Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

OCCOM BILL wrote:

there

You repeatedly confuse me by using the (admittedly homophone) distal demonstrative instead of the correct possessive adjective, OB.

0 Replies

Quote:

Well done Democrats.

Yeah, how dare we point out an illegal program! One that you have no idea what purpose was used for; really, you don't know. They could be spying on Al Qaeda, or not. They could be spying on anyone they want. Without oversight, you just can't tell.

It's amazing how you Republicans have gone from the party of limited gov't to one of Unlimited gov't (size, spending, powers) in just a few years; Cult of Personality, man.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

My bad OE. Embarrassed

Think of it as a typo. I don't think of letters when I type and my fingers mix those up a lot. I'll re-double my efforts to correct them.

Cyclo, I remain independent whether I tend to disagree with Democrats more than Republicans or not. The world isn't as polarized as the hyper-partisan believe.

I would normally agree that breaches to constitutional rights are paramount, but recognize the need for exceptions to rules on occasion. I don't believe sacrificing a valuable tool against terrorism was justified at this time. Moreover, if constitutional protection was really the motive, I believe it could have been addressed as secretly as the program itself. It certainly didn't have to become the foremost politically motivated talking point for Democrats, either and I think they'll be punished rather than rewarded in public perception.

0 Replies

But, you don't know if it was a valuable tool against terrorism or not. You have no idea whether it was successful or not. You don't know if information was used inappropriately or not, or if Domestic-Domestic calls were spied upon, or if the Admin's political enemies were spied upon (even by accident). How can you call the program a 'valuable tool against terrorism?'

We have to have a balance between what is most important, and protecting people's freedom weighs quite heavily on that balance. If this was neccessary, it could have been done in a more legal fashion.

Without oversight, there is no way of ensuring the program is being used correctly, which you know as well as I do is quite important; the WoTerror will outlive any administration, should this tool be available for all future presidents to use? Without oversight?

It doesn't seem to me like we do things like that when people's civil rights are involved in the matter.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

oh yeah

Quote:

and I think they'll be punished rather than rewarded in public perception.

People, in general, don't like being spied upon much. I think it's going to be difficult to appeal to a lot of conservatives and libertarians on a platform of 'the gov't needs to be able to spy on you for your own safety.' What else should it be able to spy on - for your own safety?

If the phones, why not email?

If the email, why not mail?

et cetera. I don't think this is a winning issue to argue to pro side of.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

bill wrote

Quote:

I would normally agree that breaches to constitutional rights are paramount, but recognize the need for exceptions to rules on occasion. I don't believe sacrificing a valuable tool against terrorism was justified at this time. Moreover, if constitutional protection was really the motive, I believe it could have been addressed as secretly as the program itself. It certainly didn't have to become the foremost politically motivated talking point for Democrats, either and I think they'll be punished rather than rewarded in public perception.

Add to what cyclo has just pointed out that "sacrificing" ain't the word you want to use, if anything like accuracy or truthfulness is at issue.

Regardless of what the administration claims, there is simply no reasonable grounds to imagine that what has been said about the program will have any consequence regarding how al qaeda will go about its daily business. If over the last three plus years they've managed to avoid detection by the various electronic surveillance techniques that seems pretty clearly because they are avoiding the communication means targetted. Not a leap of genius needed to avoid cel phones etc.

But it serves precisely the PR goals and political strategies (Repubs as strong on defence, dems as weak on defence...see Karl's speech last week) to suggest that programs were damaged. Of course, it also achieves the goal of invalidating any press or whistleblower who speak out. All very predictable stuff.

The fact of this matter is that dems or the press or responsible government employees HAVE TO speak out where the administration acts illegally or unethically or in ways that threaten constitutional governance. To not do so is to betray the values of America's traditions.

0 Replies

And, in reference to Kanaley's piece that fox posted earlier with it's nod to the "anti-war left"...

Quote:

Condi's Dad and the Lessons of War

By Chip Berlet
October 27th, 2004
When I hear Condoleezza Rice defending the war in Iraq I think of her father denouncing the war in Vietnam. Condi's dad was a Dean in the college of liberal arts at the University of Denver in the early 1970s when I was editor of the student newspaper, the Clarion. His name was John Rice, but no student dared call him that. He was an imposing figure, and we all called him "Dean" Rice.

In her book Bushwomen, Laura Flanders traces how Condi Rice was recruited by right-wing Republicans. Flanders recounts how Ms. Rice, speaking at the GOP convention in Philadelphia, said that her father "was the first Republican I knew," and claimed "In America, with education and hard work, it really does not matter where you come from; it matters only where you are going."

That's not what I learned from Dean Rice. I took his class "The Black Experience in America," and continued to attend the seminars with his encouragement. The seminar was built around a series of invited speakers who lectured in a public form followed by classroom discussions. That's where I met Fannie Lou Hamer, a Black voting rights activist from Sunflower County Mississippi, who led a challenge to the all-White Mississippi delegation to the 1964 Democrat Convention, which failed that year bu succeeded in 1968. That's where I heard Dean Rice explain that he had always refused to register as a Democrat because that was the party of the bigots who had blocked his voter registration when he and his family lived in the South.

Dean Rice may have been registered as a Republican up North, but he taught me about working for progressive social change and opposing institutional racism. He taught me that White people like me enjoyed privileges routinely denied to Blacks. He taught me that the proportion of Blacks serving in Vietnam was tied to economic and social policies at home. And he pointed out that along with this knowledge came an absolute moral imperative to act.

http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/OpEds/berlet_condi_dad.html

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I would normally agree that breaches to constitutional rights are paramount, but recognize the need for exceptions to rules on occasion. I don't believe sacrificing a valuable tool against terrorism was justified at this time.

Nononono, this is not how it works under the rule of law. If you believe a person's home should no longer be safe from warrantless searches, persuade about 75% of your compatriots that you're right, and have them vote for Congressmen and state legislators who'll change the constitution for you.

This makes sense politically too. If you oppose judicial activists on the Supreme Court who rewrite the constitution, you can't support a judicial activist in the White House who rewrites the constitution.

And sorry, I don't buy the whole argument about protecting civil rights in secret. You cannot protect anyone against rights violations he is prevented from knowing about, and you cannot weigh those violations against an alleged security benefit that is top secret.

0 Replies

From Rob Corddry, the John Stewart show vice-presidential firearms mishap analyst...

Quote:

"Everyone believed there were quail in the brush," and "while the quail turned out to be a 78-year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he would still have shot Mr. Whittington in the face."

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Re the quail shooting incident, did anybody listen in on the press conference?

Among such gems asked ... and, my personal favorite, "Would it have been more serious had the victim died?"

You can't make this stuff up.

Evidently you can make this stuff up or at least it appears that way. A quick check of the transcript found at,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060213-4.html#b

reveals no such quote. Then again, maybe it's just that my Crtl-F is out of order.

A Google News search for the exact quote revealed,

Quote:

Your search - "Would it have been more serious had the victim died?" - did not match any documents.

0 Replies

Just found the full piece...

Quote:

Dick Cheney still hasn't appeared in public to discuss his accidental shooting of a 78-year-old man, but there are plenty of people willing to speak on the veep's behalf -- among them, Comedy Central's Rob Corddry. Playing the role of a "vice president firearms mishap analyst," Corddry explained it all Monday night for Daily Show host Jon Stewart:

Stewart: Rob, obviously a very unfortunate situation. How is the vice president handling it?

Corddry: Jon, tonight the vice president is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. According to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be a 78-year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Whittington's face.

Stewart: But why, Rob? If he had known Mr. Whittington was not a bird, why would he still have shot him?

Corddry: Jon, in a post-9-11 world, the American people expect their leaders to be decisive. To not have shot his friend in the face would have sent a message to the quail that America is weak.

Stewart: That's horrible.

Corddry: Look, the mere fact that we're even talking about how the vice president drives up with his rich friends in cars to shoot farm-raised wingless quail-tards is letting the quail know 'how' we're hunting them. I'm sure right now those birds are laughing at us in that little 'covey' of theirs.

Stewart: I'm not sure birds can laugh, Rob.

Corddry: Well, whatever it is they do -- coo -- they're cooing at us right now, Jon, because here we are talking openly about our plans to hunt them. Jig is up. Quails one, America zero.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Re the quail shooting incident, did anybody listen in on the press conference?

Among such gems asked ... and, my personal favorite, "Would it have been more serious had the victim died?"

You can't make this stuff up.

Evidently you can make this stuff up or at least it appears that way. A quick check of the transcript found at,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060213-4.html#b

reveals no such quote. Then again, maybe it's just that my Crtl-F is out of order.

A Google News search for the exact quote revealed,

Quote:

Your search - "Would it have been more serious had the victim died?" - did not match any documents.

Perhaps Fox can let us know what her source was for this "quote". I'm awfully curious.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Evidently you can make this stuff up or at least it appears that way.

blatham wrote:

Perhaps Fox can let us know what her source was for this "quote". I'm awfully curious.

Or JTT and blatham could allow for some minor errors. They inevitably creep in when someone writes down a quote from memory. Doing a Ctrl-F on a long search phrase is over-pedantic. You can immediately get to the quote she meant by searching for just one word: "died".

Quote:

Q: Scott, would this be much more serious if the man had died? Would that change the --

MR. McCLELLAN: Of course it would, Connie. It would have been terrible. Personally, I don't know him very well, but I know Mr. Whittington and I have great respect for him from knowing who he is and what he's done. And it would be horrible news.

Source (a little more than halfway down the page.)

I'd say that's close enough to abstain from insinuating that Foxfyre fabricated the quote.

0 Replies

No insinuation that Fox fabricated. I did suspect that she may have drawn from a source which didn't hold truth terribly important.

I could have been less...lazy?...and searched through the transcript. On the other hand, to ask for the citation/link is quite appropriate.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

On the other hand, to ask for the citation/link is quite appropriate.

I certainly hope so -- I've been known to ask for them myself.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

JTT wrote:
Evidently you can make this stuff up or at least it appears that way.

blatham wrote:
Perhaps Fox can let us know what her source was for this "quote". I'm awfully curious.

Or JTT and blatham could allow for some minor errors. They inevitably creep in when someone writes down a quote from memory. Doing a Ctrl-F on a long search phrase is over-pedantic. You can immediately get to the quote she meant by searching for just one word: "died".

Not to be over-pedantic, but when one paraphrases, one notes that one is paraphrasing.

The other thing that one should avoid doing is to misquote or isolate quotes that cause the quote(s) [and the person] to look silly when it is taken out of context, unless of course, one is trained in the roveian style of politics. When you can't make this stuff up, then just spin it to your heart's content.

Within the context of what was being discussed, the question was completely appropriate. The reporter wasn't asking, what foxy tried to make everyone think was an absurd question.

The reporter was trying to gauge just at what point the WH would have thought it appropriate to actually inform the media of a such an event, involving, guess who?, someone who made this an event that should have been reported long before it was.

0 Replies

Why should the media have been informed?

Are they informed of every other hunting accident in the country?

0 Replies

If the VP dies, should the media be informed?

Are they informed of every other death in the country?

0 Replies

Hmmm. Foxfyre (who was paraphrasing the exchange between McClellan and Ms. AirheadReporter) got the quote wrong by one word...using "victim" instead of "man", and because someone is clueless about using a search engine, she's practically called a liar.

Hmmm. An apology from Mr. Clueless would be so simple. And adult.

0 Replies

Information control. It is a key strategy of this administration, the Pentagon, and the new conservative movement.

From the Pentagon, it is an arm of "full spectrum dominance" and we see instances of it in planted media stories and "blogs" and "letters from soldiers" written by intel people or by privately contracted stateside PR firms.

From the broad conservative movement, we we see it in trained pundits and massively funded "thinktanks" with their publications and linked websites, publishing houses like Regnery, broadcasting entities like Fox and Clear Channel, etc.

From the adminstration, we see it in the manipulation and intimidation and derogation of independent media, serial secrecy and stonewalling, fake "news" stories produced by hired PR companies working for the government, and all of the above.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know