Egfrow on June 18, 2007 at 10:12 PM

ROFLMAO!

That was the funniest joke I’ve read here in months! Good one!

Why would that piss off the anti-non-candidate fred? group? We just want the unvarnished truth.

From your article’s link:

As the Bush administration goes through its final years and the Iraq war goes on and on and on, people are looking for clarity and closure,” Woodward wrote. “I’m not sure that we’re going to get either in the coming months or even years. … [M]y sense is that the war will continue for some time and deny us either clarity or closure.”

.

Woodward compared the lead up to the Iraq war to Watergate and moans about clarity and closure. Clarity and Closure?

Then is hailed a hero for giving up information about White House Recording systems to the press to allow the Left to soon take over the White house and the senate for many years to follow. Sure, I think he’s credible and so is the Washington Post.

Egfrow on June 18, 2007 at 7:26 PM

Why would that piss off the anti-non-candidate fred? group? We just want the unvarnished truth.

Whether he means to or not, he’s encouraging our enemies to believe that they are winning the critical war of will.

Oh he means to all right. Just as Queen Nancy meant to encourage our enemies by going to Syria. They are not stupid enough to not know.

They are doing it deliberately and with full knowledge in order to encourage our enemies and discourage our men in the field.

As far as I’m concerned its called Treason.

Note to the candidates… I want a President who slaps down the other side more often than he kicks his base in the teeth.

Harry Reid, though, has taken a different route. He made his statement about General Pace on a conference call with fringe elements of the blogosphere who think we’re the bad guys. This is a place where even those who think the 9/11 attacks were an inside job find a home.

So, Reid was talking to Rosie? Alec Baldwin? Charlie/Martin Sheen? Or was it Ron Paul?

There are Americans who think we’re the bad guys. There are Americans who think 9/11 was an inside job. And they do have a “home”, as it were, among the lefty netroots crowd. I’m not seeing an exaggeration.

I can’t decide if I like the idea of him swinging at the nutroots or if it demeans him to even acknowledge them.

Allah. One of the problems with Bush 43 is that he never hits back. We need somebody who will hit back when hit. We Republicans need a pit bull not a standard poodle.

To identify the problem is not to wallow in it. It’s to point out shortcomings of our Senate majority leader — who is a living example of the Peter Principle in action.

csdeven on June 18, 2007 at 5:49 PM

So, you agree that fred? is making a mistake by getting into a pissing contest with the moonbats and the truthers?

See my first comment on this thread.

Does not pay attention in class: D-

Bad Candy on June 18, 2007 at 5:59 PM

You’re right, I don’t see it that way. I would totally agree with you if we were talking about a commentator like Rush. We aren’t, were talking about a guy who may become a candidate for president.

tree hugging sister on June 18, 2007 at 5:55 PM

Reid and his ilk are part of the “all power, except ours is corrupt” crowd. It doesn’t matter if Patraeus is in touch or not, it’s enough that he doesn’t have his lips planted on dingy’s a$$.

It’s about time one of our leaders went after the jackasses on the left. The proverbial emperor has been sauntering around naked for years now and it’s high time someone called attention to it….

csdeven on June 18, 2007 at 5:49 PM

No, because Moore is willing to construct lie after lie that any one person can’t have enough info immediately onhand to defend against. Conspiracy nuts use that tactic often, and on top of that is what Rush says about moonbat calls, ‘you have to know when to end the conversation or else both people in the argument look nuts’, seems an appropriate consideration in Fred’s spat with Moore, not that you’ll see it that way.

… MR. HARWOOD: But does it signal combat troops coming out?

MS. RADDATZ: I don’t – I think truly that you have to wait and see the conditions on the ground. David Petraeus, who was criticized by Senator Reid as not painting the accurate picture, although Senator Reid himself has been there one time and that was two years ago. Dave Petraeus is going to be in a position he has to give a progress report. Dave Petraeus is highly admired, thought of as a very, very honest person. I mean, certainly he points out some progress there, but it is going to be very, very difficult after this week with the Samarra bombing to show progress.

There was a report this week that violence all over Iraq has grown. In Baghdad it’s slightly better. That’s where they now have 28,500 troops. Of course it’s going to be better, but what has happened so many times in the past, what I have seen so many times there, is you calm one area down and they move to other areas, and that is exactly what’s happening. But I think Petraeus would like the surge to continue. He knows you can’t have success unless you stay there long term.

wccawa on June 18, 2007 at 5:38 PM

So, you agree that fred? is making a mistake by getting into a pissing contest with the moonbats and the truthers? What about his spat with Moore? Do you see that as a positive way to engender support? fred? started it with Moore, doesn’t it look a little questionable that fred? only wants to rag on Moore through the media, but wont back up what he says to Moore’s face?