President Bush
-
First thought: Good! Hope. Hes not the asshole he seems to be, or at least tries to Second: Just a week ago, he started the TV ads for reelection. Just having had that thought made me sad.
"Vierteile den, der sie Hure schimpft mit einem türkischen Säbel."
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygenpeterchen wrote: Hes not the asshole he seems to be The guy is sincere and I am pleased he holds the position he does. As you have no doubt seen I am pro USA regardless of external to the USa opinion. My personal belief is that without our 9-11 response to Afganistan and the follow on action in Iraq the terrorist world would have viewed us as cowardly and we would be living with daily in the streets terrorism as is the case in Israel. The only "things" I hold against him are the liberal things he does, which he refers to a compassionate conservatism: huge monies for education, huge increase to medicare (with prescription drug support), and, a reluctance to enforce our borders. What I do like is that he is passionate in defense of the USA. peterchen wrote: Just a week ago, he started the TV ads for reelection. While you won't believe it means anything, I'll point out that: 1) the Republican Party and not a re-election campaign placed the ad, 2) he has no control over the fact that Thanksgiving comes in November, 3) politics are a part of a politicians life, 4) there is nothing he could do that most of the posters here wouldn't criticize, regardless, 5) what he did was dangerous for a nation's leader. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
-
peterchen wrote: Hes not the asshole he seems to be The guy is sincere and I am pleased he holds the position he does. As you have no doubt seen I am pro USA regardless of external to the USa opinion. My personal belief is that without our 9-11 response to Afganistan and the follow on action in Iraq the terrorist world would have viewed us as cowardly and we would be living with daily in the streets terrorism as is the case in Israel. The only "things" I hold against him are the liberal things he does, which he refers to a compassionate conservatism: huge monies for education, huge increase to medicare (with prescription drug support), and, a reluctance to enforce our borders. What I do like is that he is passionate in defense of the USA. peterchen wrote: Just a week ago, he started the TV ads for reelection. While you won't believe it means anything, I'll point out that: 1) the Republican Party and not a re-election campaign placed the ad, 2) he has no control over the fact that Thanksgiving comes in November, 3) politics are a part of a politicians life, 4) there is nothing he could do that most of the posters here wouldn't criticize, regardless, 5) what he did was dangerous for a nation's leader. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
My opinion of him is a fairly nice guy in the completely wrong position. My main point of above post being: I can't trust him anymore that he did it "just for the troops and because it's his job" Mike Gaskey wrote: the Republican Party and not a re-election campaign placed the ad This nuance is escaping me. Is this like Haliburton and the current US Vice president being two completely different, unrelated entities? Mike Gaskey wrote: he has no control over the fact that Thanksgiving comes in November I'm sure the troops would have appreciated a visit at any other date no less. And if not, couldn't he just bomb the date back into October? Mike Gaskey wrote: politics are a part of a politicians life There's a fine difference between publicity due to politics, and politics through publicity. But that's something the US never seems to have problems with Mike Gaskey wrote: there is nothing he could do that most of the posters here wouldn't criticize, regardless what he did was dangerous for a nation's leader I didn't critizise him, on the contrary, I think it's good he went there. I think, whatever the motivation, it's a cool stunt, and goes well with the "nice guy, wrong place" image. It just wouldn't have tasted that bitter if he went a month or two earlier.
"Vierteile den, der sie Hure schimpft mit einem türkischen Säbel."
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
My opinion of him is a fairly nice guy in the completely wrong position. My main point of above post being: I can't trust him anymore that he did it "just for the troops and because it's his job" Mike Gaskey wrote: the Republican Party and not a re-election campaign placed the ad This nuance is escaping me. Is this like Haliburton and the current US Vice president being two completely different, unrelated entities? Mike Gaskey wrote: he has no control over the fact that Thanksgiving comes in November I'm sure the troops would have appreciated a visit at any other date no less. And if not, couldn't he just bomb the date back into October? Mike Gaskey wrote: politics are a part of a politicians life There's a fine difference between publicity due to politics, and politics through publicity. But that's something the US never seems to have problems with Mike Gaskey wrote: there is nothing he could do that most of the posters here wouldn't criticize, regardless what he did was dangerous for a nation's leader I didn't critizise him, on the contrary, I think it's good he went there. I think, whatever the motivation, it's a cool stunt, and goes well with the "nice guy, wrong place" image. It just wouldn't have tasted that bitter if he went a month or two earlier.
"Vierteile den, der sie Hure schimpft mit einem türkischen Säbel."
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygenpeterchen wrote: My opinion of him is a fairly nice guy in the completely wrong position. In all honesty I cannot think of any other American that I would rather have in this position at this point in our history. That is not quite correct, if Regan were younger / healthier and hadn't already served 2 terms ( the most that can be served ), he would be my preference. peterchen wrote: This nuance is escaping me. Is this like Haliburton and the current US Vice president being two completely different, unrelated entities? Actually the tie between President Bush / RNC is closer than Cheney / Haliburton. Cheney no longer has a business relationship with Haliburton. If I am not mistaken, he gave up his position as a officer of Haliburton when he accepted the offer to run and I believe (but not certain) that he also divested himself of Haliburton stock. To contrast, for the sake of contrast, Cheney with Clinton - Clinton ran for office as a poor man having done nothing other than serve in politics. He left office as a millionare. Cheney walked away from millions to serve. peterchen wrote: There's a fine difference between publicity due to politics, and politics through publicity. Your point elludes me here but that may be because what is distasteful there is common here, and, vice-versa. As a side note, so far the trip to Iraq hasn't been played up for any big time publicity. We didn't hear about it until he was on his way back. I will wager that we'll hear more about it from the opposition party, the Democrats, than we will from the Republicans. The Democrats will be livid, accusing him of granstanding. The most interesting aspect of this all is that Hillary Clinton was in Afganistan today and is to land in Iraq tomorrow. The end result being that Bush will have sucked the air out of Clinton's well publicized, self-aggrandizing trip. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
-
My opinion of him is a fairly nice guy in the completely wrong position. My main point of above post being: I can't trust him anymore that he did it "just for the troops and because it's his job" Mike Gaskey wrote: the Republican Party and not a re-election campaign placed the ad This nuance is escaping me. Is this like Haliburton and the current US Vice president being two completely different, unrelated entities? Mike Gaskey wrote: he has no control over the fact that Thanksgiving comes in November I'm sure the troops would have appreciated a visit at any other date no less. And if not, couldn't he just bomb the date back into October? Mike Gaskey wrote: politics are a part of a politicians life There's a fine difference between publicity due to politics, and politics through publicity. But that's something the US never seems to have problems with Mike Gaskey wrote: there is nothing he could do that most of the posters here wouldn't criticize, regardless what he did was dangerous for a nation's leader I didn't critizise him, on the contrary, I think it's good he went there. I think, whatever the motivation, it's a cool stunt, and goes well with the "nice guy, wrong place" image. It just wouldn't have tasted that bitter if he went a month or two earlier.
"Vierteile den, der sie Hure schimpft mit einem türkischen Säbel."
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygenpeterchen wrote: And if not, couldn't he just bomb the date back into October? If you go to the Pilgrim Museum at Plymouth you'll see a proclomation from President Lincoln making Thanksgiving a national holiday. The date for the holiday? I don't remember the exact date but it was in early August. Maybe it's been legislated since then but at least in the early 1860's 'twas in August. Rob Manderson http://www.mindprobes.net "I killed him dead cuz he was stepping on my turf, cutting me out of my bling the same way my ho cuts cookies, officer" "Alright then, move along" - Ian Darling, The Lounge, Oct 10 2003
-
Made a suprise visit to Iraq today. News services cooperated by not preannouncing for security reasons. Flew into Baghdad and spent a couple of hours and is now on his way back. Suspect this will work well for the men and women in the service in Iraq. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031127/D7V337S00.html[^] Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/read.cgi?id=20031127&tid=957602[^]
"Vierteile den, der sie Hure schimpft mit einem türkischen Säbel."
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
peterchen wrote: Hes not the asshole he seems to be The guy is sincere and I am pleased he holds the position he does. As you have no doubt seen I am pro USA regardless of external to the USa opinion. My personal belief is that without our 9-11 response to Afganistan and the follow on action in Iraq the terrorist world would have viewed us as cowardly and we would be living with daily in the streets terrorism as is the case in Israel. The only "things" I hold against him are the liberal things he does, which he refers to a compassionate conservatism: huge monies for education, huge increase to medicare (with prescription drug support), and, a reluctance to enforce our borders. What I do like is that he is passionate in defense of the USA. peterchen wrote: Just a week ago, he started the TV ads for reelection. While you won't believe it means anything, I'll point out that: 1) the Republican Party and not a re-election campaign placed the ad, 2) he has no control over the fact that Thanksgiving comes in November, 3) politics are a part of a politicians life, 4) there is nothing he could do that most of the posters here wouldn't criticize, regardless, 5) what he did was dangerous for a nation's leader. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
-
Made a suprise visit to Iraq today. News services cooperated by not preannouncing for security reasons. Flew into Baghdad and spent a couple of hours and is now on his way back. Suspect this will work well for the men and women in the service in Iraq. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031127/D7V337S00.html[^] Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
couldn't let himself get shown-up by Hillary (or her husband), could he ? Bush, that brave man, snuck in under the cover of darkness just long enough to get some pictures taken. what an inspiration. i wonder if he dared the Iraqis to "Bring It On" while he was there, or did he wait until he was safely out of range ? ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
peterchen wrote: My opinion of him is a fairly nice guy in the completely wrong position. In all honesty I cannot think of any other American that I would rather have in this position at this point in our history. That is not quite correct, if Regan were younger / healthier and hadn't already served 2 terms ( the most that can be served ), he would be my preference. peterchen wrote: This nuance is escaping me. Is this like Haliburton and the current US Vice president being two completely different, unrelated entities? Actually the tie between President Bush / RNC is closer than Cheney / Haliburton. Cheney no longer has a business relationship with Haliburton. If I am not mistaken, he gave up his position as a officer of Haliburton when he accepted the offer to run and I believe (but not certain) that he also divested himself of Haliburton stock. To contrast, for the sake of contrast, Cheney with Clinton - Clinton ran for office as a poor man having done nothing other than serve in politics. He left office as a millionare. Cheney walked away from millions to serve. peterchen wrote: There's a fine difference between publicity due to politics, and politics through publicity. Your point elludes me here but that may be because what is distasteful there is common here, and, vice-versa. As a side note, so far the trip to Iraq hasn't been played up for any big time publicity. We didn't hear about it until he was on his way back. I will wager that we'll hear more about it from the opposition party, the Democrats, than we will from the Republicans. The Democrats will be livid, accusing him of granstanding. The most interesting aspect of this all is that Hillary Clinton was in Afganistan today and is to land in Iraq tomorrow. The end result being that Bush will have sucked the air out of Clinton's well publicized, self-aggrandizing trip. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
Mike Gaskey wrote: Cheney no longer has a business relationship with Haliburton. he is still on their payroll - receiving delayed compensation to the tune of $180K/yr. Mike Gaskey wrote: Cheney walked away from millions to serve riiiight. he burned all his cash before he left for DC, and there's nothing waiting for him when he leaves office. he'll have to go live under a bridge, wearing a sack. what a sacrifice. what a generous man. if nothing else he can go work for the Carlyle Group along with Bush I, James Baker, and a whole bunch of other Bush/Reagan cronies. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
peterchen wrote: And if not, couldn't he just bomb the date back into October? If you go to the Pilgrim Museum at Plymouth you'll see a proclomation from President Lincoln making Thanksgiving a national holiday. The date for the holiday? I don't remember the exact date but it was in early August. Maybe it's been legislated since then but at least in the early 1860's 'twas in August. Rob Manderson http://www.mindprobes.net "I killed him dead cuz he was stepping on my turf, cutting me out of my bling the same way my ho cuts cookies, officer" "Alright then, move along" - Ian Darling, The Lounge, Oct 10 2003
http://www.victorianas.com/thanks/history.html President Thomas Jefferson scoffed at the idea of having a day of thanksgiving. It was Sarah Josepha Hale, a magazine editor, whose efforts eventually led to what we recognize as Thanksgiving. Hale wrote many editorials championing her cause in her Boston Ladies' Magazine, and later, in Godey's Lady's Book. Finally, after a 40-year campaign of writing editorials and letters to governors and presidents, Hale's obsession became a reality when, in 1863, President Lincoln proclaimed the last Thursday in November as a national day of Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving was proclaimed by every president after Lincoln. The date was changed a couple of times, most recently by Franklin Roosevelt, who set it up one week to the next-to-last Thursday in order to create a longer Christmas shopping season. Public uproar against this decision caused the president to move Thanksgiving back to its original date two years later. And in 1941, Thanksgiving was finally sanctioned by Congress as a legal holiday, as the fourth Thursday in November. :) ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
http://www.victorianas.com/thanks/history.html President Thomas Jefferson scoffed at the idea of having a day of thanksgiving. It was Sarah Josepha Hale, a magazine editor, whose efforts eventually led to what we recognize as Thanksgiving. Hale wrote many editorials championing her cause in her Boston Ladies' Magazine, and later, in Godey's Lady's Book. Finally, after a 40-year campaign of writing editorials and letters to governors and presidents, Hale's obsession became a reality when, in 1863, President Lincoln proclaimed the last Thursday in November as a national day of Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving was proclaimed by every president after Lincoln. The date was changed a couple of times, most recently by Franklin Roosevelt, who set it up one week to the next-to-last Thursday in order to create a longer Christmas shopping season. Public uproar against this decision caused the president to move Thanksgiving back to its original date two years later. And in 1941, Thanksgiving was finally sanctioned by Congress as a legal holiday, as the fourth Thursday in November. :) ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Hmmmm. If I'm ever in Plymouth again I'll check it again. It really stuck in my head though because the date marked on the proclamation jarred with expectations. I pointed it out to my wife who was also surprised. Rob Manderson http://www.mindprobes.net "I killed him dead cuz he was stepping on my turf, cutting me out of my bling the same way my ho cuts cookies, officer" "Alright then, move along" - Ian Darling, The Lounge, Oct 10 2003
-
couldn't let himself get shown-up by Hillary (or her husband), could he ? Bush, that brave man, snuck in under the cover of darkness just long enough to get some pictures taken. what an inspiration. i wonder if he dared the Iraqis to "Bring It On" while he was there, or did he wait until he was safely out of range ? ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: Bush, that brave man, snuck in under the cover of darkness... So if he had gone in with a full announcment of his intentions and his plane had got shot at you wouldn't have said "What a fool for taking such a risk"?? Is there any way he could have visited Iraq that would have satisfied you (In a pine box perhaps?) If he had announced his intentions every single terrorist with a stinger missile would have been in the area and that would be just stupid - who knows - maybe a democratic president in 2012 or 2016 will try it? Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
-
peterchen wrote: My opinion of him is a fairly nice guy in the completely wrong position. In all honesty I cannot think of any other American that I would rather have in this position at this point in our history. That is not quite correct, if Regan were younger / healthier and hadn't already served 2 terms ( the most that can be served ), he would be my preference. peterchen wrote: This nuance is escaping me. Is this like Haliburton and the current US Vice president being two completely different, unrelated entities? Actually the tie between President Bush / RNC is closer than Cheney / Haliburton. Cheney no longer has a business relationship with Haliburton. If I am not mistaken, he gave up his position as a officer of Haliburton when he accepted the offer to run and I believe (but not certain) that he also divested himself of Haliburton stock. To contrast, for the sake of contrast, Cheney with Clinton - Clinton ran for office as a poor man having done nothing other than serve in politics. He left office as a millionare. Cheney walked away from millions to serve. peterchen wrote: There's a fine difference between publicity due to politics, and politics through publicity. Your point elludes me here but that may be because what is distasteful there is common here, and, vice-versa. As a side note, so far the trip to Iraq hasn't been played up for any big time publicity. We didn't hear about it until he was on his way back. I will wager that we'll hear more about it from the opposition party, the Democrats, than we will from the Republicans. The Democrats will be livid, accusing him of granstanding. The most interesting aspect of this all is that Hillary Clinton was in Afganistan today and is to land in Iraq tomorrow. The end result being that Bush will have sucked the air out of Clinton's well publicized, self-aggrandizing trip. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
Mike Gaskey wrote: To contrast, for the sake of contrast, Cheney with Clinton - Clinton ran for office as a poor man having done nothing other than serve in politics. He left office as a millionare. Cheney walked away from millions to serve. I seem to remember Cheney getting hired as CEO of Halliburton after serving as Sec Defense. He had no business experience but he served them well by getting them all sorts of defense business. Now he's in for round two of "public service". At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/read.cgi?id=20031127&tid=957602[^]
"Vierteile den, der sie Hure schimpft mit einem türkischen Säbel."
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen"There was a rumor that it was Hillary Clinton coming. I actually wanted to meet her a little more, but Bush would've been okay too :)"
:laugh: regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Brian Welsch wrote: "blah blah blah, maybe a potato?" while translating my Afrikaans. Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
peterchen wrote: Hes not the asshole he seems to be The guy is sincere and I am pleased he holds the position he does. As you have no doubt seen I am pro USA regardless of external to the USa opinion. My personal belief is that without our 9-11 response to Afganistan and the follow on action in Iraq the terrorist world would have viewed us as cowardly and we would be living with daily in the streets terrorism as is the case in Israel. The only "things" I hold against him are the liberal things he does, which he refers to a compassionate conservatism: huge monies for education, huge increase to medicare (with prescription drug support), and, a reluctance to enforce our borders. What I do like is that he is passionate in defense of the USA. peterchen wrote: Just a week ago, he started the TV ads for reelection. While you won't believe it means anything, I'll point out that: 1) the Republican Party and not a re-election campaign placed the ad, 2) he has no control over the fact that Thanksgiving comes in November, 3) politics are a part of a politicians life, 4) there is nothing he could do that most of the posters here wouldn't criticize, regardless, 5) what he did was dangerous for a nation's leader. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
Mike Gaskey wrote: My personal belief is that without our 9-11 response to Afganistan and the follow on action in Iraq the terrorist world would have viewed us as cowardly and we would be living with daily in the streets terrorism as is the case in Israel. Huh?, where's the connection?, besides in Bush's brain that is... While Afghanistan was all about 9-11 and terrorists, Iraq is not even remotely linked to any of the two. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
peterchen wrote: And if not, couldn't he just bomb the date back into October? If you go to the Pilgrim Museum at Plymouth you'll see a proclomation from President Lincoln making Thanksgiving a national holiday. The date for the holiday? I don't remember the exact date but it was in early August. Maybe it's been legislated since then but at least in the early 1860's 'twas in August. Rob Manderson http://www.mindprobes.net "I killed him dead cuz he was stepping on my turf, cutting me out of my bling the same way my ho cuts cookies, officer" "Alright then, move along" - Ian Darling, The Lounge, Oct 10 2003
Your memory is correct. Actually Lincoln proclaimed several Thanksgivings as National Holidays. However they were single days. Not a day to be repeated. 13 April 1862 was a day of Thanks for the victory at Shiloh. 6 August 1963 was a day of Thanks for the victory at Gettysburg. The Declaration for the 4th Thursday in November was made on October 3, 1863. "Don't be so anti-american, would you? KaЯl (to Paul Watson on Baseball Bats) 26 Nov '03 "
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Bush, that brave man, snuck in under the cover of darkness... So if he had gone in with a full announcment of his intentions and his plane had got shot at you wouldn't have said "What a fool for taking such a risk"?? Is there any way he could have visited Iraq that would have satisfied you (In a pine box perhaps?) If he had announced his intentions every single terrorist with a stinger missile would have been in the area and that would be just stupid - who knows - maybe a democratic president in 2012 or 2016 will try it? Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
Dave Huff wrote: So if he had gone in with a full announcment of his intentions you mean like Hillary, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, a whole host of other congressmen, etc. have done? ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Dave Huff wrote: So if he had gone in with a full announcment of his intentions you mean like Hillary, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, a whole host of other congressmen, etc. have done? ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: you mean like Hillary, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, a whole host of other congressmen, etc. have done? And which of those people are the President of the US? If any one of them gets taken out would it plunge the US into political chaos? Announcing his intention and giving everyone a schedule would have been incredibly stupid and inviting disaster. Even a Harvard and Yale educated 'moron' knows that. As it was I would be willing to bet the Secret Service was having kittens over this trip. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
-
Chris Losinger wrote: you mean like Hillary, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, a whole host of other congressmen, etc. have done? And which of those people are the President of the US? If any one of them gets taken out would it plunge the US into political chaos? Announcing his intention and giving everyone a schedule would have been incredibly stupid and inviting disaster. Even a Harvard and Yale educated 'moron' knows that. As it was I would be willing to bet the Secret Service was having kittens over this trip. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
Dave Huff wrote: If any one of them gets taken out would it plunge the US into political chaos? don't be so dramatic. there are rules that clearly describe how the government would function if someone with an RPG brought it on (to Bush). Dave Huff wrote: As it was I would be willing to bet the Secret Service was having kittens over this trip. i bet they were. such a big risk, for a such a little bit of granstanding. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Dave Huff wrote: If any one of them gets taken out would it plunge the US into political chaos? don't be so dramatic. there are rules that clearly describe how the government would function if someone with an RPG brought it on (to Bush). Dave Huff wrote: As it was I would be willing to bet the Secret Service was having kittens over this trip. i bet they were. such a big risk, for a such a little bit of granstanding. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: don't be so dramatic. there are rules that clearly describe how the government would function if someone with an RPG brought it on (to Bush). Yeah - Dick Cheney and Haliburton take over! Chris Losinger wrote: such a big risk, for a such a little bit of granstanding. I am sure that every US soldier in Iraq is thinking that very thought today. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
-
couldn't let himself get shown-up by Hillary (or her husband), could he ? Bush, that brave man, snuck in under the cover of darkness just long enough to get some pictures taken. what an inspiration. i wonder if he dared the Iraqis to "Bring It On" while he was there, or did he wait until he was safely out of range ? ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
