Parting IS such sweet sorrow, isn't it? Especially if you're a politician.
Threats of firings, resignations and withdrawls merit their own color index of severity because I really can't tell the difference between conjecture and actual policy anymore. Should we leave or Iraq or WILL we leave Iraq? Why is Gonzalez still fighting for his job? It seems he's spending more time defending himself than being the actual Attorney General. Now Blair has set the stage for a two month long resignation-fest. And so on...
Like any consumer product, politicians need to remain relevant -- and nothing screams relevant more than a going-out-of-business sale. Or at least the threat of one.
While the business that is the war in Iraq won't be shutting down anytime soon, everyone loves to talk about exit strategies. At one point the Iraqis are going to ask us to leave politely (because suicide bombings will become gauche by 2010) and we're still going to be fighting with each other here in the U.S. over whether it's the right thing to do.
In the meantime, the House of Representatives has just signed a bill (that W has threatened to veto) that allows for $96 billion in spending for the war effort. According to CNN, "Additional funding would be dependent upon progress in the four-year-old war, based on a review of how well the Iraqi government was meeting a series of benchmarks."
You have to wonder why this administration thinks it's above accountability when the House is giving it the money it needs to continue fighting a war that most Americans didn't want in the first place?
And speaking of no-accountability, Alberto Gonzalez is putting his best face forward at Senate hearings regarding the firing of nine (the latest count) U.S. Attorneys. Apparently the AG wasn't aware that people were being let go from his department and now everyone, with the exception of the President (the only guy the AG really has to please) wants him to resign. Personally, who the hell cares about Alberto Gonzalez? If Bush is happy with him let him stay. At this point who else is this administration going to come up with to fill the post? (Paging Harriet Myers) Eventually, though, Gonzalez is going to have to resign -- these hearings, and the media attention devoted to them, are the pre-game to the eventual two-handed peace sign Gonzalez is going to give Washington very soon.
Across the pond, Tony Blair is calling it quits after 10 years as Prime Minister of Great Britain. For some reason I've come to think of him as an American politician, but I forget that he's totally European and has other issues to grapple with in his own country besides that pesky war our President dragged him into. Over the next two months the Brits are going to rally behind their favorites, one of which will be chosen at the end of June to replace Blair. Oh the pageantry and mea culpas and "hand on heart" speeches that will follow.
Oh the joy of politics...you say goodbye, I say hello....
Seems like with every post, you sink into a deeper pit of dumb. Seems like you're performing "lickety-split" with HuffPo.
ReplyDeleteWhy is Gonzalez still fighting for his job? It seems he's spending more time defending himself than being the actual Attorney General.
Perhaps because he has no reason to quit. The liberal buffoons can't legislate so they have to investigate. Who's wasting the most time and money, Gonzales or the liberals?
You have to wonder why this administration thinks it's above accountability when the House is giving it the money it needs to continue fighting a war that most Americans didn't want in the first place?
The administration doesn't think it's above accountability. They KNOW that Bush is the CIC and not the liberals in congress. Further, the liberal team killing fucktards only took out 4 of the 24 billion in bribe money. Only liberals have to bribe people so they can do "the will of the people". If it's the will of the people, why do you have to bribe folks to vote your way?
Still wondering when you're going to address DiFi's war profiteering.
when the House is giving it the money it needs to continue fighting a war that most Americans didn't want in the first place?
ReplyDeleteREALLY??? I know that I, for one, would love to hear a lib explain how the libs were duped by a (allegedly) drunk, coke-head "Chimpy McBusHitler" even as far back as the late 1990s. How is it that everyone including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, England, France, Germany, Kuwait, Israel etc. were "duped" by Bush even before he became president. The libs, who were for invading Iraq before they were against it, who are smarter than everybody else in the world were duped by Bush. I REALLY would like to know.
HOWEVER, I know that GCL doesn't stow the gear necessary to actually back up his/her claims. She has a blog where she tosses grenades a-la MorOn.org or Daily Kolostomy, but doesn't have any interest, whatsoever, in backing up the claim. Just like any other lib, she HOPES LIKE HELL that we're all too fucking stupid to ask questions.
And when we do ask, it's time to pretend that we never saw it. If she didn't see the question, nobody asked it and therefore she can dodge any accountability of her allegations. Sorta like my Quaker parrot who hides his head when danger approaches. If he can't see the danger, he's hidden. So let it be with the sackless GCL.
BTW, if you have a public school education, I'm calling you out to answer for your charges. I used to think you were a fairly smart individual. Now I see that you're just another mindless team-killing fucktard liberal douchebag.
a war that most Americans didn't want in the first place
ReplyDeleteIt's so so so simple to provide evidence that would back up your assertions- IF THEY WERE TRUE! Why do you continue make false statements? Are you deliberately lying? Or is it just laziness? I don't know which is worse.
Fact The majority of Americans supported the war in 2003.
I really can't tell the difference between conjecture and actual policy anymore.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy: Conjecture means that the liberals have found an issue that has no legal ramifications whatsoever, and therefor can't do anything except spin and twist the issue to their advantage. Example- Harry Reid continues to say that Bush lied us into this war. If he believed that, if it were true, he should bring charges against Bush for impeachment. But since there is no evidence to back him up, he simply resorts to libel and the liberals all buy into it. Same with Gonzaolas. Everyone knows there was NOTHING illegal. In fact, Congress handed the President the authority to allow the AG to fire/hire attorneys w/ the Patriot Act. But, you don't hear much about that from Mistress Pelosi and her bitch Reid.
Why is it that everytime Bush is attacked, a counter-attack against the liberals has to take place? As my mother told me, two wrongs don't make a right. Bush is the most stubborn president we've ever had. The guy is only where he is because of his parents - who alternated between humiliating him and using him as a pawn to move their family ahead. If he were the CEO of a company, he would have been fired a long time ago and so would any executive who was reponsible for managing a department and was as clueless as Gonzales about who was fired and who wasn't. He should know these things. He's the fucking attorney general. If he doesn't know, who does? I know it's fashionable to be insulting and accusatory in political debates -- just to get a reaction but please...even most republicans have to agree that Bush is a complete idiot with an inferiority complex. And by the way, did anyone notice that a few months after Pelosi was attacked for visiting Syria, Condi decided to show up? Interesting. I don't care how idiotic the liberals seem. One thing doesn't have to do with another -- Bush is a stubborn idiot and we will all see the unbelievable damage he has done to the economy and our worldwide reputation once he is out of office. Be real.
ReplyDeleteJames-
ReplyDeleteBush is a HUGE disappointment to any serious conservative in many ways. But an honest debate about his presidency is not possible as long as people like you ignore the reality of the situation.
1. The guy is only where he is because of his parents
Wrong. He is where he is because he won two general elections. He was also a hugely popular Governor prior to his presidency.
2. He's the fucking attorney general. If he doesn't know, who does?
Gonzales sucks. He did from the beginning. An honest assessment of his tenure would be welcome. But this flap over the fired attorneys is pointless. A Democrat with a backbone would have pointed out his weaknesses a long time ago instead of waiting for a non-issue such s this.
Congress should be re-evaluating their decision to allow the President to off-load his responsibility to the AG and, if they feel they erred in giving him that authority, they should find a solution, ASAP. But that would be the reasonable approach.
even most republicans have to agree that Bush is a complete idiot with an inferiority complex.
No they don't. They see a Republican who expanded the welfare state beyond anyone's wildest dreams, mismanaged the Iraq war, and is so isolated that they dare not align themselves with him.
I do not think Bush is a great president. But I do not think he is an idiot by any stretch of the imagination. Even his fiercest opponent (Ann Richards) liked the man.
did anyone notice that a few months after Pelosi was attacked for visiting Syria, Condi decided to show up? Interesting.
That is interesting. She also called Ms. Pelosi to get her feedback before she left. But you need to see both situations for what they represented. Nanci Pelosi flagrantly violated the state's position on Syria, and probably made Condi's visit (which was planned long ago) less meaningful. She also wore a head scarf (that was lame)and claimed to be a messenger from Isreal. Condi met with her counterpart in the country, not the Dictator, to try to get Syria to agree not to move into Iraq should the US military withdraw.
Also- you should check your premise here: why did she go? Because the Bush administration knows that we might have to leave Iraq before the job is done. Therefor, Bush wants to make sure that he does everything possible to limit the amount of violence and chaos in the aftermath, so he is forced to get an "agreement" from Iraq's neighbors not to fill the void left behind by retreating Americans. It's hollow, because an agreement with Iran and Syria is nothing more than a deal with the devil. But he has no choice. He has to try. That's not such a dumb move. It's not even cynical.
Bush is a stubborn idiot and we will all see the unbelievable damage he has done to the economy and our worldwide reputation once he is out of office. Be real.
What "real" evidence do you have that shows he has done such damage to our economy? The low unemployment rate? job growth? Manufacturing on the rise? Do you have any numbers? Or are you just convinced that we are all too dumb to see the truth now but we will see it "someday"?
I gotta disagree with JHB overall, however, I do believe that you either:
ReplyDeleteA) are a dumbass, or
B) have no problem looking like a dumbass as long as you're slamming Bush? Which is it, because I honestly want to know?
Why is it that everytime Bush is attacked, a counter-attack against the liberals has to take place?
Because 9 times out of ten, there's no honesty behind the lib's claims. And generally an attack on Bush is an attack on Republicans and Conservatives in general. Sorry we don't bend over and lube up like libs believe we should. BTW, if you were the least bit honest, you wouldn't be squealing like Ned Beatty like you are right now.
As my mother told me, two wrongs don't make a right.
Which libs expand to "but three do".
Bush is the most stubborn president we've ever had.
How DARE a president stand up and do what he believes is right. He should be a total pussy like lord BJ and do what's popular instead. Even going so far as to take polls to find out what he should wear. The president's job, after all, is to wet his finger, stick it up in the air (not the intern), figure out which way the wind is blowing and head off in that direction.
The guy is only where he is because of his parents - who alternated between humiliating him and using him as a pawn to move their family ahead.
And you know that based on what?
If he were the CEO of a company, he would have been fired a long time ago
That is quite possibly the most asinine analogy I've seen liberals use. Sorry to piss in your Cheerios (you're right, I'm not), but you're not the first person to unleash that steaming pile of shit. It's completely asinine to compare the POTUS to a corporate CEO. If true, though, BJ never would have made it.
But let's play that game for a moment. The main job of a CEO is to make money for the company and it's shareholders. Look at April's RECORD tax receipts. Nuff said.
Look, I can pick apart the rest of your dipshit post, but you KNOW that I am right and you're full of contemptable shit. But I'll throw in one more that's my favorite:
And by the way, did anyone notice that a few months after Pelosi was attacked for visiting Syria, Condi decided to show up? Interesting.
Remind us again which one was appointed SecState? Who's job is it to talk to Syria? Oh yeah. You're apparently a dumbass. You wouldn't know. Pathetic. Oh one more:
I don't care how idiotic the liberals seem.
Obviously. So there's the answer to my original question. You don't care how much of a retarded dumbass you look like as long as you slam Bush and/or his administration. Well sir, I salute you. You are a dumbass.
Whine, piss and moan all you want, but you made the decision to open up that door. I just walked through it.
Do NOT doubt me.
TGC - It's hard to take someone seriously when they use dumbass and douchebag in a sentence.
ReplyDeleteAnd JHB - Do you really think that the Bush family is made up of such smart people that it's just a coincidence that he became president or governor.
Also, there is honest debate as to whether he won the first election. But I blame the democrats for being so stupid - Gore for thinking that distancing himself from Clinton was a good idea (he should have won by a landslide) and the party for nominating a mediocre guy like Kerry when we needed a strong leader post 9-11. I think Bush was re-elected because people were afraid to change leadership mid stream. Too bad the Democrats missed the opportunity.
And as for backing up what I said, I'd like to see anyone else on this blog come up with hard core evidence for anything. Just like political debate - a lot of what is said on this blog is conjecture. The "facts" of the situation will never be known by outsiders.
Also, I can't believe that anyone thinks it's ok for Gonzales for be asleep at the wheel and not know what's going on in his own department. I don't have to delve into a more detailed commentary to point out that he's wrong and should resign.
TGC - It's hard to take someone seriously when they use dumbass and douchebag in a sentence.
ReplyDeleteI'll take that as your apology for doubting me. How about this:
You're either suffering from rectal-cranial inversion, or you don't mind appearing as though you do so long as you're trashing Bush.
Feel better?
I can't believe that anyone thinks it's ok for Gonzales for be asleep at the wheel and not know what's going on in his own department.
I can't believe any informed individual would honestly believe that he was. Nor can I believe that any informed individual would honestly believe he should resign. Especially when you have ass-clowns like Biden telling us, in as many words, that there's nothing to this show trial. Nothing improper or illegal happened. The libs can't legislate, so they have to investigate to make it appear that they're actually doing SOMETHING in Washington.
You said:
Why is it that everytime Bush is attacked, a counter-attack against the liberals has to take place?
I have to wonder why libs don't go after their do-nothing leadership in Congress. Republicans at least have the honesty to criticize our own. Libs don't do that. They circle the wagons and protect their own, no matter how much it damages them.
Do you really think that the Bush family is made up of such smart people that it's just a coincidence that he became president or governor.
ReplyDeleteJames- That sentence makes no sense. But, do I think the Bush family is smart? I would have to say yes. Here is a direct quote from the Boston Globe (you know, that fair and balanced New England paper): "But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago." The article, if you bother to read it, goes on to say that despite his mediocre grades, Kerry was treated as a star, "for no apparent reason" other than his family ties. Hmmmm....
Do I think he became Governor and President by coincidence? Uh, no. Because he managed to do by going through the process. He won elections!
there is honest debate as to whether he won the first election
Why? Because some counts say Gore won Florida by 117 votes, and some counts show Bush winning by almost 200? It all depends what standards you apply. In order for Gore to have won, you had to include some very dubious ballots.
And as for backing up what I said, I'd like to see anyone else on this blog come up with hard core evidence for anything. Just like political debate - a lot of what is said on this blog is conjecture.
Those of us who learned how to debate would disagree. But it is typical for a liberal to refuse to address the assertion that you continually substitute opinion for fact. Simply saying, as GCL did in his original post, that most Americans were opposed to the war does not make it true. It is a false statement. It is verifiable. If you really believe that those of us who grace this rag of a blog should not call him out for such blatant discrepancies, then absolutely no debate is possible.
I will say it again and again and again- Most liberals are not interested in facts. Liberals like to slander those who disagree with them by either lying or being lazy!
Believe it or not, there are very honest and interesting liberal thinkers out there. You, nor GCL, are one of them.