Michael Kinsley bangs his head against the wall because nobody is giving the obvious answer--"Bush!"--to the question, "Who lied in Bush's SOTU speech?"
But perhaps the most interesting thing is that everyone in Washington--Democrats, Republicans, and independents; journalists and political hacks; experts on national security and those who believe that "Star Wars" is ready for deployment--everyone, starts from the assumption that George W. Bush is a sock puppet. It is inconceivable to everybody that George W. Bush might have asked questions about the reliability of claims "in the speech presented to him." It is inconceivable to everybody that George W. Bush might have actually gotten himself briefed at some point about the quality of the evidence that Saddam was going full-throttle to reconstruct his nuclear program. It is inconceivable to everybody that George W. Bush might have the curiosity about the world and the factual knowledge of even a part-time intern working on Andrew Sullivan's weblog.
Ronald Reagan's handlers had to work hard to get him out of the let's-give-the-Iranians-weapons-and-give-them-an-incentive-to-take-more-hostages-disaster loop by portraying him as an old, decent man of failing wits. They had to work hard to do this (even though it now looks as though it was true--as if his Alzheimer's was well in progress by the mid-1980s). George H.W. Bush had to work hard to portray himself as out-of-the-loop in the let's-give-the-Iranians-weapons-and-give-them-an-incentive-to-take-more-hostages-disaster--and his attempts flopped when he annoyed prosecutor Lawrence Walsh.
But nobody pretends that George W. Bush was ever in any loop, or feels that the statement that George W. Bush was totally out of the loop needs any justification or support at all. It is taken for granted by all--perhaps most for granted by the Republicans who know him better than the rest of us--that we have an Idiot Sultan at the formal head of our government.
Who Is Buried in Bush's Speech? - The truth has been shot! Round up some unusual suspects. By Michael Kinsley: Once again a mysterious criminal stalks the nation's capital. First there was the mystery sniper. Then there was the mystery arsonist. Now there is the mystery ventriloquist. The media are in a frenzy of speculation and leakage. Senators are calling for hearings. All of Washington demands an answer: Who was the arch-fiend who told a lie in President Bush's State of the Union speech? No investigation has plumbed such depths of the unknown since O.J. Simpson's hunt for the real killer of his ex-wife. (Whatever happened to that, by the way?)
Whodunit? Was it Col. Mustard in the kitchen with a candlestick? Condoleezza Rice in the Situation Room with a bottle of wite-out and a felt-tipped pen?
Linguists note that the question, "Who lied in George Bush's State of the Union speech" bears a certain resemblance to the famous conundrum, "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?" They speculate that the two questions may have parallel answers. But philosophers are still struggling to properly analyze the Grant's Tomb issue—let alone answer it. And experts say that even when this famous 19th-century presidential puzzle is solved, it could be many years before the findings can be applied with any confidence to presidents of more recent vintage.
Lacking a real-life analogy that sufficiently captures the complexity of the speech-gate puzzle and the challenge facing investigators dedicated to solving it, political scientists say the best comparison may be to the assassination of Maj. Strasser in the film Casablanca. If you recall, Humphrey Bogart is standing over the body, holding a smoking gun. Claude Rains says: "Maj. Strasser has been shot! Round up the usual suspects." And yet the mystery of who killed the general is never solved.
Ever since Watergate, a "smoking gun" has been the standard for judging any Washington scandal. Many a miscreant has escaped with his reputation undamaged—or even enhanced by the publicity and pseudovindication—because there was no "smoking gun" like the Watergate tapes. But now it seems that the standard has been lifted. You would think that on the question of who told a lie in a speech, evidence seen on television by millions of people around the world might count for something. Apparently not. The Bush administration borrows from Groucho: "Who are you going to believe—us or your own two eyes?
The case for the defense is a classic illustration of what lawyers call "arguing in the alternative." The Bushies say: 1) It wasn't really a lie; 2) someone else told the lie; and 3) the lie doesn't matter. All these defenses are invalid.
1) Bushies fanned out to the weekend talk shows to note, as if with one voice, that what Bush said was technically accurate. But it was not accurate, even technically. The words in question were: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Bush didn't say it was true, you see—he just said the Brits said it. This is a contemptible argument in any event. But to descend to the administration's level of nitpickery, the argument simply doesn't work. Bush didn't say that the Brits "said" this Africa business—he said they "learned" it. The difference between "said" and "learned" is that "learned" clearly means there is some pre-existing basis for believing whatever it is, apart from the fact that someone said it. Is it theoretically possible to "learn" something that is not true? I'm not sure (as Donald Rumsfeld would say). However, it certainly is not possible to say that someone has "learned" a piece of information without clearly intending to imply that you, the speaker, wish the listener to accept it as true. Bush expressed no skepticism or doubt, even though the Brits qualification was only added as protection because doubts had been expressed internally.
2) The Bush argument blaming the CIA for failing to remove this falsehood from the president's speech is based on the logic of "stop me before I lie again." Bush spoke the words, his staff wrote them, those involved carefully overlooked reasons for skepticism. It would have been nice if the CIA had caught this falsehood, but its failure to do so hardly exonerates others. Furthermore, the CIA is part of the executive branch, as is the White House staff. If the president—especially this president—can disown anything he says that he didn't actually find out or think up and write down all by himself, he is more or less beyond criticism. Which seems to be the idea here.
The president says he has not lost his confidence in CIA Director George Tenet. How sweet. If someone backed me up in a lie and then took the fall for me when it was exposed, I'd have confidence in him too.
3) The final argument: It was only 16 words! What's the big deal? The bulk of the case for war remains intact. Logically, of course, this argument will work for any single thread of the pro-war argument. Perhaps the president will tell us which particular points among those he and his administration have made are the ones we are supposed to take seriously. Or how many gimmes he feels entitled to take in the course of this game. Is it a matter of word count? When he hits 100 words, say, are we entitled to assume that he cares whether the words are true?
As is so often the case, Joshua Micah Marshall puts it better than I can:
Posted by DeLong at July 15, 2003 10:04 AM | TrackBackNow we have President George W. Bush. And with each passing day it seems his public statements show not so much a pattern of lies as evidence that when he's not doing press availabilities he's living on some other planet. Misstatements are becoming so par for the course that his public pronouncements now seem more and more like a verbal equivalent of what the immortal David St. Hubbins once called a "a free-form jazz exploration" in which the individual words aren't supposed to distract us from the larger truth the president is trying to convey.
Look at the president's final remarks from his press opportunity with Kofi Annan yesterday ...
I mean, where do you start with this?The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.
As the well-worn line goes, I think it's too soon to say we know Saddam didn't have a WMD program. I thought he did. There was lots of evidence to suggest he had at least some chemical and biological weapons programs. And we're still actively looking. (Here's an interesting piece in the new New Republic about how and why he might not have.) But I think our inability thus far to find any clear evidence of a on-going chemical, biological or nuclear weapons program would seem to leave us at least a bit short of being "absolutely" certain that he had one. Am I nitpicking here?
Like the philandering husband, he seems to be asking us, "Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?"
And remember when Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in? I totally missed that one.
Look, you can certainly say that Saddam wasn't cooperating fully with the inspectors, that his people hadn't fully accounted for various chemical and biological munitions which the UN thought he had back in 1990s. Hans Blix said as much. It's true. But, c'mon, he let them in.
You hear this stuff and you say to yourself: "Well, you can kinda know what he meant, I guess."
I find myself thinking that. But even that doesn't cut it.
The disquieting fact is that these whoppers aren't even getting reported any more because it's become a given among reporters and editors that most of what the president is saying on this subject has little connection to anything that's actually going on. And the two keep diverging more and more. It's almost as if the shakier the evidence gets the more certain he becomes about what the evidence was supposed to prove.
Where is the doctrine of ministerial responisbility when you need it?
Posted by: Jack on July 15, 2003 10:23 AMEven Josh Marshall doesn't quite know where to begin with this latest utterance from Bush during his meeting with Kofi Annan:
"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."
Our President of Lowered Expectations should take more care when diving into the pool to make sure which end is the deep one. Yep, we did give Saddam Hussein a chance to let inspectors in. Saddam let them in of course. Perhaps Dubya is so used to doing mental belly flops with his advisors that he is no longer is capable of thinking in depth about anything. That doesn't mean Bush isn't capable of lying, however.
Posted by: David W. on July 15, 2003 11:15 AMGood grief!
"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."
Posted by: dahl on July 15, 2003 11:27 AMBush is out of the loop. He can't even spell 'loop.'
Consider a favorite game of some, the mental swapping of Roosevelt for Truman, Nixon for JFK, JFK for Johnson, Nixon for Ford, Reagan for Ford, etc. Leads to arguments, no?
Say some event during dubya's term allowed the playing of Bush v. Cheney [this is an awkward way to say it, but I don't want SS knocking on my door]. Would it be fun? I don't think it would lead to any arguments at all.
Even the dubious idea of giving dubya full credit for the peripheral administration concerns collected under the guise of 'compassionate conservatism' would be meaningless since those initiatives haven't gone anywhere. He is not a driving force of his administration's agenda. His substitution would just have left his handlers with some free time.
Posted by: sabas on July 15, 2003 11:31 AMNone of this would have any legs at all if Iraq had gone according to best laid plans. If Bush Inc could have installed the millionaire businessman puppet in Iraq and all of Saddam's minions lined up behind him and the infrastructure did not collapse and the Iraqis would have just welcomed our conquering heroes with flowers and the electricity would just work as well as it did last February no one would care. But oft gang aglee.
This is an issue because our soldiers are still dying even after W pulled that ridiculous stunt of flying his jet onto an aircraft carrier and declaring, "mission accomplished." That is the equivalent of the "I did not have sex with that woman." comment that created headaches for Mr. Clinton. The American public does not so much care what Mr. Bush or Mr Clinton said or did. What we want is to fix the situation in Iraq and bring our boys home safely. If Mr. Bush cannot do that, if we are entangled in a quagmire without just cause, then the full fury of the electorate will turn on an incompetent administration. The American people want to hear "Bring 'em home!" not "Bring 'em on."
Posted by: bakho on July 15, 2003 11:43 AM"Who lied in Bush's SOTU speech? ... Bush!"
~~~
All this "Bush lied" in the speech ... "Bush misled" in the speech ... "Bush deceived" in the speech. How many of the people who say this even saw the speech -- much less remember it?
Well, to refresh memories, here's a little segment from the speech. It's 4.5 megs, but if you've got a fast connection it's worth it.
I dare anyone who watches it to come back here and say Bush "misled" or "deceived" anyone about his intentions.
http://www.mindspring.com/~jimglass/stateoftheunion.wmv
;-)
Posted by: Jim Glass on July 15, 2003 11:47 AMThis has nothign to do with intnetions Jim. It has everything to do with the facts presented.
Actually, this shows the utter disregard this administration has for the "common man." Most of those who were fairly learned knew that claims about Saddam's nuclear program were highly speculative to begin with. Most did beleive chemical and biological were likely, but that the evidence of even a small nuclear presence was severely lacking.
But the idea of nuclear Iraq, along with an Iraqi-Al Qaeda connection was pushed by the administration to try to fool the person who was not fully paying attention to what was happening. Instead of trying to put forth a coherent, rational case for war the administration tried to scare the populace into support. Why did the administration not present such a case? The only explanation that makes sense is that it believes that the populace is too ignorant to follow its nuanced arguments, and that direct emotional appeal is the only way to win the debate.
Posted by: Rob on July 15, 2003 12:08 PMThere are a few true believers for whom Dubya is not a sock puppet. For them, he is the Pope, the Sun King, someone with gifts from the Divine, and therefore who COULD NOT lie. "You are George, and upon this Bush, I will build my church".
Posted by: P O'Neill on July 15, 2003 12:11 PMI watched the State of the Union Address. I say that the President and Administration then and in statement after statement made the case that we had to go to war with Iraq to prevent an attack against America. That the danger was an attack with WMDs was constantly constantly emphasized. Prime Minister Blair and Government made the same case.
Posted by: lise on July 15, 2003 12:20 PMIsn't that what underlings are for, to take the heat, deflect blame? Seriously. Start with the most distant underling of appropriate level and responsibilty and dig in. Tenet ain't an insider, so Tenet screwed up (didn't lie, mind you). The press isn't going the straight "Bush lied" route for pretty much the same reason they have avoided calling a spade a spade on tax cuts, social security privatization, environmental policy and so on. The closest most dare come is to quote somebody on the other side who casts serious doubt on the official position and let readers draw their own conclusion. (The trick, then, is for Bush's henchmen to go out and discredit anybody that is quoted raising such doubts - the traitors.) Nope, "Bush lied" is not going to be a headline in that left-wing rag, the NYT (which mysteriously did a worse job pointing out the truth about Bush fiscal policy than the WSJ for a considerable period), or in any other mainstream, ad-revenue-hungry news outlet.
Posted by: K Harris on July 15, 2003 12:51 PMIt's a pity poor Michael Kinsley thinks he knows the answer to "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?"
Kinsley seems to think the answer is "Ulysses S. Grant," thus establishing a parallel with Bush lied in Bush's speech.
Sadly, nobody is buried in Grant's Tomb. Ulysses S. Grant is entombed there -- but several feet above ground.
It's certainly not true that everyone believes Bush to be a sock puppet. I myself know a man of apparently sound mind who insists that Bush is a genius and expects him to be added to Mount Rushmore. I am not making this up.
FWIW, I don't believe it either. I long ago stopped giving him a pass on the grounds of ineptitude; I'm a Krugmanite. He's a calculating liar.
It has been said elsewhere on Brad's site, but deserves repeating (thanks, whoever you were) -- a big old fib in a speech is one thing. Going to war is another. Even the least critical assumptions about how the stinker about uranium got into the State of the Union speech don't change the fact that Bush led us to war without ever revealing that he was told, at some point before going to war, that the uranium story was wrong.
Now, which reporter is going to investigate the business of dirtying up the UN inspectors? Seriously, folks, the inspectors were right, Bush was wrong. The inspectors, upon trying to make use of the information given them by the US had to have felt a bit queasy. It had to dawn on them that what the worst cynics among us were saying was true. The Bush folks had decided to go to war, and no fact or circumstance was going to sway them. The UN was a polite detour, ignored when it didn't work out. Our allies were spoken of as if they were fellow-travelers with Saddam unless they volunteered to slaughter Iraqi conscripts right along with us. Inspectors and leaders in other countries were in on the joke long before the rest of us, who could only hear about these things third hand. All of which is to say, there are lots of "lie" stories waiting to be told. If the uranium story is just a prelude to an orgy of such stuff, well, that's why we have a free press.
Posted by: K Harris on July 15, 2003 01:31 PM"This has nothign to do with intnetions Jim. It has everything to do with the facts presented."
Aw, you didn't look at the video.
K Harris- You asked about dirtying up the UN inspectors?
Read it here from Scott Ritter:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030714/pl_nm/iraq_un_ritter_dc_1
Posted by: bakho on July 15, 2003 02:22 PMI watched the Speach. I remember specifically hearing the uranium part because as a war opponenet I thought to myself, "Whoa I want to hear more about this. War would be justified if Saddam were a nuclear threat."
That was the point of those 16 words. To freak us all out. Well, I did hear more but it was when the UN said the uranium story was a fraud. And I waited for the media to pounce on Bush for at the least, being incompetent and at the worst an outright liar. And I waited. And I waited. And now a few hundred American soldiers are dead and we have no WMD's.
Jim, why don't you enlist in the army? I'm going to work like hell to elect a democrat in 2004.
Posted by: Dan on July 15, 2003 02:22 PMI also saw the speech live. I wasn't sure about the uranium bit, but as I had read the summary of the IAEA report I was skeptical of some claims and knew others to be deliberately misleading (such as saying that the IAEA had reported in the 1990s that Saddam was months away from nukes - while true, this contradicted current IAEA reports).
I saw inspectors handling the 12 missile casings that should have been destroyed a decade ago. One of them peeked into the top, and then smelled it. (I saw this on national TV.) Apparently he was not afraid of it, and had it landed on his home town I don't think he would have flinched. Bush claimed that there were 12 found, and 20,000 more. I a) didn't believe him (I had seen no other corraborating intelligence suggesting this to be true) and b) didn't consider that to be threatening.
The aluminum tubes would have been a problem. However, nuclear programs are easy to detect. If this is all they had, is that really a credible threat? It seemed like they were desperate.
Then Bush went into scary stuff like Saddam is killing babies blah blah blah. This I believed.
Posted by: Saam Barrager on July 15, 2003 02:52 PMAs a Canadian, I have a somewhat different perspective. The problem is the office of the Presidency. On the one hand, the President is supposed to be a unifying representative of all that is American. On the other hand, he is supposed to be the politician in charge of the executive branch of government. But these two roles call for completely different job skills.
The solution is constitutional monarchy. No one blames the Queen or the Governor General for saying false or misleading things during our equivalent of the "State of the Union" address, the "Speech from the Throne." At the same time, no one regards the Prime Minister as a symbol of anything other than political longevity.
With Bush, the United States seems to have reinvented this useful institution. No one believes he has any more influence on US policy than Elizabeth Windsor does on UK policy.
Unfortunately, there is no democratic way of choosing his "advisers", as there is in Canada and the UK. This leads to problems, with which Americans are now familiar.
In fact, the best course would be to amend the US Constitution to make the Bush family the dynastic owners of the Presidency in perpetuity. (In the spirit of bipartisanship, the Kennedy family should be given the Vice-Presidency as an heriditary office: the successorship provisions of the Constitution would have to be amended in favour of the rules of primogeniture).
Actual executive power would have to be exercised by a prime minister/cabinet, chosen either by the House or through direct election (as I say, I'm not an American so I don't entirely understand your mania for direct election, but chacun a son gout)
Accountability could then be restored: if President Bush II were to say an untruth in the area of transportation policy, for example, Norm Mineta would have to resign. And who could be against that?
The popular media would be encouraged to gather sexual scandals about the Presidential/Vice-Presidential families, but actual politicians would be ignored, except by C-Span and NPR. The true separation of powers, between the entertainment and policy functions of government, would finally be achieved. And our royal family could interbreed with yours, which couldn't possibly be bad for either gene pool.
Posted by: Gareth on July 15, 2003 02:54 PM
Jim Glass on Saddam Hussein:
All this "Saddam killed the Kurds"... "Saddam killed the Shiites" ... "Saddam killed the Iranians deceived". How many of the people who say this even saw the Kurds and Shiites and Iranians being killed -- much less remember it?
Well, to refresh memories, you didn't see it. So I dare anyone to come back here and say that Saddam "killed" or even intended to "kill" anyone about.
Posted by: Jim Glass II on July 15, 2003 04:17 PMGareth, that seems like a fine, well-thought-out idea. You've made it before in less detail? I think I've heard it before from a Canadian.
My theory: for Bush, it's all been folderol ever since "F**k Saddam, we're taking him out." Since then, lots of boring people have said lots of crap, while Bush sat around waiting to get things started. Remember his contributions to that company's board meetings: just dirty jokes. A stupid person might pay attention, this is what a lazy person with a sense of entitlement does. Bush, whose college years show he's not an idiot, literally forgot the recent details of what Saddam did when and why we invaded, because frankly who gives a damn?
The trouble is that this is an absolutely devastating window to open. It is Bush himself confirming that the entire UN shebang, and the reasons offered, were window dressing.
That's my take. I don't expect to see it in the press.
so Jim Glass, your nominated to be the next minister of information for your weasel comments. "He never misled anyone about his intentions." His intentions were perfectly clear from 9/12/03, it's the facts he used to persuade the American people that were lies. Yes I watched the speach-painful as it was.
Posted by: CalDem on July 15, 2003 05:48 PMso Jim Glass, your nominated to be the next minister of information for your weasel comments. "He never misled anyone about his intentions." His intentions were perfectly clear from 9/12/03, it's the facts he used to persuade the American people that were lies. Yes I watched the speech-painful as it was.
Posted by: CalDem on July 15, 2003 05:49 PMso Jim Glass, your nominated to be the next minister of information for your weasel comments. "He never misled anyone about his intentions." His intentions were perfectly clear from 9/12/03, it's the facts he used to persuade the American people that were lies. Yes I watched the speech-painful as it was.
Posted by: CalDem on July 15, 2003 05:49 PMWell the link that Jim posted is to a parody of the SOTU that has been circulating on the net for a while. It is pretty funny (and these days comes close to what Bush is really saying) so its worth a look.
As funny as it is, it is only the second funniest thing that Jim Glass posted today. The first being his claim over on Jane Galt's site that the Democrats need to be wary about over-parsing the President's words because they could turn off middle of the road voters like him!!
Ha ha ha. Yes, if the Democrats go down this road the next thing you know moderates like Patrick Sullivan and David Thompson may be turned off by Democrats and forced to vote Republican in 2004 as well.
Posted by: achilles on July 15, 2003 06:16 PMThank you for this article. If I can laugh at this situation while getting a new slant on it, that seems to be a better solution in the long run than taking interest in our gun laws for the first time. (Is there still a 7 day waiting period? How extensive is that background check, anyway?)
I'm sure it has been said a million times that these "technically" accurate statements sound downright Clintonian. The difference, I guess, is that this was not about an inappropriate relationship with an intern, but fighting for truth, justice, and the American way.
We have a couple of new projects going at the Peace Pretzel. At the top of the page, there is a "demand accountability" link. At the bottom of the page, there is a Weapons of Mass Instruction link. Check these out, if you get a chance, and offer input if you have it. Thanks.
http://protest.bmgbiz.net
Thank you for this article. If I can laugh at this situation while getting a new slant on it, that seems to be a better solution in the long run than taking interest in our gun laws for the first time. (Is there still a 7 day waiting period? How extensive is that background check, anyway?)
I'm sure it has been said a million times that these "technically" accurate statements sound downright Clintonian. The difference, I guess, is that this was not about an inappropriate relationship with an intern, but fighting for truth, justice, and the American way.
We have a couple of new projects going at the Peace Pretzel. At the top of the page, there is a "demand accountability" link. At the bottom of the page, there is a Weapons of Mass Instruction link. Check these out, if you get a chance, and offer input if you have it. Thanks.
http://protest.bmgbiz.net
" As funny as it is, it is only the second funniest thing that Jim Glass posted today. The first being his claim over on Jane Galt's site that the Democrats need to be wary about over-parsing the President's words because they could turn off middle of the road voters like him!!
"Ha ha ha. Yes, if the Democrats go down this road the next thing you know moderates like Patrick Sullivan and David Thompson may be turned off by Democrats and forced to vote Republican in 2004 as well."
George McGovern, 1972, anyone?
Nah.
I don't think Bush will do as badly as McGovern did. Especially since Bush won't be running against a rival who is as 'focused' as Nixon was ;)
Posted by: achilles on July 16, 2003 08:12 AMOh, *that* SOTU. Hahaha - sorry, I generally avoid Windows Media Player links whenever possible (we're all better off if content providers use Quicktime or Real).
Here is a better link for it: http://www.thesmokehammer.com/
Posted by: Jim Glass II on July 16, 2003 08:47 AM"Jim Glass..." Yadda, yadda,
Not one of you dumbos either looked at the video at the link *or* noticed the smiley ;-) attached to it.
Hint from the smiley: The video is a joke, you bozos. It gives you what you want. You might even enjoy it.
The Economist is right, you folks just can't think straight any more.
And if you keep it up you'll be taking your party right back to McGovernville.
Posted by: Jim Glass on July 16, 2003 08:50 AMNot that it matters much, but a stable, democratic Iraq would go a long way toward improving world security.
Posted by: Stan on July 16, 2003 09:16 AMBTW, since this thread is all about how bad it is to try to weasel out of responsibility for one's words, I'll just note that I post under my own name and give a real e-mail address.
How weasely is it to post using the name of the person you are criticizing?
Posted by: Jim Glass on July 16, 2003 09:18 AMI said:
"Well the link that Jim posted is to a parody of the SOTU that has been circulating on the net for a while. It is pretty funny (and these days comes close to what Bush is really saying) so its worth a look."
and Jim then says
"Not one of you dumbos either looked at the video at the link *or* noticed the smiley ;-) attached to it.Hint from the smiley: The video is a joke, you bozos."
Well I guess I am happy because I am neither a dumbo nor a bozo, apparently unlike the rest of "you dumbos"
Or else Jim is so mad about the extremist bozos and dumbos being unable to think straight that he is being driven out of his calm rational moderate mind.
"Well I guess I am happy because I am neither a dumbo nor a bozo, apparently unlike the rest of "you dumbos""
Indeed you should be happy you aren't one of the dumbos who gets all self-righteous responding without paying any attention to what they were responding to. It seems a mild sort of thing to be proud of, but it's always good to rise above one's peers.
Admittedly they are bunch thinking so straight as to be near hysterical about how 16 words in a 5,000 word speech, reporting what our best ally still says is true, criminally manipulated the country into supporting a war that both Houses of Congress had debated and voted in favor of three months earlier.
But then if Dubya can speak magic words that work retroactively through time like that I guess Democrats should be hysterical.
"Or else Jim is so mad about the extremist bozos and dumbos being unable to think straight that he is being driven out of his calm rational moderate mind."
;-)
Well, you *do* have a curious sense of humor thinking it so very funny that Democrats would need voters from the middle independent 40% who could vote either way, and who have voted both ways in the past, like me, when you deem the likes of us to be such right-wing extremists.
Wasn't it Pauline Kael who asked "How could Nixon carry 49 states when I don't know a single person who voted for him?"
Anyhow, between Ed Koch and me, you folks could soon be getting NYC voting in the Republican camp for the first time in a hundred years...
Edward I. Koch, former mayor of NYC, 7/16/03:
~~
The Democratic candidates for president – and many in the media – are trying to make President Bush see like a liar. In so doing, they are making an unforgivable mistake...
I am a proud Democrat who generally supports Democratic candidates for office. I have never voted for anyone other than a Democrat for president. I believe that the Democratic Party's philosophy is overall far better for our country than the Republican Party's.....
Although I am a Democrat, I am no ideologue. In some local and state elections, I have proudly crossed party lines for candidates I thought were appreciably better ... and it is my current intention to vote for George W. Bush for re-election.
Whether intelligence reports about Iraq were accurate or not, the president had a right to rely on information from Blair, America’s most steadfast ally, and his government...
I believe Democrats and their media allies will fail to bring Bush down, because taking on Saddam Hussein was the right course of action for America....
~~~
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/15/215614.shtml
The words of a Democrat who hasn't lost the ability to think straight. And he'd be happy to vote for another such one for president, if only the Democrats can find one.
I have read many of your postings, Jim and a couple of things are pretty clear to me: you are very smart and you are not exactly a swing voter. The middle 40%, yes, I have no doubt about that but realistically you are as likely to vote for a Democrat in '04 as I am to vote for Bush. Middle 20%? Not a chance in hell in my opinion.
But hey as I have said before, if people want to categorize themselves as moderate or independent (or Republican or Democrat) that's their business. Voting for Clinton over Dole, Reagan over Mondale, does technically (apropos this thread!) makes one a swing voter but hardly implies that their vote is in play on average.
Anyone who has read your rants against Clinton, the posts that described your strong faith in the current administration's foreign policy or the more intelligent posts in support of administration tax policy and social policy will have a hard time believing that this particular incident will be the one that finally drives you into the Bush camp.
Finally, I am amused that those on the right (and apparently some in the middle) consider questioning whether or not the Administration exaggerated the case for an action as momentous as going to war as a sign of a crazed witchhunt. Boy, I guess double standards are alive and kicking in that middle 40% eh? ;)