Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
. . .you responded with an ad hominem attack on Kos rather than to his substance.
|
Okay. Here goes.
He said, to start, "
The transcripts are just coming out, and there will be plenty to pull from George W. Bush's press conference to show that he's ignorant, clueless and an embarrassment to our country." Yeah, there's substance to discuss. Which part of Kos's policy debate shall I start with from that sentence?
And then, we get "
Bush made the absolutely stunning claim that his administration was somehow successful in breaking up A. Q. Khan's "dangerous network," which is crazy considering that Khan's "dangerous network" is otherwise known as the government of Pakistan." Intentionally misleading, which is sort of like lying, right? Bush referred to the black market network to whom he was transferring info. Kos knows that, but it was a good cheap line. Standard for him.
Next, "
He suggested that criticizing him or our actions in Iraq sends a bad message to our troops and our enemies--i.e., dissent is treason." Nope. I listened. Kos supplied the leap. Bush indicated, just like many commentators have in the past few days, that statements like Teddy's serve to reinvigorate an enemy who looks to our media coverage for information on the impact they're having. He said it reasonably. I think it's true. That's a far cry from "he's a traitor!" Kos knows that. He's an ass. (Oops. A.H. again. Damn.)
Then, "
He also kept talking about the war on terror, as if it's still the shibboleth that signals to the press that he knows they're not going to ask uncomfortable questions." Um, he was supposed to be talking about that. Does Kos imply that Bush shouldn't talk about it? Does Kos believe that Kos's rejection of the war should be a mandate to Bush to not speak about it? Kos is a loon. (Damn. Keeps slipping out.)
It gets better. "
Bush approaches the world as if the good things that happen to him are the result of virtue and the bad things the result of environment, but with other people it's the exact opposite. We're all susceptible to that mistake. But with Bush it's reached a truly bizarre level, and makes listening to him an unsettling experience. When he's not questioned or challenged, or things are going swimmingly, he comes across as confident and resolute. But when the environment changes--like tonight, when even NYT correspondent Elizabeth Bumiller (!) asked a slightly pointed question, and the White House press corps showed signs that they're embarrassed about their performance over the last three years, Bush resumes smirking and becomes that smug jerk we all hated in high school." I can't even read this with a straight face. A psychologist would love it. Remember the "why we hate Bush" blog threads a while back? It's like Kos isn't conscious that he read it, but he did absorb the theme in his sleep. What he just wrote was just like several of the poster-child examples given in those blogs, by both sides. What a dipwad.
Okay, no more. Kos isn't worth the time. I did this simply so you would stop saying "but the chimpanzee shook his head in the negative when shown a picture of a Republican! But, will you deal with the substance? Nnnnooooo! You insist on attacking the credentials of the Chimpanzee to make political comment! Attack the Messenger!!"
Get a new theme. Even Josh was better than this guy.
