Could this thread hold any more innuendo?

I read that as menudo.:D

Yup it's like a big burrito full of it.

un burrito mas grande es en mi pantalones...

mi pantalones son de queso!!!!!!!!

::wipes water off of monitor after reading CM's post while drinking:: :)

I don't think he kept him around to be the whipping boy. It is obvious this was in the works well before the election because he already had a successor to be named that had agreed to take the position. Bush is loyal to those that are loyal to him. I think Bush didn't want to use him as an excuse prior to the election, as in "see, I fired the guy who is responsible for the stuff not going well in Iraq". Might have been better politically to do so.

I disagree.

3 out of 5 Republican Senators who voted AGAINST the war were voted OUT.
Lieberman TROUNCED an anti-war democrat.

It it not a black and white issue, and I feel it is incorrect to say they lost based on the war.

It's likely a mistake to simply guess why people voted the way they voted. While polling is an inexact science, exit polling is the only way to even get the remotest of ideas as to the issues people voted upon.

So, if anyone can link to some exit poll results, that might be helpful to the discussion.


But, ya know, pure speculation is cool, too.

However exit polls are skewed as well.

There is no doubt that the war played a part- but I don't think it is correct to say the GOP lost because of it.