's no surprise.

[quote name='RollingSkull']On the whole, intelligence is based on consensus. There is no Jack Bauer who is always right here. If "shoddy" is "less than 100% proven" then you have no business in intelligence work.[/QUOTE]

You're right about consensus; the intelligence agencies are wrong all the time, and that's the nature of the game. But when you have conflicting info, you take that into account when arriving at your conclusion, you don't ignore some of that information and pick one extreme or the other. Bush seems to like the world when it's "us or them, good or evil," but there are other options. We're the fucking United States ... and our choices were just "Sit here and hope he doesn't nuke us" or "Full scale invasion"? Not true.

[quote name='RollingSkull']Or, really, running a country. We cannot be paralyzed making ourselves SUPER DUPER ULTRA SURE when the civilized world was merely pretty dang sure.[/QUOTE]

If you're not going to be SUPER DUPER ULTRA SURE before you invade a country and get lots of people killed, then when, really?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']trq: The entire Congress and House had access to the same intel that the White House used to start the war. The WH wasn't misleading, it was the intel itself.[/QUOTE]

That goes to my point about opportunistic Democrats. The political atmosphere at the time, post 9/11, was so rigid, there was no way any Republicans were going to dissent from the President, and until they realized how unpopular the war would turn out to be, very few Democrats or Independents had any desire to stick their necks out over freaking Saddam Hussein, lest it get chopped off, which turned out to be very politically savy, given the "if you don't support the war, you're a traitor" meme that still floats around even today. So the idea that Congress and the Senate supported the war at first is both true, and irrelevant to the quality of the intel. It has been pretty clearly documented (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9991919/site/newsweek/ , http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/09/ap/politics/mainD8N67L6O1.shtml) that the State Department simply didn't like the less than completely pro-war conclusions the CIA was reaching. That's not a mistake -- that's lying.

[quote name='CocheseUGA']As for the UN inspectors, I've not seen so much telegraphing since before AG Bell.

'Hey, we're coming to inspect you. Sure hope you don't do anything in the meantime.'[/QUOTE]

Except it worked, didn't it?

[quote name='CocheseUGA']Just because they couldn't find them, doesn't mean they didn't have them. That line of thinking picked up some serious steam when we found fully functional fighter jets buried in the sand. He had the weapons, not all of it was used. So that left two possibilities: it left the country at some point in the last ten years, or it's still there. We hardly did anything when we were there the first time, aside from take prisoners and deal with oil fires. The man gassed his own citizens, then proceeded to poison the entire region with toxic gases from the oil field fires. You don't always add A+B and get C, but in this case it was a good bet to think you would. It's not as if chemicals are hard to come by. The only reason the 1993 WTC bombs weren't chlorine-based was that the people didn't have enough money.[/QUOTE]

Fighter jets and a fully functional nuclear program are two very different things. And if we can take satellite photos of what are supposedly some mobile chemical weapons labs, shouldn't we be able to track the materials for nukes as they travel across the desert? It sure is convenient how America can be hyper-competent one minute ("We KNOW he's meeting with Al Qaeda"), and all "Gee, those stockpiles must've gone over the border to Syria..." the next. Ultimately, it's not like it would have been out of character for Saddam Hussein to want WMD ... but priors on your rap sheet aren't enough reason to let the cops shoot you the next time you're strolling down the street.

[quote name='CocheseUGA']Hindsight is 20/20, but IIRC the very small amount of people who dissented were severely drowned out by those who went with the logical assumptions.[/QUOTE]

It's not hindsight, because plenty of people raised these doubts ahead of time, and were shouted down for it. But it was an assumption, and we all know how that saying goes.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Read the CIA report, Joe Wilson didn't prove ANYTHING to the CIA.[/QUOTE]

I read that report it was heavily redacted but in the report it says that Joe Wilson found that Iraq did not seek Uranium from Nigeria.

[quote name='CocheseUGA']You know, I said the exact same thing and got called out by the mental midget here.[/QUOTE]

I can't call it lies. I'd call it stretched truth and assumption personally.
Click to expand...

I only see one mental midget here Cochese, if you want to see him to look in a mirror.

That line of thinking picked up some serious steam when we found fully functional fighter jets buried in the sand.
Click to expand...

Fully functional eh? Did you test pilot them?

BTW those were found in August 2003 pretty quickly.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Bush outwitted us all.[/quote]
We (America and maybe even the world) is in SERIOUS trouble if that's the case.
5scared6yr.gif
 
We (America and maybe even the world) is in SERIOUS trouble if that's the case.
Click to expand...

Well, either he tricked us into a war, or he didn't.

I read that report it was heavily redacted but in the report it says that Joe Wilson found that Iraq did not seek Uranium from Nigeria.
Click to expand...

Read it again. Wilson's report convinced a few that Iraq did not seek uranium, left a few on the fence, and actually confirmed Iraq seeking uranium suspicions for a few.

Besides, Wilson himself really only claimed that they never bought uranium. Not that they never sought it.

I should just be like The Crotch and feign bemusement, and, being the most bemused in the room, DECLARE MYSELF TEH WINNAR!
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Well, either he tricked us into a war, or he didn't.[/QUOTE]

The talking point seems to be "That is what you get for trusting Bush".

I read the report there is no evidence they sought it, the only thing that even comes close is that one of the Nigerian bigwigs made that assumption.

Anyone who thought it confirmed that Iraq sought Uranium from Niger must be a mind reading time traveler.

The whole entire point is Bush "catapulted propaganda" to make the case for war, he wanted this war and he pushed only (shoddy) intel showing what he wanted and ignored everything else.

He was not honest with the American people.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
I only see one mental midget here Cochese, if you want to see him to look in a mirror.



Fully functional eh? Did you test pilot them?

BTW those were found in August 2003 pretty quickly.[/QUOTE]

At least you were bright enough to realize I was referring to you. Good job, you get a cookie.

They were fully functional when they were buried. They didn't exactly take the time to protect the avionics or intakes/exhaust from all the sand. Next time I'm sure they'll send someone to Davis-Monthan and get some pointers.

And it may just be me, but a 12" sphere might just be harder to find than a MiG. I know it's a stretch, but you should try and trust me on that. Now do I think that there is still some stuff buried/hidden out there that we haven't found yet? Probably 95% no. But even if we had every survey crew out there since day one, we probably still wouldn't have found it if it were there.

You know, I love discussion and lively arguement as much as anyone (if I didn't, I wouldn't get into government now would I?). I'm willing to agree and disagree with anyone in a polite manner. However, you're so virulent that it makes me not want to bother. If it's not what you believe in, it's wrong.
 
Cochese I know enough about WMD programs to know that they require massive amounts of space and resources.

You got fooled and used like a three dollar hooer and you would rather cry like a sissy rather than admit it or even you know stop giving Bush and crew such loyal fealty.
 
Is that so? What's your pedigree?

They require resources - mainly cash. Room? Not so much. You get the materials outsourced, and you need only enough room to put it together with the delivery mechanism. A small house for a minor operation. One of the secondary missions of the MQ-1s were infared detection of outlying domiciles. If there was a large heat signature, you could be given permission to fire upon it. The RQ-4 that the zoomies use (I'm proud to say my uncle helped develop it) can do the same, albeit minus the attack capability. Since there's no ADF to speak of in Iraq, the MQ-1 was getting most of the work schedule in this particular instance.

What's pretty cool is I hear there might be a civvy model produced for drug interdiction use. Bastards won't even know it's there. ;) Unfortunately, it means less opportunities for people like myself and my zoomie buddies for real seat time (My BFF is getting less time in the Raptor as we speak). The people who say there won't be any fighter pilots in 50 years may not be too far off. But, I digress on things I'd rather be talking about.


It doesn't take a whole lot of common sense to seperate the materials if you need them mobile, either. Chemicals here, delivery mechanism there, detonators/fuses somewhere else. Really you just need to bring everything together in time for delivery. Hell, there are plans available on the internet if you want to risk a FBI sting. Go for it, I won't stop you. I kept thinking you might have a rational thought once in awhile, but I guess I was wrong. Back on the list you go.
 
I read the report there is no evidence they sought it, the only thing that even comes close is that one of the Nigerian bigwigs made that assumption.
Click to expand...

YOU. READ. IT. WRONG.

Wilson himself continues to claim that no deal took place. He claims that Iraq never BOUGHT uranium. Bush only said they SOUGHT uranium. Big difference. Iraq was in talks to purchase something from Niger, a country whose exports are not particularly notable. British intelligence continues to this day to stand by the "sought" claim.

Then again, Bush probably outwitted THEM, too.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']. Room? Not so much. You get the materials outsourced, and you need only enough room to put it together with the delivery mechanism.[/QUOTE]

What Iraq was accused of in the run up to the war was buying the materials and the components for a weapons program (the infamous aluminum tubes).

The centrifuges used to refine uranium are massive.

This is what I was referring to, as of right now you are using a hypothetical that no one cares about.
 
[quote name='Msut77']No I did not.[/quote]
http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/report/index.asp

Then read the friggen Butler Report already. The sixteen words were correct as spoken.

Or, for that matter, go here:

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

And because you clearly need it summarized. Read further down the page where it DIRECTLY QUOTES the Senate Intelligence Committee report in saying that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."

So, yeah, you didn't read it correctly.

 
Before I even go near your link am I to understand that is a completely different report from the one you were touting before?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Before I even go near your link am I to understand that is a completely different report from the one you were touting before?[/quote]

The Butler Report is. The second link includes the CIA report I was touting before.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']The Butler Report is. The second link includes the CIA report I was touting before.[/QUOTE]

The 2nd link says they "may well have wanted" to buy uranium and that is based on an assumption made by a Nigerian bigwig.

It is not a totally unreasonable assumption but this is a war we are talking about here, it is not something you want to use to make a case for invasion and Bush was rightly called out for it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The 2nd link says they "may well have wanted" to buy uranium and that is based on an assumption made by a Nigerian bigwig.

It is not an unreasonable assumption but this is a war we are talking about here, it is not something you want to use to make a case for invasion and Bush was rightly called out for it.[/quote]

Well, it sucks then that the only reason we went to war in Iraq was because of the Niger deal. If only we had had SOME other reason, some other provocation!
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Well, it sucks then that the only reason we went to war in Iraq was because of the Niger deal. If only we had had SOME other reason, some other provocation![/QUOTE]

Those were all made up as well.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The 2nd link says they "may well have wanted" to buy uranium and that is based on an assumption made by a Nigerian bigwig.

It is not a totally unreasonable assumption but this is a war we are talking about here, it is not something you want to use to make a case for invasion and Bush was rightly called out for it.[/quote]
WAITWAIT WAIT JUST A COTTON PICKING MINUTE HERE

He wasn't called out on JACK SHIT! He was called a bold-faced LIAR, despite the fact that those bleating about his 'lies' were full of shit, demonstrably so.

[quote name='Msut77']Those were all made up as well.[/quote]
Man, for such an idiot, he fooled everyone!

And what would the point of ALL of these lies be? To wage a war for oil? To gain political popularity? What... I'm not seeing it. You're the enlightened one here...
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']WAITWAIT WAIT JUST A COTTON PICKING MINUTE HERE

He wasn't called out on JACK SHIT! He was called a bold-faced LIAR, despite the fact that those bleating about his 'lies' were full of shit, demonstrably so.[/QUOTE]


I would say calling someone a "bold faced liar" is definitely calling them out.

However the people calling Bush out were right, you have not "demonstrated" anything different.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']And what would the point of ALL of these lies be? To wage a war for oil? To gain political popularity? What... I'm not seeing it. You're the enlightened one here...[/QUOTE]

Are you saying Bush was completely honest with the American people?

Or are you claiming he had absolutely no idea what was going on?

Man, for such an idiot, he fooled everyone!
Click to expand...

Yes people were incredibly short sighted to trust W Bush on anything.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I would say calling someone a "bold faced liar" is definitely calling them out.

How ever the people calling Bush out were right, you have not "demonstrated" anything different.[/quote]

Had you read the texts, you'd realize that the sixteen words were not a lie. Hence, Bush did not lie on that issue. He was 'called out' by partisan hacks who were more interested in scoring political points than the truth.

Are you saying Bush was completely honest with the American people?

Or are you claiming he had absolutely no idea what was going on?
Click to expand...

I'm claiming that your feverish dreams of a massive lie campaign put forth by Bush do not gel with your claims that he is an idiot. I'm asking you what President Bush hoped to gain by fooling the Senate and the world's intelligence agencies with his whole mess of lies. That's a lot of trouble for very little relative gain so far...
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Had you read the texts, you'd realize that the sixteen words were not a lie. [/QUOTE]

It is not a lie to say the brits still believed something (that was false), however to bring it up when it was known by our own intelligence people to be shaky at best is nothing less than an attempt to fool the American people.

I'm claiming that your feverish dreams of a massive lie campaign put forth by Bush do not gel with your claims that he is an idiot
Click to expand...

You have to be smart to lie?
 
[quote name='Msut77']It is not a lie to say the brits still believed something (that was false), however to bring it up when it was known by our own intelligence people to be shaky at best is nothing less than an attempt to fool the American people.[/quote]

That whole reading thing continues to allude you. Intelligence works on a consensus, and most of the intelligence community had little reason to doubt it.

You have not proven it was false. You cannot prove that Saddam didn't, say, talk to Nigerian officials about bringing in uranium, only to find out that it would have been too risky. That is all that would have been required for him to have sought uranium.

You have to be smart to lie?
Click to expand...

Think man. Keep up here. That whizzing sound you're hearing? That's the stuff I've been saying going right over your head!

Assume President Bush lied us into a war. You've shown that you know better than so many intelligence agencies, and that you know better than Bush, so this should be EASY! For Bush to lie us into a war would have required tremendous effort and coordination. He would have had to have a goal in mind. What was it, as I'm not seeing how he's gained anything from it...
 
RollingSkull your retort is that I cannot prove a negative?

You really wish to go over the rest of it?

Aluminum tubes, the forged documents, the claim that Saddam and Al Qaeda were behind 9/11?

The bizarre claim that Saddam would not let inspectors into the country?

I notice you have not claimed you think Bush was completely honest.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Aluminum tubes, the forged documents, the claim that Saddam and Al Qaeda were behind 9/11?[/quote]

You know, that last one, Bush never said it. The only people I know who have said it have been Lefties trying to discredit Bush.

The bizarre claim that Saddam would not let inspectors into the country?
Click to expand...

We know what complying with the inspectors looks like. Ask Libya. Saddam wasn't disclosing himself completely to them.

Just because proving a negative is difficult doesn't mean you get to assume that everything is a lie.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Does the legislature forward you their mail often? Because I must not be on that mailing list...[/QUOTE]

I have trouble telling which one of your posts are supposed to be funny.

Was that a joke?
 
There's precedent though. After Pearl Harbor, we got together all our troops and went to war with a country that had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor.

EDIT: Coincidentally, highlight for me the passage in that letter where Bush said Iraq caused 9/11. I don't see it. You're stretching the meaning here. Reread that letter with a more discerning eye. At worst, it seems Bush is digging for rhetorical wriggling room to have both the Iraq war and the ability to hunt down terror groups, likely ones operating in Iraq trying to fund the counter-insurgency.
 
Whether or not I think the President is totally honest is irrelevant. I can't fact check everything the President says. I have school to shirk and a job to perform half-assed overpaid work for. I don't have the resources, time, or energy to look up everything the man says, nor do I have the arrogance to believe that my 30 minutes of Google Detective-dom or blog-reading defeats the entire current administration.


Could the administration be pulling an elaborate hoax? It is possible. Could Rove have somehow leaked Plame's name in response to Wilson speaking TRUTH (actually lies and misrepresentations) TO POWER (The most microscopically examined POWER since the previous presidency.) even though Novak's source was Armitage? I suppose it is possible.

By why would they do that? They would have to go through certain degree of effort to pull the wool over the eyes of me and about 40-ish% of the country that really believes in the Iraq war mission. You don't get to be President by being a psychopath who spins elaborate conspiracies that are easily 'solved' by the opposition and don't net you a tremendous amount of gain.

That's the thing I don't understand about the "ALL LIES" world view. WHY would he go to this much effort to invade Iraq if it was done through cynicism?

(Then again, I also don't believe you get to be President if you're a moron, but I guess Yale grades on par with Kerry's count as moronics these days.)
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']There's precedent though. After Pearl Harbor, we got together all our troops and went to war with a country that had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor.[/QUOTE]

Germany declared war on us for declaring war on Japan.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Whether or not I think the President is totally honest is irrelevant. I can't fact check everything the President says. I have school to shirk and a job to perform half-assed overpaid work for. I don't have the resources, time, or energy to look up everything the man says, nor do I have the arrogance to believe that my 30 minutes of Google Detective-dom or blog-reading defeats the entire current administration.

[/QUOTE]

That's why you'll never win an arguement on this board. If you look, even Myke (the bastion of patience himself) hasn't posted in forever. I see him on Live enough, so I know he isn't dead or anything. I'm taking a page out of his (any many others) book and simply not going to waste my time anymore.

I have way too many articles to write and I want to spend too much time with my kids to put up with this nonsense. Truth and reason will never win over fanaticism, circumstance, consipracy theorists and Google. If I wanted to argue to a brick wall, I'd have run for Norwood's seat and gotten paid for it.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Truth and reason will never win over fanaticism, circumstance, consipracy theorists and Google.[/QUOTE]


Eric Blair is rolling in his grave.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']That's why you'll never win an arguement on this board. If you look, even Myke (the bastion of patience himself) hasn't posted in forever. I see him on Live enough, so I know he isn't dead or anything. I'm taking a page out of his (any many others) book and simply not going to waste my time anymore.[/QUOTE]

I have a new course I'm working on, so developing that syllabus took quite some time.
I also just got back into town from a 4-day conference, have been knee-deep in reading and dissertation work, have been in preparations for a rollerderby bout in Raleigh, NC in a few weeks as well as had an added practice so...ignoring the needles details, I'm just too fuckin' busy - CAG's a great place, but I spend too much time on it that would be better spent elsewhere. I'm trying to cut down on my CAG, if you will.

As far as Bush calling Democrats irresponsible, I don't see what the big deal is. Of course he thinks that. He and his supporters rationalized and attributed everything that's gone wrong thus far to anyone and anything but themselves. I'm not saying that's extraordinary (if anything, a politician dancing around responsibility for things is extraordinarily *mundane*). I may look over the thread later and see what the brouhaha is all about, but I only really read this post after skimming the vs forum.

I'm patient. Outstanding! You should see me in traffic! :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top