I'm very sorry to say this because I still do believe that President Bush is an ordinarily decent and honorable man who loves America and is doing what he thinks is best for her but ... ahem ... cough, cough, ... it is possible that the Democrats have not misunderestimated his intelligence. And the intelligence of his advisors as well.

Bush a dummie? Whut about the Mericun peeple hoo voted in the Dims to lede the whey? We bare sum/ alot of the responsibillitee, due whee knot? Whut wuzn't obvius about the war, our opshuns, and the GOP's weasley, lie-ing opponints who wood promess enything durring the campain, like supportin the troups and this cuntry, but then due the oppozit whin elektid, witch is xactley whut most of us thot thay wold due, accept for the ante-war Left that is all ways treu to its ajenda?

Is it incomebant on a PRez to outsmart all us brillyant voters all of the tyme?

Gee, I missed that part of the Constitution where congress was named Commander-in-Chief!

Let's see...hmmmmmm...president commands the military, yup, that's right. Congress handles funding the military, okay...

Darn...it's just not in my copy!

There is a certain kind of stupidity in wasting political capital -- power unused is power lost -- and failing to heed de Tocqueville's dictum that in America popular opinion is King. Say what you want about Clinton, he never relied solely on his ex cathedra authority. His seduction of the American people was a continuing and very successful effort throughout the eight years of his Presidency.

Just look at his first and third press secretaries, Ari Fleischer and Tony Snow. Confrontantional and arrogant, certainly. Persuasive?

I mean, how did Clinton, with a totally Republican Congress, get us to bomb the hell out of a country which had never threatened us and was in fact a bulwark against Islamist invasion of the West while he was being impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice?

So, Clinton was a much superior and more persuasive CinC than Bush? It couldn’t be that he was just a Dem Prez who had no 9-11, no ground wars, and only an iffy air-and-“peacekeeping” intervention with a Repub Congress not quite as determined to underhandedly oppose and undermine our foreign policy as have the Dems under Bush-

Sorry for not understanding the real issues involved, although I thought this particular thread was about the Congressional Dems’ perfidy wrt to our war efforts- the message they send to the people, our military, our enemies and the world. My mistake. Guess it’s all about Bush the mental midget and unmasterly manipulator.

Charlotte:

I'm still trying to wrap my tissue-paper brain around the idea that Tony Snow is "confrontational and arrogant"...

Dafydd

I was thinking of this. But to whatever extent I made judgments that may later be proven to be based on insufficient evidence, I apologize to the wrongfully accused.

Nk:

Yesterday Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, asked Bush spokesman Tony Snow whether Bush would use his power of pardon to free the agents. [The convicted DEA agents who shot the fleeing drug dealer in the back.]

"That's an unanswerable question, Les. The president is the person who is responsible for pardons. You can tell the network, which made you ask that question, that it is nonsensical," Snow said.

"Confrontational and arrogant?" Good heavens!

(I would love to read the rest of the exchange... the part that World Net Daily left out. I watched it, and I recall them badgering Snow quite a bit when he wouldn't jump up and give them a guarantee right there and then. Do you have a complete transcript, or just this snippet selected and provided by -- WND itself?)

Dafydd

Dafydd,

Nope. Just the snippet. And with a 5-year old and only one TV in the house I would have seen the exchange only if it had been shown on Sesame Street. In any event, I apologize to you for venting my frustration here. I do still like and respect the President, I voted straight Republican the last election, and no "run #$%^&*@ run" Democrat will ever get my vote again.

Nk:

I completely understand why people would feel so frustrated that an illegal-alien drug smuggler would get immunity as a witness against the Border Patrol agents who shot him; it just seems wrong, somehow.

But we just can't have agents opening fire on fleeing suspects who are offering no direct threat. If that becomes the face of border enforcement, then the good guys -- the Border Patrol, the cops -- would turn into the "bad guys" so fast, it would make our heads swim... and would probably lead to a terrible loss of support for border enforcement.

The analogy is Abu Ghraib. I'm not in the least bit sympathetic towards any actual terrorists or insurgents tormented by those deviant guards. But look at what those jackasses almost singlehandedly accomplished on behalf of the terrorists: Charles Graner, Lynndie England, and their mob managed to turn half the country against the most important war since World War II.

We don't want the same thing happening to domestic border security; it would kill us.

Dafydd

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...)