The Viking Pundit does something remarkable- a post that gets it so right but gets it so wrong at the same time:
John Cole over at Balloon Juice has the vapors over Karl Rove
Reader Interactions
155Comments
Comments are closed.
Trackbacks
-
Another Great Post from John Cole…
This time in defense of his comments on Durbin’s Nazi analogy. This guy is becoming one of my favorite reads….
-
How can you tell when Conservatives Have their backs against the wall
When they start nit picking and feigning outrage over shit. LOL! I mean I am sorry, I love Jay Tea, he has always been nice and decent with me, but his responses to this post… And then his OUTRAGE over…
Rick
John,
The only people whom one such as Dick Durbin can cause to think are those altogether unused to the process.
Cordially…
Mr.Ortiz
What infuriates me about the Rove debate is that the MOST offensive part of the speech:
…is edited out of every defense of his words.
And I want to bang my head against the wall when Democrats once again allow Republicans to define the terms of the debate. Instead of attacking Rove, we’re defending “moderation and restraint in responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States.” We’re on the defensive for NOT wanting to lash out like children at the next peron to look at us sideways! If Karl Rove had his way, we’d be occupying France right now.
ppgaz
Yes, Rick. That’s why Durbin’s remarks were aimed directly at Republicans ;-)
Rick
And why it got the “hyena laugh” in response.
But thanks for playing.
Cordially…
Mike S
Mr. Ortiz
You should be used to that by now. It’s GOP message machine 101. It’s why they never let their listeners and readers hear/read the Durbin section about laying if feces and urine.
If they had the courage of their convictions they would always give the whole story.
ppgaz
It all depends on which side you are on, Rick. Apparently, the side that looks at a thoughtful, serious and well crafted speech on an important topic, and says “hyena laugh.”
No wonder support for the war is soaring in the polls, the people behind it are just so …… sincere.
Did you catch Rumsfeld on Treat the Press this morning?
What a sad, sorry and pathetic spectacle. What an embarassment to this country, and to every man and woman in uniform. If this is the “message” that these spuds think is going to shore up support for the war, all I can say is, Dog help us. There is only one way to describe the performance: Snake oil.
But hey, at least he did not use that “N” word!
Mike S
John Cole the “popularity seeker.” I guess actually believeing what you write isn’t conceivable to some. That’s more of an indictment of all right bloggers than anything I could write.
Rick
It’s what I believe, “lying eyes” and all that. The old show biz maxim: give the crowd what they want.
It works, that’s for sure.
Cordially…
Rick
Did you catch Rumsfeld on Treat the Press this morning?
What a sad, sorry and pathetic spectacle. What an embarassment to this country, and to every man and woman in uniform.
ppgaz,
No, but from your description, one must assume it was a masterful appearance, after that “thoughtful, serious and well crafted speech” bit.
Cordially…
John Cole
Other than the fact that my crowd was, and probably still is, right of center. Most of the prolific commenters as of late seem to lilt leftward, but I still think the most of the people who read me are center right.
I could be wrong, though. Wouldn’t be a first.
FredW
John, I’d give it up — those people are of the “I know what I know, don’t confuse me with facts” variety.
Mike S
Why would you bother reading someone who doesn’t write what he believes?
Mike S
heh. I tilt that way. I read you because I’m trying to remember that the Talk Radio wing of the GOP is not emblematic of the entire GOP. I’m just tired of the division that is being used these days to further agendas. When I read you it remids me that I’m not the only one.
Stormy70
Leftward Lilters, they are the new reality in John Cole’s America. I am center right, but I don’t get emotional over most politics, nor freak out over legions of “Theocratic” Americans. Also, the more Move On and Moore and Durbin say stupid things, I’ll have the moral supeiority that I crave ;).
Division in politics will never go away, and has been much worse in our history, and America still survives. Our country is great that way. It is also the right of every American to bitch about Government, so John’s rumbling rants are Ok with me, and why I still read him. Most of his rants are wrong-headed and he has a disturbing tendancy to link to Andrew Sullivan, but I just think it is a phase. An early mid-life crisis, if you will.
Sojourner
Yes but you lose your moral superiority by supporting sleeze balls like Rove.
Easy come, easy go.
Mike S
Something tells me that when the pendulum swings the other way, and they start losing you more elections than winning, you will be singing a different tune. Political expediance has a tendancy to bite you in the ass.
James Emerson
With the extreme right tilting at windmills, sane and rational conservatives would have no choice but to act as a counterweight. That is…of course…a breath of fresh air to many who had once considered themselves conservative, moderate, or liberal, only to be classified as Bush haters, anti-American, or even traitors when they began questioning the political process running the country…
John has made the transtion from loyalist to critic, and I believe he has done so because he is more loyal to his political philosophy than he is the dog and pony show in DC…
Speaking for myself alone, I admire John Cole for standing up for his beliefs, even if I disagree with him on many issues. All Americans have common, overlapping interests. Our differences are not as great as the divide being created by the policies and rhetoric of this administration. It takes people on both sides of the divide to understand this, and it is these people who will catalyze the political reaction that will bring us together…
Stormy70
Seems to me that elections were lost in 1992, and yet, I still could have cared less about “Theocratic Americans”. Seems like most of my life, there has been a Democratic legislature over it, and sometime in the future, there will be again. Far, far, far in the future, when the Democrats get a clue.
But hey, you will win elections by insulting a major portion of the electorate, because they happen to go to church, and not vote for your candidate. Blasphemy! How dare they be so duped! I like how the Dems continue to insult people, then think they will vote for them. Elitism is not a winning platform, and despite what you think, people are not stupid. Bush received 16% of the African American vote in Ohio, and Mehlman is going after the African American voters for the GOP, while Dean is insulting Republicans for not working honestly or being white Christians. Way to peal off voters from the GOP roles, Dean. I am not scared of the 2006 elections, because I have yet to see anyone seriously going after the red state voters. And the Red states are the ones the Dems will have to go after to take back the Congress.
CadillaqJaq
“…but you lose your moral superiority by supporting sleeze balls like Rove.”
I’d wager the Dems wish they had a “sleeze ball” like Karl Rove in their party: instead they have a “moral” potporri of Howard Dean, Dick Durbin, Sheets Byrd and Nancy Pelosi… God! I almost pity them. Almost. Did anyone see any part of Sheets “grilling” Rumsfeld a or two day ago? I swear the old man was drunk. All that was missing was a Foster Brooks style belch.
Mike S
”
As people see the quotes above, and many more like them, they will understand what these people are doing to the country. All of those are by Randall Terry, who is doing us a great service by running for Congress.
Most of us have no problem with religion. I have seen it bring peace to the broken hearted and dying. But we do have a problem with this particular brand of religion. It is a religion of hate, as Randall Terry points out so boldly in that first quote.
Mike S
I would leave the party if we had a Rove as our most powerfull operative.
And if you want to see drunk, watch this video of Tom DeLay.
Stormy70
Randall Terry is a nutbag, and I had never even heard of him until John started freaking out about him during the Shaivo mess ( which I am still not going to discuss, ever again. I have taken the cheese.) I don’t know many Christians who would go for his brand of “religion”. I agree that he is hateful, and I hope he is humiliated in his run for congress. He is icky, and not representative of most Christians on the right.
Stormy70
What is wrong with being drunk? Is it a crime against nature now?
Mike S
I agree that he is not representative of most. But he is representative of some who have the most clout. I’ve been looking for the pictures of him with people like Santorum.
And he was the driving force behind Schiavo and the first and only time that President Bush cut a vacation short to return to DC.
Sojourner
I second Mike S on this one. For me this is not a game where winning is the ultimate goal. I believe in the fundamental principles of this country. Rove does not. Therefore, I don’t want anything to do with him.
Nancy
My own very tiny informal poll:
My neighbor at 59 years of age is a very nice woman, life long republican as are her parents. She watches Imus in the morning on MSNBC and after watching Fox News for years has switched to The News Hour on PBS (she says Fox gives her a headache… too fast.. too many flashing graphics…too many screaming heads.
In the many years I have known her, she has never ranted or raved about politics, she doesn’t seem extremely partisian, but she keeps up and she always votes.
The other day we were having a cocktail together and she statrted talking politics. Basically the drift was.. What the heck are the Republicans doing..she was very annoyed at what Rove said and at the threatened nuclear option and about the Shaivo case. She stated that the guys in the government that she liked were McCain, Leiberman, Biden (she thinks he is a straight shooter), Specter, Obama(she loved his speech), and those ladies from Maine as she put it.
She has changed her mind on the war….thinks some shady stuff was going on in the administration to get us in there…thinks it has been mis-managed….thinks the “contractors” in iraq are a problem. On the Durbin thing, she didn’t even mention the nazi reference, she was upset that Americans had been abusing detainees.
As I read this description, my neighbor sounds a lot like a moderate and she probably is, but she thinks of herself as a republican. She didn’t like Kerry and didn’t vote for him but now wishes she had. She wants McCain to be the next president because he will stand up for what is right.
My husband (50years old) life long republican. His parents are still talking about those damn new dealers. He had never voted for a democrat at any level until 2004. At this point he just furious at the “people who took over his party”….we used to be the party of smaller government, who cut spending, fiscal responibility. He think the people running the administration are incompetent and incredibly short sighted. Trust me, this guy is as conservative as they come, and he is disgusted.
Me? A registered Republican who always voted as an independent. I’ve probably voted for as many democrats as republicans at all levels. After a year of reading the blogs right and left I have become a democrat. I’m still a republican on paper and will stay one for local elections. I think there are some great republicans and democrats, but at this point I want the republicans out of power. I don’t like the way things are going in my country. Using 911 for political gain was the tipping point for me. If it had been just Rove that would be one thing , but this stategy has been endorsed by the party and this is it for me.
And for balance here is the link to the new Zogby poll, interesting because it compares red states and blue states on the issues and approval ratings ect
Sojourner
Nancy’s post was certainly reassuring. Maybe the American people aren’t as stupid as the Bush Administration thinks they are.
Thanks, Nancy!
Rick
… those people are of the “I know what I know, don’t confuse me with facts” variety.
So very, very different from the sort of person making such a sunburst.
As Mike S,
I don’t mean to suggest he doesn’t believe in his writing. Rather, that John’s selections and emphasis have taken a new, portside tack. His just tossing more mackerals to you trained seals, you see? Now clap your flippers like a good boy. Probably be resented, but: ;)
Cordially…
John Cole
Or, quite possibly, it could represent my growing disgust with this administration and their behavior.
Stormy70
Nah, John that can’t be it.
It was the Terry nonsense that drove you leftward.
” My dreams have been dark of late.”(obscure LOTR quote.) I’d like to think this quote applies to you.;)
Kimmitt
Since when is sticking to your principles and noticing that the current Administration isn’t living up to them being driven leftward? Cole and I still have major and massive disagreements on policy — we just happen to agree that the current Administration is nuts.
Rick
And John and I both have cases of the massives: agreements and disagreements.
I note a change in tone, emphasis and audience, and draw a conclusion.
I don’t charge him with hypocrisy (the blogosphere’s blood libel), but adjusting his marketing.
John, I note your reply, and no offense about talking about you like you’re not here. I’ve made mention of your callow youth, the flip side of which is the shipwreck of my great age. So it could be my memory, but in my years of participation, I don’t see you responding to a trend of admin behavior.
To me, the best part of the Dubya years is–lets forget the brief steel tariff here, OK?–picking a course and staying with it through the inevitable vicissitudes.
You blog for the opportunity to be heard, and by tuning your message, you are heard more. A very morally neutral thing, but interesting to observe.
Cordially…
Floyd McWilliams
Oh, I get it. When Senator Durbin compares the treatment of illegal combatants with the suffering of the victims of Communism, it’s because he cares about those victims so much.
And when I call someone a pigfucker, it’s only because I care so deeply about the rights of innocent swine not to be molested.
Nash
Rick,
Why don’t you drop the childish assessments of John’s stature, standing and emotional fortitude vis-a-vis 1 year ago or 2 years ago or whatever period you wish and return to debating the topics.
Let’s swear off ad hominem for a week, hey, a day. Even if you are absolutely certain you are justified, you could force the lefties here to raise the level of their own argumentation if you led the way.
Nash
You really have no support for making such an inflammatory charge–why do you not accept John’s straightforward explanation? I’d call it asked an answered, but you seem to know better, and frankly, it’s quite offensive to watch.
Were it Dick Cheney explaining what he meant by “last throes,” wouldn’t you think the civil thing for me to do would be to accept his explanation?
Sojourner
Gee, I don’t know Rick. Maybe John doesn’t share your compulsion to think in lock step with this administration. Maybe John simply wants to think for himself. How odd it is that rather than respecting his difference of opinion, you accuse him of changing his “marketing.” Is that a fancy word for accusing him of being greedy? How ironic is that.
Rick
Inflammatory? Nah, just dissenting from the pack. Nowhere do I say the indulgent host is false to his interests and beliefs, just that he’s lately been stroking the crowd pleasing ones.
I’m willing to debate topics. A topic that was raised is John Cole’s “Strange New Respect” following recent Kos-cades. I see some cause/effect at work.
While acknowledging my attention ca. 2002-2004 may have been on the scant side, and my recall faulty, I don’t remember John as an hyperbolic dervish on any particular thing. Well, not that I read his mash notes to the Steelers, and laments about the WVU Mountaineers much.
There is no disputing its effectiveness, but the trail being followed was broken by Andrew Sullivan.
But unlike A.S., J.C. offers, and suffers, comments. How ever would I have might you swell folks otherwise?
Cordially…
Andrei
“Dems continue to insult people, then think they will vote for them.”
As opposed to what the GOP does? So what guys like Limbaugh, Novak, Hannity and Coulter have done for years is what? Being playful? The trick here is that the GOP has mastered the art of letting the talking heads and lobby groups do the dirty work for the congressmen in the public forums so all those elected officials have “plausible deniability” when it comes to the slime game.
“Elitism is not a winning platform, and despite what you think, people are not stupid.”
Elistism, intellectualism and general “progressive” thought was the bastion of the conservative movement for ages. (Progressive as in being forward thinking.) Have you never listened to William F. Buckley give a speech? Have you never heard George Will talk? They are the epitome of elitism.
They make Rick look like the amateur wordsmith he truly is.
Further, what’s wrong with wanting your leaders to be really fucking smart? I have no idea how being “elite” somehow became a negative, but I tend to prefer truly smart, intellectual people in positions of power, not the guy I would sit in a bar, getting smashed drunk and flirting with the waitresses on a Saturday night.
Sojourner
Maybe he’s finally had his fill of the lies, arrogance, and hypocrisy of the current administration. After all, so have 58% of the rest of America.
Rick
Soj,
Far be it from me to discourage you from euphorically clinging to your illusions. Someone could’ve told me off that way 10 years ago.
The accurate polls will be taken in a little over 16 months. Keep your rabbit’s foot handy.
Cordially…
arnott
Its funny how Mccain seems to be more popular with both Republicans and Democrats , but could not win the republican nomination. But was Mccain right in endorsing Bush in 2004 elections and not standing up for what he believed in ?
Kimmitt
The accurate polls will be taken in a little over 16 months.
Like they were in Washington State?
HH
“I believe [Durbin’s] point is, it’s not good treatment. But Nazis? Honestly, if you shackled someone to the floor and made them poop on themselves it be the nicest thing they’d ever done.” – Jon Stewart
HH
“It’s why they never let their listeners and readers hear/read the Durbin section about laying if feces and urine.”
First place I heard it was the Laura Ingraham show…
Sojourner
That’s assuming Karl Rove, Bin Laden and others don’t intercede to scare the American people again like in ’04. Hopefully, their buyer’s remorse will continue and this nightmare will end before the Repubs completely loot the country.
I love those fiscal conservatives! ;-)
Stormy70
Why do you guys assume the electorate was frightened? Poor Dems, they keep winning those oh-so-accuate polls, but lose elections. I have always been curious why some people rely on national polls to predict how regional elections will turn out. The Election of the President is 50 seperate elections in the respective states, not one huge national election that can be predicted by one general poll.
metalgrid
As I’ve gotten so fond of saying on this topic: As long as we don’t end up killing 6 million people, we won’t be as bad as Nazis. We just need to remember to stop once we hit 5,999,999.
Darrell
That’s assuming Karl Rove, Bin Laden and others don’t intercede to scare the American people again like in ’04.
The most notable scare tactic used in the ’04 campaign was the Democrats’ fraudulent claim (which they repeated often) that Bush would, if elected, re-instate the draft. That Dem lie served the dual purpose of scaring both younger voters, and their parents. Nothing too low for the Dems
But in leftist bizarro world, it’s Karl Rove doing all the dirty tricks
brenda
People treat this as if it were a game and that the sole objective is to win at any cost. Politics is not a game only. It is a civil duty, an obligation.
Looking up and re-reading that I sound old fashioned. I suppose I am Because today people on the left and center, I mean ordinary folks not “the political left,” that is something else altogether. The ordinary left has given up on politics. They’s seen the corruption on both sides and thrown up their hands in disgust.
The ordinary guys on the right have been too willing to overlook some corrutption and gamesmanship because they were wining. They took a realist view of politics and understood that things aren’t always perfect.
The current people in charge, at the white house and in charge of the GOP, are not like the two groups of ordinary people above. They are very much in agreement with Randal Terry and have been working on gaining political power for a long time. They really are fascists; “A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)” So far there is a gap betweem the Randal Terry crowd and his representitives currently in power. But should that gap dissappear we’ll be looking at a full blown fascist state.
This is what I believe, and I have been looking but I’ve not found any reason to believe otherwise. I think a lot of folks on the ordinary left are afraid this might be true. They don’t want to believe it, I certainly don’t, but it sure looks like it, sounds like it and sinks to high heaven like it as well.
Darrell
The current people in charge, at the white house and in charge of the GOP, are not like the two groups of ordinary people above. They are very much in agreement with Randal Terry and have been working on gaining political power for a long time. They really are fascists
Fascists I tell you, fascists! Like a bunch of little Eichmans! I’m feeling the moonbat love. Lot of leftie kooks coming over here John.. like moths to a flame I suppose.
Tony Alva
Insinuating a person or body of people is/are Nazis is one thing, but even suggesting that one listens to Michael Bolton records is as slanderous a statement as anyone can make against another individual.
Don’t take it lying down John.
Rick
Darrell,
There obviously has been quite a swing in popular passions. I recall after Clinton was re-elected (unredefeated) in 1996, why, there were lamentations that the government was communist! “They really are communist!” Folks had been looking but hadn’t not found any reason to believe otherwise. Stinking to high heaven, and everything.
I hope these folks don’t drive, or operation heavy equipment.
Cordially…
Sojourner
Hey Rick:
At least we were smart enough not to vote for these bozos. Puts us a big step above you and your friends.
Rick
Soj.,
And y’all are walkin’ around on your hind legs, too. That’s marvelous.
Cordially…
ppgaz
We’re smart, but just average smart.
According to WAPO now, 78% of Americans do not believe that the insurgency in Iraq is in its “last throes.” That includes 65% of Republicans. Let me repeat: Nobody believes these guys any more, if you discount the 35% of Republicans who would say they agree with the potatoheads if they announced that the world was flat.
Let’s put this in persepctive: That 35% is Rick, Darrell, Birkel, ARROW. Just in case anyone is keeping score. Or keeping track of who is full of crap. Who will support any nonsense coming out of the Noise Machine, no matter how obviously ridiculous it might be. Who will cut and paste their retorts directly from the Noise Machine’s websites and blogs. Who probably use GOP talking points when they call up to order a pizza.
Rick
Thus spake ppgaz, the independent, all-wise cogitator! Lucky to have him among us, we are, darn tootin’.
Coridally…
ppgaz
Welcome, Rick, to the tried-and-proven “Oh yeah?” school of debate. I knew you’d eventually get there … you had nowhere else to go.
No point is too obvious, or too subtle, for you guys to miss.
Try an exercise, Rick, Darrell, ARROW, Birkel:
Sit down and make a list called “Top Ten Reasons Why Presidents Ought to Tell the Truth.”
Here’s one of mine:
When you decide to take a big democratic country into a state of perpetual “war”, you are going to need the good will and the support of the people over a long period of time. If you don’t tell them everything, if you commit lies of omission, if you wink at facts and try to weasel out of things later, what happens over time? People stop believing you.
See, it isn’t about blogosphere and Usenet verbal contests over the parsings and reparsings of words … over whether a president can only “lie if he knows he isn’t telling the truth,” and other navel-gazings.
It’s about building and keeping the trust of the people. It’s about trusting the people in the first place … all of them, even the ones who DON’T AGREE WITH YOU. You don’t doubletalk them, you don’t call your critics traitors because they question your policies. You don’t bamboozle them. Because over time, the people catch on.
That point in time has now been reached. Why should this matter to you?
Election in Iran recently. New, asshole hardliner in charge. He rejects recent diplomatic advances in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. In your face.
Possibly, a renewed and real threat to this country. So what?
Picture George Bush going on tv in six months and telling Americans that we need to prepare for a war in Iran.
After the “hyena laughs” die down (recognize that phrase, Rick??) then ask yourself a question: Wouldn’t it have been better for these potatoheads to be truthful and forthcoming and direct and trust all the American people in the first place, rather than think that they could declare war on half their own citizens in order to banboozle the other half?
Don’t answer, Rick. Nobody cares what your answer is. The correct answer is obvious.
JPS
Andrei: This isn’t exactly a timely response, but I can’t resist addressing your point above.
“Have you never listened to William F. Buckley give a speech?…the epitome of elitism.”
True, but have you heard or read his famous quote that he’d rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Cambridge telephone directory than by the Harvard faculty?
“Further, what’s wrong with wanting your leaders to be really fucking smart?”
In itself, nothing. Other things being equal, I prefer smart leaders to un-smart ones. But “really fucking smart” people have a tendency to believe they must be right (even when they’re not), because they’re, you know, really smart. They also tend to believe that if you only gave them more power, they could fix all the problems created by their intellectual inferiors.
I’m not being anti-intellectual, any more than Buckley was, but I don’t think extraordinarily smart people are more likely than bright-normal people to be good leaders. They may well be less likely.
Darrell
I believe President Bush to be an honest sincere man. Probably the most straight shooting Prez in my lifetime.. and a welcome change from Slick Willie parsing over the meaning of the word “is”
ppgaz, you believe the opposite. You seem to think the left is something other than obsessed with irrational Bush hatred. Can you please elaborate on President Bush’s “lies” providing us with examples, including what you consider to be “lies of ommission”?
No navel gazings.. just want to hear real examples of what Bush has done to ‘destroy’ the trust of all you well meaning patriotic folk who otherwise would be glad to give Bush an even break
Sojourner
As opposed to Bush who believes he’s right because God told him so?
ppgaz
No, you are wrong, Darrell. First of all, your “Bush hatred” whine is nothing but a deflection. It has nothing, nothing at all, to do with what I said. Zero.
Second, your problem is that every assertion made by these lunkheads in the last 3 years has turned out to be wrong. Over and over again, reality is disconnected from their rhetoric.
78% don’t believe Dick Cheney today, Darrell. Including two thirds of Republicans.
If you want to sit there and delude yourself that this is about “hating Bush”, go ahead. I don’t care.
What this is really about is Bush hates us, not the other way around. A president who sits by and does photo-ops while his mouthpieces go out and call his detractors “traitors” is not in a very good position to whine that people “hate” him.
The jig is up, Darrell. Believe it or not, doesn’t matter. The truth is right out there for all to see. The people are tuning these guys out, because what they say doesn’t match up to what they see. It’s a simple as that.
Darrell
ppgaz, I asked you for specific examples of Bush “lies”. Not mistakes, of which every leader makes, but “lies”.
Soj, you’re right, I remember well the Bush speech in which he told us “God spoke to me through a pile of burning leaves and told me to invade Iraq”. There is a difference between the humility a man shows when acknowledging a higher power, and claiming to be right ‘because God told me so’. I can see you are incapable of making such distinctions
Darrell
A president who sits by and does photo-ops while his mouthpieces go out and call his detractors “traitors”
Oh, and would it be too much to ask you to tell us who exactly are these Bush mouthpieces are who are calling his detractors “traitors”? Because if you can’t name any, seems to me that if you had any honor, you would STFU with the accusations that Bushies are running around screaming “traitor” to those who disagree with them.
ppgaz
Sorry, Darrell. Can’t help you. Your bait ain’t catching any fish today.
Bush lies? Darrell, if you type that phrase into Google, you’ll have to spend the rest of the day reading just the top of the list of hits. This is not exactly news. You can judge what you see there as you see fit, I could care less.
“Mission Accomplished”. Only, it wasn’t
“The insurgency is in its last throes.” Only, it’s not.
Are they lies? I dunno Darrell, this isn’t a court trial. It’s real politics and real life. The point is, their assertions, over and over, turn out to be wrong. Not just a little wrong, dead wrong.
Read the transcript of yesterday’s MTP and look at the pointed questions asked by Russert, as he pointed out things these numbskulls have said which turned out to be dead wrong. Then look at the answers from Rumsfeld.
Then look at the polls.
Figure it out, Darrell. It isn’t that hard. People are tuning these guys out. Make up your own reason for that, whatever bakes your cookie. The real reason is just right out there for all to see. Forest, Darrell, not trees.
Do you get that sort of thing, Darrell?
Take a few days off and regroup, you need some new material.
JPS
ppgaz:
“When you decide to take a big democratic country into a state of perpetual ‘war’, you are going to need the good will and the support of the people over a long period of time. If you don’t tell them everything, if you commit lies of omission, if you wink at facts and try to weasel out of things later, what happens over time?”
Interesting. A lot of people roll their eyes when parallels are made to WWII, but bear with me; I think this one is worthwhile. It isn’t meant to suggest you should waver in your hostility to Bush; I’m just interested in whether this principle has exceptions.
At the beginning of June 1941, the American public was 82% against our getting into WWII, though 75% supported our eventual entry if there were no alternative.
At that point, we’d already sold Great Britain all the war materiel they could afford, then instituted Lend-Lease when they ran out of money. One of the Republicans’ arguments against Lend-Lease was that we’d end up sending the U.S. Navy to ensure that it got to England. Roosevelt (he of the “Our boys will not be sent to die in foreign wars!” campaign promise) assured them otherwise. At the time of the poll, we were not convoying, though our destroyers were out practicing maneuvers quite often, and they did happen to form up on some cooperative British merchant vessels, just for drill you understand.
Eventually this wasn’t enough, and we did officially start convoying, but only as far as Newfoundland. Then Greenland. Then Iceland. By December 1941, our navy was convoying all the way into British home waters, with orders to shoot any German submarine on sight.
Surely no one can claim that Roosevelt presented his policies and intentions honestly, either to the opposition or the people. He did the right thing, but he did it through deplorable means. I would be as uneasy condemning him for his dishonesty, given the stakes and the alternatives, as I would be to say it’s OK for a president to lie, omit and stretch the truth as long as he’s sure he’s right and popular opinion plus the opposition are wrong.
So what do you think of FDR’s actions in the runup to WWII? And, by the way, who are you to tell Rick not to answer because no one cares what he thinks?
ARROW
ppgaz:
Have you ever participated in any of the polls you are so quick to cite of evidence of your correctness? Many times, the questions are biased in a direction, and the choices are limited to leave no answer that matches your real reason for making a selection. In other words, they are a joke. But then you, and most of the other folks on this blog know that.
If someone were to ask me if I was tired of the war in Iraq, I would say yes. I’m tired of seeing the deaths of our soldiers being counted as a political reason to leave Iraq. I sick of attacks made by people such as Senator Durbin, attacks that suggest the worst about our military. I tired of suggestions that Abu Ghraib reflects all soldiers, or more to the point the policy of Bush, and not just the perverted few who broke the rules. I could go on and on.
However, that is not to say that I support setting a pullout date, etc. Lose the poll bullshit. Like others have said, the only polls that count are on election day.
Darrell
I see, after you saw the “Mission accomplished” (major combat operations) banner, not in any Bush speech, you were under the impression that everything was over and our troops were going back home, right? After declaring victory in WWII, we had quite a lot of mop-up there too.. decades in fact
“Insurgency in it’s last throes”
These are your best examples of Bush “lies”? Talk about being a political hack ppgaz. As for public opinion polls, those are fickle things. But I do recall we had an election over Bush’s record last Nov. Seems Bush was re-elected, Repubs gained seats in Congress and the Senate, and the people sent packing his loudest critic, Mr. T. Daschle
ppgaz
I think that trying to cobble up a comparison to WWII for the Iraq war is just the right thing for you to be doing, JPS.
If I were you, I’d wire the White House and suggest that they use this material in their upcoming “campaign” to try to boost public support now.
It’s the perfect line of bullshit, I couldn’t have come up with a better one myself.
Especially, I like the idea that it might permit a dot-to-dot connection between Saddam and Hitler. That would let us tie back to the earlier Bush Administration, when they told us with a straight face that this monster, who had been our ally only two years before, was “Hitler reincarnated.” Had to be taken down. Only, when we were on the road to Bagdad, having blown by the new Hitler’s weak defenses in a few days, they decided to turn around and leave “Hitler” in power.
Go for it, JPS. I think you are on a roll. With a little effort, you can get that 22% that are buying the adminstration’s nonsense today down to, say, 12%.
Write, publish. Don’t hide your light under a bushel!
ARROW
JPS
Excellent points, lost as they are on those most in need of them.
Anybody that has had to manage a complex, dynamic project, such as removing an evil tyrant, knows that changes in plan are inevitable. That is obviously unacceptable when the people in charge are your political opponents. Sad it is, me thinks!
ppgaz
No again, darrell, your little dog won’t hunt. This is my last reply to you today, you are just into random ballbusting now. Maybe somebody else will play with you.
Read my post again. Those are not examples of Bush lies, Darrell. By my own statement about them. They are just wrong.
For lies, I pointed you to Google. Did you go to Google as I suggested? I presume not, since it would take you hours to read the material returned by my suggested search terms.
Take some time off, Darrell. You are just making yourself look ridiculous at this point.
hadenoughofthisyet
Oh, and would it be too much to ask you to tell us who exactly are these Bush mouthpieces are who are calling his detractors “traitors”? Because if you can’t name any, seems to me that if you had any honor, you would STFU with the accusations that Bushies are running around screaming “traitor” to those who disagree with them.
So when Karl Rove makes this type of statement:
Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.
He is not suggesting that Democrats are traitors? Who knew! I was always under the assumption that if someones motivation was to put soldiers in greater danger — this was considered treasonous, but I guess I was wrong. What a relief!
ppgaz
As I said, ARROW. No point is too obvious for you guys not to miss it. Is that a quadratic negative? Anyway, you get the idea.
Try an exercise: Go back and find the administration official who said, back in the day before people had caught on to these potatoheads, that he was sure we wouldn’t need “six months” to take care of the job. Hint: You know his name.
Now ARROW, tell me, how many times, about how many things, can these guys be dead wrong, before we start to question their assertions and their veracity?
There is an insurgent attack on the average of every 25 minutes in Iraq now. Your Secretary of Defense casually mentioned that we might be still over there 12 years from now. Yesterday, I think he said that, on ABC This Weak, IIANM.
Yeah, I know, this war on terror thing is just “hard work.” Especially when you cannot, if your life depended on it, tell the goddam truth.
Rick
Don’t answer, Rick. Nobody cares what your answer is. The correct answer is obvious.
ppgaz,
You instructed me on the response the other day: tut, tut.
That oughta show ya.
Cordially…
ARROW
hadenoughofthisyet:
Rove would have to answer this question. Since Senator Durbin is a worldly sort that understands his words mean something, he should have known that his words (accuracy aside)would be used against us by our enemies. Especially words like he used in his PREPARED remarks.
Why did he make them? Was he concerned about the rights of prisoners? He had to know that his comments would NOT redound to the benefit of America’s image in the world. IMO, he was grandstanding for POLITICAL points, at the expense of America’s military.
Darrell
Speaking of telling “the goddam truth”, who in the Bush administration said the war on terror would be over in six months? Baghdad fell in 3 weeks, but I’ve read no one telling us that was the end of it.. unless of course, you can provide quotes in context, since I know you would never lie or wildly exaggerate or anything
Also, still waiting for you to name the Bush administration ‘mouthpieces’ who called Bush’s detractors “traitors” as you previously claimed.
ppgaz
Rick, I never instruct anyone. But I do deconstruct you.
I make fun of you. Not only is it easy, because you are so out of touch with reality, but you are such a good sport about it. Thus, I learn from you.
Win, win!
ppgaz
Darrell, I swear to God! You are like that character in the Monty Python movie who, having no arms or legs left, keeps wanting to fight.
I have better things to do than get jerked around by you today, Darrell. Go play with somebody else.
JPS
ppgaz:
“I think that trying to cobble up a comparison to WWII for the Iraq war is just the right thing for you to be doing, JPS….It’s the perfect line of bullshit, I couldn’t have come up with a better one myself.”
I wasn’t comparing WWII to the Iraq war. In fact, I didn’t make an argument, so you’re jumping the gun to call it bullshit.
The way I saw it, you stated that presidents must be honest when leading a country into war. I read this, and thought how I would like to agree in all cicrumstances. However, when I look at, for instance, the actions of FDR in WWII, I find a violation I’m deeply uneasy with, yet can’t simply condemn.
What I was trying to get at was a general question: whether such dishonesty can ever be forgiven if the circumstances are sufficiently dire and the stakes sufficiently high. I’m not dogmatic for either the “yes” or “no” answer. But even if I were trying to get you to agree that there might be some exceptions to your rule, it would hardly follow that Bush’s actions would thus be exempted.
In short, your (non-)response misses the point, and you’re arguing against positions I didn’t take, esp. when you bring up Bush 41’s rhetoric and actions in the first Gulf War.
ARROW
ppgaz:
Just because the the “average” American is not smart enough (or tuned in enough) to understand that everything can NOT be accurately planned and executed, is no excuse for you to call missed deadlines LIES. I believe the Press asks these sort of deadline questions just so they can feed this sort of “missed deadline is a LIE” nonsense to partisans for their consumption and redistribution.
If you were doing a job for someone and promised delivery in a week, and later had to change the deadline because of contingencies out of your control, would you be lying. No.
The Press is simply looking for a missed deadline to make the administration look incompetent. After all, a Democrat would never miss a deadline, would they? A Democrat administration would never make a planning error. They are just perfect! As evidence, I would suggest that President Clinton probably had his blow jobs scheduled to the second. And I’m sure they never interferred with his unrelenting pursuit of OBL.
curious about george
Darrell, Rick, and the rest.
New York State: Suffered the greatest number of casualties on 9/11. Voted against Bush in 2004.
Pennsylvania: Site of United Flight 93 crash. Voted against Bush in 2004.
Washington D.C.: Attacked on 9/11. 90% of the popular vote went to Kerry/Edwards in 2004.
Maryland: Wedged between PA and DC. Most of the people who work in DC live there. Voted against Bush in 2004.
What do the people who still whole-heartedly support Bush’s war in Iraq know that the people who actually saw the events of 9/11 don’t?
Discuss.
ppgaz
JPS …. good work. Keep at it.
As I said, I can’t think of anything that will work in your favor more at this point than talking about FDR. The man has been dead for over 60 years.
Are you arguing that we had, in 2002-2003, a situation so “dire” in Iraq that prevarication, deception and lies of ommission were somehow justifiable?
Good. That’s what I expect from you guys. The argument fails because (a) it is patently false, and (b) the argument that was made then, to prop up that idea, turns out to have been made on the basis of assumptions that are now known to have been wrong at best. At best.
Go back to my original post to this subthread. What did I say? this isn’t about parsing what was or was not a lie, in the best of Clintonesque tradition. It is about the trust of the public in the assertions of government leaders. More importantly, it is about the trust in the people BY those leaders, and the consequences that result when that trust is not there. Maybe yelling “traitor” is not the way to build that trust? Maybe it smells like a deflection to avoid accountability? Well, not to you, I suspect. You ride for the brand.
Being completely opn and honest with the people is, you know, hard work, JPS. Nobody said it would be easy.
The issue is accountability, JPS. Not perfection. Accountability.
SeesThroughIt
I see this defensiveness a lot from right-wingers. So tell me then, people who believe this, is it your contention that Americans get to voice their opinions on our presidency one day every four years, and other than that, we should all shut the fuck up and agree with whatever’s going on? Because I’d think you’d have a hard time squaring that with the whole “representative democracy” thing you also like to trumpet so much. Considering that support for the Iraq invasion is now the minority opinion, it doesn’t seem Bush is actually representing the country, now does it?
ppgaz
There you have it, ARROW. My point made for me.
Well, I’ll avoid the temptation to lable you as some kind of elitist sociopath who thinks he knows more than those “not smart enough” average Americans.
I’ll just point out to you that they are understanding now, and it’s too late for your potatoheads to regain their trust.
Which was, and remains, my point.
ARROW
“It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” Donald Rumsfeld, Feb 7, 2003
“It is unknowable how long that conflict will last.” Hmmmmm, what does that suggest to you?
Looks like he was wrong about the six months, though.
ARROW
ppgaz:
Was there some reason you skipped the “or not tuned in enough” in your rant about elitists?
Darrell
is it your contention that Americans get to voice their opinions on our presidency one day every four years, and other than that, we should all shut the fuck up and agree with whatever’s going on?
Uh, no dumbass. But when leftists like ppgaz start trying to push our noses into the latest opinion polls, we retain the right to RESPOND by pointing out that on the last national opinion poll which counted last November, the American people stood with Bush.
curiousaboutgeorge, do you have election results of Shanksville, PA in Somerset county where flight 93 crashed?. Since your placing such emphasis on those who ‘actually saw’ the terrorist acts in the city of Washinton DC for example vs the rest of us dummies who merely saw it on tv, I would think by your standards, Shanksville and Somerset county would be important, no?
curious about george
ARROW:
“We know where they [Iraq’s WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.”
curious about george
ARROW:
“We know where they [Iraq’s WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.”
ppgaz
ARROW: No particular reason, other than the fact that is relevant neither to your point, or mine. Throw it in, if it makes you feel better.
ppgaz
Good one, Darrell.
First of all, half of the American people stood against Bush.
Second, do you really think that “We won, nyah nyah nyah” is the argument you want to be making right now?
Careful, Darrell. It’s a trick question.
Give it up, man. You really aren’t very good at this.
ARROW
“Considering that support for the Iraq invasion is now the minority opinion, it doesn’t seem Bush is actually representing the country, now does it?”
The conclusion you cite is based sample polling. Bush is following through on pledges he made in his campaign for reelection. You know, that poll back in November 2004.
ARROW
“Give it up, man. You really aren’t very good at this.”
Do you really think comments like this make your point?
Rick
I make fun of you. Not only is it easy, because you are so out of touch with reality, but you are such a good sport about it. Thus, I learn from you.
ppgaz,
Learn from me?!! You mean my secret right-wing scheme is out?
No wonder you’re doing a victory lap. And all this time, I though you were just running in circles.
Cordially…
Darrell
Give it up, man. You really aren’t very good at this
You’re right ppgaz, I’m just another guy with an opinion. I should learn from you, the master debater.. masterbater for short
ppgaz
Slowly but surely, ARROW, you guys have descended from your righteous thrones into the pit of grade school retorts.
Rick: Oh yeah?
Darell: We won, nyah nyah nyah.
Arrow: Polls, schmolls.
Brilliant. Well constructed and well argued.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, your potatohead government is in a panic to do something about the collapse of public support for this war. Alas, in their panic, they have not figured out that it is their own mealy mouthed spinning, and their attack-dog defensiveness when criticized, which fuels this collapse. The other day, I heard this situation referred to as unique in American history: The rise of an anti-war movement, without any leader, or any spokesman, or any organization.
The strongest critic in the news, last few days, is Hagel … A twice-wounded Vietnam veteran, Republican.
Keep it up, you three, you are really on a roll now.
Rick
curious,
That sounds suspiciously…no, wrong word…STUPIDLY like Mike Moore’s blinding insight that the hijackers attacked people who didn’t even vote for Bush. Like, wow.
Discuss.
Cordially…
ppgaz
Bwaaaaaahahahahaha! Masterbater?
Turn yourself over, Darrell. You’re done on this side.
ARROW
“Looks like Donald was wrong about a lot of things.”
Maybe someone can provide details about WMD that has been found in Iraq. Obviously, the intelligence Rumsfeld relied on was wrong in terms of details. Yes “Donald” has been wrong about a lot of things… You point being that he is not perfect, like say, you?
curious about george
Darrell, since you would rather nitpick the question than answer it, here are the details.
That particular county was about 60/40 for Bush. The surrounding counties vary — some voted Bush, some Kerry. Generally, this correlates with which party controlled the county, and no candidate recieved more than 60% of the vote in any county. Pretty close all around, unless you belong to the party that thinks 51% is a mandate.
So I reiterate, why did 40% of the people who live in the conservative town where Flight 93 crashed and the popular majority of the rest of the state, 90% of Washington DC, and 80% of New York City vote against George Bush if his Iraq war is such a dandy way to fight the war on terror?
curious about george
Rick:
Nice try with the Michael Moore sidetrack.
I’ll ask the question again.
If Bush is such a genius and his war is such a great idea, then why has he been unable to garner the support of the people who witnessed 9/11 in person?
ppgaz
Rick, to paraphrase you: Oh yeah?
Really, I like the Oh Yeah? ploy. It’s, well, economical.
ARROW
Me thinks Bagdad Bob has been reincarnated as ppgaz. Talk about riding for the brand. I joked about you dreaming up your facts while you were in a stupor… but I’m beginning to believe you define stupor.
Darrell
Nitpick? Moi? Nope no nitpicking, it goes to the heart of your “point”, your claim that those who saw the aftermath of 9/11 first-hand, have some unique insights into how to fight the war on terror (I’ll bet Pentagon workers who saw terrorism first handed voted overwhelmingly for Bush as did the military). In that context, it is entirely fair to point out that Somerset county where flight 93 crashed voted heavily for Bush.
It is also my understanding that NY and PA states voted in greater percentage for Bush in this past election then they did in 2000. So again, no nitpicking, only pointing out inconvenient facts when undermine your ridiculous ‘logic’
curious about george
ARROW:
The reason why no one has provided details about the WMD in Iraq is the same reason why no one has provided details about the mating habits of the Loch Ness monster.
And I may not be perfect, but my imperfections haven’t gotten any of my fellow citizens killed yet. Would that the same were true for Mr. Rumsfeld.
Darrell
that should be “which” undermine, not when undermine. must remember, preview is my friend
ARROW
“If Bush is such a genius and his war is such a great idea, then why has he been unable to garner the support of the people who witnessed 9/11 in person?”
Let’s reverse the question, would their COMPLETE support make him a genius?
JPS
ppgaz, I don’t know how to make it clearer that I did not bring up FDR to “exonerate” George Bush.
“I can’t think of anything that will work in your favor more at this point….”
I don’t know what you think is in my favor. It would really be in my favor to get back to work, but arguing with you is like wiggling a loose tooth. Slightly painful, and I know I should quit, yet strangely hard to resist.
“Are you arguing that we had, in 2002-2003, a situation so “dire” in Iraq that prevarication, deception and lies of ommission were somehow justifiable?”
I have explicitly stated that I am not.
“That’s what I expect from you guys.”
I am one guy. Singular.
“The argument fails because (a) it is patently false,”
See also: Strawman.
“Go back to my original post to this subthread.”
You’ve clearly read mine.
“Maybe yelling “traitor” is not the way to build that trust?”
I agree, yelling traitor is a very bad thing unless you can damn well prove it, even to people who don’t share your exact politics.
“not to you, I suspect. You ride for the brand.”
Don’t know where you get that, but you’re quite wrong. And I don’t bother arguing with the opinions I suspect you hold. What you write is quite enough.
“Being completely opn and honest with the people is, you know, hard work, JPS. Nobody said it would be easy.”
And nothing I’ve written argues against this. But, once again, I am thinking of a rather major instance in modern U.S. history where a president was not, and I was asking whether you condemn under all circumstances the failure to be honest with the people.
Making an exception for FDR would not compel you to make one for Bush; I was asking because for some reason, despite the insults you continue to throw my way (nice fake addy, btw), I was curious about your thinking beyond the issue at hand. But clearly you’d rather vent, and insult, than discuss.
ppgaz
Goodbye, ARROW. The “your mother wears combat boots” defense is not acceptable.
“Six months.” Only, now it’s maybe 12 years.
“Mission accomplished.” Only, it wasn’t.
“The insurgency is in its last throes.” Only, it’s not.
“We’ll be greeted as liberators.” Only, we weren’t.
The mind boggles. The support collapses.
And these guys are talking about Michael Moore.
JPS
Aside to ARROW:
When ppgaz accuses you of “descend[ing] into the pit of grade school retorts”, the proper response is, “I’ll remember that the next time I run for class president.”
Always strive to keep your discourse on the same high plane as ppgaz’.
ARROW
“The reason why no one has provided details about the WMD in Iraq is the same reason why no one has provided details about the mating habits of the Loch Ness monster.”
I believe there are details in the 1,000 page report prepared by Charles Duelfer. I believe Mr. Duelfer even went so far as to say that the CIA had underestimated the threat posed by Iraq.
“And I may not be perfect, but my imperfections haven’t gotten any of my fellow citizens killed yet. Would that the same were true for Mr. Rumsfeld.”
How did being incorrect about the quantity and location of WMD that did not exist (your assumption), get somebody killed?
ppgaz
JPS, if you are not posing the FRD-WWII question as somehow relevant to BWB-Iraq, then what is the point? Specifically, how does it relate to my point?
You want to have your cake and eat it too. Float FDR, and then back away.
Iraq was not Europe in 1940. Neither was it so in 2003, or in 1990.
As for the question, IIUYC, is it ever okay for a president not to tell the whole truth?
Sure: When there is an immediate, proximate and umabiguous threat to American lives or terrirory, and the expenditure of time to explain and seek support would cause the loss of those lives or territory.
Anbd that’s exactly why your question is inapt: No such situation existed in or around Iraq in 1990, or 2002, or 2003.
And by “expenditure of time”, I mean time is of the essence. Not political capital. Not opportunity for wars of choice. Where time means that the lives and land of the United States are in imminent danger; there is literally no time to lose. In such a case, the response should be limited to that necessary to abate the immediate threat and stabilize the situation. Not to embark on an open-ended war with no clear or measurable objectives or end game.
curious about george
Actually, Darrell, the military’s vote was split much along the same lines as the rest of the country. And most of the folks who work at the Pentagon live in Maryland, 65%of which voted for Kerry.
Also, if you remove New York City from the equation (kind of a sad thing to do when discussing the War on Terror, but according to Karl Rove, those liberals don’t have anything of value to say about 9/11 anyway) you still have 60% of New York State voting for Kerry.
So, do you have an actual answer to the question that I asked, or would you rather keep losing the number game? Bush won the South and the MidWest, and as a result he won the election. Good for him. But he still lost in every single state (and D.C.) where 9/11 terrorist activity occurred.
Why?
Rick
george,
Gosh, what a toughie. Oh, just guessing it would be related to the existing voting patterns in these traditionally blue areas. S.F. wasn’t touched at all, and went gangbusters for Kerry. Tumbleweed, TX wasn’t touched at all, and went for Bush.
Do you seriously think your question is a “reality-based” and profound one? You picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue, curious G.
Cordially…
John S
ARROW, did you miss the bit about the Iraq war? Google it if it doesn’t ring a bell. As I recall, Mr. Rumsfeld had something or other to do with it.
I swore off reading the comments here (mostly thanks to Rick’s disingenuous cordiality, which is bad for my blood pressure) but it’s been worth a relapse to watch ppgaz fend off three attackers (however unarmed) at once.
brenda
“I’ll just point out to you that they are understanding now,”
ppgaz
I’d like to believe that, I really would, I’m not even sure it will matter.
—
“Oh, and would it be too much to ask you to tell us who exactly are these Bush mouthpieces are who are calling his detractors “traitors”?”
Darrell
Bush & Co. run a tight well disciplined administration and everyone is well aware of what the days talking points are. Anyone that deviates has already been let go. They meet early in the morning to discuss them, just as they rehearse press meetings and drill relentlessly either GW or whomever is going to be in front of the cameras. Both dems and repubs do this, it’s how a modern administration is run. Except that this administration is tighter than usual. Everyone will be on point or they are out.
ARROW
curious about george:
I would think my previous question would have exposed your question as the fraud that it is. Again, would their COMPLETE support make him a genius?
And, oh, by the way, how did those states (9/11 victims) vote in 2000?
curious about george
ARROW:
“Let’s reverse the question, would their COMPLETE support make him a genius?”
Probably not. It would be an excellent indication that his actions and policies are rational and effective, though.
So, why do you think they don’t support him, ARROW?
ARROW
“ARROW, did you miss the bit about the Iraq war? Google it if it doesn’t ring a bell. As I recall, Mr. Rumsfeld had something or other to do with it.”
My response was to a specific reliance by Rumsfeld on inaccurate intelligence. By your claculus, John Kerry sent people to their death based on his vote for the Iraq Joint Resolution.
curious about george
Unless you see no difference between pre 9/11 America and post 9/11 America, it doesn’t really matter how those states voted in 2000, now does it, ARROW?
And, oh, by the way, if that’s really the case, ARROW, then you can explain why your favorite president has sent our underequipped, undertrained soldiers to fight in Iraq once you’ve explained why New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and D.C. voted against him.
ARROW
“So, why do you think they don’t support him, ARROW?”
The easy answer is politics, but I don’t think it’s fair to say their voting reflects on Bush’s capability as CIC.
curious about george
So you’re saying that the way the nation votes doesn’t reflect the performance of the people it votes for? Interesting idea, ARROW. Thanks for the answer.
I’m calling it a night. Continue to try to reconfigure reality to better suit your preferences while I’m gone. And stay away from the pointy things and small objects.
Jeff
“But he still lost in every single state where 9-11 terrorist activity occurred”.
Curious about George obviously isn’t curious about geography, because the Pentagon is technically in Virginia, which went for Bush.
Like almost all of curious’s points, that technicality is about as important as the sweat on a dog’s balls, but since he doesn’t mind asking the same question over and over again, and that he doesn’t know he’s wrong, i figured i’d point it out.
ARROW
curious about george:
For the last time, your question is based on a logical fallacy. Any answer would be meaningless.
The President went to war with the military he had. The same way every other President, throughout history, has done. Now if they were not “properly equiped,” then that might reflect on a whole bunch of people, including the prior Democrat administration that basically neutered our military’s preparedness.
Do you remember the attack on the U.S.S. Cole back on October 12, 2000? The sentries on deck were carrying unloaded weapons, and that ship was under “Threat Condition Bravo.”
Why don’t you ask a Vietnam vet if he had jeeps with armor plating comparable to what we are senting to Iraq, or Kevlar vests? That is not to say we shouldn’t equip our troops with the best. But use a little common sense!
ppgaz
The ongoing referendum is on the question of support for the war, as reflected in elements like “Was the war worth it?” “Are we going in the right direction there?” “Would you encourage your son or daughter to enlist and go there?” “Are things better, or worse?”
Public support will be, in the end, based on a comparison between what these guys say, and what they do.
And that, of course, is the problem they have, and why their credibility is approaching zero. When 22% say that the Vice President is right, that’s zero. You can’t drive any poll number much lower than that. Two thirds of Republicans don’t think the Vice President is right. Rumsfeld’s own show-and-tell general couldn’t agree with the Vice President in front of Congress the other day.
“The insurgency is in its last throes.”
The GOP steps up: DURBIN! LIBERALS! THEY’RE HURTING OUR TROOPS.
This isn’t rocket science, folks.
JPS
[Crosstalk is fun, isn’t it?]
ppgaz:
“JPS, if you are not posing the FRD-WWII question as somehow relevant to BWB-Iraq, then what is the point? Specifically, how does it relate to my point?”
Well, your original statement was pretty sweeping. I was curious whether you’d set any boundaries to it. I really wasn’t going to yell “Aha” once you did.
I for one would wish for the rule to be, “Presidents must be honest with the people in all circumstances.” I wouldn’t want to write an exception that would permit FDR to do what he did, because it would be abused to the point where the original rule was meaningless. On the other hand, if FDR had adhered rigidly to it, the consequences would have been more immoral than those of his breaking it.
So I’d say there’s an asterisk, and the fine print reads, “And you’d better have a damned good reason to break this one, plus God help you if you’re wrong.” But if that’s the way it’s going to work, then you have to trust the guy making that call. At present, I do (albeit with any number of asterisks) and you plus half the country seriously don’t. This is a problem, no matter which side you’re coming from.
I wasn’t about to argue, though, that Iraq was such an exception. Thanks for a thoughtful response.
SeesThroughIt
So by your logic, all the people who voted for Bush went part and parcel for his platform. They cosigned what he was doing, all of it, right? Down the line, they fully support each and every idea Bush put forward. (Trick question: Of course not.)
And yet now people are realizing that, hey, this guy we voted for…he’s kinda screwing things up. In other words, they don’t support his ideas so vigorously. Or perhaps they don’t support his ideas at all anymore. But they don’t count anymore, according to you–they voted for him on Nov. 2, and that’s the extent of their involvement. As long as Bush got the votes, he can do whatever he pleases and doesn’t have to answer to anybody, not even the people who put him in office.
A great many people who “stood with Bush” on November 2 don’t stand with him anymore. Them’s the facts.
ppgaz
Okay, JPS. Fair enough.
However, if you are not actually disagreeing with me, the time to say so might not be right in the middle of a food fight.
My hands are busy with cream pies for the nattering nabobs of apologia.
ppgaz
With condolences to Spiro T. Agnew, of course.
Darrell
Actually, Darrell, the military’s vote was split much along the same lines as the rest of the country
Where do you get this? Let me guess, you simply made it up. The only military poll I read about was this one, which showed the troops favoring Bush, 4 to 1 over Kerry. Even assuming huge margins of error, it seems likely the military’s support of Bush was overwhelming to put it mildly. Now again, where was your data supporting your claim that only 52% of the military supported Bush, same as the rest of the country? Did you lie about that?
As for your question, my response is that Dem leaning areas will continue to vote Dem, although less so in the past election, while Republican leaning areas such as Somerset county, which experienced the crash of Flight 93 first hand, will vote for Bush in even greater percentages than 2000. Again, every state you mention voted for Bush in larger margins than voted for him in 2000. Sorry if these facts get in the way of your hairbrained logic.
Darrell
Curious about George obviously isn’t curious about geography, because the Pentagon is technically in Virginia, which went for Bush.
Like almost all of curious’s points, that technicality is about as important as the sweat on a dog’s balls
LOL, I nominate this for post of the day. Hammer meets nail head
Curious, where are you?? You’ve been repeating your mantra like Kos told you to do, and now you’ve been exposed for the ignorant jackass that you truly are. Please come back and impart more wisdom on us real soon now, ok?
Rick
But use a little common sense!
ARROW,
You really expect to see pigs lift off and soar on the zephyrs? Cheerful, Reaganesque optimism you have, sir.
Cordially…
Darrell
So by your logic, all the people who voted for Bush went part and parcel for his platform.
No, just like not everyone who voted for Kerry, went part and parcel for everything on his platform either. Your point is..?
Andrei
Delayed repsonse.
The obvious answer to this then is that they aren’t really fucking smart then, are they? Why? Two points.
First: Really fucking smart people tend to be correct about things more often because they tend to base their judgements more on evidence, concrete facts and have the savvy to know how to walk intellectual thought experiments when they they are presented with incomplete information.
Second: Really smart fucking people also know they don’t know everything. They can see the universe, realize they know but a fraction of a percent, if that, about it and are willing to accept that.
IMHO.
Like I said… he was the epitome of elitism.
Darrell
Like I said… he was the epitome of elitism
Uh Andrei, anyone who agrees to be governed by first 2,000 names in the phone book (i.e., “common folk”) rather than the ‘elite’ Harvard faculty is, well, the opposite of elitism, not the epitome of it.
Based on your inability to grasp this most basic point, can we now have consensus agreement that you are definitely not one of the “really fucking smart people”?
ppgaz
The term “whoosh” comes to mind.
Andrei
Note in the article you cited, it even claims it was unscientific in the first paragraph.
Now, for some info from Fox News polling. This was polling done on election day, and appears to be a more scientific sampling for poll data.
Highlights:
Another highlight:
And another tidbit:
Maybe you should go read some more polls, Darrell? I hear there’s this really cool new service on the web that actually can help you find information.
curious about george
Actually, Darrell, the sweat on a dog’s balls is part of natures way of keeping the temperature of the dog’s sperm low enough so the heat doesn’t kill the little guys, making it perfectly relevent to the dog and rather important with regards to the entire purpose of balls in the first place. On the other hand, using “the only poll [Darrell] read” which just happens to agree with his rhetoric as half a counter-argument and the typical right-wing name-calling as the other half… well that’s very good and logical reasoning if you’re in grade school or a GOP politician. The rest of us prefer reasonable conclusions based on facts.
Better luck next time, cutie.
Andrei
Oh please… I somehow knew you’d miss my irony, Darrell.
I’ll spell it out for you: To even think one can make that kind of proclamation in the first place requires one to be elitist. In order for one to think others are so inferior that they can’t do a job requires one to think that they themselves understand what it takes to do that job and know who would be best suited for it or who would not be bet suited for it.
When one thinks so highly of oneself that they are willing to make that kind of proclamation in public and actually believe they are right — which I’m willing to bet that Buckley does believe — that’s elitist.
Darrell
The rest of us prefer reasonable conclusions based on facts.
Then based on your facts-based approach george, can you direct us to the facts on which you base your comment that “the military’s vote was split much along the same lines as the rest of the country” (your words), or did you pull those ‘facts’ out of your ass?
And george, in answer to your brilliant question which you have repeatedly asked on this thread:
If Bush is such a genius and his war is such a great idea, then why has he been unable to garner the support of the people who witnessed 9/11 in person?
tell us george, why did Virginia, which saw the aftermath of the Pentagon attack first hand, vote for Bush (in greater numbers than 2000) as did Somerset county, PA which experienced first hand the crash of Flight 93?
CGeorge, that would seem to cut the legs out from underneath your ‘fact-based’ theory, wouldn’t it? I mean, since you prefer “reasonable conclusions based on facts” and all
JPS
Andrei:
Well, that’s how it’s supposed to be. In practice, I think a lot of really smart people (‘course, there’s some gray area in how we define this) live up to this ideal sometimes, and lapse terribly from it at other times. One can be capable of examining one’s own theories honestly and critically, or of admitting error, yet not always take the trouble to do so.
If you’ll excuse a quote (one I happen to love) from John Keegan, in “Intelligence and War”:
“Scientists can be as prejudiced as any theologian, particularly when their pet theories are called into question.”
Darrell
I somehow knew you’d miss my irony, Darrell. I’ll spell it out for you: To even think one can make that kind of proclamation in the first place requires one to be elitist. In order for one to think others are so inferior that they can’t do a job requires one to think that they themselves understand what it takes to do that job and know who would be best suited for it or who would not be bet suited for it.
Irony Andrei? Look, you’ve already demonstrated that you are none too bright with your previous cluelessness over Buckley’s ‘prefer to be governed by the first 2,000 names in the phone book’ remark. Buckley’s remark demonstrated the OPPOSITE of elitism, there is really no doubt about that. No doubt from the left, no doubt from the right. Only you
I’m sorry you failed to grasp that basic point about Buckley’s message. But instead of admitting it, you now keep digging further, reinforcing how stupid you are. And you don’t even see how absurd you sound in your ‘clarification’, do you?
Andrei
So given the choice of two people: A person who has the capability of examing their own theories honestly versus a person who is incapable of doing so, what would you prefer?
IMHO, people who aren’t “really fucking smart” also tend to be incapable of critical thinking, questioning or examining their own theories to even get to place that provides them the opportunity at advanced solutions to most problems. They can’t seem to change course when its required, sticking only to what they know.
IOW, with really smart fucking people in charge, you are at least giving yourself a chance to succeed when things change on you. Without them, you’re more often than not just heading in whichever direction you go without any chance to change course in case a hurricane appears in your path.
JPS
Andrei:
Your response to Darrell came out while I was in mid-comment. At the risk of opening a can of worms (or of falling victim to a “whoosh”), I don’t get your reading of Buckley’s quote.
“In order for one to think others are so inferior that they can’t do a job”
Huh? What I read him as saying was that the Harvard faculty might be on average smarter than the average of a random, equal-sized sample of Cambridge denizens, and are certainly (again, on average) more highly educated, they are not for that reason better able to govern, and will not do a better job of it.
It was an anti-elitist point, and I would quote it with disgust rather than amusement if he were saying what you seem to think.
On my office wall is a “Dilbert” where Dan, the Illogical Scientist announces, “I have a Ph.D., so obviously you should do what I say.” It is exactly this tendency in intellectuals, to try to pull rank in terms of intelligence or academic credentials, that I was lamenting, and that Buckley was warning against.
Andrei
LMAO. This response makes my week.
ppgaz
I think I can help out here: Buckley went to Yale.
Moving on ……
curious about george
Psst, Darrell! One fact-based answer to the military question is further up in the comments. Other such polls existed in multiple newspapers, military and civilian, across the country. I already did my homework, must I really do yours too?
I addressed Pennsylvania earlier, but the gist was that Somerset county did vote for Bush (60/40, too! That’s way better than that 51% “mandate” y’all were so happy about) and the surrounding counties were evenly distributed between Bush and Kerry.
Hopefully, Somerset county did think that Bush was doing a reasonable job at making this country safer and voted their consciences. Unlike ARROW, I actually do think that the way people vote reflects their opinions on how competent the candidates are. Somerset county thought Bush was the better man. A slim majority of Pennsylvanians, and a very large majority of New Yorkers disagreed.
And once again, the Pentagon is in the District of Columbia, which gets to vote by itself now. 90% of it voted for Kerry. Check a map before you make yourself look even less intelligent.
Virginia isn’t particularly relevant to the argument, but very little of your “contribution” has been so far. Most of their polls (again, check some back issues of newspapers. I’m not your personal librarian) indicate that Virginians were mostly enamored with Bush’s family values platform. A lot of people vote for candidates who, they feel, share their values.
90% of D.C., 51% (the magic mandate number!) of PA, 80% of NYC, and 60% of New York (not counting the city) did not vote for Bush. Karl Rove argues that these voters didn’t “get” 9/11.
So, Darrell, do you agree with Karl Rove? Does 80% of NY not “get” 9/11?
Andrei
Buckley said that he would take a RANDOM set of TWO THOUSAND people over Havard professors to govern people.
You don’t see the exaggeration, the high drama used to make an exaggerated point in that statement? Why a random sampling of two thousand people of unknown intellect over Harvard professors? Elitism at its core is the desire to keep a certain class of people in power. Keeping a certain class of people from power is just another expression of elitism.
Ask yourself why Buckley made the comment in the specific way he did in the first place. Buckley is a man who chooses his words very carefully.
As for the Yale slant from ppgaz, I can see that would be the root cause for that kind of comment from Buckley. I honestly wasn’t factoring that in to my original reason. (I thought Buckley had gone to Oxford for reason, not Yale.)
Ok… I’m done with this topic. Really. Sorry to side track this thread from all the general name calling.
Darrell
Good observation ppgaz, but Buckley was none too fond of the elite on the Yale faculty either.. in fact, he launched his career by blasting the Yale faculty in his book, “God and Man at Yale”
ppgaz
Well, you got a solid Whoosh out of Darrell, which was worth the price of admission.
I wonder what Darrell’s take is on elitism? His front man, ARROW, seems to think that the American people are too tuned out to understand why we needed a war in Iraq. Or something.
I am never exactly sure what these guys are saying. The words seem like real words, but somehow I can’t make sense of the sentences they write. According to ARROW, I think it was, it’s okay if the potatoheads in DC are wrong, as long as they thought they were right at the time. Again, I’m paraphrasing, because …. what else can ya do?
You know, maybe they are right. This whole government-war thing is just Hard Work. Doggone it, at least they had good intentions.
Them things with which the road to hell is paved, I hear.
ARROW
“I wonder what Darrell’s take is on elitism? His front man, ARROW, seems to think that the American people are too tuned out to understand why we needed a war in Iraq.”
ppgaz, you need to focus man! What I said was:
“Just because the the “average” American is not smart enough (or tuned in enough) to understand that everything can NOT be accurately planned and executed”
How does this translate into what you said I said? Do you actually read what you post, or is it just one big incoherent spin job that you make up as you go?
ppgaz
Why, I learn from you, my GOP-talking-point-cutting-and-pasting friend!
ARROW
“Why, I learn from you, my GOP-talking-point-cutting-and-pasting friend!”
Brilliant answer. What grade are you in now, first or second?
“According to ARROW, I think it was, it’s okay if the potatoheads in DC are wrong, as long as they thought they were right at the time. Again, I’m paraphrasing, because …. what else can ya do?”
I can agree with this! I just never thought you would criticize the Congressional Democrats in this manner. I would think a sensitive, caring fella like yourself, would be more tactful in his treatment of the poor
brenda
Ya know, this is just sad. There oughta be a law ppgaz, I mean, it’s just not fair.
But then, couch-potato conservatives have always been short on logic and long on hysterical emotional grandstanding.