Mike Voice says:

Wow, 13 posts since the “O’Lie-ly” post.

I’m glad to see the “drought” of liberal posts is finally over. 😉

Funny to hear Bush, in Vietnam, saying we’ll only lose if we quit.

Is that a jab at:
A. the Vietnamese
B. Nixon
C. “cut & run” liberals who are back-stabbing our troops in the field
D. All of the above.

My gut tells me the answer is D.

PoliticalCritic says:

Only 35 years too late. Maybe if he had gone 35 years ago, he’d realize what a dumb idea Iraq was.

Mike Voice says:

Does that mean you approve of chickenhawks as president, Mike?

Yes!
Of Course!
Doesn’t Everybody?

giap says:

Given your previous protestations against hypocrisy, Mike, why invoke a multiple non sequitur to defend Bush?

I shan’t wander back through US history to detail draft status, availability of wars to volunteers for, etc…but, Bush is notable for copping the National Guard plea while others were drafted to serve in VietNam,

I neither know nor care what Clinton’s draft status was — since he didn’t need a daddy’s political clout to protect his butt — he probably did it the old-fashioned way. But, to blather about a paralytic like Roosevelt as somehow being on topic — brings you mighty close to endorsing the hypocrisy you often say you criticize.

Mike says:

The truth is I couldn’t care less whether or not any of them actually served in a war because while it might be nice for the experience, it has never been a requirement for the position as Commander in Chief; but what I can do without is this childish name calling (Chickenhawks, Shrub, Republikans, Democraps) of people because you disagree with them.

giap says:

Mike — I understand and (slightly) agree with your concern. Neologisms especially are a problem — since they may be short-term phenomena.

Saying that, you may not have hung around these pages when John introduced the concept of “Republikan” — and followed the ensuing discussion. Several folks adopted the term — as differentiating between traditional Republican conservatives and neocons. It saved a whole sentence like that — which is part of the function of a neologism.

But, then, we’re wandering miles OT (to use a geek acronym). 🙂

Personally, I find it hard to believe Bush can even keep a straight face when he responds to reporters during this portion of his trip. Of course, it’s even harder for the reporters — especially those without the courage to ask the obvious question.

Mucous says:

Hmmm, A one line post that fit the following:

* Off-topic rants
[edited]

Mucous says:

I was responding sentence 2 in post #1, so not completely off-topic.

At least I’m efficient enough to “rant” in 1 sentence. 😉 So sorry.

[edit — No problemo  🙂 — topic is defined by the Post not the Comments]

Eideard says:

We can confuse y’all even further — because we all edit Comments to each other’s Posts.

We really could use a convention for sarcasm, though.

Milo says:

Liberals, in America at least, is a classification with no real meaning in terms of beliefs or affiliation. It is a slur indicating lazy, or lack of, thinking on the part of people who use it. Conservative is slightly better but not much. How about… referring to Republicans and Democrats instead? Actual organizations that actually exist in the US, instead of living in this Manichean fantasyland.

shih tzu paradise says:

Bush was just waiting until the mission was accomplished.

ECA says:

18,
WHERE did you get that deff??
Ask Ben franklin if he was Libertarian??

1. Bush is in S. Vietnam.
2. these are talks, WHO is going to explain to him What is said, and ment, and just PLAIN going on.
3. WHO sent him and Whose idea was it…couldnt of been his.