This has been reported in a number of places, including CNN and The Guardian.
In fact, according to this source, Ashcroft himself described his anointment upon the commencement of each of his gubernatorial terms, as well as the day he was sworn in to the U.S. Senate.
Actually, upon re-reading, it appears that the “cooking oil” anointment refers to the day he became a Senator. It’s not clear what happened when he became the AG, but one would have to assume that he stuck with his “anoint me with oil” routine.
Another source states that when Ashcroft became AG, Justice Clarence Thomas was Zadok:
Aldebaran, You are the biggest asshole to have ever posted to this board.
Daisy, sorry but third hand hearsay doesn’t qualify as proof.
grienspace, don’t start crying next time the USA gets what we have to deal here with THANKS TO THE SICK CRIMINAL YOU ADORE.
Naturally, with that statement I can assume that you’re not a Christian because translation after translation is how we got THAT story.
I never said it was fact. I wasn’t there and I’d wager that no one else on the board was there so I’m thinking that you’re not going to get direct proof. Something tells me that if there was proof (better than a translation of the meeting’s minutes like mentioned in the article by the Washington Post) that it wouldn’t be good enough for you anyway.
Got news for you. As I’ve stated before, Bush lost my respect with his support of a constitutional amendment aimed to thwart the aspirations of a constituency under his leadership.
No, you’re an asshole because you can’t see out of your blinded jingoistic worldview.
There are thousands of people needlessly suffering in the Middle East for no good reason, or at least no good TRUE reason. Had America gone over to take out Saddam Hussein because he was a danger to his own people, then that would be one thing, and I would applaud the US for it especially if they tried to keep senseless killing and torture to a minimum.
The problem is, they didn’t and they haven’t.
There are monsters of Saddam’s ilk and worse who are wandering around the world unmolested because they happen to support American policy, or because they provide America with advantages. I see we’re not bothering with a lot of the volatile African situations, or at least not on a scale that the Iraq War is on, because those poor Africans are so unfortunate not to have oil or anything else we want. So we leave it up to the French to clean up the messes that we (and to be honest, the French and Belgians also) made.
I have seen, in my lurking,** Aldebaran **get overly (and unjustly, I thought) hostile to Americans. However, he has also made some good points, which he is making now. He may not be in Iraq, but I’m not in Virginia. However, if D.C. was firebombed or smartbombed or whatever, I would get righteously indignant. You know why? My loved ones live there–and furthermore, I love America and I think it has many good things in it. Also, I do not like to see anyone–ANYONE–killed or tortured unjustly, be they American, Iraqi, or Martian. We Americans throw a fit when several thousand of our own are killed gruesomely on September 11, but we dismiss tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi children and parents who are killed in this war as “collateral damage.” Oops–sorry about that smart bomb, we thought we could actually guide it to where the bad guys are.
Americans are some of the best, smartest, funniest, and kindest people I’ve ever met–I should know, I am one. Furthermore, my SO would agree with me, and he’s not one. But–the fervor with which people are damning innocent Iraqis sickens me. I know some soldiers will not kill unless they’re given no other choice–but far too many of them kill at will, whenever it suits. And GWB is the same way–so they’re just following their orders and his magnificient example.
I realize I talked a lot here, but this hit a nerve. My SO is part Arabic, and I have Arabic friends, so maybe that’s part of it. But it also could be that I cannot stand to see anyone undeserving be hurt on the part of someone else’s selfishness.
Really? As pleasant as this for instance?
Quote:
You disgusting, sniveling little cowards. Yeah, capitulating to the monsters that just killed hundreds of your people is the right thing to do. You have played into their hands. You have acted just as they desired. Yes, the terrorists have won, because Spain lacks the fucking balls to stand up for itself.
You are a spineless excuse for human beings, and after an act like this you deserve nothing but the scorn and hatred of any future victims of terrorist slaughter.
Spits in the face of all those who self-righteously claimed that they were “voting for peace”
Other than the quote provided by Daisy, which has been reported in a number of places, of all political stripes, there is this passage from this source:
Sure sounds to me like he thinks he’s doing God’s work.
Nice. So GW will be the cause of the next terrorist attack by Islamists here in the US. But what caused 9/11? Did your folks just want to get a head-start on our Most Adored Sick Criminal? What caused the first WTC bombing? Did prescient wazirs order those attacks because someday we would elect our Most Adored Sick Criminal? How does the Most Adored Sick Criminal factor into the Achille Lauro or any of the attacks against us?
To be fair, Brutus, I don’t think Aldebaran is talking about September 11–I think he’s trying to say that the Iraq War can and probably will facilitate more anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, which, obviously, has never been one of our prime supporters.
Some people are crazy…Hitler, Kim Jong-Il, Hussein, Bin Laden…just absolutely nuts. However, not everyone who endorsed Hilter was insane–just fed up. Similarly, those who subscribe to Bin Laden’s worldview are not all insane monsters–some are just fed up. I think classifying all terrorists as inhuman does all of us a great disservice. They’re human and they’re pissed off about something: more than likely the foreign policy that this administration (and administrations previous–Democrat and Republican) has used.
Should we coddle terrorists? No! But I think we need to take a long hard look about how we’re treating peoples worldwide, both our allies (the French and Germans, for example) and our enemies.
Clothahump, I would not call you an asshole for protesting blind, unreasoning hatred of George Bush – I find it obnoxious myself.
People who object to the man for a variety of reasons, from the 2000 election to the War of Aggression on Iraq to the Federal Marriage Amendment, and state their arguments against him, strike me as having a fair amount of sanity behind why they dislike him. You are, of course, entitled to feel otherwise.
Now, to some coherent points:
- Not all liberals have a blind, unreasoning hatred of Mr. Bush. Some don’t hate him at all, they just feel that Mr. Kerry or Mr. Nader would make a better President. Some have grounds (see previous paragraph) for disliking him.
- These days, not everyone who dislikes Mr. Bush is a liberal. Notice the polls lately?
- Just for the record, nobody named “Algore” ran in the 2000 election, so far as I know, though there might have been a “Thomas Algore” on the ballot for the Daviess Co., Iowa, Board of Commissioners; I can’t be certain of that. That little cutesy reduces you to the level of someone who refers to the President as “Shrub,” in case you weren’t aware.
- People who object to electoral theft – which is arguably what happened, and let’s not spend 150 posts arguing about whether it actually did – are not being “spoiled brats.” Either that, or Messrs. Washington, Adams, Hancock, Jefferson, Madison, etc., were spoiled brats who didn’t realize how good they had it under Lord North. Does the term “Watergate” ring a bell with you? Americans tend to believe that elections should be honest.
- If you vote for Bush simply to protest liberals being outspoken, you deserve exactly what you get. And if Mr. Bush should win, I for one will cheerfully remind you of that every time you venture into a thread where political discussions are acceptable. It’s not the stupidest reason for casting a vote that I’ve ever heard, but it ranks quite high on the list.
- Mr. Bush is entitled to opinions that contradict mine, and he’s not a liar for saying what he thinks. But if he knows one thing to be true and says something different for political reasons, you tell me what that makes him.
- Having concluded this analysis, I find that my initial premise was faulty. Your basic statement appears to be that anyone who objects out loud to your political stance is dishing out bigotry and hatred. And that makes you an asshole.
**Early Out **, your cite does not support Tom’s claim that Bush said “that God has personally directed his actions regarding the Middle East”.
Well, if you’re waiting for Mr. Bush to come knock on your front door and say, “God has personally directed my actions regarding the Middle East,” I guess it’ll be a long wait. And it sounds as if you won’t accept a quote from a meeting at which you weren’t personally present. I certainly wouldn’t accuse tomndebb of being “a big fat liar” based solely upon the lack of a verbatim, first-hand quote. The quotes provided certainly lend credence to the idea that Bush believes that God is on his side, and it would be consistent with what we know of the man and his adminstration.
I don’t like Bush. Because:
-
he ignored the UN and invaded Iraq on a false basis (the same criticism applies to Tony Blair, who, interestingly, heads a liberal, socialist party)
-
he claimed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 (oh look, he lied!)
-
he authorised the imprisonment and torture of people in Guantanamo Bay, refusing them access to legal advice and their families
This is not blind, unreasoning or bigoted.
The 2000 elections were certainly embarrassing for the US.
But it’s stuff like the US actions in Iraqi jails that appalls me. Doesn’t it bother you?
Actually your post shows you have a blind, unreasoning, bigoted hatred of anyone who criticises Bush.
I suppose that would also make you an asshole.
Spin it however you’d like, grienspace. Bush declined to seek advice from his father who had actually been president and presided over a war with Iraq and declined to seek advice from his own cabinet, declaring that he had appealed to God and saw himself as God’s messenger.
Here’s another example of the OP’s intellect.
Hmmm…so apparently starting an unnecessary war based on deceit isn’t nearly as bad as getting head.
Gotcha.
:rolleyes:
Tom you said you were opposed to Bush because," He claims that God has personally directed his actions regarding the Middle East."
The implication of that statement would suggest he is a megalomaniac with a direct line to the Almighty and believing that God is in charge of America through him… In support of that view you present an account by Woodward, which I have no reason to doubt. But Bush’s relationship with God in regard to his decision making as reported by Woodward would be what I would expect from any christian president. Nothing here to suggest that God personally directed Bush.
I’d suggest that it is you who is doing the spinning here.
By the way, Clinton told Dan Rather that he prays often to God as well.
This flash blurb neatly summarizes the positions of both sides around here.