Back on April 4 I wrote:
"The essence of compromise boils down to five words: "What's in it for me?"
So with Bush facing a congressional war-funding bill with deadlines attached--benchmarks that he himself mentioned earlier this year, and is now being asked to hew to--congress is hoping that he will compromise on withdrawal dates rather than veto the entire bill.
What's in it for him to do so?
Nothing."
And naturally he didn't compromise. Which, of course, the Democrats should have seen coming (I mean, if I saw it coming, they should have been able to) and one would hope that a Plan B was in effect.
Well, it's appearing...not so much.
Now it's the Democrats who need to stay the course. The Democrats who need to dig in and say, "This or nothing." Unfortunately, they don't appear ready, willing or able to do that. There is concern that they will be accused of refusing to fund the troops in time of war.
Well...yeah. Obviously that's going to be the spin. And the spin in response should be "Who's more concerned about the troops, the Democrats or the White House? Obviously it's the Democrats." Unfortunately for the Democrats, the GOP spin machine is simply more efficient, and Bush more intransigent, than the Democratic leadership. They haven't yet realized, apparently, that they're dealing with a mindset that's as uncompromising as any other extremist. You can't compromise with extremists. Bush understands that because that's what he himself is. The Democrats are approaching the issue with the mindset of rational people, which is why they're in trouble.
We can't announce a pull out date because we'd be giving information to our enemies? Well, maybe, but more relevant is that we'd be giving information to our supposed allies--the Iraqi government--telling them that the whole "they stand up so we can stand down" thing finally has a timeclock. By me, that's a good thing.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at May 2, 2007 09:19 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI really think that if youo gave Bush a PET scan ( and not for his Scottie...) you'd find the Black Hole of Calcutta.
Much speculation has been given as to whether or not he's back on the sauce....I think he never left.
Not to belabor the obvious, but every day that Bush refuses to pressure the Iraqi government to take care of itself is a day closer to him pushing this cluster-f of biblical proportions onto the next president, and forcing him/her to handle the mess while what's-his-name toddles off to Crawford.
What glorious leadership...
You know at some point, we as a nation are going to have to ask ourselves the following question: Just because the "decider" is determined to over the cliff, does that mean we have to go along with him?
oh, by the way Peter- some friends of mine are playing in the HudsonValley May Faire this weekend- check it out:
you may notice the gent on the front page - as well as a few NYRF expats.
Well, the Iraqi government has gone on a 2-month vacation, so obviously, they learned something about governing from Bush.
CHV, Bush's entire life has been all about creating a mess and then moving on, leaving it to someone else to clean up. Why anyone is surprised that his pattern as president was more of the same is beyond me.
Just because the "decider" is determined to over the cliff, does that mean we have to go along with him?
We are a Lemming Nation.
Or at least Bush assumes we are.
from the NYT:
The President called the bill a “prescription for chaos and confusion,” setting up a further battle with Congressional Democrats.
Isn't that what Iraq already is? The Iraqi government is hobbling the efforts of our troops even as we speak.
Bush is so concerned about his iamge for the public he appeared on American Idol of all things last night. Thanking people for their donations to last weeks show. I don't seem to remember him saying anything about donating himself. I just remember it unsettling seeing him when I was not wanting to....not that I ever want to.
Den:
You're such a negative nellie!
Don't you watch Fox News? Everything in Iraq is gonna be just fine, and our president's glorious legacy will shine thru! Just you wait!
We are a Lemming Nation.
Don't insult lemmings like that.
Wa;t Disney nade that stuff up. Of course, like so much of America believes Fox News, America believed Uncle Walt. We're a bunch of believers.
"They haven't yet realized, apparently, that they're dealing with a mindset that's as uncompromising as any other extremist. You can't compromise with extremists."
Isn't that part of the definition/M.O. of a terrorist? An extremist?
"Bush understands that because that's what he himself is."
Now we just need the rest of America to realize it...
The Dems need to stick with it and keep sending Bush the same bill again and again, they need to be as intractable as he is. For it is he that is running out of time in that case and when the army is out of money he'll have no chice.
As far as I care if the Dems give him what he wants then they have just turned themselves into a bunch of panzies and neither political party is worth a hill of beans at that point.
Pelosi et all need to get in front of the cameras and say "this is not a fight you are goig to win Mr. President." After all he can't congress controls the purse strings.
Flipping channels last night, I paused on one talking head commenting on how keeping funding front and center by forcing El Presidente to come back as long as funding isn’t passed served a dual purpose - one it kept the issue out there in front of the public and two it meant the public could begin to keep close track of those members of Congress who continue to support failed policies.
What baffles me more than anything regarding this funding bill dust-up is that the Dem-recommended pull-out dates are non-binding, yet Bush is acting like the opposite is so.
For all his crap about being a "uniter," with Bush The Cowboy, it's his way (no matter how absurd or brainless) or the highway.
If only Patrick Swayze were president...
Wa;t Disney nade that stuff up.
Oh, I know. But most people don't. :)
What is the difference between a benchmark (which Bush claims to want of the Iraqis, but apparently isn't that interested in getting) and a timeline?
It's also good to see Pelosi quoting Bush from '99 on Clinton going to Bosnia.
Craig, the difference is simply who gets decide what and when the benchmarks are. That's Bush's job. He's the decider, after all. No one else should be allowed to even suggest he do anything other than exactly what he wants. If they do, he'll hold his breath and cry until they give in.
Can't wait until we have an adult in the Oval Office again.
I'm convinced that Bush's hold-my-breath-until-I-turn-blue style of "leadership" springs from his delusion that the U.S. government is like a corporation, and the president the CEO with near-unlimited power (barring stockholders).
He seems to regard Congress as something to be tolerated versus a co-equal branch of government.
But then again, are any of us shocked that Bush apparently has never read the Constitution?
I think Bush has read the Constitution, he just thinks his version would be better....
What's scary is that Bush's "unity executive" version of the constitution seems to say that the president is a 4-year dictator with no limitations on his power.
Sadly, there are still many neocons who believe that this is a good idea.
"...or regards it as an optional list of suggestions."
War to line the pockets of fat cats? billions of dollars
Cost of President Bush to try to take credit for donations on American Idol? $0
Your comment CHV...priceless :)
Rob
Of course Bush vetoed the bill. He's Bush.
If I were the Democrats, I'd keep passing revised bills with timetables attached. If Bush keeps vetoed the bill (which he will, because he's Bush), it would really hurt the Republicans in '08. But then again, that's assuming the Democrats have competant leadership, which they don't. To paraphrase Jon Stewart: "Obama will save us! He has no experience and we know nothing about him, but he seems nice. Lead us!"
It's a very interesting place to be. I don't think the rhetoric about "deadlines for failure" is having any traction at all. I don't think the idea that Democrats don't support our troops is getting any support either. At long last, that dog don't hunt no more.
The consensus that this Administration screwed up Iraq and is too stubborn to admit reality YET AGAIN is trumping all the usual right wing tactics.
Bush has not only imploded his own legacy, but he is now dragging down those classic Republican political themes as he slides. I thought they still had some play in them, but he is ACTUALLY KILLING THEM with his lack of credibility.
The Democrats don't need to escalate. They need to fortify their existing position and keep this front burner for the next two years. How they do that while making it clear they are not skimping on protecting the existing troops in Iraq is the question, but I think the burden of proof that they support the troops is a light one.
The myth that Republicans care MORE for the troops (Walter Reed, "the army you have", unending National Guard deployments, lack of pre-war planning, etc.) has been totally BUSTED.
As much as I dislike Bush and the Republicans, I do have to give them credit. When they want something (or don't want something), they dig in and fight. It may be the worst idea ever, but they go to the wall for it.
The Democrats currently have the house, senate, and public opinion behind them, yet it still looks like they might back down.
If this is the best they can do, they don't deserve to govern.
As much as I dislike Bush and the Republicans, I do have to give them credit. When they want something (or don't want something), they dig in and fight. It may be the worst idea ever, but they go to the wall for it.
Consider Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg.
Sure, Lee dug in hard for his beliefs, but in the process he sent his troops face-first into a slaughter of Union gunfire camped on Cemetary Hill.
Tell me, was this fighting leadership or just stupidity?
Tell me, was this fighting leadership or just stupidity?
I'm not saying that stupid things haven't been done, not at all. However, people do gravitate to strong leadership (or at least the appearance of it). This is the democrats chance to show they have a will, and won't crumble in the face of Bush's "leadership".
The democrats are probably in the strongest political position they'll be in under Bush. House, Senate, and public support for a timetable. If they don't stand up now and say "We're going to have a timetable, if you veto 10 times we're going to send 11 bills", what's the point?
The democrats can have the best ideas ever, but if they don't stand up for them, they might as well have done nothing.
Agreed.
The Dems are playing politics with this matter, although I would argue the White House is flogging their own dead horse even more furiously.
"Unfortunately for the Democrats, the GOP spin machine is simply more efficient..."
Okay, now I'm sure I love in the mirror universe.
Tell me, was this fighting leadership or just stupidity?
If he wins, it's leadership; if he loses, it's stupidity. :p
I agree with Kevin. The Democrats, the Left, the Humanists, they all started to lose the war for American's hearts and minds because they currently don't have as much conviction in their own beliefs as the Republicans, the Right, the Religious Crusaders. And it's sad.
Unfortunately, even the disaster that is the Iraq War may not be enough to bury the Republicans. According to the polls, people are sick and tired of the Republicans and Bush, but that isn't translating directly into support for the Democrats and their ideals.
You're got the beliefs part right, Rene.
I mean, seriously, how do you compete with the types of people who 100% believe that the Dems are overstepping their authority with the bill Bush just vetoed?
All the while ignoring Bush's constant abuses of power and opinion that the judicial and legislative branches should be submissive to the executive?
I'm of the belief that I'm not living on the same plane of reality as those like Bush and his little cult of followers.
"But slowly but surely, the truth will be known. Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence."
Can we make the President stay after class so he can catch up on his remedial logic and 3rd grade grammar?
oy. frikkin. veyzmir.
>Democrats should have seen coming (I mean, if I saw it coming, they should have been able to)
You forget one little detail, Mr. David. You're intelligent. They're politicians. 'nuff said.
>It may be the worst idea ever, but they go to the wall for it.
Good timing. Just today I saw a joke which went something along the lines of ...
American, British and Australian military officers were arguing over who had the bravest troops.
The American orders one of his privates to stand in front of a tank and let himself get run over. *squish*. "That's brave!" he proudly exclaims.
The Brit orders one of his men to jump out of a plane at 10,000 feet without a chute. *splat*. "Now THAT'S brave!" he crows.
The Australian officer just motions one of his soldiers to come over then orders him to jump off a thousand-foot cliff.
The soldier replies "Screw that" and walks away.
The Aussie officer turns to the other two and just smiles, his point well made.
I'm of the belief that I'm not living on the same plane of reality as those like Bush and his little cult of followers.
When I saw that the bushites believed that Wikipedia was "too liberal" (ie, it treated evolution and global warming as SCIENCE) and created their own version called "conservapedia", I realized that they're living in the Bizarro World.
Seriously, when one of them said they were creating their own reality, that wasn't a snarky remark. They really believe that they can do it.
I dunno if the Aussie soldier is the bravest in that joke, but he is the smartest...
I wrote about this at some length in a diary at DailyKos. Here's my thinking.
Bush could have used a signing statement to state that the withdrawal timetable in the appropriations bill was "merely advisory" and not consistent with "his inherent Commander-in-Chief powers vested in the unitary executive." (Read one of his signing statements some time. Yes, he really uses words like that.)
He couldn't do it to this bill, though. Not after very publicly blasting the bill for tying his hands the past six weeks or so.
But eventually, he's going to have to sign a bill. If he lays off the "Congress can't do that" line, he can sign a bill somewhere before July and look like a rational compromiser while quietly adding his signing statement signifying that he's not, no way and no how, going to comply with the withdrawal timetable. Indeed, he'll probably just lie about the contents of the bill and pretend there's no timetable at all.
He won't get the bill he wants. He'll just say it's the bill he wants and dare the Congress to try and force the issue in the courts.
It's running out the clock. That's the endgame.
I realized that they're living in the Bizarro World.
Ahh, the power of shared delusions.
I bet if Bush ever admitted he's really screwed everything up, the resulting Republican cliff jump would make Jonestown look like an afternoon picnic.
Unfortunately, even the disaster that is the Iraq War may not be enough to bury the Republicans. According to the polls, people are sick and tired of the Republicans and Bush, but that isn't translating directly into support for the Democrats and their ideals.
If the Democrats back down and give Bush a bill without a timetable, people are going to ask, rightly, "Well if you can't stop this bastard from keeping us in Iraq indefinitely and you don't even put any effort into fighting him on it, then what good are you? Explain why we even bothered voting in November if this is the best you can do."
And naturally he didn't compromise. Which, of course, the Democrats should have seen coming (I mean, if I saw it coming, they should have been able to) and one would hope that a Plan B was in effect.
Right. I mean, what, did they think he was just blowing smoke when he said over and over and over that he was going to veto the bill?
If they say "All right, if you don't agree to our terms, you don't get any more money," there is absolutely no way that it will cost them seats in '08 because the Republicans will still be hated more. Don't they realize this? Don't they also realize that if they give Bush the bill he wants, that the blood will be on their hands as well? Goddammit.
"The Democrats are approaching the issue with the mindset of rational people, which is why they're in trouble."
Rational?
Would that be Harry Reid, who declares that the "war is lost" while the troops are still fighting? (*There* is a morale booster, yeah boy... for the enemy.)
Or Nancy Pelosi? Who ignores the requests of the White House to go make nicey-nice with Syria?
The war is a mess. It could have been done much better. But whatever you believe, the fact is we *are* there. Is it so wrong to want to win?
Do a majority of Americans want out? Sure. I get that. But I think even worse, Americans hate to lose.
Let the troops fight. Let the surge take place. Let it work. Let if fail. But don't apply an exit date to the war. You want to apply levels of accomplishment, and see if we've reached them? Fine. But letting the bad guys know when we're leaving, so they know when to prepare to strike after we've left?
Yeah. That's rational.
RLR
Would that be Harry Reid, who declares that the "war is lost" while the troops are still fighting?
The war is lost in that they can keep on fighting and pouring the lives of U.S. troops into this thing as long as they want and it will be FUTILE. It's bailing water out of the Titanic. There's been a U.S. presence there for over four years now and the country still isn't secure. If they can't fix the problems in four years, it just can't be done. Best to tell the Iraqi government "Hey guys, we're outta here in another year, so you have that long to get your shit together because by then you're gonna be on your own."
Or Nancy Pelosi? Who ignores the requests of the White House to go make nicey-nice with Syria?
Yeah, I suppose it's better to piss Syria off by shunning them like Bush insists on doing with Iran. That'll make them less likely to attack U.S. forces, won't it?
The war is a mess. It could have been done much better. But whatever you believe, the fact is we *are* there. Is it so wrong to want to win?
No, but it's unrealistic to expect you can win after you've been hammering away at the problem for four straight years with little or nothing to show for it. How do you think keeping American troops there will ultimately STOP suicide bombings? What's the plan? How do you just get rid of everybody who feels like blowing himself up in the name of his cause, hmm? I'd like to know. I don't think it can be done without conquering the entire region and imposing martial law, which is impossible.
Btw, speaking of killing morale, extending soldiers' tours by an additional three months hurts morale. So does sending them back into the fray early after promising them some time at home with their loved ones. Ain't Reid or Pelosi doing that shit, pal.
Do a majority of Americans want out? Sure. I get that. But I think even worse, Americans hate to lose.
Which is why they have reason to hate Bush for getting them into a fight they couldn't win and for refusing to get them out of it. Losing doesn't look good, but a guy who says "Wait, no, that doesn't count, we haven't lost, the game isn't over, we can still win!" when the facts say the exact opposite...that's just sad.
Fine. But letting the bad guys know when we're leaving, so they know when to prepare to strike after we've left?
*sigh* Look...we have been there for a LONG time, all right? The administration said over and over that the Iraqi people would eventually stand up, and at the point the American forces would stand down. But the Iraqis are taking their sweet time standing up.
So what are you saying...that it doesn't matter to you if they never stand up? That you want to keep American troops there, dying a dozen or more at a time over weeks and months and years because it's somehow the end of the world if they leave? Keep wasting lives and money and resources on maintaing what is at best an endless stalemate?
You ask people, you and John McCain, to wait and give this thing a chance. I say that we've waited long enough. I say that if this surge is gonna solve all the problems in Iraq, then why wasn't it implemented last year, or the year before that? Back then people might've had a little more patience left.
Screw waiting longer. It's time to cut our losses. Unless you believe the U.S. can maintain current troop levels from now until the end of time, we are only delaying the inevitable by staying. If we can't even make Israel safe from terrorist attacks, you can be damn sure we can't make Iraq safe.
Or Nancy Pelosi? Who ignores the requests of the White House to go make nicey-nice with Syria?
You mean the bipartisan trip that the White House knew about in advance, but raised absolutely no objections to until Fox News and other rightwing media outlets starting making hay out of it? The one that followed almost immediately after a group of republicans congress critters made a similar trip to Syria?
Try to get some facts first, please.
Oh, and how come no one screamed "treason" when then-speaker Dennis Hastert went to China and told the Chinese government to ignore the Clinton administration and just deal with Congress?
Is it so wrong to want to win?
Can I ask a simple question? What over the last six years has lead you to believe that this administration is even capable of winning a game of checkers must less this war? What makes you think in the remaining 20 months that Bush will suddenly discover the competence that has eluded him for the past six years, if not his entire life?
The war is a mess. It could have been done much better. But whatever you believe, the fact is we *are* there. Is it so wrong to want to win?
My understanding is that people who want to win are the benefactors of conmen. How many widows of a Nigerian general have to cheat you before you know not to give out your account access for the sake of winning?
Do a majority of Americans want out? Sure. I get that. But I think even worse, Americans hate to lose.
Not severely enough to join the fight themselves -- or even call for a tax increase to pay for the war. Posting this from Iraq yourself, are you?
> (*There* is a morale booster, yeah boy... for the enemy.)
Newsflash, the military is already demoralized, they are in a meat grinder and their mental states are being destroyed. It's called fighting a war that they know can't be won. There was a report drifting around yesterday that even our political people stationed over there are starting to suffer from PTSS and are being mentally screened. While a repub appointed political may get relief by not being sent back over there for mental reasons, very few soldiers are being allowed that opportunity.
And let me echo what several other people are saying, you are posting from Iraq correct? Or are you a pampered Repub sitting in your lazyboy without any family standing in harms way?
>Or Nancy Pelosi? Who ignores the requests of the White House to go make nicey-nice with Syria?
Such a non issue or did you forget that Condi is headed over there? Or a Repub visited a few months before Pelosi?
>Is it so wrong to want to win?
Is it right to kill people for a lie? This stupidity wasn't winnable from day one, no political war is or have you forgotten Korea and Vietnam?
> But I think even worse, Americans hate to lose.
Wah! I would rather get my neighbors children slaughtered while I sit in my lazyboy than face reality.
>Let the troops fight. Let the surge take place. Let it work. Let if fail.
Let more troops die, die, die! For what? Lies!
>But letting the bad guys know when we're leaving, so they know when to prepare to strike after we've left?
Newsflash, the latest plot if there actually was one was defeated in Saudi Arabia! You seem to be fighting a war several hundred miles off course from the real terrorists.
I support our troops, get them the hell out of harms way and back to their family!
>Yeah. That's rational.RLR
We'll be hearing you enlisted shortly right?
There is really something wrong with the Democratic majority in Congress's ability to point out what is obvious. 1. They sent the President a bill which gave full funding for the military, but he vetoed it: Who was it who denied the funding the President says is so important? 2. Anyone should know that our troops are more likely to be killed if they are deployed to combat than if they are not. The Democrats want to get the troops out of continuous combat as soon as possible, while the President will stick his lip out at us if he is denied his glorious war. Who is "supporting the troops" here? It's very sad that Congressional Democrats cannot better call Mr. Bush on his incoherent policies.
Den -
"As you know, my position is clear – I’m the commander guy."
It's pretty obvious at this point that Bush clearly sees himself as the dictator guy.
hitman -
Or a Repub visited a few months before Pelosi?
Or a Repub visited THE DAY AFTER Pelosi.
It's pretty obvious at this point that Bush clearly sees himself as the dictator guy.
Now that sounds like Tony Stark's new identity.
Anyone else get a mental of Bush running around the White House with a towel tied around his neck yelling, "Whoooosh!! I'm the Commandy Guy, here to save the day!"?
No?
Just me?
Oh well.
You know what irritates me that most about Bush?
The way that he gets all giggly when he talks about being a "war president" or how he understand why people don't understand that the surge is working (BTW, Sen. Boner's 90-day window for seeing signs of success from the surge expired already) or how this war is so important.
It aggravates me to no end that it's obvious this man doesn't take his job seriously.
"There is really something wrong with the Democratic majority in Congress's ability to point out what is obvious. 1. They sent the President a bill which gave full funding for the military, but he vetoed it: Who was it who denied the funding the President says is so important?"
EXACTLY!!!!
THe president had the funding he claims to so desperately need, and to get it all he had to do was sign the bill.
But he let a NON-BINDING "pull-out" date be his excuse to veto it. Bush has proven that he doesn't give a rats ass about the troops. This bill gave him the funding he wants and places no real limits on it, but a totally toothless bit of wordy fluff in it caused him to veto it and "Deny the troops the money they need".
Congress didn't deny the troops the moeny, Bush did.
Bush is a fanatic, Bush is a terrorist. He had what he wanted but didn't like the way it was worded, so he rejected it. Mental illness/defect at it purest form...
>I dunno if the Aussie soldier is the bravest in that joke, but he is the smartest...
Getting killed in battle (or otherwise) doesn't take half the guts that standing up to your superior officer does. Everything they train into you is [generally] designed to ensure the latter never happens.
Would that be Harry Reid, who declares that the "war is lost" while the troops are still fighting? (*There* is a morale booster, yeah boy... for the enemy.)
Senator Webb has the right approach. In his speech on the fourth anniversary of Mission Accomplished he said, "We won this war four years ago. The question is when we end the occupation." He's right. The war--the reasons that were given for it--was won four years ago. We toppled Saddam Hussein's regime. The Iraqis are no longer developing weapons of mass-destruction (though they weren't developing them a few years prior to the war, either). Now we're in an occupation phase, and it's an occupation we have to end. And in the liguistic morphology of the Bush Administration the occupation became the war itself. We've lost the occupation. That's what Harry Reid is saying when he says "the war is lost." We can't win an occupation. We're not going to win an occupation.
Right now American troops are an irritant in Iraq. The Iraqis are shooting at us because we make a convenient target for their anger. Remove the irritant, and Iraq can begin to heal itself.
"The war is a mess. It could have been done much better. But whatever you believe, the fact is we *are* there. Is it so wrong to want to win?"
There's nothing wrong with wanting to win. If our victory is measured in Iraqi and American casualties though, what's the point of even playing?
This war isn't making our lives any safer. It's not stomping out terrorism, it's not defending our borders. We're fighting someone else's war.
If the insurgents are doing so well causing chaos now with 110k+ American troops on their soil, they're going to bring trouble back to the streets the minute we 'win' this damned war and leave. The Iraqi government will never be powerful enough to keep things in check. These two forces combined can't do it. How on Earth would one?
That country is damned if we win or lose. The best we can do now is cut the losses for both we, the invaders and they, the natives.
"Such a non issue or did you forget that Condi is headed over there?"
She is? Why? I wouldn't want to send someone who's JOB it is to go and visit other countries. I'd much rather have the Speaker Of The House.
But, everyone else is right. The war is lost. Bush Lied (tm), Saddam really didn't have WMDs [it was voodoo he used!], and the only real enemy in Iraq is America, because America is an evil country, and the infidels should leave.
Global warming is also America's fault. If only we would all just do what Al Gore says [but not does], all the ice caps would stay intact [on Earth AND Mars], and the Sun wouldn't be so hot.
Honest to heaven above, I hope beyond hope that the Dems take the White House in '08.
I know I'll feel safer.
RLR
because America is an evil country
Blah blah blah. Why is that you bushapologists can never understand the difference between thinking America is evil and disagreeing with the current administration's policies?
You seem to have no problem with the concept when a democrat is in office.
Please name one person on this blog who said America is an evil country or that global warming was all America's fault. Be specific.
If you want to discuss a different POV, that's fine, but if you just came here to beat up on a strawman, then don't bother.
Fun for everyone, thanks to MADtv: Introducing the Apple iRack!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw2nkoGLhrE&mode=related&search=
Robert Rhodes -
I'd much rather have the Speaker Of The House.
Thursday, April 5th:
DAMASCUS (Reuters) - President Bashar al-Assad met a Republican member of the U.S. Congress on Thursday, a day after Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ended a visit to Syria that was criticized by the White House.
The official news agency said the meeting between Assad and Darrell Issa, a member of the House Committee on Intelligence, discussed ways to improve relations between Washington and Damascus."
Keep it up, Mr. Hypocrite. You're certainly making a great case for yourself.
>She is? Why? I wouldn't want to send someone who's JOB it is to go and visit other countries.
Yah, lets send Bush's mistress over there, I have such faith in her abilities, NOT! Her office is a disaster and she can't seem to quit calling ol' Shrub her "husband". Sort of like the World Bank.. What is it with these repubs and their out of marriage affairs?
>But, everyone else is right. The war is lost. Bush Lied (tm), Saddam really didn't have WMDs [it was voodoo he used!], and the only real enemy in Iraq is America, because America is an evil country, and the infidels should leave.
Another question why is it when the Repub has no facts left to stand on they pull the equivalent of a 5 year old hissy fit by spewing and stomping their feet? I hear Shrub was waving his fists in the air and stomping when some of his Texas friends came to visit and he was upset because no one was listening to him.
I'll feel far safer with a Dem in the White House who hasn't the mental maturity of a 5 year old.
The "decider" has decided repeatedly that his own cause was lost. How so? He keeps changing the standard of success.
Bush's RETREATING goals include (please fill in anything I skip): Removing Saddam's WMDs. Um, regime change (which can only be achieved when a new regime can run the country). Um, defeating the insurgency. Um, a stable region. Um, a stable Iraq. And now, um, an Iraq that is only somewhat deadly...
None of this can be laid at any Democrat's feet. This is purely the Bush Administration's doing. The "decider" has made the decisions that led us to this point.
The Dems are simply stating the obvious, as every soldier in Iraq already knows.
"Is it so wrong to want to win?"
First off, I'm not trying to start a flame war. But I have to ask, win WHAT? How will we know if we've won? What are the parameters for victory?
First off, I'm not trying to start a flame war. But I have to ask, win WHAT? How will we know if we've won? What are the parameters for victory?
I think he believes that "winning" is when Iraq becomes stable and no longer suffers any more terrorist attacks or threats from other nations in the region.
"Losing," of course, is leaving Iraq the way it is.
RLR may feel ganged up on and, having once wasted my time arguing on a message board with a gaggle of pro-war right-wingers, I know how he might feel. Thus the sarcasm.
Here's the thing, RLR. I hope you don't sincerely believe that Bush has made no mistakes whatsoever and it's all on the Dems. Those of us here sure aren't apologists for the Democratic Party who never express dissatisfaction with them. PAD sure isn't, as you can see in the "Democrats earn points for snarkiness" post. Me, I don't see why Al Gore needs to live in such a large house, and if it uses more electricity than a normal house, generated by forms of power that aren't environmentally friendly, then that isn't exactly leading by example, I agree.
I'd like you ask yourself, though...how much of this desire to "win" in Iraq comes from concern over the fate of the Iraqi people and how much of it comes from an ingrained fear of losing and the shame associated with losing.
Losing is part of life. Nobody bats 1.000. No basketball team ever goes 82-0 and effortlessly dominates everybody in the playoffs to win a championship. Sometimes America, like individual people, will lose. That's not defeatism. That's reality. The question here is how you cope with it when it happens, whether it's you getting beaten by somebody else in a game or your country not achieving its objectives.
Just hypothetically, if it could be established beyond any doubt that pulling troops out of Iraq would be best for all concerned, would you be in favor of it? Or would you still be against it regardless of what results it brought because you have such an aversion to losing?
Robert, I couldn't help noticing from the site you link to that you are still a proud Bush-supporter. I was wondering if you could name a virtue of his presidency that earns him a break from reasonable people for the record-breaking borrowing and spending and for an arbitrary invasion that accomplished no benefit to the US that wouldn't have taken place if UN inspections had been allowed to continue.
I also couldn't help noticing that almost every single link on your site opens a new browser window. Doesn't it bother you to have the use of the back button denied you even for pages within the same site?
I just read this and while it is not what I would consider the ideal outcome, I think I could live with it:
"In a closed-door leadership meeting Thursday, Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., suggested that the House guarantee funding of the war only through July. The bill would provide additional money for operations after that point but give Congress a chance to deny those funds be used if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks."
Where to start... ok...
"Why is that you bushapologists can never understand the difference between thinking America is evil and disagreeing with the current administration's policies?"
If I said I was a "bushapologist," let me be clear: I'm not.
Yes, I think Bush has done some good. That alone tends to get large words with unkind meaning thrown my way when I say it in public. Bush isn't popular, and I tend to get an earful when I say anything positive.
But I have serious issues with Bush and his lack of securing the borders, and trying to push amnesty, and spending, and and and...
"Keep it up, Mr. Hypocrite. You're certainly making a great case for yourself."
That a Republican went to Syria a day after Pelosi? That's not the point I was trying to make. The point is that Pelosi went when the White House asked her not too. Could it be that the White House had a plan to talk with Syria? I don't know. But I think it was arrogant of Ms. Pelosi to think that she could do a better job by herself than the White House could. Don't cry to me about the partisanship of the RNC, when Pelosi and Reid start trying to run the country against the President's wishes. And hate Bush all you like, he's the Commander In Chief. He deserves the respect of the office. That's what cheesed me off about Clinton: I couldn't care less if he's screwing every woman that walked by him... but when it takes place in the oval office, that's disrespecting the office you serve in.
"..why is it when the Repub has no facts left to stand on they pull the equivalent of a 5 year old hissy fit by spewing and stomping their feet?"
That's absolutely not true.
I hold my breath instead. Besides, my feet hurt.
"How will we know if we've won?"
True. I was vague on that. Here is my definition of winning: Stay long enough to give the Iraqi government a chance to succeed. Another couple of years? No. I agree that they are being wishy washy over there, and wasting time. They need to step it up now, while we're still there to help and train. I'd like to see the troops coming home by October. But I'd like it to be either because Iraq is ready to hold their own, or they've failed to meet their obligation. I don't want it because it was listed on the time table on some funding bill.
"I hope you don't sincerely believe that Bush has made no mistakes whatsoever and it's all on the Dems."
Nope, I don't believe that at all. And I try not to lump all Dems and Libs in the same boat. I'm a conservative first, and a Republican second, and I see plenty of Republicans doing stupid stuff that should get them replaced during their next election.
But I also see Pelosi and Reid - the "voices" of the Democratic party - doing and saying stupid stuff. They need to represent their party, and they need to do a better job of it. What did Reid say the other day? Something about shoving the funding bill down the president's throat? *That* sounds childish to me. Will he be stomping his feet soon?
"...how much of this desire to "win" in Iraq comes from concern over the fate of the Iraqi people and how much of it comes from an ingrained fear of losing and the shame associated with losing."
Much of it, for me, comes from the concern over the fate of the Iraqi people. I sincerely believe that they want to change. And I see great strides in that country over the last few years to make that change happen. I also believe that if we leave before they're ready for us to go, that the masses from other countries will come down on Iraqi citizens like a pile of bricks on water balloons. I pray I'm all kinds of wrong about that... but fear that I'm also right.
The shame of losing wouldn't be mine to bear. It would be that of the soldier that wanted to stay and fight. Are there a number boys and girls that are fed up and ready to come home? Yeah, I'll bet there are several. But having spoken to some of those soldiers myself.. and having read the military bloggers.. and having read the blogs from the families of the soldiers... I think there are a great deal more military that want to stay and fight and "finish the job," than want to just pack it up and bug out.
If it could be proven that pulling out of Iraq is best, then I'm all for it. But as with all conflicts, there are no guarantees. We could pull out tomorrow, and Iraq would succeed.. or not.. or pull out when the Iraqi government feels we should leave, and they fail immediately. All I want is for them to have the best possible chance that we can give them. If not us, who?
"...an arbitrary invasion that accomplished no benefit to the US that wouldn't have taken place if UN inspections had been allowed to continue."
I believe much has been to the benefit of America and Iraq. But if you don't believe that, or believe that we should have just left Saddam in power, then no amount of debate on my part will make any difference in my attempt to argue that point.
Are benchmarks the answer? I think so. That's my personal belief. I just don't believe in dates set in stone.
"Robert, I couldn't help noticing from the site you link to that you are still a proud Bush-supporter."
Is there a more difficult job than that of the President during a time of war? When he's not even popular? I wouldn't want that job. So, yes, I'm still a proud supporter of a man who is making unpopular and difficult decisions.
Besides.. I own the site that I link too. If under the roof of free speech, Rosie O can spout 9/11 conspiracy theories, then I should at least be allowed to support an unpopular President Bush.
"I also couldn't help noticing that almost every single link on your site opens a new browser window. Doesn't it bother you to have the use of the back button denied you even for pages within the same site?"
Fair enough. Problem fixed.
Thanks for the debate folks... this has been nifty... but I'm plum tuckered out. :)
RLR
Hmm. Worth thinking about. The only thing I can really come up with a response to at the moment is the following...
But I also see Pelosi and Reid - the "voices" of the Democratic party - doing and saying stupid stuff. They need to represent their party, and they need to do a better job of it. What did Reid say the other day? Something about shoving the funding bill down the president's throat? *That* sounds childish to me. Will he be stomping his feet soon?
To that, I'd say that relations between the two parties were pretty bad long before Reid became an important player. Think back to 2004, with Zell Miller's contemptuous speech, with Dick Cheney telling voters that America would be attacked again unless they voted for Bush, with the Swift Boating of John Kerry. A seemingly endless stream of attack ads and mockery and contempt coming from the Bush/Cheney ticket, directed at Kerry/Edwards.
Then there is today. Bush and others in his party are calling Democrats cowards...troop-haters...saying that they want to "surrender"..."cut and run"...and believe it or not, Rudy Giuliani is repeating the bullshit about how America will be attacked again if a Democratic candidate gets elected. Should any of this be acceptable?
The Democrats have taken plenty of abuse from the other side, and if Reid feels like dishing a little bit of abuse out in response then I for one am not going to think less of him for it. Bush belittles Reid and his party at every opportunity. If anything, I want to see the Dems fight back harder.
Here is my definition of winning: Stay long enough to give the Iraqi government a chance to succeed. Another couple of years? No. I agree that they are being wishy washy over there, and wasting time. They need to step it up now, while we're still there to help and train.
Well, the spending bill Bush just vetoed allowed the Iraqis 17 months, now, didn't it?
I was wondering if you could name a virtue of his presidency that earns him a break from reasonable people for the record-breaking borrowing and spending and for an arbitrary invasion that accomplished no benefit to the US that wouldn't have taken place if UN inspections had been allowed to continue.I believe much has been to the benefit of America and Iraq. But if you don't believe that, or believe that we should have just left Saddam in power, then no amount of debate on my part will make any difference in my attempt to argue that point.
Robert, if you can't name a virtue of Bush's presidency that earns him a break for the record-breaking borrowing and spending and the arbitrary invasion that has made the US no safer -- what makes you think your word alone is enough to convince anyone he deserves that break?
You say you're a conservative first and a republican second. What conservative virtue has Bush sheltered during his presidency? Committing $1.2 trillion to Medicare spending? An arbitrary invasion of a country that was no threat to anyone within American shores? What effort on the part of the Bush administration has been dedicated to any definition of the word "conserve?"
"First off, I'm not trying to start a flame war. But I have to ask, win WHAT?"
A new CAR!
(Sorry; that'll teach me to work with "The Price is Right" on in the background.)
PAD
The point is that Pelosi went when the White House asked her not too.
And yet you have NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of criticizing Republicans who also went to Syria, none of whom I recall getting a hall pass from the White House.
So, I ask again, Mr. Hypocrite, why do Republicans get a free pass on this when Pelosi does not?
When you can answer me that, then I can take you seriously. Until then, you desperately read like just another Bush apologist.
he's the Commander In Chief.
So he has told us. Over, and over, and over.
I should add: why the @#$% are they bashing Pelosi for visiting Syria when the White House had said they wanted a dialogue with Syria and Iran, a dialogue that they themselves took their sweet ass time (as in, until yesterday) in initiating?
"The point is that Pelosi went when the White House asked her not too."
What was that point, again? Bush isn't Pelosi's boss. Last I checked, the branches of the government are supposed to be somewhat equal. And while the President traditionally handles all foreign affairs, his only authority is to make treaties and appoint ambassadors. Congress just asked the President to sign a funding bill to continue his little wargame in Iraq...and he decided not to sign it. Seems to me the government's functioning exactly the way it's supposed to...as co-equal parts of the whole.
I fail to see why the "liberal media" keeps asking what the DEM's are going to do next. They don't have to do ANYTHING. Once the current money runs out, Bush's war will come to an end anyway.
If I said I was a "bushapologist," let me be clear: I'm not.
So you say, yet you've clearly mastered all of the proper Hannitized talking points as well as the art of throwing out non sequitors and strawmen to cover up the fact that you have failed to address a single one of the points I've raised.
So, I ask again, Mr. Hypocrite, why do Republicans get a free pass on this when Pelosi does not?
Better question: Why did none of these same people criticize Dennis Hastert when he not only went to China, but told the Chinese government to ignore the Clinton White House. Pelosi never did anything like that.
Congress critters make foreign trips every year, including those in leadership positions. They meet with foreign officials every year. To single this one trip out, especially given that the White House did not raise a single objection when first announced her bi-partisan trip to them and only made a big deal about it once the rightwing media noise machine decided to make it an issue.
Regarding Pelosi, the Bushies are just upset that someone might upset their war party and go over there and get this mess resolved.
I don't know who listens to NPR on the weekends, but for those who don't here's a short recap of "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me".
Apparently Bush is not the "Decider in Chief". After rejecting the Senate bill, he dubbed himself the "Commander Guy."
One of the panelists opined that the current administration is being scripted by Stan Lee. Exposure to some gamma rays and VOILA, he's Commander Guy!
Posted by dan at May 5, 2007 01:21 PM
Regarding Pelosi, the Bushies are just upset that someone might upset their war party and go over there and get this mess resolved.
Oh Yeah.. I bet Israel will really love that. Maybe she can go to Iran next and tell Ahmadinejad
that Israel is ready to talk...
Been a while but I'm finally ready to write responses to the rest of RLR's comment.
Yes, I think Bush has done some good.
Blind squirrel, acorn, every once in a while. Stopped clock, right twice a day. All of those expressions.
That alone tends to get large words with unkind meaning thrown my way when I say it in public.
A lot of people really hate the guy and get fired up when somebody defends his actions. Still, I don't think you deserve to be insulted for your beliefs, unless you go and say derogatory things about people who oppose Bush like Pelosi, Reid, Gore, etc. So I'm sorry about that.
Could it be that the White House had a plan to talk with Syria?
They have, if I'm not mistaken, made it pretty clear that they refuse to speak with regimes who are doing things they don't like. For instance, Bush refused to talk with Iran. Where is the harm in just sitting down and talking with them? What is there to lose? By agreeing to talk, you aren't agreeing to make concessions. You aren't agreeing to go into appeasement mode. You are just saying "let's sit down together and see if we can come to some kind of arrangement instead of continuing to be opponents."
RLR, most of the world does not look at the U.S. with very much fondness. I believe somebody has to change that. Somebody has to show the rest of the world that not everybody in the U.S. government subscribes to this notion of "You're either with us or against us. It's our way or the highway. Compromise is not unacceptable; you have to do what we say because we're the world's last remaining superpower." If Pelosi and those others who went with her, including some Republicans as has previously been pointed out, are able to send that message and work toward restoring the goodwill that has been lost as a result of Bush's arrogance toward everybody who does not go along with him, then I say it's worthwhile.
...But if you don't believe that, or believe that we should have just left Saddam in power...
Here's how I feel about leaving Saddam in power, man. As bad as he was, he was not the only one of his kind. There are many people in charge of nations who treat those under their rule like dirt. Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, for example. Also, Kim Jong-Il. Many more. They are all over the place.
Is it possible to replace them all with kind and gentle and compassionate rulers who can transform these hellholes into utopias? It's a worthy goal, I don't dispute that. I just don't think it can be done. That's not defeatism, it's realism, it's knowing the limitations of the armed forces of the United States.
Plus, if you insist on effecting regime change, then you should go after the worst of the worst, which Saddam was not. As it is now, the U.S. is too bogged down in Iraq to effectively address problems elsewhere. That's no good.
Finally, whether it's because it was impossible from the start to make Iraq better or because the people who tried to do it fucked it up colossally, things are actually *worse* than they were under Saddam if we gauge how good things are by how many people die per year. More people are dying in this chaos than did under Saddam. Dictators may be capable of horrible brutality, but at least they maintain order.
So the question here is, what is the lesser of the two evils? Leaving Saddam in power and allowing him to kill and torture whoever he wished? Or removing him but destabilizing the country in the process and sparking a civil war...or perhaps what can more accurately be called a whole shitload of angry Shi'ites exacting revenge for their persecution by Saddam's regime on the Sunnis who were favored by Saddam, and Sunni terrorist groups not liking this and sneaking into Iraq to fight the Shi'ites, and regimes like Iran not liking *that* and sending their own guys in to fight the Sunnis, and nobody liking the Americans, etc. Actually, accurate or not, "civil war" is more succinct.
Are benchmarks the answer? I think so. That's my personal belief. I just don't believe in dates set in stone.
We may have found common ground. I'm in favor of benchmarks too. The thing is, if the Iraqi government can't achieve those goals, what do we do? At what point do we declare it a lost cause, apologize to the Iraqi people for lighting the match that ignited this explosion, and get out of there so at least WE won't take any more losses?
Here's the thing. I'd love it if a multinational peacekeeping force composed of U.N. nations were to go to Iraq and do their best to stabilize it. The "go it alone" approach was a mistake, and obviously many nations working together, a real coalition as opposed to the one we've got where the U.S. was the only nation with more than 10 000 troops committed, could accomplish much more. But in order for that to happen, Bush has to swallow his pride and ask for help. He has to ask for help from everybody he told to fuck themselves (paraphrasing, of course) prior to the war. He has to convince them that it's worthwhile. He has to give them a good reason to bail him out after his prior lousy treatment of them and indifference to their concerns. I doubt he will even try.
Is there a more difficult job than that of the President during a time of war? When he's not even popular? I wouldn't want that job. So, yes, I'm still a proud supporter of a man who is making unpopular and difficult decisions.
Frankly, I don't much care whether it's stressful for him or not. Just because he has a difficult job is no reason to go easy on him if he screws up, and most people today believe he has screwed up. I don't think he's cut out for the job.
Y'see, it's one thing to be capable of making difficult decisions. But that's not enough. You have to make the RIGHT choices most of the time, and you have to be capable of realizing when you've made a mistake and be willing to admit it and work toward correcting that mistake.
Defenders of Bush, including Bush himself if I'm not mistaken, point out that Lincholn took a lot of flak for getting the Union into the Civil War.
But the difference is Lincoln, as historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin has pointed out a couple of times in the Daily Show, was willing to listen to dissenting opinions and consider other points of view than his own. As a matter of fact, Mr. Lincoln appointed political opponent Edwin Stanton, who had publicly called Lincoln a "gorilla", to his Cabinet. Bush, by contrast, seems to only want yes-men and -women. Anybody who questions his decisions finds themselves out of a job. That is now how you run a government. A world leader should be more open-minded than that, more willing to compromise.
Mr. Rhodes, I'll wager that if I were as partisan and uncompromising as Dubya is, this response to you would have been MUCH less civil. However I, unlike Bush, am willing to admit that I may be wrong.
And that's all for now.
Er, of course above when I wrote "compromise is not unacceptable" I meant "compromise is unacceptable" or "compromise is not acceptable."
Also, I meant to say "that is not how you run a government" instead of "that is now how you run a government," although that IS now how the U.S. government is being run, unfortunately.
Anyway, I broke my rule of previewing every post again and again it has made me look foolish. *sigh*
"Oh Yeah.. I bet Israel will really love that. Maybe she can go to Iran next and tell Ahmadinejad
that Israel is ready to talk..."
Keep Israel out of this mess. If the US has good reason to talk with Syria or Iran, do it. If not, don't.
Posted by Micha at May 7, 2007 08:56 AM
"Oh Yeah.. I bet Israel will really love that. Maybe she can go to Iran next and tell Ahmadinejad
that Israel is ready to talk..."
Tell that to Polosi
The above should have read...
Posted by Micha at May 7, 2007 08:56 AM
"Oh Yeah.. I bet Israel will really love that. Maybe she can go to Iran next and tell Ahmadinejad
that Israel is ready to talk..."
Keep Israel out of this mess. If the US has good reason to talk with Syria or Iran, do it. If not, don't.
Tell that to Pelosi
Pelosi apparently is the new Clinton for Republicans.
Keep up the placing of blame on others!
Once again: Please explain how Pelosi's trip to Syria was any different than Hastert's trip to China.
Other than Pelosi didn't tell the Syrian government to ignore the executive branch, that is.
Keep up the placing of blame on others!
It's not so much blame as they're trying to create another boogeywoman. Since the GOP can't run on what a great job they've done governing the country, they have to make people afraid to vote for democrats.
That's really all the GOP has left to offer America: Fear.
Posted by: Pat Nolan at May 7, 2007 09:35 AM
"Oh Yeah.. I bet Israel will really love that. Maybe she can go to Iran next and tell Ahmadinejad
that Israel is ready to talk..."
Posted by Micha at May 7, 2007 08:56 AM
"Keep Israel out of this mess. If the US has good reason to talk with Syria or Iran, do it. If not, don't."
Posted by: Pat Nolan at May 7, 2007 09:35 AM
"Tell that to Pelosi"
The United States has it's own interests as far as Syria is concerned. Which I assume is why Pelosi went to Syria. Part of the interests of the US with Syria are connected with Israel. Whatever Pelosi said concerning Israel is of little significance. From my point of view, the suggestion that her decision to go should have been determined by Israeli interests is more harmful to Israel than whatever she said. I also rather not see Israel associated with any side in american internal politics.
Pat Nolan: "Oh Yeah.. I bet Israel will really love that. Maybe she can go to Iran next and tell Ahmadinejad
that Israel is ready to talk..."
Micha: Keep Israel out of this mess. If the US has good reason to talk with Syria or Iran, do it. If not, don't.
Pat Nolan: Tell that to Pelosi
Remember when I wondered if you were trying to become the site's new top troll, Pat? And you asked if I was calling you a troll just because you disagreed with me, and many others here?
It's not because you disagree...it's the way you express your disagreement, as shown above. You're not showing much tact here.
"Defenders of Bush, including Bush himself if I'm not mistaken, point out that Lincholn took a lot of flak for getting the Union into the Civil War."
Except Lincoln had the brains to attack the people who attacked the Union. If Lincoln were Bush, Lincoln would have immediately invaded Canada...
It is silly to compare Bush to any great (or mediocre) president, except to illustrate just how awful he is.
Not to mention that Lincoln didn't "get us into the Civil War". The Confederacy fired the first shot.
Bush needs to make up his mind which past president he's channeling. Over the past few year's, he's tried to be Reagan (I'll cut taxes, no matter how much the deficit balloons up), Truman (you think I suck now, but history will judge me more kindly), Roosevelt (The only thing we have to fear is, well, just be afraid. Be very afraid), and now Lincoln (Why won't anyone see how great I am??*).
*Okay, that isn't even close to Lincoln's attitude, but it goes to show how delusional he's become.
Yeah, but Den, y'know he could just ask the Queen if he compares to Lincoln, considering he said that she's been around since 1776. So, she'd know. Because, she's, like, old and stuff.
Yeah, I am equating Bush with Butt-head.
Ford Prefect's ideas about human speech are becoming more proven every day.
Not to mention that Lincoln didn't "get us into the Civil War". The Confederacy fired the first shot.
Oh. Well, now I'm curious. Why was his approval rating so low? I just guessed it was because of the war.
Ford Prefect's ideas about human speech are becoming more proven every day.
I remember him observing that humans often pointed out the very obvious when there was no point, but otherwise I'm drawing a blank. Which ones are you referring to?
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 7, 2007 09:52 PM
"Remember when I wondered if you were trying to become the site's new top troll, Pat? And you asked if I was calling you a troll just because you disagreed with me, and many others here?
It's not because you disagree...it's the way you express your disagreement, as shown above. You're not showing much tact here."
I don't feel Pat's posts on this subject were Trollish or lacked tact.
Well, okay. The sarcastic tone didn't sit well with me, and I recalled him posting on another subject saying something along the lines of "you libbies always do this" or whatever. As a result my first impression of Pat wasn't particularly favorable, but perhaps I'm being too quick to judge.
In this case, I saw that you seemed to take exception to what he said, and my first thought was "great, now he's annoying Micha too."
Posted by Micha at May 8, 2007 07:20 AM
I don't feel Pat's posts on this subject were Trollish or lacked tact.
Thank you Micha. though I dont strive to be trollish I will humbley admit to the need to be more articulate in my convictions with a bit more substance thrown in to my responses.