I'm still waiting for an example of Bush backing down from what he said in the campaign. So far, nada.

Ummm... North Korea?

To get a true feeling for the absolute about face GWB took, go
here.

"In Bush's view, to negotiate with an evil regime would be to recognize that regime, legitimize it, and--if the negotiations led to a treaty or a trade--prolong it. To Bush, North Korea's dictator was the personification of evil. He told one reporter, on the record, that he "loathed" Kim Jong-il."

An interesting attempt. But tell us, Anjin, which if the Democrat Party objected to the plan as laid out, when we attacked the place?

Irrelevant, though I will not deny many Democrats were craven weenies as they caved in to Bush on Iraq. The point though, despite you attempt as misdirection is that Bush abandoned his campaign position that troops should not be used for nation building. You can squirm all you want, the fact is that you claim about Bush not backpedaling is nonsense. He backpedaled.

That exit strategy was pointed to many times.
1: Win the damn war.

A. Please show where Mr. Bush articulated that, in those words, as his exit strategy.

B. What then, is victory? We deposed Saddam. Disbanded his military. Captured his capital, and the rest of his country. Dissolved his government. Is that not victory? Well, in this case, clearly not. Please show were Bush clearly articulated what constituted victory in Iraq and said that he would pull out when that was accomplished. Not vague platitudes, but clearly defined objectives that mean something to a soldier.

I predict a patented bithead "I'm not playing this game" response.

Oh, and bit? There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party". Try pulling Rush's cigar out of your ass. Of course if you continue to parrot him thus, the rest of us will just have to assume you enjoy having it lodged there...

I submit to you that your "analysis" is emotionally driven, barely informed nonsense.

That's an amusing response, given what we saw coming out of you for the last few years. I find it difficult however to take it more seriously than that.

Clearly, this was not the case in Iraq. Bush had no exit strategy. Thats two. He did not just backpedal, he sprinted in the opposite direction..

An interesting attempt. But tell us, Anjin, which if the Democrat Party objected to the plan as laid out, when we attacked the place? For the first month or two as I recall the whole of Congress, which was as close to 50% as no matter Democrat was singing in Unison. If it was so objectionable... Oh, it never mind, you've never been able to figure that one out.

The point of course see is that while he may not like it, conditions forced it. He's stating a preference, not an absolute. And the fact of the matter is that had he held that as an absolute, the democrats would and raising hell about his fecklessness as a commander in chief. You, at the head of the parade, torch and tar pot in hand.

Clearly, this was not the case in Iraq. Bush had no exit strategy

That exit strategy was pointed to many times.
1: Win the damn war.

Interestingly, the Democrat Party spent most of the Bush administration trying to prevent the recurrence. So it is, that we are now faced with a spectacle of Obama standing in front of the troops, cheering the events he tried so hard to prevent.

The US can assist any ship being attacked by pirates. See my 7;13 om post.

Yes, providing assistance to ships at sea in distress is a longstanding tradition and covered by many treaties. However, once the immediate threat is over, the assistance to a foreign flagged vessel is predicated on the permission and agreement of the flag state. If no, US citizens were involved either in person or through ownership, then the prosecution is a matter for the flag state.

For a US flagged vessel attacked in international waters, the US government has a duty to protect American shipping and has the right and responsibility to prosecute the pirates under US law. As it stands now, these pirates would stand trial in the US with no standing for any other country or the UN to complain.

It is not French policy

Dude, just come clean. Stop embarrassing yourself. Admit that you love, admire and respect France and get it over with...

The US can assist any ship being attacked by pirates. See my 7;13 om post.

But the Somalies did commit an act of piracy in international waters upon a US flagged vessel. The ones holding the captain hostage are still on a US flagged vessel (the lifeboat is a part of the ship). Unlike when foreign flagged ships were taken, the US has the right and the obligation to retake the vessel, free the captain, transport the pirates captured in international waters to the US for trial and upon conviction sentence them to life in prison as outlined in 18 USC 1651. Just an annoyance we don't hang pirates anymore.

This is a criminal matter with no diplomatic issues. Just as we don't let robbers holding hostages go free, neither can we pay a ransom and let the pirates go free.

The US has every legal right to do exactly what the French are doing.

What if they do? That is not the point. I guess the irony of your embrace of French policy is not written in crayons, hence it is too subtle for you to grasp...

I'm still waiting for an example of Bush backing down from what he said in the campaign. So far, nada.

I guess its possible you are just to dumb to follow:

And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. - GW Bush

Clearly, our troops were used by Bush for nation building in Iraq. thats one.

The mission needs to be clear and the exit strategy obvious. - GW Bush.

Clearly, this was not the case in Iraq. Bush had no exit strategy. Thats two. He did not just backpedal, he sprinted in the opposite direction..

The only difference between you and the above, is that some of them know they are caricatures.

I'm still waiting for an example of Bush backing down from what he said in the campaign. So far, nada.

I could keep this up all day.

Not answering the question?
Yeah, Doubtless.

Name me one elected politician that *hasn't* backpedaled somewhat once elected?

Bush.

Keep it up Chuckles, keep it up. You are better than SNL, Keith Olberman, John Stewart, Bill O'Reilly, Rachel Maddow, Rush Limbaugh, Steven Colbert, and Glen Beck all rolled up into one.

The only difference between you and the above, is that some of them know they are caricatures.

Just like your fellow travelers, you rely on one liners to move the debate. Read the Proceedings article, or at the very least what I included for your education. The US has every legal right to do exactly what the French are doing.

I would however make the point that in the initial segment of the article I quoted - The USS Winston S. Churchill did not wait for the FBI to negotiate the release of the Indians held hostage. The Churchill's crew took back the ship. The problem was what to do with the pirates they caught.

As you will read, the French have every right in law to do what they are doing

Now the bushies are reduced to embracing France. The irony is certainly delicious...

The One said so.

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound saying something like that? Even a tiny clue?