Quote:
|
Originally Posted by albania
...but i am reminded of a phrase, "The buck stops here", so whether or not it was Bush’s fault he will have to take the blame because ultimately it is his decision and his responsibility.
|
Oh, not if he has anything to do with it, he won't! The new talking point is: Everything that's going wrong is the fault of Democrats in Congress. Looks like politicophile has swallowed the bait whole, too. Look out, p'phile! Bush is reeling you in!
Yessir, those eeevil Senate Democrats, rewriting history like that! Not like the administration ever did that!
Sorry, no: the administration didn't rewrite history. They rewrote
the present over and over and over again. Their justification for the war shifted every month, and it was like, "WMDs? What WMDs. We never said we were there because of WMDs. WM what, now?"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
Now we know what the true democrat objective is...Surrender
|
A) Classic right-wing argumentation tactics. You're putting words in their mouth. Nobody said "surrender". You said that. And notice that Cheney pulls out the Cheney-style Cheneyisms and jumps straight to ad hominem about these no good wimpy, weak jerks who disagree with him. He doesn't actually discuss the points they raise at all, he just goes to name-calling. In case you're not familiar with it, ad hominem is what's known as a "logical fallacy". Look it up. If that article you quoted were a high school debate, he'd lose.
B) At this point, it looks like our options are to leave or to lose. Which do you prefer? Did you read the article you quoted? If so, are you advising keeping our troops in Iraq even though their presence is actually a destabilizing influence? We don't need a "surrender" or a humiliating loss in Iraq to make it look bad for Bush. News flash: IT ALREADY LOOKS BAD FOR BUSH. Now the more sensible members of congress are trying to keep it from becoming a bigger disaster than it already is. They're actually trying hard to save his ass. Where's the gratitude, I ask you?