Congress demanding answers about potential wrong-doing and a president stonewalling while claiming that executive privilege is being threatened, and so he’s trying to offer half-assed compromises that will leave his people the option of lying privately with no chance of consequences instead of lying publicly and facing perjury?
Am I the only person who’s flashing back to Nixon/Watergate?
Because if that’s really what we’re seeing here, then the next thing to happen should be that there’s a Deep Throat who conveys to a newspaper reporter/reporters a chain of evidence that leads directly to the President, i.e., that the President ordered the attorneys fired because they weren’t in lockstep with his policies and furthermore ordered his AG to lie about it. I think we’re going to see the questions being raised of just how much the President knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. And something tells me Bush doesn’t want us to know the answers to those questions.
PAD
• 
Posted by: R. Maheras at March 26, 2007 03:11 PM
Historically speaking, we do not know yet what the long-term impact of this operation will be, and we may not know for decades.
We don’t need decades to determine whether a war is worth the sacrifices we’re making. As any military strategist will tell you, to be successful a war must have a clear objective that can be achievable in a finite amount of time. World War II, for example, had a very clear and immediate objective: defeat the aggression of the Axis powers. The Iraq War, on the other hand, lacks such a clearly defined objective and that is one of the reasons why one can say with certainty that the conflict has been a debacle and not worth the cost.
I do believe that a precipitous pullout of our forces would be a terrible idea. Some have argued that “things are already bad in Iraq,” but I believe things could get much, much, much worse without our presence there. On the other hand, it’s not fair to ask our troops to serve as a band-aid over a geyser of blood. I believe the Bush administration needs to sit down and determine some very clear goals for this war, figure out how to measure them, and set some timetables for meeting them. Otherwise, we really are throwing away our soldiers’ lives without gaining anything of commensurate value.
In other news, Limbaugh is making his case for most despicable person in the world be making personal attacks today on Edwards in regards to his wife’s illness and the campaign.
Now, who called that?
Again Folks,
Sorry for not reading the whole thread before posting. Im not a professional šhìŧ-stirrer, but after reading the thread I still have not read a good reason Clinton gets a pass for the firing of the attorneys (Because it happened at the beginning of his term is a weak, weak explanation). Nobody demanded explanations or Cogressional hearings when it happened then. What exactly is different this time? (other than its Bush 2) The two situations are very comparable.
WoW Was I living in hole in the ground without electricity, contact with other human beings, and modern plumbing facilities during the Clinton administration? UM…. No were you?
And to think Im being accussed of šhìŧ-stirring.
Yes as a matter of fact, if you remember, Clinton was Impeached. The Republicans did a lot of outcrying.
Only one poison gas attack? again Wow!! Thats like saying Saddam only gassed the Kurds once killing 3000-5000.
Sandy Burgler-Again no real answer. The fact that it happened years ago is junk also. It ties
in with Clintons 9/11 (Not under oath testimony which is fact)
Clinton lied (yes, again) He could have taken down OBL in Somolia which could have prevented 9/11 which in turn could have prevented the invasion of Iraq.
Sandy Burgler stole the documents which made this fact clear. (about OBL)
Now. Stir that šhìŧ
Hannity on the other hand is calling Mrs. Edwards courageous.
Pat, you can’t name someone who lied under oath as to the motive to fire attorneys at the beginning of Clinton’s term.
And if Sandy Berger is still bothering you, why don’t you bring it up with Tony Snow? Berger’s document theft happened on Bush’s watch. If he’s gotten away with anything, it isn’t like Clinton can secede from the union to form his own prosecution.
What do you want to do, ban chlorine from all laundry and swimming pools?
if you remember, Clinton was Impeached
For lying about a bløwjøb.
One can only imagine the proper justice Bush deserves beyond impeachment.
Clinton lied (yes, again) He could have taken down OBL in Somolia which could have prevented 9/11 which in turn could have prevented the invasion of Iraq.
Well, there’s a few leaps in logic here, but I don’t recall anything about bin Laden being in Somalia.
Stir that šhìŧ
Well, you’re certainly enjoying your healthy gulp of Shitorade.
Posted by: Pat Nolan at March 26, 2007 05:02 PM
Im not a professional šhìŧ-stirrer,
No, you’re not. Your šhìŧ-stirring has “amateur” written all over it.
Shrouded.
R. Maheras stated:
WAR DEATHS
Total combat/non-combat deaths:
OEF/OIF: 3,443
Vietnam: 58,209
Korea: 36,574
WW II: 405,399
WW I: 116,516
Nowhere on your list is the Philipine Conflict of 1899-1905,(50K in US casualties alone) started by McKinley and ended by Teddy Roosevelt. That’s not a complaint, mind you, just an example of how forgotten a war that was.
AhhnnDen….stated: “James Buchanan, whose wishy-washy approach to the slavery issue and the south in general did as much to set the stage for the Civil War as Lincoln’s election did.”
I bow to your superior historical knowledge sir. I knew I was missing that šhìŧhëád milktoast.
Officially my list is now:
8. Richard M Nixon.
7. GW bush
6. Rutherfold B Hayes, Through the Election of 1876, Reconstruction ended with Hayes ENDORSING a compromise between Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats. Sam Tilden won the majority vote.
5. William McKinley–Phillipine Conflict 50K US casualties. Corporate Lapdog
4. Millard Fillmore: signed Fugitive Slave Act into law.
3. James Buchanan: Perfectly willing to allow the South to secede thus having a second country country with a grudge against us right on our border. Can you say “Mexican War II: TexMex and the Rise of the South?”
2. James Polk: Fabricated the Mexican War in the 1840s and expanded the US and thus the slavery debate past the ideals of the Compromise of 1820–>agrivated Civil War causes.
1. Andrew Johnson. Gave easy deals to former Confederates and when mobs in the South were massacring African American men, women, and children, reponded by saying something to the effect of, “America was made for the White man only.”
-Captain Naraht
R. Maheras, some of the quotes you attributed to me were not made by me.
“MICHA WROTE : “It was more stable than it is now. Saddam’s Iraq balanced Iran in a very convenient wa for everybody.”
This was the only statement I made. To which you replied:
“It was more stable at a single point in time four years ago. But the world is not static, as I pointed out. With Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, Iraq would not have sat there and done nothing. If anything, there probably would have been a great sense of urgency on the part of both countries to be the first to field a nuke.”
The abilty of Iran to pursue nuclear weapons and behave the wa it does today has a lot to do with the reduction of both the American and Irani threat on it. Had iran or Iraq or both started developing nuclear weapons, then they would have been dealt with, and under much more convenient circumstances than the ones that right now force the world to deal with Iran from a position of weakness. Unfortunatly the political and diplomatic power of the US, that could have been very useful right now, were expended in Iraq to find WMD that were not there (yet, according to your scenario), and to force change on a stable situation.
This also takes us to the bigger issue:
“Historically speaking, we do not know yet what the long-term impact of this operation will be, and we may not know for decades.”
It would be really nice if historians a hundred years from now would be able to point to Iraq and say that it caused a change that eventually lead to positive circumstances. But wars are not like playing dice. You don’t start them and hope they turn out well. The war should be judged based on its justifications and the forseable consequences, not some future unforseable consequences. And the people who started this war did so with the wroong justifications, and without taking into consideration forseable consequences.
““With our troops now bogged down in two countries, we capability to respond to a third crisis is severely compromised.”
And where, in all likelihood, might that crisis be?”
I didn’t write this. However, it seems that the abilty of the US to pressure Iran is diminished. The Iranians know that the US has neither the military energy nor the political capital to deal with it right now. Thank god that you still have enough diplomatic and economic clout to use against Iran. I hope it’s enough.
Posted by: Pat Nolan at March 26, 2007 05:02 PM
“Again Folks,
Sorry for not reading the whole thread before posting. Im not a professional šhìŧ-stirrer, but after reading the thread I still have not read a good reason Clinton gets a pass for the firing of the attorneys (Because it happened at the beginning of his term is a weak, weak explanation).”
I don’t know anything about this issue, I’m not even American, but this point has been repeated here so many times that even I understand the difference.
“Why has the press barely covered the fact that Chlorine gas is being used in car bombings? (weapon of mass destruction?)”
There doesn’t seem to be any connection between the WMD’s Saddam was supposedly developing, and that justified the invasion of Iraq, and the chlorine used by terrorists in the anarchy created after the invasion. So using this chlorine to justify that war is a little bit like justifying WWI by the actions of the Germans in WWII.
“Is Lebanon more stable today? The Palestinian territories? Is Israel any more secure now that it was in 2003?”
I don’t know how much Bush can be blamed or praised for the situation in these areas.
Well, there’s a few leaps in logic here, but I don’t recall anything about bin Laden being in Somalia.
While there is plenty of evidence of Bin Laden’s involvement in Somalia, I don’t know that it’s been proven he was ever there. I think the country he meant to say was Sudan. Even that issue (Clinton’s supposed refusal to accept a Sudanese offer to hand over Bin Laden) is much disputed.
Micha wrote: “But wars are not like playing dice. You don’t start them and hope they turn out well. The war should be judged based on its justifications and the forseable consequences, not some future unforseable consequences.”
Actually, every major military action is a total crapshoot. WW II could have dragged on for the U.S. for twice as long if not for a few fortunate turn of events that went our way.
For example, in the Pacific theater, the lucky fact our carriers were not in Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 made them available for the Battle of Midway, which was pretty much the turning point of the War in the Pacific. Oh, yeah, and we decisively won THAT battle because we had fortunately cracked the Japanese secret code system and knew the gist of their plans, and because, though skill, devine provenance, or whatever, our carrier planes hit the Japanese carriers at exactly the best time for us and worst time for them.
In the European theater, more than a year before the U.S. entered the war, the only thing that kept Hitler from winning the decisive Battle of Britain is the fact that the British had a secret weapon: Radar. Later on in the war, another way the Allies lucked out is when Hitler made the greedy, fateful decision to open a two-front war by attacking Russia (Operation Barbarossa). If things had gone differently for either of those two events, the war may have ended quite differently.
During the Korean War, things were no different. U.S. and coalition forces were almost totally beaten — pushed to a small chunk on the tip of the bottom of the Korean peninsula near the city of Pusan. If not for the U.S. Air Force’s fortuitous control of the skies and a ferocious swarm of close-air-support attacks on the communist ground forces, the peninsula would have fallen before coalition reinforcements could arrive. That’s right… we could have lost THAT war, too. Instead, it eventually turned out to be a tie.
There is no “sure thing” in war, and anyone who tells you there is, is full of it.
…
Well, where were you when Cheney was saying the Iraq invasion would last “weeks, not months?”
“There is no “sure thing” in war, and anyone who tells you there is, is full of it.”
Well, of course not. Luck has lo t to do with it. But imagine an officer that went to a battle without preparing, without intelligene, without strategy, without logistics, and told his superiors: “war is like a game of dice”. I just attacked and hoped for the best.” I imagine someone like that will not be an officer for long. Luck is very important in war, but that doesn’t mean that you simply treat it like a gamble.
Secondly, we’re talking less about battles and more about the results of the war on the historical, global level. Here too, history might surprise us all, but it is the job of experts to try to prepare for the consequences of different actions as much as they can.
“For example, in the Pacific theater, the lucky fact our carriers were not in Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 made them available for the Battle of Midway, which was pretty much the turning point of the War in the Pacific. Oh, yeah, and we decisively won THAT battle because we had fortunately cracked the Japanese secret code system and knew the gist of their plans, and because, though skill, devine provenance, or whatever, our carrier planes hit the Japanese carriers at exactly the best time for us and worst time for them.”
And Pearl Harbor is not remembered as a great military success simply because you were lucky. It is remembered as an intelligence failure. War leaders have to deal with surprises and the chaotic influence of luck, but they are judged by how they handle the hands they’re dealt, not for being randomly lucky. Conversly, Bush is not an unlucky president. He is the president who took an unnecessary risk without taking into consideration forseable consequences.
“There is no “sure thing” in war”.”
Which all the more reason not to start one without a good reason and hving done as much as you can to tilt the odds your way.
I don’t know how much Bush can be blamed or praised for the situation in these areas.
Sure, there were both things that were out of his control and things he could have done better. The point is, there is no argument to support the idea that he has made the region more stable.
Mike wrote: “Well, where were you when Cheney was saying the Iraq invasion would last “weeks, not months?”
I don’t know. But I do know I wasn’t here agreeing with that assessment.
Good. As far as arguments framing how badly Bush is handling the Iraq occupation, “[Bush] is full of it” works for me.
Sorry if I cover posted ground here. I’ve been off the net for a few days and haven’t read this entire thread yet.
Pat Nolan: “… but after reading the thread I still have not read a good reason Clinton gets a pass for the firing of the attorneys (Because it happened at the beginning of his term is a weak, weak explanation).” & “Nobody demanded explanations or Cogressional hearings when it happened then.”
That second statement is just plain false.
Clinton came in and replaced attorneys appointed by former administrations. Totally within his prerogative. There were complaints by some on the right that one of his terminations were an attempt to stop investigations in to wrong doing by a Democrat and demands for explanations followed. He said that this was untrue, the investigation continued and an indictment was made.
Conservative mouthpieces then (and now) tried to say that this was an action by Clinton in part to cover Clinton’s own butt. They claimed that he fired a Charles A. Banks to bury the investigation into Whitewater. Thing is, before his termination, U.S. Attorney Banks had refused to pursue the Whitewater matter on the bases that there was no “there” there.
Now, one of the firings under Bush may have been used to put an end to an investigation into Republican wrong doings. We’ll find out the truth of that and the scope of that only by investigating. But, as it stands now, it does appear that false charge against Clinton may be true with Bush.
Also, the loudest voices of wrong doing against Clinton were conservative pundits and loudmouths on the right. With Bush, we”ve had several former U.S. Attorneys come forward and claim that they were dismissed for political reasons. Some have said that they were fired because they refused to discuss or disclose details of investigations on some Democrats with Republicans running races is tight elections.
For example, regarding the alleged pressure on former New Mexico U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias by Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) to expedite a corruption investigation of state Democrats. According to the Washington Post, “Legal experts say it violates congressional ethics rules for a senator or House member to communicate with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation.” Also, former U.S. attorney John McKay felt that he was being pressured to go after Democrat voter fraud when he had already informed his superiors that there was no evidence of such fraud. It was, by their statements, just after this pressure and some rather unusual phone calls that they were dismissed.
The administration responded to this by saying that they were dismissed for “performance-related” issues. Then written evidence came forward that disputes that. The attorneys all had good records and much praise from above as attorneys and employees. Why the lie? What were they hiding?
Gonzales just had to eat his words as well. He claimed that he had no knowledge or involvement in what went on in regards to the firing of these attorneys. Then it came out that he was involved. Now he’s basically trying to say that it depends on what the definition of the word “is” is. Why the lie? What were they hiding?
Tonight, they reported that a member of Gonzales’ office has stated that she will plead the 5th on all answers asked of her if if she is called to testify. What are they hiding?
Maybe they’re hiding something pretty dámņëd dirty. See, one of the things with this is that we only know of the attorneys who chose not to play ball with those who wanted to use the powers of the U.S. Attorney’s offices to effect elections. We don’t know how many, if any, played ball with with those who asked them to do such things or how high some of this monkey business may have gone.
And therein lies another difference. Clinton wiped the slate clean on day one and started fresh as is the prerogative of any incoming president. The Bush firings, four years into his term, seem to carry a bit of baggage in regards to some of this administrations desires to play politics with the power of the A.G.’s office.
From an email from Dec. 19, 2006 by D. Kyle Sampson, at the time the chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in reference to appointing former Rove aid J. Timothy Griffin into the position held by H.E. Cummins III: “”Getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.” Now, who is that Rove guy again and what is it that he’s best known for?
Maybe there’s nothing at all wrong here. Maybe not. It just doesn’t pass the smell test well enough to let it just slide. And there are noticeable differences here.
Pat Nolan: “Why has the press barely covered the fact that Chlorine gas is being used in car bombings? (weapon of mass destruction?)” & “Only one poison gas attack? again Wow!! Thats like saying Saddam only gassed the Kurds once killing 3000-5000.”
I know that the most desperate supporters of Bush and his stupidity will go to any length to try to justify this support, but… Geez. First, I barely had the TV on the day that this happened and I heard about the use of Chlorine gas every dámņëd time I caught a news break. The next day, it was covered in the paper. Today, I saw mentions of it still in the news. And none of those mentions were Fox News related. What planet is your news from?
Oh, it’s WMD related? Uhm…. Yeah. Is this where you try the Hannity/Rush/Beck approach of grasping at any straw, no matter how weak, to try and prove that Bush was right in his initial claims of huge WMD stockpiles, mobile labs, etc., etc. Hey, Sunshine, this spat of attacks with chlorine gas and their very minor body counts, while tragic, don’t support Bush’s claims, don’t compare to WMDs like anthrax and the others that Bush and crew tried to scare people with and in no way compare to Saddam’s body counts. I’m not even sure I can begin to point out how mind bogglingly stupid your statements here really seem to be.
Pat Nolan: “Clinton lied (yes, again) He could have taken down OBL in Somolia which could have prevented 9/11 which in turn could have prevented the invasion of Iraq. Sandy Burgler stole the documents which made this fact clear. (about OBL) Now. Stir that šhìŧ”
Ok, Sunshine, put away your official Hannity Talking Points Reader and check back into the Hotel Reality.
The alleged OBL deal that Clinton supposedly passed on has been flogged to death by Hannity, but its grounding in reality is, to be nice about it, dubious.
And Sandy Berger was cleared of withholding any documents from the 9/11 commission. The reason behind that is that he didn’t destroy or remove any security documents. He removed either hand written notes (still a technical violation and against the rules) or COPIES of documents. See, that’s one of the things guys like you seem to keep wanting to forget. Berger didn’t remove a single original copy of anything from the archives. He took COPIES.
July 30, 2005, The Wall Street Journal: “Berger Cleared of Withholding Material From 9/11 Commission”
“No original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the [9-11] commission.”
Now, do you know what flimsy, untrustworthy sources the WSJ used to make that statement? The 9/11 commission and the National Security Archives itself. Yeah, yeah… I know. Those sources aren’t anywhere as reliable as Rush or Hannity and why let something like the truth get in your way when you have the official Hannity Talking Points Reader on your side anyhow? I mean, just because the people that run the archives and actually know what did or didn’t go missing say that you’re full of it…
If the best you can do is come around and be deliberately dense or just throw discredited and debunked conservative radio talking points around like a monkey flinging its poo, don’t expect to get too far. Now go stir that.
Folks,
Its amazing how the names fly when someone doesnt agree with the majority. Well I must be a amateur because I bring up some issues that I dont think have been completley explored other then an elaborate because I said so.
If this is just a bash Bush blog, I will kindly pick-up my toys and leave but some claim to want an honest discussion on the topic, so lets discuss.
Im a Bush fan. Do I agree with everything he does? No. Im a Hannity fan and somewhat of a Limbaugh fan though I could do without the arrogance.
I may not be as eloquent as others on this thread but my points are honest and Im honored to be a professional at something.
Thanks for the Sudan correction Bill.
Oh, God, I should just stick with my vow to shroud this character, but I’m a glutton for punishment…
Posted by: Pat Nolan at March 27, 2007 11:03 AM
Its amazing how the names fly when someone doesnt agree with the majority.
It’s not that you disagree. It’s that you’re selectively reading the responses, and ignoring facts that don’t fit with your world-view.
Posted by: Pat Nolan at March 27, 2007 11:03 AM
Well I must be a amateur because I bring up some issues that I dont think have been completley explored other then an elaborate because I said so.
If you truly believe you’ve “[brought] up some issues” that haven’t been completely explored, you lack self-awareness. You have merely ignored the reasonable, well-sourced, and well-documented facts that people have presented to explain why Clinton’s firing of all 93 U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of his administration is different from what Bush did. That’s why I called you an “amateur.”
Posted by: Pat Nolan at March 27, 2007 11:03 AM
If this is just a bash Bush blog, I will kindly pick-up my toys and leave but some claim to want an honest discussion on the topic, so lets discuss.
But you’re the one who is being dishonest. You say that no one has demonstrated a difference between what Clinton did and what Bush did. That’s simply not true. Clinton fired 93 U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of his term. Reagan and the elder Bush did EXACTLY THE SAME THING. They were simple housecleaning moves: replacing the prior administration’s appointees with ones selected by the new administration. That’s been documented. Also, the one investigation that Clinton’s firings might have impacted — one involving a Democratic House Rep — resulted in an indictment and a conviction.
Bush fired 8 U.S. Attorneys in the middle of his second term in office. These were HIS OWN appointees. The White House has offered conflicting, and in some cases outright false, explanations for why it happened. In each case, there is evidence pointing to an attempt to punish U.S. Attorneys for refusing to succumb to political pressure. That’s unethical at the very least, and may well be illegal.
Posted by: Pat Nolan at March 27, 2007 11:03 AM
Im a Bush fan. Do I agree with everything he does? No. Im a Hannity fan and somewhat of a Limbaugh fan though I could do without the arrogance.
It’s more than just “arrogance.” Hannity and Rush lie on the air all the time. You want honest conservative opinions, try David Brooks and George Will. Like all ideologues, they sometimes “fail to notice” facts that don’t fit in with their world-view. But they are far more intelligent, knowledgeable, and honest than Hannity, Limbaugh, and their ilk.
Posted by: Pat Nolan at March 27, 2007 11:03 AM
I may not be as eloquent as others on this thread but my points are honest and Im honored to be a professional at something.
I’ll try to give you the benefit of the doubt, here. You may believe you are being honest.
Unfortunately, your arguments are very dishonest. You ignore superior arguments as though they haven’t been uttered. Multiple posters already demonstrated why your Clinton’s-firings-were-the-same-as-Bush’s firings don’t hold water, and yet you’re ignoring all of those facts.
In addition, your argument regarding the WMDs doesn’t hold water. When we invaded Iraq, we tore the place apart and found NO WMDs. ZERO. NADA. Four years later someone uses a fairly easy-to-obtain substance — Chlorine — and you declare that there’s evidence of WMDs. It’s far more reasonable to conclude that this particular WMD was manufactured AFTER we invaded. And a few trucks worth of Chlorine do not a global threat make, anyway.
I’m sorry, Pat, but you’re not as well-reasoned and honest as you believe yourself to be. The fact that you’re resorting to that tired old saw — asking if this is just a liberal blog that doesn’t value conservative opinions — is evidence of that. There are quite a few conservative posters who are well-reasoned and are able to get along just fine with the rest of us. Bill Mulligan, Jerome Maida, and Iowa Jim are but three examples.
I’m sorry to be so blunt, but it’s not your political views that are the problem. The problem is YOU.
How about this? Just take a chill pill, actually READ what others have to say and be prepared, on occasion, to have your view of the world changed based on the facts. I’ve been swayed to more conservative ways of thinking from time-to-time because the facts and arguments offered persuaded me in that direction.
If you cannot similarly listen to the “opposition” and be swayed every once in awhile, then I’d suggest you have some introspection you need to do.
The problem with Pat begins and ends here:
Sorry for not reading the whole thread before posting.
Ðámņ, Pat, you really are a die hard Hannity fan. You’ve even adopted his patented “conservative martyr” stance when hit with facts that you don’t like.
“Its amazing how the names fly when someone doesnt agree with the majority.”
You seemed to just skim over the points of others if those points might refute you cherished POV on things or, if you read them, you respond with stupidly flip comments like, “Only one poison gas attack? again Wow!! Thats like saying Saddam only gassed the Kurds once killing 3000-5000.”
You got called a troll. Tough. Had you responded with a reasoned statement there and elsewhere. you wouldn’t have been.
Over halfway through my post to you, I called you “Sunshine” rather then “Pat.” Again, tough. I responded to your Saddam/Kurds remark with the level of respect it deserved. Maybe more then it deserved. Was I a little harsh? Maybe, I’ve had a bad week, I may be a bit cranky and I may be attempting to enter political debates a wee bit too soon.
Still, the same person who called you a troll first responded to all of your points and I addressed your gripes about the differences in what’s going on now vs then, your Sandy Berger fallacies and the strongly disputed “fact” of the Clinton/OBL/Sudan “deal” that never was.
Did I point out that your Saddam comment was stupid as hëll? Yeah, because it was. It was stupid to the same level as those on the left responding to a conservative’s good points by declaring that Bush is Hitler or that we live under a fascist ruler. Bush is an idiot and about as bad a president as I’ve had in my lifetime, but to compare him to true fascists in the world or to call him Hitler is to water down the meanings of those things and to devalue and demean the lives lost under those bášŧárdš. Likewise, to “Hannatize” a small attack with chlorine gas and compare it to the size and scope of what Saddam did is to water down and minimize the true scope of his crimes and to devalue and demean the lives lost under his rule of Iraq. Again, I called your statement stupid because it was.
“If this is just a bash Bush blog, I will kindly pick-up my toys and leave but some claim to want an honest discussion on the topic, so lets discuss.”
It’s not a bash Bush blog. The majority here dislike Bush, but even members of that majority have pointed out when they thought a criticism of Bush was unwarranted. We can have honest discussion, but that would mean that you yourself would actually have to want that. Not sure that really you do. If you did, you wouldn’t be seeming to ignore entire posts on the Gonzales issue or play martyred conservative. Take my post. I spent over half of it discussing your “then vs now” issues. No response to that by you. I addressed Sandy Berger. No response on that by you. I called you “Sunshine” and pointed out just how stupid your Saddam remark was. You responded by displaying shock and dismay at the name calling.
Hey, several people here are getting fed up with feeding the trolls here. We’ve had lots of them of late. Act like one, intentionally or not, and get painted with that brush. And your idea of what constitutes name calling by the “majority” for simply disagreeing with them is laughable. For over half of the Iraq War, Bush and his supporters were seen as the majority. The Bush Administration, that majority and your conservative radio heroes called the majority that disagreed with them Un-American, terrorist sympathizers, quislings, the Hate America First Party, misguided, un-patriotic, readers of Al-Qaeda’s talking points, defeatists, haters of our troops, disloyal vermin, cowards, “Old” Europe, etc., etc., etc. They were also constantly saying that if people like us had had our way before that we would all be speaking German right now. You being labeled a troll or having the name Sunshine used to replace your name ain’t nothing compared to that.
Jerry, while I do not wish to also incur your wrath… nowhere did anyone in this thread refer to Pat as a “troll.”
I did threaten to shroud him and quipped that he was merely an “amateur šhìŧ-stirrer.” But nowhere did any of us use the word “troll” coupled with Pat’s name.
On a personal note, good to see you back among the land of the posting. 🙂
As for personal attacks … I’m glad that none has surfaced as yet, but I won’t be surprised if any do come in from the less sane counterparts of the people Bill quoted.
I’ve missed any hard core Edwards bashing (though Den alludes to some by Limbaugh) but there was something at the Huffington Post that left me agog:
Charles Karel Bouley–“I hear about Tony Snow and say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you. Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot?”
Of course he admits that this is a terrible thing to think, so I guess that makes it all right. Wow.
It always amazes me how awful people have np clue about how awful they appear to people who don’t share the sick.
“Jerry, while I do not wish to also incur your wrath… nowhere did anyone in this thread refer to Pat as a “troll.”
Huh, you’re right. Don’t even ask me to explain how my brain scrambled this, but I meant to comment on the his being hit with the shroud and, in typing my post out, it transformed into his being called a troll. Maybe it’s because the only time we see the word “shroud” is when it’s along with telling someone they’re a troll.
And maybe I’m just not focused enough yet to be back to my A-Game level. Not that my A-Game was that much to brag about. But, on the upside, it just goes to show how much more silly Pat’s grumble sounds if the name calling here was pretty much just my calling him Sunshine.
Of course he admits that this is a terrible thing to think, so I guess that makes it all right. Wow.
Irony isn’t for everybody, Bill. 😉
And to be honest, when my wife and I heard about this this morning, we couldn’t help but briefly consider the timing of this all – not but a few days after John Edwards and his wife announced that her cancer had returned.
I’m sure, somewhere, some conspiracy nut is grabbing that thought and running a marathon with it.
But for me the overriding question was why Snow and his doctors were batshit crazy enough to leave a growth in his abdomen that was apparently discovered months ago, only having it removed (with an “aggressive sense of caution”, Snow apparently said) when it started increasing in size.
Oh, and more irony, straight from the horse’s mouth, on the Democrats going over the US attorney firings and the budget bill for Iraq:
“Members of Congress now face a choice: whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary confrontation, or whether they will join us in working to do the people’s business,” Bush said. “We have many important issues before us. So we need to put partisan politics aside and come together to enact important legislation for the American people.”
As far as he said it’s a terrible think to think, he hasn’t said it’s alright. He asked questions based on what we all see of Tony Snow.
400,000 Americans die every year from smoking-related illness. You and I don’t mourn every such death because out-of-sight, out-of-mind. All we see of smoking death-stats is that these are smokers. Or are you lighting 400,000 candles every year?
But for me the overriding question was why Snow and his doctors were batshit crazy enough to leave a growth in his abdomen that was apparently discovered months ago, only having it removed (with an “aggressive sense of caution”, Snow apparently said) when it started increasing in size.
It may not be as crazy as you think. Oncology is a field where you play the odds and sometimes it you come up snake-eyes. Any action has the potential of making things worse than non-action. Apparently “Blood tests and a PET imaging scan had come back negative for cancer before the surgery.” and that might have led his doctors to decide the risks of surgury were too high.
My admittedly uninformed take on this is that it is unlikely that Snow will recover–once it spreads to the liver it seldom has a happy ending.
As far as he said it’s a terrible think to think, he hasn’t said it’s alright. He asked questions based on what we all see of Tony Snow.
Personally,I would say that asking questions like “stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you. Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot?” indicates to me someone who has let politics rob him of a very basic level of decency and humanity. Recognizing the essential creepiness of that thought counts for something, I suppose. Some folks kid themselves into thinking that their hate is something more noble.
400,000 Americans die every year from smoking-related illness. You and I don’t mourn every such death because out-of-sight, out-of-mind. All we see of smoking death-stats is that these are smokers. Or are you lighting 400,000 candles every year?
Not sure what your point is, as I am not lighting any candles for Mr Snow either. I would also not feel any happier about those 400,000 deaths if it turned out that they all disagreed with me on some political issues. I don’t say that in any boastful way since I think anyone with even a very modest conscience would feel the same.
Fortunately we live in a world of reality where cancer does not strike people based on the perceptions of others as to their character,which is probably a fortunate thing for Mr. Bouley.
I’ve missed any hard core Edwards bashing (though Den alludes to some by Limbaugh) but there was something at the Huffington Post that left me agog:
While I’ve no love for Tony Snow, I certainly don’t wish him (or most anyone) this kind of ill. Having lost a friend and colleague to stage 4 breast cancer last year (with liver failure in the bargain), it’s a nasty nasty way to go.
The closest thing to a political comment on that subject I’d have is whether Pat Robertson and his ilk will take this as some sort of divine judgement the way they always seem to when liberals take ill or fall prey to natural disasters.
And Craig, I’ll second Bill on the crapshoot that is oncology. While my mom is on the whole doing VERY well after her surgery for stage 3 esophageal cancer last month, there was just enough lymph-node involvement in the stuff they removed to have them slightly nervous about whether they truly got everything. A second hit of chemo is on the table.
I say all that because her oncologist (who I met two weeks ago and is phenomenal) has done lots of reading up of recent papers on the subject, and said to my mom that she couldn’t really recommend either doing the chemo or NOT doing it: there is absolutely no data out there on how it works or doesn’t work for this type of cancer. She basically said that my mom was going to have to make her decision based on a (pardon the pun) gut feel and not on the facts, because the facts are straight down the middle of the choice.
She hasn’t as yet made that choice, but she’s leaning towards not doing it and just being vigilant, and I can understand that.
So no, it may not be entirely crazy, depending on what sort of information they had beforehand.
TWL
I was wondering how your Mom was doing, Tim. Glad to hear she is at a point where there are options.
I don’t know what I’d do in that situation. I’m kind of a “Yay technology, let’s get aggressive!” kind of guy when it comes to disease but I’ve also seen people who made that choice and the chemo did nothing but make life miserable.
Anyway, whatever she goes for, here’s hoping we get some good news. Seems like the board is due for some.
What a difference a year makes:
Perhaps the very basic level of decency and humanity isn’t what you think it is.
Thanks, Bill — you and me both. She’s mostly in the realm of “I’d just like to have my life back,” and assuming she continues to gradually feel better (mostly involving getting her energy level back), she’d like to get back to work. She said something to the oncologist about, “well, if I don’t get it and the cancer comes back I’m going to want to shoot myself,” and the oncologist came right back with “true … but if you get the chemo and the cancer comes back anyway you’re going to kick yourself for six months during which you would otherwise have been feeling good. We really have no idea here.”
She’s a great doctor — sympathetic, but also very down-to-earth and very realistic. Beats the hëll out of the arrogant SOB she had for a surgeon … but y’know, he did his work well, so I can’t complain too much. (Won’t stop me, though. 🙂
TWL
Since neither PAD nor myself thought that the woman deserved her fate and the humor, however dark, was from the irony of the situation…you do see the difference, right? Or maybe not. Well, one must live with oneself, for better or worse.
Tim, your mom’s doc sounds a lot like the omcologist my father in law saw during his fight against the same kind of cancer. He was a stubborn guy, to say the least and he tended not to take my ex-wife’s perfectly excellent advice to heart but this woman was able to deal with him (often giving the exact same advice but there you are).
Surgeons tend to be what they are. I’d cut them some slack if only for the dehumanizing experience they go through to get there, which is even worse than what most doctors have to endure. Seriously, what interns and residents are subjected to ought to be a national scandal. It’s borderline abusive, when it isn’t just plain abusive. Any doctor who comes out of it with a good attitude toward people deserves what they make (which isn’t nearly enough, imho).
Sorry Bill, as far as Bouley acknowledged a deficiency in laughing at Tony Snow’s cancer, he said nothing as severe as “there’s no harm in laughing at Tony Snow.” I feel bullsit needs to be called on this one.
Hmm, where exactly did I say Bouley laughed at Snow’s getting cancer? I’ll wait.
Didn’t find it either? Oh well. Better luck next time.
I didn’t see any attempt by Bouley to make a joke. Wonkette did–to wit: White House spokesman Tony Snow has cancer again, his omnipresent “live strong” bracelet having failed its wearer yet again. It’s not a knee slapper–The Onion will do better–but it isn’t contemptable. In my opinion, others may see it differently.
Not that you will ever understand this but I’ll just add what I put at the end of the quote you used: Anyway, as Mel Brooks said “Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall down an open manhole cover and die. I’m surprised you left that part out as it so clearly demonstrates my cruel indifference to the very serious social problem of people falling down manholes.
Hëll, while I’m in a confessional mood…in that very same thread I chuckled at a later post by PAD making a pun at the expense of a man who slipped on a banana peel and subsequently died. Well, as I’m sure I don’t have to tell anyone, head injuries are nothing to crack wise at and I should be rightly ashamed of myself.
I will maintain that finding dark humor in a tragedy is quite a bit different from gloating over that tragedy occuring. But obviously we disagree. I’ll put my case in the hands of the gentle readers of this blog as to whether or not I deserve to be called out on it. You may be correct; blind squirrels, occasional nuts, and all.
Oncology is a field where you play the odds and sometimes it you come up snake-eyes.
Yeah, I can see that POV.
But, and this is just me, if I were in Snow’s shoes, and I’d already had my colon yanked out due to cancer and survived, I’d say that the risk of having any growth removed before it could even become a problem (as it has in this case) is very likely worth it.
If they removed the growth and found no cancer at that point, he might be avoiding chemo and the cancer having spread to his liver. But, unfortunately, he got the wrong end of it.
Tim,
Good to hear that things are at least moving in the right direction with your mom. Prayers are with you from this household.
Bill Mulligan,
Did you really, even for a second, think that you would get any answer from the Unmentionable One but that one?
In programming, literal strings are encased in quotes. I was using the quote as a literal string, not to quote you. Please allow me to rephrase:
As far as Bouley acknowledged a deficiency in laughing at Tony Snow’s cancer, he said nothing as severe as “There’s no harm in laughing. She won’t hear it, for several reasons.” I feel bûllšhìŧ needs to be called on this one.
I don’t think it’s my comprehension you should be worrying about.
Jerry,
Hope springs eternal. But no.
Ðámņ it, upon further reading of that thread I discovered yet another transgression: I joked about a headline that read Flying Cow Leaves Two Police Cars in Flames.
It’s a sad day indeed when some internet punk can chortle about the dangers that the Thin Blue Line face daily from explosive airborne bovines.
That you, Jerry, would come to my defense when you are one of the very same officers of the law whose wives must worry daily whether or not THIS is the day that a flying cow with your name on it leaves one of your cars in flames…I am humbled and deeply ashamed.
Ok, try this–where exactly did Bouley laugh at Tony Snow getting cancer? I see no evidence of this. But then, I already said that.
I don’t think it’s my comprehension you should be worrying about.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that there is not a person on this board who worries about you. What. So. Ever.
But the last word is yours for the night.
Tim,
My mother is a breast cancer survivor, going on thirty years now. She had it when I was too young to fully understand what the risks are. My heart goes out to you and your mother.
I’ll even think good thoughts for Tony Snow to recover, because, I’m not a scumbag like Rush.
Thank you all…. You have proven my point immensely. Bush is the devil. Im going to slit my wrists. If any want to continue, you have my email. You have moved on to more important issues.
I never said Bouley laughed at Tony Snow getting cancer.
Yet, as he “admits that this is a terrible thing to think, so I guess that makes it all right” — Bouley “[acknowledged] a deficiency in laughing at Tony Snow’s cancer.”
I think my response was appropriate for your reply.
Bill, I thought we were getting along.
You call bûllšhìŧ on my typo, I rephrased. I consider your citing the “awfulness” of Bouley for his comments, while dismissing the inhibition against laughing at the deaf girl’s death, to be an existential typo.
You’ve always baffled me as to why you refuse to rephrase your existential typos. As I said before, I now have a paradigm on this that allows me to form a cogent model of reality. But as to the advantage to you in persisting, I am still baffled as to what it is. If I’m interpreting Susan Faludi correctly, it baffles all of feminism as well.
Hey, Bill, the biggest laugh most law enforcement folks I know had in some time was the video floating around the web with the DEA agent shooting himself in the foot while giving a gun safety lecture at a school. Lets see… Firearms, public setting, accidental discharge and injury… We’ve got humor.
Ironic death ranks close to the same. The Darwin Awards’ book sales would indicate that lots of us love ironic or stupid death. Nothing really wrong with that. It’s wrong when, as you pointed out, gloating over a tragedy, death or illness comes into play. It’s strange that Mike can recognize and make that distinction when the speaker is a Robertson, Fallwell, Coulter or other conservative speaker talking about a liberal yet he seems to have problems figuring that out when a liberal is discussing a conservative’s misfortunes and must go to any lengths of illogic to attack a critic of the liberal’s statements and warp the world to prove that laughter at the ironic nature of a death somehow equals gleefully ticking of a laundry list of cause and effect reasons of why someone just might deserve something like cancer.
And speaking of illogic…
It’s Pat!
“Thank you all…. You have proven my point immensely. Bush is the devil. Im going to slit my wrists.”
Hmmmm… We’ve had a discussion going on, though it’s getting slightly sidetracked, about how it’s really of poor taste to gloat over Bush spokesman Tony Snow’s cancer diagnosis, I pointed out that one of Pat’s comments was as stupid to me as some on the left calling Bush a fascist or declaring him Hitler and why and, hey, there are any number of threads here where the left leaning amongst us have defended Bush, Cheney and others in this administration when critics here and elsewhere were making way too much out of nothing (the hunting thread comes to mind)or just being plain old stupid.
But then Pat drops in to post that we’ve all proven his worldview. We’ve reinforced his cherished belief of liberals and bloggers in general when it comes to PAD’s site it seems. Why, apparently we all feel that Bush is Hitler/Satan/The Anti-Christ/Evil Incarnate and just mindlessly fling bile and venom at Bush, his administration and his supporters. Oh, and somehow we’ve all convinced Pat to slit his wrists. What we’ve not done is convince him to address any points that refuted his statements or pointed out when he threw out points that were just out and out factually wrong.
Huh, maybe my post above citing Myers calling him a troll wasn’t a screw up. Maybe I’m having flashes of the future intrude upon my present reading. Well, I knew there must be a good reason for my sudden desire to run naked through the forest of a tropical island. Oh, Sean, keep your driver side window rolled up tomorrow on the interstate. Those low flying sheep are a killer.
Tim, best wishes to you and your mother. You both seem to be handling a difficult situation in a ver admirable way.
Jerry, your strange insistence that people actually read posts, understand them and respond to them is as outdated as it is absurd.
Billl, Explosive Flying Bovines (EFBs)? This proves Bush was right. Saddam had cows. It was only a matter of time.
“I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that there is not a person on this board who worries about you.”
I am a little worried.
This is a little like Jordi La Forge explaining humor to Data.
“existential typo”
Good name for a rock album or a band.
Yes, this was presented as a single sentence:
All I said was that as far as Bouley acknowledged a deficiency in laughing at Tony Snow’s cancer, he said nothing as severe as “There’s no harm in laughing. She won’t hear it, for several reasons.”
Your construction of a Ptolemic-solar-system-style convolution to parse the heliocentric-simplicity of my point seems to require the lengths of illogic you would otherwise find an anathema in the people you don’t like, Sunshine.
I don’t even think I’ve ever referred to Robertson, Fallwell, Coulter in any of these threads.
Posted by: Mike at March 27, 2007 11:53 PM
As I said before, I now have a paradigm on this that allows me to form a cogent model of reality.
Mike, when you unveiled this “cogent model,” you also vowed to begin posting here with far less frequency… or cease altogether. What happened? My guess is… you realized you’ve nowhere else to go.
Sad.
Shrouded.