Bush wants to meet (but not negotiate) with Democrats

[Thomas Veil]

Bush Invites Dems To Meet About Iraq
Bush Invites Democrats For A Meeting, Not A Negotiation On War Spending
WASHINGTON, Apr. 10, 2007

(AP) President Bush said Tuesday he wants to talk with Democrats about the standoff over war funding, but made it clear he will not embrace any timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

Democrats questioned the point of a meeting if the president won't negotiate.

"We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill _ a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal, and without handcuffing our generals on the ground," Bush said in a speech to an American Legion audience in nearby Fairfax, Va.

On one hand, Bush extended an offer to meet with lawmakers next Tuesday. On the other, the White House bluntly said it would not be a negotiating session...

The president said if lawmakers don't send him a bill he will sign _ one that does not include timetables or money for pet projects in their home districts _ it would be Congress, not the White House, that will have to answer to troops.

"The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines," Bush said at the American Legion Post 177 where some vets sported black caps trimmed in gold. "Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reacted coolly to Bush's offer.

"Congressional Democrats are willing to meet with the President at any time, but we believe that any discussion of an issue as critical as Iraq must be accomplished by conducting serious negotiations without any preconditions," they said in a joint statement.

"With his threat to veto such a plan for change in Iraq, President Bush is ignoring the clear message of the American people.... The president is demanding that we renew his blank check for a war without end."

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said Bush must drop his conditions on the meeting before Reid would attend.

Bush said the Defense Department will soon send Congress a request to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts to cover funding for troops _ a move needed, he said, because lawmakers have delayed his emergency spending request....

White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino suggested that Bush has the upper hand because Democrats do not have votes to override his veto. And she stressed that the meeting was not a negotiation session.

"The president is not asking to lecture anybody, nor does he want to," Perino said. "We understand that Congress has a role to play. We understand what that role is. I would hope that they understand what the commander-in-chief's role is. And if a meeting can help alleviate some of the tension, ten (sic) that's what we're for."

When a reporter said it sounded like an invitation for Democrats to agree with Bush, Perino said, "Well, hopefully so."

Perino said Democrats could benefit by meeting with Bush, but said she was not aware of any lawmaker who had accepted his invitation so far. "Maybe they need to hear again from the president about why he thinks it is foolish to set arbitrary timetables for withdrawal," she said.
CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/10/ap/politics/main2668477.shtml)

How condescending. And I love the threat of sending soldiers back over there even faster.

As far as the rest of it goes, what is the point? To hear Bush recite explanations everyone's already rejected?

He truly is in his own little world, isn't he?

Still, I think his willingness to dig in his heels will make it easier for Congress to dig in theirs. As I've said, I don't think Bush is gonna win the PR war on this one. The public is mostly on Congress' side.

What's he really threatening to do, anyway? If this doesn't get approved, he'd rather leave all the soldiers over there without food and ammo, rather than bring them home, just to win his point?

[Swarmlord]

How condescending. And I love the threat of sending soldiers back over there even faster.

As far as the rest of it goes, what is the point? To hear Bush recite explanations everyone's already rejected?

He truly is in his own little world, isn't he?
<snip>

If "everyone" in Congress wants it another way they'll be able to pass any bill they want by overidding his veto and effectively dictate terms. Something tells me that "everyone" doesn't feel that way.

[zimv20]

i'm not sure which is more disturbing:
1. that bush thinks a dem-led congress will bend to his will like the one he had prior, or
2. that bush thinks the legislative branch "reports" to the executive branch

[PlaceofDis]

What's he really threatening to do, anyway? If this doesn't get approved, he'd rather leave all the soldiers over there without food and ammo, rather than bring them home, just to win his point?

yep, wouldn't surprise me. the man can't believe that he is wrong. remember, hes surrounded himself with 'yes men' all around.

and i can see him just letting the troops and forces languish, and then blame it on congress, which would've worked in the past, but i don't think the american people will believe that. i think too many people are sick of a war that has been no good at all to us.

[TheAnswer]

The president said if lawmakers don't send him a bill he will sign _ one that does not include timetables or money for pet projects in their home districts _ it would be Congress, not the White House, that will have to answer to troops

Anyone read else this as Bush threatening to deploy troops against the Congress?

[OldCorpse]

If "everyone" in Congress wants it another way they'll be able to pass any bill they want by overidding his veto and effectively dictate terms. Something tells me that "everyone" doesn't feel that way.

True. Politicians - especially Democrats of the past 20 years - are cowards, or to put it charitably have a "highly developed instinct for self-preservation". Understandable, to some degree - if you're too far away from public opinion you don't get elected. Many, many in congress did not believe in the WMD and other claims before the war (indeed, you had to be a fool to believe lies told so clumsily), yet they voted in droves against their own beliefs and better judgment - because public opinion at the time was pro-war.

The Democrats, the natural opposition to the gangsters and traitors of Republicans and the White House, was pathetic. The Democrats are pathetic as opposition - zero backbone.

The war is lost. There is no doubt about it. Sure, there are folks out there, conservatives who believe otherwise, but they are like the morons in the White House - like Hitler in his bunker at the end of the war wrapped in an alternate reality, moving about nonexistent troops on a big map.

So, the war is lost. Now the fight moves over who will take the blame. If the Democrats don't continue to give Bush all that he wants, conservatives will claim "we would have won, but the Democrats lost the war by denying funds blah, blah, blah". It's like the Nazis used that propaganda at the end of WWI - they propagated the myth that Germany was about to win WWI when the Communists "stabbed the Army in the back" by staging anti-war protests in Berlin. This myth allowed the Nazis to whip up the population for WWII.

Same kind of fight erupted after every misadventure "who lost China?" "who lost Vietnam?".

So my position is somewhat paradoxical. I say, the time to oppose Bush was before the war - and the Democrats blew it. Now that the war is lost, why would the Democrats want to give the Republicans any exuses?

I say, give the president, the Republicans, the conservatives, the military all the rope they want by which to hang themselves. You want 100 billion with no pre-conditions? Here you go!

For too long, the Democrats have cleaned up the Republican mess, only to be saddled with the blame. The Republicans bankrupt the budget (Reagan), the Democrats clean it up (Clinton). Now Bush has done the same, and when Democrats raise taxes to get out of this mess, the Republicans will use the "tax and spend Democrats" lie to get to power and rob the treasurey blind again (Haliburton and a thousand other crimes). Enough.

I say, let them lie in the bed they made. You want to stay in Iraq and continue losing, one bloody body bag at a time? Go ahead, knock yourself out. Bankrupt the economy. Destroy the military. Bring on death and destruction. In fact, I hope the next president is another Republican - maybe that wacko McCain, let him continue to bleed the country. Because in the long term it's better - sure, we'll have a nasty few years, but then, like after the Great Depression, the Republicans will again be banished from power for 50 years.

The Republicans will destroy the American Empire. Every empire in history eventually declined after military over-extension. So will the American - and the Republicans will be the agent of destruction: arrogant, full of hubris, ignorance, hatred, stupidity and greed. Just as in the Roman Empire and every other one. And I say that's for the best - because America is best when it stands for freedom, not empire.

[it5five]

If "everyone" in Congress wants it another way they'll be able to pass any bill they want by overidding his veto and effectively dictate terms. Something tells me that "everyone" doesn't feel that way.

I read "everyone" as the majority of the public. More people agree with the Democrats, seeing they were elected in large number to Congress, but Bush has the temper of a 5 year old. He's going to keep throwing tantrums until he gets his way. I think it's great Congress isn't giving in.

[leekohler]

Impeach Bush Now. He's not the King of the US and he needs to go.

[Thomas Veil]

"Everyone" also includes members of Congress who've indicated they will support Bush on this, but their patience with him is at an end. Arlen Specter just said that the other day.

Don't be fooled. Even plenty of Republicans know this is a crock.

[Thomas Veil]

Nice analysis (http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??f=00&g=51220c82-de6c-48bf-89fb-44e4155f6208&p=source_countdown&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/&fg=) from Countdown with Keith Olbermann, talking about how Bush is drifting even farther from reality.

Bush:Some of our forces now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq may need to be extended, as other units are not ready to take their places... The bottom line is this: Congress' failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated.Never mind that Congress has approved war funds and awaits only reconciliation of the two bills; or that the first and last sentences of Bush's statement contradict each other.

Olbermann:So a lack of funding which would happen, mind you, only if the president vetoes that bill -- what would be his own decision in doing, lest we forget -- would mean troops would have to stay longer in Iraq, despite the purported unavailability of greenbacks to keep them there. By the same token, according to Bush logic, even more troops would have to go to the front even sooner than anticipated, presumably paying their own freight.By the way...I know Congress was in brief recess, but does it strike anyone else as curious that the Democrats haven't reconciled the bills yet?

Bush keeps saying that if he doesn't get a bill he likes in the next week or two, it will begin to adversely affect the military. It's almost as if Congress is purposely delaying sending him this bill, to box him into a corner where, if he vetoes this bill, by his own words there will be no time left to draft another one.

[solvs]

I love how he talks about the pork. As if he didn't sign a bunch of stuff that was loaded with even more when Congress swung the other way. And as if the pork was the Dems fault. Who do you think they pork was for?

Hint, it wasn't for the Dems and liberal Repubs who already support withdrawal.

[zimv20]

from salon (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/04/11/leak/index.html):

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates complained bitterly today that "some very thoughtless person" at the Pentagon leaked word about duty extensions for Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gates said that the leak robbed the Army "the opportunity to notify unit commanders who could then talk to their troops 48 hours before we made a public announcement."

Was there maybe another reason that Gates wanted to keep the story under wraps? As War Room reader Terry Anastassiou notes, George W. Bush mentioned duty extensions just yesterday as one of the terrible things that might have to happen if Congress doesn't get him a timetable-free "emergency" supplemental spending bill soon. At a speech at an American Legion post in Virginia, Bush said: "If Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-May ... Some of our forces now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq may need to be extended, because other units are not ready to take their places."

We're just guessing here, but it's not all that hard to imagine how this might have played out for the White House. Bush plays hardball with the Democrats into May. The Pentagon announces that it has to extend troop deployments by a few months. And the president says, "See, I warned you. Look what those Democrats have done."

[Swarmlord]

It's reprehensible when people leak information to the press like that. I hope there's a full investigation.

[princealfie]

It's reprehensible when people leak information to the press like that. I hope there's a full investigation.

I love guys who leak information like that. I hope that they get the Presidential Medal of Freedom for exposing the crooks. :cool:

[zimv20]

It's reprehensible when people leak information to the press like that. I hope there's a full investigation.

do you recognize a line between leaking and whistleblowing? (i'm not making any statement regarding where this incident falls, just asking if you believe there's a line).

[jlcharles]

The president said if lawmakers don't send him a bill he will sign _ one that does not include timetables or money for pet projects in their home districts _ it would be Congress, not the White House, that will have to answer to troops.

I think they should be negotiating on the first part of this, but I find the second part to be the biggest problem with congress. The fact that these self serving scum (on both sides) throw completely unrelated funding onto bills that they have nothing to do with.

[leekohler]

It's reprehensible when people leak information to the press like that. I hope there's a full investigation.

Reprehensible? Reprehensible???!!!!!! More like patriotic, my friend. So you'd rather keep your head in the sand? The truth isn't a good thing in your world? That post just said a lot about you.

[princealfie]

Reprehensible? Reprehensible???!!!!!! More like patriotic, my friend. So you'd rather keep your head in the sand? The truth isn't a good thing in your world? That post just said a lot about you.

Yeah, don't be surprised. A consistent policy of obfuscation is the style! :eek:

[ghall]

I love guys who leak information like that. I hope that they get the Presidential Medal of Freedom for exposing the crooks. :cool:

Well, they won't be getting any Presidential Medal of Freedom from Bush at any rate. :rolleyes:

Well, look at it this way, every day that goes by, is another day closer to the day that creep (Bush) gets out of office.

[leekohler]

I think they should be negotiating on the first part of this, but I find the second part to be the biggest problem with congress. The fact that these self serving scum (on both sides) throw completely unrelated funding onto bills that they have nothing to do with.

Fine. Get rid of the pork, but the timetable stays- no negotiating on that. They were elected for one reason and one reason alone- to end this idiotic war. If they weren't trying to do that, then we'd have reason to be angry.

[princealfie]

Well, they won't be getting any Presidential Medal of Freedom from Bush at any rate. :rolleyes:

Well, look at it this way, every day that goes by, is another day closer to the day that creep (Bush) gets out of office.

Yeah, our mayor Rocky Anderson wants him impeached ASAP. Hmm... unfortunately looks like that's going nowhere quick. :eek:

[princealfie]

Fine. Get rid of the pork, but the timetable stays- no negotiating on that. They were elected for one reason and one reason alone- to end this idiotic war. If they weren't trying to do that, then we'd have reason to be angry.

No kidding, why can't we turn the pork into bacon and slough it off completely? :D

[zimv20]

The fact that these self serving scum (on both sides) throw completely unrelated funding onto bills that they have nothing to do with.

please list for us the add-ons of which you approve, and the ones of which you disapprove.

[Swarmlord]

do you recognize a line between leaking and whistleblowing? (i'm not making any statement regarding where this incident falls, just asking if you believe there's a line).

I think that theoretically there is, but I think there are too many people in Washington (and elsewhere for that matter) that have members of the press on speed dial. It is not illegal to modify the length of a troop deployment or anything else that seems to be leaked these days, so it's definitely not whistleblowing. It's just someone looking to stir things up.

[Swarmlord]

Reprehensible? Reprehensible???!!!!!! More like patriotic, my friend. So you'd rather keep your head in the sand? The truth isn't a good thing in your world? That post just said a lot about you.

Come on. Blowing the whistle on law breaking is one thing, but speed dialing the press for something like this is grounds for firing. I hope they find the perp because he or she is definitely in the wrong business.

[princealfie]

Come on. Blowing the whistle on law breaking is one thing, but speed dialing the press for something like this is grounds for firing. I hope they find the perp because he or she is definitely in the wrong business.

I would love to get their addresses to send them some wootcakes.

This could be bigger than Watergate. I'm so excited!

[leekohler]

Come on. Blowing the whistle on law breaking is one thing, but speed dialing the press for something like this is grounds for firing. I hope they find the perp because he or she is definitely in the wrong business.

I disagree. And I also think knowing the truth is far more important than shielding Bush from criticism. Give this person the medal of honor.

[OldCorpse]

I think that theoretically there is, but I think there are too many people in Washington (and elsewhere for that matter) that have members of the press on speed dial. It is not illegal to modify the length of a troop deployment or anything else that seems to be leaked these days, so it's definitely not whistleblowing. It's just someone looking to stir things up.

This was information that was going to be announced eventually anyway. That's VERY different from leaking secrets or exposing identities (Plame incident, natch).

So, since the info was coming out anyway, this is not so much about leaking, as about timing of release. Basically, what you're saying is that it's OK for the administration to time the release for purely political reasons - and highly unethical distorting way, in which they get to do what they were gonna do anyway, but blame the democrats for. But bwaaaaa, the control of the timing of the release was taken away from them, thus preventing them from using it to their political advantage. Bwaaaa!

Right, it's a matter of principle - lol! In this case it was simply a battle of leaks on both sides - a purely political game, nothing to do with "secrets needing to be protected". Meanwhile, it's A OK to destroy CIA operatives cover, purely to retaliate against a TRUTH TELLING diplomat, so that they can continue to lie. The Republican hypocrisy never fails to amaze.

[princealfie]

This was information that was going to be announced eventually anyway. That's VERY different from leaking secrets or exposing identities (Plame incident, natch).

So, since the info was coming out anyway, this is not so much about leaking, as about timing of release. Basically, what you're saying is that it's OK for the administration to time the release for purely political reasons - and highly unethical distorting way, in which they get to do what they were gonna do anyway, but blame the democrats for. But bwaaaaa, the control of the timing of the release was taken away from them, thus preventing them from using it to their political advantage. Bwaaaa!

Right, it's a matter of principle - lol! In this case it was simply a battle of leaks on both sides - a purely political game, nothing to do with "secrets needing to be protected". Meanwhile, it's A OK to destroy CIA operatives cover, purely to retaliate against a TRUTH TELLING diplomat, so that they can continue to lie. The Republican hypocrisy never fails to amaze.

Now I just wish that Phillip Roth can write that sequel to the novel "Our Gang" except this time it's about the current admin :D

[jlcharles]

please list for us the add-ons of which you approve, and the ones of which you disapprove.

Put simply, none.

[OldCorpse]

please list for us the add-ons of which you approve, and the ones of which you disapprove.

Bwahahaha! What is pork? In the eye of the beholder. To my eye, almost the entire $120 billion bill funding this war is one giant pork for the military industrial complex.

Even if you try to point out only the "purely" military part of the bill - do you have the faintest idea how much pork there is in these supposedly "purely" military contracts? You know that crap like no bid contracts designed from the get go to be stolen (Halliburton), are considered "military". Weapons systems which the military itself doesn't want, but which is made by a backer of some congressman, or by a factory in his district. And even in the militarily approved contracts, weapons systems and so on - sweetheart deals are made, and money changes hands not for the benefit of the soldier on the ground or the security of this country, but to line the pockets of some fatcat whose kids will never see combat anyway.

I'll tell you what pork is: it's what the other guy put in the bill. What I put in is not pork, no siree. Trouble is, the other guy says the same thing about stuff in my bill. Oh well.

Get over it. There's no such thing as pork - it's all pork all the time. We only get to call it pork when we don't like it.

[zimv20]

Put simply, none.

just for the record, you are against:

1. funding veterans' health programs
2. funding int'l peacekeeping operations
3. funding DoHS
4. sending troops to iraq before they are trained and equipped

have i got that right?

link to summary of HR 1591 (http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1591.html)
link to full text of HR 1591 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1591)

[OldCorpse]

just for the record, you are against:

1. funding veterans' health programs
2. funding int'l peacekeeping operations
3. funding DoHS
4. sending troops to iraq before they are trained and equipped

have i got that right?

link to summary of HR 1591 (http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1591.html)
link to full text of HR 1591 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1591)

Eeeexactly! This is what Bush wants people (note: conservative knuckleheads) to believe. He calls it pork. And instead of finding out for themeselves, reading the bills, the authority loving right-wingers take Bush's word (authority!) for it.

How pathetic. You know, if it wasn't for the fact that Republicans have for YEARS not been sufficiently funding and even cutting funding for veteran's care, it could come as a surprise. But we knew they didn't care. Look at Walter Reed - all 100% on Republican "compassionate conservative" time.

Yet, knowing this, you believe Bush when he says "pork"?

Look more closely at that "pork".

[solvs]

Look more closely at that "pork".

Well, to be fair, there is some pork in there. Things that have little to do with anything relating to the war or military. If anyone needs a list, I can compile one when I get home, otherwise I'll just say that I remember there being pork talked about when I heard it on the news, and some of the things didn't have anything to do with anything.

But again, looking more closely at it, who was it for? They were trying to get conservative Dems and Repubs on board, so they added stuff so they'd sign it. It's how the game is played. I'm not happy about it, but it is what it is. Even if they can't end the war, it's a sticky situation for them to be in. Hard to say you support the troops when you won't sign a bill (guessing there will be a new one without as much pork, then what will people who don't sign it say) that has provision in there to help them, especially after that whole Walter Reed thing.

And yeah, I'm grateful to the leaker as well. I fully expect them to be fired, but it wasn't classified info, so there's not really much else they can do. Just stole their thunder is all. Though, I guess it's more like a whimper than thunder. People are not going to be happy about this.

[OldCorpse]

Well, to be fair, there is some pork in there. Things that have little to do with anything relating to the war or military. If anyone needs a list, I can compile one when I get home, otherwise I'll just say that I remember there being pork talked about when I heard it on the news, and some of the things didn't have anything to do with anything.

And I say, re-read my other post, and I'll quote just this little bit:

"Even if you try to point out only the "purely" military part of the bill - do you have the faintest idea how much pork there is in these supposedly "purely" military contracts? You know that crap like no bid contracts designed from the get go to be stolen (Halliburton), are considered "military". Weapons systems which the military itself doesn't want, but which is made by a backer of some congressman, or by a factory in his district. And even in the militarily approved contracts, weapons systems and so on - sweetheart deals are made, and money changes hands not for the benefit of the soldier on the ground or the security of this country, but to line the pockets of some fatcat whose kids will never see combat anyway."

So yeah, talk about pork all you want. Your pure bill is my pork and my pure bill is your pork. Case closed. Pork is in the eye of the beholder.

Look folks, this is how our founding fathers set it up. They knew it was going to be like this, when you have representatives from different districts all fighting over the same limited pot. Bill pass only as a result of horse trading. It's ugly. As they say, if you want to retain your appetite in a restaurant, don't go walking into the kitchen. Want to eat sausage? Don't watch how it's prepared. Same with bills. Want to see a bill passed? Don't ask what you have to do to get it to pass. This is our system. Is it perfect? No. But as the old saying goes: Democracy is the worst system of governance, except for all the others. There is no, and CANNOT be a platonic ideal of pure heavenly bill passing - it's not even theoretically, mathematically possible. Conflicts exist, priorities clash, and there is no objective measure.

So, whenever you hear the term "pork" thrown around, you can figure someone's ox is being gored - it's a political ploy and nothing more.

Remember kids:

Pork: it's the white meat the other guy put in the bill.©

I made up that jingle myself :), but it's just as true.

[solvs]

And I say, re-read my other post
Er, I'm agreeing with you. The pork that most of us are complaining about was put there so Republicans would vote for it. Especially ironic since it's the Republicans who are complaining loudest about the pork. Double ironic considering their pork barrel politics the last few years. Just pointing out the irony. I'm agreeing that pork is in the eye of the beholder. ;)

If you read my post again you'll see that though I don't like the extra crap, I accept it as it is because it got people voting on the bill, and I'm sure it'll be rewritten anyway, but Bush is looking like the fool (as usual) not supporting the troops with what the bill provides and the Dems should be out there blaming all that pork more on those it's for.

I did fail to point out that a lot of what is being called pork, is not.

[zimv20]

The pork that most of us are complaining about was put there so Republicans would vote for it.

i haven't done the analysis, but i'd bet if we did, we'd find that some of the measures (i'm going to avoid using the loaded term 'pork') were more of a stick than a carrot: i.e. target weak GOP reps and senators and find something in their district that they not dare vote against.

it's not always about sending money to a district, sometimes it's actually about political strategy. not unique to either side.

[solvs]

i haven't done the analysis, but i'd bet if we did, we'd find that some of the measures (i'm going to avoid using the loaded term 'pork') were more of a stick than a carrot: i.e. target weak GOP reps and senators and find something in their district that they not dare vote against.
Probably a better way of putting it. I wish I could find a good breakdown like I heard earlier, but for some reason all I'm finding on the net is talking points. Mostly from Bush and/or talking heads with the rebuttal being sparse, consisting mostly of "yeahbuts". That was the original excuse given by the Dems, that they wanted it to pass and this was how to do it, neither side giving very good details. Oddly quiet from them now. Again. I've read more about $74 million for peanuts (which isn't actually) than any Dem actually standing up for it against the same Repubs they were trying to court.

Don't know if I can blame that on the MSM or the Dems, so I blame both.

[princealfie]

Probably a better way of putting it. I wish I could find a good breakdown like I heard earlier, but for some reason all I'm finding on the net is talking points. Mostly from Bush and/or talking heads with the rebuttal being sparse, consisting mostly of "yeahbuts". That was the original excuse given by the Dems, that they wanted it to pass and this was how to do it, neither side giving very good details. Oddly quiet from them now. Again. I've read more about $74 million for peanuts (which isn't actually) than any Dem actually standing up for it against the same Repubs they were trying to court.

Don't know if I can blame that on the MSM or the Dems, so I blame both.

There isn't any difference between the Repubs and the Dems are there?

[solvs]

There isn't any difference between the Repubs and the Dems are there?

Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. Kinda of a glib attitude though, don't you think? I mean, it's one thing to go for the less of 2 incompetents, but there definitely are differences sometimes.

You don't think things are worse under Bush than they were under Clinton? :confused: