Sunday morning lineup – It’s a 9/11 retrospective with Dick Cheney and Condi Rice making the rounds. John Kerry will be on Late Edition trying to look Presidential.
Hey, there's a post here from someone in that fantasy world where the Clinton administration was on such good terms with that endearing little guy from Iraq, Saddam Hussein.
In the real world Clinton and the Dems spent almost 10 years telling us what a failure Bush 41 was for not getting Saddam when he had the chance, because Saddam was a dangerous dictator with ties to terrorism and a history of using WMD.
If the Dems do win it will be interesting to watch the Dems make fools of themselves trying to impeach Bush for doing something they spent 10 years telling us had to be done. 2 years of a Dem house and/or Senate and the Republicans will have an easy time taking back everything in '08.
If Bush had let Saddam be, our cute little friend here would then be telling us that Bush 43 was a failure for letting Saddam stay in power, just like they said about his dad. How convenient that whatever a Republican does they'll just say it's wrong.
I suspect, however, that our little friend will have to get use to dissapointments when the tally comes in from the elections this fall.
Yeah, remember all those Bill Clinton quotes, just shredding Bush 41 for letting Saddam off the hook? There were ten years of those speeches! That guy was relentless.
You seem very panicky about people calling Bush 41 and Bush 43 "failures." Don't be so upset. Bush 41 wasn't a failure.
You write, "How convenient that whatever a Republican does they'll just say it's wrong." Er, news flash, buddy: you're saying Democrats are wrong for things that haven't even happened. (Those stupid impeachment hearings! Nobody even blew him!)
It's also great fun to read your electoral analysis: that it'll be a GOP win if the Democrats win control of Congress, and that it'll be a GOP win when the Democrats don't. Man, I don't even know why the Dems'd show up.
You write, "How convenient that whatever a Republican does they'll just say it's wrong." Er, news flash, buddy: you're saying Democrats are wrong for things that haven't even happened. (Those stupid impeachment hearings! Nobody even blew him!)
Here’s one Democratic effort to lay the groundwork for impeaching Bush:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5768
Note, they have 37 co-sponsors on this bill, including Democrat leaders. That’s about a fifth of their caucus. And this is just one bill, submitted while they are still in the minority.
I think it’s reasonable to conclude that a lot of Democrats want to impeach Bush, and will work towards this goal if they gain the majority.
Right. And therefore these 37 will carry the day, and therefore a rhetorical symbolic statement will spring to life with unstoppable momentum, and therefore the impeachment hearings will occur, and therefore the impeachment hearings will fail, and therefore the Democrats will look like fools, and therefore the GOP will take control of the House and Senate that they haven't yet lost in 26 months' time.
Yes, TGK, that argument is reasonable, and has great predictive value. I stand chastened.
P.S. And if it doesn't end up happening the way it inevitably must, the GOP will still win anyway. Yayyyy GOP!
Right. And therefore these 37 will carry the day, and therefore a rhetorical symbolic statement will spring to life with unstoppable momentum, and therefore the impeachment hearings will occur, and therefore the impeachment hearings will fail, and therefore the Democrats will look like fools, and therefore the GOP will take control of the House and Senate that they haven't yet lost in 26 months' time.
Yes, TGK, that argument is reasonable, and has great predictive value. I stand chastened.
P.S. And if it doesn't end up happening the way it inevitably must, the GOP will still win anyway. Yayyyy GOP!
Nobody is claiming that Bush will certainly be impeached, if the Democrats win the House.
Policy differences are not technically an impeachable offense (it's not like he has committed perjury or obstruction of justice, or suborned perjury).
The point is that the Democrats would spend a lot of time and energy trying (with your active encouragement, of course), and that's just another reason to vote against them.
9 comments:
Couldn't we just "jinx" all three of them?
Annnnd... Dick "I never said that" Cheney hauled out the old "ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq" line of B.S. And so did Condizzending Rice.
The only silver lining is that these unbelievable f*ckups have been in their "last throes" for almost two years now.
Smile, Agnew and Kissinger! You're looking better and better every day!
Hey, there's a post here from someone in that fantasy world where the Clinton administration was on such good terms with that endearing little guy from Iraq, Saddam Hussein.
In the real world Clinton and the Dems spent almost 10 years telling us what a failure Bush 41 was for not getting Saddam when he had the chance, because Saddam was a dangerous dictator with ties to terrorism and a history of using WMD.
If the Dems do win it will be interesting to watch the Dems make fools of themselves trying to impeach Bush for doing something they spent 10 years telling us had to be done. 2 years of a Dem house and/or Senate and the Republicans will have an easy time taking back everything in '08.
If Bush had let Saddam be, our cute little friend here would then be telling us that Bush 43 was a failure for letting Saddam stay in power, just like they said about his dad. How convenient that whatever a Republican does they'll just say it's wrong.
I suspect, however, that our little friend will have to get use to dissapointments when the tally comes in from the elections this fall.
Cheers
Yeah, remember all those Bill Clinton quotes, just shredding Bush 41 for letting Saddam off the hook? There were ten years of those speeches! That guy was relentless.
You seem very panicky about people calling Bush 41 and Bush 43 "failures." Don't be so upset. Bush 41 wasn't a failure.
You write, "How convenient that whatever a Republican does they'll just say it's wrong." Er, news flash, buddy: you're saying Democrats are wrong for things that haven't even happened. (Those stupid impeachment hearings! Nobody even blew him!)
It's also great fun to read your electoral analysis: that it'll be a GOP win if the Democrats win control of Congress, and that it'll be a GOP win when the Democrats don't. Man, I don't even know why the Dems'd show up.
Cheers indeed!
Let’s focus on just one of your points:
You write, "How convenient that whatever a Republican does they'll just say it's wrong." Er, news flash, buddy: you're saying Democrats are wrong for things that haven't even happened. (Those stupid impeachment hearings! Nobody even blew him!)
Here’s one Democratic effort to lay the groundwork for impeaching Bush:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5768
Note, they have 37 co-sponsors on this bill, including Democrat leaders. That’s about a fifth of their caucus. And this is just one bill, submitted while they are still in the minority.
I think it’s reasonable to conclude that a lot of Democrats want to impeach Bush, and will work towards this goal if they gain the majority.
Right. And therefore these 37 will carry the day, and therefore a rhetorical symbolic statement will spring to life with unstoppable momentum, and therefore the impeachment hearings will occur, and therefore the impeachment hearings will fail, and therefore the Democrats will look like fools, and therefore the GOP will take control of the House and Senate that they haven't yet lost in 26 months' time.
Yes, TGK, that argument is reasonable, and has great predictive value. I stand chastened.
P.S. And if it doesn't end up happening the way it inevitably must, the GOP will still win anyway. Yayyyy GOP!
Right. And therefore these 37 will carry the day, and therefore a rhetorical symbolic statement will spring to life with unstoppable momentum, and therefore the impeachment hearings will occur, and therefore the impeachment hearings will fail, and therefore the Democrats will look like fools, and therefore the GOP will take control of the House and Senate that they haven't yet lost in 26 months' time.
Yes, TGK, that argument is reasonable, and has great predictive value. I stand chastened.
P.S. And if it doesn't end up happening the way it inevitably must, the GOP will still win anyway. Yayyyy GOP!
Nobody is claiming that Bush will certainly be impeached, if the Democrats win the House.
Policy differences are not technically an impeachable offense (it's not like he has committed perjury or obstruction of justice, or suborned perjury).
The point is that the Democrats would spend a lot of time and energy trying (with your active encouragement, of course), and that's just another reason to vote against them.
The Democrats don't need an impeachable offense in order to impeach President Bush. Their hatred is sufficient.
Post a Comment