It’s fascinating to see conservatives tossing around quotes from pols they hold in contempt (most conspicuously Clinton) to try and prove…well, I’m not sure what.
But if quotes mean so much, then let’s have a few more, all of which underscore Bush’s commitment to a vision and his world-respected ability to express himself. Please be aware…there are no typos in any of the below. They’re “as is.”
I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise. And same with Haiti. I wouldn’t have supported either. (GWB, 2000)
(W)e can’t be all things to all people in the world. I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I don’t think nation-building missions are worthwhile. (GWB, 2000)
But the use of the military needs to be in our vital interest. The mission needs to be clear and the exit strategy obvious. (GWB, 2000)
This country has no designs on Cuba’s soverty; we have no designs on the soverty of Cuba. (GWB, 2002)
The goals for this country are peace in the world. And the goals for this country are a compassionate American for every single citizen. (GWB, 2002)
Parents and educators will not be bystandards in education reform. (GWB, 2003)
These are folks that have hijacked a great religion and then take innocent life. And that’s a huge difference between America. (GWB 2002)
In my attitude, it doesn’t matter how high the hurdle is, we’ll cross it. (GWB 2003)
I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn’t here. (GWB 2002)
• 
“” Ok, I got one:
“I did not have sex with that woman.”
-Bill “Bubba” Clinton “”
This was posted by Eric.
Eric, if the quote is not exact, you can’t use quotation marks.
Uncle Bill used the phrase “sexual relations”, not the word ‘sex’.
As sexual relations is defined, the statement is not a lie. They had foreplay, not “sexual relations”.
James Tichy says: “If Bush did lie than he must have total control over the CIA, FBI, and multiple international intelligence angencies. Since they all made their case to Congress and people from Mrs. Clinton to Mr. Kerry voted for this war.”
The CIA was stepping up and telling george, Cheney, Powell and company “uh, we never *said* that,” that a special group was formed to cherrypick the intel for Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and then presented to congress — but it’s the intel that was “wrong” and the intel agencies that need to be investigated?
Eric says: “Clinton responded by attacking targets in Afghanistan and Sudan three days after admitting the Lewinsky affair.”
Yes. While Clinton was fighting off neverending investigations into countless allegations of wrongdoing — of which he was acquitted on all counts save for a lie about sex, BTW — he still managed to do his JOB. Those “targets” you mention were the self-same terrorists responsible for embassy bombings. The surviving “targets” turned up in Saudi Arabia, got captured and executed there. (This also kills one of the “Clinton was soft on terror” lies.)
Udog says: “Paul O Neil – yes, he alone when trying to sell his book…”
Uh, no. While O’Neill was the “prime source,” the book was written by Ron Suskind.
“Sticking our nose somewhere to protect the rest of the body IS our policy – and we are not morally bankruptcy enough to then jsut walk aaway.”
Moral bankruptcy is launching a pre-emptive invasion of another country for *any* reason. That the reasons *given* for launching a pre-emptive invasion have so far proved to be exaggerated and likely trumped up is even worse.
“He’s putting up his views – if he didn’t want to hear a response on them – WHY IS HE POSTING THEM. It’s an invite to sound off on the topic…”
Of course it is. It’s a discussion, or a debate, depending on your POV.
“Yes, if someone doesn’t agree with your liberal view of the world they MUST be part of the vast right wing conspiracy.”
By the same token, if someone disagrees with your “conservative” mindset, then that person *must* be a communist, a traitor, and a “liberal,” and therefore unworthy of living in the good ol’ USA or even *possesing* an opinion. Very mature.
Brill says: “‘we gave them to him.’
Some. France and Russia gave far more then us.
“
But even so, Reagan’s people were sending high-ranking officials on our behalf to shake Saddam’s hand and say “when we say chemical weapons are bad, we don’t mean *you* exactly” and then looking the other way when they actually *used* them.
Tim Lynch says: “If Bush is really that stupid then Kerry or Edwards would have to be on the mental level of, say, a planarian worm to lose.
That assumes the smartest person always wins. I think there’s an awful lot of evidence over the last 200+ years putting the lie to THAT assertion.”
We saw this as recently as 1980, in which a highly-educated incumbent lost to one’a them “Hollywood types”…
Speaking of illiterate statements;
The President is a ášš.
SO the quotes are to show Bush is a moron
Partly, Udog. That, and to show that you’re a moron.
PAD
What fascinates me is how so many folks on the left think that Bush is pretty much a moron…but also claim that they fully expect him to soundly trounce whoever they send against him. If Bush is really that stupid then Kerry or Edwards would have to be on the mental level of, say, a planarian worm to lose. But maybe my Democratic friends know something about the candidates that I don’t**
Not the candidates. The voters.
PAD
Gee, PAD, now you sound like all the vast, right-wing wackos who said the same thing when Clinton lied under oath and gave us multiple definitions of the word “is”. In my experience, whenever people pull out the term “higher standard” it usually means “my standard”.
I was wondering who would be the fastest off the mark to make mention of that.
Now as soon as you can pull a quote in which I said that Clinton didn’t disgrace the office of the President by having a tawdry affair and then lying about it, you can get back to me about the relevance of the comment.
Unless you’re willing, of course, to take the flipside and contend that since Clinton should have resigned, then so should Bush.
Clinton screwed an intern and no one died. Bush screwed the country and thousands died (you, of course, may prefer to say “hundreds” in case the lives of innocent Iraqis mean nothing to you. Your choice.)
PAD
but it saddens me to see he’s not far removed from the other nuts in Hollywood.
I’m not in Hollywood. But certainly your inept turn of phrase underscores your being sympatico with Bush.
PAD
Didn’t Hollywood produce folks like Arnold Schwarznegger, Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy, Ronald Reagan, and Charlton “Cold Dead Hands” Hesston? Why doesn’t the right wing crowd denounce these Hollywood loudmouths like they do *other* Hollywood loudmouths like Moore, Streisand, Fonda, and Maine?
Oh, *that’s* right, ‘cos they don’t *agree* with Moor, Streisand, Fonda and Maine, so *they* should just shut up about war and government.
I think that the whole “Hollywood is liberal” idea is a Cold, Dead Argument.
I think it’s largely true, Wildcat.
Didn’t Hollywood produce folks like Arnold Schwarznegger, Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy, Ronald Reagan, and Charlton “Cold Dead Hands” Hesston?
That reminds me: I think it was Eddie Izzard who suggested arming a hundred apes and sending them with fully loaded weaponry into Heston’s house in order to test, once and for all, whether it’s guns that kill people or people who kill people.
“We have elections every 2 years…”-Bill Mulligan
Um, what country are you living in? I hope that was a typo, or that you were referring to perhaps a small town election or somesuch.
Again, monkeys.
Um…I live in the United States. We have major elections for what we call “congressmen” and “senators” every two years. Our major exports are tin, corn, and adhesive medical tape. For more information on our country please refer to your local encyclopedia.
we are upping our credibility. Why do you think Libya came forward?
*roflmao*
Libya comes forward to get their 15 minutes of fame, and North Korea is STILL giving us the finger.
Yeah, that’s credibility.
Blue Jackal, I never implied that all texans or southerners are speech impaired or lacking of intelligence in any way. In case you couldn’t tell by the way I made my first post, it was meant to be lighthearted. I also am from Texas. I am not speech impaired, (but lacking in intelligence if you ask my wife!). Don’t be so sensitive. I never said, Dude! He’s from Texas, you know what a bunch of frickin’ idjits they be down there! It was a jest, nothing more.
Wildcat posted:Those “targets” you mention were the self-same terrorists responsible for embassy bombings.
Wrong! It emerged that the alleged chemical-weapons site was a pharmaceutical factory and the U.S. government paid damages to the Sudanese owner.
Alan Posted:As sexual relations is defined, the statement is not a lie. They had foreplay, not “sexual relations”.
OK, I got the quote wrong, but it doesn’t alter the lie. Defined by who? If foreplay is getting your DNA all over the front of a dress where you come from, don’t look back when you leave you may turn into a pillar of salt.
WildcatDidn’t Hollywood produce folks like Arnold Schwarznegger, Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy, Ronald Reagan, and Charlton “Cold Dead Hands” Hesston? Why doesn’t the right wing crowd denounce these Hollywood loudmouths like they do *other* Hollywood loudmouths like Moore, Streisand, Fonda, and Maine?
OK, let’s look at this. Arnold Schwarznegger, Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy, Ronald Reagan may be Hollywood, but all were elected to political office, Charlton “Moses” Hesston belongs to a group that gets it’s hands in politics from time to time. Moore, Streisand, Fonda, and Maine..well they are Hollywood, but not holding any office hence the loudmouth part comes in. See the difference, I’d have respect if they could get elected.
First off – finally PAD responds and its devoid of any wit or common sense and why am I not surprised?
B/c I made an analogy to PAD with Hollywood he sees fit to call me a moron and that I am as inept as Bush with turning phrases.
Gee – I guess you are not in the entertainment field at all? Never worked on a television show and/or script?
It’s a point about people in the public eye – famous for something other than politics and usually something in the entertainment field. I consider novelists, comic book and screenplay writers in the same pool.
Stephen King spouting off about Iraq would garner the same response from me as Barbara Streisand. Same with PAD, even though youa re much lower on the fame totem poll.
But of course you’ve now called me a moron. Why? Becuase I backed up an argument with common sense and logic anda string of quotes NOT out of context that shows the hypocricy of the party you blatantly have become a zealous foaming at mouth follower for?
ANd your uncanny wit to level barbs at our President then degrades into calling me a moron for pointing out your misinformation and arrogant candidness.
I never saw you respond with some hard facts or well reasoned argument. Instead you talk about how Clinton screwed an intern and our President is screwing the country. Well, first off Leno has nothing to fear from you. Maybe Michale Moore when it comes to pompous fat entertainment curmudgeons who think they know it all.
PAD – you are most certainly are not only a moron – but one who thinks he knows much more than he does and has the courage to show others who pathetically uninformed he truly is.
Stick to the Hulk or Star Trek and you’ll look fine.
SPout unsupported policy beliefs and plain old insultws on people trying to do what’s right for the country and you only look like the spoiled rich entertainment fat cat who Monday Morning quartbacks everyone else’s job.
At least when you are bein an ášš about Todd McF and criticising Bruce Jones and others you at least have some “right” to make the criticism because writing is something you know about.
But when you do the politic thing, you go from a moronic arrogant ášš – to a STUPID and UNINFORMED moronic ášš – and I wouldn’t want you to do that.
PAD: Bush screwed the country and thousands died (you, of course, may prefer to say “hundreds” in case the lives of innocent Iraqis mean nothing to you. Your choice.)
How many innocent Iraqis are no longer in danger of being put into torture chambers and killed? If you want to add civilians into the mix, Iraq is a far safer place now than it was before. Under Saddam, the infrastructure for food and health was only getting worse because of the sanctions. Now it is and will continue to improve. Had Saddam not actively resisted every attempt to verify compliance, he would have been able to pull a Libya move and come back in a few years. As it is, he is gone and Iraq is better for it. Somehow, I don’t think the Iraqis are as screwed as you say.
My apologies to Bill Mulligan about the election thing, I had assumed from the context we were talking pretty much only about presidential elections. My bad. (not to make excuses for myself, but it was late and I’m sick).
Now for mr. Udog. Is it me or does it seem this guy (or girl, since he isn’t brave enough to at least use a real first name, unless that is his real first name, in which case you must have had a strange childhood) really just wants to try to get PAD angry? I’m too lazy right now to go back and reread all of the longwinded akward posts by him, but it seems from the very beginning all he did was bash PAD and not really make a point, other than that PAD is a moron because he holds a different point of view. Mr. Udog, what makes you so much more educated/informed than PAD? I don’t really care where you went to school or how you spend your days, but unless you are a politician or a political analyst or something, you can’t really say PAD should just stick to writing and then not stick to whatever it is that you do.
Alright, I’m going to go back to being ill.
monkeys.
as of January 15… the official number of U.S. combat deaths listed by the Defense Department was 343
That’s not 500. I keep in mind that those are official numbers and at this point outdated
God, it really burns me when people play with numbers like this when dealing with real peoples’ lives.
Anyone caring to look a bit past the numbers please go to this site:
http://www.fallenheroesmemorial.com/
Take time to read just some of the names of these real people who died as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Don’t stress on whether some of them “shouldn’t count” because they were non-combat deaths. They ALL matter, because they were there, putting their lives on the line in this campaign because they saw their duty and did it, and they paid the ultimate price for doing that duty. I wonder if Michael Novak ever considered that?
God save me from fools.
L.H. Hicks
Yes i DID BASH PAD b/c he is an arrogant $%&*! when it comes to politics. He doesn’t state WHY he doesn’t like Bush – but instead just jumps on a bandwagon of Bush bashing and then clams up when he’s confronted with FACTS and quotes from the VERY people he would seem to support.
And he’s also just another in a long line of ENTERTAINMENT field bøøbš who somehow always feel qualified to spout off about what is right politically.
But it is not like a Schwarzenegger who just GETS INVOLVED with politics or a ROB LOWE etc – it’s got to be the Barbara Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin type who not only say their view but make anyone who is on the other side reduced to being a moron.
PAD starts the bashing when he basically calls BUSH a moron. He is in effect calling all those who support him or do NOT agree with his view reduced to some conservative red neck TURD.
That’s the kind of tact and grace the entertainment field has when it comes to politics.
I am NOT saying he SHOULDN’T EVER say anything. I’m just pointing out the trend of entertainment people being blowhards and PAD is definitely one of those. When he’s not stuffing his face with food it’s with his foot I’m sure.
It seems silly to me to come out on your own blog board BASH Bush and any who support the war and.or Bush and then be surprised when people attack you with the same venom that you used TO START WITH.
And why is it so important WHO I AM? It was the same when PAD shot off his blowhard mouth about Bruce Jones and everyone suspected I must be BRUCE or ALEX ALONSO.
Maybe it’s just someone that is sick of a comic book writer who thinks he should be able to say anything he wants but not take any backlash for it
YES PAD – speak your mind – but don’t be a jelly like sac of crap when someone comes back and calls you to task for it.
Does it matter who I am? Hate me for what I say and how I say it or love me for the same.
Are we so caught up in who someone is that it colors what they say – like for example
“I;m a hollywood star so listen . . .”I’m a writier, so listen . . .”
No – evaluate the message.
What;s the difference if I am a girl or a guy as someone inquired. Is one gender less skilled at holding these beliefs?
What difference is it if I am a peer of PAD and just ffed up – or if I am just a fan who is just fed up – or if I got here by mistake because I was looking for beanie Babies on Google?
WHo cares!
BMake no mistake – I think PAD is a pompous know it all who speaks fropm the moutnain top. His kind of patronizing comments and disgraceful tact is atrocious in my view.
But YES he has a right to say it – and keep on saying it. I think stupidity shouldn;’t be a silent majority. It’s easier for us to know who to trust when someone wears their incomeptence on their sleeve.
Keep on truckin’ PAD!
What always amuses me is the folks saying that entertainment industry folks need to shut up about “things they aren’t experts in”.
Gee, Udog – what are YOUR credentials to show what an expert in politics you are? If you can’t provide ’em… don’t throw stones, eh?
Why *shouldn’t* entertainers have the same right to talk about politics as anyone else?
It’s not about having credentials, pal. Besides I’m sure I have a higher level of education than PAD anyhow – but that’s not the point.
It’s also not about sticking to what you know and never talking about polticis.
It is when ENTERTAINMENT types DO talk about politics they do it in an arrogant, know it all ascerib and venomous fashion that results in their diatribes concluding that anyone who is centrist or a little to the right is an uncaring, screw the old, screw the poor, protect the oil conservative fat cat.
It only then underscores the fact that maybe they should just stick to what they know because they are looking FOOLISH when doing their politic schtick.
That’s all.
If PAD was less pompous and/or venomous in his attacks on Bush – then go to it.
Heck – go to it anyway – but don’t be shocked at the venom being served right back at you.
WHy does one have to post a resume on here to make a point. If you don’t like me point – combat the POINT with your own point.
Why – so you could say “Oh he’s just a doctor or a lawyer or he just mows lawns?”
What is the difference?
It’s clear that PAD is only nominally cognizant of foriegn policy and political facts. He knows just enough to shoot off his mouth – but that’s it.
Stick to Klingons, tubby.
Guess you don’t like it when Bruce Willis talks about politics, huh.
The reason to ask what it is that you do, Udog, is because you haven’t stopped mentioning what it is PAD does in connection with him not knowing what he’s talking about. You should really reread some of your posts when you’ve cooled down a little, because you do exactly what you are complaining about.
And for someone who is sure he/she/it has a higher education than PAD, you sure do make a lot of spelling mistakes and misuse big words.
And what does any of your point have to do with Peter’s food consumption? Are you a perfect example of fitness? I could probably bench press you, but that has nothing to do with politics, does it now?
monkeys
It’s not that PAD’s possible lack of education disqualifies him from commenting.
It was ME poiting out a trend in CELEBRITY political pontification.
Yes – I jabbed PAD’s weight etc . ..well – no that’s not necessarily fair b/c yes I am anonymous – so I can be a fat troll as well, I guess. But I guess there’s the price of celebrity – keep it in mind when spouting off and insulting others.
As for your doubt of my education b/c of the posts. That’s funny. Mispelling and ‘misuse of big words’. I completely am aware of the typos b/c I do NOT proof my blog post but instead stream of consciousness it. Sorry – it’s not a thesis or court document to me. But my mis-use of big words. Where have I continually shown that I am as inept as you all claim GWB to be?
Some of you are grasping here.
PAD shot off his big fat mouth and got it stuck right back to him with quotes that show how hypocritical it is to bash him on the war in Iraq. Then I would say the Blog posters went maybe 70 – 30 back and forth between defending PAD and the Bush Bashers to being more conservatives.
There wern’t as many conservatives but enough to make a point.
I would say my posts in terms of logic and reason is towards the top of some of the beautifully proofed and correctly spelled garbage posts like PAD’s.
Oh – and I can bench press you you too Toby – you and PAD at the same time, brother.
I didn’t realize this was now approaching a physical contest or are sharpening our wrestling promos, Toby.
Later,
Udog
aka – who the hëll cares!
Oh wait
I AM completely aware
My blog posts ARE etc . . .
horrible me I didn’t proof.
I gues GWB is a jerk after all!
You not proofing your comments doesn’t make Bush a jerk…it just makes it tough to follow what you’re saying or to take you seriously.
And no, we aren’t cutting wrestling promos here, and if you could indeed bench myself and Peter at the same time you should enter The World’s Strongest Man competition. The point, which you seem to have missed, was that you backed away from making sense and started hurling childish insults. Not a great way to get others to think about what you are trying to say. And saying “Peter started it by…” falls into the same category of childish.
While posting here isn’t a thesis or court document, you are still presumably posting here to convey an idea or a thought of your own. If you want others to read it and think about it and take it seriously, you should avoid the things that will get in the way of stating your beliefs clearly.
monkeys
Me: “Those “targets” you mention were the self-same terrorists responsible for embassy bombings.”
Eric say: “Wrong! It emerged that the alleged chemical-weapons site was a pharmaceutical factory and the U.S. government paid damages to the Sudanese owner.”
Hm. Seems there was more to this story than I was aware. I found the story about the lawsuit at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/854899.stm but there doesn’t appear to be any follow-up. I checked CNN as well. I’d say there’s a slim chance that this bombing *wasn’t* a mistake.
Okay, so let’s say that it’s 100% true that the attack on the Sudanese factory was a goof. This means that the Clinton made the decision to attack using faulty (or, as you will no doubt offer, deliberately misinterpreted) evidence, a fact that later turns up. Bombing the place destroys the factory and injures a handful of workers. This is a bad thing.
Noooow… let’s apply the same rules to the current conflict. george makes his decision to attack and *invade* Iraq, using faulty (or, as many of us believe, deliberately misinterpreted) evidence, which seems to be the case, more and more, with each passing moment. Bombing the place kills thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, and the subsequent occupation ensures further countless civilian deaths (mainly because they were told to *stop* counting) as well as the loss of 500+ American, British, and other soldiers. This is a Bad Thing. This is an *Atrocity*.
So, you’re correct. Even though the intended targets were the terrorists responsible for the bombings of US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the final victim of that attack would appear to be an innocent bystander, and I was wrong to believe otherwise.
Your turn…
“OK, let’s look at this. Arnold Schwarznegger, Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy, Ronald Reagan may be Hollywood, but all were elected to political office, Charlton “Moses” Hesston belongs to a group that gets it’s hands in politics from time to time. Moore, Streisand, Fonda, and Maine..well they are Hollywood, but not holding any office hence the loudmouth part comes in.”
That’s a fair distinction.
“See the difference, I’d have respect if they could get elected.”
So, if you happen to be a professional entertainer, the only way that they should be allowed to voice their opinion about matters political is to seek office and become elected officials? If a person chooses to use their platform to create movies that express their particular point of view, or attend public protests, or stand up on stage and admit shame in the leader of their country, that these forms of expression are somehow invalid?
What about Ted Nugent, or Gene Simmons, or Drew Carey, or Dennis Miller, or Rush Limbaugh, who are either outspoken advocates of right-wing causes or have been known to support such causes? Should they “put up or shut up” as well? They fall into that “unelected entertainer” category as well.
I remain a fan of Drew and of KISS, in spite of their political leanings – they can say what they want, no skin off my nose. I’ve never really been a fan of Moore, Streisand, Fonda or the Chicks, and I’m not gonna rush out and start buying up all their productions just because I agree with some of the things they say.
Hm. If it seems I’m attacking you here, that’s not my intent. I just can’t think of a more concise way to counter your point, that’s all. 😉
**Uncle Bill used the phrase “sexual relations”, not the word ‘sex’.
As sexual relations is defined, the statement is not a lie. They had foreplay, not “sexual relations”.**
Since when has having your pëņìš in someone’s mouth been considered foreplay. See, in many circles of society, anytime someone is made to çûm and they are not alone then they have gone past foreplay and they have had some kind of sexual relation.
My apologies to Bill Mulligan about the election thing, I had assumed from the context we were talking pretty much only about presidential elections. My bad. (not to make excuses for myself, but it was late and I’m sick).
No harm no foul. And I feel for you, bro, my wife is suffering from this tenacious cold/flu/whatever.
(it amazes me that the whole nation can get sick from something and we never seem to really be concerened with exactly what it is. A virus, they say. What virus? A new one? A mutated old one? One that will take up residence in our brain stem and reactivate at the moment of death, leaving us as shambling legions of the living dead with an insatiable desire for the flesh of the living?)
I worry about these things.
Udog–once you resort to petty name calling it become easy to ignore any substance your points may have. The hardcore Bush haters are exactly the same–why should we take them seriously when they use the Logic Of The Playground, the classic “Your’re a Poopyhead” Stratagem? But you’re doing the exact same thing so unless you are actually doing some performance art designed to make conservatives look bad I think it’s time to take a nap.
It all has to do with a legal definition. His deposition was for a legal trial. Get a dozen people together and ask them to define “sex” or “sexual relations” and you will likely get 12 different answers. I knew several high school and college girls when I was in college who were had never had “sex” but had performed oral sex multiple times. This was long before Bill Clinton. On the converse, I know several people who would consider a firm embrace and a passionate kiss “sexual relations”.
So this jury needed to have an agreed upon definition of “sexual relations” to make their decision.
But it wasn’t up to President Clinton’s definition of “sexual relations”. It was the definition that had been agreed upon by attorneys for both sides in the case he was appearing in. And those attorneys did not include having oral sex performed on you in that definition. So, legally, he told the truth. Is it his fault that the attorney for the opposite side agreed to that definition? Would *you* volunteer information that did not conform to an agreed upon legal definition? I wouldn’t.
-Joe
That reminds me: I think it was Eddie Izzard who suggested arming a hundred apes and sending them with fully loaded weaponry into Heston’s house in order to test, once and for all, whether it’s guns that kill people or people who kill people.
Yup. It’s on his new DVD Circle, only there it’s one monkey w/ a gun. And if it works, the NRA would have to change their slogan to “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people and monkeys do too (if they have a gun).”
Okay, so let’s say that it’s 100% true that the attack on the Sudanese factory was a goof. This means that the Clinton made the decision to attack using faulty (or, as you will no doubt offer, deliberately misinterpreted) evidence, a fact that later turns up. Bombing the place destroys the factory and injures a handful of workers. This is a bad thing.
Noooow… let’s apply the same rules to the current conflict. george makes his decision to attack and *invade* Iraq, using faulty (or, as many of us believe, deliberately misinterpreted) evidence, which seems to be the case, more and more, with each passing moment. Bombing the place kills thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, and the subsequent occupation ensures further countless civilian deaths (mainly because they were told to *stop* counting) as well as the loss of 500+ American, British, and other soldiers. This is a Bad Thing. This is an *Atrocity*.
So, you’re correct. Even though the intended targets were the terrorists responsible for the bombings of US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the final victim of that attack would appear to be an innocent bystander, and I was wrong to believe otherwise.
Well, I would suggesttwo things–the most appalling thing about the bombing of the Sudanese factory was that it seems to have been done solely to draw attention away from Clintons Grand jury testimony. I can forgive mistakes made for good intentions (while remembering just what the road to Hëll is paved with) but this…
Also–while the Sudanese are no better off than they were before their aspirin factory got trashed, only the most fervent Bushwhacker could imagine that the Iraqi people are not better off without the Saddam regime. many humanitarian agencies claimed thousands of deaths due to the sanctions each month so I would imagne that we will shortly reach the point wherthe number of people saved by the war will exceed the number that would have been killed by the peace.
What fascinates me is how so many folks on the left think that Bush is pretty much a moron…but also claim that they fully expect him to soundly trounce whoever they send against him. If Bush is really that stupid then Kerry or Edwards would have to be on the mental level of, say, a planarian worm to lose. But maybe my Democratic friends know something about the candidates that I don’t
Not the candidates. The voters.
PAD
Well, what I know is that the “liberal media” will focus on silly inconsequential stuff throughout the campaign (Dean’s yell = unstable, did Kerry have plastic surgery, Clark’s wearing a sweater, etc.) and give Bush a pass on all of the stuff that we are talking about here (like the reoccuring assertion from him that Saddam didn’t let the inspectors in), that the average Joe voter out there won’t have any reason to vote, much less to vote for someone other than Bush, because as we all know from Nader, there’s no difference between the Dems and the Repubs anyway.
And in any state that is close… well, there is always Diebold http://www.blackboxvoting.com
-Joe (worried that we’ll get 4 more years of Dubya, no matter what the voters think)
Udog:
I’m happy to tolerate any political point of view on this weblog, no matter how ill-informed it is.
I will even tolerate horrible spelling, and heaven knows you’ve violated that rule a lot.
However, when you progress into personal attacks one anyone on this board, let alone the host, you have taken yourself out of the realm of civilized discourse and will be dealt with.
Consider this a warning to cease and desist, as well as a reminder that using your account to harass or annoy is a violation of Cablevision’s Terms of Service and could result in your nice and shiny cable modem being taken away.
Just chiming in here (no particular stance to be taken at this time (I am about to head out for a late lunch)). For the record, Mr. Moore, while often times a loudmouth does happen to fall under “elected official” status.
For a time (and perhaps still I would need to look into it) he happened to be the youngest elected official in the state of Michigan (At age 18 after graduating High School).
Just food for thought for that guy that said if people could get elected he would have more chance of taking him seriously.
Cya
UDog,
Repetition and longwindedness are a weakness.
Proof positive is the complete lack of credibility you’ve brought on yourself.
At first, I thought you were sharing opinions. Now, I realize you’re a troll.
Although you are entitled to post wherever and how often you like – if you don’t like PAD or what he says – GET THE HÊLL OUT OF HERE.
You will find your life to be much more rewarding and longer if you choose websites that you find enjoyable and bring positivity to your life.
Well, I would suggesttwo things–the most appalling thing about the bombing of the Sudanese factory was that it seems to have been done . I can forgive mistakes made for good intentions (while remembering just what the road to Hëll is paved with) but this…
I’m glad you qualified that with “it seems.” While the timing of that bombing raid was suspicious, I have yet to see a shred of evidence to support the often asserted claim that “Clinton did it solely to draw attention away from Clintons Grand jury testimony.”
It’s amazing how many people take that for gospel truth, yet bristle with anger at any suggestion that Bush’s motives were less than pure.
**Udog:
I’m happy to tolerate any political point of view on this weblog, no matter how ill-informed it is.
I will even tolerate horrible spelling, and heaven knows you’ve violated that rule a lot.
However, when you progress into personal attacks one anyone on this board, let alone the host, you have taken yourself out of the realm of civilized discourse and will be dealt with.
Consider this a warning to cease and desist, as well as a reminder that using your account to harass or annoy is a violation of Cablevision’s Terms of Service and could result in your nice and shiny cable modem being taken away.
Posted by Glenn Hauman @ 02/05/2004 02:54 PM**
Oh PLEASE! I am harassing and annoying b/c I hold a different viewpoint?
PAD can bash Bush as a moron but if someone throws its back at him – it’s harassing and annoying?
I don’t think they’ll be taking my “shiny little modem” away.
That’s reassuring. I don’t know who you are – maybe the website adminstrator or whatever but I LOVE it. PAD, Mr. Writer Boy – having his website censor someone.
I believe it was my POST in his prior BLOG about American intelligence that prompted him to do a NEW BLOG on “qyotes”.
How you can say that my posts are merely to harass and annoy is ridiculous – when you’ve got others calling me a BRAT and such.
I guess I now know what PAD is all about.
That’s really quite sinister. I was going to post a whole thing on how most of you are ignoring the fact that the whole “attack in intelligence” was a POLITICAL plan that was leaked in a memo by a high ranking Democrat for their strategy of attack for this election.
SO many of you say the same things – but gee – you didn’t get a memo – so you actually BELIEVE it whereas the politicians are just being manipulative YOUALL are being dupred!
And then of course the intelligence is the same GUTTED intelligence that prompted Clinton to strike. Why is it then a REPUBLICAN issue?
Why aren’t we clamoring for CLINTON to be taken to task for lobbing some missiles based on the intelligence? Becuase he didn’t take us into war? No he just half assed it so it’s okay. We now have a guy that saw the thing through and suddenly the intelligence failure is HIS fault.
But again I’m not wasting more time on this b/c I had to waste too much defending this absurd censorship of PAD. I guess something finally got to him. Every post I made was on topic alebit with a little jab back at PAD. I guess he can’t take it and has to sic his web admin on me.
Besides – I’ve been on many boards and if someone trolls etc – they are banned from the baord – what does this have to do with the ISP provider. Do you truly believe someone would have their service terminated b/c they insulted an arrogant minor celebrity when discussing political views?
PAD put the water on the stove and is now upset it began to boil.
Pathetic and shocking especially from a liberal like PAD. I can’t believe he would endrose this kind of threatened censorhsip, even though it is laughable. True colors shine through and it makes me even more convinced I was right about him.
God, it really burns me when people play with numbers like this when dealing with real peoples’ lives.
Then were you offended when people were using people’s lives to justify their rants against the President?
There is no play in what I do. I present the numbers to suggest that the four hundred volunteers that perished doing their duty and helping others in a far-off shouldn’t be used to suggest that 500 soldiers died as victims of some poor decision.
If you cannot divine the significance between a combat death, and war-time non-combat death then I am not certain it can be explained to you.
The difference is that combat deaths would not have occurred if the President didn’t give the order to goto Iraq. The non-combat deaths matter because they are not the result of a President making a decision. It’s “playing with numbers” and playing with lives when someone chooses to attribute accidents and mechanical failures to public policy decisions.
If you truly wondered whether Novak considered the significance… you can ask him. Why don’t you ask him? Did you ask him? Or are you being disingenuous?
what I know is that the “liberal media” will focus on silly inconsequential stuff throughout the campaign
The liberal media will focus on whatever they believe will entertain or interest the consumer, as well as broadcast whatever will use up their time in these half-hour-long newscasts.
I’d say it is a liberal media and they don’t let the President get away with much.
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040202.asp#1
CBS News prompts the Democrat to promise to remove the President’s tax cuts. Or at least Bob Scheiffer has words with John Edwards towards same.
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040202.asp#5
What’s with this? Is it… relevent?
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040128.asp#6
News stations jump on opportunities to proclaim the possibility that there were no weapons and to assert these possibilities as the most probable truth.
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040123.asp#1
The libeal pushing the abortion agenda? Now is the leftists or rightists who typically champion abortion? hmmmmm.
More! http://www.mrc.org/index/index_a.asp#abortion Abortion!
ahhhh
Again, I apologize to PAD. Bad habit of mine.
CJA
Bush is a pinhead
This was posted by Glen Hauman – yet I can’t insult PAD.
It’s okay to insult the President but not call to task the people insulting the President. WHy is that?
Hauman’s a leftist and only a lackey.
The important thing is that as long as there are points presented here someone usually finds a counterpoint, thus expanding our field of vision, and expanding the field of vision for the most open-minded of readers.
Frankly, logic and reason is just lost on some people.
I wonder who’ll throw a hissy fit about that expression.
Anyway, I believe that it is a sign of admiration to call PAD on anything. If you stop to post something because you believe PAD is wrong and should be corrected, you obviously think a great deal of PAD if his words are worth the effort. If you believe his influence is enough that the words may need tempering. If one doesn’t think enough of PAD to stop, they wouldn’t be commenting on his Blog.
In any case, there are those such as I who should stick to whatever topic PAD chooses… and not let it get dragged off on a related tangent. In those times I don’t temper myself, I just apologize later for dropping a list of examples of liberal media bias.
I’d like to point out that the MRC has a conservative bias… which makes it capable of pointing out liberal media bias. Leftists can’t left-leaning bias in the media but they can find right-leaning bias. Fine fine fine. Logically we rightists have similar capabilities in the other direction.
So we’ve established something, called the President names is… not a good reflection on one’s character.
CJA
Thanks The Blue Spider – I now see that I am not alone. Although I don’t want to incorporate you into my company since I clearly attract alot of verbal bullets.
What you did do is reaffirm my belief that someone appreciates another point of view. It seems that if you take any conservative view, you will draw venom.
And yes, I think enough of PAD to get upset when he does something that completely shows how misinformed he is on a topic.
I didn’t start name calling with PAD. My mistake was I did eventually sink to it, but I didn’t appreciate being called a moron when I simply posted counter quotes that show the hypocricy of those that think like PAD.
I also do think that many use their celbrity like PAD does. It only exposes them in many instances. Maybe that should be a whole separate BLOG.
Bottom line – the intelligence that Bush relied on is the same intelligence CLinton relied on. It was okay for Clinton to lob some bombs at an asirin factory though. Because Bush was commited to a doctrine of pre-emotion and FINISHED the job – he’s blamed for an intelligence lapse. And it’s further confusing when the flaws of the intelligence community got exponentially worse under Clinton and dreaed Toricelli Principle which I explained earlier.
When you add the leaked memo about Dems planning to use intelligence issues for the 2004 election – it becomes even scarier. This should not be a political weapon – it’s a problem for both sides. WE should be takin gthe higher ground and support that the war was the right thing – but let’s figure out the intelligence mess.
The problem is – if you do that and you are a democrat – you wind up like Lieberman. I respect the heck out of him – and if he ever got the party nom I might have a tough time at the polls.
When I see everyone spouting these non-issues and then quick flip remarks by PAD about the president it jsut exposes the foolishness of being a zealot.
i am NOT zealously in favor of Bush (ahem . . the President) but I am STRONGLY offended by hypocritical political games and even worse the minor celebrities who are aloof in their empty barbs.
I stand by all I’ve said, but it was never to show PAD is all around horrible. No – just a dissappointment that he’s doing the Alec Baldwin, barbara Streisand route of equating celebrity with a license to know all.
Stop trolling. You come here and sling mud, and then complain when it is thrown back at you. Get a life.
You did start the name calling. You called him ignorant, blind, and you implied he was mentally unstable.
Um – it was PAD who was slinging political mud and I pointed out through those quotes that he was being just like the hypocritical Dems.
When someone makes an ignorant statement and I call it such that is NOT name calling.
Calling me a moron is and I responded in kind. And besides I can take the MORON name calling thrown at me – it wasn’t until Glenn Hauman started the silly censorship threats that I think it truly gets out of control.
DOn’t post your thoughts on a BLOG if you don’t expect people may vehemently disagree as feverishly as you bash BUSH.
I’d say it is a liberal media and they don’t let the President get away with much.
I think that’s a somewhat pervasive myth.
What the mainstream media is at this point is almost completely corporate. Yes, they’re after ratings — but at the same time, they’re almost completely terrified of changing what works. Nobody wants to be the one who gets blamed for “breaking” something that keeps everyone employed and fed.
As a result, the structure of the media is entirely wrapped up in the status quo: nibbling on the margins of it is fine, but trying to change it entirely isn’t.
You see this in the entertainment division — everyone wants to be the NEXT whatever’s-currently-hot, but very rarely does someone try to be the first to do something. (Bringing this into something else PAD’s been involved with, namely Trek, Ron Moore said a decade ago that there was a real reluctance on the suits’ end to mess with the formula. Stick with what works.)
You also see this in the news division, which I think is somewhat less healthy: if you’re an investigative journalist, limiting your options before the fact seems counterproductive.
Regardless, I don’t think this “the status quo shouldn’t be tinkered with” mentality necessarily makes the media liberal or conservative — just corporate.
It does mean, though, that ideas which really rock the boat tend not to get a lot of press — the reporters may like said ideas quite a bit, but the higher-ups won’t.
Radical changes to health care, a la a universal single-payer system? Dead on arrival: no major newspaper or other media outlet ever endorses such a thing.
A truly fair tax system instead of one that emphasizes income tax breaks rather than payroll taxes or eight zillion corporate tax shelters? Dead on arrival.
Major changes to U.S. military policy? Not generally welcomed.
I don’t think that makes for a particularly liberal press — it makes for a “safe” press.
Add in the fact that the owners of the media outlets all love the idea of less regulation and more consolidation, and you get media owners tending to skew towards free-market conservatism. Whether that trickles down to the writing or not is a matter of debate.
In any event, I think it’s awfully simplistic and wrong to just parrot on about how Da Lib’rul Media is monolithic and biased and all that.
As for examples of how Bush gets a free pass… geez, where to begin? His military record is never called into question except when the media tut-tuts someone else for doing so. The administration’s unwillingness to investigate the Plame outing while immediately jumping on Paul O’Neill is mentioned but never really commented on. The administration’s stonewalling of the 9/11 investigation is only now coming to the media’s attention, and it’s been happening for months. Ditto the voting-machine Diebold issue.
How exactly is this the media never giving Bush a break?
TWL
You didn’t just call his opinions ignorant. You called him ignorant. There is a big difference.
Ben – you are WAY off topic here. But yes – someone who constantly has ignorant opinions IS ignorant. But I am not saying PAD is COMPLETELY ignorant. He is “often” ignorant when talking about politics. It doesn’t mean he knows NOTHING – but he doesn’t know nearly as much as the brashness of his commentary would lead you to believe. It’s very much how Blue Spider framed it. If I thought he was COMPLETELY ignorant about EVERYTHING I wouldn’t bother posting or waste my time. It’s the utter lunacy and lack of reason that his POLITICAL arguments demonstrate that is drawing MY commentary. But then again, I’m just a moron.
You have not shown any credentials that make you the authority on politics. So when you come in here calling PAD names, don’t be suprised when he returns the favor.