The AP reports that General Peter Pace said yesterday that Donald Rumsfeld “leads in a way that the Good Lord tells him is best for our country.”
Maybe there really is no God?
Posted by snark at October 20, 2006 09:52 AMBuzzflash has a nice headline:
Battle for Baghdad lost. Bush Admits Parallel between Iraq War and Vietnam---except Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam!
Love it.
I believe we already lost Iraq and simp;y haven't faced up to the reality. As in Vietnam, we are going to take a few more years to get used to the idea we lost, and then maybe ten more for the recriminations to go away. Well, that is unless Bush ignites another war like Iran in the vain hope it will "teach North Korea" some kind of lesson.
Vote the bums out.
Posted by gtash at October 20, 2006 10:24 AMNope, just Rummy's tertiary syphilis.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 20, 2006 10:25 AMThis is a really important post and crucial point the Dems could use: if you want to return to America's traditional bipartisan foreign policy, then the Republicans can't control every branch of government---Dems must have some power if you want a bipartisan foreign policy, not to mention government.
Republicans MUST be voted out of controlling Congress if you want a return of sanity to our foreign policy.
And if you want more insane policy (domestic and foreign), well, I guess you know the party to choose. Republican Congressmen have a clear record of insanity and Bush enabling, so you're sure to get what you desire!
Posted by euzoius at October 20, 2006 10:34 AMRestore "bi-partisan foreign policy?"
Ah, we can't even get a consensus about Iraq within the Democratic party.
Might want to begin there before reaching across the aisle.
Posted by Christopher at October 20, 2006 10:34 AMForeign policy, much as Bushco. might not like to admit it, is a whole lot more than just Iraq policy.
Posted by snark at October 20, 2006 10:37 AMAny U.S. state outside Texas is a "foreign country" to Little Boots.
Posted by Christopher at October 20, 2006 10:49 AMWhat would a bipartisan foreign policy look like?
Both parties favor a strong military. Both parties favor trade policies which tilt in our favor. Both parties believe that we can grow our way out of economic inequality. Neither party is willing to address the pressures of world population and strains on the supply of raw materials. Neither party is willing consider designing a sustainable economy which is not dependent on using natural resources at an unsustainable rate.
So, the differences seem to be more about process than about goals. If Bush hadn't been so ham handed in Iraq would we be having this discussion now?
Posted by robertdfeinman at October 20, 2006 12:09 PMI'm still waiting for peter to explain what the limits (of) normal dialogue concerning foreign policy are.
Has anyone seen peter?
I hope he's ok.
Posted by snark at October 20, 2006 02:20 PMI hope he's ok.
I think I stepped on him in the elevator this morning. Left a tiny splat on the bottom of my shoe.
Posted by Christopher at October 20, 2006 02:33 PMSteve Soto,
Bipartisan? Are you serious? You do realize that the Pubbies will only obstruct, misdirection, stalling and whining.
the only foreign policy "bipartisanship" I want to see is some pubbie's ugly head vs the business end of a tonfa club! We have seen the results of Rebublican foreign policy and the idea of "bipartisanship" that Republicans have had for nearly 5 years!
Enough is enough; enough failure, death and murder.
We need new direction, and not some whiney assed Republican holdover shrieking about "bipartisanship!" as America sinks deeper into the swamp of Republican Bush's failures.
Posted by boilerman10 at October 21, 2006 11:15 PM