I do not know. I do know that the phenomenon of people saying publicly that they hold value X and then privately doing something that clearly shows they do not hold value X, is fairly commonplace. That is why I do not know. But at least I know I don’t know, if you know what I mean.
So are you saying that it’s a “known, unknown” or an “unknown unknown”? Where a known unknown, is something you don’t know, but you know you don’t know it and an unknown unknown is something you don’t know, and you don’t know you don’t know it.
Well, you go to war with the ignorance you’ve got, not the ignorance you wish you had.
Rummy, we hardly knew ye.
I know I can’t expect you to be familiar with my posting history but I’m a socially liberal atheist. You fail.
Still, I agree with Evil One, for three reasons:
- The GOP propaganda machine makes the Dem’s look like amateurs.
- For whatever reason, probably due to #1, Dems are thought of as pussies and/or weak on terror/war/doing the dirty jobs.
- The American people on the whole lack an education of history or rational thinking.
So, yes, I agree, if another terrorist attack happens it would make absolutely no sense for the American population to clutch at the GOP security blanket. I think it’s pretty dumb that they would but that’s what I think would happen.
I disagree with his idea about troops in Iraq, unless Bush flip flops from when he said that decision would be for future presidents to decide. I think we’ll still have troops there in 2010, even if they’re starting to be withdrawn (and even that would be quite the rosy picture IMO).
I’d love to see a Dem in the White House. I just have a very strong feeling it won’t be for quite awhile if Mrs. Clinton and Obama keep getting all the attention (maybe if Obama isn’t considered ‘too black’…an amusing thought but hey, maybe it could happen).
If the Dems could transfer the taint of Bush to the future nominee that would be a great way for them to win. They’re too incompetent to do that though, so Bush’s failings shouldn’t matter, for the most part, except the remnants of the Iraqi war.
The overwhelming majority of the voting population has no idea who Wolfowitz, Perle, or Feith are, I suspect.
Thats because they are amatuers, for the most part. The pros go where the money is. Another Dem weakness is a paucity of ruthlessness. A weakness worthy of respect, in my estimation.
Who doesn’t? Governance by democratic processes is not more efficient or more effective, it is merely more just.
Which leaves the problem of putting forth a prominent Republican candidate who is untainted, who has not exploited the Republican dominance of recent years, who didn’t solidly support a bad policy when it looked like a good bet. A Republlican with a proud history of criticizing the Bushiviks. The closest you got there is McCain, who rags on Bush for not being crazy enough! Yipe!
I wish I didn’t either.
But they know who Bush is, and that he has been in charge of national security for the past seven years.
Hagel is closer, and he isn’t out yet.
mstay, I do wish you’d said you don’t hope for another terrorist attack. You’re on your own with that now, pal.