Or, perhaps, “pushed” is the toned-down term the publisher felt comfortable with. So, what we got is either reprehensible or unspeakably vile.
Told you so. (Not you so much, Lib, just a general…)
Example A (without the last sentence where the good guy refuses) is how most terrible things are accomplished in society. Example A happens all the time, but 65% of people will obey higher-ups even when they believe the results are potentially fatal.
How do you feel about Rumsfeld and Ashcroft both going to Ridge with the conversation you made up - “Hey Tom, it sure would be nice if the terror level was orange, with the election coming up?” Are you OK with that? Do you think it’s despicable? Or what?
I’m pretty sure it’s possible to be both reprehensible and unspeakable vile.
Well, I honestly think Dick Cheney looks like the original Penguin on Batman. Back when all the characters were silly, except Robin. So I wouldn’t put it past him.
And that information and guidance is very clearly not coming from them, they’re simply the messengers. I know you’re not this stupid.
I sometimes wonder whether I have as hard a time admitting when I’ve been supporting an incorrect position as some other people here do.
Seriously! It’s worrying. The internet, it does things to the mind, and I don’t know if I’d even notice it happening…
sigh
EXAMPLE A (later that day):
“No, Tom, I won’t fire her. She made a mistake. She heard us talking about how a rainy day on the East Coast and a threat level of Orange might blunt Kerry’s edge enough, and she thought we wanted you to change it.”
“Mr. President, the threat level can’t ever be politicized. I can’t work for an administration that doesn’t–”
“Now, Tom, don’t get a burr under your saddle. No one’s politicizing anything. What we have here is a low-lever staffer who thought she was doing something we wanted. The problem’s been fixed.”
You rig an election with the terror level you have, you don’t rig an election with the terror level you don’t have.
Well, well, just this morning Bricker was incensed that anyone could dare regard him as less than impartiality incarnate.
Here, Brick is example 2 for you. In less than 12 hours.
So he was “pushed,” but did he actually do it?
Well, then it wasn’t Bush and Cheney.
And I’m prepared to say (assuming this to be true) that it was absolutely reprehensible for Ashcroft and Rumsfeld to do that. It was a complete betrayal of their responsibilities. Scum.
I get the feeling that Cheney’s book will amount to “you’re goddamned right we did it*, so what”.
- it being any of the alleged Bush White House shenanigans.
On the contrary. You wanted me to conclude, from hearing that Ridge was pushed, that Bush and Cheney were responsible. I declined.
Oh, and hey! Now we see it’s Rumsfeld and Ashcroft that did the deed. NOT Bush and Cheney.
And now that this info is added to the mix, I have no problem in strongly condemning them. Calling them scum, in fact.
To you, a more impartial approach would have been to immediatelty agree that Bush and Cheney were guilty?
How many people have to take the fall for Bush&Cheney before some kind kind of top-level shenanigans become apparent?
So example A was weak because he did not think it was an order from above, but now that you need to have him (foolishly) considering resignation over it, it suddenly was believed to be an order from above. Slick.
Of course, what you now have is a situation where all that’s happened is that Tom’s been shown to be a paranoid moron. I can totally see how that case would be something he’d want to write about that in a book, eh? Very plausible secnario here.
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION was responsible for this, and the actions of Ashcroft and Rumsfeld reflect directly on President Bush.
How about that?
Whose administration was is? Was it Rumsfeld/Ashcroft '04?
How does the fact that the message was delivered by Rumsfeld and Ashcroft disprove the theory that Bush and Cheney might have originated the idea? I mean, it seems a little unlikely that both Rumsfeld and Ashcroft spontaneously and independenlty came up with and acted on the idea at around the same time. The presence of two sources for this strongly suggests to me that one or both of the men got the idea from another source. Admittedly, Rumsfeld or Ashcroft could have thought it up and passed the idea on to the other…but can we rule out them both getting the word from another source? And do we have any logical reason to?