Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm sure you want to believe two Washington Post writers who are writing pure personal opinion in a quite biased manner, Revel, even aside from your own--can we say biased?--interpretation of what was written. I prefer to wait to see if they clean up their act instead of condemning them before they even start.

You said,

Quote:

And they are WAY behind the curve on Walter Reed. When President Bush was advised of the problems there, he fired the ones in charge and gave orders to the replacement to fix the problem. And that was done before yesterday's post on that. But don't expect the President to get any credit on a blog like that.

What the heck did it matter if bush "fired the ones in charge" if he hired Kiley to replace the one in charge who was just as guilty of ignoring the problems at Walter Reed as the guy he replaced? They have been told about the horrible conditions at the hospital from as early as 2003, they have had plenty of time to fix problems. For some reason, they chose not to.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Yeah, the Left Coaster is one that we conservatives affectionately refer to as one of the more radical left wing wacko blogs. Of course they're on Lieberman's case because he dared buck the party line. I really REALLY hope they keep it up until he is finally so disgusted that he does come over the GOP side where he belongs.

No prob! The comittee chairs will still stay with the Dems, and it means there's no chance he'll get re-elected at all. None. So it does put a nice time limit on him for us.

Quote:

And they are WAY behind the curve on Walter Reed. When President Bush was advised of the problems there, he fired the ones in charge and gave orders to the replacement to fix the problem. And that was done before yesterday's post on that. But don't expect the President to get any credit on a blog like that.

But, Bush should have known about the problems before. That's the whole point - it shouldn't take a newspaper article for information get to the point it needs to get to. I don't blame Bush personally - honestly, how many things can the man be responsible for? - but I do wonder how many things like this have been put aside due to war concerns.

Quote:

But the criticism of Coulter on this one is valid. I can't defend her remarks re Edwards other than trying to be sure she is hung for the right crime.

I agree. Remember that last year at the same conference, she refered to Iraqis as a 'bunch of ragheads.' Really a winner.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I'm sure you want to believe two Washington Post writers who are writing pure personal opinion in a quite biased manner, Revel, even aside from your own--can we say biased?--interpretation of what was written. I prefer to wait to see if they clean up their act instead of condemning them before they even start.

You said,

Quote:
And they are WAY behind the curve on Walter Reed. When President Bush was advised of the problems there, he fired the ones in charge and gave orders to the replacement to fix the problem. And that was done before yesterday's post on that. But don't expect the President to get any credit on a blog like that.

What the heck did it matter if bush "fired the ones in charge" if he hired Kiley to replace the one in charge who was just as guilty of ignoring the problems at Walter Reed as the guy he replaced? They have been told about the horrible conditions at the hospital from as early as 2003, they have had plenty of time to fix problems. For some reason, they chose not to.

I've accepted that as your point of view Revel. You made it quite clear. I've also made my position quite clear but the difference between you and me is that you roll your eyes and act all righteous about it. Well, I don't expect the President to know every detail of what is going on in his administration and he can only act on what he is informed of and he only has so many hours in the day to act on what he is informed of when he is informed. Even the talking heads on CNN acknowledged that when he was informed about problems at Walter Reed, he acted.

The subordinates, especially in military settings, are often not the ones allowed to take the initative when it comes to policy or procedures. I accept that you think the new head of Walter Reed was a bad choice. Please accept my opinion--an opnion that is made independently of highly biased sources from anywhere-- that I think the new guy deserves a chance to see what he can do before he is condemned by the radical left. This is not a lifetime appointment. If he can't do the job then he'll be booted and somebody else gets a shot at it.

I think my opinion is the reasonable one.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think my opinion is the reasonable one.

I'm sure you do.

The washington post is not a radical left however much you would like to protray it as such. The article stands unless disproven.

0 Replies

Here's another Bush quote that live in infamy.
Bush offers comfort to devastated towns

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 22 minutes ago

ENTERPRISE, Ala. - President Bush handed out hugs Saturday to people in the South who survived killer tornadoes and he mourned the score, including eight high school students, who died in the storms.

"Out of this rubble will emerge a better tomorrow," Bush said.

0 Replies

Radical left? No I would not define the Washington Post that way and I didn't define it that way. Biased, especially against the President and GOP and/or Conservatism? I think that is a reasonable observation. But even if it wasn't, I still prefer to not have my opinion dicated by a columnist or writer with an ax to grind about anything.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Radical left? No I would not define the Washington Post that way and I didn't define it that way. Biased, especially against the President and GOP and/or Conservatism? I think that is a reasonable observation. But even if it wasn't, I still prefer to not have my opinion dicated by a columnist or writer with an ax to grind about anything.

Can you prove the writer has an ax to grind?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Radical left? No I would not define the Washington Post that way and I didn't define it that way. Biased, especially against the President and GOP and/or Conservatism? I think that is a reasonable observation. But even if it wasn't, I still prefer to not have my opinion dicated by a columnist or writer with an ax to grind about anything.

Can you prove the writer has an ax to grind?

Only to the extent that I can identify biased slant in writing. Can you prove the writer doesn't?

0 Replies

For your enjoyment and Ms Fair and Balanced's edification, The Saturday Cartoons.

Quote:

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/03/saturday-cartoons.html

0 Replies

"Out of this rubble will emerge a better tomorrow,". After Bushie the world will be saying that if there's a world left.

0 Replies

As we all know by now, Bush's "tomorrow" never comes. His promise to New Orleands about "the biggest reconstruction project in the US' still hasn't been met. Many have now left New Orleands, because they're not getting any help, crime is again on the increase, and the insurance commpanies are reneging on insurance policies.

Now that the veteran's hospital doom and gloom has been revealed, Bush is now going to establish a bipartisan committee to investigate.

Makes you wonder what else is being "hidden" from the general public - by this very secretive administration?

0 Replies

Another point of view:

Last week I wrote about the disgusting trend of people abandoning President Bush just because he extinguished the sun. I hate to keep carping on this, but I can't abide these fairweather friends turning against the president. In addition to the usual grab bag of Hollywood wing nuts, his former political allies have jumped ship, as have his family, friends, pets and, well, everybody. Even old insane people who still think Roosevelt is president have, when roused from their stupors, been heard to mutter anti-Bush slogans.

And this week, guess who jumped on the bandwagon? God. Seriously! Apparently He's mad about the whole extinguishing-the-sun thing. And I understand that. It can't be easy to "make" a sun out of, well, out of nothing, I guess. I'm not a scientist - in fact, I don't even know how to change the oil in my car, especially now, when it's dark out and 3,000 degrees below zero - but sure, I understand: you make a sun, some guy destroys it, yes, it might make you a little angry.

So, this week, in the frigid, hellish, eternal darkness that is Washington DC, God appeared above the Lincoln Memorial and sort of "chewed out" the president. I didn't get all the details, what with the electrical grid inoperative and the constant din of screaming rising up from the ice-coated streets, but apparently God was, you know, "wrathful".

Now, I'm not one to go around criticising God, but I'm afraid I have to make an exception. God, if You're a Guardian reader (which I expect You are), hear me out. Mistakes have been made, yes. We "invaded the wrong country", a lot of "innocent people" died, we more-or-less "kicked the hornet's nest" over there; I'm well-aware that Iraq is on the brink of a "bitter sectarian civil war". But God, I think You underestimate the president. Did it ever occur to You that there is a method to his madness? Have You read the papers this week? How many dead in Baghdad? How many car bombs exploded in public places? How many people were kidnapped, tortured and killed?

Zero, and zero and zero. Why? Because, with the sun extinguished, the Iraqis are huddled for warmth, virtually motionless, in their homes.The war is over. Iraq is at peace.
Is it a perfect solution? No. Will the entire human race cease to exist within, oh, probably the next day or so? OK, yes, You've got me there.
But here's my point: in a time of crisis, we don't need people who stand around in heaven complaining. If You're so unhappy with what's going on, pitch in and do something about it. Make us a new sun.
Next week, Heavenly Father, I shall provide You with specifications for this replacement sun, and details of my new Strategy for Victory.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,2024054,00.html

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

revel wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Radical left? No I would not define the Washington Post that way and I didn't define it that way. Biased, especially against the President and GOP and/or Conservatism? I think that is a reasonable observation. But even if it wasn't, I still prefer to not have my opinion dicated by a columnist or writer with an ax to grind about anything.

Can you prove the writer has an ax to grind?

Only to the extent that I can identify biased slant in writing. Can you prove the writer doesn't?

You identify biased slant in writing with your own biased point of view. You made the accusation of the writer being biased, it is up to you to prove it.

But I am tired once again of going around in circles, so I will leave this particular subject.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
revel wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Radical left? No I would not define the Washington Post that way and I didn't define it that way. Biased, especially against the President and GOP and/or Conservatism? I think that is a reasonable observation. But even if it wasn't, I still prefer to not have my opinion dicated by a columnist or writer with an ax to grind about anything.

Can you prove the writer has an ax to grind?

Only to the extent that I can identify biased slant in writing. Can you prove the writer doesn't?

You identify biased slant in writing with your own biased point of view. You made the accusation of the writer being biased, it is up to you to prove it.

But I am tired once again of going around in circles, so I will leave this particular subject.

That's cool. I never said I wasn't biased. Are you suggesting that you are not? Anybody who doesn't have convictions (i.e. is not intentionally biased toward a particular point of view) is going to be a pretty stupid person easily manipulated by whatever pop culture comes down the pike. I think political parties, particularly the Democratic Party, do count on their constituencies being largely made up of that kind of individual, however. Smile

I am saying that to form an opinion based on a highly biased opinion piece is to be pretty much an ideological sheep or robot directed by the propaganda mill. An opinion piece is always biased while a straight news story does not have to be. In my opinion, obvious bias in a straight news story is dishonest and reduces the credibility of the publication, and this was a news story that would have been less objectionable had it been billed as opinion.

I expect even credible opinion pieces to be based on verifiable facts, however. I think the writer we've been discussing would have a difficult time showing that all the opinion cited is based solely on verifiable facts. The piece would have had a lot more credibility if the writers had made any effort whatsoever to find anything positive to say about Kiley or made any effort to find somebody who would speak up for him or had not accepted the criticisms cited without any challenge whatsoever. You can't tell me he was there all that time and did nothing good whatsoever or impressed nobody. They didn't do that. You can't tell me that EVERYTHING at Walter Reed was a mess. But you wouldn't know that from this story. That's bias of the most dishonest sort.

That is my opinion and no, it is not up to me to prove it. If you have strong feelings about it, you are certainly free to disprove it, but good luck on that.

0 Replies

Here's some more stuff we "can't tell you", Foxy, about the soldiers' hospital story.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2326220.ece

The Bush administration could still be vulnerable following reports that complaints about shoddy outpatient care at Walter Reed have been circulating for three years, but have received little or no attention. An internal army memorandum written last September warned of "mission failure" at the hospital as a consequence of privatising its support services.

The scandal broke with an investigative series in The Washington Post, which detailed appalling living conditions. It also depicted a woefully underresourced and undermanaged bureaucratic system in which soldiers suffering psychological disorders were put in charge of comrades deemed to be suicide risks, and overworked clerks and underlings failed to address basic needs like helping brain-damaged soldiers remember their medical appointments.

0 Replies

The caring nature of a typical Bush apologist. How do idiots like this even get on the air?

Oops, sorry, I wasn't thinking. This was Fox. Their specialty is putting idiots on the air.

Quote:

0 Replies

JTT, Isn't that something? All Bush has to say is "we're going to create a bipartisan committe to investigate," and POOF, his problems disappear.

It doesn't matter that this problem was identified three years ago; Bush supporters remain loyal. "Support our troops" has a whole new meaning when Bushco uses that term.

0 Replies

You may have heard (he said with some understatement) about Ann Coulter snarkily implying she'd like to call John Edwards a fagg*t, if only it were allowed, at the CPAC - to much hilarity from the conservative activist audience.

However, credit where credit is due. About two months ago, there was another of those discussions about Coulter on the previous Bush Supporters thread. I and others were resentful that conservatives didn't renounce her brand of hatemongering. Ticomaya linked in at least one conservative rant against Coulter, by Rick Moran at the Right Wing Nut House ("Ann Coulter: Conservative lout").

This time round however, it appears that condemnation of Coulter's stupidity is pretty widespread even in conservative country. Examples:

Captain Quarter's blog calling Coulter's remark "stupid, unnecessary, and hateful" and "indefensible"
Hugh Hewitt calling it "Idiotic. Disgusting. Stupid. Moronic."
John Hawkins at Right Wing News calling Coulter's remark "juvenile", Coulter herself "extremely selfish" and saying that "Ann should apologize for her remarks"
Nathan Nelson at Redstate.com "denouncing" Coulter and "saying that all other conservatives should do the same thing"
Another very lively discussion at Redstate.com about Coulter's remarks, with the participants pretty evenly divided between the indignant and the apologetic; between those, like one "Kyle", who argue Coulter is an albatross around the conservatives' necks, and those who defend her as an asset
Even Michelle Malkin at least explicitly not laughing with Coulter.

What I'm impressed by, going on the standards I'm used to here, is that the above denouncements came without accompanying bit about how it should nevertheless also be remembered that - well, you know the drill - liberal talking heads are just as bad, the MSM is blowing things out of proportions, its still funny to see the liberals get their panties in a bunch, Coulter's critics are hypocritical for pointing this out, and Its Bill Clinton Who Was Really Bad.

0 Replies

When is the last time you saw a liberal denounce something stupid/unkind/hateful/racist/inappropriate etc. that another liberal said without including a reference to a GOPer or conservative or whatever, Nimh? Do you recall a time that you have done this?

Even now you are criticizing those conservatives who are criticizing Coulter when I don't recall you ever critizing a liberal for referencing evil conservatives along with their criticism of another liberal.

It's pretty hard to point fingers at hypocrisy that is pretty universal without appearing.....well....hypocritical.

And I'll take my lumps along with everybody else on that point.

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know