Daschle not Dashle :smack:, Gaudere’s law must be an energy field!!!
I wouldn’t be even that minimally charitable to the man. To the extent that he says the truth, it’s often in a “what does ‘is’ mean?” sort of way. Consider the following Rush quote from december’s link:
It’s been well-documented for many years that when Rush uses his show to lambaste someone, and then urges his audience to call them, the calls are frequently quite hostile in tone, and some are threatening.
Maybe he hasn’t been specifically informed of the nature of his listeners’ calls to Daschle’s office before, so he might be technically telling the truth.
But by any non-weasel moral ethic, Rush is lying.
Another Rush goodie:
That he urges his listeners to call his targets has been well documented; he claimed the contrary back in 1995, and was proved wrong then. Maybe he can sleaze around the word ‘leaders’ sufficiently that he isn’t technically lying, but it’s still the truth only by Weasel World standards.
I just saw this on Drudge. John McCain called Limbaugh a “circus clown” in a radio interview this morning. I always knew I liked McCain 
I have not heard this before. Could you point me to that documentation?
If there’s someone or something you object to – for whatever
your reason – one way to get your influence to work, is to
make sure the facts are correct (from two or more
reputable sources that give the original quote) – than contact
that person, or organization, and let your reaction be known.
This is the American way – too often we let people who
deserve to show accountability for their action get away without
the public responding.
Too many politicians (Rep, and Dem) waste billions of $$$
on projects that benefit their area only, not caring for the
good of majority of taxpayers.
Lying, outward fraud and corruption isn’t just with major US
corporations – politicians, governmental agencies, social
organizations, religious groups have recently been exposed.
Lack of correct information is a killer for good, honest people
who want to keep high standards for our great country -
where else could we have this freedom of expression?
I think the Rush & Tom show is entertaining!
—Not a good analogy, Apos It’s Daschle’s job to help lead the effort to prevent a repeat of 9/11.—
December, this is beyond the pale. You are essentially claiming that its bad taste to discuss any subject other than 9/11.
—Incidentally, do you remember when Newt Gingrich complained about flying in the back fo Air Force One, returning from Israel IIRC? He was blasted for that, and never really recovered.—
As usual, the old “they did tit, so tat is justified.” I don’t buy it.
—Not surprising that you didn’t get Daschle’s cheap shot, since you just casually made one of your own.—
Not casually. As countless people have pointed out again and again, you make posts which selectively quote so as to misrepresent people, and then continue with your own misrepresentation when you describe and respond to the situation. Even a cursory look at your own helpfully provided cites usually serves to expose what’s rotten in Denmark, and this case is no different.
—First of all, note that Limbaugh’s criticism was political, not personal. He was criticizing Daschle’s political statements.—
Pardon? Calling someone Hanoi Jane, accusing someone of hoping to profit off terrorism: that’s not a personal attack based on extremely slimy ad hominem and unsourced psycholanalysis? Rush is not simply presenting what is known as “honest criticism” of Daschle’s comments and positions. He’s attacking him personally with the nastiest forms of rhetoric available. Would we tolerate a poster like Rush here in GD?
I think it’s unquestionable that the rise of this sort stuff of a substitution for rational and principle political debate IS bad for the country and DOES play to people’s emotions far more than it appeals to reasonable political points.
Everyone in politics deserves criticism, as a matter of principle. Bush’s administration deserves criticism for how it’s doing, and Daschle deserves criticism for how he’s doing.
Your points, however, use the same “I can twist words any which way I please so as to refute what hasn’t been said in order to imply that it was” and end with the same reference to famous traitors that Rush peppers his speech with. At least, unlike Rush, you haven’t made an extended comparison to Satan.
—Second I will argue that Daschle’s comments deserved to be blasted.—
Again, everything does, on the principle that nothing should be accepted uncritically.
However, your aim is something quite different than responding to Daschle by presenting some response like “well, frankly, the priorities have quite rightly changed from finding Osama, which was never itself the only focus of our efforts, to knocking out terrorists and their regimes all over the world: Al Queda has been largely crippled even if some of its leaders have temporarily escaped justice and we’re doing everything we can to rectify that. Yes, that Osama got away is a dissapointment. We vowed to bring him to justice, and so far we have not. However, we said at the beggining that finding him would be extremely difficult.”
But no: your criticisms are far less concerned with the content what was actually said than they are in painting a picture of a man so that he can be attacked (and to do so, of course, requires twisting words: e.g. turning a statement about an undeniably important and repeatedly stated criteria for success into a comment on the extent war itself in order to attack the latter instead of the former).
You quickly turn to your own mind-reading take on people’s motives (and, surprise: your enemies always have terrible, detestable motives!), and from there launch into a discussion of personal character. Of course criticism of political decisions is “political” but that hardly makes it invalid, regardless of what Daschle did or did not do (and Daschle is hardly the only one who has criticized Bush on this issue: plenty of conservatives think he screwed up by timidly failing to use U.S. ground forces in a more forward manner).
Look at your OP for goodness sakes: it commits the exact same faults Daschle is complaining (quite rightly, whether or not a mote is in his own eye) about.
Fact is, as soon as Dashcle got political power he was targeted for slander ridicule and despicability before he had really even gained national attention. Rush started inventing nasty nicknames like “Puff Daschle” and “El Diablo” right away. This is precisely the culture of personal attack, a culture that the president himself campaigned against! And you’re defending it. Would you defend Michael Moore’s tripe in the same way?
So you’re hep with the whole Detainee/Disappeared analogy too, or is that beyond the pale because it calls the actions of conservatives into question ? I think you’re taking Bush’s “Churchwellian” paradigm for the war on terror a touch too literally. You cannot defend America’s freedoms by muzzling anyone who disagrees with administration policies. Daschle has had plenty to say on what the heck we should be doing, and every time he says something in public that doesn’t hoe the GOP line he gets called a traitor for his troubles. You claim that Bush is seeking 1945, but the admin’s actions seem more directed towards 1984.
You base your claim that Llimbaugh does urge his lsteners to call on an uncited documentation seven years ago. OTOH he specifically said the opposite on his show just this week. I will believe Limbaugh unless I see some evidence to the contrary. You could try his web site and see if you can find examples where he did urge people to call.
BTW I heard on the radio that Daschle had withdrawn his accusation against Limbaugh, so apparently Daschle isn’t even claiming that Limbaugh asked his listeners to call him.
So your criticism of Limbaugh’s alleged dishonesty is itself inaccurate.
Your uncited claims that I’ve done it before have no weight. In this case, I am not alone in my interpretation of Daschle’s comments. You’re entitled to your interpretation; that’s why I quoted his comments and provided a cite.
Since you disagree with my interpretation, how about explaining what you think Daschle meant when he said, “You know, we see it in foreign countries and we think, ‘Well, my God, how can this religious fundamentalism become so violent?’ Well, it’s that same shrill rhetoric, it’s that same shrill power that motivates.” Does the phrase “religious fundamentalism become so violent” suggest Islam terrorism to you?
I agree that Rush’s rhetoric was nasty, but it entirely concerned Daschle’s political comments and actions. He didn’t attack Daschle’s race, religion, sexual orientation, looks, neighborhood, hobbies, family, or any other personal aspect of Daschle’s life.
I think the mods have no problem when a post is harshly criticized. Similarly Limbaugh was criticizing Daschle’s comments.
You are assuming that you know my motives. Isn’t this what you criticized as “unsourced psychoanalysis” when Limbaugh did it?
Let’t stop here. I disputed Daschle’s claim that Bush said that the president himself held [OBL’s death or capture] out to be the standard over a year ago, when he said we wouldn’t be successful until we found him dead or alive. It’s impossible a cite where Bush didn’t say this. So, I challenge you to find a cite were he did.
Absolutely. And, many have criticized Bush’s push to war in Iraq. But, all these people had specific criticisms and alternative ideas. Daschle had no specific ideas or alternatives; just doom and gloom, and blame the President.
In what ways?
Yep. That’s true of just about every prominent person on the political stage. “The Gingrich who stole Christmas.” Clumsy Geral Ford. Dumb George W. Bush. Even dumber Dan Quayle. Fat, extremist liar Rush Limbaugh. Liar Hillary Clinton. Dan Rather Biased.
It usually suggests Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson, to me.
Ooops. And Ian Paisley and Meir Kahane.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *
I disputed Daschle’s claim that Bush said that the president himself held [OBL’s death or capture] out to be the standard over a year ago, when he said we wouldn’t be successful until we found him dead or alive. It’s impossible a cite where Bush didn’t say this. So, I challenge you to find a cite were he did.[\QUOTE]
Bush Wants Bin Laden ‘Dead or Alive’
I presume this is a joke, although there’s no smiley. That is, you may think of these individuals, but I assume that you didn’t mean to imply that Daschle was referring to them. Just for the record, I will point out that the odious Rev. Robertson has not been accused of committing violence.
squeegee – there’s all the difference in the world between the president himself held [OBL’s death or capture] out to be the standard over a year ago, when he said we wouldn’t be successful until we found him dead or alive. versus merely Bush Wants Bin Laden ‘Dead or Alive’ If Daschle had correctly stated that Bush had said the latter, I wouldn’t be dinging him for inaccuracy. Of course, it was convenient for Daschle to misrepresent Bush’s comment. Daschle’s version supported his false claim that the war on terror was a failure according Bush’s own standard.
I’m still confused on how religion got thrown into this discussion, or Daschle’s comments for that matter. Rush talks politics, not religion and it is folly to assume all Conservatives=Christian fundies. It is unfortunate that the right is being painted with such a wide brush.
Correct. When I hear of fundamentalists linked to violence, those are the cranks that come to mind. (I consider Robertson’s wholehearted (and mercenary) support for the former apartheid regime of South Africa to be supportive of violence–and I suspect that if he was able to impose his theocracy on the U.S., it would be quite violent, as well.)
<<I’m still confused on how religion got thrown into this discussion, or Daschle’s comments for that matter. Rush talks politics, not religion and it is folly to assume all Conservatives=Christian fundies.>>
The chronic inability of Democrats to discern religious wackos from mainstream conservatism prevents them from making rational campaign decisions, and is a big reason why they lost the election this year.
They simply try to dismiss every conservative voice out there as a “right wing Christian,” rather than speak to their problems and state their case. But being dismissed as a “Right wing Falwellite fanatic” does nothing to bring a blue dog back into the Democratic fold, nor does it do anything to convince an independent to vote Democratic.
It DOES serve to motivate the Republican base, though.
Indeed. Ironically, the left’s wackos are more the mainstream. On this message board alone I’ve seen more of Oil monger Bush references than Klinton references.
Nonsense. There’s not ‘a world of difference’, there’s a darned thin line. Daschle certainly overrepresented what Bush said, but didn’t misrepresent it entirely.
Bush, 9/18/2001: "All I want, and America wants, is [Osama] brought to justice."
That’s a pretty clear message: Bin Ladin is priority one. The administration backpeddled away from that stance later, but that was the stated goal in the weeks just after 9/11. And that goal has not been met, as Daschle correctly said.
I agree with you that saying that capturing Bin Ladin was the only goal, as Daschle implied, is incorrect. However, trying to pretend that capturing Bin Ladin was never an extremely important goal for this administration is at best revisionist.
And the administration has indeed not been able to track down Bin Ladin, nor even verify that he exists, in well over a year. I’m not saying anyone else could do better, but it is indeed a clear failure.
Shame on you, squeegee for providing that quote out of context, and without the cite. Here it is
Bush said “All I want” in the context of what he wanted for OBL, not in the context of the war on terror. In fact, from that same press conference
—Your uncited claims that I’ve done it before have no weight.—
Cites? Just do a search for posts begun by “december.”
—Since you disagree with my interpretation, how about explaining what you think Daschle meant when he said, “You know, we see it in foreign countries and we think, ‘Well, my God, how can this religious fundamentalism become so violent?’ Well, it’s that same shrill rhetoric, it’s that same shrill power that motivates.” Does the phrase “religious fundamentalism become so violent” suggest Islam terrorism to you?—
Sure: but that doesn’t make what he said a comparison (I notice that you cut out the meat of the quote…). He didn’t say that violent religious fundamentalists are comparable to talk show hosts. He said that the violence in these countries is the result of increasing cycle of shrill rhetoric. He thinks that same pattern is happening in our political debate here in the U.S.
I don’t disagree with him about the dangers of the rhetoric, and I’m not sure why you would either, considering that you’ve spent much of your time on these boards decrying exactly this sort of nasty slander when it gets used against Republicans.
—I think the mods have no problem when a post is harshly criticized. Similarly Limbaugh was criticizing Daschle’s comments. –
Oh good grief. And Michael Moore is simply “criticizing” Bush’s comments when he accuses him of being a power-hungry, oilmad dictator. Rush doesn’t just criticize ideas, he’s uses criticism as a bridge to attacking people directly. His practice is to build up extended caricatures about how craven and despicable everyone is who doesn’t agree with him.
—I agree that Rush’s rhetoric was nasty, but it entirely concerned Daschle’s political comments and actions.—
It doesn’t matter what it ostensibly concerns: it matters that it’s vicious and personal. It’s no different that the people calling Bush stupid. It’s a sub-rational script designed to appeal to people’s emotions.
—Let’t stop here. I disputed Daschle’s claim that Bush said that the president himself held [OBL’s death or capture] out to be the standard over a year ago, when he said we wouldn’t be successful until we found him dead or alive.—
You said that Bush said the war would go on for years, as if that was relevant. I agree that Daschle is overplaying the emphasis on Osama, an emphasis which Bush initially gave with his “dead or alive” talk and Rumsfields vow to bring Osama to justice. However, there are honest and principled responses to this, and there are those that are not. Your initial response was completely off-point (relating to the end of the war on terrorism as a whole, not to whether getting Osama was a criteria of that war’s success, which it very obviously is), and Rush’s was bombastic and nasty.
—You are assuming that you know my motives. Isn’t this what you criticized as “unsourced psychoanalysis” when Limbaugh did it?—
Uh… I go on to describe exactly what you said, not describe your motivation for saying it or your character.
—That’s true of just about every prominent person on the political stage.—
And that makes it okay? Do you like that our political and media debate consists less of ideas and facts and more of people calling each other nasty names, painting each other as Satan, etc.?
Shame on me?? That was the exact friggin quote from the CNN article I cited above.
As for your more lengthy cite:
Note the word “just” in Bush’s sentence. He is saying explicitly that
a) Osama is one of the goals and,
b) There are others goals.
Which is exactly what I said above.
And this goal has been a failure. So far.
So what’s the problem?