President Bush, in full campaign mode, warned Democratic critics of his Iraq policy on Tuesday to watch what they say or risk giving "comfort to our adversaries" and suffering at the ballot box in November. Democrats said Bush should take his own advice.So who does the president propose to put forward as the responsible players from the Administration who will be able to establish what, if anything, is the current administration policy and/or position(s) that relate to ThatIraqiThingiePoo, so that there can be a 'real debate' on the actual issues.
"In a free society, there's only one check on political speech and that's the judgment of the American people," the president said to sustained applause from a friendly audience, a gathering of Veterans of Foreign Wars. "So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries."
[ cf forbes ]
At which point, we can get down to the technical question about his decision to use 'adversaries' vice 'enemies'.
Is this a political safety throw, hoping that he will not get bogged down in the unpleasant part of the process where he has to explain why his use of 'discretionary prosecutorial powers' has, well, allowed so much 'aiding and abetting of the enemy in a time of war' to keep on going, and going, and going, like the freaking energizer bunny.
Or is the president being more honest than usual, noting that there are those of us in the GOP who are the 'advesaries' because we still support the Actual Reign of Law, and not merely the lip service it has been getting for the last four years when 'war rhetoric' is used in lieu of actually dealing with the real and substantive issues.
So which way i WarDaddy taking his goatse game this time?