Right on!

Four years ago the administration reached across the aisle and got its hand chewed off:

Joe Wilson's NYT article "What I Didn't Find in Africa" raised questions regarding Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address (SOUA), and specifically questioned the following sentence:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

In response to the Wilson Article, administration officials offered an apology. In essence, they said that Bush's words were true but should not have been in the SOUA. This apology however was never adequately explained, and the Democrats smelled blood. They seized on the apology and turned it into evidence of Bush Lies and Treason.

In retrospect the apology was a mistake and the lesson is: Do Not Feed The Animals.

Sarcastic rhetorical questions ill become you, although they do produce chuckles. You know very well what the Democrats would do, at least if they thought they could get away with it. I wouldn't even be surprised if they tried option two knowing it would backfire. Their hatred of all things Bush often overcomes their common sense. Think of the number of times they have called for certain actions, and the second Bush decided that their ideas had merit and adopted those positions, they immediately changed their positions and were suddenly against what they had been advocating only days before. They would be funny were it not for the harm done to the country. Yes I know, I'm not supposed to question their patriotism. And really, I'm not questioning their patriotism, but rather their judgment and intelligence. How they can think that much of what they have said about the War on Terror does not aid and assist the enemy is something that I cannot understand. I am left wondering how much better things might have gone in Iraq, and worldwide for that matter, had the Democrats stood behind the war and not spent all their time trying to portray it as illegal and immoral? Such divisions within can only encourage the enemy. They see that if they can only hang on they will win. It is much easier to keep trying as long as there is a glimmer of hope that you will succeed. It is truly sad that the party of Harry Truman, or FDR, or JFK has fallen so far. I long for the days when I could vote for Democrats in good conscience, like I did from LBJ through Carter. One term of Cater finally convinced me I was wrong, and that the values I had thought I was supporting no longer existed in the Democrats. There are still a few I support, but their numbers keep declining. And I honestly don't like many of the Republicans, but when it comes to casting a vote, it is a matter of the lesser of two evils.

Spot on analysis! You are the best, Dafydd!

Your option two is the most obvious stance of the Dems. What is so shamefull about this and several other recent episodes is the propensity of conservative commentators to want to throw over the Adminitsration at the earliest opportunity.

Is it just a drive to have their candidates`views front and center or such a desire for purity that they have to beat the Democrats to the punch with any critiques of Democrats.

I believe it was these commentators that drove the move away from Republicans at the last election. A bit of backbone may have meant a Republic Senate and less of a Democratic Congress.

Sorry:

The second paragraph should have read: beat the Democrats to the punch with any critiques of Republicans.

Of course Gonzales has been pretty bad, and one of Bush's poorer choices. And there is a long list to choose from. But the timing would be horrible, and Gonzales has to stick it out as Bush has to stick with him.

Furthermore, the Pres. need to get in front of this issue with a "full support" statement that is unequivocal.

Unfortunately, my Pres. is looking like the lamest of lame ducks.

I'm not home and I can't reach my reference books, but Parliament went after one of Charles I's advisors and finally, to drop the heat, Charles fired the man.

Who was then arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. This finally precipitated the English Civil War as Charles realized that he was in mortal danger. Parliament was going to go after every person around him - including the queen and his children - exile, sequester, or execute every follower or friend of the king, and have him as their puppet.

He decided to fight. He lost, but if he hadn't fought he would have lost anyway. Similarly, Bush ought to take this lesson to heart and not through Gonzales to the wolves. They can't make him do that and if they want to fight on this front let them - make them work for their victory, trench by trench by trench. Every week the senate stays mired in this fight is another week closer to the election and the end.

Sacrifice AG and the Dems appetites will only be whetted to manufacture another "scandal". They should be told that hiring and firing U.S. Attorneys is a presidential perogative and they should shove off and devote their time to finding more ways to encourage the insurgency in Iraq.

Yes, and his last official act should be to pardon them.

Pardon whom, you ask? Why the Democrats in Congress. Their actions are treason, and Bush is 10 times the man any of them will ever be.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)