A folder for President Barack Obama left by Former President George W. Bush sits on the Resolute desk in the Oval Office of the White House January 20, 2009.
US-POLITICS-INAUGURATION-BUSH
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
January 20, 2009.
Click image for detail. (I wish the sticky note just said "That One.")
A folder for President Barack Obama left by Former President George W. Bush sits on the Resolute desk in the Oval Office of the White House January 20, 2009.
US-POLITICS-INAUGURATION-BUSH
A folder for President Barack Obama left by Former President George W. Bush sits on the Resolute desk in the Oval Office of the White House January 20, 2009.
US-POLITICS-INAUGURATION-BUSH
Monday, January 19, 2009
Thanks and Have Fun Running the Country.
Kids letters to Obeezy*.
"1. Fly to the White House in a helicopter. 2. Walk in. 3. Wipe feet. 4. Walk to the Oval Office. 5. Sit down in a chair. 6. Put hand sanitizer on hands. 7. Enjoy moment. 8. Get up. 9. Get in car. 10. Go to the dog pound."
— Chandler Browne, age 12, Chicago
"I'd drive through the White House on a boat. We'd make the floor out of mashed potatoes and the house would be filled with mashed potatoes. When visitors from other places come, I'd tell them to eat mashed potatoes."
The McSweeney's Store
*My friend G's fab new nickname for Obama.
"1. Fly to the White House in a helicopter. 2. Walk in. 3. Wipe feet. 4. Walk to the Oval Office. 5. Sit down in a chair. 6. Put hand sanitizer on hands. 7. Enjoy moment. 8. Get up. 9. Get in car. 10. Go to the dog pound."
— Chandler Browne, age 12, Chicago
"I'd drive through the White House on a boat. We'd make the floor out of mashed potatoes and the house would be filled with mashed potatoes. When visitors from other places come, I'd tell them to eat mashed potatoes."
The McSweeney's Store
*My friend G's fab new nickname for Obama.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Obama on a unicorn.
This made me laugh. I'm guessing this is a first in presidential history.
Chris Bishop . Obama Shirt
(via Chris Glass)
Chris Bishop . Obama Shirt
(via Chris Glass)
Friday, November 7, 2008
New Shepard Fairey prints available tomorrow.
For those who missed out on the election prints -- limited edition "Yes We Did" print sales will begin tomorrow, Saturday November 8, at 12:30 p.m. ET.
These 5,000 limited edition prints are 24" x 36" and are offset printed on French Paper Company's Cream Speckletone stock under the artist's supervision. Each print is numbered by hand, 1 through 5000. The first 1000 in the series are signed by Shepard Fairey.
These 5,000 limited edition prints are 24" x 36" and are offset printed on French Paper Company's Cream Speckletone stock under the artist's supervision. Each print is numbered by hand, 1 through 5000. The first 1000 in the series are signed by Shepard Fairey.
The prints signed by the artist will be available to those who donate $500 or more, while supplies last. The unsigned prints will be available to those who donate $80 or more, plus an additional $10 donation to cover shipping, while supplies last.
MoveOn.org Political Action: "Yes We Did -- Victory!" by Shepard Fairey
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Color-Your-Own Electoral College Map
In case you want to play along this evening.
Flickr Photo Download: Color-Your-Own Electoral College Map
Flickr Photo Download: Color-Your-Own Electoral College Map
Happy Election Day 2008!
Still looking to inspire people today? Download and print a few of these. Or buy a limited edition silk screened print for yourself as a treat. Whatever the case, Happy Election Day, kittens.
tomorrow partners
(via Grain Edit)
tomorrow partners
(via Grain Edit)
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Thursday, October 4, 2007
FREE BURMA
Get more information here.
As a Chinese, I feel even more weight on me so far as the Burma issue is concerned. When I signed the petition, joined the facebook group "Support the Monks' protest in Burma", they all sent me private emails because I'm Chinese. I know China is the best stake holder here, and I am anxious over what to do, but exactly because I'm here in China, I could do even less. I can't go on the street and protest, (all protest should be preapproved by the police), I've got no representative in the national people's congress to petition to. I did spread the word as much as I can, but my readers are also my fellow schoolmates who felt useless as I do. I'm making a T-shirt, trying to get more people's attention, but in the end, I don't know if I'll get into trouble for that.Many protesters are using Olympics as a stake for China to take action, however, China Rejects Attempt to Link Developments in Burma to Beijing Olympics. Many Chinese who had experience the 1989 massacre has found Echoes of Tiananmen Square in Burma, it's again peaceful protest Vs. Oppression, again pro-democracy meets totalitarianism. Telegraph Beijing Correspondent Richard Spencer wrote about China and the Burmese regime, worth a read.
Right now the hostility in Burma is escalating. Burma's military junta switched to an intimidation campaign Wednesday, sending troops to drag people from their homes in the middle of the night and letting others know they were marked for arrest. In the early stages of the protest, most information is able to reach us through cell phone cameras and internet, but now most cell phone and Internet service in Burma has been disrupted, and the government is now going after bloggers.
So for what we can do, learn, and care. Because human fate are so strangely connected, but nothing is passed without leaving a ripple effect.
Some additional local reporting:
http://www.irrawaddy.org
http://www.mizzima.com
Libertà va cercando, ch'è sí cara,
come sa chi per lei vita rifiuta.
He seeketh Liberty, which is so dear,
As knoweth he who life for her refuses.
-- Dante Alighieri
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Architecture as a Political Act
Architecture is a political act, by nature. It has to do with the relationships between people and how they decide to change their conditions of living. And architecture is a prime instrument of making that change – because it has to do with building the environment they live in, and the relationships that exist in that environment.-- Lebbeus Woods
Best known for his proposals for San Francisco after the Loma Prieta earthquake, Havana in the grips of the ongoing trade embargo and Sarajevo after its civil war, Lebbeus Woods is an American experimental architect whose vision of architecture and environment are more political than artistic. His publication of Radical Reconstruction in 1997 strikes readers with almost an apocalyptic vision. Architecture becomes a torment, or a weapon to the conventional politics.
Geoff Manaugh interviewed Woods, you can read the entire interview on BLDGBLOG.
Probably the political implication of that is something about being open – encouraging what I call the lateral movement and not the vertical movement of politics. It’s the definition of a space through a set of approximations or a set of vibrations or a set of energy fluctuations – and that has everything to do with living in the present.
All of those lines are in flux. They’re in movement, as we ourselves develop and change.-- Lebbeus Woods
[Images: Lebbeus Woods, System Wien, 2005; view larger: top/bottom].
Monday, October 1, 2007
Guantánamo Bay is the anti-Statue of Liberty
There are times when you read and come across a sentence that you just want to cheer for it. "Guantánamo Bay is the anti-Statue of Liberty." -- "9/11 is Over" by Thomas L. Friedman from New York Times did just that.
What has the U.S. gained from its anti-terrorism-oriented policy? Mounting deaths in Iraq, flagging economy, less attraction to the foreign tourists and businesses, and NOTHING.
Friedman wrote "stupid" twice in this article, italic. This gotta mean something. Are we still gonna continue fighting relentlessly with an enemy at the cost of our friends, allies, and ourselves?
What has the U.S. gained from its anti-terrorism-oriented policy? Mounting deaths in Iraq, flagging economy, less attraction to the foreign tourists and businesses, and NOTHING.
Friedman wrote "stupid" twice in this article, italic. This gotta mean something. Are we still gonna continue fighting relentlessly with an enemy at the cost of our friends, allies, and ourselves?
Thursday, September 20, 2007
What Constitute Journalism
Begin today's post by my thanks to David for his comment.
Then, back to journalism. As a student of this field, I've been following closely on the Zhao Yan case, a New York Times researcher in China recently released after completing his three-year jail term. He was firstly charged with leaking national secrets, a charge that may put him in life imprisonment, and in China, may very well be death penalty. What national secrets you may ask, well it's non other than the information that the former chairman Jiang Zemin has wrote his resignation letter, which is something all Chinese somewhat already knew by then and the information was soon "officially" released in all Chinese media in two weeks after the New York Times article. Of course no evidence was found that Zhao Yan was the leak, so then he was charged with fraud, considering some article he wrote years back.
Now the question is why is he arrested since the so called secret is no national secret at all?
Many say it's because for a foreign press to release such information about Chinese leaders before any Chinese media did was a humiliation and shame on the Chinese media, and since Chinese media is largely controlled by the government, it was a shame on the Chinese government.
Almost anyone with some knowledge about the case would agree that Zhao Yan was merely a scapegoat for the grudge the Chinese government has always been holding against the foreign press. After all, who would actually believe a researcher would get hold of such "national secret", about the resignation letter of the chairman?
And if you probe into the matter, looking into the interest group, who benefit from the release of such information? Zhao Yan? Certainly not. New York Times? No. The only one gaining from the news being public is the current leader Hao Jintao, who made sure that Jiang Zemin could not regret his decision if his resignation became public. Maybe THAT is what the dirty secret all about.
But why punish Zhao Yan for it?
Let me take a wild guess. The Chinese government has long been troubled with the foreign media digging into China's problems, unveiling the incompetency, or the dirty laundry of them, and since they can't get their hands on the foreign reporters (for most times, that is, there were at least 25 arrest, threatening cases against foreign journalists in 2006 alone, according to Reporters Without Borders), arresting Zhao Yan serves as a deterrence for Chinese who work for the foreign media. I've got to say, this technique worked beautifully. The foreign professors in our university, for instance, stopped recommending students to foreign bureaus. Without Chinese citizens help, reporting in China became more difficult for the foreign journalists.
Another thing the Zhao Yan case reminds me of is the arrests of Chinese reporters for reporting something truly "secret" and important, such as the fact that some AIDS patients were actually infected from blood transfusion, which means the blood bank is contaminated! These are the news the people needs to know yet they can't because the journalists got punished for warning them. So how about less focus on Zhao Yan alone, ask for freedom of press on things that do matter, like about blood and life?!
Hong Kong press remains relatively free these days, however the big question is, which way is it going? Is mainland press going to be more like HK press or is it other way round?
Another question would is there such thing as patriotism when it comes to political reporting? Would a Chinese citizen helping the American public to know about the back deals in the Chinese political arena considered unpatriotic, even a betrayer? When the professor asked similar questions to the class today, many students replied yes, and said they would not cover political news for a foreign media. I was surprised by the unsurprising.
This has much to do with what journalists work for. A journalist don't report for a country, or a state department, or any other authorities. A journalist reports for humanity, the people, above anyone else. And since people have a right to know, and people are sure to have different opinions, it is therefore the reporter's duty to lay out the good as well as the bad, as long as it's the truth. A journalist serves no country but truth. Of course, no journalist would be stupid enough to publish where our troops are stationed or where our nuclear power plants, they can't get such information in the first place and even if they do get the accurate information, the whatever enemies out there wouldn't be stupid enough to base their strike on a report they saw on Sunday Times. Journalists do have their boundaries, but their realm is almost unlimited.
Such talks are purely idealistic however. I've tried the system myself. I've been punished when I argued for our elected next chief editor who was arbitrarily replaced by an appointed one who had no previous experience in newspaper. My paper has been turned back when I briefly mentioned the 1989 Tiananmen case. I've been called a rebel, a "liberal democrat" - yeah, these are "bad names" here in China. I've been censored for questioning the school's environmental damage cost by the rebuilding of campus; I was called "naive" when I retorted the school's refusal to put up posters of our classical music concert while occupying the board with four huge Pepsi ads; I was further called "selfish" when I question our school for spending 20,000 RMB on a gigantic billboard display of "The University's Achievements" while refusing to give 500 RMB to fund our "help children in AIDS pandemic villages" program. Such is the value and administration philosophy of one of the top universities in China, such are the conscious judgment of the high educated, forgive me for being pessimistic.
Then, back to journalism. As a student of this field, I've been following closely on the Zhao Yan case, a New York Times researcher in China recently released after completing his three-year jail term. He was firstly charged with leaking national secrets, a charge that may put him in life imprisonment, and in China, may very well be death penalty. What national secrets you may ask, well it's non other than the information that the former chairman Jiang Zemin has wrote his resignation letter, which is something all Chinese somewhat already knew by then and the information was soon "officially" released in all Chinese media in two weeks after the New York Times article. Of course no evidence was found that Zhao Yan was the leak, so then he was charged with fraud, considering some article he wrote years back.
Now the question is why is he arrested since the so called secret is no national secret at all?
Many say it's because for a foreign press to release such information about Chinese leaders before any Chinese media did was a humiliation and shame on the Chinese media, and since Chinese media is largely controlled by the government, it was a shame on the Chinese government.
Almost anyone with some knowledge about the case would agree that Zhao Yan was merely a scapegoat for the grudge the Chinese government has always been holding against the foreign press. After all, who would actually believe a researcher would get hold of such "national secret", about the resignation letter of the chairman?
And if you probe into the matter, looking into the interest group, who benefit from the release of such information? Zhao Yan? Certainly not. New York Times? No. The only one gaining from the news being public is the current leader Hao Jintao, who made sure that Jiang Zemin could not regret his decision if his resignation became public. Maybe THAT is what the dirty secret all about.
But why punish Zhao Yan for it?
Let me take a wild guess. The Chinese government has long been troubled with the foreign media digging into China's problems, unveiling the incompetency, or the dirty laundry of them, and since they can't get their hands on the foreign reporters (for most times, that is, there were at least 25 arrest, threatening cases against foreign journalists in 2006 alone, according to Reporters Without Borders), arresting Zhao Yan serves as a deterrence for Chinese who work for the foreign media. I've got to say, this technique worked beautifully. The foreign professors in our university, for instance, stopped recommending students to foreign bureaus. Without Chinese citizens help, reporting in China became more difficult for the foreign journalists.
Another thing the Zhao Yan case reminds me of is the arrests of Chinese reporters for reporting something truly "secret" and important, such as the fact that some AIDS patients were actually infected from blood transfusion, which means the blood bank is contaminated! These are the news the people needs to know yet they can't because the journalists got punished for warning them. So how about less focus on Zhao Yan alone, ask for freedom of press on things that do matter, like about blood and life?!
Hong Kong press remains relatively free these days, however the big question is, which way is it going? Is mainland press going to be more like HK press or is it other way round?
Another question would is there such thing as patriotism when it comes to political reporting? Would a Chinese citizen helping the American public to know about the back deals in the Chinese political arena considered unpatriotic, even a betrayer? When the professor asked similar questions to the class today, many students replied yes, and said they would not cover political news for a foreign media. I was surprised by the unsurprising.
This has much to do with what journalists work for. A journalist don't report for a country, or a state department, or any other authorities. A journalist reports for humanity, the people, above anyone else. And since people have a right to know, and people are sure to have different opinions, it is therefore the reporter's duty to lay out the good as well as the bad, as long as it's the truth. A journalist serves no country but truth. Of course, no journalist would be stupid enough to publish where our troops are stationed or where our nuclear power plants, they can't get such information in the first place and even if they do get the accurate information, the whatever enemies out there wouldn't be stupid enough to base their strike on a report they saw on Sunday Times. Journalists do have their boundaries, but their realm is almost unlimited.
Such talks are purely idealistic however. I've tried the system myself. I've been punished when I argued for our elected next chief editor who was arbitrarily replaced by an appointed one who had no previous experience in newspaper. My paper has been turned back when I briefly mentioned the 1989 Tiananmen case. I've been called a rebel, a "liberal democrat" - yeah, these are "bad names" here in China. I've been censored for questioning the school's environmental damage cost by the rebuilding of campus; I was called "naive" when I retorted the school's refusal to put up posters of our classical music concert while occupying the board with four huge Pepsi ads; I was further called "selfish" when I question our school for spending 20,000 RMB on a gigantic billboard display of "The University's Achievements" while refusing to give 500 RMB to fund our "help children in AIDS pandemic villages" program. Such is the value and administration philosophy of one of the top universities in China, such are the conscious judgment of the high educated, forgive me for being pessimistic.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Running Numbers on Athiests
28 percent of atheists have post-graduate degrees or professional training.
15 percent of non-atheists have post-graduate degrees or professional training.
1.3 Atheists' average number of children.
1.95 Non-atheists' average number of children.
3 percent of atheists are "strong Republicans."
16 percent of non-atheists are "strong Republicans."
SOURCE: 2005 Baylor University Religion Survey and Barna Group
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Sunday, September 9, 2007
A Smoking Hot China
So it says: "No country in history has emerged as a major industrial power without creating a legacy of environmental damage that can take decades and big dollops of public wealth to undo." Along with the soaring economic growth, China's environmental problems have raised global concern. New York Times recently published a series of articles, multimedias, round-table talks addressing the impact of this issue.
Living in Beijing, I don't have to have others telling me how bad China's environment is, though I have not encountered problems with polluted drinking water yet, (that's for sure, I drink mineral), the air pollution in Beijing almost chokes me. It's like there is never a sunny clear day here. Always a haze.
Are the authorities blind of these obvious problems? Do they not know that their children is poisoned by lead and got all kinds of respiratory illnesses because of the air pollutants? The truth is they know and they do care. That's why Wen Jiabao introduced "Gree G.D.P." in 2004 in the hope that it would curtail regional governments' vigorous industrial development which is always at the expense of the environment. As the article pointed out, this plan demised because of the lack of enthusiasm, if not hatred for this concept. I would further argue that in some cases, it is exactly the Green G.D.P that is harming the environment: provincial leaders, in the desperate attempt to make up for the loss in G.D.P cost by the estimation of Green G.D.P would venture further to put a strain on the local industrial production.
In addition, let us not forget the huge demand of the cheap products from the developed countries such as the U.S.. While pointing fingers at the human rights violation such as child labor in Chinese factories and it's shoddy products, let us not forget it is because of the demand that such industry still prospers and to continue prosper, it is not likely they would abandon the old methods that cut the price and keep their products on the cutting edge. Such as in the event of large recall of Chinese toy products, a majority of Americans believe that the U.S. business that sell those products as well as the U.S. government also bear responsibility.
For any multifaceted issues, especially one such as environmental pollution, it is never enough to count on the efforts of one party. The pressure of the international community should not only lay on the Chinese government, but on the foreign businesses as well, and more importantly, to hurt, to condemn, or even to boycott, is never as feasible and rational as providing expertise: in terms of policy shaping, technology, etc. Aside from governmental cooperation, civil side as business and NGOs could take a stance in these issues, and in my opinion, these cooperation and assistance could be even more effective than high-level talks.
Living in Beijing, I don't have to have others telling me how bad China's environment is, though I have not encountered problems with polluted drinking water yet, (that's for sure, I drink mineral), the air pollution in Beijing almost chokes me. It's like there is never a sunny clear day here. Always a haze.
Are the authorities blind of these obvious problems? Do they not know that their children is poisoned by lead and got all kinds of respiratory illnesses because of the air pollutants? The truth is they know and they do care. That's why Wen Jiabao introduced "Gree G.D.P." in 2004 in the hope that it would curtail regional governments' vigorous industrial development which is always at the expense of the environment. As the article pointed out, this plan demised because of the lack of enthusiasm, if not hatred for this concept. I would further argue that in some cases, it is exactly the Green G.D.P that is harming the environment: provincial leaders, in the desperate attempt to make up for the loss in G.D.P cost by the estimation of Green G.D.P would venture further to put a strain on the local industrial production.
In addition, let us not forget the huge demand of the cheap products from the developed countries such as the U.S.. While pointing fingers at the human rights violation such as child labor in Chinese factories and it's shoddy products, let us not forget it is because of the demand that such industry still prospers and to continue prosper, it is not likely they would abandon the old methods that cut the price and keep their products on the cutting edge. Such as in the event of large recall of Chinese toy products, a majority of Americans believe that the U.S. business that sell those products as well as the U.S. government also bear responsibility.
For any multifaceted issues, especially one such as environmental pollution, it is never enough to count on the efforts of one party. The pressure of the international community should not only lay on the Chinese government, but on the foreign businesses as well, and more importantly, to hurt, to condemn, or even to boycott, is never as feasible and rational as providing expertise: in terms of policy shaping, technology, etc. Aside from governmental cooperation, civil side as business and NGOs could take a stance in these issues, and in my opinion, these cooperation and assistance could be even more effective than high-level talks.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Monday, June 18, 2007
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Different Presidents, different words
Verbatim Quotes from Republicans when Clinton was Prez.
via demzwin
KY's Senior Senator Mitch McConnell said during a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate
"Domestic terrorism is not a cause we have to fight or a project we need to fund. We are not interested in capturing bin Laden. Even though he has been offered to us. We are not the world's policemen. It's not our job to clean up other countries messes or arrest it's bad guys."
VERBATIM QUOTES FROM WHEN CLINTON WAS COMMITTING TROOPS TO BOSNIA:
"You can support the troops but not the president."--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)"
American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."-- Governor George W. Bush (R)-TX
The last one gets me the most.
via demzwin
KY's Senior Senator Mitch McConnell said during a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate
"Domestic terrorism is not a cause we have to fight or a project we need to fund. We are not interested in capturing bin Laden. Even though he has been offered to us. We are not the world's policemen. It's not our job to clean up other countries messes or arrest it's bad guys."
VERBATIM QUOTES FROM WHEN CLINTON WAS COMMITTING TROOPS TO BOSNIA:
"You can support the troops but not the president."--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)"
American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."-- Governor George W. Bush (R)-TX
The last one gets me the most.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
