Words have meaning, Nephy. You should either learn to choose the ones you use more carefully, so that you are not misunderstood, or be prepared to rephrase your statements when people question their meaning.

This is not an attack, but heartfelt creative feedback.

Excuse me if I go back on topic for a moment...

CNN and others are running an interesting news story. It seems some republicans are pissed at Bush over the Rumsfeld timing. Since most Americans voted against the war, they argue that firing Rummy well ahead of the election would have helped their cause and prevented the loss of both houses. I think I have to agree, I certainly would have had a better opinion of Bush if I thought he was taking concrete measures to try and improve the situation in Iraq (ie firing him).

Which is actually what I was using to base my theory that if he bailed on Bolton too he would look like he was backpedaling and weak as far as how the base sees him....my theory may be off.

Frankly I don't know anymore.

I don't disagree that that's why he's sticking with Bolton. His stubborn refusual to change course in the face of facts is the hallmark of his Presidency. I just bristle at the thought that he's doing it as a political move to bolster his party, rather than as an actual attempt to make this country and world better. Of course, he probably figures he's got a free pass right now. Throw the nomination, which will get rejected, out there to appeal to the base, then find someone more moderate. I suspect it will backfire, though.

re: the CNN article, feh. Hindsight is 20/20. Had he dumped Rummy and they still lost, those same folks would have been moaning that he should have stayed the course.

Of course, a year ago, when Bush and Rumpunch were starting to really obstinant and totally blind to the reality of what was happening in Iraq, I was theorizing that the plan was to have the administration go off the deep end, tank the approval numbers, so Repub. candidates could safely and effectively say, "Hey, now, we don't support HIS version of the war, but we are still strong on national safety," an reel in the center of the party and the indies that were starting to drift over to the Dem side. But either they waited too long, or I was off. In which case, I have no explanation as to why Bush and company patently refused to recognize the losing (or at least stalemate) effort in Iraq.

I'm not too comfortable with Gates. Iran-Contra and all that. He was a lying creep then, and I don't think political Tigers change their stripes.

Not that I'd likely be comfortable with anyone who might be nominated to head the Dept. of Defense.



(oh, and pssst, Neph ... the way to back out of an internet discussion is to simply stop posting for a while. Writing a half dozen posts about trying to back out is NOT backing out.)

Isn't it kind of weird that Ortega is back in power in Nicaragua as well now? I wonder what we'll sell to Iran this time.

fair-e-nuff :p

I can't help it if I get addicted- like crack.....

damn- it's past my bedtime. :)

only Twilight-Zone-theme-in-my-head weird, yeah.





:confused: