alright earl...
here's a story to get your blood boiling: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040927&s=legum
i guess what i really want to know is why you are so into this guy. i can't understand it. i know i'm a liberal new yorker, but even when i do my best to step back and try and figure out this guy's appeal i can't get it. i understand that he's a much more appealing guy in the sense that i guess i'd rather go bowling with him (and i'm not even so sure about that anymore), but as for his time in office it's been a total debacle. and all those republicans who went totally ballistic when clinton lied (under oath i know) don't seem to care that bush lied in his state of the union address and as a result now we're stuck in iraq for the forseeable future. we have to either keep going until we secure democracy or the oil, whichever way you want to spin it.
what do you say earl? how do you stick up for your boy? maybe if you make a good enough arguement the fredeeky readership will vote bush and help sway the state of new york from cool blue to firey satanic red.
i guess what i really want to know is why you are so into this guy. i can't understand it. i know i'm a liberal new yorker, but even when i do my best to step back and try and figure out this guy's appeal i can't get it. i understand that he's a much more appealing guy in the sense that i guess i'd rather go bowling with him (and i'm not even so sure about that anymore), but as for his time in office it's been a total debacle. and all those republicans who went totally ballistic when clinton lied (under oath i know) don't seem to care that bush lied in his state of the union address and as a result now we're stuck in iraq for the forseeable future. we have to either keep going until we secure democracy or the oil, whichever way you want to spin it.
what do you say earl? how do you stick up for your boy? maybe if you make a good enough arguement the fredeeky readership will vote bush and help sway the state of new york from cool blue to firey satanic red.
posted by fredeeky at
2:13 PM
2 Comments:
did that article come from the onion? i expect better political information and research out of fredeeky. reading that shit doesn't even warrent a response from me.
ps. last night, i saw fredeeky roaming around washington square slapping "bush lies, people die" signs on turn signals near thompson street. can this be confirmed?
cheech,
a quote from your last entry:
"After all, that is why the intelligence community exists. I would have found it far more disturbing if he had given credence to outside sources—because that would signal the administrations belief, recognition, and awareness that our intelligence capabilities were inadequate. Rather, the President’s confidence and willingness to trust our intelligence community in the days leading up to the conflict in Iraq signal that he believed he had assembled a team of the best."
from bush's state of the union:
"From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them."
that was chalabi and other outside sources that he was referring to and it was one of the biggest screwups of his presidency. it wasn't too long afterwords that we accused that guy for spying for iran. give me a break.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home