blacksmithn wrote:Many pillars are carved from rock, much like the mighty rock of democracy in the Mideast that our President has made possible with his masterful plan for victory in Iraq!
He is, indeed, the mighty eighth pillar of wisdom!
Hey, don't push it. The talking points say to "keep it real" or we'll lose the audiences trust.
squinney wrote:Hey, don't push it. The talking points say to "keep it real" or we'll lose the audiences trust.
Somewhere, a puppy barked....
Whooda Thunk- An Aspirin factory?
I recall that. But I also recall the inspiring words of President William Jefferson Clinton in his speech to the American people on Dec. 18th 1998 when he ordered a pre-emptive strike, without securing Congressional Approval as George W. Bush did on Oct. 10th and 11th 2001.
Clinton's speech( given, incidentally, at the very same time that the House was considering his impeachment) touched on many topics.
I will select some of the most interesting:
quote
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with NUCLEAR ARMS, POISON GAS OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS>"
( whereever did President Clinton get those ideas?
"In four out of the five categories set forth( by the existing UN resolutions) Iraq has failed to cooperate...Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites...and so we had to act and act now.
Let me explain why..
Without a strong inspection system,Iraq would be free to RETAIN and begin to REBUILD its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in months not years"(Where did President Clinton get that notion? To RETAIN? weapons? You can only RETAIN something that you possess)
President Clinton continues:
Second, if Saddam can crippled( sic) the weapons inspection system and get away with it,he would conclude that the international community--led by the United States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, AND, SOMEDAY, MAKE NO MISTAKE, HE WILL USE IT AGAIN AS HE HAS IN THE PAST>"
(Now, I know that President GW Bush has no particular foreign policy credentials but President William Jefferson Clinton has been touted as the most brilliant President of the twentieth century--If President Clinton warns us that Saddam will USE IT AGAIN AS HE HAS IN THE PAST, you can be sure it is an accurate warning)
Clinton continues:
"I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors"
( I don't believe that President Clinton was another person who listened to the CIA and the Intelligence Services of France, Germany and England--President Clinton is much too smart to be duped by flimsy evidence. I really can't understand why he said that--WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, INDEED!!!)
Clinton continues:
"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary the ACTUAL USE OF FORCE, is the surest way to contain Saddam's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM. curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War".
(Is it possible that the Congress, which when all is said and done, was the body which gave authority to President Bush on Oct. 10th and 11th to invade Iraq, remembered Clinton's admonition that the ACTUAL USE OF FORCE may be necessary?)
Clinton continues:
"The hard fact is that SO LONG AS SADDAM REMAINS IN POWER, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world."
( I think that President Clinton might have been urging the removal of Saddam. You think?)
and Clinton continues:
'THE BEST WAY TO END THAT THREAT ONCE AND FOR ALL IS WITH A NEW IRAQI GOVERMENT--A GOVERNMENT READY TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH ITS NEIGHBORS, A GOVERNMENT THAT REPECTS THE RIGHTS OF ITS PEOPLE. BRINGING CHANGE IN BAGHDAD WILLTAKE TIME AND EFFORT..."
and Clinton continues:
"If Saddam defies the world and WE FAIL TO RESPOND, we will face a far greater threat in the future, HE WILL STRIKE AGAIN AT HIS NEIGHBORS.HE WILL MAKE WAR ON HIS OWN PEOPLE. AND MARK MY WORDS,HE WILL DEVELOP WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. HE WILL DEPLOY THEM AND HE WILL USE THEM"
These are the words of President William Jefferson Clinton.
I'm very sorry, Mr. Dlowan. I don't understand what you said after I posted President Clinton's rational for the bombardment of Iraq on Dec. 18th 1998. Could you expand on that please?
BernardR wrote:Whooda Thunk- An Aspirin factory?
I recall that. But I also recall the inspiring words of President William Jefferson Clinton in his speech to the American people on Dec. 18th 1998 when he ordered a pre-emptive strike, without securing Congressional Approval as George W. Bush did on Oct. 10th and 11th 2001.
Clinton's speech( given, incidentally, at the very same time that the House was considering his impeachment) touched on many topics.
I will select some of the most interesting:
quote
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with NUCLEAR ARMS, POISON GAS OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS>"
( whereever did President Clinton get those ideas?
"In four out of the five categories set forth( by the existing UN resolutions) Iraq has failed to cooperate...Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites...and so we had to act and act now.
Let me explain why..
Without a strong inspection system,Iraq would be free to RETAIN and begin to REBUILD its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in months not years"(Where did President Clinton get that notion? To RETAIN? weapons? You can only RETAIN something that you possess)
President Clinton continues:
Second, if Saddam can crippled( sic) the weapons inspection system and get away with it,he would conclude that the international community--led by the United States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, AND, SOMEDAY, MAKE NO MISTAKE, HE WILL USE IT AGAIN AS HE HAS IN THE PAST>"
(Now, I know that President GW Bush has no particular foreign policy credentials but President William Jefferson Clinton has been touted as the most brilliant President of the twentieth century--If President Clinton warns us that Saddam will USE IT AGAIN AS HE HAS IN THE PAST, you can be sure it is an accurate warning)
Clinton continues:
"I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors"
( I don't believe that President Clinton was another person who listened to the CIA and the Intelligence Services of France, Germany and England--President Clinton is much too smart to be duped by flimsy evidence. I really can't understand why he said that--WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, INDEED!!!)
Clinton continues:
"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary the ACTUAL USE OF FORCE, is the surest way to contain Saddam's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM. curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War".
(Is it possible that the Congress, which when all is said and done, was the body which gave authority to President Bush on Oct. 10th and 11th to invade Iraq, remembered Clinton's admonition that the ACTUAL USE OF FORCE may be necessary?)
Clinton continues:
"The hard fact is that SO LONG AS SADDAM REMAINS IN POWER, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world."
( I think that President Clinton might have been urging the removal of Saddam. You think?)
and Clinton continues:
'THE BEST WAY TO END THAT THREAT ONCE AND FOR ALL IS WITH A NEW IRAQI GOVERMENT--A GOVERNMENT READY TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH ITS NEIGHBORS, A GOVERNMENT THAT REPECTS THE RIGHTS OF ITS PEOPLE. BRINGING CHANGE IN BAGHDAD WILLTAKE TIME AND EFFORT..."
and Clinton continues:
"If Saddam defies the world and WE FAIL TO RESPOND, we will face a far greater threat in the future, HE WILL STRIKE AGAIN AT HIS NEIGHBORS.HE WILL MAKE WAR ON HIS OWN PEOPLE. AND MARK MY WORDS,HE WILL DEVELOP WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. HE WILL DEPLOY THEM AND HE WILL USE THEM"
These are the words of President William Jefferson Clinton.
I thought you people thought Clinton was a liar?
Therefore, you must think his words you quoted a lie.
Therefore, you CANNOT support the great and good enterprise and clear vision and planning of your mighty President Bush?
Oh my!!!!!!
Oh dearie me.
BernardR wrote:I'm very sorry, Mr. Dlowan. I don't understand what you said after I posted President Clinton's rational for the bombardment of Iraq on Dec. 18th 1998. Could you expand on that please?
Your befuddlement is very understandable because:
a. I was not posting about your beloved Mr Edward Kennedy
and
b. I posted the rats exclamation to this thread in mistake. My rats were destined to frolic and scamper in another thread entirely.
My humble apologies for so unnecessarily making demands upon your intellectual abilities.
If you are saying that Clinton was a liar in his speech of Dec. 18th 1998, Dlowan, I'll accept that. Did he lie in every single instance or only in some? You neglected to address that.
If he lied in every single instance, then it would seem that he gains the trophy as the champion of presidential liars.
If he did not lie, then it is clear that President Clinton did indeed prefigure some of the conclusions arrived at by the Bush Administration with regard to Saddam Hussein.
Which is it?
You are, I am sure, aware that President Clinton did admit, in his plea bargain which he took to avoid indictment, that he lied. I know of no such instance on the part of President Bush.
I don't know what phrases you use in Australia but I must respectfully inform you that your use of the phrase "you people" is highly contraindicated especially when you are speaking to a person of color.
Get with it- Dlowan!!!
Sounds like a conversational ican to me.
I am sorry- What is an "ican"? Does it have anything to do with President Clinton's speech of December 18th 1998 where he repeatedly referred to weapons of mass destruction possessed by Saddam Hussein and the desirability of removing him from office and replacing him with another regime?
BernardR wrote:I am sorry- What is an "ican"? Does it have anything to do with President Clinton's speech of December 18th 1998 where he repeatedly referred to weapons of mass destruction possessed by Saddam Hussein and the desirability of removing him from office and replacing him with another regime?
no, but I'm not surprised you would jump to that conclusion...
BernardR wrote:I am sorry- What is an "ican"? Does it have anything to do with President Clinton's speech of December 18th 1998 where he repeatedly referred to weapons of mass destruction possessed by Saddam Hussein and the desirability of removing him from office and replacing him with another regime?
I would have thought an "ican" was the little icon that could.....
As for your lying Clinton question, BernardagassoR, only your ilk can answer that.....I was speculating upon what might be in your minds....I hear the ilk say so often that "Clinton is a liar" that I had assumed that you all believed he lied all the time, thus your quotation would produce an ilkly paradox for you all.
But, only you have the ability to probe your own internal mentations.
I am very much afraid that you are mistaken about the "ilk", Dlowan. You see, if you really knew American Politics, you would know that Clinton did not lie all of the time. Again, I must refer to the legal definition of lying. Lie--a falsehood uttered for the purpose of deception.
I do hope that you recognize that the classification of a statement as a lie under the legal definition above requires the knowledge of the state of mind of a person at the time an assertion is made.
After searching assiduously, I can find many instances where Clinton might have lied, but I can find only a few instances where it is proved that he lied.
Instance #1-
In Clinton's agreement with the special prosecutor to avoid indictment, he said-
"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms.Lewinsky were false"
That, of course, is an admission that he lied.
Instance # 2--quoted in "an Affair of State"--
"He(Clinton) denied having lied when he testified at the deposition that he had not been "alone" with Lewinsky except on a few occasions when she was delivering documents. They were not really "Alone" they testified, because there had always been other people in the vicinity. But he CONCEDED that no one except himself and Lewinsky had actually been present."
Now, there may have been other instances in which some could say that Clinton lied, but as has been pointed out, it is necessary to establish that the alleged falsehood was uttered for the purposes of deception.
You may have read too many attacks on President Clinton, dlowan. You obviously do not realize that President Clinton usually had a good rationale for his statements even when they appeared to be lies.
When the charge was made that he allowed the Chinese Government access to technology which advanced their missle knowledge, President Clinton said:
"I don't believe anyone can PROVE that I changed any legislation SOLELY for a political contribution"
You see, Dlowan. Proof is needed.
I really don't think you can assert that President Clinton was lying when on December 18th 1998, he ordered, without Congressional approval, the bombing of Baghdad and commented:
quote:
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end the threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government."
Yes, Dlowan, he said that!
BernardR wrote:I am very much afraid that you are mistaken about the "ilk", Dlowan. You see, if you really knew American Politics, you would know that Clinton did not lie all of the time. Again, I must refer to the legal definition of lying. Lie--a falsehood uttered for the purpose of deception.
I do hope that you recognize that the classification of a statement as a lie under the legal definition above requires the knowledge of the state of mind of a person at the time an assertion is made.
After searching assiduously, I can find many instances where Clinton might have lied, but I can find only a few instances where it is proved that he lied.
Instance #1-
In Clinton's agreement with the special prosecutor to avoid indictment, he said-
"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms.Lewinsky were false"
That, of course, is an admission that he lied.
Instance # 2--quoted in "an Affair of State"--
"He(Clinton) denied having lied when he testified at the deposition that he had not been "alone" with Lewinsky except on a few occasions when she was delivering documents. They were not really "Alone" they testified, because there had always been other people in the vicinity. But he CONCEDED that no one except himself and Lewinsky had actually been present."
Now, there may have been other instances in which some could say that Clinton lied, but as has been pointed out, it is necessary to establish that the alleged falsehood was uttered for the purposes of deception.
You may have read too many attacks on President Clinton, dlowan. You obviously do not realize that President Clinton usually had a good rationale for his statements even when they appeared to be lies.
When the charge was made that he allowed the Chinese Government access to technology which advanced their missle knowledge, President Clinton said:
"I don't believe anyone can PROVE that I changed any legislation SOLELY for a political contribution"
You see, Dlowan. Proof is needed.
I really don't think you can assert that President Clinton was lying when on December 18th 1998, he ordered, without Congressional approval, the bombing of Baghdad and commented:
quote:
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end the threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government."
Yes, Dlowan, he said that!
Be careful. When exposed to light they shriek, oddly overuse "ilk," and melt on the floor ...
A2K Libs -- Read the last three sentences if nothing else:
So Not Funny
By Richard Cohen
Thursday, May 4, 2006
First, let me state my credentials: I am a funny guy. This is well known in certain circles, which is why, even back in elementary school, I was sometimes asked by the teacher to "say something funny" -- as if the deed could be done on demand. This, anyway, is my standing for stating that Stephen Colbert was not funny at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. All the rest is commentary.
The commentary, though, is also what I do, and it will make the point that Colbert was not just a failure as a comedian but rude. Rude is not the same as brash. It is not the same as brassy. It is not the same as gutsy or thinking outside the box. Rudeness means taking advantage of the other person's sense of decorum or tradition or civility that keeps that other person from striking back or, worse, rising in a huff and leaving. The other night, that person was George W. Bush.
Colbert made jokes about Bush's approval rating, which hovers in the middle 30s. He made jokes about Bush's intelligence, mockingly comparing it to his own. "We're not some brainiacs on nerd patrol," he said. Boy, that's funny.
Colbert took a swipe at Bush's Iraq policy, at domestic eavesdropping, and he took a shot at the news corps for purportedly being nothing more than stenographers recording what the Bush White House said. He referred to the recent staff changes at the White House, chiding the media for supposedly repeating the cliche "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" when he would have put it differently: "This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg." A mixed metaphor, and lame as can be.
Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders -- and they are all over the blogosphere -- will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you're at work -- take away your office.
But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert's lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.
I am not a member of the White House Correspondents' Association, and I have not attended its dinner in years (I watched this year's on C-SPAN). The gala is an essentially harmless event that requires the presence of one man, the president. If presidents started not to show up, the organization would have to transform itself into a burial association. But presidents come and suffer through a ritual that most of them find mildly painful, not to mention boring. Whatever the case, they are guests. They don't have to be there -- and if I were Bush, next year I would not. Spring is a marvelous time to be at Camp David.
On television, Colbert is often funny. But on his own show he appeals to a self-selected audience that reminds him often of his greatness. In Washington he was playing to a different crowd, and he failed dismally in the funny person's most solemn obligation: to use absurdity or contrast or hyperbole to elucidate -- to make people see things a little bit differently. He had a chance to tell the president and much of important (and self-important) Washington things it would have been good for them to hear. But he was, like much of the blogosphere itself, telling like-minded people what they already know and alienating all the others. In this sense, he was a man for our times.
He also wasn't funny.
In his piece, "So Not Funny," Richard Cohen paints Stephen Colbert as a humorless bully who rudely insulted the President. Cohen begins his column with with the following disclaimer: "First, let me state my credentials: I am a funny guy," an introductory statement that vaguely reminds me of the logic used by people who rail against affirmative action by first pointing out that "Look, I have a lot of black friends..."
Having establishing himself as a connoisseur of belly laughs, Cohen chastises Stephen Colbert for being too rude in the presence of the President:
Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders -- and they are all over the blogosphere -- will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you're at work -- take away your office.
So because Colbert hasn't been chained, fired, flayed, or jailed for his speech, he didn't exhibit political courage? How wilfully blind Cohen is to the current political climate, where the mere act of dissent is labeled treason. Where the administration tells us we cannot speak of illegal spying programs, or of taking troops out of harm's way, or of an imperial presidency because we give aid to terrorists.
But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert's lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.
Oh, poor President Bush! The most powerful man in the world being bullied for an agonizing 30 minutes by a heartless comedian who dared to include a kernel of truth in his shtick. The ONE DAY Bush dares to venture out of his bubble of controlled reality and screened audiences, BAM! Colbert has the audacity to hit him with the truth in a blunt and intelligent manner. Tsk, tsk. He should have been more polite.
Yes, Cohen is right. Colbert, obviously, is the bully. A man who leaks info to discredit his critics? A man who launches a war to feel tough and be a War President? A man who uses the the press as a punching bag? Nope, not a bully.
Cohen dedicated some 745 words to scolding Colbert for being "so not funny," yet when President Bush joked about not finding WMDs in Iraq, there wasn't a peep from Cohen (at least none that I can find). He didn't dedicate an entire column to detail how Bush's inappropriate joke insulted thousands American families and made a mockery of the sacrifice of American lives. Nope, not a word from Cohen then. Perhaps he didn't think Bush's cruel joke was "rude"?
Rude is not the same as brash. It is not the same as brassy. It is not the same as gutsy or thinking outside the box. Rudeness means taking advantage of the other person's sense of decorum or tradition or civility that keeps that other person from striking back or, worse, rising in a huff and leaving. The other night, that person was George W. Bush.
Welcome to the last five years, Mr. Cohen. Five years of the Rude Presidency of George W. Bush, during which this President has bound the hands and tongues of Congress, lulled the press into complacent and dangerous submission, gagged the people with threats of reprisal and covert spying, and paralyzed our nation all while bitch-slapping us with claims of "staying the course" and "I'm the Decider." You say Colbert insulted one man. I say this President has insulted our entire nation.
Cohen himself once wrote that "in life as in jokes, you see what you want." In another column, he opined that "all jokes have to be based on a kind of truth or else they are not funny." Cohen refuses to see the truth in Colbert's jokes, because to acknowledge that truth would be to acknowledge his own failure as a member of an incompetent fourth estate.
Those who wanted to see truth, saw truth. Those who wanted to see a "bully," saw a bully. And those who see Richard Cohen for what he is see nothing more than a joke.
-from a friend on another forum
I'm sorry but I might have missed something. What official post does Stephen Colbert hold? He has the same portfolio as Rush Limbaugh--NOTHING!!!
Cohen is a refreshing voice in graceless times.
Colbert was simply graceless.
