Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Actually, you refered to "Democrats responsible for some aspects of the situation in North Korea," not "Democrats who undercut U.S. policy." If you would like to go back and revise and extend your remarks so that they don't sound crack-addled, that would be fine with me.
eta: I apologize if quoting you is a "memory game."
|
Actually, he said Democrats were "directly responsible for some aspects of the situation in Iraq, Iran, NorKor, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, . . . "
Not that they "undercut U.S. policy" (somehow).
That they are "directly responsible." As in, providing nuclear secrets to North Korea, I suppose. Or helping arm Al Qaeda. Or some such.
Personally, I am not getting too hyped about the election or anything else right now. What's astounding to me, and has been astounding on this board for some time, is that the more obvious it becomes that Bush's policies are a complete failure*, the more shril the Repubs grow in defense of those policies.
So -- the years long insurgency, 1000s of US soldiers dead, approaching/imminent/in full swing civil war, $100s of billions of dollars spent, loss of all credibility and sympathy internationally, rush by N.Korea and Iran to get nukes in response to Bush's threats of preemptive war -- all the things that Dems here were worried about from the very outset of this fiasco -- well, now that all those things have happened, it can't be that they were a predictable result of deeply flawed policies and non-existent planning. (Even though they were not merely predictable, but predicted. That's just cut-and-run defeatocrat terror-symp talk.) It can only be because the "MSM" and Democrat traitors undercut Bush.
*leaving out all the unidentified good news from Iraq, of course -- y'know, the stuff Bilmore and Slave know about, and no one else.
