|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Don't think anyone has ever asked what I thought was and was not excusable regarding what Bush has done, I simply explain what he did and tried to give an explanation of why he did it. I gave insight to those interested in knowing how to deal with people like Bush. The nature of a wolf makes it behavior predictable, Bush's behavior was predictable. I even tell you what my behavior would have been or would be. I never said if these behaviors/actions/decisions were right or wrong, it simply is what it is. I am the first to know when I cross a line, and I know why I cross it. I am also a person who would admit crossing the line and will tell you why. There is no wolf defense. I made the analogy to further illustrate how either Democrats had no clue or that they actually endorse many of the actions taken by Bush. Sorry, if I can not explain the point in a manner that you can understand.
The Republicans supported the actions take by Bush regarding Iraq, as did I. I have stated several times that Bush has made some mistakes, so have Republicans. However, I don't think he lied, I don't think Bush has done anything rising to the level of an impeachable offense. I do think he used hyperbole in his case for war, but I have stated all of those things....
....Host,
You never really address the question - was Bush's behavior a surprise to you? When Bush made his case for war - did you not consider the fact that he was over-selling his case? Did you not know that his intent was to allow no tolerance for Saddam's defiance prior to him becoming President? Did you not know that Chaney had a crusade going on in his mind regarding executive power? Did you not know that the administration would use it power against those disloyal (i.e. - Plame)? Did you not know the CIA was going to be authorized to do "more" to fight terrorism than they did under the Clinton administration? Now are you saying that Obama's inconsistencies are a surprise to you?
If someone would answer these questions honestly, I would gladly move on and perhaps you folks might understand what my views are based on....
|
ace...I've been waiting since June 5th for you to answer one question:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Post #90 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2461896
....Bush stated that he never said there was an operational relationship. I think he came to the conclusion there was a relationship based on circumstantial evidence. I accept the fact that there may have been occasions when he did not make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence and other times when he did. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Post #107 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2461896
Here are the relevant Bush and Cheney quotes, ace....can you single out the one(s) where either official "make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence", or come up with a relevant quote that I might have missed?: |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=112
I responded to what you posted, in your post directly before your most recent one:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Bush stated that he never said there was an operational relationship. I think he came to the conclusion there was a relationship based on circumstantial evidence. I accept the fact that there may have been occasions when he did not make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence and other times when he did. ......
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Here are the relevant Bush and Cheney quotes, ace....can you single out the one(s) where either official "make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence", or come up with a relevant quote that I might have missed?:
|
....and you ignored my question...... the list of Bush and Cheney quotes is in the lower portion of my last post....waiting for you. Feel free to cite your own quotes of occasions where either Bush or Cheney, "make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence", when it came to assertions that "Saddam had relations with al Zarqawi"....
If you believe this, it should be a simple exercise to point out when and where, before September 15, 2006....Bush "make[s] it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence", when it came to assertions that "Saddam had relations with al Zarqawi"....
|
I asked you to provide just one quote, preferably from the white house website, before Sept. 15, 2006, where Bush
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Post #90 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2461896
....Bush stated that he never said there was an operational relationship..... I accept the fact that there may have been occasions when he did not make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence and other times when he did. |
ace, I asked you to provide one example....not from an editorial....where Bush:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
[made it] clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence...
|
...an example where Bush qualified this oft repeated assertion:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
August 15, 2006
.....Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?
THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. .....
|
You haven't provided an example of when Bush "made it clear" about al Zarqawi's relationship with Saddam and his government, ace....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
[made it] clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence...
|
....because there is no direct quote of Bush "making it clear" that the evidence was circumstantial. There is much evidence that he did the opposite of making it clear, but you choose to hide behind your unprovable assertion that, before Martha Raddatz cornered Bush on Sept. 15, 2006,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
....I accept the fact that there may have been occasions when he did not make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence and other times when he did.
|
al Zarqawi was Bush's last "smoking gun", his example of "al Qaeda in iraq", "before we got there"..... where and when did bush EVER qualify his "evidence" of this assertion....a "relationship" between Saddam and al Zarqawi, as circumstantial?
When I can't support something I've said, ace, I stop saying it !
ace...roachboy touched on it, but I don't think he quite captured the irony of a conservative mindset that "worships" a perceived masculinity that looks upon chickenhawks as virile and assertive, and decorated combat veterans like....John Kerry...as "wimps".
This is what your repeated assertion that "Bush is a wolf", reminds me, of...and you posted that you are a "wolf", too? What is up with that?
Quote:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...6/14/matthews/
Thursday June 14, 2007 13:33 EDT
Chris Matthews on Fred Thompson's sexiness and smells
(updated below - updated again)
I've written a fair amount recently about the media's obsession with the faux-masculinity of GOP candidates in general, and the tough-guy military persona of Fred Thompson in particular, and don't have all that much to add about that specific topic at the moment. Still, this dialogue last night about Fred Thompson from Chris Matthews -- who is really just the slightly less restrained id version of most media stars -- is simply too extraordinary not to note:
Does [Fred Thompson] have sex appeal? I'm looking at this guy and I'm trying to find out the new order of things, and what works for women and what doesn't. Does this guy have some sort of thing going for him that I should notice? . . .
Gene, do you think there's a sex appeal for this guy, this sort of mature, older man, you know? He looks sort of seasoned and in charge of himself. What is this appeal? Because I keep star quality. You were throwing the word out, shining star, Ana Marie, before I checked you on it. . . .
Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke? You know, whatever.
What can even be said about that? And nobody really seems to find this odd or disturbing or objectionable at all -- that night after night, one of the featured "journalists" of a major news network goes on television and, with some of our most prestigious journalists assembled with him, speaks admiringly about the smells and arousing masculinity and the "daddy" qualities of various political officials, and that this metric is, more or less, the full extent of his political analysis.
During the last week, when I was traveling, I spent substantial time driving in a rental car, and thus had the opportunity to listen for large chunks of time to The Rush Limbaugh Show, which I hadn't actually heard in several years. Virtually the entire show is now devoted to an overt celebration of masculinity -- by Rush Limbaugh -- and to claims that Democrats and liberals lack masculinity.
As but one example, Rush claimed that the New York Times buried the story of the JFK terrorist plot on page C30, immediately prior to the Sports Section, because nobody would see it there, because the "wimps and sissies who read the New York Times don't read the Sports section, because it's too macho for them."
And just as Glenn Reynolds has done, Rush has developed a virtual obsession with the book The Dangerous Book for Boys, geared towards teaching "boys how to be boys." Rush spent the week hailing it as the antidote to what he calls the "Emasculation of America."
Identically, Reynolds on his blog has promoted the book a disturbing 17 times in the last six weeks alone. When doing so, he routinely proclaims things such as "maybe there's hope," and -- most revealingly -- has fretted: "Are we turning into a nation of wimps?" It is the identity of the "we" in that sentence where all the meaning lies. Perhaps if "we" torture enough bound and gagged prisoners and bomb enough countries, "we" can rid ourselves of that worry.
Republicans have long tried to exploit masculinity images and depict Democrats and liberals as effeminate and therefore weak. That is not new. But what is new is how explicit and upfront and unabashed this all is now. And what is most striking about it is that -- literally in almost every case -- the most vocal crusaders for Hard-Core Traditional Masculinity, the Virtues of Machismo, are the ones who so plainly lack those qualities on every level.
There are few things more disorienting than listening to Rush Limbaugh declare himself the icon of machismo and masculinity and mock others as "wimps." And if you look at those who have this obsession -- the Chris Matthews and Glenn Reynolds and Jonah Goldbergs and Victor Davis Hansons -- what one finds in almost every case is that those who want to convert our political process and especially our national policies into a means of proving one's "traditional masculine virtues" -- the physically courageous warriors unbound by effete conventions -- themselves could not be further removed from those attributes, and have lives which are entirely devoid of such "virtues."
This is notable not merely because this pervasive and insecure craving for artificial masculinity supplants rational and substantive political considerations, though it does do that. Nor is it notable merely because it is so unpleasant, even cringe-inducing to behold, though it is that, too. Instead, this topic is unavoidable, really at the center of our political discourse, because it leads directly to some of our most significant and controversial political decisions....
|
Isn't this an accurate description ace, of what you're doing in the quotes in the two boxes that follow the Greenwald's description?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glenn Greenwald
...this pervasive and insecure craving for artificial masculinity supplants rational and substantive political considerations, though it does do that. Nor is it notable merely because it is so unpleasant, even cringe-inducing to behold, though it is that, too. Instead, this topic is unavoidable, really at the center of our political discourse, because it leads directly to some of our most significant and controversial political decisions.....
|
(From post #127)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
....Regardless of the "word", what we ended up with, was pretty much equal to a herd of sheep giving open end authority to a wolf. I am a wolf and I understand what the wolf does with the authority a herd of sheep will give a wolf. After being abused by the wolf, the herd of sheep occasionally employed a guard dog, but more too often, given their baaaaa'ing, they gave the wolf more of what the wolf wanted.
I find it amusing to point out how the herd of sheep put themselves in a untenable position and then blame the wolf for being a wolf. The rationalizing is off the charts. Why can't you folks simply admit that your Democratic party leaders either screwed up monumentally or they are simply full of B.S. in their empty rhetoric.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Don't think anyone has ever asked what I thought was and was not excusable regarding what Bush has done, I simply explain what he did and tried to give an explanation of why he did it. I gave insight to those interested in knowing how to deal with people like Bush. The nature of a wolf makes it behavior predictable, Bush's behavior was predictable. I even tell you what my behavior would have been or would be. I never said if these behaviors/actions/decisions were right or wrong, it simply is what it is. I am the first to know when I cross a line, and I know why I cross it. I am also a person who would admit crossing the line and will tell you why. There is no wolf defense. ....
|
...then, why....ace...is it so important for you to cling to the ridiculous assertion that Bush did not lie to all of us about al Zarqawi's "relationship" with Saddam and his government?
Quote:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ism/index.html
Friday June 29, 2007 10:09 EDT
Tucker, Jonah, Elizabeth and Jillian
On Tuesday, Tucker Carlson invited Jonah Goldberg onto his show so that they could both giddily share their deep personal affection for Dick Cheney while debating which of Cheney's strong and manly attributes are their favorite ones. In just two minutes of chatty, giggly Cheney worship, the following tough-guy cliches flew from their mouths:
* Cheney "doesn't bother talking the talk, he just walks the walk";
* he's "a politician who doesn't look at the polls. . . another Harry Truman";
* "love to have a beer with the guy";
* "a smart, serious man in American life";
* "Have you ever seen Dick Cheney give a speech? I mean, the contempt for the audience is palpable" -- "I know, I -- see, I love that. He looks like he should be eating a sandwich while he's doing it, eating lunch over the sink . . I love that";
* "I can just see him yelling, hey you kids, get off my lawn. I love it."
As always, the pulsating need among the strain of individual represented by Tucker Carlson and Johan Goldberg to search endlessly for strong, powerful, masculine figures so that they can feel those attributes and pose as one who exudes them (Jonah Goldberg: "love to have a beer with the guy") is its own stomach-turning though vitally important topic. The same is true of the fact that the movement of which they are a part virtually always venerates as Icons of Courageous Sandwich-Eating Masculinity precisely those figures who so transparently play-act at the role but whose lives never exhibit any such attributes in reality. That, too, is its own rich and abundant topic.
But I want to focus on one specific exchange between Tucker and Jonah as they explored the Greatness of Dick Cheney:
CARLSON: But I'm bothered by Cheney's -- but does -- Cheney's secrecy, his penchant for secrecy. I mean, this is a cliche, a stereotype, but it's rooted, apparently, in truth. The guy really is secretive to a degree we haven't seen in a while. That is -- I mean, we do have a right to know what our government is doing, don't we?
GOLDBERG: Yes, sure, although I think you would concede, even though you and I disagree about some foreign policy stuff, you and I would agree that there are some things that should be kept secret. We might disagree about what they are.
CARLSON: Right.
GOLDBERG: And you know, but I do think that what Cheney has learned after a lifetime in Washington as a power player, is that the person who holds the secrets has power. And he is using that for what I would say, or probably what he believes to be certainly good ends. A lot of people disagree on that, but he's trying to do best as he can and he sees holding onto power as a tool to do that.
That, of course, is the defining mentality of the Authoritarian Mind, captured in its purest essence by Jonah. Our Leaders are Good and want to protect us. Therefore, we must accept -- and even be grateful -- when they prevent us from knowing what they are doing. The less we know, the more powerful our Leaders are. And that is something we accept and celebrate, for our Leaders are Good and we trust that the more powerful they are, the better we all shall be.
No inferences or interpretations are required to describe Jonah's mentality this way. That is precisely -- expressly -- what he said.....
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/09/...ush-monologue/
August 9th 2007
In A Three Minute Monologue, Matthews Gushes Over Bush’s ‘Great Neo-Conservative Mind’
...Bush’s comments today, which contained at least one untrue assertion, were nothing more than a rehashing of his tired old rhetoric. Yet somehow, Matthews, who is labeled a liberal by partisan conservatives, only saw it through rose-colored glasses.
Matthews’ monologue is unsurprising, however, given his long record of hero worship for Bush and his supposedly “powerful” presidency:
– “We’re proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who’s physical.” [5/1/03]
– “Sometimes it glimmers with this man, our president, that kind of sunny nobility.” [10/25/05]
– “I like him. Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left.” [11/28/05]
– “A little bit of Lincoln there, I think,” referring to Bush finally admitting that telling Iraqi insurgents to “bring it on” in 2003 “sent the wrong signal to people.” [5/25/06]
Given the president’s track record with the truth on Iraq, Matthews should check his uncritical awe at the door.
UPDATE: Media Matters catches Matthews lamenting over the lack of “big, beefy” and “every-way big” guys in the Democratic presidential race.
|
|
"There is no wolf defense"....and there is no potential for a serious, political discussion with you, ace....but you're in good company... with Chris Mathews, Limbaugh, Carlson, and Goldberg....sheesh ! Why don't we just get it over with, and defer to "dick size", instead of to the will of the people and to their constitution?
Last edited by host; 06-30-2008 at 03:56 PM..
|