To be fair to myself, I thought I had an original and witty approach to the issue of Bush’s malfeasance. Also, I wanted to point up the range and variety of Bush’s blunders of late. It really does seem to me that what Bush has been up to in the last couple of months has been EXTRAORDINARILY awful, by U.S. standards. Can you imagine the lengthy, intensity and duration of the howls of outrage from the right if Clinton had done any single one of the things I’ve listed? Good god, look how excited they got over a blowjob! Imagine if Clinton authorized torture! The howling from the right would be so loud, sustained and high-pitched that it would break every last window in America!
Well, of course. See, if a Democratic president authorized torture, it could only be the desperate, lawless act of a self-interested hypocrite, whereas for the current one, he is simply taking an unfortunate but necessary step to protect us from the horrors of terrorism.
I mean, he’s thought real, real hard about it, and asked the Lord for advice before acting. We really ought to lay off the guy.
Yeah, and Nixon was re-elected in a fucking landslide. But eventually what he did caught up with him.
Well, I did criticize Bush on steel protectionism and the Armstrong Williams payout. I defended Teresa Heinz Kerry from unfair attacks here and elsewhere, and I have good things to say about Democrats when I do agree with them.
I’ll happily provide cites for the above. But most folks here know I’m not a mindless rightist bot, your assertions notwithstanding.
Not making any such assertion, and I can recall complimenting you on being a thoughtful conservative in a non-Bush thread a while ago. The point was that I had not seen you criticizing Mr. Bush, and it didn’t seem likely you would, based on your postings of late. I’m happy to have been proven wrong. (I’d welcome seeing the cites you mentioned in the first paragraph, for my reading interest, but you need not prove anything with them; I trust the integrity of your saying so.)
Fair enough.
I called steel protectionism an untenable political position here.
I stated my opposition to the Armstrong Williams payout here, albeit in a lighthearted way.
I defend Teresa Heinz Kerry here.
Posted not for you, Polycarp, but for other posters who might be curious.
I remember your defense of Teresa Heinz Kerry, with fond respect, and in fact have cited it to friends who’ve criticized her.
Of course, some of us regard it as merely at attempt to curry favor, in hope of leniency after the Revolution.
Now, luci, let’s not discourage the more educable, trainable among them from hoping to gain a quick release from the reeducation camps.
Well said, Sir. Speaking strictly for myself I’m not aware of how things were around here during the Clinton years, so my frame of reference is formed out of what I have noted on a first hand basis.
I’m not opposed to criticism of Mr. Bush. I am opposed to a multitude of threads which all say essentially the same thing, started by the same people, posted to by the same people, over and over, ad nauseam. As long as I’ve been around these parts, the man can’t do anything correct in the eyes of the usual suspects, and after a while, I tire of the continual baying of the hounds. Without question, Mr. Bush has made mistakes, and I’m not about to allege that his presidency is flawless. That said, there are some people on this board who make Bush-bashing a full time work as Turek observed.
The only reasoned discourse among dopers to which I’ve been privy is when we’re face to face. Conversation with other dopers over a few cold beers has led to the realization that we’ve got more about which we agree than was known, even though our parties of registry are different. Beyond that, even though we might disagree about other issues, we don’t stoop to the tactics used online, as in Repugs, Bushco, Shrub, and other infantile frames of reference.
When he stops doing things worthy of my contempt, I’ll stop ranking on him. Jsut today, he uncorked a doozy, a genuine humdinger, when he claimed that the recent election validated his Iraq policy…
This does for chutzpah what Stonehenge does for rocks.
What mistakes? What misjudgments in planning? What misjudgments in managing the aftermath? Violent aftermath? What violent aftermath?
“Freedom is on the march!”
(Cue Mormon Tabernacle Choir: “Truth is marching, truth is marching…”
Yes, it’s very commonplace to have elections where the candidates are so fearful for their lives they’re campaigning as anonymous numbers on the ballot:
When you and your ilk stop being one trick ponies, perhaps we can begin to demilitarize the battleground so well identified by brother Polycarp. The choice is yours.
Look, over there, just off the road…is that a herd of ilk?
Re posts #24-27: Cecil, may I request that you visit this thread – barefoot? It seems I have a duty to perform here… :o
That was pretty funny danceswithcats. It takes a special kind of person to use a plea for peace, love and understanding as a weapon with which to attack their opponents.
The best part was his declaring it to have been his “accountability moment”. Good, now that’s out of the way for another four years.
What’s wrong with this picture? If someone really believes what they are doing, have any sense of honor, any backbone at all, he/she will stand by what they do and they WILL accept responsibility and accountability.
It was the administration’s mistakes and misjudgements. They made the decisions, they must have the guts to accept the results and take ownership. Anything less is cowardly.