>>>>>>>>> If there is all of this "so called" evidence of war crimes that can be
>>>>>>>>> tied to President Bush, how come his enemies in the DNC don't use it
>>>>>>>>> against him. Is their anyone who wants to bring down the president
>>>>>>>>> more then Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Are you saying that his
>>>>>>>>> political rivals are colluding with the President to prevent the
>>>>>>>>> "truth" from coming out?
>>>>>>>>> Or is it more likely that America haters (both foreign and domestic)
>>>>>>>>> are lying? Making up stories? Spinning fairy tails of what they want
>>>>>>>>> the truth to be.
>
>>>>>>>> The Democratic Party, at least as it is presently
>>>>>>>> constituted, cannot charge Bush and company with
>>>>>>>> war crimes because they are complicit in most of
>>>>>>>> the crimes.
>
>>>>>>> Well, there would be that little hiccup if in fact President Bush HAD
>>>>>>> committed war crimes. But luckily for them, he hasn't.
>
>>>>>> Depends on whether you think the charter of the Nuremberg
>>>>>> Trials is valid, especially Article 6.
>
>>>>> Not really, since the only people that seriously think President Bush
>>>>> has committed war crimes are you drooling usenet libtard cowards.
>
>>>> If all you do is splutter and bluster like an 8-year-old,
>>>> the strong implication is that you can't deal with the
>>>> argument, that is, either you can see that Bush or at
>>>> least some of his administration have committed the
>>>> acts described in the 6th article of the charter of the
>>>> Nuremberg Trials but don't want to admit it, or you
>>>> afraid to know about it at all. But the facts remain
>>>> even if you shut your eyes and cover your ears.
>
>>> Actually, No,
>
>> Actually, yes, and they did it boldly in full view of the entire
>> planet. They did it with chutzpah and panache, they did it with a
>> renegade cowboy style that would make newsgroups bigots cheer
>> "YEEEHAAAA! Cut 'n gut Saddaaam!" [and help them forget about Clinton
>> pulling the plug on the Party of Gipper for awhile].
>
>> Yes, the swashbuckling Bushies invaded a country for no reason
>> whatsoever on Rove's theory that if you do something stupid, act like
>> you are proud of it and do it in full view and maybe no one will
>> notice.
>
>> After 8 years of Clinton nat'l Republicans were desperate and that's
>> when the Great Eternal Quagmire idea was hatched in Texas. Rove was
>> jumping up and down, flab bouncing like jelly, waving his arms in an
>> animated fashion saying "we need to think big, BIG! BIG I tell ya!"
>
>> "Big and BOLD! I'm a political artTEEEST!"
>
>> . . . . "and if any Democrats think it is a bad idea we can then call
>> them 'Saddam lovers'! Ain't we slicker 'n snot?"
>
>> There were two problems to Rove's theory:
>
>> 1. it's inherently risky. All it takes is one person to call 'em on
>> it.
>
>> 2. no one thinks W is bold or macho or even rides a horse.
>
>> In fact, what little approval Dumbya has comes from fundies and other
>> fearful smallminded nobody wage slaves who think they should have
>> someone representing them who is just like them.
>
>> A smallminded nobody who only obeys The Boss.
>> "Three Texas surgeons were playing golf bragging about their recent
>> operations . . ."
> I have to admit that you show a great deal of creativity in the tale
> that you tell,
Very very flattering. If only that were true. I'd much rather be
creative than correct.
> but like other great works of fiction
You mean "satire."
> I'm not sure of
> that it applies to the "real" world.
Six months or a year before the '06 elections I did some satire here
-- you can find it -- on Rove telling the joint chiefs to get an
action video of troops' boots running down ramps "that would do
Speilberg proud."
The joint chiefs mention that Iraq is already occupied and that
landing craft don't make any sense, etc.
Rove then explodes saying that he never mentioned "landing craft."
Just get some video of "boots running down ramps."
"You can make it look like landing craft ramps with the right
lighting."
Finally the joint chiefs admit that they discharged all the special
effects artists because they were all announcing they were gay, even
those that some of their office women strongly suspected of being
straight.
Finally Rove gets so furious he says, "those fundies piss me off so
much, I may just let the entire country go Democratic."
Months later, just before the '06 elections, after the Florida
congressman was outed, Rove exploded saying the fundies were "crazy."
And Congress went Democratic.
> I have to admit that I disagree with you on the very basic premise of
> your argument. I would ask you for proof, but (where you secretly
> recording conversations between GOP big wigs?) what would be the
> point.
I have the psychology down which is all you really need.
> Since I have no special knowledge of what the GOP was doing
> after the Clinton Presidency, I would not be able to debunk yours.
Sure you could. Just get the psychology down.
> As far as Clinton goes, I think he was a masterful politician
> regardless of the fact that I disagreed with many of his policies. I
> think he was a pretty scummy person, but a great motivator and
> communicator. I think his partner - I mean wife - is not nearly as
> good as he was.
The thing about Bill Clinton is, while a few others are as politically
astute, history provides no example of anyone who enjoys politics as
much as Clinton.
Not Bob Graham.
Not Montesquieu.
Not Madison.
Not even Jefferson.
Not even Eleanor Clift.
I watch Clinton and think, "huh? He LIKES doing this ???? I guess it
takes all kinds . . ."
In turn Clinton looks at me and thinks, "huh? He DOESN'T like doing
this?"
We both cannot believe the other guy exists.
Other than that our political philosophies are identical.
Bret Cahill
