Wednesday, January 25, 2006

The Fact-Challenged, Spin-Filled, Easily Debunkable Universe of Scott McClellan

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan continued the Bush Administration's efforts to spin its circumvension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, in a contentious press conference today.

The act says that the National Security Agency must obtain a warrant before conducting surveillance. (President Bush acknowledged as much three times on the campaign trail last year.) The Justice Department issued a 42-page defense of President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program, arguing that the Supreme Court agreed with the administration that it was correct to assume that detention of suspected terrorists was allowable, even though the word "detention" does not appear in the post-9/11 Congressional Authorization For Use Of Military Force. Therefore, the administration is correct to assume it can conduct surveillance of telephone calls between domestic and foreign locations, even though that is not expressed in the congressional authorization.

The leap of logic, of course, is that the Bush Administration received court approval in the earlier example. It sought no such approval now. So while it assumed that it was operating legally, it has no proof of that. And there's a long list of people -- including at least 11 Republican Senators and several prominent conservatives -- who question the rationale.

But why should such things get in the way of today's press conference? The Bush Administration has a nifty, Orwellian title for their action -- calling it a "terrorist surveillance program" -- and McClellan's job today was to get that name out there, and to continue to suggest it's a "limited" program, involving "international" calls, points that have been disputed.

Realize that since the surveillance program became known by the public, the Bush Administration has offered a myriad of excuses, many of which have been debunked. The Republican National Committee falsely said that the Carter and Cllnton Administrations circumvented FISA -- a charge that was debunked, but which McClellan refers to again today. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that Congress wouldn't have supported amending FISA to include the administration's "data mining" plans -- alluded to today by McClellan -- even though the assertion was later disputed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). The Administration continues to say that it has briefed members of Congress, who approved the process. Yet, various senators have said that they were either misinformed at the time about what the administration wanted to do, or not given a chance to express disapproval with the plan.

If the administration's case was so strong, why do they have to keep changing it, and why has it been so easy to debunk their various arguments?

That question wasn't asked at today's press conference. But here's a key exchange that gives you an idea of how McClellan works. He gets his talking points out, but what about the reporter's question? Duck, dodge and weave, and not much more.

Q Scott, Senator Specter sent the Attorney General a list of questions that he was going -- planned to ask at the hearing about the NSA surveillance program. And one of the questions he asked is, would you consider seeking approval from the FISA court at this time for the ongoing surveillance program. Is that something the administration is thinking about?

McCLELLAN: Well, let me mention a couple of things. One, first of all, let me just say I know the Attorney General looks forward to participating in next week's hearing. Or it's actually -- I guess, it's the following week, February 6th. The Attorney General looks forward to talking with the committee and with congressional leaders about the legal justification for this program. This is a terrorist surveillance program. We are a nation engaged in war. It is a limited, targeted program aimed at al Qaeda communications. There has to be an international component to it, so we're talking about international communications. And it has one sole purpose; that is to detect and prevent attacks.

We've already talked about the FISA court. That is a very important tool, as well, and we make very good use of the FISA tool. But FISA was created in a different time period for longer-term monitoring. This program is for a shorter period of time aimed at detection and prevention. And so that's what it's focus is.

And I think we have to step back and remember that -- and I think the Attorney General talked about this in his remarks yesterday -- there is a longtime tradition in war of engaging in surveillance of the enemy. That's what this is. We are a nation at war, and there is an enemy that is deadly and determined to strike us again and inflict even greater damage. And we saw the problem highlighted in the 9/11 Commission report when we learned too late about communications that were taking place from two hijackers that were in the United States talking to people outside the United States. That's the kind of problem this is designed to detect, and then be able to act and prevent attacks. It's about connecting the dots. That's what the 9/11 Commission said we need to do.

So the President not only had the authority to do what he's doing, but he has the responsibility to do what he is doing, because it's about saving lives. It's about preventing attacks. It's very limited in nature, and it's focused on international communications involving al Qaeda members or affiliated terrorist organizations from either communicating inside the United States to someone outside, or communicating from outside the United States to someone inside. And I think the American people expect us to do everything within our lawful power to protect them. And the President made it very clear that as long as he is President, he will continue acting to do everything he can within his powers and within the law to protect the American people. But we work very closely with Congress. We have briefed members of Congress on this vital tool over the course of the law few years, and we'll continue to work closely with Congress.

Q I think that -- I mean, the way I read this question, he's asking, will you ask the FISA court for approval of this program -- not specific instances, but will you ask the FISA court if this is -- if this program, the overall program, is sanctioned under the law. And that's the --

McCLELLAN: Well, if the FISA court wants to talk any more about any communications that they have had with administration officials, that's up to them. It is a highly classified court, for good reasons.

Q They won't talk about it.

McCLELLAN: Well, that's why I leave it up to them. If there's anything more they want to say, then I would leave it up to them.

Q Can I just follow on this point, because let's be clear about a couple of things. First of all, the President argues, asserts, that he has the power to unilaterally authorize this wiretapping, okay? It's not -- he doesn't have the monopoly on the truth of how --

McCLELLAN: The courts have upheld it and previous administrations have asserted it, as well.

Q Well, that was different, and that is, again -- this is your position --

McCLELLAN: Same authority. Same authority, David.

Q -- that's in dispute.

McCLELLAN: No, that's not -- hang on -- that's not in dispute. And look at the Associate Attorney General under the Clinton administration. The courts have upheld this authority in the past. Look at the federal courts. The President talked about it and we provided it in a document. So that's wrong.

Q No, I don't think that's wrong, and we can go into that, but I don't -- our time is not best spent doing that.

McCLELLAN: That the courts haven't upheld it?

Q My question is, instead of spending time trying to fine-tune the rhetoric over what you want to call this program for political purposes, why not seek to amend FISA so that it can better suit your purposes, which is another thing the previous administration did when it wasn't considered to be agile enough? So why not, if you want the program to be more responsive, to be more agile, why not seek to amend FISA?

McCLELLAN: Let's look at a practical example. Do you expect our commanders, in a time of war, to go to a court while they're trying to surveil the enemy? I don't think so. This is a time of war. This is about wartime surveillance of the enemy. That's what this is about. And we don't ask our commanders to go to the court and ask for approval while they're trying to gain intelligence on the enemy. So I think that's a real practical term to look at it in when you're talking about this issue, because that's what this is about.

Q There's no way to amend --

McCLELLAN: Well, no, let me back up, because I talked about this the last couple days. I mean, it's a very good question and an important question. FISA is an important tool. We use it. General Hayden talked about that. When we were briefing members of Congress over the course of the last few years -- I think it was more recently, over, maybe, the last couple years -- I think the Attorney General talked about it -- we talked with congressional leaders, bipartisan congressional leaders, about this very issue: Should we go and get legislation that would reflect the authority the President already has? And those leaders felt that it could compromise our national security interest and this program if we were to go and get legislation passed. Because we don't want to let the enemy know about our play book, and the more you talk about this program, the more potential it has to harm our national security interest. That's why we don't get into talking about the operational aspects about it.

But it is important for the American people to understand exactly what this program is and how limited it is and what its purpose is. There's been some misrepresentations. Now, with that said, as I pointed out, we work very closely with Congress. We'll continue to work closely with Congress as we move forward. But the President has the authority and the responsibility to do what he's doing and he's going to keep doing it.

***

The way McClellan spins it, the administration has done nothing but try to protect the American people from terrorists. But ask yourself, if the administration is willing to skirt the law -- and then come up with a myriad of easily debunked excuses to defend itself -- what other rules will it overlook and what other civil liberties will it violate, all under the heading of presidential "authority."

21 Comments:

Anonymous Burried News said...

Don't you sometimes get the feeling Scotty's got a bug up his butt?

12:00 AM  
Anonymous Hestia said...

You know, when Clinton did it...
At least he found someone! The guy who was just sentenced to 15 years for giving secrets to Isreal. When Bush does anything, he hasn't found jack on any terrorist! He can't justify it.

12:00 AM  
Anonymous acmavm said...

We're still at war???? Snotty, what happened to Mission Accomplished?
You mean to tell me that we didn't win already?

I have yet to receive a call from my local Al Quaeda rep. But I betcha each and everyone here has been looked at once or twice just because we're here. And some people here probably haven't had a private phone call since 2001.

12:01 AM  
Anonymous sallyseven said...

I started to feel sorry for snotty.
Then I realized that there are people who believe every lie he says.

12:01 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

How many different excuses have they come up with for this illegal program?

Worse:

-- They don't have the translators to handle the hundreds of thousands of hours of tape.

-- They have bogged down FBI agents on leads that go nowhere.

-- Any information obtained illegally would be challenged in court, and likely not allowed as evidence.

12:03 AM  
Anonymous windspike said...

We must have been reading the text of the propaganda conference at the same time. I found the same section completely appauling. The reason why Scotty spins the way he does is he knows that most Americans are spoon fed their news and don’t have time to think through what they are eating. And so, in classic Rovian strategy, the ploy works becuase we spend so much time debunking what they say that we become, in the eyes of the public, the boys and girls who cried wolf. In fact we are right, but we don’t get to say the news first. That advantage goes to the administration who speaks first. We debunk and ask questions later.

Sooner than later, the tables will be turned, and the house of cards will fall down. Let’s hope it’s sooner than later.

12:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope you are right windspike.
The D.C. press corps surely had let McClellan walk all over them here.
Another Karl Rove-Bush Administration strategy, simply dodge the question by regurgitating at length the falsehoods and spin until the questioners back off in submission.
Hey, it worked for Condy during the 9-11 hearings. Her obvious evasions even got here on the cover of Republican rag New York Post: "That Lady is a Champ."
I find it extremely upsetting that McClellan can continue with the debunked spin "other administrations did it" and "Congress was informed."
LIES!
These are the exact areas the press corps should counter him with the facts. These press corps here get a big fat "F" for their efforts in protecting truth and Democracy.
They all need a crash course in how past government propaganda campaigns have destroyed societies.

8:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NEWSFLASH
In the Washington Post and LA Times today there's a story about how the Bush Administration refused a 2002 Senate proposal that would have made it easier for him to obtain a surveillance warrant in terrorism cases as unconstitutional. In other words, Bush already declared what he now says is legal was illegal.
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502270.html?sub=new
I want to see the D.C. Press Corps today stick the report in McClellan's face.
It's critical for the press to pepper McClellan with all of the questions.
As long as they are in the public's mind, Bush apologists in Congress
cannot ignore them and the Bush Administration cannot continue ro dodge bob and weave them AT THE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS.

9:47 AM  
Blogger WinterBear TrueHeart said...

in my mind the big question is not what other rules will the administration overlook and violate.

The thing we need to be looking at is What other rules they have already overlooked and violated.

You gotta know this is not the only law these bozo's found to restrictive to follow. There has to be more to come....

1:08 PM  
Blogger bowncr1212 said...

why does every counter argument this administration has ever attempted opens this way....

Buuuutttttt Cccllllliiiiinnnnnttttooonnnn .... sssaaaiiiddd, or now it's. diiiiiddd iiiitttt ...

I can't stand whiners.

5:55 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

The "Fact-Challenged", "Spin-Filled", "Easily Debunkable" Universe of Scott McClellan

Attorney General Gonzales is not the only one who is looking forward to these hearings.

I truly cannot wait for this debate to begin! The responsible, honorable, "committed to our national security" adults VS the irresponsible, disingenuous, "if Bush says it, I'm against it", juveniles.

By all means! Bring it on!

2:50 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

David R. Mark said...
"The way McClellan spins it, the administration has done nothing but try to protect the American people from terrorists. But ask yourself, if the administration is willing to skirt the law -- and then come up with a myriad of easily debunked excuses to defend itself -- what other rules will it overlook and what other civil liberties will it violate, all under the heading of presidential "authority." "


Right, David! Next thing you know, Bush might hire some thug bar-room bouncer type, someone like Craig Livingston for instance, to illegally access the raw FBI files of over 900 former employees of the Clinton Administration.

Or just maybe there's some left-wing cult equivalent of the Branch Davidian compound that he can surround with tanks and assault with tear gas, and eventually mishandle to the extent that 86 or more American men, women and children end up being burnt to death?

OR, how about if President Bush's Justice Department and the FBI Hostage Rescue Team would institute a shoot-on-sight policy that violated bureau guidelines and Fourth Amendment restrictions on policepower, the way another administration did at Ruby Ridge? Can you imagine if, on this president's watch, the FBI so mishandled a situation as to shoot a 14-year-old boy in the back, after first shooting his dog? Then the next day, an agent of the federal government shooting the boy's mother in the face, killing her as she stood in her doorway holding her 10-month old daughter in her arms?

And God knows, as a mother, I will NEVER be able to forget how the Clinton/Reno Justice Department misused the power of the federal government and ordered federal agents to trample the rights of the family of Elian Gonzales by conducting an unlawful, unconstitutional raid on a private home in the early, pre-dawn hours of Easter Saturday, and forcibly removing and terrorizing an innocent 6-yr-old boy, while physically assaulting a journalist in the process, as well as macing anyone who even stood nearby watching? Can you even imagine if you had THAT sort of complaint to register against the Bush Administration???????

So, David. Forgive me the rant, but please understand why I simply cannot take seriously all of these premature, spurious allegations that this President is abusing the civil rights of the citizens of this nation.

You don't have to believe him when he claims that he is acting within the law and the Constitution. I don't have a problem with going through the proper channels to insure that he is, in fact, acting within his Constitutional authority. Just please, you guys, stop making him out to be the devil incarnate, because, love him, or hate him, that is NOT who he is.

3:53 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

No one is saying he's the devil incarnate, Trinity.

What David is saying, though, is that it doesn't add up. The reasons. The excuses. Bush going outside the established channels.

David writes a pretty convincing article, because the Bush Administration and its friends in the conservative media have changed the official reason for this several times since the story broke. And the gist of Gonzales' defense seems to be "the court upheld our view before, so trust us," which is a very weak legal argument. And doesn't it bother you that there are so many contradictions between what the administration is saying and what others are saying? Are you so naive as to believe the administration's spin lines are true, and everyone else is lying?

Furthermore, the Bush surveillance program has not been effective, by most accounts (other than the administration's). Hundreds, if not thousands of hours of tapes are stacked somewhere, awaiting translation. There have been newspaper accounts, quoting people inside the FBI, saying that the surveillance program has led to an endless series of wild goose changes, none of which have led to any arrests, or stopped any terrorist threats.

Meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden keeps putting out videos, thumbing his nose at the U.S. Al Qaeda remains alive and well, striking our allies on three continents. The U.S. has made strides toward bringing Al Qaeda to justice, but has done little to stop its growth, or the growth of splinter groups. It continues to coddle Saudi Arabia, for example, even as the Saudis fund terrorism and have an open border allowing fighters to join the insurgency in Iraq.

11:44 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"No one is saying he's the devil incarnate, Trinity."


Well, it sure seems like it sometimes, rob. I mean, is it even possible that every single thing this man does is wrong? Because, according to his critics, that appears to be the case. They seem to believe that all of his policies have nefarious motives behind them. You can't find fault with everything he does, and still maintain your credibility. After a while, that sort of unfair tactic is seen for exactly what it is. Pure politics, being played in order to get your power back.

The only point I was trying to make in my previous post was, that there's been a lot of caterwauling going on, and a lot of people accusing President Bush of trampling on their 4th amendment rights, and we do not even know for certain that's been the case.

On the other hand, there have been several, seriously blatant violations of civil rights in the last Democratic administration, yet nobody ever even mentions them. Hello! Why were actual examples of civil rights abuses by a Democrat ignored by your party at the time, while mere possible violations by a Republican president are such cause for alarm?

And you, David and others keep referring to contradictions and/or inconsistencies (read: lying) in what this administration is saying. The way I see it, I think you are all simply not understanding the issue.

I already addressed this elsewhere, and provided links for my sources. I do not get what you guys are talking about when you say that Bush lied when he spoke of "roving wiretaps". He said that roving wiretaps do require getting a warrant. He also said that when they use that kind of wiretap for domestic spying, they absolutely do obtain a warrant. I do not get where the lie is in that. I think we are talking apples and oranges here.

Am I not understanding this correctly? Aren't the international intercepts we've been discussing here in another category altogether? How is that sort of surveillance the same as a conventional wiretap? I'm not getting this.

In other words, if Bush is being totally honest with us, and only narrowly targeting telephone numbers that were obtained from terrorist cell phones and computer hard drives, etc., that have been recovered, how is it wrong to use that information to protect us? IMO, it would be foolish and reckless, and potentially disasterous, not to.

1:01 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

It's not that everything Bush does is wrong. That's just hyperbole on your part, Trinity.

But what's painful is that the Bush Administration is inconsistent on what laws it is going to obey, and which ones it feels it can go around. Gonzales' defense of the Bush action amounts to "we did this before and got away with it, so trust us now."

And sorry, Trinity, there have been contradictions, as JABBS has pointed out. Gonzales said Congress wouldn't consider legislation. McCain said they would. (Bush, by the way, said HE wouldn't. Interesting). You had people talking about the delays in FISA, but failing to point out the 72-hour after-the-fact rule (the one Mark Levin called a liberal "talking point," unworthy of his consideration.) Throw in hyperbole, like Cheney saying that if FISA had been skirted pre-9/11 there might not have been a 9/11, and maybe you can understand the frustration.

You and others accuse Democrats of being soft on terror. Not true. Democrats want to end terrorism, too, but we don't want to break laws or unnecessarily infringe on civil liberties to do so. There's a right way and a wrong way to run a government -- and Democrats are only asking that Bush do it the right (aka legal) way.

And you are misrepresenting what Bush said last year. He was talking about FISA, and he said the government had to get a warrant. Pretty straightforward, except the administration wasn't doing that all of the time.

1:28 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"And you are misrepresenting what Bush said last year. He was talking about FISA, and he said the government had to get a warrant. Pretty straightforward, except the administration wasn't doing that all of the time."


Rob, I do not mean to be misrepresenting anything. I am re-posting via copy and paste, an exchange I had with Anonymous on another thread, in the event that you didn't see it. I hope it's responsive to your point. Here it is....

Anonymous said...
"....but now don't have a problem with Bush's clear-cut lying to the American people about his warrantless spying,..."


Where did the President lie about warrantless spying, Anon? As far as I could research, he didn't lie. The question he was asked by a reporter was...

"In 2004, when you were doing an event about the Patriot Act, in your remarks you had said that any wiretapping required a court order, and that nothing had changed. Given that we now know you had prior approval for this NSA program, were you in any way misleading?"

And the President responded...

"I was talking about roving wire taps, I believe, involved in the Patriot Act. This is different from the NSA program."

And that was where all you guys got all bent out of shape, believing that you caught Bush in a lie. If you would go back to find the speech that the reporter was referring to, you would see that what President Bush said was accurate. He was discussing the Patriot Act. Here are some of his comments, in context, from his speech in Buffalo on April 20, 2004:

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies."


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

5:32 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

That's what Bush said he said.

JABBS actually has links in another post to three things Bush said during the campaign. That's what I'm referring to.

It's very easy for someone to, upon reflection -- upon being found to be inconsistent -- say, "I was misinterpreted. What I was really talking about was ..."

But again, if you read the ACTUAL quotes, Trinity, you'll see that Bush mentioned FISA by name once and referred to it two other times on the campaign trail -- he was trying to increase support for renewing the Patriot Act, I believe. And he said that the government needs a warrant to proceed. Case closed.

6:19 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"And he said that the government needs a warrant to proceed. Case closed."


Yes, rob, I did read the ACTUAL quotes. The government does need a warrant in order to wiretap domestic phone calls, i.e., when both sides of the conversation are in the States. That is not what this administration is being accused of neglecting to do.

The NSA program intercepts international calls/e-mails. You're talking grapefruit and kumquats here. As you said, the President was discussing the Patriot Act in those links.

He was explaining how the Patriot Act enabled the government to use standard wiretaps, as well as roving wiretaps, in an effort thwart terrorist plots. Prior to Congress passing the Patriot Act, these wiretaps were only permitted to be used to fight organized crime, not terrorists. Capisce?

4:08 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Then why did Bush specifically mention FISA?

Trinity, if this is grapefruits and kumquats, why are there 11 Republican Senators questioning whether Bush violated the law? Why are Bruce Fein and Norman Ornstein talking impeachment?

Honestly, I think the question isn't whether Bush violated the law, but whether anyone -- namely, a combo of Democrats and some Republicans -- are going to do anything about it.

4:30 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"Then why did Bush specifically mention FISA?"


I'm not understanding this concern you have over the FISA reference, rob. Even though the Patriot Act expands the law to now allow the same wiretapping procedures previously used only against criminals and drug dealers, etc., a FISA warrant is STILL required for that particular type of wiretap, roving or otherwise, because it's domestic.

The NSA intercept program, I repeat, is something else entirely. It's the intercept of global communications between an al Qaeda suspect, and the other end of that communication. All this fear-mongering that your side (and the RINOs) are engaging in is pure propaganda. What's more, I suspect that the majority of American people know this.

Trinity, if this is grapefruits and kumquats, why are there 11 Republican Senators questioning whether Bush violated the law? Why are Bruce Fein and Norman Ornstein talking impeachment?

Frankly, I've never heard of either Bruce Fein or Norman Ornstein, but with regard to the Republican Senators who are joining the Dems in their criticism of this administration, I would only say, so what's new? Those particular Senators are not exactly conservative for the most part, and vote more with YOU guys, than with US guys.

As for impeachment talk, I think it's nuts, but if your side wants to waste your time on yet another doomed to failure "get Bush" attempt, well, who's to stop you? Go for it!

I have to ask though. Not that I think there's a chance in hell that you would succeed in impeaching President Bush, but has anyone given any thought as to how they would like a Cheney presidency? Perhaps Cheney could even appoint Jeb Bush as his VP. ;)

Honestly, I think the question isn't whether Bush violated the law, but whether anyone -- namely, a combo of Democrats and some Republicans -- are going to do anything about it.

And what I would like to see, is the enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917, because if one thing is clear, it's that any official who bypasses the provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and goes instead directly to the NYT with classified information, should be thrown in prison.

In any case, I sincerely doubt that Bush broke the law. And just to say, if he did, it's because the FISA law was most likely unconstitutional to begin with, on the grounds that it violates separation of powers.

And it would not be an impeachable offense anyhow, because the Constitution would trump any law that Congress passed that interferes with the Executive's authority to protect this nation during a time of war. It's a losing tactic, but like I said, that decision rests with your side.

I'm sorry if I come off a bit terse, but I am soooo sick of these endless attacks on the integrity of this sincere man. At this point, I'd welcome the fight. In fact, I'm sorry that the filibuster attempt against Justice Alito didn't work because I was ready for that fight too.

5:29 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"It's not that everything Bush does is wrong. That's just hyperbole on your part, Trinity."


I was referring specifically to the way your side finds fault and criticizes everything he does. If that is hyperbole, then please list the Bush policies with which your party is in agreement. Thanks in advance. :)

4:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares