You're ignoring the obvious, ob:

Whether I was ignoring it or considered it too obvious to merit mentioning is open to question. If he was to blame or not didn't seem to be the point to me--Bush seems oblivious such realities anyway.

But Joel's point reminds me of something folks like Rove and DeLay do that bugs me to no end. These guys are such craven, extremely partisan characters, that critizing them in anyway makes the critic partisan, too, in their way of thinking. It's so childish, and so annoying.

Oh my god... if Bush had the nads to ride a nuclear missile on its way to the target, I would have so much respect for him! Wouldn't that be so great? Hell, I'd vote for him posthumously!

Aside from the fact that Bush is a total retard, I'm calling bullshit here. There is simply no fucking way that he took a call shortly before his inauguration regarding a rug in the oval office. That is just so far beyond the realm of reasonable believability. I mean, really... who put that call through to him, Mildred the switchboard operator? This man truly IS from Mayberry.

What Krauthammer SHOULD have said:

"What a senseless, tragic event."

What Krauthammer DID:

Use the "event" as an excuse to (unfairly, and hypocritically) criticize Barack Obama.

Why is this so hard for some to understand? (Yes, that is a rhetorical question)

I believe this is a new low for Bush.

The time frame is a red-herring. It's how one deals with this traged y that defines whether it's handeled well or not. six years later, people are STILL crassly abusing 9-11 for political gain. To wit, I present Karl Rove, on Wednesday, via War Room (and think Progress):

... Karl Rove was asked Wednesday whose idea it was to start a preemptive war on Iraq. His answer: "I think it was Osama bin Laden's."

I couldn't agree with you more. Excellent point.

The timeline is red-herring bullshit. It doesn't matter if CK wrote his piece ten minutes after the shooting, or 100 years. It's still the ravings of a hypcritical lunatic.

the definition of "total dick-head."

Speech lessons from a Bush supporter. I'm gonna relish that one. And don't forget the suggestion that Harry Reid wouldn't want a "serious debate" with Cheney on Iraq. You mean, the Dick Cheney who's been wrong about everything concerning Iraq so far? Mr. "Death throws of the insurgency"? Give me a break.

Hey, that's pretty good for a Republican.

I agree. I think the definition of "partisan"--at least for Bush supporters--has morphed into:

If you criticize a partisan creature--be he Tom DeLay, or Karl Rove, etc.--you are therefore partisan creature, too.

There is no such thing as a "fair cop" to them. Any criticism means you have chosen a side. As for me, I couldn't be happier to chose my side; but there's something very irritating about having your side chosen for you in this fashion. Along the same lines, anyone who criticizes the Bush administration is now a "liberal." I can see why some of the thinner-skinned journalists try so hard to avoid a label by kow-towing to this administration. If they had the nads, they wouldn't care.

that Armstrong Williams was also paid for what we euphemistically like to call "journalistic services." And don't even get me started on Jeff Gannon/Guckert.

lib·er·al (lĭb'er-ul, lĭb'ral) adj.

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

As oposed to being a "conservative" journalist:

con·serv·a·tive [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] adj.

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. Preserving the status quo.

I think I posted something to that effect last week, either here or in War Room. I bring up that very point nearly every time I have a political discussion with friends and or enemies. A veritable broken record I am!

Yes, that's correct.

Elephantman wrote:

Every four years, Slate publicizes the Presidential 'votes' of its staff. Last time the staff was something like 40 to 3 for Kerry.

Did they publish a breakdown of how many Slate staff members belive that humans can live inside the belly of a whale, or that humans rode on the backs of dinosaurs, or that Moses parted the Red Sea, or that Noah housed a male and female of every species of life form on one boat for 40 days and 40 nights, or that the earth was created in one week around 6,000 years ago, or want gays and muslims thrown into prison camps or think women who have an abortion should get the death penalty, or....

Get over yourself. The question was rhetorical. I was just taking the piss.

tiberius is too stupid to realize that the timetable has nothing at all to do with Afghanistan, but he thinks he' smart enough to know exactly what "they" are thinking. Maybe he's the one who should be appointed War Czar since ono one esle wants the job.