Thursday, April 15, 2004
A reader responds
Yeehaw, a reader responds to my previous post. At least I think he/she reads. Why do I say such things? Let's take a look; but first I want to say I'm glad people are reading and I hope they respond more fully in the future--
"I don't know what you expect President Bush to do."
Yeah, leading the country out of some unwinnable situation is out of the question. Answering a damn question is a completely foreign concept. Having just a tad bit of personal responsibility for anything would be a complete change of pace. So I concede to J.O.
"Bill Clinton was too busy getting blown to worry about terrorism."
Two things: 1) Clinton was railed by the Republican Congress for wanting more action on terrorism. Laws he wanted to pass predate Dear Leaders wonderful Patriot Act. A number of counter terrorism professionals addressed this issue in the liberal, hehe, Washington Times. In 1999 after he stopped a terrorist attack BEFORE it happened he put the Taliban on notice, saying they will be held responsible along with, yep, you guessed it Osama. We could continue but I know how ADHD works, so....
Meanwhile the 911 commission praises Clinton on his forthcoming appearance (look, even the freerepublic has a positive article here) and wonder why the Bush administration will only release a few of the documents even though Clinton said he had no problem giving them access. Emperor, meanwhile can't even meet them by himself:
QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?
BUSH: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over.
And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.
BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.
I won't even get into the other misteps while Bush was vacation in Texas (yes, he has spent 40% of his presidency on vacation -- I want a job like that).
2) What's this focus on Clinton's penis? I can't figure this out. If it's a moral issue, I would imagine misleading people to go to war which resulted in thousands of deaths is a little more serious than a few spermies swimming on an intern's blue ocean. If it's not a moral issue, sexual peccadilloes is not limited to Clinton (Rep Hyde, Gingrich, etc.) are well known. Maybe, dare I say it, Olympus would like to shoot a lightning bolt of his own?
"But President Bush led the country into battle to stop terrorism. We can't just sit back and let the terrorists come to us like Clinton wanted. We have to take the fight to them."
That's my exact point -- Terrorist = Osama. Dictator = Saddam. Osama attacked us. Saddam just stuck out his tongue at us. Bush took troops from Afgahnistan to fight in Iraq. Bush inflamed the region and helped recruitment for Osama while alienating our allies. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. None. Why is that so hard for people to understand? Maybe it's coming back to the previous point about Clenis envy.
Nobody, absolutely nobody wants terrorism. Not even Bush (though he has benfited both in polls and in $ from it).
"Ask yourself this, pinko:"
Is this for real? hehehehe. Ad Hominems are classic -- he's been watching too much Fox. Communism is not liberalism just like FASCISM is not conservativism.
"Are we better off without Saddaam than with him? Better yet: Are we better off without BJ Clinton than with him?"
Uh, Saddam never garnered a whole lot of my attention -- he was a non factor. And, no.
Write again, Olympus, maybe make an argument next time.
UPDATE: Looks like these must be pretty standard talking points by the right -- check out the email Josh Marshall received:
It is just amazing how some people can be so stupid; especially the Left and the Democrats in this country. The idiots that run your party do not give a flying ---- about the United States nor the citizens that live here.
George Bush is more of a leader than Clinton ever was. Meanwhile he was running this country he was getting his ---- sucked by a teenager while lying to the American public. Finally we get a leader and you have the audacity to put him down.
The enemy knows how to manipulate us because of -------- like you and the media that tries to divide our nation. You call [it] the Freedom of Speech? I call it treason and we [have] laws in this country that unfortunately give the freedom that you would not be getting in the Muslim world.
What an arrogant a-----e.
Jim S.
The arguments condensed: Stupid, idiot, unpatriotic, bj and terrorst lovin' dolt. You should be killed.
I've been reading a great deal of the American Revolution lately and you know those crazy people who were loyal to the king said exactly the same things -- more later.
|
"I don't know what you expect President Bush to do."
Yeah, leading the country out of some unwinnable situation is out of the question. Answering a damn question is a completely foreign concept. Having just a tad bit of personal responsibility for anything would be a complete change of pace. So I concede to J.O.
"Bill Clinton was too busy getting blown to worry about terrorism."
Two things: 1) Clinton was railed by the Republican Congress for wanting more action on terrorism. Laws he wanted to pass predate Dear Leaders wonderful Patriot Act. A number of counter terrorism professionals addressed this issue in the liberal, hehe, Washington Times. In 1999 after he stopped a terrorist attack BEFORE it happened he put the Taliban on notice, saying they will be held responsible along with, yep, you guessed it Osama. We could continue but I know how ADHD works, so....
Meanwhile the 911 commission praises Clinton on his forthcoming appearance (look, even the freerepublic has a positive article here) and wonder why the Bush administration will only release a few of the documents even though Clinton said he had no problem giving them access. Emperor, meanwhile can't even meet them by himself:
QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?
BUSH: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over.
And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.
BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.
I won't even get into the other misteps while Bush was vacation in Texas (yes, he has spent 40% of his presidency on vacation -- I want a job like that).
2) What's this focus on Clinton's penis? I can't figure this out. If it's a moral issue, I would imagine misleading people to go to war which resulted in thousands of deaths is a little more serious than a few spermies swimming on an intern's blue ocean. If it's not a moral issue, sexual peccadilloes is not limited to Clinton (Rep Hyde, Gingrich, etc.) are well known. Maybe, dare I say it, Olympus would like to shoot a lightning bolt of his own?
"But President Bush led the country into battle to stop terrorism. We can't just sit back and let the terrorists come to us like Clinton wanted. We have to take the fight to them."
That's my exact point -- Terrorist = Osama. Dictator = Saddam. Osama attacked us. Saddam just stuck out his tongue at us. Bush took troops from Afgahnistan to fight in Iraq. Bush inflamed the region and helped recruitment for Osama while alienating our allies. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. None. Why is that so hard for people to understand? Maybe it's coming back to the previous point about Clenis envy.
Nobody, absolutely nobody wants terrorism. Not even Bush (though he has benfited both in polls and in $ from it).
"Ask yourself this, pinko:"
Is this for real? hehehehe. Ad Hominems are classic -- he's been watching too much Fox. Communism is not liberalism just like FASCISM is not conservativism.
"Are we better off without Saddaam than with him? Better yet: Are we better off without BJ Clinton than with him?"
Uh, Saddam never garnered a whole lot of my attention -- he was a non factor. And, no.
Write again, Olympus, maybe make an argument next time.
UPDATE: Looks like these must be pretty standard talking points by the right -- check out the email Josh Marshall received:
It is just amazing how some people can be so stupid; especially the Left and the Democrats in this country. The idiots that run your party do not give a flying ---- about the United States nor the citizens that live here.
George Bush is more of a leader than Clinton ever was. Meanwhile he was running this country he was getting his ---- sucked by a teenager while lying to the American public. Finally we get a leader and you have the audacity to put him down.
The enemy knows how to manipulate us because of -------- like you and the media that tries to divide our nation. You call [it] the Freedom of Speech? I call it treason and we [have] laws in this country that unfortunately give the freedom that you would not be getting in the Muslim world.
What an arrogant a-----e.
Jim S.
The arguments condensed: Stupid, idiot, unpatriotic, bj and terrorst lovin' dolt. You should be killed.
I've been reading a great deal of the American Revolution lately and you know those crazy people who were loyal to the king said exactly the same things -- more later.
Comments:
Post a Comment
