3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 02:50 pm
Very interesting ....

0 Replies
 
StSimon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 03:13 pm
Produced and directed by the CIA.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 03:54 pm
StSimon wrote:
Produced and directed by the CIA.


Well, you just can't argue with rational thoughts like that.
0 Replies
 
StSimon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 04:00 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
StSimon wrote:
Produced and directed by the CIA.


Well, you just can't argue with rational thoughts like that.


Yeppers, it's right there with "they've got WMD's and WE KNOW where they are". Yup, yup, yup!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 05:00 pm
bill

As a general response to your last post...

I'm a Canadian and have no connection to the Dem party other than preferences re (particularly) US foreign policy. I don't assume anything I or anyone else writes here will have any measureable effect upon future voting. We attempt to persuade others over to our preferences because that's what we humans do in community but we aren't likely to be any more influential than a few guys talking over beers in a pub. I have no confidence at all that I might, by myself, make much more difference than pissing in the ocean might raise it.

Outside of that, discussions like you and I and others have here do facilitate an expansion of knowledge and viewpoint and I think that is a general good and a defining characteristic of a democracy.

So, the exercise here for me here becomes something like trying to weave through the various layers of bullshit, misdirection, bias, uninvestigated assumptions, mythologies, etc to try and understand the truth of things, then talk about that.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 05:42 pm
Blatham, my friend, we're on the same page regarding your last post. Except, I'd wager we've both swayed opinions in bars as well as right here on A2K. I consider you far more, if not better (:wink:) read, than the average American Democrat which is what makes tangles with you so interesting. Despite your Canadian citizenry, I believe you do a much better job of articulating the American Democrat's arguments than most. This is the reason I consider your blinders indicative of the of the Democratic Party's at large. Your vote, or lack thereof, matters not at all.

Now, if I could get you to see the error in the Democratic Strategy (or lack thereof) as I see them, or even bend to my way of thinking just a little, your persistent well articulated arguments might very well reflect it and effect a minor change in how some of the less educated of your brethren (who no doubt admire you) here on A2K see things. This, too, is how democracy works. Now keep up the good fight, man, but open your eyes.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 08:00 pm
http://uk.download.yahoo.com/pr/fu/oa/eyes.jpg
0 Replies
 
StSimon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 08:05 pm
That's got to be one of the most grotesque faces I've ever seen anyone make Shocked
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 08:16 pm
Unsettling, isn't it. Years ago, National Lampoon ran a centerfold picture of a big hairy guy bent over with his pants down and a glass eye in his anus. I had real trouble keeping the page open. It felt quite the wrong location for a consciousness to be resting and observing me.

And to bill....always been fun talking with you, too.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 11:32 pm
OK Bernie. Now; come to Chicago and I promise to patiently listen to liberal drivel for 20 straight minutes (uninterrupted:idea:), relieve you of any excess Poker Cash you might be carrying and send you away with a profound love for unusually smoky Cabernet Sauvignon. Deal?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 11:44 pm
blatham wrote:
Unsettling, isn't it. Years ago, National Lampoon ran a centerfold picture of a big hairy guy bent over with his pants down and a glass eye in his anus. I had real trouble keeping the page open. It felt quite the wrong location for a consciousness to be resting and observing me.

And to bill....always been fun talking with you, too.


You had trouble keeping a page open wherein a big hairy guy did something with an anus? Yeah right.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 12:22 am
On an unrelated note; Sean Hannity just made me laugh out loud while fielding questions by some idiotic hyper-partisan by suggesting "Dick Cheney will soon be known as Dick Bruce Cheney since all assassins have a middle name. Soon they'll be talking about the 'single buck shot theory'". Laughing

(As the Democratic grip on reality gets slipperier and slipperier...)



Laughing
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 12:30 am
I wasn't actually watching... it may have been Britt Hume... but it was definitely one of the Fox personalities.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 12:36 am
I think you've had one too many Cabernets. As if there was nothing like conservative drivel.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 12:56 am
Never claimed any such thing, my furry friend.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 01:01 am
Are you driveling? Maybe on the basketball court?
What happened to Florida? You get blown away?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 06:58 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
OK Bernie. Now; come to Chicago and I promise to patiently listen to liberal drivel for 20 straight minutes (uninterrupted:idea:), relieve you of any excess Poker Cash you might be carrying and send you away with a profound love for unusually smoky Cabernet Sauvignon. Deal?


Likely, we'll be there. Helen of Troy has attempted to usher Lola and I into the imprudent world of poker games where the opponent across the little ash-strewn table is a mathematical genius and we continue to resist, prudently. We'll bring along a favorite Sauvignon Blanc. Perhaps the two wines can play while you and I take it outside.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 07:01 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
blatham wrote:
Unsettling, isn't it. Years ago, National Lampoon ran a centerfold picture of a big hairy guy bent over with his pants down and a glass eye in his anus. I had real trouble keeping the page open. It felt quite the wrong location for a consciousness to be resting and observing me.

And to bill....always been fun talking with you, too.


You had trouble keeping a page open wherein a big hairy guy did something with an anus? Yeah right.


It is a fundamental cognitive error, finn, to assume that all others possess the same values or tastes as oneself.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 07:08 am
I'm dropping this big baby into the thread for our mutual edification on the world that we don't live in.

Quote:
Shoot first, avoid questions later
The White House's secretive response to Cheney's misfire cannot be understood apart from the society of Texas royalty.
By Sidney Blumenthal

Feb. 15, 2006 | In the original account authorized by Vice President Dick Cheney of his shooting of Harry Whittington, given by Katharine Armstrong, heiress and hunting companion, to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times and later elaborated on to other news outlets, the 11 members of the hunting party set off on the morning of Feb. 11 in two trucks for the wilds of the 50,000-acre Armstrong Ranch in search of quails. After lunch, whose menu was described as antelope, jicama salad, bread and Dr Pepper, the hunters divided into two groups. Cheney went off with Armstrong; Pamela Pitzer Willeford, the U.S. ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein; and Whittington.

At dusk, Whittington, a 78-year-old Austin lawyer and local Republican fixer, shot a bird and went to retrieve it behind the others. Hearing rustling in the bushes, Cheney, who has lately been using a cane in public and wearing two different shoes for comfort, reportedly quickly swiveled 180 degrees, 28-gauge shotgun in hand, and fired at what he believed were quails, but instead hit Whittington, 30 yards distant. "He got peppered pretty good," Armstrong said. "There was some bleeding, but it wasn't horrible. He was more bruised." The circumstances of this hunt were different from Cheney's previously celebrated 2003 hunt at the Rolling Rock Club in Pennsylvania, where he, Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and eight others killed 417 pheasants and an unknown number of mallard ducks specifically raised for the purpose of being herded before the hunters to shoot. At that time, Cheney released to the press the information that he had personally killed 70 pheasants. In the less controlled environment of the Armstrong Ranch, the only known target he hit was Whittington.

The details of the story related by Armstrong, however, defied practical experience and were contradictory. Armstrong told NBC News that while she believed that no one was drinking alcohol, beer may have been served at lunch. "There may have been a beer or two in there," she said, "but remember not everyone in the party was shooting." Armstrong's statement about beer appeared on the MSNBC Web site, but was subsequently and inexplicably scrubbed. Dr Pepper replaced beer in later versions of Armstrong's telling. On the Hunting Accident and Incident Report Form of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the shooter, Richard B. Cheney, checked the "No" box for the question, "Under the apparent influence of intoxicants or drugs?" But in an interview with Fox News Wednesday, Cheney admitted to having a beer earlier in the day, contrary to his statement to Texas officials.

The murky method by which Cheney decided to handle the disclosure of the shooting was guaranteed to raise questions about the incident. He behaved secretly, evaded standard protocol and brushed aside his obligations to the law. Unless Whittington dies, precipitating a grand jury probe, requiring witnesses to testify separately under oath, the true story may never be known, despite Cheney's Fox interview.

Whether or not the exact facts of the case are ever conclusively established, what happened at twilight in the south Texas brush has revealed the hierarchy of power within the Bush White House and the interests of those who wield that power. The surreptitious handling inside the White House of the shooting, moreover, cannot be understood apart from the society of Texas royalty and the ambitions of those, like Cheney and Karl Rove, who aspire to it. None of it is metaphoric.

About an hour after the shooting, an unidentified traveling aide of the vice president's called the White House Situation Room, which put him in touch with Chief of Staff Andrew Card. Why a call would be routed through the Situation Room, which receives and transmits only national security information, rather than the very capable and secure White House switchboard, remains mysterious. Card was deliberately misled, told only that there was an accident in Cheney's party, not that Cheney was involved. The vice president's staff obviously felt no need to inform the president's chief of staff of the true facts of the matter. Why Card was deceived is also mystifying, except insofar as it reflects the vice president's instinctive view of him as someone to be routinely stepped over and around. Card, acting responsibly, promptly called President Bush, who as a result was momentarily kept in the dark. Confusing Card was a way of managing Bush, and yet ...

Enter Rove. Within minutes of the call to Card, the president's chief political advisor and deputy chief of staff spoke with Katharine Armstrong, an old friend of his, who told him that Cheney had shot Whittington. Who initiated this conversation is unknown. In any case, Rove, not the duped Card, informed the president of what had actually transpired.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan was left out of the loop until the next morning. Instead, Armstrong, not anyone from the White House, disclosed the news that the vice president had shot Whittington to her local newspaper. It seems fair to infer that Cheney left Rove the task of coaching her. Twenty hours after the accident, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times printed its report; then it slowly filtered to the national press corps, which was never alerted by the White House.

Armstrong's account blaming the victim bore the mark of a classic Rove-engineered statement. No one at the White House had yet to say a word. The president, though he was well aware, made no query that would have ensured that in this extraordinary event the White House was operating properly and according to the letter of the law. Whether ignorant or informed, he remained passive, deferring to Cheney and Rove.

Both the vice president and the deputy chief of staff, as it happens, owed their previous, lucrative jobs in the private sector to their relationships with the Armstrong family. Anne Armstrong, Katharine's mother, was on the board of Halliburton that made Dick Cheney its chief executive officer. Tobin Armstrong, Katharine's father, had financed Karl Rove & Co., Rove's political consulting firm. Katharine herself is a lobbyist for Houston law firm Baker Botts, a major Texas power broker since it was founded in the 19th century by the family of James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state and close associate of George H.W. Bush's.

Katharine Armstrong took up lobbying after her recent divorce. Her contracts include Parsons, a construction firm that has done work in Iraq, among others. Her business partner, Karen Johnson, a close friend of Rove's, does extensive business with the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development and defense contractors. But Armstrong's protestations to news media that she does not lobby Cheney should probably be taken at face value given her background.

Katharine Armstrong is linked to two family fortunes -- those of Armstrong and King -- that include extensive corporate holdings in land, cattle, banking and oil. No one in Texas, except perhaps Baker, but certainly not latecomer George W. Bush, has a longer lineage in its political and economic elite. In 1983, Debrett's Peerage Ltd., publisher of "Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage," printed "Debrett's Texas Peerage," featuring "the aristocrats of Texas," with the King family noted as the "Royal Family of Ranching." The King Ranch, founded by Richard King in 1857, is the largest in Texas, and its wealth was vastly augmented by the discovery of oil on its tracts, making the family a major shareholder of Exxon. The King Ranch is the model for Edna Ferber's novel of Texas aristocracy, "Giant."

John B. Armstrong, a Texas Ranger and enforcer for the King Ranch, founded his own neighboring ranch in 1882, buying it with the bounty of $4,000 he got for capturing the outlaw John Wesley Hardin. In 1944, almost inevitably, the two fortunes became intertwined through marriage. Tobin Armstrong's brother John married the King Ranch heiress, who was also a Vassar classmate of Tobin's wife, Anne, who came from a wealthy New Orleans family.

The Armstrong Ranch developed far-flung holdings in Australia and South America. Meanwhile, President Ford appointed Anne, a major Republican activist, U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom, and President Reagan appointed her a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is reportedly Anne's best friend, and Anne was instrumental in launching her political career. Tobin, for his part, worked as an advisor to Texas Republican Gov. William Clements, where he first encountered the young Karl Rove and decided to give him a helping hand when Rove struck out in the political business on his own.

The Armstrong family's Republican connections have continued and strengthened down to the latest generation of Bushes. Gov. George W. Bush appointed Anne a regent of Texas A&M University and Katharine a commission member of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the agency that filed the report on the Cheney shooting. At Tobin's funeral last year, Cheney delivered the eulogy.

While the incident continues to unfold, the Bush administration is pressing a new budget in which oil companies would receive what is called "royalty relief," allowing them to pump about $65 billion of oil and natural gas from federal land over the next five years without paying any royalties to the government, costing the U.S. Treasury about $7 billion. For Texas royalty like the Armstrongs, it would amount to a windfall profit.

The curiosities surrounding the vice president's accident have created a contemporary version of "The Rules of the Game" with a Texas twist. In Jean Renoir's 1939 film, politicians and aristocrats mingle at a country house in France over a long weekend, during which a merciless hunt ends with a tragic shooting. Appearing on the eve of World War II, "The Rules of the Game" depicted a hypocritical, ruthless and decadent ruling class that made its own rules and led a society to the edge of catastrophe.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 07:46 am
A glass eye strategically placed in a big hairy. . . .

Well really guys, that is at least as edifying as this whole Cheney bird hunting accident media feeding frenzy anyway. And, yes, it was Britt Hume that got the interview which I'm sure was infuriating to the alphabet MSM. It didn't matter really though.

(Why Britt Hume? According to him this morning it was because he could be trusted to report the whole interview instead of selected sound bites.)

Had Cheney called a press conference immediately following the accident, you know that the take would be: "Cheney more interested in image than in the welfare of his friend" or "White House moves to manage damage control - was the Vice President forthcoming re a suspicious incident" or whatever spin they decided to put on it. Does anybody in their wildest dreams believes the modern media would have accepted the Vice President's statement at face value no matter when he put it out?

The leftwing blogosphere which seems to be driving the Democrat Party as much as the polls these days is getting more creative for sure. According to our local talk radio station, they've come up with such gems as:

1) White House plot. A distraught Vice President will resign so that the President can appoint Condi Rice as Veep

2) Cheney was falling down drunk and delayed announcement until he had sobered up. (In fact, Cheney stated that he had one beer at lunch that day, hours before the incident, and already the spin is yeah right. Who has one beer?)

3) The whole incident was set up to send a message to Scooter Libby to keep his mouth shut.

Meanwhile I wonder how many wars, riots, natural disasters, economic collapses, and international conferences are pushed to Page 2 while the media obsesses over a private hunting accident?

Cheney should have called a press conference before calling for an ambulance of course. At least he could have had it while waiting at the hospital for a report on his friend. We all would do that right? I don't think it would have made any difference.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/11/2025 at 12:48:42