| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12073
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 7:46 pm: | 
|
January 25, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Delusion and Illusion Worthy of Dickens
By MAUREEN DOWD
The Democrats will never win the White House as long as they're stuck in Bleak House. They're slipping and sliding in the same crust-upon-crust of mud and caboose-creeping fog and soft black drizzle and flakes of soot that blacken the chamber of law in the opening of the terrific Dickens novel (now an irresistible PBS series).
The lumbering pace of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce will pale compared with the time it will take the cowed and colicky Democrats to yank back power from Republicans skilled at abusing it.
The party simply seems incapable of getting the muscular message and riveting messenger needed to dispel the mud, fog, drizzle and soot emanating from Karl Rove's rag-and-bone shop on Pennsylvania Avenue.
As the White House drives its truckload of lies around the country, it becomes ever clearer that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore are just not the right people to respond to the administration's national security scare-a-thon.
We got mired in Iraq in the first place partly because Dick Cheney and Rummy thought that, post-Vietnam and post-Clinton, America was seen as soft. One shock-and-awe session, one tyrant stomped on, they reckoned, and the Arab world would no longer see Americans as wimps. That reasoning turned out to be dangerous, flying in the face of warnings from our own intelligence experts.
But Karl Rove is still dishing out the same line, and it's still working: those who want to re-evaluate the strategy in Iraq are soft. Those who want to rein in the Patriot Act are soft. Those who question the Alito doctrine of presidential absolutism are soft. Those who don't want to break the law and snoop on Americans are soft - not just soft, but practically collaborating with the terrorists.
"Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview" on national security, Mr. Rove said last week, "and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong - deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."
But you only need to check the paper daily to see that this administration has been deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong on everything: from the promise to rebuild Iraq and the consequences of deploying a strained Army this long in an insurgent war to the failure to respond to the aftermath of Katrina, after dissembling about pre-storm alarms.
The bumbling Bush team that ignored the warning "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" also ignored one that went something like: "Katrina Determined to Attack New Orleans." And now the White House is trying to inhibit Congressional questions on Katrina, just as it did for the 9/11 inquiries.
The administration's p.r. offensive on warrantless - and questionably effective - snooping is so aggressive that it has even risked exposing the president to an occasional unscripted, but still not tough, question. So he rambles on about steering clear of "Brokeback Mountain" and the therapeutic value of mountain biking. And he calls Barney, the Scottish terrier, "the son I never had." (Barney's dad is all bark and no bite.)
The White House is as skittish about bilked Indians as it is about billing-and-cooing cowboys. It admits it has pictures of the president with Jack Abramoff, but won't cough them up.
While he was out defending his scofflaw behavior, W. had to address the fact that the real nuclear threat (Iran), as opposed to the fake nuclear threat (Iraq), is embarrassing him. He told the Iranian people: "We have no beef with you." (State Department reporters puzzled over how that might be translated into Farsi: "We have no cow with you"?)
You couldn't turn on a TV this week without seeing Torture Guy Alberto Gonzales give all-purpose legal cover to Dick Cheney as that Grim Peeper ravages the Constitution. At a Georgetown University speech, W.'s legal lickspittle ignored a few student protesters, but he might have learned something from their banner, emblazoned with words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
In their usual twisted way, the Bushies are reducing their abuse of the law to a test of testosterone - knowing that the Democrats will play Judy to their Punch.
The Dems need to drum up a decent message so they look as if they know what the Dickens they're doing before the November election. Otherwise, they'll look like bowed supplicants holding out gruel cups to Karl Rove and pleading, "Please, sir, I want some more."
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 523
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 8:35 pm: |
|
Reingold-
I think this is first time I actually agreed on something with Ms. Dowd, well at least her first sentence.
Based on her latest bokk reviews, I would never seek her advice on dating though...  |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12094
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 11:07 pm: |
|
Have you read much of her work? I can't say I have, but I'm getting to appreciate it. She's no leftist, that's clear. I remember how harsh she was to the Democrats when they were in power. She's a true independent thinker, and you have to respect that.
|
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 47
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 6:04 pm: |
|
The dems have to respond to the lies. Cheney is going around the country claiming the warrantless eavesdropping has "saved thousands of American lives." Really? Are people buying such nonsense without a shred of proof, only the word of Dick Cheney? Notice that the president hasn't claimed that. Call the administration on it in front of the American people. Let's see the evidence you claim has saved thousands of American lives and we will re-evaluate our opposition to the program. Of course none will be forthcoming, for reasons of national security no doubt. You have to make them support their claims with facts and evidence. The Bush Administration is strong on rhetoric, meant to scare and cow everyone into being afraid to be called unpatriotic and weak on terror. It is the oldest trick in the political playbook. And it's working!
The Republicans are masters at framing the debate. Every time you hear hear a news report about the warrantless eavesdropping, even in the "liberal press", it is described as a program to "monitor those with connections to terrorists." Why do they say that? Because the Bush administration says so? Demand to see the information, who was spied upon and why, and agree to do it in a secret bi-partisan intelligence committee if need be.
Could you imagine if Gore or Kerry were president and Osama Bin Laden was still out there making videos and threats. The Republicans would be relentless every day: "The mastermind of the most devasating attack on American soil is still out there 4 plus years after the attack due to the weakness and incompetence of the democrats. If we were in charge, he'd be dead and no longer a threat. But the weak on terror democrats are unable to deal with the problem."
But the Bush administration, brilliant again, uses OBL both ways. "Be scared because he is out there plotting and planning another deadly strike, and we're the only ones who can protect you" on the one hand, and "we have him on the run, he's hiding in a cave, he's finished" on the other. Well, which one is it?
Bush has said, on video, "We can't win the war on terror." He's said, on video, he doesn't care about catching Bin Laden and really isn't that concerned about him. He's said, on video, there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. He's said, on video, they have no evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There were no WMD's and no conventional weapons or army of any strength to stop us either. We were attacked by 19 crazies with box cutters, 15 of them from Saudi Arabia (none from Iraq), who were trained in Saudi Arabian Madrassas. OBL hated Saddam becasue he was a secular Arab and Saddam hated OBL and didn't allow him or Al Qaeda in Iraq to foment islamic fundamentalism and destabilize him. Yet Iraq has somehow become "the Central front in the War on Terror". Why? Only because the Republicans keep saying it is.
American military leaders in Afghanistan say there has been a resurgence of the Taliban. The Pentagon (last time I checked it wasn't a wacko left wing organization) says our military is overstretched and on the verge of breaking. Rumsfeld, who's been wrong on just about everything with respect to the war, says the report is incorrect. I'm sure the next soldier's family who gets a letter with his mechanical signature may not believe him.
I could go on and on, but it's Friday and i want to enjoy the weekend. This is the group that is going to protect us and win the war on terror?!?! Incompetence from start to a finish nowhere in sight.
Democrats better find a voice who is up to the challenge, because the opportunity is there and this group can be defeated, in 2006 and 2008.
Stop the work of the Senate again, and demand to see the unfiltered, raw intelligence which the Bush administration had in the run up to war.
Demand to see the emails and communications to and from the White House during Katrina, including the DVD the staff had to give Bush to impress upon him the seriousness of the situation. Demand to see the wiretap info.
It's time to stop being concerned about looking weak on terror and it is time to point out how inept this adminstration is and how it has failed miserably in the war on terror. |
kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 743
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 6:47 pm: |
|
no one writes more op-ed articles based on false premises than dowd...she is a worthless, cranky biach who needs to get laid...not surprising to learn prissy appreciates her.
The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR..
Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W.
Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 531
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 6:50 pm: |
|
BettyD-
Politicians playing politics-shocking indeed...
But we'll take your word for it because you say so... |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12118
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 7:24 pm: |
|
No, it's not shocking, but it's nothing to be proud of.
"This is the only thing my signature says."
|
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 49
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 4:31 pm: |
|
SLK,
Do you personally believe Cheney's statements that the warantless eavesdropping program has saved thousands of American lives? |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1424
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 10:09 pm: |
|
BettyD,
scrotus would believe in the tooth fairy if he sounded like Bush or Darth Cheney. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 619
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 10:21 pm: |
|
Betty,
I think you just put more thought and passion into one post than Dowd has in a years worth of columns. While I disagree with you, I like your passion. So Maureen, do you really think the Democrats need to change something? Really? And how many losses has it taken foryou to come to this brilliant earth shattering decision? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5095
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 10:39 pm: |
|
You can't dish out a line or paint a picture if there isn't any truth in it. Witness the reaction Lieberman gets when he too wants a vigorous response beyond diplomacy or containment of the threats this country faces. Is he in on the "lies" and winking to the Bush Administration the entire time?
bettyd and Democrats like to frame the debate on the NSA as warrantless domestic searches. They have to leave out that suspected terrorists are involved to make the sale. That's just not the case, and the American public knows it. Democrats aren't involved on this issue because they're concerned about civil liberties and want to have a different sort of wiretapping policy. Their focus is wounding Bush and praying for impeachment. National security isn't part of their picture. Neither is the word 'victory' in any of their positions because either they don't believe it's possible or they just aren't interested in it.
Democrats put some currency in embarrassing an already embarrassed Administration on Katrina, and the public sees a real concern not over the people who suffered (or the Democrats that ran that town coming up for the same treatment they wish to administer to Bush), but a purely political route to hoped for electoral victory.
Finally, Saddam hated OBL and vice versa so much that the Oprah-esque Richard Clarke said upon our invasion of Afghanistan that OBL would quote "Boogie to Baghdad." What bribe got him to say that?
And Dowd? Never mind. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5096
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 10:59 pm: |
|
http://www.cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2006/01/30/n/HeadlineNews/FEINSTEI N-SHEEHAN/resources_bcn_html
 |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12213
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 8:15 am: |
|
I don't need to embarrass Bush. I don't need to see him impeached, either. I'll be quite happy if he grows some competence so he can start doing his job on the Gulf Coast.
"This is the only thing my signature says."
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 576
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 8:51 am: |
|
bettyd-
Well, i am stuck in between believing Cheney who says the wiretaps did save lives and you saying they don't...
Figuring Cheney is the VP and all who has access to all kinds of info you and I never even dreamed of...
And then there is you, acting purely on opinion...
so in all fairness, who would you lean towards...
-SLK
Hey Innis where ya been!
Start a Revolution or shut the hell up...
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12216
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 8:59 am: |
|
So I guess you trust the government on its word? Are you saying that that's always a winning strategy? If so, then why does the constitution have so many protections for the people against the government?
How do you know when the government has an incentive to lie?
"This is the only thing my signature says."
|
Michael
Citizen
Username: Michael
Post Number: 820
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 9:13 am: |
|
Quote:no one writes more op-ed articles based on false premises than dowd...she is a worthless, cranky biach who needs to get laid...not surprising to learn prissy appreciates her.
Not a big dowd fan myself but wow ..a bit sexist don'tya think ?
}
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1430
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 9:34 am: |
|
Scrotey:
Been in London on business for a few days and then weekend with cousins who live outside London.
Came back to our fair region last evening.
How're you doing? |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 580
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 9:51 am: |
|
Innis-
Hey bud, welcome home....Though I speak truth, ignore my bruising response to you on another board....it has just been so long that we have crossed paths....
Start a Revolution or shut the hell up...
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 581
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 9:55 am: |
|
Michael-
Maybe it is a little over the top but not sexist. There are many women and men that really need to just get laid. It would solve 2/3 of their problems!
I am not a big Dowd fan at all...it seems she cares more abou being witty then anything else...
Start a Revolution or shut the hell up...
|
Twokitties
Citizen
Username: Twokitties
Post Number: 372
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 10:30 am: |
|
As for who to believe, Cheney isn't a great place to start.
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002
|
breal
Citizen
Username: Breal
Post Number: 711
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 11:50 am: |
|
Kenny fights like a boy. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 590
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Twokitties,
So because no WMDS are found they never existed?
Funny, the entire globe thought they did...
But you know best....and why is that?
Start a Revolution or shut the hell up...
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5098
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Silly Scrotis -- the whole world was in on the scam. They all knew there were no WMD, but had their intelligence agencies say otherwise. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 776
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Cheney lied about WMDs. You should do your homework. It stretches belief that you continue to espouse that you are an 'independent' but can continue to 'believe' whatever you hear from the administration.
Cheney also told us the insurgence was in the last throes and in an effort to scare the citizens of this country he implied that the US would not be safe in the hands of a democratic president.
And no the entire globe did not think they did.
But YOU know best.... and why is that? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12225
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 12:22 pm: |
|
SLK, perhaps you're right that the administration (and the rest of the world) were incorrect. This means the administration wasn't lying. They were just wrong.
But so what? It's their duty to be right. It's their duty not to start a war on false information. And if they do, they owe the biggest apology.
If I want to bump someone off and I pop the wrong guy, am I not still guilty of murder?
"This is the only thing my signature says."
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5099
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Meaning Saddam was collateral damage, I suppose.
And that's exactly the point -- there is a difference between knowingly lying about WMD that was AMONG the reasons to go to war and being wrong about it. For one thing, it makes those stupid "Bush Lied, People Died" signs a.....lie. |
Twokitties
Citizen
Username: Twokitties
Post Number: 373
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 12:54 pm: |
|
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." That is pretty clear and concise language. He said it at a time when there was credible intelligence questioning Hussein's weapons capability. Choosing to ignore that intelligence was his decision, but it did exist. To say that there was "no doubt" is a lie. I bought that lie and a pile of others from this adminsitration leading up to the war. I regret it.
By the way, we don't torture either. |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 51
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 1:51 pm: |
|
SLK,
Given Cheney's track record, I think you should question just about anything he says. Again, I don't know if this program has save "thousands" (Cheney's words, not mine) of American lives. But I'd bet my life savings that it hasn't saved a soul. If the statement were true, don't you think President Bush would be saying so? No, they leave the outright lying to Cheney.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12230
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 3:09 pm: |
|
For one thing, it makes those stupid "Bush Lied, People Died" signs a.....lie.
If you want it that way, fine. But that doesn't speak well of Bush's competence. Not one bit.
You can criticize his detractors, but as loony as they are, what we really need is not a competent peanut gallery but a competent president.
I don't know if he lied or was misinformed. I don't care much. They are both inexcusable.
"This is the only thing my signature says."
|
campbell29
Citizen
Username: Campbell29
Post Number: 340
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 3:27 pm: |
|
That comment and your picture above will land you on the "no-fly" and surveillance lists in no time at all. Best think twice before renewing that Greenpeace membership, if you're going to make negative comments about our leadership. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12233
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Hmm, maybe you're right. How's that now? (Hit reload.)
"This is the only thing my signature says."
|
campbell29
Citizen
Username: Campbell29
Post Number: 341
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Much more innocuous looking..... |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 53
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 5:56 pm: |
|
CJC, you say we leave out that "suspected terrorists" are involved. That's like the S.O. Police saying they don't need a warrant because they are investigating a suspected criminal. The government is claiming they are suspected terrorists, some I assume are American citizens. Isn't the purpose of a warrant to make sure the government, at a bare minimum, has some minimal amount of evidence to support its statments that the people they intend to eavesdrop upon are connected to criminal or illegal activity? You need a warrant to make sure there is some basis for the suspicion. With FISA that is a very low bar indeed.
Look at where we are on this argument: The Constitution requires that the government obtain warrants which are to issue only upon probable cause supported by affidavits, except in cases where the government says we don't need one because the people are suspected of the crime of terrorism. I haven't seen the asterisk next to the 4th amendment which provides that exception.
As for victory, it was President Bush who said we can't win the war on terror. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5102
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 8:25 pm: |
|
bettyd--when Bush said we can't 'win' the war on terror, contextually he was talking about some grand signing on a battleship off the coast of the offending country we have formally declared war on and all hostilities cease. Guess the war against crime has failed so far. Best we not pursue it? Public lied into thinking they had a chance of victory? Hardly.
The NSA program involves calls from overseas, and many times you don't have time to get a court order allowing surveillance since you can't yet prove entirely that the suspect is linked to terrorist activities. All you know is the guy says something like "the match is on tomorrow" in a call from Pakistan to Paterson NJ. You've got 72 hours to nail it down, and if you don't to a judges satisfaction, you can't tap an overseas call placed into the US? The public won't go for it.
You're supposed to intercept the signals of the enemy or the suspected enemy during a war. The battlefield is in the US, and has been since 9/11.
The reason I note that liberals leave out that suspected terrorists are involved in this activity is when you poll and ask people about 'domestic eavesdropping' the results turn more favorably to the Left. When you mention that the targets are suspected terrorists, the results tilt towards Bush. Terrorist doesn't equal common criminal (who no doubt is a victim of society to many). |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12241
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 9:21 pm: |
|
cjc, Bush was right when he said we can't win the war against terror, and you are right about the reason. However, there is an important point that follows from that. Wartime allows the temporary suspension of rights, but only a time of a war that has a definite end. To declare war on terrorism, which will never end, is like declaring a war against strife or disagreements. And to justify suspension of rights because we're at war is not acceptable when that so-called war will never end.
And in cases where time is essential and you can't gather the evidence to get a warrant, you can provide the evidence after the wiretapping. Yet now, the new procedure is not to notify anyone, ever. So, as Nixon said, "if the president does it, it's not illegal." I don't believe the president is above the law, nor may he rewrite it.
"mem's signature is trendier than mine."
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5105
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 9:29 pm: |
|
You can't provide the evidence if you get one interception from outside the US, maybe two, and then another one past the 72 hour deadline with which to convince the FISA court.
And to say one doesn't notify anyone anymore -- ever -- in wiretapping isn't accurate. How many referrals to FISA were there? You are presuming none, or that none have happened since this story leaked. I don't think that's the case. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4004
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 10:14 pm: |
|
The FISA flap is a direct result of Bush's imperial presidency style. If he bothered to a) go to FISA even after the fact and b) brief the senior leaders of Congress once in a while, none of this would have happened. Similarly, if he had bothered to meet regularly with people like Murtha, as did his daddy, then the whole Murtha flap could have been muted or avoided. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12243
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 10:18 pm: |
|
But they said that even trying to notify the court wasn't in the plan. And Bush said that these different times call for different procedures. Doesn't this mean it's time for a different law in place?
I didn't mean all wiretaps are done without notification. I meant some wiretaps are done without notification to anyone, ever.
"mem's signature is trendier than mine."
|
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 32
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 10:39 pm: |
|
The Dems gotts call a lie as a lie. Also, call liers as liars.
It is simple. Either Bush is the stupidest President ever, or he is a liar. Choose one.
---on second thought, you can choose both. |
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 33
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 10:41 pm: |
|
Gore Vidal had an inspired idea this morning.
Ask Bush to quit. Offer to take up a collection and we will buy him a library in Crawford. He won't even have to read any of the books.
Maybe he will take the offer. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1440
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 11:10 pm: |
|
Caffrey:
What an idea! We could offer to give him Texas whole hog! He could just go back, kick Rick Perry out of the governor's mansion in Austin and settle back in to watching the legislature meet every two years again.
He could also alternate hosting barbecue dinners with Vicente Fox. They could set up a beer and fajitas parlor along the Rio Grande together. That might be a more successful business venture for the president than any other he has had so far.
Given the level of corruption in most Texas politics, (DeLay, Enron, typical Dallas and Houston "bidness as usual"), it would be OK to get rid of the state, get rid of Bush, and let the 49 remaining states get on with what America is about. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 624
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 12:10 pm: |
|
And you wonder why you lose. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page