So if we cut spending on the war, is Bush nuts enough to keep the troops there?

[Quixote1818]

Randi was saying this today. She wouldn't put it past him. What was the book where Bush's childhood friend talked about how every time they played a game and Bush started to lose Bush would change the rules? I just wouldn't put it past him to keep pulling shit no matter how many lives it costs.

What is the psychological definition for kids and adults who never play by the rules? Who feel such a need to win they will do anything (even cheat) to win?

[rwheeler31]

1. si co path

[daninthemoon]

2. Hell yes he will. He'd keep them there naked. He'd also still find

ways to funnel money to haliburton for laundering clothes they didn't have.

[Selatius]

3. What if Congress simply repealed the IWR?

I don't think Congress would have to get Bush's signature to repeal an authorization for force, since the power to make war rests with Congress, as per Constitution.

[tnlefty]

4. She mentioned this to Sen. Boxer yesterday, too.

I just think that it's fucking sad that we have a pResident who even invites such speculation.

[haele]

5. Yes - he has to punish us for defying him.

That's far more important than doing the right thing for those who are dependant on him. Typical Narcissist.
The troops are only tools and photo-op cut-outs to him, after all. They aren't real people with real lives - just we aren't real to him. They might as well be "Flat Daddies" and "Flat Mommas" for all he really cares. He's the type to either take his toys and go home, or otherwise make sure no one else can use his toys after he gets through with them. And if everything goes his way, once he's done or his toys outlive their usefulness, it's "Stop, Drop, and Walk Away" - someone else can clean up after him. Just like a spoiled five-year-old.

Haele