Originally Posted by Liberal-hater

*** You must be referring to the last sentence. For that I will thank you most graciously.

Originally Posted by diuretic

No but I can see how you could misinterpret it. I was actually referring to the idea that Reagan and Bush would be seen by history as being of any value to the US.

*** Wow, did I ever misjudge you.

When the history of the disintegration of the US as the world's singular superpower and the emergent struggle between the EU and the East and South Asian blocs is written I think that Reagan and Bush will be cited as the harbingers of the collapse of US power. Reagan sowed the seeds of the economic disintegration of the US, Bush brought them to fruition.

*** The entire European continent is slowly headed toward sharia law, as it is practically law now in France and England. No surprise there since socialism rules the day, and certain countries show no recognizable backbone to stop the onslaught. Another factor toward the eventual demise of Europe is that most those countries have the lowest birth rate in the world. Who is left to carry on their sorry current legacy, if not the Islamofascists themselves? Reagan, despite having an obstinate Democrat Congress to deal with--managed to create a booming economy during the eighties. More important than that, was the fact people started feeling better about themselves since they were taught by Ronnie not to depend on the government. And more important than that was the fact that Ronnie put our biggest foreign threat of Communism to rest forever. Lest you forget that Bush's economy boomed for the first 6 1/2 years of his administration. Just like with the Clinton presidency--these economies tend to be peter out as they are all cyclical in nature. That has more to do with market factors than with the presidency.

Bush will be given the clown crown due to the decision to invade Iraq. That will be seen as the single policy decision that destroyed the American economy and led to the downfall of the US as a superpower in the world.

Originally Posted by Liberal-hater

*** I remember when you liberals were screaming that Bush couldn't get to Saddam Hussein, yet you praised him once we croaked the slime (or at least a couple of you did). Clown crown? Looks like the surge is working, we're winning, and soon the once Saddam ruled nation of Iraq will be living under a democracy. You would love to see us lose this war...wouldn't you? Ain't gonna happen, much to yours and your ilk's chagrin. Meanwhile, lets start preparing Mt Rushmore for the inclusion of two more epic sculptures, and hint (it won't be for Clinton & Carter).

Originally Posted by diuretic

No but I can see how you could misinterpret it. I was actually referring to the idea that Reagan and Bush would be seen by history as being of any value to the US.

When the history of the disintegration of the US as the world's singular superpower and the emergent struggle between the EU and the East and South Asian blocs is written I think that Reagan and Bush will be cited as the harbingers of the collapse of US power. Reagan sowed the seeds of the economic disintegration of the US, Bush brought them to fruition.

Bush will be given the clown crown due to the decision to invade Iraq. That will be seen as the single policy decision that destroyed the American economy and led to the downfall of the US as a superpower in the world.

Originally Posted by diuretic

Bush has ****ed up so seriously that the only good judge of how much he ****ed up will be history. Iraq is about oil. The attempt to make Iraq an oil protectorate will be revealed I would think in the near future. Afghanistan is the focus right now and it is because Bush ****ed up and diverted the effort to sort out bin Laden. Monumental ****ups both. The only epic sculpture Bush will get is a monument to utter stupidity.

Originally Posted by Jojo

Wrong! Try again?!

Obama's Trip Schedule Detailed
Tuesday, Jul. 22, 2008 By KAREN TUMULTY / AMMAN Article

Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama left Iraq and touched down in Amman today, emerging from an Osprey helicopter carrying a helmet and body armor, and prepared to begin the second phase of his international trip. He and his traveling companions, Senators Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed, were expected to offer an assessment of their trip to Iraq and Afghanistan at a news converence at the historic Citadel overlooking this city. It will be followed by a one-on-one session between Obama and Jordan's King Abdullah II, who interrupted a U.S. visit to fly back through the night for his meeting with Obama.

Obama's trip to Iraq and Afghanistan was official government business, as part of a congressional delegation;

Obama's Trip Schedule Detailed - TIME

Originally Posted by Liberal-hater

We're winning the war.

Originally Posted by Jojo

Meanwhile, back to the thread topic - I guess we can all agree that Senator Obama - while on a congressional mission - is deserving of the same support as Senator McCain.

Can anyone come up with a fair reason why Rice made her statement - because it sounds to me like the Secretary of State is taking time out of her busy schedule to rewrite the rules to suit her team. Obviously it worked - since everyone who supported her did it on the basis that one senator was campaigning while the other was fact finding.

Originally Posted by Chan

That's the point: it wasn't a fact-finding tour authorized by Congress. Just because he took a couple of other congresscritters with him doesn't make it a congressional delegation.

Originally Posted by malrenalds

Um wtf is an "authorized congressional delegation"?

Originally Posted by Chan

Congress specifically sending one or more of its members.

Well, no, not really. He needs authorization from at least the Chairman of that committee. Also, there is nothing in Article I that gives Congress the authority to send its members around the world on "fact-finding" or other missions.