If you can’t be right, I’m glad to see you two can at least be mildly amusing. Has anyone seen my rolleyes? I seem to have put it down somewhere…
:rolleyes: <- Oh, here it is!
Hercules couldn’t have spin that cleaner if he rerouted two rivers. Someone’s been hanging out with Ari Fleischer lately.
I’m sure you’re all familiar with the concept of code words in politics. No, you won’t find Bush or any other senior Republican using the word “traitor”, but that doesn’t mean Ace is wrong. Stop being silly about it.
Anyone with a more accurate and concise interpretation of Bush’s phrase “not interested in the security of the American people”, for only one example, is welcome to do so.
Anyone so innocent of the daily news as to not recognize the story he quoted, or so Google-impaired as to be unable to confirm it himself, is at great risk when posting in the Pit.
The same people who are surely accustomed to such code words and sound bites used so often that their meaning is seriously diminished.
Anyone so innocent of the definition of treason that he could possibly confuse a high crime defined in the Constitution with a watered-down sound bite is at great risk when posting in the Pit.
And I’m sure you’re familiar with the concept of a Rorschach Test. If you go looking for offense, you are bound to succeed.**
Please. That’s just a (probably overly-harsh) critique of Democrats opposed to Bush’s homeland security plans. This is par for the course in politics – when local tax hikes are proposed, the local teacher’s union inevitably says that tax hike proponents are “not interested in the education of our children.” At most, you can say the Bush administration should be more civil in its criticisms (and I might agree with you on that point).
Even taken literally, a lack of interest in security issues != treason. Not by any stretch of the imagination. The most that can be said is that such a lack of interest means a person’s priorities are out of whack.
Nicely said, ElvisL1ves.
Credit where credit is due, it wass I am Sparticus who posted the statement and is (the most) correct.
Uh-huh. Thanks for the concern, Skippy. If it’s all the same to you, I’ll continue to “risk” it.
For the reading-impaired, here’s what I am Spartacus posted earlier:
Now, if anyone can show me the parsing logic that equates “not in the interests of the American people” (or its equivalent) to “traitor,” I’ll quit being so persnickety about this. If anyone can show me a direct quote from any (not all) of the three men in question calling Wellstone or anyone who agreed with him a “traitor,” I’ll happily apologize and go my merry way.
For the sake of argument ElvisL1ves, let’s say that I am, indeed, unaware of the concept of “code words” in politics. Please post a list of such “code words” and their true meanings. After all, should I be moved to write a letter to my Senator, I want to be sure that when I say “I think the potted hyacinth in your office is a nice complement to the drapes,” I’m not actually sending a coded message that reads “I favor unconditional surrender to Iraq and the permanent destruction of all Krispy Kreme stands in the continental U.S.”
Agreed. We are dangerously close to a “your guys are all sluts while mine are all virgins” kind of area. By its very nature, insinuation and innuendo leaves wiggle room for its perpetrators. In the case of Wellstone, for instance, political ads suggesting that he was an avowed enemy of national security were running before recent events. and I have seen several more like it on news shows that highlight political ads.
Dishonest, underhanded, sure. Par for the course. Nothing like some of the dirt being slung about in Texas.
What grinds my nads is all I see about the expected low voter turnout. How anybody can shirk thier duty to vote just escapes me.
Dammit. In my post above, substitute “tax hike opponents” for “tax hike proponents.” :smack:
Too late!
Dewey is on record as waffling on tax issues! First he says one thing, then he says its exact opposite!, and includes a Satanist symbol related to masochistic acts of self-abuse!
Can we trust such a man…
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
AceofSpades, you make it much easier for me to disagree with Democrats – I can just disagree with you, and swallow the bitter pill more easily.
If Degrance’s quotes are evidence that Bush is calling Democrats traitors, then politicians call one anothers traitors every day. I’m convinced that Bush is more concerned about his big-business cronies than he is about the Constitution, but I don’t think I just called him a traitor.
And if I did, then the accusation is unremarkable, because it’s ubiquitous in politics.
Now, here’s a quote from Ashcroft tha comes dangerously close to calling people traitors. It’s from this article in The Nation, but it was widely reported at the time:
The bolded section is pretty damned close to an unvarnished accusation of terrorism, wouldn’t y’all agree?
I don’t know of similar statements by the other two who stand accused.
Daniel
Sauron wrote
Also, note IAS’s use of the word “repeatedly”. To prove this statement s/he needs cites showing that those three individuals repeatedly said that Wellstone and people who agreed with him were traitors.
grrr. Unvarnished accusation of treason. Type too fast.
Daniel
Hmm.
DanielWithrow’s post quoting Ashcroft (“To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists–for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends.”) is pretty darn close to what I am Sparticus (sorry for the misspelling earlier, btw) originally said. One can safely imply the “traitor” label from those remarks, I think. Granted, it was one instance, and not done “repeatedly;” similarly, this was Ashcroft only, and not all three of the men mentioned.
However, facts is facts. I hereby apologize to I am Sparticus and Ace0Spades. My bad, guys.
good form Sauron
Very, good Daniel: That’s one. Now find the two others, one spoken by Cheney and one by Bush’s mouthpiece. For bonus points, find something by Rove.
In my less than humble opinion, anyone who doesn’t know the triumvirate of demagoguery to which IaS’s post refers isn’t paying nearly enough attention.
Further, I’ve discussed the same with some of my erstwhile opponents here: Therfore I know that they know. Wasting everyone’s time perhaps?
Sauron: No problem. I’m surprised you didn’t know that quote – if you can’t find the other two, e-mail me, and I’ll be happy to give you them.
I well remember this quote by Ashcroft. We debated it here, IIRC. This quote is the one item that comes vaguely close to the accusation by IAS. It isn’t a full accusation of treason, but it certainly included some of the elemenst.
However, Ashcroft was not addressing Paul Wellstone in particular nor war opponents in general. He wasn’t even addressing people who worried about real civil liberties infractions. He was only addressing those who made false or exaggerated claims of civil liberties infractions.
Furthermore, Ashcroft had a basis. A captured al Qaeda manual told captured terrorists to make false claims of civil liberties violations, so as to undermine America. Ashcroft took a lot of heat for that comment, but afterwards civil liberties folks became more accurate in their criticisms.
Anyhow, this quote doesn’t count as a criticism of Wellstone or war opponents because he wasn’t referring to them. In fact, at the time Ashcroft made the comment, the war was focused on the perpetrators of 9/11, and there were virtually no war opponents in Congress.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why the Ashcroft remarks are controversial. Don’t you think that wildly speculative conjecture about civil rights violations, made without serious inquiry as to the underlying facts, undermines national unity and resolve – and thus aids our enemies? Let’s not forget the context here – this was a moment in time when White House critics were making wholly unsubstantiated allegations about (to choose one example) the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo. Ashcroft wasn’t talking about serious-minded concerns over civil liberties; he was talking about the Chicken Little contingent of the left.
A very generous interpretation, Dewey. What a pity that, in his haste to defend the Republic, Mr. Ashcroft neglected to clarify his remarks. While it is clear that he is unstintingly opposed to falsehood (a brave stand, that!) he is less than specific as to whom he is addressing. No doubt he sent a chill through evil doers everywhere, he also sent rather a chill through those of us who regard our motives as sincere and, yes, patriotic.
Thank heavens for such clear eyed persons as yourself, who can assure us that our Constitution is in good hands, albeit no longer our own. And we can be assured that not only is it safe, but is much more flexible than we had ever imagined! Perhaps the first ten should now be referred to as the Bill of Guidelines? After all, we still have the right to remain silent.