Good! Then all you need to demonstrate is the rest of the pattern. One home run is an example of a pattern only if the other 71 are present and accounted for, sir!
I can’t stand the “look how much we are contributing” chest pounding that has been going on among nations, but I have to say this -
This disaster resulted in loss of life 50 times the scale of 9/11, and it took the President of the United States four frickin’ days to make a statement about it? He deserves all the criticism he is getting.
To give him credit, he was reading the gripping final passage of “the pet goat” for those four days, and couldn’t put it down.
I’m beginning to believe that Bush deliberately tries to piss some people off.
What other explanation is there for not making a statement sooner?
Yep. Everytime a natural disaster strikes anywhere in the world, GW should whip out a stock speech, along the lines of, ‘We mourn the hundreds of thousands killed by…’. We can’t have any waiting to see what the heck actually happened, now can we?
It amazes me, Brutus, how we have to keep explaning these types of things. It just shows to go ya how, if someone doesn’t like somebody, nothing that person does will please them.
I’m sure if Bush had come out instantly with proclamations of horror at what happened and pledges of billions and billions of dollars in aid, these same people would be assailing him for trying to capitalize on the disaster in a transparent attempt to appear humanitarian.
Yeah, right, because tragedies of this scope are so common…
Apparently common enough for certain poop-flingers to expect instant and informed policy decisions to be formed within minutes or hours of the event.
The headline in the Washington Post on Dec. 27th said at least 12,500 dead. Is that not enough to warrant a statement of sympathy? On the 28th it was “over 25,000”. On the 29th, it was over 58,000. Still no comment from Mr. Bush. Not even a “Damn, that sucks”. Nobody is asking for “informed policy decisions”, you hysterical cretin, just a word of sympathy.
You know, like the rest of the world did for us after 9/11?
Oh, I see! So the initial chump change offer only signified that he was thinking it all over, pondering all the options. ‘Cause Heaven knows, ol’ GeeDubya would never make a big move without having all the facts, right?
You wanna stick with that, or try something else?
All you want is sympathy? Awwwww. Ask and GW delivers:
And so forth. I expect self-flagellation and prostrate apologies from you all! (Not really, I actually expect you to hem and haw your way out of this one, or possibly change the subject.)
Realistically, Brutus, he should have said it himself instead of through a spokesman. For all we know he could have told McClellan to pull out the stock response.
10 minutes is not a lot of time.
Ah, the hem and haw. Gotcha.
A press release. How thoughtful.
Raise your hands all of you who think GWB had anything at all to do with that release.
Bueller?
And a change of subject! Wonderful.
Really? Care to stake you immortal soul on that? Maybe a few bucks? No? Damn.
Since the hem-and-haw has been played, and an attempt at changing the subject has been made, how will you weasel your way out of this one, Lamar?
I like this whole “people see in others a reflection of themselves” thread, because it seems to me, that pseudo-conservatives (i.e., people who vote Republican and support Bush despite the decidedly big-government low-freedom consequences of those choices) that anyone who disagrees with, criticises, or otherwise fails to support the official Dogma of the current Administration does so out of mere spite, as premeditated nastiness, and do not actually sift through information and make informed decisions. One could presume, by your model, that Regressives presume this based on their personal model of making decisions, i.e., engage a mental filter that labels things as “us” or “them” and reject stuff that seems “them” because it must be biased/wrong since it is “them” and therefore wrong.
In part, in my opinion, this is why liberals are losing elections. So many of us blanche at making even the most mild criticism of our opponents. I mean jesus christ, these are mild critical statements about a matter of fact. How many conservatives had the least problem with the smears of the Bush campaign against John Kerry, so many of which were repeated ad naseum in the media. We’ve got a bunch of people who don’t bring a knife to a gun fight, they bring a quiche.
Quit being afraid to hurt somebody’s feelings. There is too much at stake.
Oh, look, Brutus is so clever! Of course what everyone meant when we spoke of the President addressing the issue was a hastily scrawled paragraph by a pimply-faced intern in the bowels of the White House press office! Of course that is what we meant!
Certainly not getting out of his pickup and facing a camera and representing the citizens of the United States with a few words. Like any other President surely would have?
If it makes you feel better, you get a gold star for scoring a rhetorical point. Wear it proudly.
Hentor, I’ve never argued that we should be treating Bush with kid gloves. All along, my criticism has been of two things:
- That politicians and editorialists, not supposedly objective media stories, should be levelling these kinds of criticisms.
- That the form the criticism took was so obvious, ham-handed, and maybe unfair, that the message the journalists were trying to get across would most likely be lost, and would actually hurt the cause they were trying to serve.
Anything else is someone else’s opinion. Once you understand that, you’ll see why cricetus seems to agree with me in his/her first post to this thread, yet has argued vociferously with the thread’s conservatives ever since. 
That, and frankly, I can’t grok the criticisms of the December 29th statement. A statement is a statement. An action is an action. IMHO, of course.