Fred, I figured that out about your posts a long time ago. Do I get a dog biscuit now?
What flavor do you want? I have liver and crow. Which would you prefer to eat?
Haven’t you eaten those yet, fred?
What flavor do you want? I have liver and crow. Which would you prefer to eat?[/quote]
Do you have champagne flavored – or would that be pushing it?
Why would I eat crow? Did I say that the Republicans would not lose these midterm elections?
Go ahead and celebrate today. All Democrats deserve to have a fine day on their win, but again, think very carefully about the positions of the US government and ask yourself how many of them are going to be changed. While I am not celebrating, I am not hanging my head either. Many of the policies that the Bush administration has implemented, including many of those that have been lightning rods for the opposition, are not going to be rescinded. In fact, having the Democrats win now means that they no longer have the luxury of criticizing but not doing anything constructive. Time for them to step up to bat and THAT is going to be amusing. AND you must remember that I always had mixed feelings about the loss of the House. I would like to see more budgetary responsibility now. Given that Bush has been a complete disaster in that regard, the loss of the House might (who knows?) lead to greater fiiscal control. Where I am disappointed is in the loss of the Senate. But by one vote? 51 to 49… And with Joe Lieberman being one of those wins… Do you see where I am going with this? Not exactly the “landslide” that the newspapers are crowing (deliberate) about today, eh? haha We will live to fight another day AND if it leads to the Republicans cleaning up their act (corruption, big government conservatism) then so much the better for all of us, right?
So celebrate a justly deserved fair and square win. We deserve the loss but not necessarily for the reasons that are being bandied about. When even the Economist is calling for this loss despite the effect on trade relations, you know that we have been doing something wrong. AND I fully admit that.
And? This contradicts the following in which way?
Btw … same goes for your connection between “Iraqi Freedom” and “European immigration policies”.
So shall we lump up your reference to that into the same bag? Gibberish, nonsense, garble, smokescreen, distraction, picking for straws?
It’s always difficult to clean up someone else’s mess … and it’s not amusing …
Can’t put it any better than this:
[quote=“Newsweek”]President George W. Bush’s Iraq policy is now in the political equivalent of receivership—a bankrupt project that is about to be placed in the hands of the worldly-wise pragmatists who surrounded the president’s own father. Think of them as receivers in bankruptcy, looking for ways to salvage America’s military and moral assets after a post-September 11 adventure that voters (and most of the rest of the world) concluded was a waste of blood and treasure.
Here’s another analogy: the Shakespeare histories and tragedies in which battlefield mayhem ends with a restoration of order in the person of the Respected Nobles. In this case, these are the old royals from the Castle of Bush the First: a coterie of commercially minded globalists (as opposed to those ideologically minded globalists, the neocons) who have spent their lives as advisers and friends of former president George Herbert Walker Bush.
The man who is about to be isolated in the White House is not the president, but Vice President Dick Cheney—the last neocon left. Elbowing him aside now, as Donald Rumsfeld departs the scene, are people such as former secretary of State James A. Baker III and now—as Rumsfeld’s replacement at the Department of Defense—former CIA director Robert M. Gates. They are loyal liegemen of Bush 41, and they bring to an analysis of Iraq decades worth of diplomatic and intelligence-community experience. They come from and inhabit a world of gray, not the black-and-white universe of good and evil that Bush 43 has occupied for years, especially since 9/11.[/quote]
Now, if this were a Shakespearean play, it’d have to be Titus Andronicus (none of the others are bloody or vicious enough), which would make Cheney “Aaron”, the unrepentant villain.
I expect that he’ll play the part out in fine style, on Iran and other stages…
LUCIUS
Art thou not sorry for these heinous deeds?
AARON
Ay, that I had not done a thousand more.
[…]
Tut, I have done a thousand dreadful things
As willingly as one would kill a fly,
And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
But that I cannot do ten thousand more.
…but now that Rummy’s done, is it really asking too much to wish this ghoul gone?