Posted on 05/27/2008 9:22:31 AM PDT by Fennie
I think you accidentally posted to the wrong person, lol. (but that's OK)
Here is what you told me:
LOL, wow, the trolls are out on McClellan’s coattails today, and they all have the SAME exact talking points on the President. Exactly, to the word.
I don't and never gave a rip what McClellan had to say.
President Bush will not kick the Iranian problem to his successor.
So, they cooked this up, and then turned around and broadcasted it, so that everyone knows about it, right?
Man, we must have the stupidest Air Force schmucks one can muster in a short term!
You didn’t say a damn thing in your idiotic response.
If you can’t address the issues of “W’s” performance in office, at least be wise enough to not open your yap, thereby, not allowing yourself to be viewed as an absolute fool.
I had no idea he was so inept. Please elaborate.
Do your own digging. If you aren’t aware of “W’s” blunders by now you are as blind and deaf as Obama on a Sunday morning.
C'mon loudmouth. Defend your silly cheapshots. Tell me how President Bush cannot plan.
You don't know what you're talking about. He flew F-102 supersonic fighters. The guy can obviously multi-task.
And how will he accomplish that? Airstrikes? What that will leave is a pissed off and maybe nuke neutered Iran to his successor. We couldn't neutralize Saddam with airstrikes alone. We chouldn't drive al Qaida and the Taliban out of Afganistan with airstrikes alone. We can't guarantee a nuke-free Iran with airstrikes alone. It will take troops on the ground to do that, and we're fresh out.
What would she like us to do? Nuke it from one end to the other?
Can't envision anything more than an air strike on a “nuke” facility. Even that is probably sketchy given the friendly tone in DC.
And again, that will accomplish what? Other than pissing them off? Hitting 'a' nuclear facility in a country that may have a dozen? Or two dozen, we have no way of knowing for sure?
By the way, I loved that movie, too.
From the beginning;
He allowed Ted Kennedy to write the new education bill.
He accepted the State Department’s plan for the war in Iraq while rejecting the Pentagon’s plan.
The Federal government has doubled in size under his administration.
We are more energy dependent on foreign supplies than before he took office.He neither fought for or even put forth a remedy for the problem.
He has endorsed the notion of man made global warming.
He supported liberal Republicans primary elections over conservative Republicans. He caused us to continue to live with Arlen Spector and to lose Rick Santorum (sp).
He refused to discipline Republicans who supported a liberal Democrat agenda. We know why, he’s a liberal through and through.
He signed McCain/Feingold into law.
He proposed Harriet Myers for SCOTUS.
He refused to fight for John Bolton’s nomination as U.N. ambassador.
George Bush couldn’t plan a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Too much multi-tasking involved.
Don’t be a dolt. You have sought to defend the policies of “W” through evasion. The multi-tasking statement is accurate.
Other than the war on terror, where has “W” shown the ability to achieve even a measure of success? Of course the answer is clear, he hasn’t.
He can’t succeed at multiple tasks. In large measure he failed as CIC. He has absolutely failed as party leader, in controlling spending, the growth of government and illegal aliens.
I've repeatedly asked you to explain, and all you seem capable of is avoidance, gratuitous insults to me and the President, and other assorted nonsense that has nothing to do with your statement above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.