Like I have said many times, you oppose lawbreaking, you oppose torture, you oppose violations of human rights, except when done by President Bush.
It’s pretty simple really and calling us communists merely demonstrates that you have nothing to say. Nothing. Just 50 year old rhetoric. Maybe it works for your age set, but none of us here care. I’m not a communist. I’m not even much of a liberal. I do know that when Bush took office I considered myself a conservative. But a large part of my dropping that label has been the utter lack of integrity shown by most conservatives over the past 8 years. I won’t associate myself with such fair weather morality.
Noamy teach you this non-answer?
chuckle chuckle chuckle…
edit added: Oh, thats right! He does teach this to his acolytes.
Pretty much all those at the top are leaving office and will be pariahs.
Sure, hold Bush accountable for Gitmo, but acknowledge the fact that he didn’t do many of the things you’ve been claiming he would do for the past 8 years. How many internet hours is that down the drain now?[/quote]
So you don’t think Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office because it would be unthinkably reckless and crazy?
Go ahead. Man up and go clearly on record with your thoughts on the subject so we can compare notes come January when the clock runs out.[/quote]
No, I do not think Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office.
Can I interest any of the accused in a little tab of cyanide.
HG
Pretty much all those at the top are leaving office and will be pariahs.
Sure, hold Bush accountable for Gitmo, but acknowledge the fact that he didn’t do many of the things you’ve been claiming he would do for the past 8 years. How many internet hours is that down the drain now?[/quote]
So you don’t think Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office because it would be unthinkably reckless and crazy?
Go ahead. Man up and go clearly on record with your thoughts on the subject so we can compare notes come January when the clock runs out.[/quote]
No, I do not think Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office.[/quote]
That’s a start. It beats hiding behind cheap shots.
Here’s what I think:
-
Bush and Cheney have both stated unequivocably several times in the last year that they won’t allow Iran to go nuclear and that they believe Iran’s current uranium enrichment program is designed to produce nuclear weapons. Consequently they’ve drawn a line in the sand which will be extremely difficult for them to back down from
-
They’re current push is to get a status of force agreement concluded in Iraq so they can declare Iraq “fixed” and so clear the decks for an assault on Iran. They’ll interpret the SOFA as authorizing them to use Iraq’s airspace for an attack on Iran, though Iraq will dispute that interpretation. No matter though in the Bush administration’s eyes.
*They’re also running the “diplomacy” clock out now so they can declare they did everything else possible before attacking Iran
*The Bush administration is maneuvering behind the scenes to get a “reevaluation” of last November’s National Intelligence Estimate done which will reverse course and declare that Iran does, in fact, have an active nuclear weapons program and is therefore in violation of various and sundry bogus international restrictions and at that point the red flags go up.
Short of a mutiny by Defense Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff or Iran agreeing to suspend it’s uranium enrichment program it’s difficult to see how the Bush administration can walk away from this without its primary agenda in the Middle East the last eight years being in complete retreat.
From that hazy peak on Mt Spook, the word was thus spoken:
[quote]So you don’t think Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office because it would be unthinkably reckless and crazy?
Go ahead. Man up and go clearly on record with your thoughts on the subject so we can compare notes come January when the clock runs out.[/quote]
And lo, when the word was spoken, verily it was as nailing jello to the wall.
[quote]Here’s what I think:
Bush and Cheney have both stated unequivocably several times in the last year that they won’t allow Iran to go nuclear and that they believe Iran’s current uranium enrichment program is designed to produce nuclear weapons.
Consequently they’ve drawn a line in the sand which will be extremely difficult for them to back down from
They’ll interpret the SOFA as authorizing them to use Iraq’s airspace for an attack on Iran, though Iraq will dispute that interpretation. No matter though in the Bush administration’s eyes.
They’re also running the “diplomacy” clock out now so they can declare they did everything else possible before attacking Iran
The Bush administration is maneuvering behind the scenes to get a “reevaluation” of last November’s National Intelligence Estimate done which will reverse course and declare that Iran does, in fact, have an active nuclear weapons program and is therefore in violation of various and sundry bogus international restrictions and at that point the red flags go up.
Short of a mutiny by Defense Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff or Iran agreeing to suspend it’s uranium enrichment program it’s difficult to see how the Bush administration can walk away from this without its primary agenda in the Middle East the last eight years being in complete retreat.[/quote]
Verily it was said. And verily it was again as water. Ever changing and muddy with debris.
Neither point was made nor decision did come forth. And verily, obfuscation was again the word. And the word was nil.
And again, the oracle did recluse to the cave. Only utterances and abominations did come forth from its darkness. And all was as before.
Unfortunately (for Republican partisans) to maintain any level of credibility and consistency, they must embrace and call for impeachment. I will remain technically agnostic on the issue myself, but anybody who argued for the impeachment and trial of Clinton on the basis of lying to the Congress about a blowjob should unquestionably be even more ardent in their desire to see Bush impeached and tried for the charge of lying to Congress about about wmd, for just one example. Of course this doesn’t mean he’ll be convicted or even “indicted” (that’s what impeachment is after all). But those partisan Republicans oughta at least let the system work right?
PS
TainanCowboy
You’re welcome to take the animated bassett which is temporarily used as my avatar. I’m not copying your pic, but you mentioned you wanted an animated version, so here it is. Just copy my avatar and I’ll stop using it. I’ll stop using it tomorrow anyway.