Crittenden rounds up some good and bad news.
Hilarious news: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/gingrich_affair
PLEASE nominate the Newter.
Way more good news than bad! And the worst news can be vetoed, so its actually not bad!
The libs is gon get mad when the surge is working. Because less attacks leads to better confidence in the government, leads to more support, leads to the ability to fully transition power.
Freedom is on the march!
Thanks for linking that Dan, made my morning.
More good news. Remember the meme that Rudy was the “hero” of 9/11 and should thus be forgiven for generally being a liberal and a skunk at the same time? Me either. In any event, looks like International Association of Fire Fighters doesn’t appreciate Rudy appropriating 9/11 for his own political ends: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/firefighters-unsent-letter-blasts-rudy-2007-03-08.html
Even MORE good news: a 6th newspaper has dropped conserative hero, Anne Coulter’s column: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/03/a_seventh_paper.php. Good thing the conservative brain-trust still treats her like one of their own.
Uh, Oh, bad News: Remember the concerns over how vast executive control over the private information of law-abiding citizens would naturally lead to abuses of the processes associated with the issuance of secret National Security Letters? Yeah, that slipped my mind to! Shucks, the Justice Department, led by Abu “the traitor” Gonzalez is barking mad about just that. Seems that the FBI has been up to no good: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/national_security_letters. And you know, when the traitor is concerned about teh abuse of executive power, something must really be rotten.
only the first link works, nevertheless – you don’t really read the articles you link to, do you?
Hmm, bad links indeed. And as per usual, your criticisms are toothless, charles. Hint: this would be the part where you argue HOW and WHY the articles not say what I claim they say, instead of expecting the universe to accept on faith that you have anything valid to contribute.
no, all one has to do is read the article to see HOW and WHY the aticle disagrees with your statement
if you believe my criticisms are toothless then i suggest you use that scroll feature on your keyboard to your advantage
you’re not here to debate anything on it’s merits – or lack of, you’re just here to smear some feces around the joint so why should i bother engaging you on any other level than i already have?
the only reason i reply to you at all is because you don’t usually engage in ad hominem and you are (allegedly) doing pro bono work for the military
Your articles weren’t even on topic, why would I bother read them? We are talking about good news in Iraq, not Gingrich, not Giuliani, there is another post for that. Please stay on topic… I am sure that taught you that in your GED law school.
And don’t forget, my mushroom munching dope-smoking fiend…
“Pro Bono” = “For (the) Good” and not “Freebie”.