But what you say is blind and stupid is ok when it applies to bush. Read your post again, because it makes you look extremely partisan. You seem to be calling yourself blind and stupid if you fairly apply your convictions.
You don't get it . . . many Conservatives are jumping ship . . . many people of stature are coming out with revelations . . . revelations that show what some people already knew . . .except when the latter people held those opinions they were discounted as 'Liberal" smear tactics . . . .
but these aren't Liberals and they have more experience in positions of extreme responsibility than does Bush in Business or politics . . .
I heard that even John McCain has started to voice some stuff . . . any links?
(too wrapped up in my Vid/Sound project to look right now)
You don't get it . . . many Conservatives are jumping ship . . . many people of stature are coming out with revelations . . . revelations that show what some people already knew . . .except when the latter people held those opinions they were discounted as 'Liberal" smear tactics . . . .
but these aren't Liberals and they have more experience in positions of extreme responsibility than does Bush in Business or politics . . .
I heard that even John McCain has started to voice some stuff . . . any links?
(too wrapped up in my Vid/Sound project to look right now)
Many?
Many Dems are also on the other side on this issue, so what is your point.
Man, if the defense of Bush's policies in this thread are any indication of the state of conservative rhetoric, ya'll can kiss your boy goodbye.
We seem to have entered the "defending the indefensible" stage of the argument, requiring the true believers to just wave their hands in the air and go "booga booga booga" as if that were holding up their end of things.
I think the cognitive strain of keeping all these fantasies in mind at the same time, while more and more (actual) information piles up at the edge of the defended perimiter, is starting to take its toll. Larger and larger chunks of reality have top be dismissed or questioned in order to maintain the belief system.
Oh sure, hard evidence and credible witnesses and dire consequences and all that, but how do we really know what we know? Can we ever be sure of anything? Maybe it's all just a dream! Maybe it's all part of Bush's grand plan! Maybe the WOMD are on orbiting space platforms that Saddam had built with the money he stole from his people!
It's amazing how many partisan Democrats and disgruntled former employees working under cover as career civil servants have betrayed this president. It just seems to happen again and again and again. I mean, just think of the list: Rand Beers, well-known partisan Democrat and hack, Richard Clarke, self-promoter, disgruntled former employee, and "self-regarding buffoon", Valerie Plame, hack and nepotist, Joe Wilson, partisan hack, self-promoter and shameless green tea lover. The abuse this White House has taken ...
It's amazing how many partisan Democrats and disgruntled former employees working under cover as career civil servants have betrayed this president. It just seems to happen again and again and again. I mean, just think of the list: Rand Beers, well-known partisan Democrat and hack, Richard Clarke, self-promoter, disgruntled former employee, and "self-regarding buffoon", Valerie Plame, hack and nepotist, Joe Wilson, partisan hack, self-promoter and shameless green tea lover. The abuse this White House has taken ...
I bet you could find just as many disgruntled workers from the clinton admin. I would bet many time more.
Come on. This is getting tiresome.
We're not debating Clinton are we? We're debating the actions of the current administration, their appointees and their subsequent actions against the White House. And the point of the post was not that the workers are disgruntled, but that the administration is using the same sorry excuse for each of these people that you just used.
We're not debating Clinton are we? We're debating the actions of the current administration, their appointees and their subsequent actions against the White House. And the point of the post was not that the workers are disgruntled, but that the administration is using the same sorry excuse for each of these people that you just used.
Damn. I guess sarcasm is a lost art.
Sure but some make it sound like disgruntled employees only happened to this administration. I quick comparison to other administrations would put that to rest so that it is not treated that way.
Some things require comparison in order to establish a precedent. The technique is pretty common. Don't act as if you don't understand it.
Sure but some make it sound like disgruntled employees only happened to this administration. I quick comparison to other administrations would put that to rest so that it is not treated that way.
Some things require comparison in order to establish a precedent. The technique is pretty common. Don't act as if you don't understand it.
Oh. My. God.
Point, this is still Naples. Also, please meet his friend, sarcasm.
Naples, although you have nothing in common, I think you might benifit from getting to know these two.
We aren't talking about disgruntled employees, we are talking about multiple senior officials with ~30 years average experience each under multiple administrations (both repub and democrat) stating very specific things about the bush administration. And they are all saying the same thing.
And not only that, we have two of Bush's (note the name) chief advisors on counter-terrorism saying that the bush admin has done the war on terror completely wrong.
We aren't talking about disgruntled employees, we are talking about multiple senior officials with ~30 years average experience each under multiple administrations (both repub and democrat) stating very specific things about the bush administration. And they are all saying the same thing.
And not only that, we have two of Bush's (note the name) chief advisors on counter-terrorism saying that the bush admin has done the war on terror all wrong.
Not one. Two.
If I might add to your thought. I find it fascinating is that the "buffoons" the administration and the echoe chamber are desperately tring to discredit were HIRED by this administration. Ronald Reagan hired him. Daddy Bush hired him. Bubba hired him. And bunnypants hired him. So, who's the fool (assuming you agree with their assertion that he's "crazy")?
Suddenly you don't like what they have to say and their "unworthy" of not only working in the white house, but should be committed.
We aren't talking about disgruntled employees, we are talking about multiple senior officials with ~30 years average experience each under multiple administrations (both repub and democrat) stating very specific things about the bush administration. And they are all saying the same thing.
And not only that, we have two of Bush's (note the name) chief advisors on counter-terrorism saying that the bush admin has done the war on terror completely wrong.
I'm just emphasizing that both Beers and Clarke held the highest single counter-terrorism position in the bush administration, and both are saying that the Bush admin did and is doing a terrible job.
Sure but some make it sound like disgruntled employees only happened to this administration. I quick comparison to other administrations would put that to rest so that it is not treated that way.
Some things require comparison in order to establish a precedent. The technique is pretty common. Don't act as if you don't understand it.
Then name some names... give us the names of "disgruntled" senior officials who spoke out against the Clinton administration after being a part of it. Names, links, facts, instead of "there must me lots", "I bet there are plenty", etc.
Hey, we're already letting you get away with Defending Bush By Attacking Clinton, and "I bet" it's at least the 11th time that's happened.
I'm just emphasizing that both Beers and Clarke held the highest single counter-terrorism position in the bush administration, and both are saying that the Bush admin did and is doing a terrible job.
This is 2-3, 3 1/2 out of.....? How many advisors are there? First of all we know they are stabbing their former employers in the back (chest?), second, unless they are letting it all hang out as to our foreign policy efforts I guess we have to take 3 1/2 opinions on the full scale of the war on tarot---I mean terror. Honestly, just today, Albright (I think) laid it on us that we had SA involved to buy OBL back in the late nineties. Not common knowledge (to my knowledge.)
Folks, this worse than hysteria, it's just stupid---besides if they want this stuff to work against Bush, Viacom should have started it's book tour for Clarke closer to the election.
Then name some names... give us the names of "disgruntled" senior officials who spoke out against the Clinton administration after being a part of it. Names, links, facts, instead of "there must me lots", "I bet there are plenty", etc.
Hey, we're already letting you get away with Defending Bush By Attacking Clinton, and "I bet" it's at least the 11th time that's happened.
Define attack for me, because I did not know that pointing out known facts is considered attacking.
Then name some names... give us the names of "disgruntled" senior officials who spoke out against the Clinton administration after being a part of it. Names, links, facts, instead of "there must me lots", "I bet there are plenty", etc.
Hey, we're already letting you get away with Defending Bush By Attacking Clinton, and "I bet" it's at least the 11th time that's happened.
Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Les Aspin, Mary Mahoney, Herschell Friday, Charles Meissner.
No wait my mistake they did not have time to be disgruntled, they all died suddenly and mysteriously.
Maybe I am wrong maybe there are no disgruntled Clinton people... still alive.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
But what you say is blind and stupid is ok when it applies to bush. Read your post again, because it makes you look extremely partisan. You seem to be calling yourself blind and stupid if you fairly apply your convictions.
You don't get it . . . many Conservatives are jumping ship . . . many people of stature are coming out with revelations . . . revelations that show what some people already knew . . .except when the latter people held those opinions they were discounted as 'Liberal" smear tactics . . . .
but these aren't Liberals and they have more experience in positions of extreme responsibility than does Bush in Business or politics . . .
I heard that even John McCain has started to voice some stuff . . . any links?
(too wrapped up in my Vid/Sound project to look right now)
Originally posted by pfflam
You don't get it . . . many Conservatives are jumping ship . . . many people of stature are coming out with revelations . . . revelations that show what some people already knew . . .except when the latter people held those opinions they were discounted as 'Liberal" smear tactics . . . .
but these aren't Liberals and they have more experience in positions of extreme responsibility than does Bush in Business or politics . . .
I heard that even John McCain has started to voice some stuff . . . any links?
(too wrapped up in my Vid/Sound project to look right now)
Many?
Many Dems are also on the other side on this issue, so what is your point.
I do get it, by the way.
We seem to have entered the "defending the indefensible" stage of the argument, requiring the true believers to just wave their hands in the air and go "booga booga booga" as if that were holding up their end of things.
I think the cognitive strain of keeping all these fantasies in mind at the same time, while more and more (actual) information piles up at the edge of the defended perimiter, is starting to take its toll. Larger and larger chunks of reality have top be dismissed or questioned in order to maintain the belief system.
Oh sure, hard evidence and credible witnesses and dire consequences and all that, but how do we really know what we know? Can we ever be sure of anything? Maybe it's all just a dream! Maybe it's all part of Bush's grand plan! Maybe the WOMD are on orbiting space platforms that Saddam had built with the money he stole from his people!
Only time will tell!
Talking Points Memo
Edit: Link
Originally posted by Northgate
It's amazing how many partisan Democrats and disgruntled former employees working under cover as career civil servants have betrayed this president. It just seems to happen again and again and again. I mean, just think of the list: Rand Beers, well-known partisan Democrat and hack, Richard Clarke, self-promoter, disgruntled former employee, and "self-regarding buffoon", Valerie Plame, hack and nepotist, Joe Wilson, partisan hack, self-promoter and shameless green tea lover. The abuse this White House has taken ...
Talking Points Memo
Edit: Link
I bet you could find just as many disgruntled workers from the clinton admin. I would bet many time more.
Come on. This is getting tiresome.
But having two of his chief counter-terrorism advisors, a cabinet secretary and a list of others is good enough.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I bet you could find just as many disgruntled workers from the clinton admin. I would bet many time more.
Come on. This is getting tiresome.
Point, meet Naples. Naples, I don't believe you two have met.
Now 9/11 was preventable?! Are you all crazy?! That's were this "point" is going!
*scoots back in his angry recliner*
Originally posted by NaplesX
I bet you could find just as many disgruntled workers from the clinton admin. I would bet many time more.
Come on. This is getting tiresome.
We're not debating Clinton are we? We're debating the actions of the current administration, their appointees and their subsequent actions against the White House. And the point of the post was not that the workers are disgruntled, but that the administration is using the same sorry excuse for each of these people that you just used.
Damn. I guess sarcasm is a lost art.
Originally posted by Northgate
We're not debating Clinton are we? We're debating the actions of the current administration, their appointees and their subsequent actions against the White House. And the point of the post was not that the workers are disgruntled, but that the administration is using the same sorry excuse for each of these people that you just used.
Damn. I guess sarcasm is a lost art.
Sure but some make it sound like disgruntled employees only happened to this administration. I quick comparison to other administrations would put that to rest so that it is not treated that way.
Some things require comparison in order to establish a precedent. The technique is pretty common. Don't act as if you don't understand it.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Sure but some make it sound like disgruntled employees only happened to this administration. I quick comparison to other administrations would put that to rest so that it is not treated that way.
Some things require comparison in order to establish a precedent. The technique is pretty common. Don't act as if you don't understand it.
Oh. My. God.
Point, this is still Naples. Also, please meet his friend, sarcasm.
Naples, although you have nothing in common, I think you might benifit from getting to know these two.
Originally posted by NaplesX
disgruntled employees
We aren't talking about disgruntled employees, we are talking about multiple senior officials with ~30 years average experience each under multiple administrations (both repub and democrat) stating very specific things about the bush administration. And they are all saying the same thing.
And not only that, we have two of Bush's (note the name) chief advisors on counter-terrorism saying that the bush admin has done the war on terror completely wrong.
Not one. Two.
Originally posted by giant
We aren't talking about disgruntled employees, we are talking about multiple senior officials with ~30 years average experience each under multiple administrations (both repub and democrat) stating very specific things about the bush administration. And they are all saying the same thing.
And not only that, we have two of Bush's (note the name) chief advisors on counter-terrorism saying that the bush admin has done the war on terror all wrong.
Not one. Two.
If I might add to your thought. I find it fascinating is that the "buffoons" the administration and the echoe chamber are desperately tring to discredit were HIRED by this administration. Ronald Reagan hired him. Daddy Bush hired him. Bubba hired him. And bunnypants hired him. So, who's the fool (assuming you agree with their assertion that he's "crazy")?
Suddenly you don't like what they have to say and their "unworthy" of not only working in the white house, but should be committed.
Is amnesia running rampant amongst the GOP?
Originally posted by giant
We aren't talking about disgruntled employees, we are talking about multiple senior officials with ~30 years average experience each under multiple administrations (both repub and democrat) stating very specific things about the bush administration. And they are all saying the same thing.
And not only that, we have two of Bush's (note the name) chief advisors on counter-terrorism saying that the bush admin has done the war on terror completely wrong.
Not one. Two.
Three.
Paul O'Neill was on the NSC.
Originally posted by midwinter
Three.
Paul O'Neill was on the NSC.
Good call.
I'm just emphasizing that both Beers and Clarke held the highest single counter-terrorism position in the bush administration, and both are saying that the Bush admin did and is doing a terrible job.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Sure but some make it sound like disgruntled employees only happened to this administration. I quick comparison to other administrations would put that to rest so that it is not treated that way.
Some things require comparison in order to establish a precedent. The technique is pretty common. Don't act as if you don't understand it.
Then name some names... give us the names of "disgruntled" senior officials who spoke out against the Clinton administration after being a part of it. Names, links, facts, instead of "there must me lots", "I bet there are plenty", etc.
Hey, we're already letting you get away with Defending Bush By Attacking Clinton, and "I bet" it's at least the 11th time that's happened.
Originally posted by giant
Good call.
I'm just emphasizing that both Beers and Clarke held the highest single counter-terrorism position in the bush administration, and both are saying that the Bush admin did and is doing a terrible job.
This is 2-3, 3 1/2 out of.....? How many advisors are there? First of all we know they are stabbing their former employers in the back (chest?), second, unless they are letting it all hang out as to our foreign policy efforts I guess we have to take 3 1/2 opinions on the full scale of the war on tarot---I mean terror. Honestly, just today, Albright (I think) laid it on us that we had SA involved to buy OBL back in the late nineties. Not common knowledge (to my knowledge.)
Folks, this worse than hysteria, it's just stupid---besides if they want this stuff to work against Bush, Viacom should have started it's book tour for Clarke closer to the election.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Then name some names... give us the names of "disgruntled" senior officials who spoke out against the Clinton administration after being a part of it. Names, links, facts, instead of "there must me lots", "I bet there are plenty", etc.
Hey, we're already letting you get away with Defending Bush By Attacking Clinton, and "I bet" it's at least the 11th time that's happened.
Define attack for me, because I did not know that pointing out known facts is considered attacking.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Define attack for me, because I did not know that pointing out known facts is considered attacking.
Usually when 'pointing out facts' you point . . . . and there are facts . . . and you are pointing at the facts
. . .?!?!
how about some facts?!
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Then name some names... give us the names of "disgruntled" senior officials who spoke out against the Clinton administration after being a part of it. Names, links, facts, instead of "there must me lots", "I bet there are plenty", etc.
Hey, we're already letting you get away with Defending Bush By Attacking Clinton, and "I bet" it's at least the 11th time that's happened.
Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Les Aspin, Mary Mahoney, Herschell Friday, Charles Meissner.
No wait my mistake they did not have time to be disgruntled, they all died suddenly and mysteriously.
Maybe I am wrong maybe there are no disgruntled Clinton people... still alive.