Will the real Chuck Hagel please stand up, please stand up, please stand up...

[Tear Down This Wall]

Ain't the internet a bitch, Chuck? We've know for years Biden was full of sh*t and played to the political winds. But, you? A Vietnam vet? And someone who before the Iraq War predicted is would be a tough row for 10 years, but the we should "set the stage for a stable Iraq" and further "it is a challenge we can, and must meet."

You had the gall to sign your name to an article saying the going would be tenuous for a decade, that we'd need at least 75,000 troops for Iraq to be stablized, and that it would cost, at minimum, $20 billion for troops alone...and now, you act as if all of this is a surprise to you? And, you end it by saying that, despite the pain of growth that will follow the fall of Saddam, stablizing Iraq is "a challenge we can, and must, meet"?

Where is that Senator Hagel today? Where was he yesterday and Tuesday night?

Senator Hagel, you are a political opportunist of the highest order. Truly a shame and a sham. We fully expect you to be slobbering over Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in 2008.

December 20, 2002
Op-Ed

OP-ED: Iraq: The Decade After

This op-ed originally appeared in THE WASHINGTON POST on December 20, 2002.

IRAQ: THE DECADE AFTER

By Joseph R. Biden and Chuck Hagel

The United States will face enormous challenges in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, as well as broad regional questions that must be addressed. These are both matters that members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have been focusing on for some time. During a week-long trip to the region, we came away with a better understanding of the possibilities and perils that lie ahead.

In northern Iraq we saw the extraordinary potential of Iraqis once they are out from under Saddam Hussein's murderous hand. New hospitals, schools, roads and lively media are testimony to the determination of Iraqi Kurds and to the bravery of coalition air crews patrolling the no-fly zone. Just a few hours' drive from the oppressive rule in Baghdad, a freely elected regional government and legislature (which we were honored to address) are embarked on a path of clear-eyed realism. While neighboring countries fear an independent Kurdistan, Kurdish leaders appear committed to working together for a united Iraq. They realize they could lose everything they have built in the past decade by pursuing independence.

Although no one doubts our forces will prevail over Saddam Hussein's, key regional leaders confirm what the Foreign Relations Committee emphasized in its Iraq hearings last summer: The most challenging phase will likely be the day after -- or, more accurately, the decade after -- Saddam Hussein.

Once he is gone, expectations are high that coalition forces will remain in large numbers to stabilize Iraq and support a civilian administration. That presence will be necessary for several years, given the vacuum there, which a divided Iraqi opposition will have trouble filling and which some new Iraqi military strongman must not fill. Various experts have testified that as many as 75,000 troops may be necessary, at a cost of up to $ 20 billion a year. That does not include the cost of the war itself, or the effort to rebuild Iraq.

Americans are largely unprepared for such an undertaking. President Bush must make clear to the American people the scale of the commitment.

The northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk is an example of the perils American forces may encounter. It sits atop valuable oil fields and is home to a mixed population of Arabs, Turkmen and Kurds. In recent years, Saddam Hussein has expelled Turkmen and Kurds as part of an "Arabization," or ethnic cleansing, campaign. We toured a refugee camp housing 120,000 displaced people and heard countless stories of brutality and the loss of loved ones. Kirkuk could become the Iraqi version of Mitrovica, the volatile city in Kosovo where the U.N.-led administration has faced the dilemma of forcibly resettling people from various ethnic communities who have been evicted from their homes.

This is one reason why we will need our allies to help rebuild Iraq. Cementing a broad coalition today will keep the pressure on Hussein to disarm, build legitimacy for the use of force if he refuses, reduce the risks to our troops and spread the burden of securing and reconstructing Iraq. Going it alone and imposing a U.S.-led military government instead of a multinational civilian administration could turn us from liberators into occupiers, fueling resentment throughout the Arab world.

Iraq cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Disarming and stabilizing that country will be all the more difficult because of the unsettled regional environment, in particular the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While it is essential that the United States aggressively pursue Israeli-Palestinian peace on its own merits, doing so has ancillary benefits for the disarmament of Iraq. Simply put, we will make it easier for Arab governments to participate in, or at least support, our actions in Iraq if they can show their people we are engaged in the peace process.

Meetings with Israeli officials and Palestinian reformers led us to believe new opportunities exist for American diplomacy. Recent polling shows that nearly three-quarters of Israelis and Palestinians seek reconciliation and a two-state solution. For the first time since the violence began, a majority of Palestinians support a crackdown against terrorism as part of a peace process. A large majority have no confidence in Yasser Arafat.

The key is to empower Palestinian reformers and encourage Arab moderates. President Bush should lose no time in publicly endorsing the "road map" developed by the Quartet -- an informal group of mediators on the Middle East from the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. The road map provides for a series of reciprocal steps to jump-start a renewed peace process. That would give hope to Palestinian reformers and send a clear message to the Arab world that the United States remains determined to pursue an Israeli-Palestinian settlement even as we deal with Iraq.

Working on multiple fronts poses a difficult test for American leadership, but there is no escaping the fact that we face several related, interlocking crises in the region. As the bulwark of freedom and democracy, the United States faces the need to disarm Saddam Hussein and set the stage for a stable Iraq, win a protracted war on terrorism and engage fully on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Working with our friends and allies, it is a challenge we can, and must, meet.

###

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) is chairman and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

The Washington Post Home Page:

http://www.washingtonpost.com

[landrun]

I'm just going to say that the fact that the Dems get away with this nonsense, unchecked and unaddressed day after day after day... is a testament to the complete incompetence of the Bush administration.

The guy is the worst communicator I've ever seen in American politics. He's worse than his dad and his dad SUCKED - bad - at communicating anything.

They can't defend the firing of 8 prosecutors when Clinton fired 92 in an unprecedented act and then they run around scared.

I can NOT believe this guy won the presidency -- twice! :mad:

That this guy is pres is a testament to just how out of touch the Dems were with the US voters over the last decade.

He's an idiot. Not because of the Iraq war... but just because he's an idiot! :mad:

[royalfan5]

Chuck Hagel is merely trying make sure an overwhelmingly red state has two democratic United States senators.

[FaninAma]

I'm just going to say that the fact that the Dems get away with this nonsense, unchecked and unaddressed day after day after day... is a testament to the complete incompetence of the Bush administration.

The guy is the worst communicator I've ever seen in American politics. He's worse than his dad and his dad SUCKED - bad - at communicating anything.

They can't defend the firing of 8 prosecutors when Clinton fired 92 in an unprecedented act and then they run around scared.

I can NOT believe this guy won the presidency -- twice! :mad:

That this guy is pres is a testament to just how out of touch the Dems were with the US voters over the last decade.

He's an idiot. Not because of the Iraq war... but just because he's an idiot! :mad:

Actually it's a testament to the incompetency of the media and the laziness and lack of spine by the American public.

Let's face it. We're a Republican democracy. We get what we deserve by our decisions. If we lack the will or motivation to educate ourselves about the issues and demand accountability from the press and elected officials than we have no one to blame but ourselves.

This society is composed primarily of slobering, Oprah-watching, intellectually lazy, fat-assed, couch potatoes who's main priority is insuring their own individual comfort and disliking anything that interferes with their beer-swillin, cheetos-munching, American Idol-watching pasttimes. You know I'm right.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I completely agree with landrun. The problem with both Bushes is that, although they have the name and money to be politicians, at heart, they are not truly politicians.

Maybe that's not so much a problem. The deal is, though, that D.C. folk are cutthroat - the politicians and the press. When the Bushes don't play the game with them, it comes across as being aloof.

Reagan was a nice guy, too, but had political savvy. He surrounded himself with people who had political savvy. When the going got tough, Reagan people got going and fought back.

Bush is a good man, steadfast and loyal to his personal convictions and longtime friends. The problem for him is simply that those quality don't work in D.C. Reagan and his people would have cut their Democrat and press foes to pieces - a while smiling and waving to the camera.

Alas! It's just not in Bush to be mean to people - and by "be mean" I mean pointing out their hypocrisy publicly.

[C&CDean]

Well that, and Bush cannot make a speech to save his life.

I like GWB. I respect the man. I've got no bitches about the job he's done. He's been dealt a completely **** hand and is still in the game. I do not think he's a liar, an idiot, or a fool. He just talks like one. And unfortunately, a whole lot of people in America think that looks/public speaking make up the person.

[landrun]

Actually it's a testament to the incompetency of the media and the laziness and lack of spine by the American public.

Let's face it. We're a Republican democracy. We get what we deserve by our decisions. If we lack the will or motivation to educate ourselves about the issues and demand accountability from the press and elected officials than we have no one to blame but ourselves.

This society is composed primarily of slobering, Oprah-watching, intellectually lazy, fat-assed, couch potatoes who's main priority is insuring their own individual comfort and disliking anything that interferes with their beer-swillin, cheetos-munching, American Idol-watching pasttimes. You know I'm right.

I agree with you 100%.

But those couch potatoes can't get a view of the other side if the other side just sits around with a dumbfounded look on their face like this administration does.

[landrun]

Mr admin guy, :) at some point the Bush admin should wake up and realize that they have to fight back because they're getting man handled on issues that they'd win hands down if they'd just stand up and articulate their position on issues and the logical reasoning behind decision that were made.

[colleyvillesooner]

Well that, and Bush cannot make a speech to save his life.

I like GWB. I respect the man. I've got no bitches about the job he's done. He's been dealt a completely **** hand and is still in the game. I do not think he's a liar, an idiot, or a fool. He just talks like one. And unfortunately, a whole lot of people in America think that looks/public speaking make up the person.

We can't expect him to get better at it? It's been 6 years! He has to have good access to some speech training, he the ****ING PRESIDENT! :D

[Scott D]

Mr admin guy, :) at some point the Bush admin should wake up and realize that they have to fight back because they're getting man handled on issues that they'd win hands down if they'd just stand up and articulate their position on issues and the logical reasoning behind decision that were made.

why if there's anything he's shown to be consistent about in his post collegiate years it's that he's a terrible manager/owner of well...anything. He sucks at business decisions, he goes with poor planning. He gets by on "aw shucks" likability, and the fact that he's not afraid to hide his religious beliefs. I think he has natural leadership abilities, he just was never in a position where he was forced to hone those skills. Truthfully, what's killed him more than anything was having Shotgun Dick as anything more than a cabinet member.

[picasso]

Well that, and Bush cannot make a speech to save his life.

I like GWB. I respect the man. I've got no bitches about the job he's done. He's been dealt a completely **** hand and is still in the game. I do not think he's a liar, an idiot, or a fool. He just talks like one. And unfortunately, a whole lot of people in America think that looks/public speaking make up the person.
it's not just personal speeches (which he's actually gotten better at). It's the lack of communication from his administration.
They could have put a few of these fires out early and often. They do not do a good job of explaining their actions and reasoning.

[Scott D]

it's not just personal speeches (which he's actually gotten better at). It's the lack of communication from his administration.
They could have put a few of these fires out early and often. They do not do a good job of explaining their actions and reasoning.

well to be fair, the only person *in* his administration who was good at doing that quit after the first 4 years because of the other 13 chuckleheads that Bush surrounded himself with.

[picasso]

Scott. So you're saying he was also a lousy Governor in Texas? I'm pretty sure that was the springboard to his getting elected President.

He has mismanaged Iraq, no doubt. But we did get the big prize and we have shut down certain terror groups who are these days just making waves "over there" and not over here.
He doesn't get a great grade but he is dealing with a ton of crap that nobody else wants to deal with. People bitch about us being the world power yet everyone wants us to deal with the dirty happenings or at least wait to see what we do about them.

[SicEmBaylor]

TDTW,
$20 million? Are you sure that's not suppose to be $20 billion? I'm not sure you could send a platoon into combat for a year for 20 million.

[Scott D]

Scott. So you're saying he was also a lousy Governor in Texas? I'm pretty sure that was the springboard to his getting elected President.

He has mismanaged Iraq, no doubt. But we did get the big prize and we have shut down certain terror groups who are these days just making waves "over there" and not over here.
He doesn't get a great grade but he is dealing with a ton of crap that nobody else wants to deal with. People bitch about us being the world power yet everyone wants us to deal with the dirty happenings or at least wait to see what we do about them.

I'm saying he's was pretty unmemorable as Governor in Texas. Outside of Texas, and people obsessed with Texas, he was more known for being the son of the President than on his own merits, and in comparison to the job his brother did in Florida, you'd have to say he wasn't all that good. His business history was a wreck though.

Well of course people bitch about the world power issue, because people need something to bitch about. Forget the fact that if the United States ever pulled out of the United Nations it'd fold faster than SicEm facing a woman of loose morals. That's part of the package we decided we'd take by being a/the leading power in the world. Part of the world looks at the United States with awe and wants to be like that, that same part of the world resents the United States for it's status in the world.

[Tear Down This Wall]

TDTW,
$20 million? Are you sure that's not suppose to be $20 billion? I'm not sure you could send a platoon into combat for a year for 20 million.

Yes, billion. I typed too fast. Either way, Hagel's an opportunist. Iraq is turning out just the way he and Biden said it would before we went in there. They put out this article saying, "But, you've got to do it anyway, because we can the 'bulwark of freedom and democracy.'"

What a sh*thead.

[OklahomaTuba]

I wonder how much of it is just exaustion by the administration? After the tech bubble bust, attacks of 9/11, the war on terror, the battle for Iraq, Iran & NK crisis, natural disasters, etc. No administration or President has faced such challenges since FDR in my opinion.

Not to mention we have the VP who I think (and have heard) is MUCH sicker than he lets on about, and a cabinet of people who were picked for their loyalty and not their ability, you have the second coming of Harry Truman.

And yet, here we are, economy is doing very, unemployment is low, no attacks since sept. 11th here at home, and we have given millions the chance at freedom in the middle east. A lot more good things than bad things have happened (as they always do).

[mdklatt]

They can't defend the firing of 8 prosecutors when Clinton fired 92 in an unprecedented act and then they run around scared.


Clinton accepted the resignations of all of the prosecuters who, as is customary, submitted them at the beginning of his term. Reagan did the same thing in 1981.

[Vaevictis]

Actually it's a testament to the incompetency of the media and the laziness and lack of spine by the American public.

Yeah, let's assign the blame for the President's inability to do his job on everyone except the President. :rolleyes:

Job #1 for the leader of a democracy in wartime is to keep the public's morale high and keep them supporting the war. It's on him, no matter what difficulties he faces.


I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this government: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, "come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."


I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

If Bush had even a hundredth of Churchill's ability, the public would be behind this war today and for at least another five years.

Instead, we get speeches claiming an easy road in Iraq, a road paid for by Iraq, premature "missions accomplished", etc. Is it any wonder the American people have no faith? That tends to happen when you fail to deliver what you promised.

Better to promise (and deliver!) blood, sweat, toil and tears.

[Xstnlsooner]

not quite fair. I thought Churchill had a problem drumming up support until ole Adolf came knocking on England's door.

[Vaevictis]

not quite fair. I thought Churchill had a problem drumming up support until ole Adolf came knocking on England's door.

What was 9/11 then?

Bush had all the support anyone could want. He squandered it.

[C&CDean]

What was 9/11 then?

Bush had all the support anyone could want. He squandered it.

Oh come on. Even you ain't that stupid. Geez. In WWII there were GERMANS, wearing GERMAN uniforms, from a real live GERMAN military. They had airplanes, tanks, artillery, and were very conventional militarily. Everybody knew exactly where they were (uh, GERMANY), and what they were about.

Al Queda? Not so much. No?

Bush didn't squander ****. He's just a ****-poor communicator, and this makes the media mad, so they run the guy down a rail, and he's too hard headed or stupid or just doesn't care enough to do anything about it. And schmoes like you eat it up.

[Vaevictis]

Bush didn't squander ****. He's just a ****-poor communicator, and this makes the media mad, so they run the guy down a rail, and he's too hard headed or stupid or just doesn't care enough to do anything about it. And schmoes like you eat it up.

You heard me: Squandered it. He had it, and he assumed that he would continue to have it without having to work to keep it. So he didn't work to keep it, and in doing so, he ****ing ****ed it away. If that's not squandering, nothing is.

[Mjcpr]

Personally, I think it was more of a fritter than a squander.

[Frozen Sooner]

So we're not in peril? 'Cause I coulda sworn the terrorists were dangerous.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Job #1 for the leader of a democracy in wartime is to keep the public's morale high and keep them supporting the war.

1) We're not a democracy. We're a representative republic.

2) The people's representation, our connection as citizens to our duly elected government, are Chuck Hagel-izing, John Murtha-izing, whatever it is you want to call it. Essentially, our respective voices on Capitol Hill have both barrels cocked against the administration and are gunning for anything and everything they can in an effort to discredit, humiliate, and destroy the credibility and ability of our duly elected chief executive. Granted, this doesn't extend to the entirety of our representative body.

3) It may be a function of the PotUS, but morale bolstering and drumming for support is everyone's job. The fact is there's congressional legislation on the books, an executive that's doing the deed, a place, a mission, and a duty to serve. That doesn't rest solely on the shoulders of the President. That rests on each and every one of our shoulders, as our nation is at war. Not half our nation. Not the Republicans. Not conservatives. Not Christianity. Not the Blue Star Mothers or the VFW. Old Glory waves above our troops in Iraq, not representative colors of each faction that supports the President. Our nation, as a whole, is at war. Some want it to end, some want it seen to completion. But undeniably...

The United States of America, our grand experiment, is at war.

4) Job #1 of the President is clearly defined in Article II, Sec. 2 of the United States Constitution. Given Sec. 1 is election, removal, et cetera, Sec. 2 is established to define the powers thereof. Job #1? Oughta make sense that it's the first line in the definition of the powers of the President and Executive branch.


The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

I think that's as clear and as concise as our beloved forefathers could make it. Job number one is clear and simple. He's our quarterback. And a quarterback can't run, pitch, or pass without the actions and support of the other ten members of the team. That includes the fans in the stands, as it were.


It's on him, no matter what difficulties he faces.

Sure is. It's also on Chuck Hagel, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden. On Tom Coburn, Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham, Jim Inhofe, and John McCain. It's on you, me, your brother and your neighbor. It's on us all.

Our boys overseas are counting on us. Don't let 'em down.

[Vaevictis]

Not hardly a good analogy. Britain was in peril. You and I still get to post on silly intenet board thingies.

What, you think we're not in peril?

You've got a ****ing country with a populace that mostly supports Al Qaeda that has ****ing nuclear weapons.

If that's not in peril, I don't know what is.

[Vaevictis]

Essentially, our respective voices on Capitol Hill have both barrels cocked against the administration and are gunning for anything and everything they can in an effort to discredit, humiliate, and destroy the credibility and ability of our duly elected chief executive. Granted, this doesn't extend to the entirety of our representative body.

What this really boils down to is: Police yourself lest you are policed. If the Republicans had done a better job of policing themselves, we wouldn't be in this situation.


I think that's as clear and as concise as our beloved forefathers could make it. Job number one is clear and simple. He's our quarterback. And a quarterback can't run, pitch, or pass without the actions and support of the other ten members of the team. That includes the fans in the stands, as it were.

If you want to win the war, then the President's #1 job has to be to keep the public engaged in the war. Can he do it alone? No. But it starts with him, and if he's constantly sticking his foot in his mouth, it's going to end badly no matter what everyone else does.

To use your QB analogy, it doesn't matter how well the rest of the offense does if the QB is putting the ball on the ground or throwing an interception on every down.

[Frozen Sooner]

Do you go to sleep at night wondering if somebody will blow you up or is 1/2 your family fighting in a war to save them from invading us? No, we are not in peril. I'm going to Phila tomorrow and see a ball game. I ain't scared.

What we are in is a preventive war. America does not understand that. The Romans understood it until they just had too much depravity.

If we're not in peril, then why are we putting our guys in uniform at risk?

I think you and I have a different definition of peril.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I think you and I have a different definition of peril.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Frozen Sooner]

*** - hat

-noun 1. One having the quality of being a hat that one would wear on the ***.

;)

Right back at you. :D

[Tear Down This Wall]

And, yet, nothing posted on Page Two of this thread has anything to do with the issue at hand -

In 2002, before we went to war in Iraq, Chuck Hagel and Joe Biden predicted that we would oust Saddam, then face up to a decade afterward of stablizing Iraq. The wrote that this was a worthwhile cause.

Now, four years into the decade Hagel and Biden predicted, they bail out and pretend all bad news was unforeseen and all is hopeless.

Before, we knew Biden was no more than a weasel following the winds of political sentiment. What we didn't know then, but know now, is that Chuck Hagel, Vietnam vet and all, is cut from the same mold.

Shameful.

[Frozen Sooner]

It's possible that the reason you're not getting a lot of discussion on your original post has something to do with the multi-page thread on this very subject that's going on already.

[Dio]

And, yet, nothing posted on Page Two of this thread has anything to do with the issue at hand .

Welcome to the South Oval- damn glad to meet you! ;)

[C&CDean]

And, yet, nothing posted on Page Two of this thread has anything to do with the issue at hand -

In 2002, before we went to war in Iraq, Chuck Hagel and Joe Biden predicted that we would oust Saddam, then face up to a decade afterward of stablizing Iraq. The wrote that this was a worthwhile cause.

Now, four years into the decade Hagel and Biden predicted, they bail out and pretend all bad news was unforeseen and all is hopeless.

Before, we knew Biden was no more than a weasel following the winds of political sentiment. What we didn't know then, but know now, is that Chuck Hagel, Vietnam vet and all, is cut from the same mold.

Shameful.

Dude, you've been around here for a long time. If you mention "Iraq" you will automatically get the Bush haters drooling all over their chins. I'm just surprised this thread isn't already jacked into an average "so, did you hear Bruce Willis ****ed Ahnold in the *** last night" thread.

[Vaevictis]

And, yet, nothing posted on Page Two of this thread has anything to do with the issue at hand -

Probably because you're talking about politicians being sleazy. Shall we also discuss at length how the sky is blue?

[OCUDad]

Uh, Dean...

While I don't always agree with you, I can respect the fact that you usually come from a consistent position. In one post, you say you don't think the President is an idiot and/or a fool. In a subsequent post, you characterize him as being hardheaded and/or stupid. Maybe my Dean-to-English translator is busted, but I can't align those two statements.

[C&CDean]

Uh, Dean...

While I don't always agree with you, I can respect the fact that you usually come from a consistent position. In one post, you say you don't think the President is an idiot and/or a fool. In a subsequent post, you characterize him as being hardheaded and/or stupid. Maybe my Dean-to-English translator is busted, but I can't align those two statements.

Nope. I said he is NOT an idiot or a fool. I said MAYBE he's hardheaded or stupid or whatever because he's a poor communicator. As I said, I think he's done a good job with what he's got. If he could talk, and had some folks around him who could do the softshoe, he'd be golden. Alas, he can't, and his folks can't dance a lick, so the ignorant masses think he sucks.