Bush and Fleischer: A Pair of Fibbers

[subgenius]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2079496/

Then-governor Bush, as a candidate, completely ruled out military or civilian nation-building as the administration now plans in Iraq. ("Absolutely not.")

Fleisher repeatedly refuses to acknowledge that Bush ever said it or that experience may have caused Dubya to change his mind (as any reasonable person might do).

1. As a purported statesman, why rule such a scenario out completely?
2. Why not now: a) admit he said that; b) admit that unusual circumstances can cause a change of position?

(Please note, in deference to the passing of Mister Rogers, I used the "kinder, gentler" term "fibbers" rather than.......)

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by subgenius
http://slate.msn.com/id/2079496/

I used the "kinder, gentler" term "fibbers" rather than.......)

Verbigerative visagistes vivifying verrucated verisimilitude.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


Verbigerative visagistes vivifying verrucated verisimilitude.
You're just a nattering nabob of negativism.;)

[corplinx]

Correct me if I am wrong, but this looks like another case of Slate hair splitting. As I remember the original Bush doctrine from his campaign, he was against intervention/nation building in countries where :

A. there is no strategic interest for the US
B. the regional countries could/should do it instead


I think then that military operations in Afghan. and Iraq pass through this filter. As for Ari, he will play the good soldier no matter what, thats his job.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx
Correct me if I am wrong...... As for Ari, he will play the good soldier no matter what, thats his job.
OK, you're wrong:D
...what does "absolutely"mean?
And there is a diff between a "good soldier" and "Dubyaspeak", I mean "doublespeak."
By the way, I'm beginning to think you're a better "good soldier" than Ari is.;) , i.e., why didn't he explain it away that way?
You might want to apply for his job!:)

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Diezel
Correct me if I am wrong, but this looks like another case of Slate hair splitting. As I remember the original Bush doctrine from his campaign, he was against intervention/nation building in countries where :

A. there is no strategic interest for the US
B. the regional countries could/should do it instead


I think then that military operations in Afghan. and Iraq pass through this filter. As for Ari, he will play the good soldier no matter what, thats his job.


Verbigerative visagiste vivifying verrucated verisimilitude videtur.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius

OK, you're wrong:D
...what does "absolutely"mean?
And there is a diff between a "good soldier" and "Dubyaspeak", I mean "doublespeak."
By the way, I'm beginning to think you're a better "good soldier" than Ari is.;) , i.e., why didn't he explain it away that way?
You might want to apply for his job!:)

My real name is Mike McCurry, how do you think I got so good at this?