Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran—Or I Will

Bernice:   Yes, that's what I meant.  I think term limits would be a good thing.   I think we'd stand to gain more than we'd lose.  Sure we'd lose the more experienced ones but those are the ones that seem to do whatever they like regardless of public opinion.   And new blood is always good.

As for civil servants, I suspect V was playing on the word "servant" as often service is not what we get from the govt but red tape etc.  Many civil servants are simply government loopholes one must jump through.  But I agree with you that voting for them would be crazy.  ;)

(V):   Do you mean an investigation of the events leading up to the war in Iraq?  If a trustworthy investigation could be conducted, I wouldn't oppose that.  But what can be accomplished by it?

I'd rather see a complete revamping of the US's foreign policy with respect to military presence in other countries.  We have plenty of probems on our own soil and ought to be attending to those first.  I don't know what a good Foreign policy would look like but I think we can do much better. 

"Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

The Usurper:   Breaking part of my own rule and arguing via a quote: 

Did President Bush call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?"
Is it true that President Bush called the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?" He has never denied it, and it appears that there were several witnesses.
A: Extremely unlikely. The Web site that reported those words has a history of quoting phony sources and retracting bogus stories.
The report that Bush "screamed" those words at Republican congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it charitably.

We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers.

---------------------

My guess is that Bush never said this.  It's running around the internet as if it were true.  It's an unsubstantiated story and if not true, it's not only irresponsible to pass it on as truth, it questions your credibility in other areas.  Unless you have "proof" and not just some hateful website making this claim, then you have nothing.  You say Bush can't be defended here.  That's a nice American ideal.  Guilty  because you say so.  Bush can in fact be defended if if guilty because that's how our system works.   But in fact there is no real evidence he's said this nonsense and you've posted it more than once.  I've seen nothing to indicate that this is true.  Got any hard facts?
 

Oh, and there's more here

Jim Dandy:   It isn't about you or anyone else here.  It was a statement made on a comedy show.  They apologized.  It's not the official position of the US.  It's not what the average US citizen even thinks.  Many people, including myself, agree with Jules that it was in bad taste.  But it's over and done with.  There's nothing more to be said of it.  Canada complained, the offenders apologized, Canada accepted the apology.  So unless you are simply taking advantage of this situation for your own benefit (so you can appear offended - How Dare They!!!!) then accept it for what it is:  a mistake that was dealt with and now it's over with.  So go on to the next item.

~sigh