(2007-03-26) — Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-NE, this weekend charged President George Bush with being “too dimissive” of Congressional opponents to his Iraq policy.
Mr. Bush responded by saying, “My opponents have as much chance of bringing peace and freedom to Iraq as Chuck Hagel has of winning the Republican nomination for the presidency.”
12 responses so far ↓
1 Scott Ott // Mar 26, 2007 at 7:23 am
Bush Dismisses Hagel Accusation That He’s ‘Dismissive’…
by Scott Ott(2007-03-26) — Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-NE, this weekend charged President George Bush with being “too dimissive” of Congressional opponents to his Iraq policy.Mr. Bush responded by saying, “My opponents have as much chance of bringing p…
2 camojack // Mar 26, 2007 at 7:24 am
Chuck who?!
3 Darthmeister // Mar 26, 2007 at 8:22 am
Hagel? Buwahahahahahahaha!
BTW, aren’t linguine-spined kooks supposed to be dismissed?
4 Ms RightWing, Ink // Mar 26, 2007 at 11:02 am
I can’t keep up Scott-my brain is ready to explode
5 seneuba // Mar 26, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I still like Scott’s comment on his “Presidential Video”:
“Chuck Hagel was about $99M short in getting the $100M needed to win the presidency.”
6 onlineanalyst // Mar 26, 2007 at 1:27 pm
While this thread may not be resonating with reader observations, we might keep in mind that the media and the Dems always trot out Hagel as “a conservative Republican” or “the voice of reason” in the GOP. We allow this absurdity to happen unchallenged at our own risk.
Captainsquartersblog has a great thread on Hagel’s most recent nonsensical bloviating on the Sunday-talking head programs, where the senator threatens the “I” word. One of the commenters, ajacksonian, teaches the unschooled (and that surely includes Hagel) what the Constitution allows. Captain Ed asks if Hagel has even read the Constitution.
7 onlineanalyst // Mar 26, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Oops! Here is the thread, which did show up in the preview: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009509.php#comments
(Scroll back from comments, but be sure to read what ajacksonian says, too.)
8 Darthmeister // Mar 26, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Yeah, didn’t Hagel bloviate by threatening to awaken impeachment talks if Bush didn’t start cooperating with the Senate’s political circus? I guess Hagel doesn’t know that impeachment articles are taken up in the House, not in the Senate as the blowhard diptard Senator apparently thinks. Of course I’d never put it past a Senator to want to blackmail a President by criminalizing policy differences. What a traitorous jerk - a traitor to his party, a traitor to his President and a traitor to the fighting men and women in Iraq. There, I said it.
9 da Bunny // Mar 26, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Sooo, “dismissive” is what they’re calling being “decisive,” these days, eh?
10 Darthmeister // Mar 26, 2007 at 3:24 pm
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday dismissed any comparison between the firing last fall of eight U.S. attorneys with the replacement of 93 U.S. attorneys when her husband became president in 1993.
“That’s a traditional prerogative of an incoming president,” Clinton said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Once U.S. attorneys are confirmed, they should be given broad latitude to enforce the law as they see fit, she said.
“I think one of the hallmarks of our democracy is we have a devotion to the rule of law,” Clinton said.
She conceded that should she win the presidency in 2008, she likely would replace all of the U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush. She said that’s merely following traditions in which presidents appoint prosecutors of their own party.
A serious question here. Before Bill Clinton fired those 93 US Attorney’s en mass, had any other president fired all sitting US Attorneys before? I’ve heard it was unprecedented, at least for 93 to be fired. sHrillary certainly makes it sound like such was the case. But knowing how weaselly Donks like her are, maybe it depends on what the definition of “prerogative” is. How many different ways can the DemDonks illustrate hypocrisy? Their creativity in this regard is quite … Gorwellian.
11 everthink // Mar 27, 2007 at 12:05 am
Henry,
Tell me you’re not just faking dismay, and your inability to see the difference between Clinton’s clean sweep of 93 US Attorneys upon his entry into office. Or Senator Clinton’s concession that should she win the presidency in 2008, she likely would replace all of the U.S. Attorneys appointed by President Bush.
Dumbyah replaced eight high performing U.S. Attorneys who would not do his political bidding after 6 years in office.
The Justice Department is not a branch of the Republican Party! This may buy him a one-way ticket back to his brush cutting job in Crawford. But, he’ll be “wakin’ wide” when he leaves.
“Hard Work”.
ET
12 Maggie // Mar 28, 2007 at 10:02 am
da Bunny…….Good Morning! :>)
You must log in to post a comment.