Um, we are being whooshed, right? Please?
I assume you have a cite for this.
Which is a lot like what happened to the Admin on the yellowcake issue. As revealed by a google search, the African official who supposedly wrote the documentation had been out of power for years etc. etc.
I agree with you that Capitol Hill Blue is a bit of a gossip rag. But sometimes they get the drop on real issues before anyone else. As with Drudge, you just have to take Blue with a pinch of salt.
For what ???
So if December had posted an anti-Kerry piece from the same source, quoting nothing but anonymous sources, you’d all have debated it thoughtfully, maintaining just a hint of skepticism, but giving it careful thought, right?
:rolleyes:
[Ray Davies]
Hear me brothers, hear me sisters,
Citizens and comrades hear my song.
The old life’s dead the order’s changing
It’s time for all of us to move along.
…
Yes, we’ll all walk along
and we’ll all sing a song
as we march down salvation road!
[/Ray Davies]
:smack:
Um, you stated we’re doing well in Iraq, that the economy is doing great, that Bush will be reelected in a landslide.
Well…on what information do you base your statements?
Sam, please don’t start that. :rolleyes:
Whether the article is accurate or not, it doesn’t sound very trustworthy, because it’s all anecdotal, and anyways, a lot of what’s mentioned could be related to stress, rather than mental illness.
Awe… you remind me of that old lady down the street who thinks her husband is still coming home from the market.
What planet are you from, missy?
I chose this particular little steaming nugget of s…, er, stuff because the invasion of Iraq was the worst possible thing that could have happened for our stated goals in Afghanistan. We have not captured Bin Laden. Afghanistan now (again) has large sections of the country controlled by warlords, some of whom are Taliban. Democracy is not thriving, and as a matter of fact, is retreating. We have abandoned our goals in Afghanistan, and I am ashamed of us.
"the proof is in the pudding" - a very wise person
I’m pretty sick of purported “fly-on-the-wall” journalism, myself. Either cough up some concrete evidence or shut the fuck up, already. “Worried White House aids”, “longtime GOP consultant”, "White House staffers…come on. Look, either these people have have names, faces, and something that would stand up in court, or they’re bullshit. There’s no in-between without corroborating evidence. Don’t give me that “Deep Throat” crap. None of his phone calls would have been worth a damn without some rather incriminating audio tapes.
Having said that, why would any of this be news, even if proven true? And who would care? Bush could be nuttier than a fruitcake, he’s a figurehead anyway. Nixon was a total nutbar; nobody got bombed unless cooler heads signed off on his orders first. What would Vietnam have been without people like Kissinger and Haig holding the reins? An incandescent nuclear wasteland, that’s what. Bush may be in a similar position. Makes no difference. It’s the “Bush administration” that matters much more than Bush himself. We knew that from day one.
Given that we are in an election year given to deciding if the Bush Administration or any Administration so founded will long endure it is pretty much inevitable that any thread in which the President’s name comes up will turn into an argument about the issues of the election. If anybody can think about a more important issue in the coming election than the invasion and occupation of Iraq, its rational and its future, I can’t really think of it. I suppose we could turn it into a nosy dispute over oil drilling in the arctic or the economic theory calls for easing the tax burden on the truly wealthy as a cure all for all economic ills or the President’s right and privilege to load the federal courts with ideologies committed to overturning established Constitutional principals, or the power of the national government to by quasi-imperial edict create a new class of political prisoner to whom the normal rules of criminal procedure and the protections of the Constitution do not apply, but what would be the fun in that?
Or we could revert to the good old days and have every political post degenerate into a screed about the sacred witnesses oath and blow jobs.
Of course any post about the President is going to turn into a diatribe about Iraq, recognizing that one man’s diatribe is another man’s statement of position. When done in this forum we a least cut down on the prevalence of name calling, to include “Saddamist.”
I wish to step up to the plate, and identify myself as a (saddamist, in case I’m the only one)
by that I mean that I answer the rhetorical question:
Well, would you feel safer if Saddam were still in power?"
with a heartfelt
Hell, yeah
But I digress.
As to the OP, and subsequent comments, I find it interesting that folks are focusing on the reliability of the messenger (admittedly problematic) but not necessarily arguing that the details alleged are inconsistent with the observed behavior of the subjects.
In other words, we know they are unhinged, we are just quibbling over how floridly they manifest.
Sounds like a lot of bullcrap to me.
Though the, “so what, he’s only a moronic puppet anyway” argument was funny.
Oh, please! Axiomatic statements like 2+2=4 don’t need cites. :rolleyes:
Of course not, Sally, but your statements on Iraq, the economy and Bush’s election prospects are on the order of asserting that 2+2=grapes. You really need to back it up.
Sally believes so much in the miracles performed in Iraq and Afghanistan that she is planning vacations to Najaf and Kabul this summer.
Right?
I’m all for more diatribes as long as they keep in the forefront of voters’ minds that we were taken into a preemptive, and in my view and that of a lot of others at the time an unecessary, war on information supplied by shady characters to a bunch of guys who had been spoiling for a war with Iraq all along. The public reasons were admittedly, by Paul Wolfowitz, merely whatever would sell.
I can’t overlook that, I don’t want to overlook that and I do not consider it “old news” that we need to get past in order to “look to the future.” I don’t want the future in the hands of those who have brought us the recent past.
No one can predict what will happen in the November Presidential election, but I will! Bush now leads in Ohio (critical), Pennsylvania (icing on the cake) and within the error of margin in New Jersey (a blow out if Bush carries). And things can only get better for Dubya 
We shall see, eh? 
Sally, the rule around here is that when you make a statement like that, you have to have a cite to back it up. It’s just the way things go around here.
“Common sense” doesn’t cut it. I’m not trying to be nasty. Just trying to help.
For example-an article about our successes in Iraq, or a poll showing Bush’s ratings. That’s all. Not hard, is it?
Thanks.
When come back, bring cites.
sally may be short on credentials, but she’s got the dank hookup…something is fueling the hallucination that New Jersey is anything but rock solid safe defocrtatic