Throwing Georgie under the Bus
 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan says in a new book that President George W. Bush "veered terribly off course" and was not "open and forthright on Iraq," Politico.com reported on Tuesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080528/...bush_book_dc_3

It will be interesting to see how much McClellan says he knew. He is right about the press not doing their job. Too bad we only impeach for lying about sex.

No biggie. All Press Secretaries work for the boss. Everybody has to serve somebody. McClellan is a mouth piece for the man and I am pretty sure everyone accepts that. Cudo's to him for telling his side but it is only one side.

McClellan associated of his own free will with those rats. He can't come back now and try to distance himself. He passed the lies along. He's one of them.

He did the worst job of any press secretaries in my memory. Monotonic and boring for TV, with no idea how things would "play". Unable or unwilling to think on his feet. He was in the job for three years and nobody listened to a word he said. They picked him because they have no concept of how to communicate.

What ever. Looking to blame him for the administrations failures is useless. He was a mouth piece. He had a job and 15 min (well 3 yrs) of fame. He will make money off his book and the job has given him an in for numerous jobs in the future. The majority of people could give a rats ass about anything he did during his time at the podium.

Posting on the internet about politics in general is fairly useless.

I'm not blaming him for the administration's failures. I'm blaming him for his own. He's saying that Bush basically lied about the Iraq war, but he was Bush's mouth, so what does that make him? He's trying to paint himself as this saint. He's not. He's one of them.

He's connected, and he will make some money off this book. I won't dispute that. Most people won't really remember him and don't care. I won't dispute that either.

He waited until he had a book out and Bush's popularity was in the crapper before he exposed the BS. Bleh. I'm glad he's done it, but it is too little, too late.

I don't believe that it took him this long to decide that it was BS; his demeanor during his tenure always seemed to me to indicate he didn't believe it. Which makes the press' culpability all the worse. Not that that excuses him. Lying to someone isn't any better if you know won't call you on it.

Yea, it does sound like some serious distancing and ass covering. Screw it. I could give a crap what he writes. I will never read his book. Anything a press secretary says before or after his employ is highly suspect. What amazes me more is that any of you think that in some way he was complacent or suddenly not complacent in the daily propaganda that ANY PRESIDENTS PRESS SECRETARY was putting forth while doing the job he was hired to do. BFD. Please tell me that Clinton’s Press secretary was any different. Again, who fucking cares. They are a mouth piece for whoever hires them to be their mouth piece. BFD. That is their job. Get over it.

Scott McClellan = Chemical Ali.

He's certainly no CJ.

bet he couldnt even do The Jackal half as well
(and we all know thats the REAL measure of a press secretary)

It sound like another in a long list of insiders telling the truth about the mental midget. His book only adds to the long list of other who have been saying the same thing.

A president sits on his ass for five days while the USS Abe Lincoln sits doing nothing nearby an Indian Ocean tsunami. For five days, a million are dying and President Ass wipe cannot even dispatch the Lincoln task force ... until world wide mockery embarrasses the mental midget.

How curious. An aircraft carrier, USS Bataan, sits futilely and idly for five days off New Orleans - not permitted to assist Americans in the Super Dome and Convention Center. Why? The book says why. President Dic licker could not decide for five days that a category five hurricane would make landfall. However, as the hurricane struck New Orleans, the mental midget saw fit to go to a campaign fund raiser in Southern California.

Whew, good thing you don't stoop into namecalling like UG.

:lol2: I was thinkin the same thing!

We should create a tw stock market. Right now, his market value is in the crapper.

don't worry, it'll bounce back once top management is changed.

Well I certainly respect the views and have read the books of others, notably O'Neil, Clarke, Woodward, and Gary Aldrich, as insiders who I trusted as accurate reporters of what goes on behind the scenes. Press secretary's, not so much.

Might as well crosspost this link here too. Tangentially relevant.

Addressing Elder's article:

1. The Iraq War 'surge' should have been done five years ago. Either way, It is irrelevant to the fact that Iraq was no real threat, thanks to the sanctions already in place. As for no attacks on American soil since 9/11, US Embassies in foreign lands are considered on American soil.

Actually, the hundreds of violations of UN sanctions by Sadam were the ultimate reason for the Iraq invasion. Just because the UN was too spineless to enforce their own sanctions doesn't mean we had to be spineless also. How long were we supposed to wait while Sadam was firing at our planes in the UN's no fly zone? Where are all the naysayers who bitched about George Sr when he followed UN mandates and did not take out Sadam in the first Gulf War? For someone who was "no threat to us," he sure had a way of projecting the fantasy that he had the biggest military in the region, and apparently not supporting terror means paying huge sums of money to the families of suicide bombers is just being a friendly old guy. I guess his own people hung him because his was such a benign regime.

Two d's in Saddam.
As for your arguments, they've already been discredited and if you're still trying to make them, then you aren't going to listen now.

ORLY????

Ya rly. Saddam basically obeyed the UN sanctions years before the invasion ago by destroying and or burying his WMD program to the point of uselessness.

The ultimate reasons to invade Iraq were:
1) oil, as confirmed by McCain in a recent speech, only problem is that oil became a lot more expensive at the dealer end; Bush even couldn't hold down the price of oil;
2) revenge: W(the son) heard of arrests made on an assassination attempt on Sr.(the father) in Kuwait years back. W also heard of Iraqi connections to the assassination attempt. W wanted so badly to attack Saddam to avenge his father.

If he said those two reasons, his justification to invade Iraq might be slightly more credible, though insufficient to the UNand others. Then W heard from agents from Iran (Chalabi) about Iraq's bogus WMD program. After W prepped McClellan and Powell with the sexed-up reports, the rest is history.

Oh by the way, former exiles from Iraq hanged Saddam, not 'his own people'.

yawn.

You believe the dribble? Iraqi's executed Saddam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executi...Saddam_Hussein

Anyone who believes we invaded Iraq for oil or revenge or Haliburton is whacked.

Why then, did we invade? I can't seem to remember a particular reason that hasn't been based on lie.

:::crickets chirping:::

The last time Flint asked this exact question, which apparently will be asked ad infinitum for some reason, I pointed him to the Strategic Overview and all he could do it mock me for it. Here's the Iraq section.

1. Stage 2: Iraq
   1. Goal of Stage 2: we had to conquer one of the big antagonistic Arab nations and take control of it.
      1. To directly reduce support for terrorist groups by eliminating one government which had been providing such support.
      2. To place us in a physical and logistical position to be able to apply substantial pressure on the rest of the major governments of the region.
         1. To force them to stop protecting and supporting terrorist groups
         2. To force them to begin implementing political and social reforms
      3. To convince the governments and other leaders of the region that it was no longer fashionable to blame us for their failure, so that they would stop using us as scapegoats.
      4. To make clear to everyone in the world that reform is coming, whether they like it or not, and that the old policy of stability-for-the-sake-of-stability is dead. To make clear to local leaders that they may only choose between reforming voluntarily or having reform forced on them.
      5. To make a significant long term change in the psychology of the "Arab Street"
         1. To prove to the "Arab Street" that we were willing to fight, and that our reputation for cowardice was undeserved.
         2. To prove that we are extraordinarily dangerous when we do fight, and that it is extremely unwise to provoke us.
         3. To defeat the spirit of the "Arab Street". To force them to face their own failure, so that they would become willing to consider the idea that reform could lead them to success. No one can solve a problem until they acknowledge that they have a problem, and until now the "Arab Street" has been hiding from theirs, in part aided by government propaganda eager to blame others elsewhere (especially the Jews).
      6. To "nation build". After making the "Arab Street" truly face its own failure, to show the "Arab Street" a better way by creating a secularized, liberated, cosmopolitan society in a core Arab nation. To create a place where Arabs were free, safe, unafraid, happy and successful. To show that this could be done without dictators or monarchs. (I've been referring to this as being the pilot project for "Arab Civilization 2.0".)
      7. Not confirmed: It may have been hoped that the conquered nation would serve as a honey-pot to attract militants from the region, causing them to fight against our troops instead of planning attacks against civilians. (This was described by David Warren as the flypaper strategy.) It seems to have worked out that way, but it's not known if this was a deliberate part of the plan. Many of the defenders who died in the war were not actually Iraqis.

Well I don't see any lies below...:D
__________________

I'm not mocking you for it; because you aren't mockable for it. You didn't send our troops to Iraq.

The fact that "the war" can only be explained via anonymous hypothesizing on the internet indicates to me that there is a problem. Also, that I can pull a better reason out of my ass in support of the war than anything I've ever heard anybody say who is in support of it. It's the stupid reasons, and non-reasons that make my brain explode. We're doing something that nobody knows the reason for. And when I offer a good reason, they want to argue about it because that's not what they've been told the reason is.

People prefer a stupid reason, and reject a logical reason.

Were that any sort of official government document (Pentagon, Joint Chiefs, the Park Service), that would lend it some credence. However, it's a blogger making assertions. Further, it describes goals, not the reasoning behind the methodology to achieve those goals.
I have yet to hear the folks responsible for these decisions come up with a reasonable answer.

It's true. But, guess what,

- America didn't really join the allies in WW2 because Hitler was a Bad Man.

- WW1 wasn't really the result of Archduke Ferdinand having been assassinated.

- The American Civil War wasn't really fought to "free the slaves".

Nothing excuses the leadership and tactical failures along the way. But not telling us the "real deal" is not one of those failures... actually *stating* any one of those goals would make accomplishing it impossible. Like showing your poker hand. But more than five years out, they still make sense and, incredibly, most of them are still on the table.

They told you in 2001: it'll be a different kind of war. Doesn't excuse any kind of war; doesn't excuse losing; doesn't excuse the loss of favor of the rest of the world; doesn't excuse anything, really. But a lie? Let's be a little more sophisticated. More like a bumbled misdirection, followed by what is actually a steely resolve to see the matter through to completion.

Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase II Report on Pre-War Intelligence
Haven't read the full reports yet, but the summaries are pretty damning.

UT, back up for a second...first, bumbled misdirection? You're playing semantic games. They didn't even tell part of the truth. Second, let's assume that it was just misdirection, if they bumbled it, how is it not a failure? ;)
Lastly, it's good to talk to smart people that don't just call you names when they disagree with you. Thanks, Cellar!

A good retroactive view of most actions are a great way to hammer the process. To bad most of the time we don't have that view when the decisions are actually being made. Hindsight is a real boone to historians.

The last time I said that, all you could do was mock me for it.

I know that laying all our cards on the table would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

I also know what our enemies know; that the way to win a war against America is to bog us down in a quagmire until we lose political support. We couldn't have done a better job of that. We lost (or never got) support for the war by not providing a GOOD REASON for being there. It didn't have to be the comprehensive, actual reason; but at least a GOOD-SOUNDING REASON. Fail.

I think that's right. But did they A) fail to offer a good-sounding reason? or B) did they offer it and fail to communicate it well? or C) did everybody decide not to listen?

Bush stood days before the war's kickoff, at the American Enterprise Institute and spent, yes, half of his speech talking about WMD but the rest of it about the ^ goals, at least 1-1, 1-4, 1-6, mostly about the notion that success in Iraq would produce transformational change in the middle east. It hasn't so far. Fail. But they did talk about it, over and over and over, and everybody just bellowed Where Are The Weapons of Mass Destruction.

D. They threw a bunch of different bullshit at the wall, to see what would stick.

Is that like saying "I didn't cheat on all of my taxes"? In life, you get called on your bullshit.

Nothing new there. The goal of almost any invasion and occupation is to 'produce transformational change'. Usually, this involves imposing ones belief system on the target country.

BTW, TW makes a good point about the failure to supply relief to Indonesia and New Orleans. The GWB administration seems to have beaten down any independent action by subordinates in the system. If you look at the Monica Goodling situation, this system appears to be enforced in much the way political officers were used in the Soviet system. This might work better if the administration and its apparatchiks were at least competent, but sadly this was not the case. The Bush administration is anti-goverment and does not trust bureaucrats. In many ways, they have disabled the independent bureaucrats in most government agencies in the same manner they de-Baathified the Iraqi government, with much the same results.

We are left with a government on autopilot, with basic functions running, but all higher functions disabled or delayed by being micro-managed by political appointees selected more for their capacity for devotion than their ability to take independent action.

I agree that McClellan, when compared to someone like Clarke (I'm still wading through Against All Enemies), is a lightweight. However, he does have the advantage of being the 'safe' guy, one of the devout true believers that Bush thought he could trust to toe the line forever. Clarke was compromised on day one because he was a 30-year career bureaucrat who had major roles in two prior administrations. McClellan was insignificant enough that he may actually have been given more access.

Think of Mark Felt as Deep Throat. When going down the list, he was the last guy Nixon thought could be the leak. I'm reminded of the scene from 'Mr. Roberts' where the Captain is going down the list of possible troublemakers. When he gets to Pulver, he publicly dismisses him as insignificant even though he was the culprit.

Scott McClellan and Mark Felt are the real life Ensign Pulvers, people who were though to be so insignificant or blindly loyal that they were allowed to witness history being made. Bismark once made a remark about sausages and politics. These guys got to see exactly what was being stuffed in the sausage and it made them sick. What mixture of pride, patriotism, revenge, or disgust made them rat out the boss is open to debate. At least Felt never tried to make a buck off of the thing for 4 decades until his children outed him.

History will not be kind to GWB, and part of that history will be written by guys like McClellan.

Actually, they have not been discredited. Glib but fundamentally ill-advised leftists -- no friends of democracy -- will claim they have been, but the evidence of history proves them persistently wrong. But the poor SOB's never notice.

The Left will whine loudly at any attempt, in particular by Americans, to reduce the Non-Integrating Gap's number of nations. This is ridiculous given the high probability that any of the worlds troubles will develop within the Gap region.

Is there something mistaken in that idea that as the Gap shrinks, so do the chances for troubles?

Meanwhile I am persuaded the Left is collossally, systemically, congenitally small-caps STUPID. I refuse to follow stupid people. When I get it, and they don't...

Hmm, so a Republican Administration acts in accordance with a Republican fondness for limited government. I don't have a problem with that, not really.

They thought history would be similarly unkind to Harry S. Truman, too, particularly in the first few years after he left office. And really, who opposes W most strongly in our Republic? -- the kind of people who don't want us winning wars against the kind of foes we get into fights with. This, in my view, discredits these oppositionists profoundly and utterly. They seem unable to appreciate accurately the nature of our foes. We just don't shoot at the nice people. Haven't for over a century now, so it certainly seems to be our habit.

Making them ineffective, while leaving them and their budget in place, is stupid.

It certainly makes me sick, as sick as this.

Excellent post, richlevy.

eta:

Actually, we, as a nation, are all sick from this behavior, *already*. Reading about it from McClellan doesn't sicken us. It only alerts us to our condition. A condition brought upon us, and exacerbated by the deliberate policies and leadership of this administration. Reading about it helps us understand *why* we're sick, and that is the biggest help to becoming well and avoiding this avoidable peril in the future.

McClellan only confirms what the many others have long since reported. At this point, only wacko extremists could still have respect for these products from the Project for a New American Century. It is not possible to be logical and reject what even McClellan reports. Even Nixon loyalists could not take it anymore - finally decided to work for America rather than for Nixon's political agenda.

Meanwhile, what did we learn from Nixon's time? The great Americans were the ones who blew the whistle. Those here who hated whistle blowers also posted praise for George Jr. Deja vue Nam.

Bruce made my point much more succinctly then I did. Instead of cutting budgets, fixing issues, etc, the administrations approach was to reduce effectiveness while keeping costs the same. This is like ripping a cylinder out of a V8 and assuming that the owner will be so disgusted that he will go out and buy a horse.

So instead of actually fixing or at least maintaining stability, the administration kept costs in place, reduced efficiency, and cut taxes as if they had made any improvements in cost.

This is the equivalent of buying a V8, disabling 2 cylinders, and running up the difference between the cost of a V8 and V6 on a high interest credit card you have no intention of paying off under the assumption that since you're only using 6 cylinders, you deserve the extra money.:right:

F*****g insane.

Some funny satire from the internet email passing hordes

The speech George W. Bush might give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners, including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.

Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied; People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you? Now some of you morons are considering another and more evil Clinton for president !!!! Go figure that one!! She wants to take your kids away and let the ' Whole Village ' raise them! i.e. governmental indoctrination .. Look this one up you dumb asses!

The rest of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to reelect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nucular weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel . Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America .

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.

PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.

He should have punctuated it with 'God Damn America'.

Islam ain't taking over America until the majority convert to Islam. And the brand of Islam just might be you know distinctly American, in which the new American Muslims are instructed to bow towards New York City.

:lol2:

I would certainly welcome that speech, as well as the Democratic response which would go would go something like.

You squandered 1 or more trillion on a war we did not need.
You made no effort to mandate any increase in fuel efficiency and let the US companies fall behind in new technologies, bringing the possibility of another bailout.
You abrogated the responsibility for oversight, assuming that all industry s would self regulate. The phrase 'foxes to guard the hen house' come to mind.
You made no effort to rebuild jobs, or improve access to post-secondary education and training, items necessary to retool our economy.
You perpetuated the myth that growing debt to buy foreign goods was good for our economy, or that drilling in land owned in common by all Americans so that someone could sell us back oil we already owned would be more than a stopgap measure that destroys pristine land we held in trust.
You believe you did not break any laws only because you falsely assume that the Constitution exempts you from most laws, especially in the matter of Executive orders.

You stepped over any number of well qualified candidates in one of the most brutal primaries in history to get a job you were obviously not qualified for and are whining when you execrable job performance is questioned.

Good Riddance. Don't let the Oval Office doors hit you on the ass on your way out, and make sure you obey leash laws when you take Cheney with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy (Post 460554) I would certainly welcome that speech, as well as the Democratic response which would go would go something like. You squandered 1 or more trillion on a war we did not need. You made no effort to mandate any increase in fuel efficiency and let the US companies fall behind in new technologies, bringing the possibility of another bailout. You abrogated the responsibility for oversight, assuming that all industry s would self regulate. The phrase 'foxes to guard the hen house' come to mind. You made no effort to rebuild jobs, or improve access to post-secondary education and training, items necessary to retool our economy. You perpetuated the myth that growing debt to buy foreign goods was good for our economy, or that drilling in land owned in common by all Americans so that someone could sell us back oil we already owned would be more than a stopgap measure that destroys pristine land we held in trust. You believe you did not break any laws only because you falsely assume that the Constitution exempts you from most laws, especially in the matter of Executive orders. You stepped over any number of well qualified candidates in one of the most brutal primaries in history to get a job you were obviously not qualified for and are whining when you execrable job performance is questioned. Good Riddance. Don't let the Oval Office doors hit you on the ass on your way out, and make sure you obey leash laws when you take Cheney with you.

I say, the above things quoted above are reasons to thank W. For example, " You squandered 1 or more trillion on a war we did not need." Democrats haven't a clue about American needs. They'd rather spend 40+years squandering a trillion trillion dollars on a war on poverty that is obviously unwinnable. We should cut and run.
" You made no effort to mandate any increase in fuel efficiency" It's called Capitalism, and it is the engine that has made America the only place where people are dying to get in, not dying to get out. Inherent in capitalism is allowing the free market to dictate business policy, not some beaurocrat who never had any business experience in his life.(Hint-Politician) The phrase 'morons to guard the productive' come to mind.
" You made no effort to rebuild jobs, or improve access to post-secondary education and training" Get it through your head, government can't create or rebuild jobs. It can only create an atmosphere for growth, by getting the hell out of the way, and letting the private sector do what it's supposed to do, create jobs and wealth. Over taxing and over regulating businesses stifles creativity and investment.
As far as providing access to education, any type of education, I can't find that in the constitution that the president has any authority there. In fact, the constitution gives that authority to the states. For the president or congress to get involved is something that has been done illegally for decades.
I'll stop there, because it has all been said many times over 200 years, but the democrats refuse to pay attention. As long as a large number of Americans choose to listen to liberal media propaganda, I suppose there will always be a fresh supply of useful idiots to vote for liberals.

The bigger the letters, the less likely the propaganda will like to go through.

First of all, the Iraq War is paid by credit card. And now even the credit card industry is suffering a crunch. Who's going to pay for it?

Capitalism is evidently not working to sustain lower oil costs nor wean Americans out of their bad habits. Otherwise, GM should have done what they are doing now a year ago.

'Provide common welfare' is in the preamble to the Constitution. Welfare since at least 1849 includes education.

Ohhhhh... big letters really helps make the demoncratic point so much more correct. HA!
The poor poor liberal press has a chink in it's armor.
:lol2:

DILDO, FUCK-STICK, DING-DONG, RIMJOB, COCK! COCK! COCK-A-DOODLE-DOO. BUTT, TITTIES, ASSHOLE, FINGER-FUCK, DICK-LICKER. SHIT FOR BREAKFAST? BREAK DANCING ON A PIECE OF CARDBOARD IN MY JUMPSUIT BY THE MOONLIGHT FEELS SO RIGHT. TONIGHT IS THE NIGHT FOR ROMANCE, BREAKDANCE, GIANT BONER IN MY PANTS.

:alien: :thumbsdn: :litebulb: :cheese: :question: :thumbsup: :bandaid: :nuke: :rainbo: :lobwtf: :donut: :gift: :tux: :female: :coffee: :stop: :bogroll: :wolf: :fish: :flower:

lmao!

Well, I certainly see what you're saying there, Flint.

:lol2:

Which big letters are you referring to? If spudcon's, then apparently...
... is correct. spudcon wasn't trying to make a democratic point.

You have to type it bigger for me to be able to read it. :D

Uh, no it isn't.... you're thinking of "promote the general welfare".

Me too. I didn't listen to my parents either - I did it until I needed glasses.:jagoff:

My problem also. I wrote in large letters because my vision is failing.

How do [size=X] tags help you see the text while you're typing it ???

Seems to me they do that by keeping the text normal size and normal color until you go to post it, whereupon kaboom.

KaBOOM

Chaka-laka.

The sound of somebody car-bombing a castanets factory.