--- In [email protected], "peterklutz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "peterklutz" <peterklutz@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > > To reach a judgment about whether the gruel is *too* > > thin--whether allowing him to sort out his own mess > > is too great a risk--requires that the truth be told > > about his past errors. If the degree of support > > warranted by those errors turns out to be none, then > > he must be replaced, and someone else whose record > > mandates at least some degree of support given the > > chance to sort out the mess. > > Thus, and at the end, you start discussing the issue > as I view it: the safest way forward.
Actually that was what the TR quote was discussing as well. > The safest way to assess who should be in charge is to > consider who can deliver what we want. > > There seems to exist a number of alternatives (of varying > probability): > (1) The GWB White House is paralyzed by democratic sniping > (2) The GWB White House continues > (3) GWB is assassinated and Cheney takes over > (4) GWB and Cheney are assassinated and the Democrats take over Funny, you left out the alternative we were actually talking about: GWB is impeached and convicted by Democrats and Republicans, and a much-chastened Cheney takes over (or Cheney resigns and Pelosi takes over). > All I am saying is that given Baby-G's last state of > the nation speech I suspect the safest way forward is > alternative two. Yes, obviously I disagree strenuously on that point. > Hence the quote used to title the original posting: > "You can trust the Americans to do the right thing, > after they have tried everything else." Most Americans, possibly, but not Bush. > JStein - at this point in time in the way global > events unfold, do you really have the luxury of > indulging in petty vengeances? We sure don't. But then I wasn't the one who suggested assassination, you were.
