[wku man]

Not to mention:
1) the radioactive metal with Iraqi stenciling found in the scrap heap in Norway,
2) the thousands of quarts (gallons?) of nerve agent that mysteriously turned up in Jordan,
3) the admission by Saddam's deputy commander of the air force that they emptied out three 747s, filled them to the brim with 55-gallon drums of chemical agents, then flew 'em to Syria,
4) the nerve gas IED that our troops actually found and dismantled,
5) the hundreds of mustard gas artillery shells we found,
6) etc. etc....

The question I have is, why the HE** isn't Bush and Company screaming about these things from the roof of the White House on a daily basis? Someone oughta tell him that it might help the war effort to sell his side to the American Sheeple.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[gusopol3]

The question I have is, why the HE** isn't Bush and Company screaming about these things from the roof of the White House on a daily basis? Someone oughta tell him that it might help the war effort to sell his side

I'm in 100% agreement with you on this. It reminds me of the old noblesse oblige of his father who refused to vaunt our victory over USSR in 1992, apparently out of some tender feelings for Gorbachev, I suppose. He needed to tell the electorate that had stood with the Republicans through the nuclear freeze lies of the leftists in the '80's that they had been instrumental in the victory, but he couldn't summon the will to rub Gorby's face in it. You know Ben Franklin's rule of dealing with other people is never to be directly confrontational, as never to contradict, etc. I think this works well in personal affairs, as Proverbs 15:1 " A soft answer turneth away wrath." But it's lousy in politics. For instance, why hasn't Bush attacked Fitzgerald the way Clinton attacked Starr? Why, because it wouldn't be gentlemanly and what would DAD think?