If the NYT should be prosecuted, why shouldn't Bush? ...

Draw up impeachment immediately? That should've happened six years ago.

I've pretty much stopped reading national news. Too depressing.

 

Dude, I've got no problem with attacking the administration. Lord knows they deserve it -- and I'm a Republican. I just don't get the personal attacks and assaults on his intelligence. Frankly, there are so many legitimate things to attack about, it amazes me people don't stick to those.

And any point you're trying to make looks silly when you call the president an ignoramus, yet misspell the vice president's name.

 

They had already impeached Clinton. It didn't work.

 

Colonel:

W's scientific stances, alone, would be hysterically-funny, if the current state of affairs weren't so dire . . . go ahead, defend
some of his scientific positions, on the facts. Take all the time you need.



Quit picking nits . . . but why am I wasting keystrokes? Your side is noncompetitive, on the issues . . . especially domestically.

 

Useless. Useless.

 

Either you're itching for a fight or you're not paying attention. Either way, I'm going to try this again.

I'm not picking nits. I'm not trying to defend the president. He's been a tremendous disappointment to me, to say the least. I'll be thrilled when his term is up and I hope the damage he has done to the country, and the Republican party, is reversible.

But the personal attacks, particularly at his intellect, look pretty stupid when you can't so much as spell the vice president's name correctly. Of course, since you've now fixed it, I'm hoping we can let this little flame war die down.

 

'Cause attacking his work is too depressing. It won't change all the damage he's done. It's just about, unfortunately, irreversible for some time. Like I said earlier, I don't read national news anymore because it's too depressing.

Yet, there's nothing we can do about it. So we attack his personal side. It's a lighter look to national politics and it's what we need to do in a time like this to keep sane.

Just my $.02

 

I think this whole thing is a gambit by Bush to put the Times back on the heels.

It been pretty funny watching The Times get treated like a rented mule by the Bush administration.

First Judith Miller and now this.

 

That's an interesting point. The Times is supposed to be this big, bad paper, and the administration we're supposed to believe couldn't find its ass with its hands has no qualms in calling out The Times and winning whenever it feels like it.

 

The administration "wins" only because there's a general disdain toward the media anyway, and because the Bush people use the argument that if you do anything other than what they want, they immediately scream national security and patriotism. Jingoism only goes so far, though.

And if the administration feels "winning" against the Times is a real victory, they've certainly misplaced some of their priorities. And so have you.

 

And why is there disdian? Could it be because a lot of media members, including allegedly unbiased AP writers, were bleating and wringing their hands about Judy Miller before the truth came out? Then they suddenly got quiet.

You say the "priorities" have been misplaced. I say they've changed.

 

So by your logic conservatives can readily trumpet winning a war that's actually still going, and they can trumpet winning a war against a U.S. newspaper.

Yeah, I'd say they're 2-0. :

That's like the AL winning a game against the NL. It's no contest, so why even thump your chest over it?