Has the Bush administration’s mishandling of the Iraq war significantly decreased its ability to deal with Iran? Liberal columnist Joe Conason thinks so:
“For warning noises to be taken seriously, however, the noisemakers must possess credibility — and over the past three years, the Bush administration has squandered that precious commodity, along with many lives and much treasure. Having gone to war under the false pretense of preventing a rogue state from obtaining nuclear weapons, President Bush has badly undermined his government’s capability to cope with the real thing.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
73 Comments
If you have to ask the question, the answer is already obvious.
Mr. Bush has said that attacks against Iran are “wild speculation,” but the fact is that the attacks against Iran have already started, just as the attacks against Iraq began even as Bush mouthed all that crap about “not having made up his mind.”
We’re already in Iran. Now the question is how far is the Liar-in-Chief going to take it this time.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_specia...
http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/04/we-are-already...
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_3712844
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/15/washington/15diplo.ht...
Are you serious Melissa?
Of course “liberal” columnist Joe Conason thinks so…
What an insightful thread this was.
Might as well have posted something from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity about how the President is doing a good job and seen the other bloggers here go nuts!
That’s one vote for I-believe-anything-this-man-says versus about 60 percent of the population who don’t.
Good job, Nathan. Don’t let those pesky FACTS get in the way of your opinions . . .
As far as posting crap from Rush Wingbag, I say, “bring it on.”
Bush used all of his “political capital” for his personal war in Iraq. He’s got nothing left to support another personal unjust war.
Personal war…
You mean the one that almost everyone in Congress voted for?
Nathan – Congress foolishly voted to give Bush discretion about going to war. They won’t make that mistake again.
How is the hunt for WMDs going? How good a job is Ahmed Chalabi doing as head of our government there? Where are the flowers?
Ben,
You seem to be a man of reason and logic.
So lets test it out here.
Did Saddam ever have WMD’s?
Nathan,”Did Saddam ever have WMD’s?”
Not when we invaded his country.
Yes, he did. As I noted in another thread his sponsor provided them to him to use against his sponsor’s enemies – Iran and Kurds. That is why Iran is so “paranoid” today – that sponsor is still here.
But, as JM points out, he had used them up and what was left was destroyed after Gulf 1. Assuming his sponsor had completely cut him off then he no longer had his source. He never had his own capability.
Ok, so that is a yes.
Did Saddam account for those WMD’s?
Ben,
Once again we go back to the reason and logic.
What are the different types of WMD’s?
Clue: NBC
Kadafi once had WMD, it must be time to blow him to hell and bankrupt our country in the process. Right, Nathan?
Not my argument at all DD. Do try to stick to the subject at hand.
I am leaving for a bit so I will leave you with question number 2:
How many countries intelligence agencies all agreed that Saddam had WMD’s?
I don’t the exact number, but can you name any besides Great Britain and the US?
Nathan – yes, they were accounted for. Most had been used against our enemies on our behalf; what was left was destroyed after Gulf 1. The WMDs I am referring to are mainly chemical; some biological. No nuclear.
Nathan, since I have experience working with WMDs myself (mainly chemical) I know the NBC triad.
I don’t know that any other intelligence agencies had developed their own independent conclusions that Saddam had developed independent capability. Everyone knew that as long as Saddam’s sponsor from the 80s would continue to supply him he would have that capability.
Nathan:We could apply your same logic to Kadafi and arrive at the same conclusion, viz. we needed to invade Kadafi because he once had WMD.
Please try to use your brain. It is not as scary as you seem to think.
My last response to your silly red herrings.
DD,
My point has nothing to do with having had WMD’s.
‘Squandered’ implies that Bush had credibility in the first place.
Glad to see that the conventional wisdom has finally caught up with those of us who, from day one, kept our heads and saw through the tissue of lies (Yellowcake! Mobile weapons labs!) and half truths. If George Bush declared that the sky was blue, I’d check for myself.
Of course, it may already be too late to do anything about Iran. Bush appears to have arrogated to himself the power to conduct covert operations in Iran, beyond Congressional oversight of any kind. Must be great to be the ‘unitary executive,’ who, in times of war, claims absolute authority to decide what falls inside and outside the law.
CF,
Same question:
Can you name any of the other countries whose intelligence agencies also were in agreement about Saddam having WMD’s?
The best intelligence we had, including that from countries like Germany, France, and Great Britain all said that Saddam still had WMD’s and had not accounted for them.
So lets move on to logic now:
If Saddam had WMD’s (which we all agree on that) and he did not account for them (Which the best intelligence agencies agreed on) is it not logical to say he had WMD’s?
Hindsight is always 20/20 and we found out that the intelligence estimates were bad.
No one lied. It was not a grand deception.
Nor was it the only reason we invaded, but it was a pretty good one.
Nathan – the kind of WMDs his sponsor provided has a limited shelf life. Sine they ewre mostly expended against our enemies in the 80s and the remainder destroyed it is logical to say he did NOT currently have them. It is NOT logical to say that he suddenly developed a capability to make them that he never had.
Unless his sponsor gave him some more it was not likely that he could have obtained them. Perhaps we should attack his sponsor?
It was not hindsight when we said THEN that there were no current WMDs.
Even assuming the Saddam had WMD’s (which the various intelligence agencies believed – that’s another story), going into Iraq was a dumb move. It played directly into the hands of the terrorists we are at war with; it proves to many Muslims that we are exactly the Satan they claim we are.
Going to Afghanistan was the right move. Hunting Al-Quada down there, and then hunting them down wherever they scattered (like cockroaches) would have been the right move. Going into Iraq took our eye off the ball, and has frankly undercut our ability to deal with Iran. Our commitment in Iraq has made it more difficult to go militarily into Iran, and that would be difficult enough anyway (unlike Iraq, Iran is not tank country, and the M1 Abram’s amazing abilities would likely be taken away by the terrain). Further, so many believe that the Iraq was was trumpted up (maybe so, maybe not, but that’s not the point) that the administration has little credibility left. The Iraq misadventure has tied our hands, just when we need them most free. If we had just stayed focused, and gone after those who attacked us . . .
GMC70,
For the most part, we agree. Afghanistan needed to happen and, frankly, to be done correctly, which it hasn’t.
Nathan,
No. As GMC70 correctly notes, it is not logical to equivocate a ‘failure to account’ for WMD’s with the actual possession of them. Rather, it is close to a logical fallacy: the appeal to ignorance, i.e. ‘unless Saddam provdes he doesn’t have WMD, then he does.’ Scott Ritter demolishes this ‘argument’ very nicely.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9271
But for grins, here’s a nice PDF that shows who was right and who wasn’t about what Iraq did and didn’t have. And guess what: the NIE’s (National Intelligence Estimates) and Administration were wrong, the UN was right.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/Iraq_Summary_Tables.pdf
But more to the point, you’re playing your usual sneaky game of acting as if what everyone knows isn’t the case: namely, that the Administration pushed its own agencies, and, notably, its allies, to make the case that Iraq had WMD when it didn’t. The fact that the CIA continues to obstruct the release of certain documents to this effect supports the contention that they don’t want to be seen as having caved in to Administration pressure.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm
Then there’s the fact that the CIA received info from the Iraqi Foreign Minister in 2002 which demonstrated that Saddam had NO such program.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/
I could go on, and on, and on. But why bother? For your argument to work, you have to act as if we don’t know much of what we do know and that has been documented. To go into an argument with blinders on in order to shield one’s self from conclusions to the contrary of your committments shows, once again, that you aren’t in the business of arguing honestly.
Hahahahaha.
The scramble by the Bushbots to obscure their hero’s title as the biggest presidential liar in American history grows more intellectually bankrupt by the day.
Nathan, call Hannity with that nonsense you spout as fact. He’s the only American left stupid enough to swallow it.
Jim, you arent making a hasty generalizaton are you? heheh
If Bush can get the oil prices up high enough with saber rattling, it may not be necessary to attack Iran!
There’s harm in using the term “spin.” It tends to give lying respectability. As if lying is a legitimate or acceptable form of misrepresenting facts.
I expect that of bastard Zionists-Jews, but Americans should hold the benchmark of truth to a much higher standard.
Zionists-Jews give credence to the old adage: “If you lie down with dogs, you’ll wake-up with fleas.”
Way to go Nathan, you changed the subject to your own twist. No matter if the intelligence was bad. This is an action of such magnitutde, we don’t have the option to get it wrong. That we did constitutes criminal negligence on the part of the administration (since they’re the ones who bamboozled us into war).
And no, that’s not a “hasty generalizaton”.
I have to disagree with both CF and GMC70 on Afganistan. The war with Afganistan should not have happened. They were not the enemy, Al-quida was. Regardless of the religious tyrants in power there, they did not attack us.
WE are a nation of “we want it, and we want it now.” That is our main shortcomming in this war on terrorism. With satellite imagry, conclusive intelligence and precision planning, ALL the heads of Al-Quida would be dead or in prison by now. All done surgically by either stealth precision bombing or military in/out strikes. If it took three or four years to do so, so be it. The war with Afganistan was not necessary to get that done.
That the Afgan leaders supported Al-Quida is of no consequence. If we went after all the countries supporting Al-Quida, we would be taking on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Palistine, Syria, etc. Invading Afganistan was stupid, and should have been a vision of what would happen in Iraq. But congress failed to see it and authorized our President to go to war in Iraq.
Which was AGAIN done too quickly and with little or no thought of the consequences of that action. If we would have waited even a year, we would have found out what we know now: there were no WMD’s and the intelligence was wrong.
If Bush would have gone to congress with the information we have now, do you think congress would have supplicated themselves as they did with the false info?
We, our government, has screwed this whole war on terrorism up from day one. They have played on our feelings rather than true knowledge. This whole thing has little to do with terrorism anyway: it is about oil. Politicians spew and audiances writhe, and we got Afganistan and Iraq as the result. That, and a President left with no credibility what so ever.
…and we keep sending them back, whether to washington or topeka, dont we?
NO INCUMBENTS!
GMC70 is right, we went way off track when we invaded Iraq. It was a huge gift to OBL, rallying the extremist muslums against the “Great Satan” and turning OBL into an Islamic hero. What a powerful recruiting tool for the terrorists!
One violation of the no-flyover zone after the Gulf War was enough justification to attack Iraq. Hussain & Co. committed 17 of these violations.
CF,
“No. As GMC70 correctly notes, it is not logical to equivocate a ‘failure to account’ for WMD’s with the actual possession of them. Rather, it is close to a logical fallacy: the appeal to ignorance, i.e. ‘unless Saddam provdes he doesn’t have WMD, then he does.”
We were not asking him to prove he did not have them, we were asking him to account for them which he refused to do. When he refused to account for the WMD’s and the best intelligence we had said he had them, it makes the argument a bit more sound than you acknowledge.
“Scott Ritter demolishes this ‘argument’ very nicely.”
He claims that the other intelligence agencies did not say they thought he had WMD’s. David Kay seemed to think otherwise when he testified:
“would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war — certainly, the French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq’s possession of WMD.The Germans certainly — the intelligence service believed that there were WMD. “
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
“But more to the point, you’re playing your usual sneaky game of acting as if what everyone knows isn’t the case: namely, that the Administration pushed its own agencies, and, notably, its allies, to make the case that Iraq had WMD when it didn’t.”
I am being sneaky when you make this kind of accusation? What proof do you have to support this?
“The fact that the CIA continues to obstruct the release of certain documents to this effect supports the contention that they don’t want to be seen as having caved in to Administration pressure.”
So now not providing these documents is enough for you to assume your stance on the administration. Interesting. You just got done saying that Saddam not providing proof was an appeal to ignorance…
“Then there’s the fact that the CIA received info from the Iraqi Foreign Minister in 2002 which demonstrated that Saddam had NO such program.”
They received testimony from a member in Saddams ranks that they chose not to trust for whatever reason. Hindsight proved that his information was more accurate than they believed. What is your point? Hindsight has proven many things wrong so far.
“For your argument to work, you have to act as if we don’t know much of what we do know and that has been documented. “
I am arguing from CONTEXT CF. You are arguing from Hindsight. If you can’t understand the difference then that shows your ignorance not my lack of arguing honestly.
“No incumbents” is a clever way of saying, “vote Democrat”. This is particularly true in state and local races where large majority of incumbents are Republicans.You should just come out and be honest about it.
I suppose that the rational for this campaign is that the Dems don’t have anything postive to run on, thus the “throw the bastards out” strategy. We will see how it works.
Outlander,The NO Incumbants campaign applies to both dems and repubs. They are both so entrenched in state and federal politics they have no concept of what representing the people means anymore. So there is nothing dishonest in saying what kfg and I proposed. There is a bit of dishonesty in your interpretation of it. You assume too much, and not enough.
It’s time for new blood with far-reaching thinkers who are able to think outside the box. That pretty much precludes lawyers.
Nathan–
The Bush administration was going into Iraq from before 9-11 happened. GW wanted to take out Saddam and overthrow the gov’t some four years before he became president.
Here’s a story I wrote in October of 2002. http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/10/23_dubya.html
It shows how Bush said he was going to “take out Saddam Hussein” on the campaign trail, and how his top advisors had plans in the works as to how Saddam could be toppled and the oilfields secured.
Bush wanted Saddam to prove a negative–that Iraq DIDN’T have WMD’s, knowing full well that he couldn’t and thus war was inevitable.
But really, at this point it doesn’t matter whether Bush lied or told the truth. He’s responsible for the massive FUBAR that is Iraq.
The blame is entirely his. And America would have to be as FUBAR as Bush to ever trust him on anything again.
Actually, I made an error in the article which neither I nor the editors caught until it had already been posted.
The debate referred to was in Dec of 1999. The election settled by the Supreme Court in Dec of 2000.
Since then, I use links as documentation, heh.
JW: I understand the sentiment. The net effect though, is what I have stated, a plus for the Democrats.
I believe that from your perspective as an independent,there is no guile. However, kfg is very astute Democrat politico who knows it is to the Democrat’s advantage to fan that flame. Were the Democrats in control, you wouldn’t hear a peep from her about it.
Trumad,
The US has been planning on taking out Saddam since the first Gulf war.
kfg is not a member of the Democratic party Outlander. Neither am I. Kfg has been very active in posting against the Democratic party. She, like I merely supports the MUCH lesser of two evils. To whit: I’ve no love for the Dems. I HATE the Republicans. So as usual you are talking out of turn.
I do not entirely share the “no incumbents” idea. I would be the one who says no incumbents unless they are dems.Nathan? Shall we take out Iran next?
JR,
I was saying that we should never have stopped in Iraq after we rolled through it!
We should have kept the momentum of our sweeping through Iraq, the liberation effect, and swept right into Iran too.
Oh crap, Nathan.
You are just totally whacked, aren’t you?
Fifty of our guys have gotten killed in this first half of April alone, and you’re talking Iran.
When the gods wish to punish us, they give us what we want. Oscar Wilde
Nathan,the war in afghanistan was instrumental in breaking the Soviet Union financially. We’re spending a billion+ a week (roughly)in Iraq. Let’s assume due to economy of scale that attacking Iran raises that figure to slightly less than 2 billion a week. Since there seems to be no end in sight, figure a 10 year campaign. Count in inflation and rising fuel costs (since we’ll take out a major oil producer), I figure 3-5 trillion dollars (or more) to support an open-ended war. Since we’re already running dangerously high deficits, how do you propose we pay for this open-ended war?
Good grief, Nathan, this from a soldier? Maybe we should “roll” through the entire mid east countries and make then vassals of the United States. Then we could appropriate ALL the oil. You gotta be nuts to even suggest we should have invaded Iran also.
I had a feeling I’d get an answer like that from Nathan. That is why I asked.
That’s why I’m asking Hank a similar question on another thread. And got the same answer.
So you are on record now Nathan. In for a penny in for a pound. Let’s get it all out there.Nathan please list the other countries that the United States needs to invade and reform for our nations vital interests or for the march of freedom or any other reason.
You wear the uniform so you are putting your own self on the line for your ideals. I respect that. Please share the list of places where you are prepared to go and fight.
Nathan at 0830:”Ben,
You seem to be a man of reason and logic.
So lets test it out here.
Did Saddam ever have WMD’s?”
DD at 0859:”Kadafi once had WMD, it must be time to blow him to hell and bankrupt our country in the process. Right, Nathan?”
Nathan at 0910:”Not my argument at all DD. Do try to stick to the subject at hand.”
DD at 0926:”Nathan:We could apply your same logic to Kadafi and arrive at the same conclusion, viz. we needed to invade Kadafi because he once had WMD.
“Please try to use your brain. It is not as scary as you seem to think.
“My last response to your silly red herrings.”
No-nothing Nathan at 1005″DD,My point has nothing to do with having had WMD’s.”
Could have fooled me No-Nothing. You might try a little harder next time. You are so pathetic in so many ways.
But, you do make your dad look good. And, I confess that I perceive that as being a tough job.
DD,
Is calling me pathetic the best you can do?
I think that 90% of all topics end up with the labeling of those that disagree with you anti-Bush people.
Do try to stick to the subject.
Nathan, They’re not dealing with anti-Bush, they’re dealing with the rotten things which he’s doing. There’s the difference. America had a moral standing before Bush went off on his crusade to appease the Zionists of Israel and allow his handlers to push him along on the path as set by PNAC.
Peace is a much better option than the pursuit of greed, as almost all Americans agree.
DD got you a distraction Nathan.
Answer my question. How many wars? Where are you willing to go to fight?
Pathetic is the least of the labels you will wear Nathan if you don’t own up now to your intentions.
Own up to what JR?
Grow up and take DD with you.
Darwins disciple is a well reasoned repected poster here.
That you include him with me is an honor to me.
Iran is your next objective Nathan. Given your idiot president you may well get your wish.
I ask again, just how many wars are on yours and your Dad’s agenda.
I was saying that we should never have stopped in Iraq after we rolled through it!
We should have kept the momentum of our sweeping through Iraq, the liberation effect, and swept right into Iran too.
Posted by: Nathan | April 17, 2006 at 07:49 PM
You know after reading this and then re-reading this. I sat and try to think of another way to express my thoughts without what would seem like a personal attack.I really did, but Nathan, as hard as I tried. I just could not find any other way to express this…That is just soo Fooking stupid!
Nathan, I asked you a polite question.How do we pay for it?
Outlander – are you telling us that the GOP does not hold a Primary? After all, I can vote an incumbent out there if the Party itself gives the option.
Nathan,
“I am arguing from CONTEXT CF. You are arguing from Hindsight. If you can’t understand the difference then that shows your ignorance not my lack of arguing honestly.”
No, Nathan, you are arguing in defense of a fictional position that, at the time, was widely criticized for being fictional. This wasn’t something that everyone believed but was later proven false. That’s why I included the PDF from al Baradi. The UN knew it. Lots of people understood the game of lying and coercion that the Administration was playing and spoke out against it. You’re not ‘restoring context,’ you’re perpetuating falsehoods.
More to the point, this is the second time you’ve insisted on ‘context.’ I believe the first was on February 17. Here’s how that exchange went, and here’s what I said then. J R started things off by offering some quotes from Bush, to which you then objected.
**********************************
“I have to say, things would be a lot easier if I were a dictator.”"If you are not with us, you’re against us”"I’m a war president. See I go to work every day with war on my mind.”
Now forget everything else bush has said or done. Those 3 quotes alone speak to us of the mindset of a man that I would really rather not have “defend” me. Seems to me like a case of weighing the “threat” vs. what we might lose.See? An angry Arab 7,000 miles away doesn’t feel like too big a scare. There are certainly more effective methods to “keep me safe” than listening to my phone calls or worrying over what I read. Some of those ideas are mentioned above. Thing is? most of the people posting them are well……not with the bush “us” group.So how about this; I for one hereby absolve bush of any and all responsibilty to “protect” me from angry Arabs on the other side of the planet. In return for absolving bush of this “responsibility” (there is another word you can twist to suit your needs) I ask that he divest himself of collecting information on me or restricting any of my freedoms unless and until he has legally defined proper cause to do so.Wow……I sound like a “conservative”! Given some of the other twist of that word, excuse me, I gotta go shower.
Posted by: J R | February 17, 2006at 02:41 PM
Gee JR,When you take qoutes out of context and add them together, I suppose you could make them mean almost anything you want…Posted by: Nathan | February 17, 2006 at 02:50 PM
So let me get this straight: Nathan, who elsewhere rejects assertions as true unless they measure up to the most literal standard, suddenly wants to enforce the standard by which statements must be understood against the backdrop of an interpretive context?
Seriously, Nathan: do you have ANY intellectual scruples, at all?If you Wingnuts are going to criticize me for posting under a pseudonym (which I don’t: I post under my initials), it’s only fair to point out that your lack of argumentative consistency borders on intellectual dishonesty.
Posted by: CF | February 17, 2006 at 03:03 PM**********************************
So, Nathan insists on ‘context’, which would be a good thing if only he would do so consistently. When it suits him, he insists that ‘context’ explains the facts he’s included. When he doesn’t want to concede a point, he’ll act is if there is no contextual backdrop–and usually, a widely understood and accepted one at that–for the assertions made by his opponents. He can then sit back and smikingly insist that they provide evidence which he interprets in the most narrow and exclusionary manner, thereby saying that it doesn’t count.
So, for Nathan, ‘context’ is a weasel word that is as flexible and self-serving as he needs it to be. For Nathan, there is but one context: whatever he says is right.
CF
Glad I could help then and now!
Context is one thing. To Nathan it is a subjective thing. What is more important and illustrative is agenda.
Now you have a lot to answer to here Nathan. Arguements to parse etc. You are going to be very busy.I just want the list of countries you think need invading.
NO INCUMBENTS! The democrats hate me, the republicans hate me, and outlander thinks I am shilling for dems?
Read my posts about governor leadership and janis lee. Then tell me again how I shill for democrats.
I will be supporting kathleen though, as much as the idea makes me want to hurl. If susan “i hate gambling but make my money off of bingo parlors” is the best the republicans can do, I guess I will be voting for governor no-leadership rather than lite gov no-scruples.
NO INCUMBENTS!!!
CF,
I insist on context when you take 3 quotes from who knows where and string them together for the sole purpose of trying to portray an image that is not true.
That is not honest.
By the way, did JR ever say where he got those quotes from?
See? There he goes again!Nathan could have answered me, or XXX or Trumad or J M or you C F
You gave him an out CF and now he wants to dispute a thread from 2 months ago. He chooses that one direction from all the available ones above.
I could go find those quotes Nathan. I could also have done it 2 months ago when you DIDN’T ask.
Stay on point Nathan. You say we should have invaded Iran. What other nation to your mind needs U S military attention?
If we invade Iran how many hundreds of thousands of troops will it take to occupy it? Or do we simply commit genocide and exterminate the population?
Nathan, when did we “roll through” Iraq?
Seem to me, we done rolled right into de middle ‘o’ Iraq, but we sho ain’t rolled out! Kinda like mebbe we rolled right into dat ole briar patch an got ourselves stuck. No matter which-o-way we wiggles and turns, dem ole thorns an stickers jes dig in deeper. Mebbe gittin stuck in tha briar patch wern’t such a smart thing, I’m-a-thinkin.
Brer Rabbit,
Why do you hate America?
Why CF, I sho don hate ‘Merica. I kinda like it herbouts. I jes don like bein cornswaggled by no Texas boy with a grudge. Bak home, we gots us a sayin. When yo in a hole, y’all needs to quit diggin! Sho seem to me dat Bush boy done got hisself one whoppin big shovel.Dat boy don got hisself a who handfull o dat tarbaby on dis one. He shake his hans dis way an dat, but dat ole tar jes won come off. I say he’s one stuck bubba.
“He’s one stuck bubba.”
Brer Rabbit, you’re killin’ me. You’re a funny sumbitch–for being a rabbit and all.
But you may want to be careful what you say. You wouldn’t want that Bush boy to throw YOU in the briar patch, now would you?
Now, you know CF, if you’re a rabbit, that ole briar patch aint such a bad place. Kinda like I wuz sayin before, we get stuck in that briar patch and all we get is a butt load o thorns and stickers. But them Iraqis is right at home, cuz it’s their briar patch.Ole Bush an Rummy remind me of Brer Bear. It’s one thing to throw a rabbit into the briar patch. It’s a whole nother dumb thing to go in after him.
C F?
Have you seen Nathan?
Now I posted earlier that you gave him an out to answering the MANY questions and rebuttals of his posts by allowing him to spin into another arguement. That is his ususal tactic.
But he didn’t take your out. He…..disappeared.
C F what have you done with Nathan?
Shoot JR, mebbe that CF fella done throwed Nathan into the briar patch.Ifen he did, he’s gonna answer to me. I don like my briar patch messed up!
Brer Rabbit, STOP! Man, you’re KILLIN’ me!!!!!!!!!!!
And besides, Brer Rabbit, do I seem like the sort of person who would mess up a perfectly good briar patch by throwing a Wingnut into it?
J R, indeed. Noted without comment.
Well Mr CF, we sho does appreciate yall not throwin no Wingnuts into dis here briar patch. Day aint many o dose types round here no mo, least not since Brer Skunk strangled on his own spit. Course dere’s dat ole Brer Fox, but you caint hardly believe a word he says. Why, jes tother day the whole south end of da briar patch burned clean up. Sister Possum came a runnin and a screamin bout how there’d been a fire, an ole Brer Fox, he start ta complainin about how nobody talk about tha good news.Course there’s ole Brer Bear, but he’s just plan dumb. I think he may be one o dem “wingnuts” you talk of.