Well, this is genuinely refreshing. A day after Hugo Chavez went to the U.N. and called President Bush “the devil,” Democratic leaders are having a Sister Souljah moment and attacking Chavez for his assault on our president.
Nancy Pelosi: “Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug. … Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations. He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela.”
Charlie Rengel: “You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State.”
Alas, many Daily Kos diarists do not appear to be so clear-headed. For instance, representativepress and Peter Pan seem to think that Chavez’s recommendation of Noam Chomsky’s book is a good thing for Chomsky fans. Meanwhile, Jmsjoin says of the speech: “Chavez talks too much! I am afraid I agree with this though.”
Sadpanda opines: “[W]hile I think that Bush is an evil little man, I disagree with the assement that he is the Devil. … I respect the Devil too much for that. Lucifer was after all an angel that argued with God and fell. I rather respected him for that. It takes a lot of courage to disagree with God and say so to his face. Lucifer had courage and princpal. (sic) George Bush has neither.”
MrMichaelMT blames Bush: “While Chavez’ tone is undoubtably uncivilized, and his machinations are certainly detrimental to pan-American relations, it’s important to realize whose behavior enabled his tirade. Had Bush not lowered the level of discourse at the United Nations to the level of Kruschev’s shoe, Chavez would not have earned the applause he did.” Likewise AnarchyRules, while allowing that he “bristled too when I saw and heard” Chavez’s speech, says it’s all Bush’s, or more broadly America’s, fault: “We need to understand that is our fault — not theirs.”
Gorette complains that the conservative corporate media hegemons didn’t give enough the foreign thugs enough coverage: “Fox decided to quit running the pressers with Ahmadinejad and Chavez, just when they were getting good. Why? Too much truth? Too anti-Bush?” Gorette’s diary concludes with this observation:
My sister stunned me today with this remark: “After watching Ahmajinedad (including the interview with Anderson Cooper last night), I would vote for him over Bush. I would trust him more.”
I wonder why Gorette was “stunned.” Because her sister’s comment is so obviously vile and ridiculous — because she would vote for a Holocaust-denying, anti-Semitic, unhinged theocratic tyrant — or because it took her sister so long to come around to that obvious conclusion? Hmm.
But, since Gorette’s sister isn’t actually a Kos diarist, the gold star for idiocy goes to goldkeyreality, who writes:
During the past couple of days the United Nations has been the “bully pulpit” for several idiotic Presidents: President Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran.. And, last but not least, President George W. Bush of the United States. I listened to all three and have trouble figuring which one is the biggest idiot!
Iran’s president lied through his teeth but at least he had the courage to ask for a debate with “Georgie” so I have to give him SOME credit.
Chavez called our president the “Devil” which everyone in America knows to be untrue… Karl Rove is the “DEVIL.” “Georgie” isn’t smart enough to run Hell. He’d have the place covered in ice in no time as incompetent as he is. Although all those wealthy people down there would probably donate to give him the job.
And then there’s “Georgie”.. The “KING” of the World! He stood in front of all the leaders, diplomats and ambassadors from nations all over the world and showed them the arrogance and ignorance we’ve all seen for the past six years.
What a performance he gave! With that idiotic smirk he can’t seem to control and that frown he thinks intimidates EVERYONE, he let the word N-U-K-U-L-A-R show him for the dunce he is.
You know folks, this guy represents us when he attempts to intimidate everyone on the planet. Is anyone else embarassed when he gives a speech? His shameful attempt to dictate policy to the WORLD was frightening all right. But not in the way he intended. It was frightening because he actually believes he is “KING.”
What’s truly frightening is that, while Democratic politicians are at least managing to present a facade of sanity, a nonnegligible portion of their base truly believes that Bush is worse than either Ahmadinejad or Chavez. (But don’t question their patriotism!)
What’s even more frightening is that I’m not the least bit surprised by any of this. That’s what this country (and in particular, this country’s far-left wing) has come to. Heaven help us.
|
Categories: International News & Politics, Elections & Politics (U.S.)
|
September 21st, 2006 at 3:04:17 pm
I’m smelling sulfur in this comment thread. The Devil must have been in here!
September 21st, 2006 at 3:06:36 pm
To paraphase another blogger: If Rangel and Pelosi are this offended by Chavez’s speech, then they better not read any of their own . . .
September 21st, 2006 at 3:07:53 pm
Hollywood has done a lot of the damage to America. The Left Wing Media has almost finished us off.
Time will tell if we can stand up as a nation.
But I doubt it.
I am really depressed about the state of our State.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:10:11 pm
Joe, far be it for me to defend either Rangel or Pelosi, neither of whom are my exactly favorite politicians… but c’mon. Your sentiments, and the sentiments of whatever blogger you are paraphrasing, are asinine. Rangel and Pelosi’s whole point is that it’s one thing for Americans to criticize their own leader (that’s an essential aspect of democracy), and it’s another thing entirely for a foreign leader to come to our country and blast our president, abusing the privilege of speaking at the U.N. for a vile personal attack. Do you disagree with this point? If so, how? Also, can you point to where Rangel and Pelosi have called Bush “the devil” and a “tyrant” who thinks he rules the world? Really. Give me a freakin’ break. And give Rangel and Pelosi some freakin’ credit! They did the right thing here. Why not hold your fire until they actually say something stupid again… or unleash it on the Kos idiots instead.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:11:47 pm
I’m a little confused by Chavez’s sulfur comment. Was it another allusion to Bush as the Devil, or was he implying that Bush did some crop dusting behind the podium the day before?
September 21st, 2006 at 3:12:22 pm
Define nonneglible Brendan, while yes there are some diarists at dailykos who are making ridiculous assertions, I find it hard to define them as a nonneglible portion of the democratic base. What is neglible? 5 people? 10 people?
September 21st, 2006 at 3:14:15 pm
Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?
September 21st, 2006 at 3:16:32 pm
What left wing media are you referring to Charles? Fox News? And why should you be depressed about the state of our State, Republicans have had 6 years of control of both houses of congress and the white house, what power has the supposed “left wing media” had? Hollywood hasnt set the policy for the past six years, conservatives have. So are you depressed that their are people out there that have differing views then you? What makes you so depressed?
September 21st, 2006 at 3:17:25 pm
GR, Daily Kos is the most-read blog on the Internet, and it’s undeniably the go-to site for the “Democratic wing of the Democratic party” (as Howard the Duck, err Dean, would say). And when I did a search in all recent stories & diaries for “chavez,” what I found was almost exclusively crap like this. I certainly didn’t find anything roundly condemning Chavez. Is that scientific proof that a “nonnegligible portion” of the Dem base feels this way? No, but it’s evidence. And “nonnegligible” is a low hurdle to meet. There’s a reason I didn’t say “substantial” or “large minority.”
Do you really think it’s FALSE that a nonnegligible portion of the Democratic base, a.k.a. the hard left, feels this way? I think that’s instinctively obvious, frankly. Just listen to a wee bit of what passes for “discourse” over there and it becomes clear that the term Bush Derangement Syndrome wasn’t coined by accident. These people are nuts.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:32:41 pm
I do think its false, yes if you search for diaries on DailyKos regarding Chavez you will probably find diaries such as the ones you cited, however on the recommended diaries section there is only one diary that covers that topic and it is a satire, there are none in recent diaries and there is not a single post on the main page regarding chazez’ comments on bush
so while yes dailykos is the most visited liberal blog you also have to take into account the difference between visitors and those that write diaries and you also have to take into account where those posts and diaries are directed. I visit dailykos multiple times a day and without searching for it i would never have found these comments you are looking for, i would argue that is true of a large portion of the visitors to the page. Compare the amount of people who visit your site compared to the amount who actually post on it.
I guess we have a different definition of nonneglible. By your definition I am sure i could find a nonneglible portion of the republican base who advocate the bombing of abortion clinics, and other terrible things. so yes i will grant that there are crazies on both sides of the ideological spectrum.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:36:00 pm
Brendan,
Taking Rangel (and Pelosi) at face value, I agree that there’s a difference between Americans criticizing their leader and a foreign leader doing the same on our soil (if I may pick a nit here: I’m not sure, but isn’t the UN technically not on American soil, a la a foreign embassy? I could be wrong…). It’s not unlike two brothers fighting, but when someone outside the family says the same thing about one brother that the other did, both brothers gang up on him.
However, while Rangel and Pelosi have not to my knowledge dropped to the level of biblical slurs against Bush, they have nonetheless made some pretty disgusting and vile personal attacks against him in the past (e.g., http://www.nysun.com/article/20495) that give me reason to doubt about their current sincerity. A more cynical person might conclude that they are driven by polls less than two months before an election showing that American voters are turned off by Chavez’s rants.
But that said, I am happy Rangel and Pelosi said what they did, and hope they do it again some day. I won’t hold my breath, though . . .
September 21st, 2006 at 3:38:11 pm
Please get on the plane to Iran and Venezuala if you don’t like living here.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:42:47 pm
I guess the difference, GR, is that if some crazy conservative bombed an abortion clinic — or made a prominent speech advocating the bombing of abortion clinics — I could go on RedState or any other conservative blog and, 9 times out of 10, I wouldn’t just fail to find posts supporting him, I’d find posts roundly condemning him.
Whereas, on Kos, as you say, “there is not a single post on the main page regarding chazez’ comments on bush.”
Sometimes, silence speaks volumes.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:47:55 pm
Brendan, are you then going to condemn Bush the next time he assails Chavez or Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il for something? If not get your arrogant double standard out of your ass.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:48:08 pm
their base truly believes that Bush is worse than either Ahmadinejad or Chavez. (But don’t question their patriotism!)
I no longer question their patriotism.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:51:12 pm
Yes Redstate was outraged when they insinuated Jimmy Carter was a member of Hezbollah, so former President being called a terrorist is okay, somehow i doubt that a nonneglible portion of Bush’s base believes that Jimmy Carter is a terrorist, but maybe im wrong
September 21st, 2006 at 3:52:13 pm
Wait a minute… We tried to overthrow Chavez. Say what you want about the guy — thug, tyrant, whatever. He is the elected ruler of a sovreign nation, and he has every right to be pissed off about coup attempts. Chavez’s anti-Bush polemic is not some sort of brainlessly evil hate speech. He is condemning the leader of a nation that tried to overthrow him, and that seeks to undermine his regime.
I take no issue with people who have a nuanced response to Chavez’s speech. Do I think Bush is Satan? No, absolutely not. Do I think he is realizing some diplomatic blowback from his violent bungles in foreign policy? Yes.
Left-wing whackos who think that Bush is 10x worse than Chavez or Ahmadinejad are certainly crapstains on the otherwise fine American tapestry. But Rangel’s reaction, that a foreign leader has no right to express his grievances in a global diplomatic forum, is nearly as craptastic.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:56:43 pm
“Whereas, on Kos, as you say, “there is not a single post on the main page regarding chazez’ comments on bush.â€?
Sometimes, silence speaks volumes.”
Sorry Brendan but that just ain’t true.
See this :
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/21/84410/4888
September 21st, 2006 at 3:57:05 pm
So Bush is the devil? Let’s ask some of the folks who signed the recall petition for Hugo Chavez back in 2004 whether they’ve been able to find jobs.
Chavez the strongman in a neo-socialist state has a lot of nerve pointing fingers and calling people names.
I wonder how much the Kossites would enjoy unemployment in Venezuela?
September 21st, 2006 at 3:57:05 pm
I personally think thoughtless, overheated rhetoric debases the speaker, whether that speaker be Hugo “El Diablo” Chavez or George W. “Axis of Evil” Bush.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:05:28 pm
Emmanuel, was that post on the main page? Read again: I was quoting GR’s assertion that “there is not a single post on the main page regarding chazez’ comments on bush.”
I saw the linked post, but correct me if I’m wrong, I believe it was just a buried diary, having equal standing with all the other buried diaries I quoted. It is the reason I used the word “almost” in the statement:
I added, “I certainly didn’t find anything roundly condemning Chavez,” which I believe is accurate:
That’s more snarky than anything else. It certainly isn’t a substantive rebuke of Chavez. Of course, if it was the only thing on Kos about this, I wouldn’t have posted this. But it was vastly outnumbered by the crap I mentioned in my post.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:08:05 pm
UPDATE: I stand corrected! It is on the front page.
I didn’t see it there because the Chavez portion is “after the jump” and I checked what was on the front page by doing a “Find” for the word “chavez.”
But, I wrong. Or rather, GR was wrong (albeit in a way that didn’t detract from his point), and thus I quoted something that was wrong. Sorta. I could parse words here. But regardless, I was wrong in saying that the post in question wasn’t on the main page. My apologies.
I still think my broader point stands. The fact that one main-page post on Kos had an after-the-jump “jeer” insinuating that Hugo Chavez farted, does not disprove my assertion that a nonnegligible portion of the Democratic base believes in the crap that was spewed elsewhere throughout the Kos site.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:08:05 pm
What an assinine position for you to take, Mr. Loy. Hugo Chavez may be outspoken, have poor taste, or whatever else you want to say about him, but he is certainly not, as Ms. Pelosi said, “an everyday thug.”
Compare the actions of the Bush family with those of Chavez. From secretly supporting the Nazis, as grandaddy Bush did, to wars and sanctions that killed 100,000+ Iraqis, while the family-linked Carlisle Group raked in the profits. BTW, ever seen what Panama City looked like from above after Bush 41 firebombed it looking for his ex-pal Noriega?
Chavez meanwhile tried and failed to take power via a coup, did time in jail, then embraced democracy and won 3 straight elections, while allowing the private capitalist media of Venezuela to shit on him with libelous tirades day in day out. Hugo Chavez is a fucking saint next to the criminals currently occupying the White House.
But some people, like the dense Mr. Loy, will do anything to keep Amurrka all white and pure in their hollow little hearts. See no evil, hear no evil–Unless it’s the bogeymen supplied them by the establishment media.
You should probably shut your mouth about politics and limit your inanities to college football. My advice.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:11:02 pm
Hey look, GR, it’s another negligible member of the Democratic base!
Welcome, Bembeya, and thanks for helping prove my point.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:11:52 pm
Its great to see the Instapundit pissed at people calling bush an idiot and linking to this post right after he spent the past couple of days linking to his wife calling Clinton a sociopath, a groper and Mr Happy Hands.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:14:39 pm
Brendan,
Take my hand, click your heels together, and wish. We’ll be in East Lansing soon.
This thread is a veritable Calgon commercial.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:19:16 pm
“Take my hand, and lead me to salvation.
Take my love, for love is everlasting.
And remember the truth that once was spoken:
To love another person is to see the face of God.”
I wish I knew how to quit you, Leahy.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:26:10 pm
Casey:
What???? Chavez locks up the opposition, he takes over the press and he steal elections for real. He has the lousiest the human rights record in the region, he is a notorious coke head and he has been sucking up to a guy who hangs homosexuals in public and beheads unwed mothers.
He comes to this country and treats the president and the American people with complete disrepect and there you are falling all over yourself to pander to him.
I guess Bush needs to claim the Holocaust never happened, shut the NYT and CBS and outlaw the Democratic party to get any respect out of you people.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:26:29 pm
Faced with the prospect of reading this entire comment thread, I’d gladly cowboy up with Gyllenhal instead.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:28:16 pm
g:
I was a lifelong Demcorat until the Daily Kos types drove me from my former party. It was not Instapundit that ruined the Democrats.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:30:02 pm
Mr. Loy, thank you for helping me prove my point, which was that there are the facts, and there are your opinions, and the two have nothing to do with each other. Carry on. I know what they say about ignorance…
September 21st, 2006 at 4:34:19 pm
Chavez locks up the opposition
FALSE: only when they break the law, dearie
he takes over the press
FALSE: obviously you’ve never been to venezuela (yet you know ALL ABOUT IT)
he steal elections for real
FALSE: he’s won three of them in a row, and they’ve been judged fairer and freer than those in the U.S.!
He has the lousiest the human rights record in the region
FALSE: that dubious honor would currently belong to U.S.-supported Alvaro Uribe, whose Colombian military has one of the worst human rights records in history.
he is a notorious coke head
FALSE: and libelous!
he has been sucking up to a guy
FALSE: it’s called diplomacy; sucking up is what your lobbyists do to GOP congressmen
REPUBLICANS AND TRUTH-
OIL AND WATER?
September 21st, 2006 at 4:36:01 pm
Brendan, you arrogant S.O.B. It seems you’ve suddenly contracted Republican derangement syndrome or something. Please stop being a hypocritical moron, it doesn’t suit you. Andrew, yes absolutely. you, well not so much. Seriously; regardless of my personal feelings about what Chavez said, your tirade and attack on those that won’t condemn it is simply idiotic. Unless you plan to condemn everything Bush says about a leader of another nation that is less than flattering. The UN is a place for debate and Chavez is afford the same right to say what he thinks as any other leader. I might not agree with him, but I do defend his right to say it. You are trying to shout him down for saying, basically, the same thing Bush has said about countless other leaders. And you are shouting down those that refuse to condemn it. Brendan, your being down right hypocritical and stupid on this.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:41:43 pm
bembeya
“You should probably shut your mouth about politics and limit your inanities to college football. My advice.”
Brendan Loy has more integrity than you and I KNOW that you should take your own advice since you are un-able to clearly make a point without reducing the thread to everyday thugery!
September 21st, 2006 at 4:46:11 pm
Dane, don’t be retarded. I’m not saying Chavez doesn’t have the legal “right” to call Bush the devil. I’m saying it’s obviously over-the-top and ridiculous and well worthy of condemnation. And it’s frightening that few on the Left see fit to condemn it. I would feel exactly the same way if Bush called, oh I dunno, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero for instance, “the devil,” and nobody on the right condemned it. Except, guess what, people on the Right would condemn it! Just like they condemned Pat Robertson for calling for the assassination of Huge Chavez. Gimme a break.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:48:16 pm
P.S. “Unless you plan to condemn everything Bush says about a leader of another nation that is less than flattering.”
There’s a big difference between saying something “less than flattering” about a leader of another nation, and calling them THE DEVIL!!! For chrissake Dane, are you really this dumb? Surely you can see the difference. If Chavez had merely criticized Bush’s policies, you never would have seen me say anything about it. But he called the President of the United States THE DEVIL and a TYRANT before the U.N. General Assembly! Words cannot express how flabbergasted I am by your sheer idiocy right now.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:49:37 pm
P.P.S. And before you spout some more moral equivalency, pointing out that Bush has called various foreign leaders “tyrants” (though not “the devil”)…
THE FOREIGN LEADERS WHO BUSH HAS CALLED TYRANTS ARE IN FACT TYRANTS.
BUSH IS NOT IN FACT A TYRANT.
These little details matter, my friend.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:50:13 pm
Yeah, Loy, the difference is that Zapatero didn’t do anything even remotely devilish, like illegally invade a country and directly lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.
The problem here is one of perspective. You see the world and expect people to be outraged by a joke; I see the world and expect people to be outraged by the daily slaughter of innocents perpetrated by my own country.
We’ll agree to disagree.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:53:26 pm
Besides, if anyone’s directly working for Satan, it’s Cheney, not Bush.
Bush is like you, Loy, just a useful idiot, doing the scutwork of empire (distracting the citizenry, basically, from the things that really matter).
September 21st, 2006 at 4:55:27 pm
“Hundreds of thousands” of civilians? Heh. And you call me impervious to facts!
Agree to disagree? I suppose. I’ll agree that you’re a crazed lefty lunatic, if that helps.
September 21st, 2006 at 5:11:11 pm
Sorry Loy, the number of civilian dead in Iraq since the heroic Bush 41 invaded, and up through sanctions and the current conflict, is easily in the hundreds of thousands. Aren’t you proud that your country killed so many ragheads?
I know, I know, the Decider said it’s only been 30,000 since he got in on it. Well I guess since he ain’t never lied to us before…
September 21st, 2006 at 5:18:32 pm
Is this Bembaya for real? Alasdair, quit doing the sock puppet routine! Lefties like this can dig their own rhetorical grave without your help.
BTW, I am not buying the argument that since Pelosi and Rangel were nasty to the President before, their criticism is bunk. It does blunt their outrage, but there is a world of difference between their partisan statements and what good ol’ Hugo unleashed at the UN.
And another, BTW, Sen. Tom Harkin is actually giving some limited support or ‘understanding’ of Chavez’s statements.
September 21st, 2006 at 5:25:35 pm
“I see the world and expect people to be outraged by the daily slaughter of innocents perpetrated by my own country.”
And yet you’re still here. What kind of person, what kind of morality, would let a person who genuinely believed that murder was occuring daily in their name and via their tax dollars wouldn’t be looking for another country to be a citizen of or a revolution to join. I’m less offended by the derangement than by the moral apathy. “The president’s killing millions in my name, and it outrages me so much that I’m going to wear my ‘Free Tibet’ t shirt down to Starbucks and post my outrage to a blog over a green tea Tazo frap. That’ll show ‘em.”
September 21st, 2006 at 5:29:53 pm
Waitaminute, Bembaya, so the first Gulf War, led by our “Heroic” Bush Sr. was also an “illegal” war? Are _any_ wars legal? How about the bombing of civilians in Kosovo by Clinton?
Also, why do so-called progressives use so many racial slurs? If you ever see “raghead, “nigger” or “cracker” in a comment, you can bet a leftie said it.
September 21st, 2006 at 5:39:44 pm
There’s definitely something great and noble about a country that allows the deranged opinions like those of Bembeya to be heard. If the U.S. was 1/100 the fascist dictatorship that Bembeya’s fellow travelers in the fever swamps thought we were, Bembeya would be in a dungeon somewhere without a tongue . . .
September 21st, 2006 at 5:49:42 pm
“Hugo Chavez is a fucking saint next to the criminals currently occupying the White House.”
Good luck in November.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:02:43 pm
Loysius,
There’s still room on the back of my Harley. Destination: Glory!
September 21st, 2006 at 6:17:47 pm
“Left-wing whackos who think that Bush is 10x worse than Chavez or Ahmadinejad are certainly crapstains on the otherwise fine American tapestry. But Rangel’s reaction, that a foreign leader has no right to express his grievances in a global diplomatic forum, is nearly as craptastic.”
Casey, calling Bush the Devil and saying he wreaks of sulfur isn’t a grievance, it’s a personal attack (and a pretty lame IMHO). Moreover, it takes away from whatever legitimate grievance Chavez might have. I certainly haven’t come across any legitimate grievance in the excerpts of Chavez’s rant I’ve heard so far, but as you say, criticizing a foreign gov’t for trying to overthrow your own may indeed qualify.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:23:43 pm
I was watching batman and missed the headlines. Anyway, Chavez likes to rant and in doing so he only offends those who elected Dubya. What’s with the Dems cries? What’s the strategery here? Isn’t this the topic of the post? Who cares about Chavez and what he said. We should be debating why the Dems are so outraged and why they’re so protective when at other times–when they should have–haven’t been.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:27:50 pm
Lojo - ??????
I’ve been up to my proverbial eyebrows in baby alligators, today, so I haven’t had a chance to respond …
I wondered if Bembeya was channeling Steerage (or vice versa) but they don’t have enough signature similarities …
What Bembeya and Steerage are challenged by is understanding that words like “tyrant” and “dictator” and “fascist” have actual meanings … and are not just convenient kindergarten-kinetics insults …
Chavez is trying to find the external enemy to save his own sorry fundament … the Dems (and Kos folk) in their BDS are merely convenient patsies …
“BTW, I am not buying the argument that since Pelosi and Rangel were nasty to the President before, their criticism is bunk. “
Oh - and it’s not that Rangel and Pelosi are nasty to the President therefore their ‘criticism’ is bunk …
It’s that their ‘criticism’ is bunk - oh, and, by the way, they are nasty to the President …
September 21st, 2006 at 6:38:21 pm
Sorry Loy, the number of civilian dead in Iraq since the heroic Bush 41 invaded, and up through sanctions and the current conflict, is easily in the hundreds of thousands. Aren’t you proud that your country killed so many ragheads?
Wait a minute, I thought a key aspect of the liberal argument against the most recent Iraq war was that there was no need to invade because containment was working! “Containment” meaning “sanctions,” of course. So which is it? Were sanctions killing thousands of civilians, or were they “working”? Can I assume that, pre-war, you were one of those pushing for an end to sanctions? You do realize that all available evidence suggests that Saddam was just waiting for the moment sanctions were dropped to begin pursuing a nuclear program again? So, being anti-sanctions and anti-war, I guess your proposed foreign policy was… what… let Saddam have whatever he wants? Wow, count me in! Bembeya for President!
I also love how “Bush 41 invaded,” without reference to Iraq invading Kuwait to steal its oil, the overtly aggressive (and clearly “illegal”) act which directly caused Gulf War I. Because y’know, American presidents named Bush are the only ones who ever invade countries to steal oil. I’m sure Saddam had perfectly good reasons for invading Kuwait… and I’m sure he didn’t kill any civilians there, at all… and our motivations for intervening were purely cynical and evil.
Incidentally, do you believe 9/11 was an inside job, perchance?
September 21st, 2006 at 7:10:23 pm
“Brendan, are you then going to condemn Bush the next time he assails Chavez or Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il for something? If not get your arrogant double standard out of your ass.”
Yeah, we certainly don’t want a US President condemning such upstanding humanitarians.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:35:16 pm
Calling Bush the devil is almost as inflamatory as referring to a group of countries as “The Axis of Evil”. If Bush can’t take it, he should stop dishing it out. Why shouldn’t anyone be free to criticize Bush or whoever the hell they please? Bush’s policies sure as hell impact people who are not Americans; people who didn’t have a chance to vote for or against him. So Chavez called Bush the devil, big fucking deal, who gives a damn? Being outraged just gives his statements more importance than they would otherwise have. If you don’t like him, ignore him. Giving him your attention by being outraged probably makes him very happy. All of you who think that Bush or anyone other public figures/politicians is above criticism need to get a fucking grip.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:37:08 pm
Champion Sound, considering that no one here has expressed a belief that “Bush or any…other public figures/politicians is above criticism,” it seems to me that you are preaching to…nobody in particular.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:40:00 pm
Actually, Loy, I was against the first Gulf War invasion precisely because anyone with brains could see that the deposition of Saddam would lead to what we now have with the current mess. And if you’re not going to depose him, you’re just gonna kill a bunch of grunts and wreck infrastructure. The grunts in the Iraqi army died then (in 91) just like the poor grunts in the American army are dying now. And I say, neither deserve it. If the Bush family and Saddam Hussein’s family have a feud, why do several hundred thousand other people have to die because of it? I’m nearly 100% certain you’re too uninformed to know the name April Glaspie. Perhaps you ought to google her, though it might tarnish your fragile “we invaded him because he invaded Kuwait” narrative, which, I can see from what you wrote, is very important to your state of self-assuredness.
I was against sanctions for the same reason–they punished the wrong people, in this case, Iraqi civilians. Say, did the “evidence” you cite (without really citing any, you just say it exists) about Saddam “just waiting” to restart weapons programs come from any of Michael Ledeen’s friends? Say, some contacts in Niger? Hypothetical fantasizing aside, Iraq wasn’t, isn’t, and never could’ve been a threat to the U.S., unless by “threat to the U.S.” you mean “threat to U.S. and multi-national oil companies”.
The American aggression against Iraq, going back to 1991, is about securing oil, and we’re beyond debating that. If 9/11 hadn’t occurred, would that alone (we need to kick out this guy that won’t open up his oil market to us entirely) have been a successful argument to lead the country into a war that could cost billions of dollars and thousands of American lives, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, not to mention the utter chaos of living without dependable water and power, which, along with several daily car bombs and suicide attacks, was America’s gift to Baghdad. If you wanted to guarantee that an entire generation of Arabs hated the United States, you couldn’t have picked a better plan. Obviously this isn’t about protecting the U.S. from terrorism. It’s about protecting U.S. access to oil, ultimately by deposing Saddam and eventually finding another Shah for the Persians while we’re up there.
So do I believe in a 9/11 conspiracy? 9/11 obviously WAS a conspiracy (check the definition of the word conspiracy), and I think only fools find they know the whole story. My educated guess, which the current facts support, would be that the White House and some generals had advance warning that an attack was imminent, and they decided to cover their own asses and leave the country exposed, knowing full well that a tragedy of significant magnitude would enable their imperial wet dreams.
Thanks for asking.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:41:32 pm
I don’t really get what the deal is with people being upset about what Chavez said at the UN. First, this is a free country, right? Even if he is a “thug,” when he is here he has a right to make an ass out of himself. Second, it appears to me that the Right should love this because it makes the UN look more and more like the circus they claim it is. Why aren’t the Republicans simply saying that? Third, Bush has said some shameless shit about other “Presidents” in his day, so it would appear that these jokers from Iran and Venezuela have just as much right to prove that they are just as stupid as our President. And fourth, is any of this really going to matter after the elections in November? Seriously. This is all political theatre being played up by both the Republicans and Democrats. If this shit happened in April, it would barely be a blip on the 24-hour news radar.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:47:09 pm
And also Brendan, just some more friendly advice:
If you’re gonna play the “I’m SO moderate” card and lambast the “far left wing”, you look fairly silly being egged on by all these right-wing whacko commenters, saying stuff like “if you don’t like the U.S., leave” (btw, i have) and “you’re lucky we don’t imprison people like you for your opinions” (oh would you like that you fucking fascist?)… personally I don’t hold you accountable for your commenters, but for someone who is so offended by “the far left wing”, you don’t seem the slightest bit concerned by the legions of truly Constitution-hating wingnuts hanging around your place.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:52:02 pm
Bembeya, I didn’t use the word “conspiracy,” I used the word “inside job.” I’m curious what “current facts” support the theory that the government knew 9/11 was going to happen, but let it happen anyway? At least with the true “inside job” theory, I can understand where that’s coming from… the suspicions about molten steel, hot spots, WTC 7 and the like. Of course I don’t buy any of it, as I believe the supposed discrepancies in the government account are massively overblown and most of the alleged evidence of an “inside job” has been thoroughly debunked… but I can at least understand how someone predisposed to blame their own government for all the evils of the world might believe it. But what on earth would lead you to believe that 9/11 happened exactly as the government says it happened, except that the government knew about it and did nothing? What “facts” suggest that was the case?
As for your belief that the notion of Iraq pursuing a nuclear program is sheer “fantasy,” you might want to tell that to the Israeli pilots who destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. But whatever. It’s obviously useless talking to you. Like so many others, you believe in the wickedness of your own government with a zeal that most religious believers can only dream of. The Islamists are scarcely more devoted to their irrational flights of fancy.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:57:08 pm
Where did anyone say “you’re lucky we don’t imprison people like you for your opinionsâ€?? I just did a “find” for the word “imprison” and didn’t find anything. I do sometimes miss comments, though. Anyway, if anyone said that, I condemn it.
As for “if you don’t like the U.S., leave” … I was in the process of drafting a condemnation of a comment along those lines when my browser crashed. I decided it wasn’t worth reconstructing. I think most educated, rational people understand that such sentiments are unworthy of people who believe in small-d democracy. Unfortunately, the sort of sentiments you are expressing are distressingly commong about well-educated and otherwise rational people. Indeed, although I can’t back this up with proof, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the believers in 9/11 “inside job” theories, Bush-is-evil, Bush-is-Hitler, it’s-all-about-oil theories, etc., are college educated. So you don’t have ignorance as an excuse. You’ve made a conscious choice to be a blind idiot, whistling past the graveyard of Western civilization as we know it.
Of course, I’m sure you feel exactly the same way about me. And thus does our conversation end with no progress whatsoever. 21st-century America in a nutshell. Sigh.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:57:46 pm
Since you brought up 9/11 conspiracy theories, Brendan, have you seen the movie “9/11: Press for Truth”? You can watch it for free here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083
Since you apparently have all of the facts at your disposal, and know for sure that the Official Story is True True True, perhaps you could watch the movie and post a blistering review here on your blog. I’d be interested to read your contentions.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:00:01 pm
P.S. It’s also more fun to argue with you than it is to argue with someone who takes an idiotic potshot along the lines of “America, love it or leave it,” because you’re actually constructing a multi-paragraph argument, as opposed to a stupid one-liner. Thus is more likely to be worth my time to respond to you, because you’re more likely to come back and read what I have to say… even though you’ll inevitably dismiss it as the inane ramblings of a brainwashed MSM-Bush-Halliburton zombie. At least you’ll read it. The right-wing idiots who pop in, condemn all liberals as unpatriotic scum, and pop out, are unlikely ever to return.
But just because I respond in detail to one commenter does not establish any obligation on my part to respond to any other commenter. I don’t have the time to assume such an obligation.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:02:20 pm
Sorry about the spam filter… I just restored your comment.
I’ve watched lots of “9/11 Truth” stuff, and I find it all very unconvincing. I’ve posted about it multiple times before, here and in comments on my brother-in-law Casey’s blog. But I’m not going to waste my time with that right now. I’m hungry and I have homework to do. Have a nice day.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:03:47 pm
I just posted a comment and it didn’t appear. I’ll try again:
I see the distinction you’re making–”inside job”, no, I haven’t seen any evidence of that, though I admit that it is a luring conclusion for anyone convinced that the Bush administration is evil, as is a lot of the left.
My stance, that it was a conspiracy that some had advance warning and/or knowledge of, is better supported. If you want to see the argument made rather effectively, watch the movie about the Jersey girls and the 9/11 commission, which is available for free here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083
If you are an amateur scholar on the subject, and can refute the argument made in that movie, I would like to see that. Like I said, I think only fools could be convinced they know the entire nitty gritty of who how why and who paid for it.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:06:02 pm
As for “9/11 Truth” stuff, that’s a wide generalization. There is definitely a lot of conspiracy nut stuff. The movie I mentioned is not a part of that, the whole melting steel, missile into the Pentagon, etc. This deals with much more pertinent questions, like “who financed 9/11?” Do you know what the 9/11 Commission had to say on that?
September 21st, 2006 at 8:06:58 pm
I believe Bembeya was referring to my post of 5:39 PM:
“There’s definitely something great and noble about a country that allows the deranged opinions like those of Bembeya to be heard. If the U.S. was 1/100 the fascist dictatorship that Bembeya’s fellow travelers in the fever swamps thought we were, Bembeya would be in a dungeon somewhere without a tongue . . .”
Of course, that’s somewhat different than saying, “you’re lucky we don’t imprison people like you for your opinions.” But judging from Bembeya’s comments so far, I expect as much.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:09:49 pm
Indeed, Joe — your comment is entirely defensible and indeed a very valid point, whereas Bembeya’s bastardization thereof would be totally indefensible and invalid, if that’s what you had said. Of course, twisting people’s words out-of-context and downright misquoting them is a key aspect of the Left’s stock-in-trade. This is how it ends up that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat, Bush said Iraq caused 9/11, Bush’s “mission accomplished” speech meant that Iraq was no longer going to be a difficult mission, etc. etc.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification on the nature of your 9/11 beliefs, Bembeya. I’ll have to watch that video sometime. But not right now. Like I said, I’m hungry and have work to do. Now I’m going to quit my browser and stop reading comments here… for real this time… I swear! :)
September 21st, 2006 at 8:15:50 pm
I, too, plan on watching that video. It’s clocked at 1:24:15, which is a little long, but I’m definitely interested in watching it (probably not for the same reasons as Bembeya, however).
September 21st, 2006 at 8:35:15 pm
I’d still like an answer from Bembeya as to what wars in the history of mankind are “legal.”
September 21st, 2006 at 8:39:58 pm
Watched the first 7 minutes: the movie starts with a recount of the day’s events on 9/11 and introduces the “Jersey Girls” as women who lost their husbands, with quick snapshots of Internet screens thrown in saying “Bin Laden escaped” and “what Bush knew.” Then some of the Jersey Girls ominously ask about the delay between Air Force/ANG jets being scrambled around 8:30am upon news of possible hijackings and the last jet (Flight 93) crashing at 10:00am. They compare this to the much quicker response time when jets were scrambled to fly alongside Payne Stewart’s ill-fated plane in 1999, and ask why the military couldn’t have responded sooner. Color me unimpressed so far…
September 21st, 2006 at 8:42:52 pm
Oh, and they also question why Bush waited for 7 minutes at that school in FLA before leaving upon hearing the news of the second plane hitting the WTC.
(FWIW, FDR reportedly sobbed and was inconsolable for hours upon hearing of the bombing of Pearl Harbor)
September 21st, 2006 at 8:55:10 pm
15 minutes in: so far a lot of “How could the towers have fallen?”, “A steel-frame building has never collapsed due to a fire,” “WTC #7 collapsed and wasn’t hit by a plane,” and a fireman’s widow questioning why all the communications to/from the fireman in the WTC that day weren’t made public…
September 21st, 2006 at 9:01:24 pm
Bush initially resisted impaneling the 9/11 Commission, then wanted Henry Kissinger to chair it, but evidently OBL is his “client” so he was pressured to step down. Have some work to do now, so I’ll watch the rest later. Still unimpressed so far…
September 21st, 2006 at 9:03:51 pm
Bambeya:
Chavez is a communist dictator who has made himself and his oligarchy richer and his people poorer and if you think Venezuala is such a wonderful place why don’t you go live there? Why suffer through living someplace you obviously hate?
September 21st, 2006 at 9:54:26 pm
You know, even as I type I realize I am wasting my time, the meme of “Bush is Evil” is the all-time classic straw man allowing my friends such as Alasdair to hide from the moose on the table by discussing the tiny bug underneath. Oh well, at least the Insta-link provides some fresh blood to the tired discussion…
No (kicking self as he wastes precious time), Bush is not evil. He is lazy and indifferent, which might be worse. You won’t discuss that. You just won’t. Though you all know its true.
How can a two-bit tinhorn dictator like Chavez commit such a provocation on our soil with *NOTHING* from our President? No comment? No bombing campaign on Caracas? Monroe Doctrine, anyone?
He doesn’t care, Alasdair. He’s a lazy fuck who doesn’t care about his job, his freaking dignity - hurry, now, get back to poking at the “Bush is evil” straw men, much more comforting.
(Bush is evil. Sigh. If only).
Oh BTW, regarding those 7 minutes with My Pet Goat? Everyone forgets this, in service of knocking down the “Bush is Evil” straw man - but those 7 minutes were
AFTER THE SECOND PLANE HIT THE SOUTH TOWER.
That’s right. Dubya was informed that a plane had gashed the North Tower in his motorcade, on the way to the school, made a dumb joke about it being a small plane (many of us might have thought so), and then -
- THOUGHT NO FURTHER OF THE NEWS WHILE HE PROCEEDED INTO THE SCHOOL.
I hereby lay a challenge to the Alasdairs, Joe Mamas, et al, these people who attack the oblique straw man of Bush is evil, by inference assuming he is good since he must be the inverse of evil, when the problem was never that he was evil, rather that he sucked at his job and doesn’t care -
- how many of you went about your business on 9/11 when you heard that a plane, any type of plane, hit the WTC?
Of course.
None of you. Not one of you.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:05:36 pm
Before the barrage of defiant “He was reading ‘My Pet Goat’ to project an image of strength and calm” -
(an inevitable meme - none of you will dare to come up with an excuse for the 15 minutes BETWEEN the attacks, when ONLY the North Tower was on fire and Bush proceeded with the SFlorida kid photo op anyway - you will ignore it because it is damning beyond even your awful truth-twisting that arrives at “Dubya is a good leader” -
- before that happens, let’s be clear:
Great empires die in large part when lesser empires no longer see them as so great.
What more damning thing can happen to America then to have some Third World thug piece of crap humiliate the leader of our empire, on the international stage, with no price to pay?
Good thing dudes like Charles are keeping up the fight against the America-damaging CNN.
He seems like the kind of guy who would respond to the flooding of New Orleans with a ton of enthusiasm and a stack of Dixie Cups.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:15:11 pm
I’m not wading back into the political morass, but I do need to respond to this:
Good thing dudes like Charles are keeping up the fight against the America-damaging CNN.
He seems like the kind of guy who would respond to the flooding of New Orleans with a ton of enthusiasm and a stack of Dixie Cups.
I think you are referring to Charles, not President Bush, in the latter sentence — correct me if I’m wrong. If I’m not wrong, then you’re entirely wrong, because in point of fact Charles did heroic work driving back and forth from his home in Atlanta to the front lines in New Orleans, bringing water (not Dixie Cups, but lots and lots and lots of water) and other supplies. Whatever one thinks of Charles’s political views, he did an amazing job post-Katrina, basically putting his life on hold, seeing his business suffer, etc., to help the people who were affected by the storm. I get a lot of praise for blogging, but it’s Charles and others like him who really deserve the praise.
I’m sure you didn’t know any of that when you made your Dixie Cup analogy, so I’m not attacking you, I just felt that point needed to be made.
Now, on with the flame war.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:20:12 pm
And one further for the Bush wingnuts back here:
Perhaps you are way too lost in your Bushy love to recognize that there is something awful about a renegade colony (ish) lashing out so blatantly against the mother nation as Venezuela did, with no cost to them, and you think that the magic of Dubya’s rhetoric is enough to keep the rest of the restive world in place.
Check out this week’s Time Magazine. Ahmadinejad is on the cover. Remember him? Short, squatty, members-only jacket wearing piece of shit that is the recipient of the largest portion of Bush’s (empty) bellicose rhetoric? Remember him?
Guy apparently is in trouble at home. (Apparently - wink, wink) under threat of military devastation from the mighty US of A.
Go read that article. I defy any of you, even the Bush Kool-Aid drinkers, to come back here and assert that Ahmadinejad in ANY respect seems afraid.
In ANY respect, including that phony war-mongering talk that frightened idiots like Kim Jong-Il use.
Ahmadinejad is not scared of the US.
But let’s not distract ourselves from the evil provocations of Wolf Blitzer, Charles. That bastard will take this country DOWN!
September 21st, 2006 at 10:21:05 pm
Brendan - just saw your post, you’re right, poor choice of words on my part. I knew that about Charles but forgot it during my rant. Retracted.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:14:57 pm
Chavez’s ignorant rant was self-discrediting, and Bush was right not to respond to it. That’s not being lazy or indifferent, it’s called not dignifying an undignified insult with a response. Chavez was so ridiculous that he managed the near-impossible feat of making Bush look Churchillian . . . just be keeping quiet.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:17:10 pm
Jazz - either take your missed meds - or stop taking the ones you are taking !
(With apologies to those who responsibly take meds heredity has forced them to need)
9/11 - my wife woke me up to show me the first tower with smoke pouring out, after a plane had gone into it … and we watched, and discussed what it might take to cause a small plane to stray into a building that big - pilot having a heart attack or a stroke or a seizure, perhaps ?
Cuz some of us at that time still didn’t believe that terrorists would be *that* evil …
And we continued normal life, getting ourselves and kids ready for that day …
And then we watched the second plane, obviously NOT a small plane, being flown into the second tower …
And we realised that we had to start worrying about our oldest daughter, recently returned to New York for her second year at Columbia …
And we discussed who it was likely to have been … and who was likely to kill themselves like that to try to kill that many civilians of so many different countries … and History pointed at Middle East terrorists - cuz, back then, that’s what we called ‘em …
So, yes, Jazz, reasonable people did go about their normal lives for a little while after the first plane went into the first tower … yes, just for a few minutes, but we did - until reality piled on …
“by inference assuming he is good since he must be the inverse of evil” - whcih is your second illogical leap of prejudices …
I don’t know of anyone all good or all evil …
I do recognise that some people need to find the black or white part … and, when the only side they will allow to be heard is so one-sided, I will often bring out the other side … I don’t always succeed, but I challenge practictioners of fascism whenever I can …
Feel free to scan what I have written over the years, and see if you can find anything from me about President Bush being a Saint or a Paragon or Pure Good …
You will find me recognising a fellow-dyslexic … you will find me pointing out the arrant arrogant ardent amoral hypocrisy of most of the MSM in their petty attacks on him - and, since they are so one-sided, guess what that brings out in me ?
You will find me critical of him when I perceive he could have and should have done differently in my less-than-humble opinion …
If you are an honest reader, you will even find that I don’t criticise ex-Preseident Clinton because he got a blow-job while he was supposed to be on the job … you will find me criticising him because he lied under oath when he didn’t have to do so - when he said “She lied !” - and not about a blow-job … you will see me criticising him because he took advantage of the power differential, when *he* should have been the one courteously declining the offer … you will see me criticising him for his choice - for his seeming lack of taste …
I’m not the straw-man “Alasdair” that you have constructed between your ears … and an honest Jazz will admit that …
And, yes, I do believe it is the Presidential Thing To Do to NOT respond to Hugo Chavez with any hint of over-reaction … ignoring the idiot’s words seems about a good measured response …
And, if (and probably when) the MSM folk decide to force a response, the Presidential Thing To Do is to mildly ridicule the words …
We’ll see what he does then, won’t we ?
September 21st, 2006 at 11:19:05 pm
“[H]ow many of you went about your business on 9/11 when you heard that a plane, any type of plane, hit the WTC?”
I suppose Bush could’ve done what I did at that moment — dropped everything and ran to the nearest TV to watch in awe as the horror of that day unfolded, but that wouldn’t have been very presidential.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:26:46 pm
Alasdair,
Key distinction between your experience of the North Tower and the President’s:
YOU WATCHED.
Yes, perhaps you stopped watching at some point between 8:48 and 9:03 (the time the two towers were respectively hit), perhaps you assumed it was a small plane, and I got no beef with that.
Nevertheless - YOU WATCHED.
The Commander in Chief? Did not.
What’s more, you are just a private citizen, responsible for the protection and care of your family, and while the implications of a burning skyscraper may be important to you, there’s nothing you are obliged to do in response to that fact. In the near term.
The Commander in Chief can not say the same.
Perhaps we can infer from your post that, while you were watching the second tower burn, knowing full well that the nation had been deliberately attacked, speculating on who did it, and what would happen next, not knowing how much more was out there, etc - you as a private citizen worked through the scenarios with your family. Though there was nothing you can do.
At the same time, in South Florida, the President was listening attentively to My Pet Goat. When there was something he perhaps shoulda coulda woulda done.
I don’t know that Bush is a bad guy. I don’t know that he has bad ideas. He seems fairly likeable, and all that.
Fundamentally, time and again, as the Chief EXECUTIVE, he has proven himself to be really quite bad at his job.
Lots of people are bad at their jobs. No one else gets my patriotic hackles up from their incompetence the way Bush does.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:29:20 pm
Joe Mama - well, perhaps he could have responded to the first plane hitting the WTC by clarifying what exactly was going on, perhaps he would have been briefed on the fact that there had been a couple of suspected hijackings, and known by 8:50 that something requiring Executive intervention was occuring (as opposed to knowing at 9:11 AM when he finally stopped the charade of listening to My Pet Goat).
You could argue that my hypothesis is not that Presidential, I suppose.
It would have been quite appropriate for an executive, however.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:38:05 pm
You know, at some level this current misadventure of a Presidency is so awful that it feels creepy to keep bashing it.
To wit (or lack thereof):
In response to Dubya’s speech on 9/11/06, I went off on Dubya’s ominous threat of endless terror war, pointing out that the current price tag of $500 Billion deficit/year, over the 50 year span of a Cold War, would end up costing the average two-taxpayer household something in the neighborhood of $250,000 beyond their normal taxes.
Then I offered Alasdair the opportunity to pay my family’s part, since he clearly believed and I did not, and I am still waiting for Alasdair to reply :).
Anyhow, Drudge tells us today the next salvo in the Bush mid-term election tour. Against the backdrop of the promise of 50 more years of (successfully fought) terror Cold War, Dubya had this warning in Tampa about voting Democrat in 2006:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-09-21T193423Z_01_N20255897_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
If you elect the Democrats, they’ll RAISE YOUR TAXES.
I guess he will just keep courting the Chinese to buy those little rectangular t-bills to finance his endless terror war.
Seriously, guys, this Presidency is so laughable its hard to stop from crying..
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:01:53 am
For my part, if you would’ve told me on 9/11 that at least 5 years would pass before the next inevitable terrorist attack, I would’ve thought you were nuts, as would most people. Nevertheless, 5 years have past without such an atrocity, and we know it’s not for the terrorists’ lack of trying. Therefore, in what myself and many others might consider the numero uno task of Bush’s presidency, more than cutting taxes or appointing the “right” judges or fixing social security, it’s hard to argue that Bush has been anything other than a resounding success. But to quote you, Jazz, “I realize I am wasting my time here.”
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:08:55 am
And the debate over whether it will be a net positive or negative aside, I don’t know anyone who doubts that Democrats WILL raise taxes if they take over the House.
September 22nd, 2006 at 7:31:16 am
Joe Mama,
I have several friends who take the other side of the point you just made, that is, “how is it possible that there hasn’t been another catastrophic terrorist attack in the past five years?” The argument they will use, to which I am sure you can relate, is that when you attend a 4th of July celebration/festival/public gathering, the security presence is not much different from pre-9/11 days, and it would not seem terribly difficult for a single actor with some nasty explosives to take out several hundred or thousand of us at once. Why hasn’t that happened?
Is it due to the security? Maybe. Perhaps the high-quality effort of American intelligence has foiled every last would-be dirty bomber at an American festival, turning back dozens or hundreds of potential attacks. I suggest to you that is unlikely, for three important reasons:
1) Bush astonishingly did not cause ANY heads to roll as a result of intelligence failures leading to 9/11. The system was “blinking red” (in the words of the 9/11 Commission report), and yet no one paid a price for not paying attention to that fact.
Some of the omissions, not frequently discussed, were quite shocking. The examples are legion. Pentagon muscle hijackers al-Midhar and Hamzi arriving in San Diego with the FBI trailing them, only to have the CIA block further communication because…? The Abdel-Hafiz leads in Saudi in 2000, 2001, etc, etc, etc - no penalties Joe Mama, no consequences. If you have ever worked in a large organization, and it fails spectacularly at something, with no one held to account, you know it would tend to continue to fail.
2) Tom Ridge in particular had a suspicious habit of announcing terror busts out of timing with the actual bust. More than once he held news conferences announcing a bust that had occured several months earlier, or an attack that was nowhere near imminent.
3) The sheer numbers. Even if the intelligence services were working as effectively as you wish to credit them for, it is hard to imagine that they would have stopped every instance of an endless wave of attacks.
I suggest we put on our Sun-Tzu “Art of War” hats for a second, and attempt to understand our enemy. What motivates the son of a Saudi industrialist family, a highly-educated Egyptian doctor, and 19 educated, but underemployed mostly Saudi young men to perpetrate such an attack on the US?
Spreading Islam? Or a desire to knock out our great empire?
If its the latter, why have they stopped with the attacks? Is it because they’re afraid?
Or is it because the great empire has become so bogged down in a morass called Iraq, which the great empire is unwilling to control (er, installing a ‘dictator’ friendly to the empire)?
Is it because the great empire’s standing on the world stage has been so diminished that a piece of shit like Chavez can make outrageous comments at the UN to the tune of other pieces of shit chuckling in the background, not cowering in fear like they used to?
Or perhaps the great empire has gone into budgetary insanity, with a leader obsessed with spending borrowed money, a surefire recipe for empire disaster?
I have no way of knowing, but it is quite possible that the GWOT is quiet because our enemy sees us eroding our own power from within. Worth considering.
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:36:05 am
Wow.
Thanks Brendan and Jazz.
I only did what my military training taught me back in 1984:
Gather your resouces, provide protection and aid those in need.
There isn’t a day that goes by where my training in the US Army is put to use.
America is a great country that is always the first to provide aid to countries in need. We are a great economic engine that can lift entire countries out of poverty. We are the only country that tries to provide freedom to each and every person on this planet.
We are a great country and a great people.
Thanks again Brendan and Jazz.
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:39:59 am
Charles, I think you meant there isn’t a day that goes by where your training isn’t put to use. At least, I assume that’s what you meant. :)
In any event, no, thank YOU — for your service to our country, both in the military and as a civilian.
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:48:14 am
It would be authentic me if it didn’t have at least one spelling error and bad grammar.
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:58:03 am
LOL
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:45:53 am
Jazz,
Regarding your first point, while perhaps “heads should have rolled” for the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11, surely we can both agree that Bush has taken some very aggressive steps to remedy those failures; programs that the NYTimes and others have gone to great pains to make public, and for which Bush has been roundly criticized by those who fear, unreasonably or not, that their civil liberties are being threatened, the Constitution is being shredded, that we are moving towards a dictatorship, etc. Is it not possible that these measures deserve at least some credit for the absence of another 9/11 in the last five years?
Regarding your second point, I don’t remember the litany of Tom Ridge’s delayed announcements you speak of, and I’m not sure how that disproves my point about this administration deserving at least a little credit for preventing another 9/11, but I can imagine some scenarios where the gov’t might not wish to make it known right away that it has captured suspected terrorists. I’ll bet you can as well.
Regarding your last point, while radical Islamic terrorists definitely have patience, I think recent history shows they are unwilling to simply sit back and passively wait for the U.S. empire to die from within (although I would argue we’re moving pretty far along on that course, but that’s a whole other subject). Nah, I’m pretty sure they want to help us along in any way they can.
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:23:42 am
Charles,
I strongly echo Brendan’s words: thanks for your service. The attitude and approach of folks like you are what has made (and hopefully will continue to make) our country so great.
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:52:35 am
Chuck was great during the New Orleans disaster, no doubt. Kudos to him.
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:55:26 am
“America is a great country that is always the first to provide aid to countries in need.”
True
“We are a great economic engine that can lift entire countries out of poverty.”
False (please cite ANY example of this)
We are the only country that tries to provide freedom to each and every person on this planet.
False (Pure rhetoric. We are doing all kinds of business with China and yet nothing is being done by this government to make China “free.” We are not even dealing with the Tibet issue for fear of offending the Chinese.)
While you are wrong, your service to this country is honorable.
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:03:16 am
From The Anchoress:
So, Hugo Chavez is is still at it.
“Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez launched a new personal attack on President George W. Bush, using a visit to a church to call the US leader an ‘alcoholic’ and a ’sick man.’
“A day after Chavez used the UN bully pulpit to call Bush ‘the devil’ and a ‘tyrant’ who acts like he owns the world â€â€? prompting broad condemnation in the United States â€â€? Chavez was equally vitriolic as he spoke at the Olivet Baptist church in the New York neighborhood of Harlem.”
“‘Bush is an alcoholic, a sick man with a lot of hang-ups,’ declared the left-wing Venezuelan leader. ‘He walks like John Wayne.’”
Hmmmm…sounds awfully familiar, that tripe. Bush is “an alcoholic?â€? That sounds like Martin Sheen (a “good Catholicâ€? with enough 12-step exposure to know better than to take another man’s inventory) calling President Bush “a white knuckle drunk.â€?
Bush is a “sick man with a lot of hangups?� That sounds like almost anyone at Air America, or on any lefty blog who pretends to sophistication by suggesting - like real bigots - that President Bush is an “uptight Christian,� simply because his moral values are not theirs.
Bush “walks like John Wayne?� Crap, the press has been caricaturing President Bush as a “cowboy� since before he was elected.
All Chavez is doing is repeating exactly the idiotic crap that the left has been spewing for 6 years. And the Democrats have who have encouraged the hate.
But maybe some on the left finally understand that while they’ve been having fun and laughing while calling President Bush every manner of ugly name and insult, dangerous people have been watching. And they have made a calculation: We can disrespect Bush and America will laugh with us. Bush is weak. America is once again the appeasing “weak horse� it was throughout the 1990’s and even before…when we could attack anything and be accountable to no one.
I’m sure Hugo, once he left the guffawing chamber of hyenas at the UN, was shocked to discover that most Americans were not laughing, that even some Democrats were not.
And I’m sure some Democrats were shocked to see just how ugly their words sounded, when coming out of the mouth of someone else, someone with “no right,� to spew hate for political expediency.
There are some on the left who are suggesting that Hugo Chavez’s remarks are simply an indicator that the world “disrespects� President Bush…well…I wonder who gave them the idea that they could? Was it John Kerry calling him a “fucking liar,� and not having to answer for that rudeness to anyone while the press shrugged it off? Good heavens, Bush calls terrorism “evil� and he was mocked and criticized for using that word, but the press never had a problem with “fucking liar, fucking crooks and thieves� or with adolescent musings about the president’s name and female genitalia. It was alllllll soooooo funnnnneeeeeee, newsreaders could hardly deliver the spite without grinning, themselves.
Let me tell you, I didn’t see “disrespect� at the UN while President Bush was speaking…while he was speaking he was accorded that dubious body’s full and complete attention, and like it or not, nothing he said was disregarded, because the world knows he means what he says. They may not like him, but they respect him. And if they don’t respect him, they fear him just enough to pretend. Which frankly I prefer to a president they all “love� but don’t respect or fear, one who plays games.
But if Bush is being disrespected, then the Democrats need to look to themselves and their actions and understand how complicit they have been in encouraging it. Dems like Charlie Rangel, who called President Bush “Bull Connor,� knowing full well how wrong, inaccurate, unfair and inflammatory that was, or like the idiots who called Bush “a genocidal racist� after Hurricane Katrina, or like the party (and the press) who spent years telling America about Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction only to later pretend they never said such things, and to pretend further that somehow Bush’s believing the same things they believed…made him a liar.
The Democrats alleged something that disingenuous - that what they believed was true was suddenly not only false but one man’s lie - and the press let them do it.
The press repeated it, ad nauseum, and the press and the Dems promoted films with that message, and books, until that damnable, transparent and nonsensical lie was repeated enough…because everyone knows that if you tell a big lie enough, it becomes “the truth.�
If tinpot tyrants and madmen now come to the United Nations and believe they can say anything they wish about The American President, it is because - as some of us have been warning, for some time - while all manner or irresponsible nonsense and hate has been directed at this president…the world has been watching.
And now, these tyrants and madmen sound eerily like the Democrats and the press and the left. One ideology, the world over, had completely lost its bearings, its self-control and its manners concerning one man who has never - not once -repaid them back in kind. Not in speeches. Not to the press. Not to “friendly audiences.� He came to town talking about “changing the tone,� and that’s what happened, in a perverse way. One side’s tone went rabid, the other side went nearly-silent, but this one man…kept his tone.
http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/09/21/chavez-clearly-listened-to-dems-and-air-america/
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:22:31 pm
“False (please cite ANY example of this)”
Germany. Japan. The money for the Marshall Plan didn’t come from Switzerland.
Oh, and “Angrier and Angrier”? Don’t be a cranky baby, smile once in a while! :)
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:34:27 pm
I wasn’t aware Japan or German were impoverished. I would also like to point out that it was the German and Japanese people who rebuilt their countries, not America. The money certainly helped, but this idea that America lifts countries out of poverty rankles even my more left of center world view.
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:08:17 pm
[…] ew It! Coalition of the Swilling has a mug for the “I hate Bush more than Hugo Chavez” crowd: […]
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:04:13 pm
Damn, you spend one day at an annual company meeting and you miss the most interesting thread we have had in months. On an unrelated note that pushes this thread to the 100 comment mark. Now to wade back through and see if there was anything interesting said…
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:33:30 pm
Jazz - as I recall it, the President was reading the story to the kids, not simply sitting there listening to it …
And by continuing reading the story for a little while longer (while the unoccupied rest of the Executive Branch was earing its collective salary), he helped to keep a few kids calm … and that’s what I was doing in *my* home at the time - remember, my #1 daughter was in NYC at that time … she had class-mates scheduled for a field trip to the WTC that day - for all we knew, she could have been with them …
Still, if it’s important to your emotional stability to be able to blame Bush for things, far be it from me to stop you … when you are ready, I’m more than happy to have a rational discussion with you, to work out a perspective based upon facts …
“What motivates the son of a Saudi industrialist family, a highly-educated Egyptian doctor, and 19 educated, but underemployed mostly Saudi young men to perpetrate such an attack on the US?
Spreading Islam? Or a desire to knock out our great empire?
If its the latter, why have they stopped with the attacks? Is it because they’re afraid?”
Actually, no, Jazz, it’s cuz the 19 are DEAD …
As for the “heads should have rolled” theme … Get a Life ! Please !
The Blame Game is SOOOOO last millennium …
Personally, I prefer to see people (including myself) learn from mistakes, their own and others’, rather than being fired/tossed aside/fed to The Inquisition …
I realise it’s one of the reasons they keep refusing me entry to the Democratic Party, but, what can I say … I’m Mainframe, not PC …
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:43:00 pm
Alasdair,
LOL! The 19 are dead. You win the prize, I noticed that error and was wondering if someone would call me out. “They” being a rhetorical term, of course.
Such a shame this thread is below the fold. Maybe his motivation and insider status will prompt David to kick it back up? For I was quite fascinated by your last post.
Did you really say, in spite of otherwise being hawkish on Islamofascists, the following:
Personally, I prefer to see people (including myself) learn from mistakes, their own and others’, rather than being fired/tossed aside/fed to The Inquisition …
And the people you are referring to are the ones who perpetrated the numerous professional oversights that may or may not have prevented us from stopping 9/11?
And did you also say
And by continuing reading the story for a little while longer (while the unoccupied rest of the Executive Branch was earing its collective salary), he helped to keep a few kids calm
When, in the noble interest of keeping a dozen or so second graders calm, the President was ignoring a very fluid, very grave historic national crisis, one that, as of 8:55 AM on 9/11/01 might very well have required the immediate intervention of the US Commander-in-Chief to save thousands of lives?
And the fact that same Commander-in-Chief was not busily clarifying his obligation to potentially save several thousand lives (re: what if there had been several dozen hijacked planes? as those of us not reading “My Pet Goat” were wondering around 9:05 AM), that fact doesn’t bug you in the slightest, since after all he was tending to the needs of those couple dozen random second graders in Florida.
My goodness, Alasdair, you are a large-hearted fellow. I am growing in confidence that you really will pay my family’s quarter-million for the endless terror war.
But I have to wonder, given the huge sympathy you have for the suspicious failings of others, in power:
are you Jimmy Carter?
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:17:10 pm
Don’t be an obtuse prick, Angrier and Angrier. It’s obnoxious.
“I wasn’t aware Japan or German were impoverished.”
Their major cities were bombed into rubble, their industrial base wiped out, a huge number of ther able-bodied men were dead and their economies had been entirely dedicated to total war for over half a decade. If that’s not a recipie for impoverishment, I’d like to know what the fuck yours is.
And I’ll leave out the fact that we, America, essentialy ran their countries for the critical first years after the war.
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:17:52 pm
Let’s try to close the italics here.