You are confusing my response regarding Bush’s comments (“Dems don’t care enough about security”) and my response regarding Ashcroft’s comments (“aiding terrorists”).
My response per Bush was essentially (1) this is ordinary political rhetoric, and (2) even if you parse the statement literally, it doesn’t say that dissenting Democrats are traitors.
My response per Ashcroft was essentially that Ashcroft was not referring to thoughtful critiques from civil libertarians when he made his statement, as reading the entire statement from his testimony makes clear.
wring, I’ll give you an example from memory. Remember when the first round of prisoners hit Gitmo? There was video footage of them being brought off the plane. They were hooded and heavily shackled.
The leftist press (particularly UK’s The Guardian) had a collective hissy fit. That footage was offered as exhibit A as to how the US was treating the prisoners like animals. Outraged op-eds flowed like water.
Of course, once the more mainstream press got around to making relevant inquiries, it was revealed that the prisoners were only so restrained when being moved from the transport to the holding facility, and that the restraints were deemed necessary because some prisoners had attacked their captors during prior transfers.
A couple of phone calls could have quelled any fears of poor treatment. But for some people, it’s more important to show the barbarity of the Americans than it is to get facts right in the first instance.
ah, I see you linked the Senate testimony. Nope, I disagree that he was identifying certain specific ‘liars’. He mentions those who are concerned about “kangaroo courts” etc.
which fit (and still does) a fuck of a lot of us. thank you.
It may make you feel better thinking that the AG isn’t wholesale accusing US citizens of treason 'cause they disagree w/his tactics. But I don’t see any of his subsequent actions that make me feel any better.
There is a difference between being concerned about due process deprivations leading to “kangaroo courts” and actually leveling a charge of “kangaroo courts.” Ashcroft is saying that people shouldn’t cast aspersions on the DOJ unless they can credibly back up those aspersions.
It’s one thing to say “I disagree with how the DOJ is acting” or even “the DOJ needs to be more forthcoming with information so we can be sure it is acting properly.” It is quite another thing to fabricate improprieties out of whole cloth.
semantics, DCH - you take a very charitable view of his remarks given his actions. I don’t. And, it’s an entirely reasonable conclusion that he indeed means to encompass all who disagree with him.
We all know what Ashcroft meant, and I am absolutely not willing to give him any benefit of the doubt. As far as I’m concerned, as soon as he decided cover up the statue-boobies with sheets he exposed himself as an unhinged lunatic, completely undeserving of ANY credibility or ANY respect.
Remember when Tom Daschle made some mild remarks about the “war on terror” (a completely rhetorical and legally meaningless phrase btw). He said something to the effect that the ending was “in doubt.” Remember how the reps piled onto him? Here’s a refresher course.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/07/opinion/main503212.shtml
How dare Sen. Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism – especially when we have troops in the field," harrumphed Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, a trained cheerleader.
Rep. Thomas M. Davis of Virginia, head of the GOP House campaign committee, said Daschle was “giving aid and comfort to our enemies.”
I think it’s safe to say that Davis completely satisfies the requirement for a cite of a rep calling the liberals “traitors.” As elucidator pointed out in a previous post, the administration made no attempt to distance themselves from these remarks. So FUCK Dick Cheney.
Clearly, wring and Diogenes have made up their minds, and no addition of context will dissuade them from their firm belief that Ashcroft said Wellstone and his compatriots were traitors.
In addition, Diogenes evidently fully believes that Ashcroft is eeeeeevilll, and thus will take whatever he says in the worst possible way possible. And like all who go looking to be offended, he will succeed, regardless of the actual content of the speech in question.
Diogenes is still clinging to the urban legend about Ashcroft being such a prude that he felt compelled to cover up the nude statutes at DOJ. The drapes were purchased as a cost-saving move (they had previously been rented). Arguably, another reason was that Ashcroft had (understandably) been annoyed at photographers repeatedly going for the “money shot” of the breast behind him at DOJ press conferences, and so wanted the drapes up when the cameras were present… In either case, it ain’t prudery (if he hated sculpted breasts, he’d just have the statue removed).
Tom Davis is clearly a dick. But he’s not part of the Bush administration; is Bush to answer for every damned fool thing that any Republican, anywhere, has the temerity to say? What if our local city councilman calls Daschle a traitor? Should Bush take time out to trifle with that?
I don’t think Ashcroft is evil, I think he’s crazy.
Whether the curtains are rented or owned is relevant how exactly?
I don’t care what kind of spin the DOJ tries to put on it, we all know that Ashcroft was offended by the boobies. Why else would he CARE if he was photographed with them?
The White House made no attempt to moderate or apologize for ANY of the verbal gang-rape committed by congressional republicans against Tom Daschle. We can assume that Bush and Cheney had no problem with remarks such as that made by Tom Davis. At least I’M going to assume it.
Just so. If only they were like you, open minded and amenable to persuasion. Shame on them.
(as above)
Oh, they were rented! Well, that clearly changes everything. Yes, a cost saving measure. Good to see that our Attorney General has plenty of time to spend keeping track of the details of administration. The little details. The very, very tiny details.
And what, pray, is so “understandable” about his annoyance?
Did he resent being juxtaposed to an ideal statue of Justice? He thought drapes were somehow more…what? exactly? Of course its a silly matter, naked bronze titties. So what kind of humorless boob (snicker) makes a big deal of this? Well, a prude. Or maybe he’s a mammophobe. Jeez, sure makes being afraid of spiders seem easy to deal with.
Clearly, you are correct in your interpretation of this Davis guy. I would use “prick”, perhaps, but tomato, tomato, penis, penis. However, the Chairman of the GOP House election committee, I make bold to suggest, is a bit more important than a local city councilman. Quite a bit more, actually. Not to put to fine a point on it, a pretty important guy. How much you wanna bet Our Churchill knows him by name and face? Wanna bet he knew what he had said? Or would you like to suggest he knew nothing about it? Wonder what his pet nickname is. “Long Tom”, maybe. Too bad his name ain’t “Johnson”.
Maybe, when Ashcroft was giving a press briefing on some serious subject and an a**hole photographer or cameraman chose a camera angle to feature the, Ashcroft might have CARED that the mammaries detracted from the seriousnes of the topic. In other words, if some of these news people didn’t behave like adolescents, they wouldn’t have needed the curtain.
elucidator wrote (sarcastically)
In fact, the reporting was that some assistant of Ashcroft’s made this decision.
Actually, it was media people who were making a big deal of this, by seeking to include shots of the boobs in their coverage.
I suppose I ought to apologize for bringing facts into this discussion, when the myth makes such a funny story.
You’re spinning like a top, December. Ashcroft is afraid of aluminum titties, pure and simple. Ooooh, the mean old photographers are taking his picture in front of the nasty booby- lady. Boo fucking hoo. Some AG’s have actually been concerned with RELEVANT issues.
The curtains cost the DOJ $2,000 per use. The brouhaha started when they bought a set of curtains for $8,000. It doesn’t take a genius to see that if they use the curtains more than four times, the purchase has paid for itself.**
Ashcroft is known as a social conservative. Some of the more immature members of the press photography corps liked to frame their photographs so they could say “ha ha, conservative Christian AG in frame with nekkid boobies.” While it can be argued that Ashcroft should just ignore that stuff, I can at least sympathize with the desire to end stupid Beavis and Butthead style shenanigans.**
Your talent for hyperbole is impressive. With the exception of Davis, the criticism of Daschle’s comments was along the lines of “those comments were ill-advised at this time.” That may be a silly criticism, but it’s far from a “gang-rape.”
And since when did silence = assent, anyway? There are some 435 members of the House, roughly half of them Republicans. Does Bush really have to track and apologize for every half-assed comment to come out of that body’s Republican membership?
I address most of your post in my reply to Diogenes, but let me add a few items:
While I’m a long, long way from perfect, I think you’ll find my posts frequently recognize problems with the Republican position – in this thread alone, I’ve said that various Republicans should have said things better, or have made very tenuous arguments, or are offering positions that are quite arguable. And in other threads – the last one about Gore’s Internet comment, for example – I’ve gone out of my way to point out the good coming from the opposite side. I’m far from defending every last syllable uttered by a Republican and attacking every breath from a Democrat. I’m certainly more circumspect in my comments than you or Diogenes or Ace or Elvis.
See, that’s the real problem with you guys. You always feel the need to go for the Hail-Mary touchdown when you should be going for a first down. Take this Ashcroft thing. If you just wanted to make the point that Ashcroft shouldn’t be so concerned with photographers going for the “money shot,” you’d have a reasonable case. But no, you can’t do that. You have to paint this ridiculous caricature of a guy afraid of metallic nekkid boobies, a man so caught up in his own prudishness that he can’t stand a statue of the female form. And you wonder why people don’t take you seriously.**
The decision to buy rather than rent was made by a lower-level staffer.
The thing about the photographs is just speculation, although certainly plausible speculation: photographers going for the “money shot” was not exactly a secret among the press corps. Ashcroft may have asked for the curtains to be rented in the first instance, or a staffer may have had them put up without explicit instruction in order to please his boss. Who knows? **
Actually, it’s pretty far down in the House leadership hierarchy, just one step above the president of the incoming freshman class. It isn’t a policymaking position. And Davis is hardly a guy of national reputation. Why bother denouncing him, particularly when it would just bring more attention to Davis’ comments? What you’re saying is along the same lines as suggesting that President Clinton agreed with every damn fool thing Maxine Waters said because he never took the time to denounce them.
Oh? Tell you what let’s do, Scooter. Let’s review the last, say, 50 posts by you or myself. You get $5 for every time I characterize an opponents view as “stupid”, and I get $2 every time you do. Oh, by the way, “stupid, stupid, stupid” is $6. Howzaboutit?
In a recent election, some 500,000 people took our guy more seriously than yours. Not the five people whose votes really matter, but still…
DCH, do you honestly mean to tell me that you don’t think Ashcroft’s statements about “giving comfort to the enemies” had a chilling effect on genuine civil libertarians?
I get that Ashcroft was theoretically recognizing that there could be honest debate about the Justice Department’s position.
But here’s the thing: in his speech, he declared that some of the people who disagreed with him were traitors for doing so.
The thing is, he’s the one who gets to decide what level of disagreement constitutes treason.
And he’s the head of the Justice Department. That’s some scary shit.
Sure, he might only consider you a traitor if you’re making up stories about flying monkeys torturing Al Qaeda prisoners. But we don’t know that. He made these comments to a panel that was asking very reasonable questions about the Justice Department.
You simply cannot say things like this when you’re in such an important position and not clarify your remarks, unless you mean to silence your critics.
I think it’s very clear that Ashcroft was trying to do that, was trying to scare his critics away.