Memo to Dan Bartlett: Invasions have "consequences".

[kentuck]

Dan Bartlett, adviser to Bush, said yesterday on Hardball TV show that Democrats must learn that there are "consequences" if we pull out of Iraq. And his boss, the Dubya, reiterated in his speech to the American Legion, that it would be a disaster if we pulled out. If it is a disaster to now pull out, that must mean it was a disaster to go in, in the first place? However, they did not understand at the time that it was a "disaster". They did not "foresee" the "consequences".

So to have Dan Bartlett now attempt to lecture the rest of us about "consequences" of our actions is a bit like like Mel Gibson lecturing us on the evils of anti-Semitism. Yes, we are the same folks that said there would be "consequences" when your President invaded Iraq in the first place. We had the foresight to see what would happen. We did not believe the baloney you and others were putting out about flowers and hugs and democracy. And we will give you another tip, for what it's worth.

There are a billion Muslims around the world and most do not agree with the American occupation of Iraq. We are going to have enemies as long as we are there. Americans will continue to die. There are "consequences" to your present proclamations. Mr. Bartlett, you have no credibility to lecture anyone on "consequences".

[orwell]

1. I like it...n/t

[gratuitous]

2. So now we should be afraid of consequences?

Gee, these guys are really counting on Americans being a bunch of pants-wetting pansies, aren't they? If there are "consequences" to leaving Iraq, does that mean we can never leave? Sounds like the Hotel California, doesn't it?

Sorry Mr. Bartlett, but the majority of the American people just aren't the nervous nellies you hope they are. The people this sort of bullying rhetoric will work on just aren't worth listening to anymore.

[kentuck]

4. "Nervous nellies"....

That is a perfect description of the Republican Party and the suppporters of their "war on terror" if the Democrats can find the best way to frame it??

[RethugAssKicker]

3. I like that reasoning... and will adopt that same stance

next time I talk to a repressed, regressive rethuglican !

[Supersedeas]

5. invading has no consequences for them (blood of troops/citizens ignored)

withdrawing has major legacy/political consequences (again blood of troops/citizens is secondary)