A Win For Bush

[Guest Keith-Marshall]

He has finally hit the trifecta. listen to your phone calls, peek into your computers and now read your mail. What's next, trying on peoples clothes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and I'm sure that none of that would ever be used for political gain............

[Guest Guest]

I think Bush should order that all Defeatocrats have an I.D. chip inserted under their skin like we do with dogs, so we can track them at all times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That stupid, ASININE, anti-American, ChickenSH*T statement is no great surprise coming from a delusional, pissant, REMF ASS like YOU! You must've felt bad since your hero died in the bunker.

There's no need to track those like YOU, we KNOW you're just lying on the floor wimpering.

[Guest Guest]

I think Bush should order that all Defeatocrats have an I.D. chip inserted under their skin like we do with dogs, so we can track them at all times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No surprise that an idot like you would say that. I guess you favor a high-tech update of numbers tatooed on the wrist?

[Guest Loki]

and I'm sure that none of that would ever be used for political gain............

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You were, of course, equally outraged when Clinton harvested over 900 FBI files on Republicans right? It was, in his words, "a bureaucratic snafu", and yet not one democrat made his/her way into that dossier.

For further abuses of power that you probably SUPPORTED, read about Hillary's treatment of the Travel Office, I believe an unusually high number of those let go received IRS audits as "severance." And really, that was completely non partisan, she wanted to give her OWN people a job, I don't have a problem with that; just when you decide to defame people to achieve that end.

[Guest Guest]

You were, of course, equally outraged when Clinton harvested over 900 FBI files on Republicans right?  It was, in his words, "a bureaucratic snafu", and yet not one democrat made his/her way into that dossier.

For further abuses of power that you probably SUPPORTED, read about Hillary's treatment of the Travel Office, I believe an unusually high number of those let go received IRS audits as "severance."  And really, that was completely non partisan, she wanted to give her OWN people a job, I don't have a problem with that; just when you decide to defame people to achieve that end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, since you're so obviously intereted in abuses of power let's look at a few more, How about thinkig breaking and entering like a common stret hood being used as a campign tactic? Or probably one of your favorites, the treason of seling weapons to an enemy state?

[Guest Guest]

And the BushWhacking of America continues. I saw Condi Rice today telling a panel of senators that neither the president nor she consider the deployment of 20,000 more troops to be an escalation.

Different day, same old cowboy BULLSH*T!

[Guest Guest]

You were, of course, equally outraged when Clinton harvested over 900 FBI files on Republicans right?  It was, in his words, "a bureaucratic snafu", and yet not one democrat made his/her way into that dossier.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As long as you want to make it a bipartisan thing let's remember that no democratic president has ever been forced to resign the office either.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

You were, of course, equally outraged when Clinton harvested over 900 FBI files on Republicans right?  It was, in his words, "a bureaucratic snafu", and yet not one democrat made his/her way into that dossier.

For further abuses of power that you probably SUPPORTED, read about Hillary's treatment of the Travel Office, I believe an unusually high number of those let go received IRS audits as "severance."  And really, that was completely non partisan, she wanted to give her OWN people a job, I don't have a problem with that; just when you decide to defame people to achieve that end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your Damn right I was pissed which has been my point all along that blind faith in Govt. regardless of ruling party is naive. Fell better now? Did you think I was some huge Clinton fan just because I think that this job is over Bush's head?

[Guest Patriot]

No surprise that an idot like you would say that.  I guess you favor a high-tech update of numbers tatooed on the wrist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, they can be lasered off. I was thinking more like ankle braclets along with the I.D. chips.

[Guest Steve_C]

You were, of course, equally outraged when Clinton harvested over 900 FBI files on Republicans right?  It was, in his words, "a bureaucratic snafu", and yet not one democrat made his/her way into that dossier.

For further abuses of power that you probably SUPPORTED, read about Hillary's treatment of the Travel Office, I believe an unusually high number of those let go received IRS audits as "severance."  And really, that was completely non partisan, she wanted to give her OWN people a job, I don't have a problem with that; just when you decide to defame people to achieve that end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even with a Republican congress doing everything to bring them down there were no charges ever brought. It's alot of whining about nothing.

But we should over look of 3000 dead american soldiers?

Bush is a liar and now the most unpopular president in modern times. He's less popular than Nixon.

Hope he his miserable for the rest of his Lame Duck presidency. Republicans in congress aren't even supporting his "surge". If he wanted a "surge" he should of done it 4 years ago when it would of helped. But he ignored the generals and went in with a force that couldn't keep the peace.

I think the best analogy isn't to Vietnam but to Northern Ireland...

anyone know how long the british have been there for?

Imagine northern ireland is the size of california... that's how screwed the situation is there.

[Guest Guest]

You were, of course, equally outraged when Clinton harvested over 900 FBI files on Republicans right?  It was, in his words, "a bureaucratic snafu", and yet not one democrat made his/her way into that dossier.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And YOU of course were equally outraged that Clinton was impeached even though anyone who viewed his actions objectively, tacky and tasteless thought they were, were not impeachable offenses?

[Guest Steve_C]

No, they can be lasered off. I was thinking more like ankle braclets along with the I.D. chips.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As long as you get a swastizka branded on your forhead. I'd be ok with a chip.

Plus my smart science friends would figure out a way to disable it. Hackers are handy too.

[Guest BushBacker]

And YOU of course were equally outraged that Clinton was impeached even though anyone who viewed his actions objectively, tacky and tasteless thought they were, were not impeachable offenses?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lying under oath before the congress "tacky and tasteless" ??? LOL !! Is that a Loony Left spin or what.

[Guest Loki]

As long as you want to make it a bipartisan thing let's remember that no democratic president has ever been forced to resign the office either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, and that makes it okay? Please don't answer, I'm not sure I would ever be able to recover from laughter.

To be clear, I don't care which party you belong to, abuses of power should not be acceptable. Personally, I like to vote against ALL incumbents; the day they KNOW that their job is not secure, is the day they might be accountable to us. Just my opinion.

[Bryan]

And the BushWhacking of America continues.  I saw Condi Rice today telling a panel of senators that neither the president nor she consider the deployment of 20,000 more troops to be an escalation.

Different day, same old cowboy BULLSH*T!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Escalation:

(DOD) A deliberate or unpremeditated increase in scope or violence of a conflict.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/e/01924.html

Does an increase in troops automatically increase the scope or violence of the Iraq conflict?

One could call it an escalation* in the number of troops, certainly, but using the term as the opposition has chosen to do lends itself to a fallacy of equivocation.

To increase, enlarge, or intensify

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/escalation

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/four_fall.html

[Guest Guest]

Lying under oath before the congress "tacky and tasteless" ???  LOL !!  Is that a Loony Left spin or what.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's have some wanky right spin: Dubya is a leader

Har! Har! Har!

[Guest Guest]

Escalation:

(DOD) A deliberate or unpremeditated increase in scope or violence of a conflict.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/e/01924.html

Does an increase in troops automatically increase the scope or violence of the Iraq conflict?

One could call it an escalation* in the number of troops, certainly, but using the term as the opposition has chosen to do lends itself to a fallacy of equivocation.

To increase, enlarge, or intensify

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/escalation

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/four_fall.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aren't you dizzy from the spin or does loving BS make you immune?

[Guest Guest]

Lying under oath before the congress "tacky and tasteless" ???  LOL !!  Is that a Loony Left spin or what.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now I suppose you'll be willing to forgive the little cowboy MISleader his standing before Congress and LYING about Saddam having sought uranium in Africa because he did so without an oath?

Or the actor claiming he couldn't remember the treason of selling weapons to an enemy state?

I'm a lot less bothered by a lying adulterer than one who would lie to go to war or about commiting treason. And you? I'm guessing you'll just continue your hypocrisy.

[Guest Guest]

Escalation:

(DOD) A deliberate or unpremeditated increase in scope or violence of a conflict.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/e/01924.html

Does an increase in troops automatically increase the scope or violence of the Iraq conflict?

One could call it an escalation* in the number of troops, certainly, but using the term as the opposition has chosen to do lends itself to a fallacy of equivocation.

Sounds like a different cowboy channel, same cowboy BULLSH*T.

[Guest Guest]

Lying under oath before the congress "tacky and tasteless" ???  LOL !!  Is that a Loony Left spin or what.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So lying is socially acceptable when it's done to a national TV audience?

We Will Stay the Course!

Mission Accomplished!

And other LIES your cowboy told you..............................

[Guest BushBacker]

Even with a Republican congress doing everything to bring them down there were no charges ever brought. It's alot of whining about nothing.

But we should over look of 3000 dead american soldiers?

Bush is a liar and now the most unpopular president in modern times. He's less popular than Nixon.

Hope he his miserable for the rest of his Lame Duck presidency. Republicans in congress aren't even supporting his "surge". If he wanted a "surge" he should of done it 4 years ago when it would of helped. But he ignored the generals and went in with a force that couldn't keep the peace.

I think the best analogy isn't to Vietnam but to Northern Ireland...

anyone know how long the british have been there for?

Imagine northern ireland is the size of california... that's how screwed the situation is there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Steve_C u - t , I know you're an atheist, now I see you're also a cut & run defeatocrat. Just a regular all american boy, aren't you.

[Guest Patriot]

And the BushWhacking of America continues.  I saw Condi Rice today telling a panel of senators that neither the president nor she consider the deployment of 20,000 more troops to be an escalation.

Different day, same old cowboy BULLSH*T!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with Condi. 20,000 more troops will have a calming effect, a de-escalation.

Of course, if you're a defeatocrat, then you only want to turn tail, raise the white flag, cut & run, surrender, whimper like a little girl and hide under your bed.

[Guest Guest]

I agree with Condi.  20,000 more troops will have a calming effect, a de-escalation.

Of course, if you're a defeatocrat, then you only want to turn tail, raise the white flag,  cut & run, surrender, whimper like a little girl and hide under your bed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course in your delusional mind adding troops is a de-escalation. YOU also put forth a statement that unemployment is way down ubder Bush when it FACT it has increased. Maybe someday you'll learn up from down, right from left, and your *ss from a hole in the ground.

[Guest Guest]

I agree with Condi.  20,000 more troops will have a calming effect, a de-escalation.

Of course, if you're a defeatocrat, then you only want to turn tail, raise the white flag,  cut & run, surrender, whimper like a little girl and hide under your bed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ahhhh, as USUAL PatRat has no reasonable argument so resorts to meaningless sound bites.

Here's a clue for you PatRat: YOU are the cowering, wimpering coward who hides under your bed and cries "Please!, Tap my phone, open my mail, take ALL my personal liberties that people have fought for away. I'm scared!"

YOU are the one who is surrendering and you make anyone who actually cares about America want to puke. I guess we could spray you with EndDust and it would be clean beneath the bed, other than that you're a useless excuse for an American.

[God Save Us From Christians]

I agree with Condi.  20,000 more troops will have a calming effect, a de-escalation.

Of course, if you're a defeatocrat, then you only want to turn tail, raise the white flag,  cut & run, surrender, whimper like a little girl and hide under your bed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, the best course of action over there is to nuke the f**king Islamic devil worshipppers, right?

Isn't that what you want?

Make the world safe for Christians again?

Are Christians really that stupid? You must be doing Bible Math again. So much for home schooling I guess. Adding 20,000 troops will bring troop levels BACK UP TO WHERE IT WAS LAST JANUARY!

This is not a surge, this is suicide.

If we went in with 300,000 or more troops to begin with, it would have gone better.