Re: McCain-Palin
- From: Brady <waterclock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:57:08 -0500
Dave Sikula wrote:
On Sep 15, 12:00 pm, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
************************************************
yawwwwwwwnnnnnnn
Survey US governors the day before the interview, and I'll bet at least 48
would be cluless. It's not like it's a LAW. It's merely a stance that
evolves over the course of an administration.
and, the answer is, if there is *reliable* evidence that we were about to be
attacked, it is the **duty** of our leader to defend.
Well, there it is. But Bush didn't have "reliable" evidence that Iraq
was about to attack, and his invasion wasn't exactly a defense. On the
other hand, when he -did- have reliable evidence on August 8 that "Bin
Laden was poised to attack," he did nothing but tell the briefer he'd
"covered his ass."
I agree, though, that the whole "Bush Doctrine" thing will strike many
voters as inside baseball.
In related news: Sarah Palin's next big sit-down will be with Sean Hannity. There'll probably be a lot of questions like the following.
'So, how old were you when you realized you were destined for greatness?'
Brady
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: McCain-Palin
- From: Bill Kawalec
- Re: McCain-Palin
- References:
- Re: McCain-Palin
- From: Bill Kawalec
- Re: McCain-Palin
- From: katycren
- Re: McCain-Palin
- From: Bill Kawalec
- Re: McCain-Palin
- From: dsikula@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: McCain-Palin
- Prev by Date: Re: McCain-Palin
- Next by Date: Re: Ike!
- Previous by thread: Re: McCain-Palin
- Next by thread: Re: McCain-Palin
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|