Truer words, etc.
It’s spreading, 'luce. Despite the best efforts of our scientists, despite the generous donations of so many citizens who give when their local volunteer comes to their doorstep, C.D. is gaining. And in some cases, it looks terminal.
Ahoy Minty!
Am I correct in assuming that “C.D.” stands for Conservative Dementia?
And as for you RTFirefly and Voyager who are so commendably carrying on with the work of our Lord, may I suggest that you join me in ignoring our rather hysterical friend, Starving Artist? From where I sit, only the most irredeemable wing nut would give this joker the slightest bit of credence by this point. Like the fanatically self-deluded everywhere, he will NEVER admit any sort of fault or acknowledge any piece of reality that goes against him. Because his responses have gotten to be so absurdly shrill and self-contradictory, the simple reality is that you’ve already won the debate. There’s no point in further exhausting yourselves, especially since he’s done at least 50% of your work for you.
So relax, smile and take pleasure in your accomplishments. You’ve earned it.
Oh, and Starving Artist, you’ve earned what you’ve got too.
No. It’s “cognitive dissonance”:
Before I read this thread, I read the current critque of THE APPRENTICE over in Cafe Society, and I’m amused at some of the parallels.
Bush/Kwame is getting reamed out for being a hands-off leader, who blandly accepts the clueless incompentence of underlings (Condi/Omarosa is the most succinct, though not the most accurate, parallel here) and is supposed to be fired soon for allowing jerks to ruin his record.
If the press conference had run immediately following the latest episode, I think this would a universal perception.
Desmo - thanks for providing the definition of “cognitive dissonance”. The term gets tossed around a lot, and while I’d absorbed a general sense of its meaning, this makes it a lot more clear.
braintree - I’m on board with that plan.
Dear Desmostylus,
Why must you ruin my beautiful mind with the unctious poison of factual information? C.D. stands for Conservative Dementia and anyone who disagrees is merely gunning for me out of partisan hatred of the most naked order. I know that’s true because that’s what my imagination tells me.
**Staving Artist ** 0 **Rest of the Sentinent World ** 3
85 minute hattrick: Voyager.
FA enquiry taking video evidence after the final whistle.
Staving Artist - just one example of your seperation from reality - the idea of Clinton having been offered the head of OBL, let alone having declined it, has been debunked so many time it is incredible you have not come across it.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=248355&highlight=clinton+sudan+osama
Oh, of course, CD kicking in, I forgot…
It certainly shows why delegating is more than just handing jobs off to subordinates, then waiting indefinitely until they report back.
Aaaaaaaaaagggggghhhhh!!!
Slap me silly and call me Condi. I’m stunned, too.
The piece also has some stuff on the contradictory stories of who ordered up the infamous August 6 PDB, but that’s nothing compared to this.
Well if the major issue were TROOPS and not INTELLIGENCE then I would agree with you... but apparently they don't have the resources to even translate intercepts and info they are getting in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Not many translators with security clearance... Even superpowers would do a better job concentrating on 1 real target than on 2. Proof is the gradual Taliban ressurgence and Iraqi uprisings. Or do you think its all hunky dory too ?
Any way you paint it... Iraq was a clearly a distraction from fighting Terrorism. Especially since Iraq wasn't about terrorism at all.
Engaging enemies... nice... but what enemies ? Al Qaeda or Saddam ? Oil rich countries or poor backwater muslims ? Muslims or real Terrorists ? The same old "fighting the enemy" rhetoric... Bush should be fighting the causes not the syndromes of Terrorism. This fantasy that Bush is being "tough" on terrorists just because there are troops shooting all over the globe is silly.notquitekarpov…notquiteconvincing either.
Funny thing about the “cites” and proofs offered around here. They usually come from some liberal leaning columnist or apologist. In this case, however, we have a cite that comes from a former member of, as well as a past and present supporter of what is possibly the lyingest administration in this country’s history. I was prepared to acknowledge that you might have been right about this, even though I heard reference to it again on the news just a few days ago…but I’m afraid I don’t have enough confidence in your cite to do so now.
braintree! Sweetie! You’re back! (Lurkers should refer to post #19.)
I see we’ve progressed to the typical part of the discussion where the basic premise of the liberal rebuttal is mere dismissiveness. In the Pit, this would be the time when “moron” or “idiot” or some other invective would become the premise of the rebuttal.
I’ve seen no credible challenge to the claims I’ve put forth. No one has challenged my assertion of the synergy between al Qaeda and Iraq under Saddam.
No one has challenged my assertion that Iraq could easily have supplied al Qaeda with WMD while playing hide and seek with BlixCo.
No one has challenged my assertion that the press and television media, in 9 out of 15 or so questions at the news conference, were asking questions based on the premise that Bush had made *some * kind of mistake and was going to admit it? And no one has challenged my assertion that they had (and still have) no idea exactly what these mistakes were. No one has questioned that they were doing so with the deliberate intent of being able to broadcast to the world that Bush had fucked up regarding the war on Iraq, and something which would give the “Great Equivicator,” i.e. John Kerry, the major thrust and talking point of his campaign for the next seven months.
No one has challenged my assertion that the U.N., France and Germany would not have acted regardless of *any * provocation, such as I described in my previous post.
No one has challenged my estimation that with over 70 FBI investigations targeting al Qaeda alone, plus who knows how many others were going on at the same time, Bush could not possibly have ridden herd over all of them simultaneously and given them the daily goosing that has been suggested as the thing he should have done. “Shaking the trees,” I believe it was called.
In short, no one has provided any sort of convincing argument regarding the actual substance of my assertions. They’ve either not been addressed at all, or the rebuttal to them was nothing more than some variation of an “is too, is not” comment.
Furthermore, I’ll wager there’s not a one of you that wasn’t virulently opposed to Bush prior to this flap and have simply seized upon it in order to futher bolster your own prejudices.
So go ahead and assume your dismissive postures if you want, but you’ve offered nothing of substance to counter my claims. If you think you’re going to make me feel diminished or marginalized with your lame and condescending bail-outs, you are quite mistaken.
Its easy to dismiss stuff with the same old “liberals” and “tree huggers” and “Bin Laden lovers” tags. Turn off Fox News yourself…
So the new words are "synergy" and "could easily have" ? Assumptions make for weak cases for invasion. The idea of the Saddam & Al Qaeda relationship have been endlessly destroyed here... if you don't bring something solid to say its otherwise your just regurgitating old Bull Shit.
The Saudis or the US could have been supplying WMD AQ for that matter... conjecture all you want. It seems Iraq barely had a WMD program going, more of a bluff than a program. That they supplied WMD to AQ, that hated Saddam, is pure republican porn.I think they relatively minor in the overall scope of war and that they are being blown out of proportion for political advantage.
I disagree most heartily. My previous posts explain my views on the synergy between Iraq under Saddam and al Qaeda.
Are you serious???
Uh…I would say our enemies are al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, the Arab and/or Muslim extremists who have joined them, and all the other terrorist cells and individuals around the globe who are gunning for us.
I have heard it widely espoused that much of the cause of terrorism and unrest in the Middle East is due to most of these countries being underdeveloped, the crushing poverty that most of its inhabitants live under, and dictatorial self-enriching governments. I’d be interested to know what you think Bush should be doing about this, rather than wasting his time fighting those who are faunching at the bit to kill us.
I personally don’t think Bush is being all that “tough” on terrorists, as a matter of fact. He’s being constrained by the wishes of a divided public, world opinion, and political considerations…all of which only serve to bolster the resolve our enemies (sorry, I know you don’t like that word, but there ya go…). A strong response by a united global community would send a disheartening message to those who believe terrorism is the answer to the problems; wishy-washy flip-flopping by the U.S. populace and the world community only serves to encourage them by making it appear their tactics are a divisive factor against their enemies (that would be us and our allies by the way), and at the very least encourages them to bide their time till the tide changes. What a great way to protect ourselves!
There’s nothing in this entire post that is worthy of comment.
(in response to “The simple observation ‘In retrospect, we probably should have spent a little more time on bin Laden and less on Hussein’ would, I think, kill the issue:”)
You are of course right that the hardliners would not be sated - that, alas, is the way of hardliners of all stripes. Otherwise, it looks like you overacted to my suggestion that they make a very specific response to a specific situation. Turning it into “not any one in particular” mangles my intent. (I’m quite capable of mangling my intent by myself, thank you very much.) The key in my suggestion was beginning it with the phrase “In retrospect.” Hell, when you say that you can excuse damn near anything, because the best course is always more obvious after the fact, and folks will give you the benefit of the doubt for having done the best you could under the circumstances. What bothers me about the present administration is that they seem incapable of doing even a piddling, face-saving, obvious mea culpa like this. What’s their problem? Are they that afraid of being spun?
Look at an example from the past, the 2000 campaign, that occasion when Mr. Bush was overheard characterizing a certain reporter or columnist or whatever as an asshole. No problem there - I’ve hung that label on a few folks myself. The remarkable thing was Mr. Bush’s “apology” for this incident. He did not say, “I’m sorry I called So-and-So an asshole.” Instead, he apologized for being overheard calling So-and-So an asshole. Doesn’t this guy have the testosterone-production-facilities to stand by his opinions? I can imagine a guy like Harry Truman in that situation: “You’re right. I did say that fellow was an asshole. And he is.”
Gotta admit I check back occasionally for the sheer amusement value. And Condi Rice could have easily supplied me with a blowjob during a ‘nooner’; our offices aren’t all that far apart.
Any connection between this statement and the one it was rebutting (let alone reality) is purely coincidental.
Pass that pipe, dude; I want some of what you’re smoking.
You lose, sir.
My opposition to Mr. Bush and his bunch has never been virulent. Early on (2000 primary) I took his measure as a lightwight and, alas, have not seen anything to overturn that opinion.
(Suggestion: don’t project your own personality on others - it perturbs the petunias.)
I wasn’t speaking of you personally when I made that remark. I was speaking of the print and television media and the people on this board who are rabidly anti-Bush and longing for some admission of error upon which to pillory him.
As am I. 
I’m not seeing much on this board to indicate that anyone feels the best course was only obvious after the fact. Mostly I’m seeing villification that proactive action wasn’t taken prior to 9/11, and villification that proactive action *was * taken afterward.
Yes, I believe they are, given the overwhelming bias of the press and its eagerness to portray him negatively (as was unquestionably the case during the recent news conference), as well as the enormous consequences of the election this fall. The entire course of the “war on terror” will be determined by it. (And to head off any assertions that Kerry has said he would be tough too, what else would you expect him to say? And don’t forget, he’s taken both sides on every major issue. I would have no confidence whatsoever in his approach to terrorism.)
Your point is very well taken, and I would be very much inclined to agree with you. Bear in mind, though, the tremendous press bias against Republican candidates that didn’t exist in Truman’s day. Any chance to make him look bad would be exploited to the max, and while you and I both could agree that he still would have come off better had the apology been forthright, I think his reticence, if not actually the best thing to have done, is at least understandable given the concerns he had at the time.
I’m sure I’ll hear complaints about this “so-called liberal bias by the press,” so I’ll give you just a small example of just one way I’ve seen it play out:
Congressperson A, a Democrat, makes an accusation against a Republican president, B. A video of this person making a fiery, indignant speech in front of a cheering crowd is shown, followed by a detailed explanation of Congressperson A’s complaints or accusations by the anchor person. This is aften a one or two minute segment.
The anchor then reports something along the line of: “President B denies the allegations and claims his position has been misrepresented.” There’s no inspiring video, no spokesperson other than the anchor him/herself, and it takes all of five seconds.
The news agency, if asked, then claims total fairness…it has after all presented both sides of the story.
This is just one example of many of the different ways the news media can skew things in the direction they want it to go, and unfortunately it appears Bush is sometimes too cognizant of it.