Harry Reid "I believe ... that this war is lost"

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

So sue me for spelling.

The thing most people don't get around here is the war is over. As in 1945 WW2 was over, but there were still soldiers deployed (and still are) all over the world.

The war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein is over. He and his boys are dead and so are a bunch of his cronies.

Our soldiers right now are acting as police. There in lies the problem.

By the way, Harry Reid emboldens the criminals. Every time a soldier or an Iraqi citizen is killed by these thugs and cowards a crime is committed.

Are these criminals organized and funded? If so, then by whom? My guess is Iran.

I'm trying to stay with your string of arguments on this one, but they are jumping all over the place. So by not supporting the war Harry Reid is emboldening the Evildoers... and by emboldening he is an accomplice to their crimes? Does this mean that if someone passes a law that is shown to cause an increase in crime that he is an accessory to all those crimes and should be jailed? Abetting aside (as it's obviously not that) How is this treason again? Are you seriously trying to make the argument that being against the war is treasonous? Does this apply to all policies of the executive in relation to foreign governments? If you are against NAFTA, is that treason? If you were against the bombing of Bosnia and Kosovo, was that treason? Maybe you can outline what the scope of acceptable political thought is so that we can be sure to stay out of jail.

Also if you think the war is over... you should definitely let the President, Congress, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff know because they keep calling it a war. Even worse, they keep passing these emergency funding bills for the war. These things are really expensive, so if the war is over someone PLEASE let them know so we can save a ton of cash!

My Grandparents come from Czechoslovakia. Their villages were targeted by the Germans. In alot of ways they didn't care who they killed.

In many ways this was Clintons fault. All of the events of the 1990s that were left unresponded to gave the enemy the confidence to attempt 9/11.

Don't you think it was our policies of the 1930s that made Japan and Germany think they could get away with Pearl Harbor?

EDIT - Sorry this was to the other guy.
You talk about money? What did the Marshall Plan and us keeping troops in Europe for 60 years cost?

They keep calling it war for political reasons. Don't get me wrong...i disagree with many things on how we have handled things after 9/11

"the enemy" was not Iraq. Nothing happened in the 90s that spectacular. You can't attack "terrorists". No such country exists. This is what was obvious to some and not obvious to Bush. We are paying for this mistake.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
In many ways this was Clintons fault. All of the events of the 1990s that were left unresponded to gave the enemy the confidence to attempt 9/11.

HEY, EVERYONE! Look at the PUTZ trying to recycle the "IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT" diversion, yet again. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

But its ok for people like you to blame everything on GWB? Sorry, but Clinton shares a big part of the responsibility with what happened on 9/11 because of the exact reason that GoPackGo mentioned.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
In many ways this was Clintons fault. All of the events of the 1990s that were left unresponded to gave the enemy the confidence to attempt 9/11.

HEY, EVERYONE! Look at the PUTZ trying to recycle the "IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT" diversion, yet again. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

You know...flaming me is not nice.

Leave the discussion at Bush, Clinton, Reid, Iraq, whatever.

Plus you have said that once.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

So sue me for spelling.

The thing most people don't get around here is the war is over. As in 1945 WW2 was over, but there were still soldiers deployed (and still are) all over the world.

The war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein is over. He and his boys are dead and so are a bunch of his cronies.

Our soldiers right now are acting as police. There in lies the problem.

By the way, Harry Reid emboldens the criminals. Every time a soldier or an Iraqi citizen is killed by these thugs and cowards a crime is committed.

Are these criminals organized and funded? If so, then by whom? My guess is Iran.

I'm trying to stay with your string of arguments on this one, but they are jumping all over the place. So by not supporting the war Harry Reid is emboldening the Evildoers... and by emboldening he is an accomplice to their crimes? Does this mean that if someone passes a law that is shown to cause an increase in crime that he is an accessory to all those crimes and should be jailed? Abetting aside (as it's obviously not that) How is this treason again? Are you seriously trying to make the argument that being against the war is treasonous? Does this apply to all policies of the executive in relation to foreign governments? If you are against NAFTA, is that treason? If you were against the bombing of Bosnia and Kosovo, was that treason? Maybe you can outline what the scope of acceptable political thought is so that we can be sure to stay out of jail.

Also if you think the war is over... you should definitely let the President, Congress, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff know because they keep calling it a war. Even worse, they keep passing these emergency funding bills for the war. These things are really expensive, so if the war is over someone PLEASE let them know so we can save a ton of cash!

My Grandparents come from Czechoslovakia. Their villages were targeted by the Germans. In alot of ways they didn't care who they killed.

In many ways this was Clintons fault. All of the events of the 1990s that were left unresponded to gave the enemy the confidence to attempt 9/11.

Don't you think it was our policies of the 1930s that made Japan and Germany think they could get away with Pearl Harbor?

EDIT - Sorry this was to the other guy.
You talk about money? What did the Marshall Plan and us keeping troops in Europe for 60 years cost?

They keep calling it war for political reasons. Don't get me wrong...i disagree with many things on how we have handled things after 9/11

"the enemy" was not Iraq. Nothing happened in the 90s that spectacular. You can't attack "terrorists". No such country exists. This is what was obvious to some and not obvious to Bush. We are paying for this mistake.

No...you are right...Iraq was not behind 9/11 but the war in Iraq did happen after 9/11.

There were a lot of smaller events that led up to 9/11 though.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
In many ways this was Clintons fault. All of the events of the 1990s that were left unresponded to gave the enemy the confidence to attempt 9/11.

HEY, EVERYONE! Look at the PUTZ trying to recycle the "IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT" diversion, yet again. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

You know...flaming me is not nice.

Leave the discussion at Bush, Clinton, Reid, Iraq, whatever.

Plus you have said that once.

Flaming you for your irrelevant finger pointing at Clinton and your pathetic defense of the worst criminal to occupy the Whitehouse in our nation's history is appropriate.

There. Now, I've said it twice.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
In many ways this was Clintons fault. All of the events of the 1990s that were left unresponded to gave the enemy the confidence to attempt 9/11.

HEY, EVERYONE! Look at the PUTZ trying to recycle the "IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT" diversion, yet again. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

You know...flaming me is not nice.

Leave the discussion at Bush, Clinton, Reid, Iraq, whatever.

Plus you have said that once.

Flaming you for your irrelevant finger pointing at Clinton and your pathetic defense of the worst criminal to occupy the Whitehouse in our nation's history is appropriate.

There. Now, I've said it twice.

Im not defending Bush. But at some point you have to acknowledge that comments made by politicians here will embolden the enemy.

Just like Bush's "Bring it On"

Are you saying that Clinton as President has ZERO effect on what has happened over the last six years?

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Reid's statement is a bit misguided, and very much a partisan shot at the President's current "troop surge" strategy.

Yes, I agree that we shouldn't be in Iraq to begin with...and this may be a matter of semantics, but I don't think "lost" is the appropriate signal for sending to our troops, the American people and the enemy.

A more appropriate and reasonable approach is to criticize Bush's current strategy, and offer a counter strategy in its place...and that counter strategy could be setting a timetable withdrawal, or perhaps even an immediate withdrawal.

But to proclaim that "this war is lost" only proves to me that the Democrat leadership has no solution for Iraq, despite that very issue being the catalyst for their winning the majority in Congress...lots of partisan jabs, with no results or solutions. I wonder what the Democrats will do once they don't have Bush to blame for everything.

Have you been keeping up with the news and Bush vetoing the latest budget for the war?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
In many ways this was Clintons fault. All of the events of the 1990s that were left unresponded to gave the enemy the confidence to attempt 9/11.

HEY, EVERYONE! Look at the PUTZ trying to recycle the "IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT" diversion, yet again. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

You know...flaming me is not nice.

Leave the discussion at Bush, Clinton, Reid, Iraq, whatever.

Plus you have said that once.

Flaming you for your irrelevant finger pointing at Clinton and your pathetic defense of the worst criminal to occupy the Whitehouse in our nation's history is appropriate.

There. Now, I've said it twice.

Im not defending Bush. But at some point you have to acknowledge that comments made by politicians here will embolden the enemy.

Just like Bush's "Bring it On"

Are you saying that Clinton as President has ZERO effect on what has happened over the last six years?

Pretty close to 0. Giving them attention and bringing fighting to them was exactly what they wanted.

Besides it was Bush that had all the memos and cut anti-terrorist funding anyway.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

My Grandparents come from Czechoslovakia. Their villages were targeted by the Germans. In alot of ways they didn't care who they killed.

In many ways this was Clintons fault. All of the events of the 1990s that were left unresponded to gave the enemy the confidence to attempt 9/11.

Oh please. Clinton was President but both Congress and Senate was under Republican control. He wouldn't have been able to do squat. There was genocide and civil war in Bosnia, and when he tried to intervene, he wasn't allowed too except under UN jurisdiction, because it was a 'civil war' and America shouldn't get involved (they were saying that he was trying to divert attention from himself to a war). You really think Clinton could have invaded Afghanistan and put a stop to the terrorists even if he wanted to? I doubt it. He gave Bush plenty of warning about Osama though just as he left office, and Bush didn't do anything about it either.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Im not defending Bush. But at some point you have to acknowledge that comments made by politicians here will embolden the enemy.

"Embolden the enemy" ??? Do you mean bolder than 9-11? Bolder than the massive attacks in Iraq over the last few days raising the carnage rate even higher than before the Bushwhacko "surge?" :shocked:

Which "the" enemy? The Bushwhackos' war of lies in Iraq has created so many more from which to choose.

Just like Bush's "Bring it On"

So now, you want us to believe that Harry Reid speaking the truth is the same as Bush declaring "victory" in Iraq and daring whichever "enemy" happens to be convenient to "bring it on?" Great thinking like that from the previous Republican majority is one reason we're still stuck in Iraq! :roll:

Are you saying that Clinton as President has ZERO effect on what has happened over the last six years?

Does it matter? Are you saying that, given a worst case view of Clinton's actions in office, anything he did justifies or excuses the continuous, ever changing stream of LIES the Bushwhackos offered as an excuse for their war or their collosal, continuing blunders in planning and executing it from day one? :shocked:

GET OVER IT! This isn't Clinton's war. Bush owns this one, top to bottom, beginning to end. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[GOPhatesUSA]

Win the war in Iraq, how?

Its been lost now for sometime.

Who do we back in a civil war?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Enough of all this who's sending what signals bullshit. That's not how you fight a war, and that's not how you win a war.

We already won the war in Iraq...sticking around to secure the peace was our mistake.

I don't know, I think that's kind of a cop-out. Iraq wasn't even a tiny bit of a threat to the US, so beating their military into a bloody pulp isn't what I would call "winning the war", especially since it has made the region far more dangerous and far more of a long term concern for the US. I'd argue that securing the peace is, in this case, far more vital to "winning the war" than our defeat of Saddam's government.

Total cop-out. Consider that all of the strategists and pundits criticical to the War before the invasion predicted that everything that has happened would indeed happen. It's all part of the same war. If it comforts you to imagine that occupying Saddam's palace is the end-point of the war, then tell that to all of those troops losing their lives on a daily basis, still being shipped out for no purpose. The war was lost from the beginning. Claiming otherwise is a divorce from reality.

This war never could have been won militarily in the first place. The wanks in the administration are too clueless to admit that ideas, and compromise are what will win here. While an enlightened few have hired actual Iraqis within Bagdhad and other towns to work with the US (Translators, cultural advisors, etc), most of that work is being given to Jordanians or others from outside the country. When your "liberators" show up, proclaim they will give you peace, but offer no safety, no employment, fire you from your job (which is what happened to the Iraqi military when Bremmer stepped in, thus creating a nice localized base of "insurgents"--another BS word used to alter the populace opinion that these are invaders and we are helping the poor helpless Iraqis...), and tell you to shape up and win the peace yourself...well, how the hell would you feel? I sure as ****** wouldn't be very willing to trust or collaborate with my "liberators." Why are green zone permits and secure living quarters given to outsourced hirees while perfectly capable, willing, and far more valuable Iraqi citizens are getting ignored? The leadership in this war is fvcked from every angle.

Why else do you think Bush's first appointee to his new, and frighteningly laughable "war Czar" postition told him to fvck off? It's simply another job created to where blame can be passed, absolving those responsible, and where solutions are created by firing the "incompetent." (the incompetent being those that report the truth; and don't simply respond with "yes, sir.")

This country, as well as the rest of the world, has paid for Bush's delusions. We will be paying for decades to come. The world will be a far more dangerous place to live because of him. The numbers of people denying this reality is dropping steadily, down into the 30% realm. While it shows that the majority is coming to its senses...that's no real comfort, is it?

 

[GOPhatesUSA]

Before you blame Clinton you right wing nut jobs....
It was Cheney that sat on the Terrorist Task force and did nothing for a year yes a year.
Remember Richard A. Clarke????

He quit cause this administration dropped the ball BIGTIME.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: GOPhatesUSA
Before you blame Clinton you right wing nut jobs....
It was Cheney that sat on the Terrorist Task force and did nothing for a year yes a year.
Remember Richard A. Clarke????

He quit cause this administration dropped the ball BIGTIME.

wow, someone named "GOPhatesUSA" is calling other people nutjobs, lol.

 

[GOPhatesUSA]

JD50

Can I call you a LB?

Do you know what a LB is?

I get you don't.

Inform yourself.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: GOPhatesUSA
JD50

Can I call you a LB?

Do you know what a LB is?

I get you don't.

Inform yourself.

Uhhh...sure, you can call me whatever you want. And no I have no idea what an "LB" is. Are you trying to out do Dave or something?

Edit - OMG are you calling me Layzie Bone from Bone Thugs-N-Harmony?????

LB

Laura Bush, First Lady of the United States and wife of President George W. Bush
Layzie Bone, rapper from the group Bone Thugs-N-Harmony
Lazy Bones, the comic strip
Lean Burn, an Automobile Engine. Development by Hyundai Avante and Hyundai Accent
Lebanon, a Country of Internet TLD in LB
An abbreviation for left back, a defensive position in football (soccer)
Liberty BASIC, programming language.
Likkabokka, a geocache, GCZNM2, in Houten, The Netherlands. Also a word-painting of two friends.
Limp Bizkit, an American nu metal/rapcore band.
Linebacker, a postion in American and Canadian Football
Little Brenn, a Korea's Child Wear Company, Groupped by E Land
Little Brother, a North Carolina rap group.
LB is the IATA code for Lloyd Aereo Boliviano airline
Load balancing (computing)
Log Batch in MatMan.
Lokalbanen, a Danish railway company
A London borough, one of the 32 administrative divisions of London
Lucent Broadcaster, a System by Lucent Technologies
Lysogeny broth, a growth media used in microbiology
Super Clean LB, an Automobile's Clean in Gasoline Oil, Development by S-Oil
The Living Bible
An individual acting in a grumpy & childish manner
LB Records, a record label
lb may refer to:

A pound (unit of mass)
A pound-force (unit of force), better distinguished as lbf or lbf.
Luxembourgish language (ISO 639 alpha-2)
An abbreviation for "leatherbutt," a condition related to leather furniture and used in the furniture industry.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: GOPhatesUSA
JD50

Can I call you a LB?

Do you know what a LB is?

I get you don't.

Inform yourself.

I think you will fit in just fine here.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Have you been keeping up with the news and Bush vetoing the latest budget for the war?

Total cop-out. Consider that all of the strategists and pundits criticical to the War before the invasion predicted that everything that has happened would indeed happen. It's all part of the same war. If it comforts you to imagine that occupying Saddam's palace is the end-point of the war, then tell that to all of those troops losing their lives on a daily basis, still being shipped out for no purpose. The war was lost from the beginning. Claiming otherwise is a divorce from reality.

Apparently both of you missed my 2nd post where I went into a bit more explanation...go to page 4 of this thread, I already addressed most of your talking points already.

 

[CaptnKirk]

What's really sad isn't that it's true, but for how long it's been true and that nobody had the balls to admit it.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
In many ways this was Clintons fault. All of the events of the 1990s that were left unresponded to gave the enemy the confidence to attempt 9/11.

HEY, EVERYONE! Look at the PUTZ trying to recycle the "IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT" diversion, yet again. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

You know...flaming me is not nice.

Leave the discussion at Bush, Clinton, Reid, Iraq, whatever.

Plus you have said that once.

Flaming you for your irrelevant finger pointing at Clinton and your pathetic defense of the worst criminal to occupy the Whitehouse in our nation's history is appropriate.

There. Now, I've said it twice.

Im not defending Bush. But at some point you have to acknowledge that comments made by politicians here will embolden the enemy.

Just like Bush's "Bring it On"

Are you saying that Clinton as President has ZERO effect on what has happened over the last six years?

I still don't understand why Clinton's authorized cruise missile attacks on 2 Al-Qaeda training camps are considered "un-responsive." Had he done any more, despite what his administration knew about the threat Bin Laden posed, and despite it being the highest priority he mentioned to Bush upon teh switch-over, the country would have attacked him for it. Bin Laden was not news, and by the public's perception, not a threat. He acted pre-emptively. Bush waited for 3,000 innocent people to be killed. Then used the incident as a false springboard for his agenda-driven war.

He did more than Bush ever would have done in a non-9/11 war.

Na...none of this, in anyway, will ever be considered Clinton's fault. (by those that can read, that is )

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Have you been keeping up with the news and Bush vetoing the latest budget for the war?

Total cop-out. Consider that all of the strategists and pundits criticical to the War before the invasion predicted that everything that has happened would indeed happen. It's all part of the same war. If it comforts you to imagine that occupying Saddam's palace is the end-point of the war, then tell that to all of those troops losing their lives on a daily basis, still being shipped out for no purpose. The war was lost from the beginning. Claiming otherwise is a divorce from reality.

Apparently both of you missed my 2nd post where I went into a bit more explanation...go to page 4 of this thread, I already addressed most of your talking points already.

sure, I skimmed a bit. But...when are facts considered talking points? I think the fact that the strategists having predicted everything that has come to pass well before the invasion is far too relevent to be considered a talking point. I think the fact that the US in Iraq has systematically disenfrachised the Iraqi citizens--even the ones that support Bush's war and are so willing to help his cause that they have put their own lives in danger, being forced to stand for hours in front of the Green Zone gate (where anyone is an easy target) with low-security passes, while Halliburton jackasses and Jordanian outsourcers walk through without a second glance--is far too relevant to be dismissed as mere "talking points."

So if you were to ask me how we get to 4 from 2, and I told you 2+2 = 4...you would call that a "talking point."

Read up a bit.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: galperi1

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Regardless on whether you agree with him or not, this is a wreckless thing to say when we have troops in the field. This is why democrats will never have the support of the military.

One could argue that the Democrats are actually supporting the troops in trying to save their lives by removing them from the center of a secretarian war.

You could, but there are better ways of going about it rather than handing a propoganda victory to the people shooting at our troops.

Agree completely with Mxylplyx. It was dumb thing to say (whether you want to agree that it's correct/accurate or not).

1. Shouldn't be said while we still have troops in the field, and

2. No need to freely hand out propaganda ("recruiting") victory to enemy.

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Have you been keeping up with the news and Bush vetoing the latest budget for the war?

Total cop-out. Consider that all of the strategists and pundits criticical to the War before the invasion predicted that everything that has happened would indeed happen. It's all part of the same war. If it comforts you to imagine that occupying Saddam's palace is the end-point of the war, then tell that to all of those troops losing their lives on a daily basis, still being shipped out for no purpose. The war was lost from the beginning. Claiming otherwise is a divorce from reality.

Apparently both of you missed my 2nd post where I went into a bit more explanation...go to page 4 of this thread, I already addressed most of your talking points already.

sure, I skimmed a bit. But...when are facts considered talking points? I think the fact that the strategists having predicted everything that has come to pass well before the invasion is far too relevent to be considered a talking point. I think the fact that the US in Iraq has systematically disenfrachised the Iraqi citizens--even the ones that support Bush's war and are so willing to help his cause that they have put their own lives in danger, being forced to stand for hours in front of the Green Zone gate (where anyone is an easy target) with low-security passes, while Halliburton jackasses and Jordanian outsourcers walk through without a second glance--is far too relevant to be dismissed as mere "talking points."

So if you were to ask me how we get to 4 from 2, and I told you 2+2 = 4...you would call that a "talking point."

Read up a bit.

EDIT:

I blame Bush, and his team of advisors, for pushing the war in Iraq and getting us stuck in a "no-win" situation...I blame the Democrats for not voicing opposition before things got out of hand...and don't give me the cliche line that "The President duped everyone." Bush cannot simultaneously be both an idiot and a strategic mastermind. There was skepticism against the war in Iraq before we even deployed troops to the region...no one had the courage to voice that skepticism when it mattered most.

I actually agree with this and most of your post on page 4. However, plenty of criticism arose from the top before the invasion. This was well-documented, and shot-down by the administration and its supporters as anti-American diatribe. I was watching the news 4 years ago, and I haven't been blinded from that reality yet. Just b/c Bush's approval rating has gone from ~60% to low 30% since then, it doesn't give that 30% that has now changed their mind the right to demand: "Where was the critism before we went in?" Just because they were snowed in, doesn't mean the criticism wasn't there. Plenty of top officials got the axe for telling Bush the truth. And they were replaced by others who wised up, then were fired, then replaced, etc...

Lincoln was a president that placed people in his cabinet with opinions and viewpoints that conflicted with his own. He recognized the value of discourse and opposing viewpoints. Bush ran 2 piddly companies into the ground well before he became president b/c his fundamentally wrong way to do things has always been the only way in his book. He has now successfully run an entire country into the ground.

That kind of pisses me off, so I will kind of "go off" from time-to-time whenever I think about it....

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: galperi1

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Regardless on whether you agree with him or not, this is a wreckless thing to say when we have troops in the field. This is why democrats will never have the support of the military.

One could argue that the Democrats are actually supporting the troops in trying to save their lives by removing them from the center of a secretarian war.

You could, but there are better ways of going about it rather than handing a propoganda victory to the people shooting at our troops.

Agree completely with Mxylplyx. It was dumb thing to say (whether you want to agree that it's correct/accurate or not).

1. Shouldn't be said while we still have troops in the field, and

2. No need to freely hand out propaganda ("recruiting") victory to enemy.

Fern

ya, forgot to mention that I too was quite taken aback when I saw Reid's statement. Whether or not it's true, you don't publicly admit something like that. You say, "the course this administration has taken us into is the wrong one, and if we continue on this path we will only be causing further casualties...etc"

Followed up by a nice plan to get out would be one thing....Then again, don't expect any plan outside of what Bush thinks is approriate to ever fly. He's proven time and again that the only person he listens to is himself, and that walking coronary, Dick1. Saying the Democrats don't have a plan is silly. Anything they propose is shot down on the spot. (Again, they haven't proposed much...)

Reid essentially called out the troops in his statement, rather than the people responsible for this catastrophe.

 

[GOPhatesUSA]

LB = Loyal Bushie