Nancy Pelosi - Printable Version
+- InsaneTrain Forums (https://insanetrain.com)
+-- Forum: General (https://insanetrain.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: General Forum (https://insanetrain.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Nancy Pelosi (/showthread.php?tid=39107)
+- InsaneTrain Forums (https://insanetrain.com)
+-- Forum: General (https://insanetrain.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: General Forum (https://insanetrain.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Nancy Pelosi (/showthread.php?tid=39107)
Nancy Pelosi - Sassy - 11-10-2006
Flumper Barflusterbutt Wrote:Are you so stupid as to not know that Saddam used an incredible amount of chemical weapons against the Iranians during the 8 year war they had? Surely you aren't that big of a dumbass.No I certainly am not stupid.That's only one person's opinion.But you implied Saddam attempting to assassinate a former US president was the reason that we went to war.That is interesting:
I didn't say that Saddam attempting to assassinate a former US president was "the" reason that we went to war. I listed many reasons and only threw that in as an additional reason if anyone wanted to add it to the list. I know that Bush has said repeatedly that had nothing to do with it.
The problem is, you can take a list of reasons that we had to get rid of Saddam and pick out one thing and apply it to Saudi Arabia, or you can pick out one other thing and apply it to North Korea, or Sudan or Syria or whoever you want, but the fact is that we had all of those reasons to take out Saddam. The guy was a huge threat in the Middle East and had been for many years. He had always been in the business of stockpiling wmd's and openly bragged about the weapons he possessed.
I'll agree that his real threat was confined to the Middle East, more so to his weak neighbors to his south, but you'd have to have been in a coma for the past 50 years to not know the importance of the Middle East and its stability and how that relates to the United States.
said listed many reasons and only threw that in as an additional reason if anyone wanted to add it to the list.
Who told you that?I assume you mean our current problem.
Is that a fact. What happened to
always been in the business of stockpiling wmd's and openly bragged about the weapons he possessed
?How do you plan to do this?
Nancy Pelosi - BIRD33 - 11-10-2006
Flumper Barflusterbutt Wrote:Are you so stupid as to not know that Saddam used an incredible amount of chemical weapons against the Iranians during the 8 year war they had? Surely you aren't that big of a dumbass.
I didn't say that Saddam attempting to assassinate a former US president was "the" reason that we went to war. I listed many reasons and only threw that in as an additional reason if anyone wanted to add it to the list. I know that Bush has said repeatedly that had nothing to do with it.
The problem is, you can take a list of reasons that we had to get rid of Saddam and pick out one thing and apply it to Saudi Arabia, or you can pick out one other thing and apply it to North Korea, or Sudan or Syria or whoever you want, but the fact is that we had all of those reasons to take out Saddam. The guy was a huge threat in the Middle East and had been for many years. He had always been in the business of stockpiling wmd's and openly bragged about the weapons he possessed.
I'll agree that his real threat was confined to the Middle East, more so to his weak neighbors to his south, but you'd have to have been in a coma for the past 50 years to not know the importance of the Middle East and its stability and how that relates to the United States.
So taking out Irans mortal enemy and empowering them to make Iraq a radical islamic goverment which it wasnt before is good for the middle east and the USA how?
Nancy Pelosi - Flumper Barflusterbutt - 11-10-2006
BIRD33 Wrote:So taking out Irans mortal enemy and empowering them to make Iraq a radical islamic goverment which it wasnt before is good for the middle east and the USA how?
That's a good question. That's why I can't figure out why you and Pelosi just want us to pack up and walk away from an unfinished operation.
Nancy Pelosi - Raiden - 11-10-2006
We have disrupted the Yin and Yang of crazy raghead regimes. We must destroy Iran now.
Nancy Pelosi - Flumper Barflusterbutt - 11-10-2006
Raiden Wrote:We have disrupted the Yin and Yang of crazy raghead regimes. We must destroy Iran now.
If it wasn't for the fact that you can basically stick a straw in the sand and produce oil over there, these guys wouldn't be a threat to anyone further than a stone's throw away from them.
Nancy Pelosi - BIRD33 - 11-10-2006
Flumper Barflusterbutt Wrote:That's a good question. That's why I can't figure out why you and Pelosi just want us to pack up and walk away from an unfinished operation.We were told we would be greeted as liberators not that we'd be making a multiple decade commitment that at that point would cost 10's of thousands of americans lives.Thats why 70% of the country thinks its a mistake.What is your definition of a finished operation?havent you figured out that making these two arab factions make peace is not feasible since they've been fighting for centuries and outside infidels arent going to change their minds but actually inflame the situation?I'm really curious what you think it will take and is what it would take (decades,multiple american deaths) what the president and vice president told us it would take going in?If not why should we trust them?
I've been part of the camp that wants to negotiate with these countries like Iraq and Iran in order to spare american military lives.Now before you call me a cut and runner and a coward realize thats exactly what Bush's new secretary of state Gates has been advocating since before the start of the war and what he will be pushing now.You are defending a policy that even Bush is waking up to as a huge mistake.
Nancy Pelosi - Flumper Barflusterbutt - 11-10-2006
BIRD33 Wrote:We were told we would be greeted as liberators not that we'd be making a multiple decade commitment that at that point would cost 10's of thousands of americans lives.Thats why 70% of the country thinks its a mistake.What is your definition of a finished operation?havent you figured out that making these two arab factions make peace is not feasible since they've been fighting for centuries and outside infidels arent going to change their minds but actually inflame the situation?I'm really curious what you think it will take and is what it would take (decades,multiple american deaths) what the president and vice president told us it would take going in?If not why should we trust them?
I've been part of the camp that wants to negotiate with these countries like Iraq and Iran in order to spare american military lives.Now before you call me a cut and runner and a coward realize thats exactly what Bush's new secretary of state Gates has been advocating since before the start of the war and what he will be pushing now.You are defending a policy that even Bush is waking up to as a huge mistake.
I'm not defending any policy. I'm just saying that I understand why we felt it was in our best interest to take Saddam out of power. I'm not saying that we didn't underestimate the turmoil that would start after he was gone. And i'm not saying that there won't still be some turmoil going on when we leave.
All I am saying is that we have made good progress in getting the roots of a democratic nation started over there. We are gradually getting them trained to fight the insurgents themselves. I know that once we leave these insurgent bombings and bullshit will slow down dramatically.
Sure, there will always probably be a faction of them that will resent the new government, but I think that will eventually become a small problem rather than the large one it is now.
I'm certainly not for losing any American lives to that war, but we are there and we have to do what we have to do.
I do believe that the rhetoric from the liberals (and people like you) are fueling the insurgents. Its giving them the feeling that they are defeating us. Its making the terrorists feel stronger. I'm just not a big fan of that. I think that we will be out of there as quickly as possible and all of this talk about "just getting out of there" makes it sounds like we are running from a fight.
I honestly believe that most of the liberals want us to "cut and run" so that this thing will be as much of a failure as they can make it just to prove a political point.
I'm a big believer in democracy and the merits of a democratically run country. I really believe that Iraq will be better off as a result of this.
And I also believe that for the most part we were received as liberators. It only takes one suicide bomber to drive up and kill 60 people at a time. Its not like there is this majority of the population over there that hates us for being there.
Nancy Pelosi - BIRD33 - 11-10-2006
Flumper Barflusterbutt Wrote:I'm not defending any policy. I'm just saying that I understand why we felt it was in our best interest to take Saddam out of power. I'm not saying that we didn't underestimate the turmoil that would start after he was gone. And i'm not saying that there won't still be some turmoil going on when we leave.
All I am saying is that we have made good progress in getting the roots of a democratic nation started over there. We are gradually getting them trained to fight the insurgents themselves. I know that once we leave these insurgent bombings and bullshit will slow down dramatically.
Sure, there will always probably be a faction of them that will resent the new government, but I think that will eventually become a small problem rather than the large one it is now.
I'm certainly not for losing any American lives to that war, but we are there and we have to do what we have to do.
I do believe that the rhetoric from the liberals (and people like you) are fueling the insurgents. Its giving them the feeling that they are defeating us. Its making the terrorists feel stronger. I'm just not a big fan of that. I think that we will be out of there as quickly as possible and all of this talk about "just getting out of there" makes it sounds like we are running from a fight.
I honestly believe that most of the liberals want us to "cut and run" so that this thing will be as much of a failure as they can make it just to prove a political point.
I'm a big believer in democracy and the merits of a democratically run country. I really believe that Iraq will be better off as a result of this.
And I also believe that for the most part we were received as liberators. It only takes one suicide bomber to drive up and kill 60 people at a time. Its not like there is this majority of the population over there that hates us for being there.
We are making no inroads for a democracy in Iraq.The election they had was basically a census that showed how many of what faction was in Iraq since all the Sunni's voted for Sunni's and Shite's etc.They will look out for themselves and if they don't get their way they will kill the other side, its the way they've been doing it since the middle ages and you can't just throw a democracy style goverment in an area of the world that doesnt even understand the idea of equal rights.It sounds like a good and noble idea but it's really really niave.
With all these miscalculations the bush administration made you have the balls to blame the liberals and people like me typing on my computer 1000's of miles away for the reasons the insurgents are dominating Iraq?How did my poor attitude factor into the disbanding of the Iraqi army, the infiltration of insurgents into the police force thats supposed to stand up so we can stand down, the fact that Irans influence is taking over and all the other totally laughable policy decisions that have cost americans lives?Do you really think Americans souring on the war had more of an effect than the fact that we unleashed radical islam on a secular state in a region that has a strategic resource and hasnt been stable in 200 years?You give people like me to much credit probably because you don't understand the region and the nature of the conflict.
I do want us to leave because I realize how stupid it was to go there and how many american lives it cost us and I don't trust the people who made the mistakes that got us to this point to get us out of it.Its like if I was an investor in a company and the CEO came up with a brilliant idea that cost the company 2 billion dollars and cut my stock price in half and then giving him the go ahead to try his next brilliant idea to fix what he did.The guy gets fired not a second chance right?
Iraq is going into a full blown civil war very soon if its not already there, you just need to accept that and realize that diplomacy is the only way to get anything done.Thats why no other president was stupid enough to start a preemptive war like Bush did.We will have to negotiate with whatever shitty regime comes out of it like we do with N Korea and thats all you can do since we arent rulers of the Earth.Mark my words,Bush will realize that Iraq is going to be totalitarian goverment like every other Mideast country instead of a democracy and there is nothing we can do about it and these last few years along with the lives lost will be a total waste.
Nancy Pelosi - BIRD33 - 11-10-2006
Here's a great quote from Cheyney when he was secretary of defense during gulf war 1.How fucking ironic.
Shortly after the war, the secretary of defense then, Dick Cheney, said why arguments for "going to Baghdad" had been "fallacious."
"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it," he told the New York Times. "It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901875.html
Nancy Pelosi - Paddy - 11-10-2006
There'll probably be a dignified withdrawal, similar to the one from Vietnam.
Nancy Pelosi - Flumper Barflusterbutt - 11-10-2006
Paddy Wrote:There'll probably be a dignified withdrawal, similar to the one from Vietnam.
That's the war they said we lost, right?
Nancy Pelosi - Paddy - 11-10-2006
I hear it claimed as a tie. But the North Vietnamese weren't battling to be on the last chopper out.
Nancy Pelosi - BIRD33 - 11-10-2006
The only good thing coming out of this war will be some bad ass apocolypse now type of war movies.
Nancy Pelosi - Sassy - 11-10-2006
BIRD33 Wrote:The only good thing coming out of this war will be some bad ass apocolypse now type of war movies.There might be others.
Nancy Pelosi - BIRD33 - 11-10-2006
According to many conservatives Vietnam was a good idea but we lost our will.To that I say 58,000 deads americans.Seems like everything turned out ok even though we left.
Nancy Pelosi - Flumper Barflusterbutt - 11-10-2006
BIRD33 Wrote:Here's a great quote from Cheyney when he was secretary of defense during gulf war 1.How fucking ironic.
Shortly after the war, the secretary of defense then, Dick Cheney, said why arguments for "going to Baghdad" had been "fallacious."
"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it," he told the New York Times. "It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901875.html
So how does this fit into your conspiracy theory? I remember those same kind of comments. I remember Schwartzkopf being pissed that he couldn't go to Baghdad to get the treaty signed by Saddam himself. I remember all of them saying at the time that it wasn't the right time to go into Baghdad and take out Saddam.
But, I also thought, after several years and basically the same guys in charge (Powell and Cheney), that they did have a plan and they had thought through all of the things that are happening now and they were aware of and had talked about back in the first Gulf War.
I think they anticipated most of what has happened. I remember Bush, before the war started, told everyone that it was going to take a long time (no timetable), that we had to percevere (sp), that it was going to shake our resolve, etc.. Has it happened exactly like we had hoped. No.
Nancy Pelosi - BIRD33 - 11-10-2006
Flumper Barflusterbutt Wrote:So how does this fit into your conspiracy theory? I remember those same kind of comments. I remember Schwartzkopf being pissed that he couldn't go to Baghdad to get the treaty signed by Saddam himself. I remember all of them saying at the time that it wasn't the right time to go into Baghdad and take out Saddam.
But, I also thought, after several years and basically the same guys in charge (Powell and Cheney), that they did have a plan and they had thought through all of the things that are happening now and they were aware of and had talked about back in the first Gulf War.
I think they anticipated most of what has happened. I remember Bush, before the war started, told everyone that it was going to take a long time (no timetable), that we had to percevere (sp), that it was going to shake our resolve, etc.. Has it happened exactly like we had hoped. No.
Its fits because Cheyney was only Secretary of defense during gulf war 1 not the puppeter pulling the strings as vice president.Bush Sr. got advice from all sides which we both know his son didnt and Sr. made an informed intelligent decision based on facts not assumptions.Cheyney was just following orders from Sr. and maybe didnt agree with Sr but he had no choice.It wasnt the right to take take out saddam back then for the reasons in cheyneys quote so what exactly changed?The situation as he laid it out 15 years ago holds true now and was proven as fact since we all see Iraq is now the mess he predicted it could be during gulf war 1.
How can you say they predicted most of what happend?
Rumsfeld predicted the war would take 6 months.Thats was the current at the time Secretary of Defense talking about the war, that was 3 years ago. Cheyney said we'd be greeted as liberators before the war and almost 2 years ago he said the insurgency was in its last throes(sp).Seems like the insurgency is getting stronger every day.Doesnt seem like they predicted to many things that came true.
For Christs sake Bush's own father, Former head of the CIA, Vice president and President thinks it was a terrible mistake and he and his son don't talk about it.Whats that tell you?And what does it tell you that bush jr is now embracing all the people he laughed off and ignored from Bush 41's staff that he's now running to for help(Baker)?
Nancy Pelosi - BIRD33 - 11-10-2006
Interesting
The Circle, by Sgt. Sharon D. Allen
The camp is under red-lens light discipline, which means we can't use an unfiltered flashlight. It severely lessens our evening entertainment options. So, soon after we arrived, we began our strange nightly gatherings. You won't find it on any schedule, but you can set your watch by it. As the sun nudges the horizon and the gravel cools, some of us give up our battle with the ambient light and surrender our reading until the morning. Others collect up their poker winnings or grumble about their losses. And we all drag our chairs and cigarettes and joylessly warm water out to the gravel and talk. We call it "the circle." In the Army there is an incredibly varied cross section of society, and we are a diverse group. We have a couple kids straight out of high school, who'd either joined to get a little excitement out of life or to get a leg up on it so that they could go to college. We have older guys, who've already put in their time. They tend to be either jaded or genial, both in reaction to the accumulated bullshit slung at most soldiers who've been in the service for years. We have everyone from idealists to realists to fatalists, more than a few who began at one end of the spectrum and eventually meandered their way to the other.
I always find it amusing when people talk about "the military" vote, perspective, or whatever. My company has 170-some soldiers, and 170-some opinions. We might have more invested in foreign policy than people back home, but that doesn't mean we all agree on exactly what those policies should be. Two of the guys, Jeff and Sam, are brothers serving together here but in different platoons. They are both slightly to the left of extremely conservative, yet also very anti-Iraq war. Their father threatened to cut off his own head and send it in to Al-jazeera if his sons aren't returned home soon.
Jake is one of my best friends out here, and one of the most infuriating people I've ever known. Jake's a former Marine who comes from a Marine family and whose biggest regret is that this isn't "a real war," something on the scale of World War II or Vietnam. I usually point out to him that we didn't lose many people in the first few years of Vietnam, either. And then I say something about how I'm really [expletive deleted by washingtonpost.com] sorry that not enough of us have died for him to consider this a real war. If I had met Jake in a bar in the States and he had said half the bullshit he says here, well, we definitely would not have become friends. But he's here, too, so I guess he's entitled to his opinion. His son, Joey, will be joining us when he gets out of Basic. I wonder if his opinion will change then.
In the circle, we talk for hours not only about the reasons for this war, but for the previous one, too, and if we were ever justified in coming to this part of the world in the first place. At least in Desert Storm, some members of the circle argue, Iraq was the aggressor. Also, the whole world seemed to support us. Several of the soldiers in my platoon are former Marines and more than a few had been in the Gulf War. Desert Storm, they say, was to keep Iraq from taking over Kuwait. Naked aggression that had to be stopped. Simple as that.
Others shoot back that even so, we have no right to get involved in a situation that was a fiscal, not physical, threat, to us. Now we're trying to change an entire culture? And aren't we being naive or arrogant to think that we will make any long-term difference here, anyway? Tempers can get heated, and on some days, it probably isn't a good idea that we are all armed. Unfortunately, two of the guys, Jeff and Jake, are too big for me to punch.
One night we started arguing the hierarchy of evil world leaders, and where Saddam stood on that list. There are obviously worse men, so why Iraq? Why now? For every Saddam, there are ten more vicious dictators, and we can't get rid of them all. Of course, then we had to delve into Saddam's motivations, and if he's really such a bad guy. For the record, I was on the "yes, he's an inexcusable piece of shit" side of this argument.
Jake, of course, wonders if the country is really less dangerous now than under Hussein. He doesn't think there would be suicide bombers and IEDs littering the roads without our impetus. Haven't we made everything worse? the question is inevitably asked.
You mean worse than when hundreds of thousands of people were executed, gassed, and tortured? the inevitable answer comes.
At least there wasn't so much random violence and bloodshed.
No, under Hussein it was all well-organized violence and bloodshed. People were scared to death to say the wrong thing.
Well, now they're scared to death to walk outside without getting blown up.
If we leave, this place will erupt into a civil war.
It probably will anyway. And it'll be our fault for lighting the fuse. . . .
And around and around we go.
I personally believe that living conditions are better now in Iraq than before we were here. I just don't know if they are safer. It seems to change from day to day. And even I wonder if one country can impose political stability and democracy on another.
Some point out that we did it in Japan and Germany. And technically, of course, the Iraqis can "vote out" a democracy if they prefer another system of rule. While I understand that most Americans believe democracy to be the best system of rule, we may also have to accept that it might not work for every culture. I sincerely want it to work, but Jeff and Jake hold out little hope.
Along with the whole question of mixing faith and politics, we're also dealing with a schismatic religion and people who loathe one another. A Sunni won't even use a toilet after a Shiite has. Now we want them to work together to create a new system of law? Then you throw in the Kurds, who are mainly Christian, of an entirely different culture, and whose claim to fame is that their mere existence is the one thing that brings the Sunnis and Shiites together. The Muslims and Kurds hate each other with a bloodthirsty passion most of us cannot even conceive. One member of the circle asked, "Jesus Christ himself couldn't get these people to get along. Do you really think Bush can?"
And where the hell are the weapons of mass destruction? (Here we go.)
Please, it's not like he didn't have them or use them before.
But did anyone think he was really going to use them on us?
He could have sold them to people who wanted to.
Some of the soldiers in my company, I'm told, still bear the scars of mustard gas from Desert Storm, and I've met Kurds whose family members were gassed to death. I don't know if Saddam shipped his stuff out to Syria or if he buried it, which, after being there and seeing the incredible expanse of nothingness that is Iraq, is in no way inconceivable. I don't know if Bush really thought we'd find any. He may have exaggerated the threat, but chemical warfare is nasty shit. Several of us have no problem if he was just staying on the safe side with this one.
Jeff and others don't think we're here to build a democracy or "make the world safer from terrorism." This led to a heated discussion about Bush's motivations. Halliburton, retribution (for Hussein's attempted assassination of Bush's dad), oil -- they all came up. I refuse to believe that we're only here for oil. A logical, removed argument could outline the reality that Americans do consume oil and need a friendly government in charge of reserves. But Canada and Mexico have oil, and it'd be a hell of a lot easier to invade them.
If we're here for humanitarian reasons, Jeff asked, then why didn't we go into Rwanda?
Yeah, but there's no oil in Bosnia or Kosovo either, someone countered. And we went in there.
I cannot believe that Bush or Cheney are risking hundreds of thousands of American lives so they or their friends can make a little money. Rumor has it they're both pretty well off anyway. Jeff rarely allows any benefit of the doubt when it comes to Bush. I don't think Jeff could say a good word about Bush with a gun to his head -- and some of us have, trust me, entertained the thought.
It gets pretty exhausting after a while. Things would be a lot less complicated if our government was totally innocent and Saddam's was totally guilty. Or if we hadn't been so buddy-buddy with him all those years before Desert Storm.
And speaking of old friends, someone asked if they thought we'd ever find Osama bin Laden. That was the whole point, right -- 9/11? There's hardly ever any mention in the news or by politicians about Afghanistan, and it's like the troops over there have been forgotten.
This last point we could all agree on. Maybe those of us in Iraq would be forgotten too, or worse. The public supported Vietnam for the first few years, too, then it changed. We don't know how we're going to be treated when we get home, but I think most people realize that you can be for the troops even if you're against the war.
Everyone says they are supporting us, but sometimes it seems that civilians have no idea about who soldiers really are. This, too, we all agreed on, that people back home have no concept of what troops go through. We're not robotic killing machines. We're regular Americans, just doing our jobs. This war has really tapped the National Guard, so the average soldier out here could be your mechanic or your plumber. Maybe your dentist. Or the girl at the cash register. I think we're all pretty proud of what we do, and, at heart, we're all patriotic. But we're not brainwashed, and we have differing opinions. And we realize that there wasn't only one reason for starting this war.
At least certainly not one obvious reason.
Because I honestly believe if there had been, in one of our endless discussions in the circle, we would have found it.
Nancy Pelosi - Flumper Barflusterbutt - 11-11-2006
BIRD33 Wrote:Its fits because Cheyney was only Secretary of defense during gulf war 1 not the puppeter pulling the strings as vice president.Bush Sr. got advice from all sides which we both know his son didnt and Sr. made an informed intelligent decision based on facts not assumptions.Cheyney was just following orders from Sr. and maybe didnt agree with Sr but he had no choice.It wasnt the right to take take out saddam back then for the reasons in cheyneys quote so what exactly changed?The situation as he laid it out 15 years ago holds true now and was proven as fact since we all see Iraq is now the mess he predicted it could be during gulf war 1.
How can you say they predicted most of what happend?
Rumsfeld predicted the war would take 6 months.Thats was the current at the time Secretary of Defense talking about the war, that was 3 years ago. Cheyney said we'd be greeted as liberators before the war and almost 2 years ago he said the insurgency was in its last throes(sp).Seems like the insurgency is getting stronger every day.Doesnt seem like they predicted to many things that came true.
For Christs sake Bush's own father, Former head of the CIA, Vice president and President thinks it was a terrible mistake and he and his son don't talk about it.Whats that tell you?And what does it tell you that bush jr is now embracing all the people he laughed off and ignored from Bush 41's staff that he's now running to for help(Baker)?
You might want to work on this conspiracy theory a bit more. It doesn't make any sense and needs a talking head liberal to spin it into something that makes more sense. I thought you cut and runners all thought cheney was running the show and not Bush? Have you decided to abandon that theory now so that you can create another one?
If you are going to spin it now that Bush is the master and puppeteer, then you are going to have to erase a lot of bullshit you guys have been pumping out the past 6 years.
Nancy Pelosi - Flumper Barflusterbutt - 11-11-2006
And I'm not reading that long post, btw.