Yep, W meeting with those who agree with him is certainly a shock.

In other news, water continues to be wet.

We can't make it too difficult for our President can we?

Yes. I'm sure W listened to every word they said. Right up until Sportscenter came on and then the three retired generals and two academics were dismissively asked to drink up their O'Douls and get out.

Hey, it's hard work trying to brainstorm new ways of running out the clock on his presidency.

At least OJ is only in denial about killing two people, not several hundred thousand.

Oh, and can I take this opportunity to say to Charlie:

Sorry Charlie! Neener neener! Shortstop once asked me which troll I hated the most and guess what? You won! Smug, annoying, dim, and smug. Did I mention smug? Insufferable, more like.

This is me dancing around in the fresh air. La la la! hooooweee, this feels good!

Sorry, I'm all better now. Pretty much.

It's pertinent to mention Desert Crossing on this thread too. Many of the conclusions drawn from Desert Crossing have played out in the real world. Desert Crossing predicted the instability of the region and the power vacuum that resulted when the Iraqi regime fell. Desert Crossing accurately forecast the "rival forces bidding for power" which, in turn, could cause societal "fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines" and antagonize "aggressive neighbors."

It is true that the ISG's recommendations weren't likely to do much good. That's because there aren't any very good ideas to try, and the least worst course - leaving ASAP - had already been excluded before they started.

Finding a solution to the catastrophe wasn't the point of the ISG; everybody but Bush already knows we're FUBAR. The point of the ISG was to allow Bush to spread the blame a bit, and salvage some of the GOP's prospects post-chimp.

This wasn't good enough for Bush, who'd have to spend the next two years admitting he screwed up. Bush doesn't give a rat's ass about what condition he leaves his party or his country in, so there was no attraction for him to the deal the ISG offered.

With Bush's polling at 30% and support for the war headed for the teens, the bottom has really fallen out of this administration. They haven't an inkling of what to do next, either.

Wow Craigie. Cheer down a little Dude. I don't want you to hyperventilate or trip and sprain something.

GC,
Brilliant work on the last thread. We won't see Brian around these parts for awhile... morning at least.

Carter's comment on Slate about talking to NCOs was more relevant than generals knowledge because of the nature of the conflict would still be an idea if somebody wanted a real consultation and not a show of concern.

Thanks for the kind words. I love it when they sent in the junior varsity.

I just had a meeting with my Dogz and Catz, and they advise me to give them more treats.

and oj found the real killer

Kudos, Kevin. The OJ remark really hit the spot.

the Bush administration is just like the O.J. trial. Both think they can get away with anything and their followers never think they did a thing wrong.

OJ hasn't killed nearly as many people as Bush.

I can't wait for the president's book, "How I would have won in Iraq if I had invaded"

Bunghole-Sociopath-Bush is looking for a reason to treat the ISG dismissively. It's a pre-determined approach -- all he needs are some heavy-weights to get behind it.....or the heaviest weights he can find. How pathetic.

And...may I echo my admiration to Global Citizen for her fine work in the previous thread. Thanks!

Kevin's post is juvenile about a deadly serious issue. He virtually never has anything of value to say on military issues. I was going to dismiss it as simply snarky immaturity, but then I read the linked article that began as follows:

"President Bush heard a blunt and dismal assessment of his handling of Iraq from a group of military experts yesterday, but the advisers shared the White House's skeptical view of the recommendations made last week by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, sources said."

One of the guys, McCaffrey, is on TV criticizing Bush all the time.

And Kevin calls this an example of how President Bush is in a bubble?

Kevin's post is juvenile about a deadly serious issue.

I pooped my pants.

It's true about McCaffrey; he's been outspokenly critical of Bush's Iraq policy.

Here is what drives me crazy about all of this. The neos, mods and generals, all of whom got Iraq wrong, are the players in this debate. The Left, right from the get-go on Iraq, are labeled 'dirty hippies' and excluded from participation by the 'adults.' Was anyone from the Left on the ISG? Did you see a true Lefty on the Sunday news programs?

McCaffrey? That would be the guy that thought we could win the war on drugs if we just had more agents and better intel?

Let's see. We coulda won Vietnam if they let us bomb Hanoi indiscriminately. We coulda won the war on drugs if they gave us more agents. We can win in Iraq if you give us more troops. Why does this seem unlikely to work out to me?

Tell ya what: we coulda won the war on POVERTY if youda give us more MONEY!!!

How bout them apples? Bastids.

Swift Loris, a voice of reason and fairness among an otherwise tough crowd.

The Bush administration has done plenty wrong, but that doesn't mean either that critics are free to mischaracterize things currently happening or that he is not trying to do what he considers in the best interests of the country.

Folks are so focused are their view that they were right and he (and the Congress) were wrong about invading Iraq, they have trouble reasonably focusing on the present.

unfortunately, bush is a spoiled brat. He wants to play war and play it his way. When he is told to grow up and do things in a responsible and realistic way, he stamps his foot and pouts.
To have a president who is a grown up with some intellegence and who brings some class and ideas and diplomacy. Someone who is not an embarassment and a danger to the world.
we cannot take 2 more years of this child.

Who was the second academic? I know one was Eliot Cohen, of PNAC fame. Of course that jack ass is gonna say stay the course, if not send more troops. I wonder what the Generals told him. According to the article, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Peter Pace, might be thrown to the wolves. It's about time. Pace is an idiot.

Kevin nails it.

Let the deadenders fulminate, but Bush has made it his mission in life to prove all his critics absolutely correct.

Kevin, be fair. OJ's search for the real killers on every golf course in America is far more credible than Bush's search for new ideas.

The Bush administration has done plenty wrong, but that doesn't mean either that critics are free to mischaracterize things currently happening or that he is not trying to do what he considers in the best interests of the country.

OK which critic is mischaracterizing things currently happening? And how?

Since neither you nor anyone is in his head, no body can claim that he is not trying to do what he thinks is best for the country, or deny it for that matter, but history of the last three years has given us ample convincing evidence that what he has done has not been best for the country

Kevin, be fair. OJ's search for the real killers on every golf course in America is far more credible than Bush's search for new ideas.

"Oh Mr Gopher. It's me, Mr Squirrel. Not a plastic explosive, just a harmless squirrel."

Yup, that was definitely Bush in Caddy Shack. Somehow, he went from groundskeeper to President.

or that he is not trying to do what he considers in the best interests of the country.

Like the suicide who acts in what he/she believes to be his best interests. The difference is that GWB is taking the rest of us with him.

Kevin - You are really getting pathetic.

BUSH MET LAST WEEK WITH BAKER AND HAMILTON.

So today, you bash Bush for meeting with a group that disagrees with the Iraq Study Group Report.

As if Bush should only seek advice from people who agree with the report?

BUSH MET LAST WEEK WITH BAKER AND HAMILTON.

Yes, Kevin, do be fair. It has only taken the President six years to sit in the same room with people who disagree with him. And as far as we know, no one was arrested or waterboarded. That's progress.

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.

I have reached the point where I could care less about anything Bush says or does. He's a loser, a lost cause. When I see him on TV I change the channel, I skip over anything about him in the newspapers. Why bother?

So how does Bush accept help? Does it have to be after disaster - Vietnam, awol, bankruptcies, DUIs, insider trading, war, etc.? Has it ever been possible to accept help when the business is hurting, or is it always setting up a corporation to bail him out. It seems that elaborate, delicate planning has gone into protecting his ego.

Perfect analogy, Kevin. Expect "stay the course" re-packaged. The man is clueless and shameless.

you misrepresent the article Kevin which makes clear that those called in as 'advisers' aimed much criticism at Bush and his foreign policy team. Just because they happen to tangentially agree on consequences of pulling troops out does not make the meeting a conspiracy - most military professionals share this point of view so a meeting of the 'minds' on this issue is not surprising.

which is not to suggest that it wasn't all window dressing, a politically motivated game. But then democrats are playing political games with Iraq as well - a serious and realistic plan has yet to be addressed by either side since neither side finds it politically convenient to seriously contemplate inherent flaws and long term implications of any action no matter what it is.

Any honest reckoning would admit that the only solution would be the infusion of many more US troops but that such is not possible and therefore all other options are a choice between bad and really bad alternatives. Any realistic argument needs to start there.

I agree with saintsimon. Kevin deliberately misses the point that at least two of the five - Biddle and McCaffrey - are critics of the Bush strategy (if one can call it that). Keane is at best neutral, and Cohen and Downing are supporters of the neocon side. They all have issues with the ISG's report and in particular how the military forces ought to play a future role in Iraq.

The real reason why Bush wanted them there was not because they agreed with him (and they do not) but because they had criticisms against the ISG. The more experts that Bush sees, the more talking points he gets for not using the ISG report and sticking with his own "new way forward." This isn't rocket science, Kevin. Put away your disdain of the military for that long and admit that there is a different motive here.

Good point, J. The military advisors to the ISG also disagree with those military recommendations. Would Kevin have preferred Bush meet with them instead?

Infusion of more troops!! Why is it so hard for some people to understand what Ghandi said a long time ago when dealing with the British Raj - that people will always choose their own bad government over someone else's good government. The US is not welcome in Iraq and never will be. The only good solution to this mess is the same solution we had to Vietnam - declare victory and come home.

We won't see Brian around these parts for awhile... morning at least.

Well, I was going to predict that "brian" would indeed surface, once again posting his/her/its spurious defense of the Bush Administration is his/her/its patented faux-moderate tone, with nary a blush at the humiliation he/she/it suffered at the hands of Global Citizen and cyntax.

But I see "brian" has beat me to it. What is it about these Bush apologists that causes them to have no shame at all?

An irredeemable sociopath certainly, but I've yet to hear that OJ says that God told him to do it.

'Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.' John Galsworthy

Irony alert! I forgot to mention that "brian", of all people, went so far as to write, of Kevin:

He virtually never has anything of value to say on military issues.

Truly shameless.

"brian," you never -- no "virtually" about it -- have anything of value to say. Your act fools no one, and your opinion has been shown, time and again, not to have the vlaue of a bucket of cold piss. Why do you bother?

I don't think the analogy between OJ and W is at all fair: W is a reader, not a writer.

I've yet to hear Bush say that God told him to do it either.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln

Gregory: What is it about these Bush apologists that causes them to have no shame at all?

I frequently wonder this myself. Are they missed a gene we haven't yet isolated? Are odd parts of their cerebral cortices mysteriously underdeveloped? Have they simply never left their houses?

In brian's case, starting about every third post with some iteration of "Kevin, you're just not very good with military matters" is designed to reinforce through repetition what he cannot demonstrate through evidence: that the Bush administration, and by extension slavering devotees like brian, know viable military strategy from their own butts.

I've been hanging at PA about two years. During all that time, if I'm not mistaken, brian's been saying this. Meanwhile, with his guys' "military expertise" as a guide, Iraq has spiraled into civil war and madness, and the entire Middle East is at risk. But, brian patiently but sadly informs us, we just don't have the capacity to understand how complex these matters are.

and craigie, that was hilarious.

As George might say, "If the ISG report does not fit, I must not quit".

If anyone out there views General McAffrey from his tom-foolery as Drug Czar or believes his flip flopping on CNN, then you should read up on his "exploits" leading the 24th Infantry Division while the Iraqi retreated from Kuwait.

He was largely responsible for turning the escape route into the "Highway of Death" - Seasoned military veterans were aghast at the ferocity in which the 24th destroyed retreating and surrendering soldiers. They continued their activities until the last possible moment, when McAffrey was ordered by Gen Schwarzkoff to stop the carnage. And he was not taking out the Republican Guard and their weapons, but the rank and file of the non-elite forces.

Put the General in charge of Baghdad and there would be mass killings on a scale never seen before.

If he criticizes Shrub, it is because Shrub didn't send enough troops to up the kill ratio.

designed to reinforce through repetition what he cannot demonstrate through evidence: that the Bush administration, and by extension slavering devotees like brian, know viable military strategy from their own butts

Which is simply the Republican Party's decades-long branding effort as "strong on defense" write small, I might add.

I do derive some small comfort, in the midst of the mess Bush has gotten us into, while "brian" and his ilk cheered him on -- some "experts!" -- that Bush's incompetence has single-handedly pissed away the GOP's decades-long branding effort on defense, and Americans won' trust that party with national security for a generation. It's just a pity that Bush had to piss away our national security in the process.

Carl: We can't make it too difficult for our President can we?

Pretty much everthing more complicated than clearing brush is too difficult for our President.

"This is all part of Bush's weeklong "search for new ideas,"

Correction....Bush's FAKE "search for new ideas".

The whole idea from the beginning (remember how as the date for the ISG report became known, all of a sudden Shrub gave orders to State, DOD, NSC, etc to "review" Iraq policy?) was to avoid the appearance of Daddy's friends coming to the rescue and to make whatever comes next APPEAR to be the result of deep and thoughtful consideration by Shrub of a wide variety of views, from which he will (using his well-known wisdom) make a carefully considered decision onwhat to do.

As with almost all Bush has ever done....It's all phony.

That imbecilic impostor is not my President. He is merely the Executive-in-Thief.

TTP: As George might say, "If the ISG report does not fit, I must not quit".

Bwa ha ha!

I suspect they'll both end up with the same results.

Shooting par?

Could well become known as the Executioner and Thief.

craigie: At least OJ is only in denial about killing two people, not several hundred thousand.

Oh, well done sir. Well done indeed.

Bush met with people who had actual military expertise and knew in full detail about the Iraq situation. He rejected the advice of a committee of pompous military ignoramuses.

brian: Folks are so focused are their view that they were right and he (and the Congress) were wrong about invading Iraq, they have trouble reasonably focusing on the present.

Shouldn't that be "Folks are focused on the entirely correct reality, proven out by events, that they were right and he (and the Congress) were wrong about invading Iraq, and Bush is such a whiny bitch that he has trouble reasonably focusing on the present"?

Bravo, well done, FAUXLib.

And how are your Tail Start lessons going? More history about the Mossadegh being an "Iraqi" movement?

One of the guys, McCaffrey, is on TV criticizing Bush all the time.

Sorry, Charlie, that doesn't change Kevin's assertion. Surely Bush, or his minions, knew where McCaffrey stood on how to "win in Iraq". Even better that he had been critical of Dumbya in the past.

The fact that McAffrey disagreed with Bush on other issues, doesn't change the fact that everyone in that meeting disagreed with the findings of ISG and supported a retread "stay the course" policy. But don't let facts get in your way, Charlie.

Kevin Drum wrote:

"Golly, what a shocker: Bush decided to meet with a bunch of guys who just happen to already agree with him. That should sure provoke some fresh thinking about Iraq, shouldn't it?"
______________________

Well, let's be honest, the ISG report doesn't give anyone a reason to jump and and down in celebration. At best, the recommendations are a way to lower casualties whilst extricating ourselves from the fight. Along the way, it advocates going back to the bad old days of dealing with despots and autocrats. And for grins we get to kick around Israel and the Iraqi government. Yippee.

Just who were these so-easily-dismissed "guys" who spoke to the President? Hasn't anyone here noticed that none of the pre-election favorite generals are in favor of abandoning Iraq? Now that Rumsfeld is gone, how does General Batiste feel about giving up? We know that Zinni thinks it will be a disaster.

The ISG recommendations might be the best way to go or they might simply include ideas that need to be considered. Just because the report was bipartisan is no reason to assume it is correct in all particulars.

Irony alert: "ex-liberal" disses someone for being "pompous ignoramuses."

At least OJ is only in denial about killing two people, not several hundred thousand.

And at least OJ isn't, apparently at least, looking for excuses to kill more people.

Folks are so focused are their view that they were right and he (and the Congress) were wrong about invading Iraq, they have trouble reasonably focusing on the present.

The only thing Congress was wrong about was the entirely unjustified assumption that the President would make the determinations and efforts to use other means required by the conditional authorization for force against Iraq in good faith consistent with his duty to faithfully execute the laws.

Stop trying to spread the blame for George W. Bush's deliberate, knowing, and conscious violations of his oath of office to other people.

thethirdPaul wrote about General McAffrey:

"He was largely responsible for turning the escape route into the "Highway of Death" - Seasoned military veterans were aghast at the ferocity in which the 24th destroyed retreating and surrendering soldiers. They continued their activities until the last possible moment, when McAffrey was ordered by Gen Schwarzkoff to stop the carnage. And he was not taking out the Republican Guard and their weapons, but the rank and file of the non-elite forces."
____________________

Actually, Paul, you're thinking of another action. The Highway of Death involved enemy elements escaping from Kuwait City. McAffrey commanded the 4ID and his leading units actually got north of Kuwait and interdicted the road leading to Bagdad. There was some question of timing, but the enemy elements escaping north were not regular units, but at least Republican Guard. They wouldn't have been given the tank transporters, else.

There's no reason to believe that the action is indicative of anything he might have done in Bagdad. Different missions, different methods.

"Bush's deliberate, knowing, and conscious violations of his oath of office to other people."
_____________

Which violations of his oath of office?

Trashhauler wrote: "Which violations of his oath of office?"

Well, his blatant theft of the Presidency was accomplished before he took the oath of office, so that doesn't count.

But his deliberate, repeated, elaborate and sickening lies to the American people, the United States Congress, the United Nations Security Council and the entire world about the nonexistent "threat" from nonexistent "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" and nonexistent "links between Saddam and Al Qaeda" in order to mislead his long-planned war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq for the corrupt purpose of seizing control of Iraq's oil for his cronies and financial backers do count.

And his blatantly illegal, warrantless wiretapping of American citizens does count.

And his violation of US law and international treaties to imprison and torture people without charging them with any crime and without any recourse to the courts does count.

And his deliberate or grossly negligent refusal to heed the numerous, specific warnings that he received during the summer of 2001 about an impending major Al Qaeda attack on US soil using hijacked aircraft does count.

And his deliberate or grossly negligent refusal to respond to the warnings about hurricane Katrina, and to provide assistance to the victims of the hurricane thereafter, do count.

Now let's hear your lame excuses for all of the above.

What I know of McAffrey is basically the radio interviews I heard him give when he was the White House Drug Czar, in which capacity he was a lying sack of shit.

McAffrey commanded the 4ID

During Operation Desert Storm, McCaffrey commanded the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), and was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal. In Operation Desert Storm he was known for his speed and boldness. Joe Galloway, the co-author of We Were Soldiers Once...And Young, rode with and reported on the division, where he favorably compared McCaffrey with Hal Moore. Over the course of his military career, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross twice, the Purple Heart three times and the Silver Star twice. In his career, McCaffrey rose to become the youngest General in the Army at the time of his promotion.

Get it right, dumbass.

Which violations of his oath of office?

Well, Trashy, Bush did take an oath to defend the United States, and failed spectacularly. So far as we know, he took no action at all in response to the August 6 PDB. Unless you're aware of something he did that escaped our attention...?

Edited from sources. Please check the links for full details.

Eliot A. Cohen:

Eliot Cohen, called by one observer “the most influential neocon in academe,” is a well-known scholar of military affairs based at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), which has served as a base for a number of prominent neoconservatives, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and political scientist Francis Fukuyama.

Gen. Wayne Downing:

Downing has supported an insurrection in Iraq for several years, arguing that Hussein's regime could be toppled if only America had the guts to arm and support the Iraqi National Congress, a rebel coalition based in London. Calling on influential lawmakers, Downing helped win passage in 1998 of the Iraq Liberation Act, which set aside nearly $100 million for military weaponry and training for anti-Hussein warriors.

Gen. John M. Keane:

Advisor to the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of URS Corporation, a global engineering design firm...He is a Director of General Dynamics Corporation. He..is a member of the United States Department of Defense Policy Board...has been a Director of MetLife and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company since 2003.

Gen. Barry Richard McCaffrey:

Barry Richard McCaffrey is a retired United States Army General. He currently serves as an Adjunct Professor at the United States Military Academy, where he had been the Bradley Professor of International Security Studies from 2001 to 2005. He is...a consultant for BR McCaffrey Associates, which provides 'provides strategic, analytic, and advocacy consulting services to businesses, non-profits, governments, and international organizations' to corporations.

I left out the military service details - the Generals aren't phonies like Dubya - but what I'm concerned about are possible ties to groups and companies whose best interest lies with 'staying the course' in Iraq. The BR McCaffrey Associates site has some presentations which y'all might find interesting...From April 2006 (.pdf):

There is decreasing U.S. domestic support for the war; although in my view the American people understand that we must not fail or we risk a ten year disaster of foreign policy in the vital Gulf Oil Region.

I also wonder when McCain is meeting with these guys...

The Little Idiot is now getting such good advice that the WaPo reports he's postponed his "new directions" speech until after the New Year.

At least he won't spoil Christmas for us.

…….they have trouble reasonably focusing on the present. brian at 1:22 AM

…a serious and realistic plan has yet to be addressed by either side … saintsimon at 7:36 AM

Bush met with people… He rejected the advice … ex-liberal at 10:37 AM

… it advocates going back to the bad old days of dealing with despots and autocrats…. Trashhauler at 10:55 AM

There is nothing better we could do for Israel than give them some tough love: end settlement building, move them back to the '67 borders, recognize and support a Palestinian state.

Swift Loris, a voice of reason and fairness among an otherwise tough crowd.

Ah, no. Bush hasn't done anything to deserve "reason and fairness," especially your brand thereof, Brian, and I certainly didn't mean to ally myself with it.

As to the ISG report, I don't think there's much in it that will be of any use to anybody, *except* the fact that it's so critical of Bush policy. At least to some degree, that has changed the atmosphere; it has given "permission" for folks who would otherwise have been reluctant to speak up and explicitly and publicly condemn Bush's conduct of the war.

I doubt Gordon Smith would have had the cojones to make his recent eloquent speech on the Senate floor otherwise--in which he said Bush's policy "may even be criminal," implicitly introducing the threat of impeachment. Whether or not impeachment is feasible, that ups the psychological ante.

The most important effect of the ISG report is to substantially increase the pressure on Bush. However recalcitrant he may be, he isn't an immoveable object.

Swift Loris, you still sound pretty reasonable but no, I don't think alleged or real blunders by a president are justification for someone to not be fair and reasonable.

The ISG report is lame because it compromised between the two options of doing what is necessary to beat the terrorists in Iraq or giving up and coming home. I think we need to pick one or the other.

However, I think the real impact of the ISG report is to give President Bush some time to step things up and try to win. It by consensus rejects the "cut and run" argument. But it won't give Bush much time, and I don't know if the war can be successful or, if it can be, Bush can do what is necessary to make it successful.

Overall, a sad state of affairs that somehow the evil, vicious and cruel terrorists are so close to winning in Iraq and that we are so close to throwing in the towel.

I made an earlier point that the Iraqis are the problem and that we should put the onus on them by conditioning any further significant help from us on the Iraqis voting to ask us to stay and help. Overall, if the Iraqis are unwilling to ask for our help, then we should get out and come back only when there is a significant opportunity to kill some terrorists.

However, I think the real impact of the ISG report is to give President Bush some time to step things up and try to win.

What's he been doing the last three and three quarter years?

Not near enough.

I don't think alleged or real blunders by a president are justification for someone to not be fair and reasonable.

Well, of course, "brian" has made a career here of sounding reasonable while spewing GOP talking points.

Notice, also, that "brian" snuck in "alleged" to characterize Bush's blunders.

The fact is, an incompetend boob like Bush -- to say nothing of a toadying, dishonest lickspittle like "brian" -- has forfeited all claim to "reasonable" treatment.

"Reasonable" carries with it a presumption of equality, and of good faith, after all. Bush, and "brian," have made their inferiority and their bad faith perfectly clear.

Speaking of bad faith -- one is compelled once again to ask what "brian" has been doing to defeat the existential evil terrorist threat.

Oh, yeah -- enjoying Bush's tax cut.

I'll take "brian"'s claims seriously when he puts on the uniform and takes up a rifle in Iraq -- not before. That sounds perfectly reasonable given "brian"'s own claims.

Which violations of his oath of office?

Here's another: to uphold and defend the US Constitution, like for example, to let the Congress write the laws instead of pretending that the executive has the right and power to issue "signing statements" which mutilate the intent of the legislature.

Trashy, I'll drop the "y" and add "hauler" when you begin to add the "ic" to the Democratic Party.

I know that you will not like the source, but google "Highway of Death" and Seymour Hersch to find out more about Gen McAffrey when he led the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) in the Gulf War. Yes, indeed he was fast and he was very deadly.

The BoyKing looks really worn, tons of facial wrinkles, new ones anyway, and some of us think that his eyes look closer together these days. The overhead lighting is probably unforgiving, but the aging of the man is unmistakable

Gregory wrote:

"Well, Trashy, Bush did take an oath to defend the United States, and failed spectacularly. So far as we know, he took no action at all in response to the August 6 PDB. Unless you're aware of something he did that escaped our attention...?"
__________________

Well, Greggy, since we've reached the happy point where we can use cute, diminuatives to refer to one another, I think we can speak frankly, no?

There is quite a difference between failure to prevent an enemy action and a deliberate violation of an oath.

After citing many alleged crimes of the President, SecularAnimist wrote:

"Now let's hear your lame excuses for all of the above."
___________________

SA, it's not my job to make excuses, lame or otherwise, about the President's actions. However, you should at least used the adjective "alleged" in such rote laundry lists. Last time I checked, you have nothing more than opinion to substantiate any of those complaints.

Gregory wrote:

"Trashy, I'll drop the "y" and add "hauler" when you begin to add the "ic" to the Democratic Party."
_________________

Greg, I have never failed, so far as I know, to use the "ic" form of the word. I did ask why it was important, since it makes no difference grammatically, but still said it was enough that members of the Party preferred the form, so it should be used.

Gregory wrote:

"Trashy, I'll drop the "y" and add "hauler" when you begin to add the "ic" to the Democratic Party."

No, Gregory didn't write that.

since we've reached the happy point where we can use cute, diminuatives to refer to one another

Why not? "Trashy" is a perfectly cromulent word for you.

There is quite a difference between failure to prevent an enemy action and a deliberate violation of an oath.

Well, leaving aside the other violations cited -- I'd particularly call to your attention Bush's illegal warrantless wiretaps, which violate his oath to execute laws and uphold the Constitution -- ordinarily, I'd agree with you, but for five little words:

"You've covered your ass, now."

Bush was warned about al Qaeda attacking -- about al Qaeda hijacking aircraft, no less -- and did nothing -- nothing, so far as we know -- about it.

That's violating his oath to defend the country, period, full stop.

a perfectly cromulent word

The use of which embiggens us all.

I wrote:

"Gregory wrote:

"Trashy, I'll drop the "y" and add "hauler" when you begin to add the "ic" to the Democratic Party."

To which, Gregory responded:

"No, Gregory didn't write that."
__________________

Sorry, Gregory, I slipped a cog there. Anyway, whoever said it was wrong.

"'a perfectly cromulent word'

The use of which embiggens us all."
_________________

Those are beauties. ::grin::

Anyway, whoever said it was wrong.

Speaking of wrong, I notice Trashy has whiffed on two opportunities to rebut Bush's violations of his oath of office. Shall we consider the point conceded, then?