Politics: J'accuse!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Be that as it may, the paragraphs I quoted rang true for me re Bush's preformance. As I say, you have found something other than Bush to talk about. Congratulations.

A. With Kos, you gave me nothing to talk about.

B. As to Bush's performance, the blogosphere simply confirms that Bush-haters will resume their hate, and the rest will carry on with whatever impression they had before, too. I expected to see a not-very-brilliant, poor public speaking, rather inscrutably-faced guy with fairly steady moral convictions and values that I think are uniquely suited to our present needs say next to nothing of importance simply because the media has started harping on the idea that he needed to have a press conference. That's what I saw. I feel prescient.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Assasinating OBL sometime after GWB took office would not have stopped 9/11. OBL wasn't in those airplanes. The people who flew those airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon would not have stopped their plans if OBL was assasinated sometime after GWB took office. They were already here and well on their way to being ready to fly airplanes into buildings by then.

What might have stopped 9/11 is better intelligence and better intelligence sharing between agencies. This was impeded by the Gorelick and crew. Moreover, all you PC fuckers put the fear into the FBI agents and made them too worried about investigating Arab males in flying school. They thought that would be considered racial profiling, because it fucking is racial profiling. Racial profiling Arabs in flying school (as that agent in NM noticed) could have maybe saved a few thousand lives on 9/11.

I hope you PC fuckers are proud of yourselves.

PC fuck yourself. Call them camel schtuppers til you're blue in the face for all I care. I think it's even possible - possible - that the wholesale rounding up of swarthies or whatever you call them post-9/11 averted other attacks. But at what cost? It's a short term solution to a long term problem unless we want to just seal our borders and reject the notion of a pluralistic society.

Assassinating UBL after Bush took office may not have prevented 9/11. Clarke predicted that if he were killed even before then that it would lead to a bilmore bee backlash (I paraphrase). UBL has most assuredly set in motion more attacks. Are you saying you don't want him dead even though those attack may happen anyway?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
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?

Nothing there worth repeating, I agree, but I included it for context.

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.

He's closer than you are to the essence of this, which is that Bush is claiming credit for this while failing to concede the link between Khan and the Pakistani government.

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.)

No, it's not a far cry at all. Al Qaeda's not reading tomorrow's Washington Post to see whether we're losing our will power. But Bush is running for re-election.

What's your basis for thinking that AQ is following our press? That's the worst kind of projection. OBL's fatwas include ravings about al-Andalus -- he's focusing on what happened in modern-day Spain hundreds of years ago, and you think he's following exit polls.

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.)

Kos is referring to Bush's use of that phrase as a totem to ward off hostile questions, something you are beyond perceiving. Hard questions about Iraq? Just talk about The War On Terrorism. If you keep insisting that Iraq is part of The War On Terrorism, there's no need to explain how we're going to win.

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.

It may not work for you, but when Bush starts that smirking thing, he's like the jackasses I knew in high school. He has that same mean streak. Since club has posted how he admires this in Bush, I know that some conservatives see this streak in him.

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!!"

Thanks. I note you don't say anything positive about Bush, and I find that strangely heartening.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
. . .a bilmore bee backlash

?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
B. As to Bush's performance, the blogosphere simply confirms that Bush-haters will resume their hate, and the rest will carry on with whatever impression they had before, too. I expected to see a not-very-brilliant, poor public speaking, rather inscrutably-faced guy with fairly steady moral convictions and values that I think are uniquely suited to our present needs say next to nothing of importance simply because the media has started harping on the idea that he needed to have a press conference. That's what I saw. I feel prescient.

Did you see any of this so-called "harping" before the last day? I didn't. Bush told people a day or two ago that he was going to do this press conference, unlike the others he's done, when he gave the media only an hour's warning, or less. Or so I heard on the radio this morning.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
?

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...9041#post79041

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
He's closer than you are to the essence of this, which is that Bush is claiming credit for this while failing to concede the link between Khan and the Pakistani government.

"Failing to concede"? Like, there's a question about it? I don't get this comment. I think the Pakistan government has gone a long way in cleaning itself up since then, and I doubt that Bush and his actions and (apparent) intentions had nothing to do with that.

No, it's not a far cry at all. Al Qaeda's not reading tomorrow's Washington Post to see whether we're losing our will power. But Bush is running for re-election.

What's your basis for thinking that AQ is following our press? That's the worst kind of projection. OBL's fatwas include ravings about al-Andalus -- he's focusing on what happened in modern-day Spain hundreds of years ago, and you think he's following exit polls.

Al Jazeerah spent days quoting Kennedy. They quote much of the antiwar stuff. They talk about Kerry's positions, taken straight from our media, and are now saying that if Kerry wins, and backs off the fight, they'll relent a bit, too. What you say is just completely unrelated to reality. Of course they watch us, through our media, constantly.

Kos is referring to Bush's use of that phrase as a totem to ward off hostile questions, something you are beyond perceiving. Hard questions about Iraq? Just talk about The War On Terrorism. If you keep insisting that Iraq is part of The War On Terrorism, there's no need to explain how we're going to win.

The "totem" is in Kos's mind, because he thinks that Bush has no right to that phrase, because he thinks Bush is using it to cover his war on Iraq. That's Kos's opinion, and maybe yours. It's not mine. I think that you guys should have no right to say the word "hunger" because it's your economic policies that cause it worldwide, but do I complain when you do? Do I claim that you're saying it in a way to scare me off of debate? That's just weak.

It may not work for you, but when Bush starts that smirking thing, he's like the jackasses I know in high school. He has that same mean streak. Since club has posted how he admires this in Bush, I know that some conservatives see this streak in him.

You could have just said "you're right, Bilmore". It would have been quicker.

Thanks. I note you don't say anything positive about Bush, and I find that strangely heartening.

I find it disenheartening that, to you, apparently, strongly held values and beliefs are nothing positive.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...9041#post79041

Ah. Thanks. I was . . . confused.

Well, more confused.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Did you see any of this so-called "harping" before the last day? I didn't. Bush told people a day or two ago that he was going to do this press conference, unlike the others he's done, when he gave the media only an hour's warning, or less. Or so I heard on the radio this morning.

Yes, it's been a fairly steady theme for some time. Out of fairness, I think his supporters were probably saying it as often as media types were, for a different reason.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Failing to concede"? Like, there's a question about it? I don't get this comment. I think the Pakistan government has gone a long way in cleaning itself up since then, and I doubt that Bush and his actions and (apparent) intentions had nothing to do with that.

Hope springs eternal.

Al Jazeerah spent days quoting Kennedy. They quote much of the antiwar stuff. They talk about Kerry's positions, taken straight from our media, and are now saying that if Kerry wins, and backs off the fight, they'll relent a bit, too. What you say is just completely unrelated to reality. Of course they watch us, through our media, constantly.

You should get someone to tell you the difference between Al Qaeda and Al Jazeerah.

The "totem" is in Kos's mind, because he thinks that Bush has no right to that phrase, because he thinks Bush is using it to cover his war on Iraq. That's Kos's opinion, and maybe yours. It's not mine. I think that you guys should have no right to say the word "hunger" because it's your economic policies that cause it worldwide, but do I complain when you do? Do I claim that you're saying it in a way to scare me off of debate? That's just weak.

I can't speak for Kos, since I don't read him, but I wouldn't say that Bush has no right to that phrase, whatever that means. I would say, however, that he deploys it with great frequency to avoid discussion of what he's doing the name of that war.

What that has to do with "hunger" is highly unclear to me.

You could have just said "you're right, Bilmore". It would have been quicker.

Just what do you think we agree on here?

I find it disenheartening that, to you, apparently, strongly held values and beliefs are nothing positive.

You made that point in a different post that I had not seen yet when I posted this.

All else equal, strongly held values and beliefs are good. But I wish OBL's values weren't so strongly held. Likewise, I am disturbed that Bush holds his beliefs so strongly that he declines to relinquish them in the face of mounting evidence of changed circumstances.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Call them camel schtuppers til you're blue in the face for all I care. I think it's even possible - possible - that the wholesale rounding up of swarthies or whatever you call them post-9/11 averted other attacks. But at what cost? It's a short term solution to a long term problem unless we want to just seal our borders and reject the notion of a pluralistic society.

Nobody was advocating rounding up Arabs. What was being debated was whether they could investigate (not roundup) non-American Arab men in flying schools specifically because they were non-American Arab and the biggest terrorist threats to the US were coming from non-American muslims, in particular Arab muslims.

That is it. Just investigate to see why there were so many non-American Arabs in American flying schools. But that is racial/ethnic/religious profiling and the PC crowd says there is something morally wrong with that.

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Are you saying you don't want him dead even though those attack may happen anyway?

Nothing I have said suggests that. Why are you even saying that? UBL dead is a good thing. If he had been killed 8 years ago, it might have stopped 9/11. But killing him in the 9 months preceeding 9/11 wouldn't have helped.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Did you catch the part where they asked him if he made any mistakes? A perfect opportunity to say, "Hell yes. And I'm raising hell within my administration to correct all those mistakes."

When your country is at war, it is not the time for a President to engage in public introspective self-flagellation simply because a reporter asks a question. This is not the right time. That sort of thing needs to be done in private right now with trusted advisors. To do it in publis will only embolden our enemies because they will perceive it as weakness.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Hope springs eternal.

Seen any more evidence of continuing transfer of info to NK, Iran, Malaysia, or wherever?

You should get someone to tell you the difference between Al Qaeda and Al Jazeerah.

You should get someone to explain to you where AQ recruits come from, from where its popular support arises, what regions and groups of people are disaffected enough to seek the same goals as the actual present AQ members, . . . the list is too long to finish here.

What that has to do with "hunger" is highly unclear to me.

How can something be "highly unclear"? It's either unclear, or not.

Okay, sorry, I was channelling the FB there for a moment. You object to one particular part of Bush's philosophy. Therefore, you think that he is somehow honor-bound not to speak of it. I think that we are, in fact, effectively fighting a war on terror, and I think Bush is correct to focus on this. If Kerry wins, I'm sure I will likewise object to his use of the words "france-like heaven", but I'm not ego-centric enough to think he will avoid it merely to not offend me.

Just what do you think we agree on here?

Kos's comments reflected a stupid, visceral hatred of the guy for dumb reasons. A smirk? C'mon. You're better than that. Your comment supported what I said.

Now I gotta go. It's later in the day for me than for you guys.

In more ways than one.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Nobody was advocating rounding up Arabs.

Cite please.

What was being debated was whether they could investigate (not roundup) non-American Arab men in flying schools specifically because they were non-American Arab and the biggest terrorist threats to the US were coming from non-American muslims, in particular Arab muslims.

That is it. Just investigate to see why there were so many non-American Arabs in American flying schools. But that is racial/ethnic/religious profiling and the PC crowd says there is something morally wrong with that.

Cite please.

Nothing I have said suggests that. Why are you even saying that? UBL dead is a good thing. If he had been killed 8 years ago, it might have stopped 9/11. But killing him in the 9 months preceeding 9/11 wouldn't have helped.

Clarke says this in his book, but for a profit.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
When your country is at war, it is not the time for a President to engage in public introspective self-flagellation simply because a reporter asks a question. This is not the right time. That sort of thing needs to be done in private right now with trusted advisors. To do it in publis will only embolden our enemies because they will perceive it as weakness.

But war is a good time to think on your feet. I think our enemies will take his failure to do so as a sign of stupidity. Or weakness. Take your pick.