I’m not a Democrat, but anytime I criticize Republicans, I hear a chorus of, “Well, the Democrats are just as bad.” Is that a fact?
If Democrats were just as bad as Republicans, Democrats would outlaw the teaching of wars in public school.
If Democrats were just as bad as Republicans, Democrats would filibuster any budget that didn’t raise taxes.
If Democrats were just as bad as Republicans, Democrats would prohibit assault weapon research.
If Democrats were just as bad as Republicans, Democrats would fight to prevent rich people from being allowed to get married.
If Democrats were just as bad as Republicans, Democrats would favor mandatory abortions and try to ban baby formula.
If Democrats were just as bad as Republicans, Democrats would introduce a bill making it illegal to shoot someone who has broken into your home until after an ultrasound, so you can hear their heart.
If Democrats were just as bad as Republicans, Democrats would be threatening war with Israel if they attack Iran.
If Democrats were just as bad as Republicans, Obama would not only be a Muslim, he’d be a member of the Taliban.
Republicans are in a league of their own when it comes to horrible ideas. It’s enough to make me consider voting for Democrats this year.
While this post was entertaining, you ARE a liberal, and on the very very far left, sir. I am not sure why you would not vote democrat. Your theories often make me cringe.
ReplyDeleteOf course I'm liberal, that's why I have reservations with voting for a Democrat.
DeleteWhich of my theories make you cringe?
I am totally in the same boat, Bret. I am always under attack from the enemies of humanity, whether they be Republicans (far more often) or Democrats.
DeleteBret,
ReplyDeleteI did not write them down. I can point them out to you next time I cringe if you like. You are left of the left border sometimes.
I guess one is your opinion about Israel. As you know, I am far to the Israeli side of the line. I think they have a difficult situation and they have handled it well overall. You think they are violent and racist, unlike the innocent "Palestinians." I don't have time to debate that with you right now, but that is the only one that came to mind, though I often see others, especially at Heathen's site.
I guess I don't think Conservatives are immoral, evil or stupid, all of which I sometimes think you do. I do think they are wrong about a lot of things, most things, actually, but that is another story.
Palestinians aren't innocent, though they are innocent of a great deal of the problems Israel faced early on, yet it is the Palestinians, not Jordanians, Saudis, Syrians, Iranians or others who feel the full force of Israel's retaliation. Palestine need not be perfect, with a pristine record, in order to deserve not being walled off, denied basic amenities, and periodically slaughtered. I don't think any amount of cultural guilt warrants the way Israel treats the Palestinian people, a people whose land they stole.
DeleteBut you go ahead and support colonialist apartheid, if that's the side of history you want to cast your lot with. Just know that people suffer needlessly and our tax dollars pay for it (instead of educating our young or providing healthcare or rebuilding our infrastructure... I'm sure it's more important that we keep throwing billions at a failed state that drags our name through the mud throughout the region).
And if I used a word like "evil" to describe people I disagree with, I imagine I would be stupid or immoral enough to be a conservative. More than stupid or immoral, though (two characteristics I certainly possess), what I find so objectionable about conservatives is how obedient they are. I can deal with stupidity and immorality, it's the creepy way they repeat all the same things, like they share one common hive mind. It's downright freaky.
what I find so objectionable about conservatives is how obedient they are. I can deal with stupidity and immorality, it's the creepy way they repeat all the same things, like they share one common hive mind. It's downright freaky.
ReplyDeleteIt's not freaky, it's science!:
http://www.alternet.org/story/154082/conservatism_thrives_on_low_intelligence_and_poor_information/
It's science? I'm pretty sure Fox News isn't science.
DeleteNo, research suggests that people with lower IQ statistically gravitate towards conservative ideologies because those ideologies offer cookie-cutter simple answers. That's what I meant by science.
DeleteThere is no such thing as a Palestinian. Research Yassir Arafat and his early motivations and speeches. If I had time I would look up the data for you, but it is time-consuming and I do not have the time. The Palestinian People is a fictitious thing.
ReplyDeleteAny 'people' is a fictitious thing. Our species originated from Africa. As far as I am concerned, we are all african apes who have settled in different areas at different periods of history. There are no 'French' people and no 'English' people, and no 'American people' and no 'Russian people', there are only a bunch of apes with opposable thumbs walking around in bipedal fashion. We are all animals, living under the rule of tyrants.
DeletePalestinian people are fictitious? What kind of statement is that, Newt Gingrich? The fictitious people are those in Israel, a nation that didn't exist before it was artificially created by UN mandate.
DeleteI think you need to read history, John. The "fictitious" Palestinians lived on that land for hundreds of years before it was stolen from them through decree and excessive force.
If I were the type of person who could get offended, I would be offended by such a terminology as to call a people "fictitious." The land has been called "Palestine" since the Romans destroyed the second temple in 70 AD. There's nothing fictitious about them, and it's almost like you think dehumanizing them by relegating them to the realm of "not a real people" means we can treat them however we want.
Utterly, utterly shameful.
I wish I had time for this.
ReplyDeletePalestinian people are fictitious? What kind of statement is that, Newt Gingrich?
I have been claiming that since the nightline airing and the debate around it in the 80’s when Yassir Arafat declared that they must make up an oppressed people. It is you, not I, who need to study history. I have studied this issue for three decades, sir.
The fictitious people are those in Israel, a nation that didn't exist before it was artificially created by UN mandate.
The U.N. did not create Israel. You are thinking of the British Mandate and the support for it by the League of nations. I wish there was more time. Both Jews and Arabs have occupied the land, and there is no contiguous history. The Jews did not occupy a Palestinian nation. There was no Palestinian government, which is why the land was available. It was occupied when the mandate was created.
I think you need to read history, John.
Replace my name with yours.
The "fictitious" Palestinians lived on that land for hundreds of years before it was stolen from them through decree and excessive force.
Boy, do you need to read history. You described America, stolen, excessive force. You should give your home back to the native Americans you stole it from. It really was never yours.
If I were the type of person who could get offended, I would be offended by such a terminology as to call a people "fictitious."
Yes, when the PLO invented the concept, I also was offended. By the way, if you go back to our last discussion, you will find I was reporting this BEFORE Newt did. I would never ally myself with Newt, but in this case, he knows more about the subject than Bret does.
The land has been called "Palestine" since the Romans destroyed the second temple in 70 AD.
That fact does not make a Palestinian Government exist or a Palestinian Nation exist. Jews controlled the land much of that time. Stop acting ridiculous.
There's nothing fictitious about them, and it's almost like you think dehumanizing them by relegating them to the realm of "not a real people" means we can treat them however we want.
No, they should be treated fairly. They have been treated much more fairly than they have treated the Jews, much much more fairly. I never suggested that we “treat them however we want.” You made that up for emotional appeal. I do not mean to de-humanize the Jordanians, Syrians, etc. in the occupied territories by claiming they are fictitious. They are not. They are real people who happen to not belong to the fictitious group we now call “The Palestinian People,” a term Yassir Arafat applied to a disparate group of people he need to treat as a cohesive ethnicity for political purposes.
Utterly, utterly shameful.
Ad hominem and irrelevant.
You're basing your opinion of a population of over a million people based on one man, Yassir Arafat. How fair is that? You came into the party late (the problem began long before the 1970s) and you claim to have a firm grasp of it, even though you demonstrate a complete ignorance of how Israel was formed.
ReplyDeleteYou are thinking of the British Mandate and the support for it by the League of nations.
No, I'm not, I'm talking about the UN Partition Plan of 1947, the plan which was to replace the British Mandate. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War broke out not because of the British Mandate, but because it lapsed under the UN plan. The Civil War preceding the 1948 war was also spurred not by the terms of the British Mandate, but by the date the UN voted in favor of their partition plan (Nov 30th 1947).
In the subsequent war initiated by Arabs over the declaration of Israel as a sovereign state, Israelis committed war crimes, expanded, and told Palestinians to evacuate homes they could return to after the war (though when the time came, most were barred).
I'm also comfortable with acknowledging the native tribes in America need to be compensated. Perhaps we should send all the Jews in New York and Florida to Israel and give their stuff to the Indians for reparations?
Bret,
ReplyDeleteYou know that I know the history prior to 1970. You are not debating genuinely, which I find annoying.
As for your idea about the Native American Indian restitution, it is unfair. We should return American to them. They had it first, just like the peoples calling themselves Palestinians did not have the land where Israel sits first. Oh, that's different, yes.
Well, the case you invent for the "Palestinians" actually exists for the Native American population. You don't steal something and then pay someone because you stole it. Instead you return it. The Native Americans don't want your trinkets. I think they would choose the return of their stolen property. Perhaps we should ask them, huh?
Oh, and after we ask them, we should boot the Israeli's who survivors from the "Palestinian" terrorist attacks out of Israel. Including the majority who was born their and lived their their whole lives. We should re-decimate these survivors because as we know, their land was once occupied by various individuals from different places who call themselves a people and need to reclaim their lands.
Before 1967 most of the these peoples were committing constant terrorist attacks against the other governments that held the land. Oh, wait, no they weren't. It was not as big of a deal then. I sometimes forget that this was before they realized they were a people.
Have you ever talked to a Palestinian?
DeleteNo one has.
ReplyDeleteThat's weird... because I have, as has my wife, who possesses an Israeli passport.
DeleteWho do you suppose lived in the homes stolen by Israelis during their periodic expansions? Who lived behind the walls? Who has no water or electricity at times because the Israelis cut them off? What do you call those people?
Arabs. In the case of most of those of whom you speak they were Jordanians and Syrians and nomads, for lack of a better term, prior the 1967 war.
DeleteMy brother has an Israeli passport also. That does not make me any more right than if he did not.
There is no such think as a Palestinian nation and there never has been. It is not an ethnicity and it is not a culture unto itself.
DeletePerhaps they weren't but a shared history of suffering has more or less cemented them as a people at this point.
DeleteYou hit upon a major problem: the people who "lived" there did live there, they just didn't build urban centers. To claim the Palestinian people are just invented or made up ignores centuries of history those people have in the region. The fact that they worked for independence from the Ottoman Empire during WWI and were a colony of Britain until Jewish refugees had amassed and formed their own state doesn't take away from the fact that they deserve their own home.
Everyone who wants a home deserves one, but not at the expense of Israeli's homes.
DeleteWhen the West Bank Palestinians lived in Jordon, because the West Bank was there, they should have tried harder to establish it there, or if not, to at least try to stop the Jordanians from banding together with other groups of thugs with intent to drive the Jews into the sea. If Israel "returns" the West Bank to the Palestinians (who never controlled it), then it will once again likely be a staging ground to drive the Israelis into the sea. It is a problem. To solve the other problem (the Palestinians want to become a nation), you have to acknowledge the first problem and be willing to deal with it. Thus far, the first problem is not acknowledged, and blowing up buses is the alternative action.
The Israelis continue to build illegal settlements and cut off Palestinians from resources, not to mention periodically shelling them as a whole over the actions of a few. I don't blame Palestinians one bit for their hostility, because Israel continually ignores UN orders to stop abusing the Palestinian people (excuse me, "people of Arab descent who are ghettoized behind Israeli walls" I guess is the politically correct term).
DeleteI have completely lost any sympathy the Israelis may be due because every time they are the "victim" of an attack, they turn around and kill ten times as many Palestinians, often women and children. I don't condone anything Israel has done since 1948 when they started kicking Palestinian people out of their homes and began occupying land that was not agreed upon through international accords.
I have, however, personally known several Arabs with strong opinions on the matter and a few Jews who also had opinions on the matter.
ReplyDeleteI do not mean to imply that all Jews are innocent or all "Palestinians" are guilty. I don't believe that. I think there are tons of victims on both sides. The demands that those on the "Palestinian" side make threaten the existence of Israel. As long as that fact is not acknowledge or is considered fair or OK, there can be no solution that the "Palestinians" will accept.
Bret,
ReplyDeleteI have completely lost any sympathy the Israelis may be due because every time they are the "victim" of an attack, they turn around and kill ten times as many Palestinians, often women and children.
I find it odd that you lost sympathy for them because then children on buses are the "victim" of an attack, the Israeli authorities respond by attacking the area that attacked them.
How should the Israelis respond to terrorist attacks, anyway?
When the terrorists hide among the civilian population to prevent retaliation, should the Israelis simply do nothing and allow them to attack with impunity?
Why do you think the children blown by terrorist attacks are "victims" and not victims, anyway?
The Israelis have matched Palestinian aggression with aggression. What did they do wrong there?
In a conflict like this, BOTH sides are composed of emotional individuals who will commit ethical crimes. I just find it odd that you somehow see the acts of the Israelis as more valid less right than the acts of the Palestinians.
Did you support the Six Day War? I think you would.
When an individual blows themselves up in a crowded market or fires a rocket blindly over the border into Israel, that does not give a nation license to bomb that person's home into the stone age.
DeleteHow should Israelis respond? Lifting sanctions, ending apartheid, dismantling the walls, returning water and electrical service to those going without.. you know, doing what it takes to stop making Palestinians hopeless and willing to do horrible things. If you support the Bush doctrine of over-reacting to those who lash out at previous policies of abuse, that's fine, just know that what it amounts to is war-baiting. You can't oppress a people and then act all shocked and angry when they attack you for violating their basic rights.
You read my article on why I believe America deserved 9'11, right? Well, the same principle applies for Israel.
And of course both sides are emotional, but one side was boated in by a bunch of racist Europeans trying to solve "the Jewish Problem," and no one cared that there were already people living there who wouldn't take too kindly to Zionist terrorist organizations (like Lehi, who assassinated a British official) intimidating the indigenous population.
And no, the Six Day War was the quintessential war of aggression, the "pre-emptive" kind of "kill them before they kill us" bullshit that I fundamentally oppose. Part of being on the side of right is actually waiting to be attacked, not being the aggressor yourself. Israel had no right to do what they did, and it is those sort of actions which make me question their right to even exist as a nation of thugs.
I was trying to sympathize with you, but you completely lost me:
ReplyDeleteAnd no, the Six Day War was the quintessential war of aggression, the "pre-emptive" kind of "kill them before they kill us" bullshit that I fundamentally oppose. Part of being on the side of right is actually waiting to be attacked, not being the aggressor yourself. Israel had no right to do what they did, and it is those sort of actions which make me question their right to even exist as a nation of thugs.
If Israel had not attached, there would be no Israel. The alliance of Arab nations attacking made no secret of their plans to decimate Israel. They were in the process of moving their armor to Israels border and they told Israel to get out while they still could.
It is no different than if the Japanese had called the president and told them that they were on the way to destroy Pearl Harbor and the Americans engaged them in flight.
I believe that you, not the Europeans, are racist.
P.S. if someone occasionally shot at your house, occasionally killing people, gathered a group of people all around your house announcing that this time they were going to destroy it completely, so get out, what would you do?
DeleteYou want a proper analogy? Here's the situation, in home terms:
DeleteI live in a house and I like it. Someone comes knocking at my door in the dead of night, cold, naked, afraid, clearly the victims of ill-treatment, and I let them in. I tell them they can stay in my guest room and I call the police.
The police give the guy 50% ownership of my house...
I say, "what the fuck, it's my house," and I have my family help me come try to evict him. He shoots a lot of my cousins dead, and we retreat to a pantry. I sometimes leave to go use the kitchen, but eventually this intruder walls me off from the kitchen, and I'm just sitting here thinking, "What the hell is going on?"
Sometimes one of my surviving cousins hurls a rock at the house, which prompts my home's new owner to fire missiles at him and his family, and he makes life more difficult for me in the pantry (which is completely out of food now).
What would you do in the pantry? Sit quietly waiting for someone to help me out, or stand up for yourself?
Also, Israel was founded on racism, a near universal hate for Jews prompted the removal of Jews and the denial of their return during and after WWII. Israel is the realized dream of European anti-Semites. It is akin to the ideology in America after slavery where many wanted to ship the former slaves back to Africa.
DeleteI'm going to just forgive you for calling me a racist, because I assume you're frustrated. It is indeed frustrating to argue against the truth, I give you that.
Criminy! Can you be genuine?! No one welcomed anyone into their homes. Tanks lined the borders on their homes and were being fueled to flatten Israel.
ReplyDeleteWhy weren't you concerned about these people when Jordan, Syria, etc. occupied "their land?"
I'm perfectly happy with blaming neighboring Arab states with all sorts of blame in this. Blame for not taking the Palestinians in, blame for their hostilities against Israel (though at times it is justified, many others it is not), blame for the opportunism of the whole situation...
DeleteBut the problem is, Palestinians feel the wrath for all of this. They are the Arab scapegoat, and they did nothing to deserve it (not that I'm sure anything could cause a group of people to deserve such treatment under any circumstances).
Some Arabs who are known as Palestinians are victims and do not deserve to be. The same is true of Jewish children. It is a bad situation. Israel's existence, and the Arab resentment of it, is the problem. Those are my concessions.
ReplyDeleteThe armies on both sides are very aggressive and lots of innocent people get caught in the crossfire.
Both sides have some historical claim to the region, Israel's more recent.
Jordan and Syria and others will not take back the Palestinians because it is not politically expedient to do so.
Israel cannot return the land to Jordan or Syria or create a new Palestinian state because it is very dangerous and those exact places have been used to try to exterminate the Jews repeatedly.
It is a bad situation for all of the innocent people on both sides.
The aggressive militaristic people respond to terrorism or harsh treatment with more terrorism and more harsh treatment and the problem becomes worse.
The problem cannot be solve without each side mentioning the legitimate claims of the other. That has not happened, so far.
The Palestinians don't have an army... that's the sort of thing a full nation would have.
DeleteDo you know that besides the Israeli army, there is Israeli terrorism of Palestinians? Do you have any concept of how one-sided the conflict is?
Report on actual deaths vs. coverage in American media.
DeleteOf particular note, I noticed in 2004, 8 Israeli children were killed, compared to 176 Palestinian children.
Not a good year to be a Palestinian child, I guess.
For those looking for the Palestinian to Israeli exchange rate on child deaths, that's 22 Palestinians equals 1 Israeli. I guess you get really devalued when you aren't a real people.
DeleteThere is no such thing as a one-sided conflict.
ReplyDeleteSince the Palestinians don't have an army, their army is terrorist groups and organizations. I do realize that the balance of physical power favors the Israelis. They have policing to do. It is difficult to police terrorists, though.
I also remember Israel using rubber bullets in response to homemade bombs being tossed at them.
Since the people calling themselves Palestinians (Jordanians, Syrians, and other miscellaneous Arabs, some nondescript) do not have full citizenship in Israel, yet now live within Israeli borders, there is a serious problem and a legitimate one.
The first thing that must happen is for Israel to be acknowledge as a nation and then a solution that does not promise its demise. It is unrealistic to expect anything less, especially when the "Palestinians" are doing everything in their power to eradicate the nation of Israel.
Also, remember, in as much as there is a historical Palestinian, the Jewish people are Palestinians and have a right to exist. They have never denied any other culture the right to exist.
Are you a supporter of Tibet?
DeleteI support the Spaniels, especially, and I do appreciate the Buddhist Monks silence. The mountains aren't bad.
DeleteEven though they fought back? They aren't terrorists?
DeleteYou are acting silly.
DeleteYes, it's silly to compare similar things and wonder whether there are guiding principles behind someone's views, or if they just hate Yasser Arafat.
DeleteFallacy of complex question. Discuss the issue at hand and don't try to prove it by trying to prove something else, then trying to prove similarity. If you arguments don't stand on their on merits, they will also fall on the merits of unrelated things you deem similar.
DeleteRegardless, I must withdraw from the emergent debate. It is huge and I do not have the time and you cannot convince anyone of anything once they feel they "know the truth." you can only convince people who seek the truth.
It sounds like you you have it all figured out.
For those looking for the Palestinian to Israeli exchange rate on child deaths, that's 22 Palestinians equals 1 Israeli. I guess you get really devalued when you aren't a real people.
ReplyDeleteDon't try to kill someone stronger than you is the lesson there.
*sigh*
Delete"Roll over and take it like a bitch" is what you mean.
That is not what I mean.
DeleteSo... never challenge someone stronger than you, even if they oppress you? Is that a lesson, or just bad advice?
DeleteSo... never challenge someone stronger than you, even if you oppress you? Is that a lesson, or just bad advice?
ReplyDeleteThat is not the lesson. The lesson is, never try to murder the children of someone more powerful than you because you resent the person who has more power.
I thought the lesson was that Jews changed their views from, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" to "A tank for a rock, an airstrike for a grenade."
DeleteIn my initial discussion I said I did not have time to debate this, but it was a point of disagreement between us. Now we are bordering on all out debate. I still have no more time than I had. Your mind is made up and your opinion is cemented with past opinion. Discussion is pretty pointless in this matter. You see it as black and white and you see Israel as having no rights in the matter and you see it as a "one-sided" conflict.
ReplyDeleteYou base all of this on past opinion, in my opinion. I cannot change your ideas about, so debating is nothing more than bickering. If I had more time to bicker, I would, but I just don't. We will have to agree to disagree.
I'm sorry I took up so much of your time, and all for you to come out with a completely inaccurate view of my stance. Clearly it was a waste, so I apologize, especially if you were busy.
DeleteI see Democrats as a party that at least TRIES to help people. Republicans have been bought and sold by the corporations a long time ago. Back when being a Republican didn't mean you were crazy or a corporate sellout, Abraham Lincoln had this to say "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
ReplyDeleteDemocrats have been bought and paid for, that's why nothing gets done in this country. Both parties are bought by basically the same small group of people.
DeleteClearly both parties have lobbyists behind them, but I do think that there is a sizable chunk, even a majority of Democrats who at least try. The Affordable Care Act would have gotten a lot farther and done a lot more good if republicans hadn't been blocking it. The Democrats had a lot of good in that bill that eventually had to be taken out because of the stonewalling.
DeleteDon't get me wrong, I hate the two party system, but I'll always vote Democrat.
I think the liberal who tries hardest isn't even a Democrat (Bernie Sanders).
DeleteI'm fine with a two party system, but we need better parties. If Democrats had the force of will to be liberal, they could overcome Republicans. Democrats mostly don't care, except about getting re-elected, and that means catering to those who fund their campaigns.
But I see what you mean, in that Democrats aren't "as bad," but they aren't good enough.
Usually, if a democrat cares, but does nothing to support those who fund his campaign, then he cannot possibly get reelected. That is not a good scenario for a democrat who cares. Democrats who work within the Plutocracy to change things are our greatest legislative hope. The Supreme Court is a greatest government hope, but not the current one.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how people forget that the Democrats are the party of slavery, segregation, Japanese internment camps, turning back Jewish people hoping for asylum during WWII, etc....I'm glad I can look at both parties with some objectivity and say that both of them leave something to be desired.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how those Democrats you speak of became the Republicans, and how nothing you named happened after the 60s. The Democratic Party after 1968 is not the same party you're speaking of.
DeleteI'm glad I can acknowledge historical shifts in party ideology and not be blinded by such simplistic notions as naming conventions.
The Democratic Party does not adhere to any of these things; thus, it is not the Party of any of these things. It is funny how simple some people can be.
DeleteI'm surprised he didn't take it all the way back to Jacksonian Democrats and accuse them of displacing Native Americans, or Jeffersonian Democrats, who oppose big government.
DeleteWhere would you like me to leave off with the 34% of Dems who voted against the Civil Rights Act? You tell me.
DeleteSorry, wife was logged in.
DeleteWhere would you like me to leave off with the 34% of Dems who voted against the Civil Rights Act? You tell me.
How about the recent unconstitutional actions of the President, topped off by Panetta telling Congress that the President doesn't need them to take action in Syria. Please don't bring up Bush, since Congress approved.
DeleteHow many of those Democrats are even alive now, let alone Democrats?
DeleteBy your logic, I should say Republicans are environmentalists because of Teddy Roosevelt's stance on the matter. Parties change, and in no time during my life have Democrats been even half as bad as Republicans. Get over it.
Regarding Obama: you're nuts if you think he's worse than Bush (and I will bring him up, since... you know, he's a Republican).
Nope, not saying that. I think both parties suck which I stated in my earlier post. If you think either one is looking out for your best interest you may be a little naive. So I take my two basic beliefs fiscal responsibility, strong National Defense and find who represents those beliefs. As for social conservatism I don't follow that line, if you read the constitution you should be able to do what you like unless you interfere with another persons freedom. Just wanted to be clear that I think each has huge negatives, I don't see how someone can pick one and go with whatever their platform is.
ReplyDeleteMissed the Bush/Obama reference, I don't see that big of a difference. I was referring strictly on Obama's dealings with Congress.
DeleteI'm not a fan of Obama myself, or Democrats. I just don't think they ought to be brought up on war crimes... quite yet, anyway.
Deletesure, agree with that. but I don't think Bush should either.
DeleteI think we should let the Hague decide.
DeleteI don't think the Hague has the balls, so pretty sure Bush is safe.
DeleteBush is the one who doesn't have the balls. He has cancelled trips abroad for fear of being apprehended and brought to justice.
Delete