If What Bush Says Is True...
I've tried in the past to avoid the lazy stereotyping of President Bush. I don't believe I've ever called him stupid or evil. I don't think him stupid or evil -- the left isn't supposed to think that way about people, right? And I've usually thought that his own internal logic held up pretty well, at least, when you accept his premises. But the wiretap tap-dancing has reached some pretty bizarre realms of ratiocination. Look at the questions that arise if we accept what Bush has been saying as true.
He's defended his actions -- most recently today, when the Associated Press asked him about revelations that the National Security Agency, without warrants, listens in on phone calls made to Americans. But his logic makes no sense. And it almost seems as though the media no longer themselves understand logic well enough to pursue the president's line of thinking. Here are some of the questions they should be asking:
If leaking news of this NSA program is a crime, why didn't President Bush order the DOJ to investigate the leak a year ago -- when he knew the Times had found out about it -- rather than only after the Times published its story?
If what the president is doing has been legal all along -- and got a legal boost, as he claims, from the congressional authorization of force -- and the president has always said he'd use every means of combating America's enemies, then is there any reason to think the enemy wouldn't have put two and two together and concluded that, since domestic wiretapping was legal (as the president claims), the government must be doing it?
If the war in Iraq is what's making us safe, why do we still need domestic spying?
And, most troubling, if the war in Iraq is what's making us safe, what happens when we win it?
11 comments:
If you whining liberals feel so strongly about wiretapping, where the hell were you when Clinton was doing it? Nowhere - that's where you were. Because you don't give a flying fuck about wiretapping. You're just grasping at ANY straw you can to bring scandal to the Republican party in your DESPERATE hopes for wins in 2006 and 2008.
It's the same reason you all HOPE and PRAY for failure in Iraq. You're INVESTED in failure. You're salivating for anything - anything AT ALL to go badly for America so you can blame Republicans and hopefully get back SOME power in Washington.
(No, don't start planning your little counterpoints in your predictable little brains. Everything I'm saying is dead-on true and you know it.)
Why not just admit the truth? Why not admit you wake up every morning HOPING to read/hear about more dead soldiers... or failed elections in Iraq... just so you can say "I told you so." You know it's what you want - you just don't have the balls to admit it.
Oh, and Mr. Host-of-this-Blog... don't give us this BULLSHIT, sitting there with your innocent little tone going, "Call Bush stupid? Me? Why, I'd never say such a thing!"
Fuck off.
Whether you use the specific word "stupid" in your little blog writings is irrelevant. You know you think it - or at least anyone who reads your blog does - because you say it in pretty much EVERYTHING you write about Bush and his administration.
You know, I don't mind your little holier than thou, pseudo intellectual liberal ideas. I kind of enjoy reading them. I really do. What sickens me is your constant "exact words" game, pretending you don't say things you clearly have, in spirit anyway.
Grow some balls. Rent a sack. Be honest.
Wow, it is rare to see such a purely ad hominem response. FYI, from dictionary.com:
"Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives."
Clinton did warrantless wiretaps? Any source for that?
Gosh Jonathan, you sure know how to attract the frothing wing-nuts... an ad hominem attack and strawmen served up with a big portion of red herring. The questions you've posed are too pertinent for any freeper to consider. From our annoy-o-mous freepers POV nothing should stand in the way of creeping fascism.
I suppose that technically there were illegal wiretaps during the Clinton administration... it's just that it wasn't the Clinton administration doing the tapping.
Saturday, July 31, 1999; Page A1
Linda R. Tripp, whose secret telephone tapes of Monica S. Lewinsky titillated and dismayed the nation and ultimately led to President Clinton's impeachment, was indicted yesterday in Maryland on criminal charges of illegal wiretapping.
[/smirk]
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
- - Remember, there is no "except" in the 4th Amendment. - -
<< Wow, it is rare to see such a purely ad hominem response >>
Yes. Ad hominem responses are so NOT a common liberal approach, right? I mean, you liberals would never pointlessly call a conservative a "homophobe" or a "racicst" when it's purely unjustified, now would you? Nooooo, that would NEVER happen.
See ya, hypocrites! ;)
What's so laughable is, the liberals have tried so hard to manufacture "scandals" in pathetic attempts to hurt Bush. This latest wiretapping bullshit is just the latest example. Well, sorry, libs, it ain't working (did ya hear that Barbara Boxer?). The American public SUPPORTS Bush's actions, because they know that giving up a bit of privacy is well worth the greater concern of stopping terrorists from, um, KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE.
The wiretapping issue was just the latest glimmer of hope for the libs to try to spin scandal against Bush.
Well, failed again, boys and girls!
Bush's approval polls are UP. I bet that's frustrating for you, isn't it? ;)
Oh, well. Keep trying. I'm sure something will happen in the next month that you can try (and fail) again to use to hurt Bush and the Republicans.
Just make sure Hillary's your girl in 2008. That's gonna be FUN!
LOL
P.S. Or, please feel free to dust off Gore or Kerry -- they'd be fun, too!!!
<< why dontcha' register so you can develop a unique identity. Or would that place you in the position of having to defend positions you take? >>
Certainly, you're bright enough to know it would not put me in the position of having to "defend" anything I say or feel. What would be the cost of my failure to "defend" myself? Are you going to fine me? Beat me up? I doubt it.
Or, do you really just want to know who I am? If so, say so.
Sincerely,
The Guy Who Generates Far More Comments & Discussion On This Blog Than The Blogger Himself
Last week Bush said, "If al qaeda is talking with you, we'd like to know why." I think that's a VERY reasonable position for the Federal Government to have. Here's an idea: if you don't like being wiretapped, don't talk to al qaeda. How about that?
But if you DO want to talk with al qaeda, I have NO PROBLEM with the government tapping your phone. In fact, I hope they do. And most Americans agree.
Sorry, liberals. You're going to have to hope the next "scandal" sticks. You lost this one.
As usual.
Typical rabid attack dog frothing from the reality-averse right wing.
Pay very careful attention, Sparky; I'm going to say this once, and I'll try to use small words so that you'll understand.
Tapping phone calls between suspected terrorists and people in the USA is not a bad idea.
Really.
Even the leftiest of leftist liberals thinks so.
What you, W, and the 'No Spine Zone' pundits seem to keep missing, though is THAT'S NOT THE POINT!
The point is that W is breaking the law to do it--and he's breaking the law when he doesn't need to break the law.
Here's an analogy for your falafal-fed brain: George wants twenty bucks. He's surrounded by people who will give him twenty bucks whenever he wants and as often as he wants, without ever asking to be paid back.
So what does George do? He steals the twenty bucks.
Repeatedly.
And says that it's legal for him to steal.
That's not just wrong, it's pathological.
I don't know why I'm going to the trouble to explain it to you; I've yet to meet the conservative who could be persuaded by mere facts when he could just yell incoherently and start throwing punches.
But really, take ten minutes out of your day and try to focus on the same issue the rest of us are talking about. Try to understand the law here, and W's behavior in the context of the law.
And if it doesn't piss you off, you might consider moving to a country whose system of government is based on totalitarian rule and leave the USA for people who believe in (and can actually define) democracy.
I'll try to use even smaller words, so YOU'LL understand. No matter HOW Bush went about wiretapping, NO ONE CARES! That is, except for you desperate liberals looking for ANY straw to grasp onto in your sad little attempts to create an "impeachable" scandal for George Bush. If Clinton, Gore, or Kerry were President and did the EXACT same thing, it wouldn't be a freakin' blip on your radar. So don't go acting like some crusader for "good." You know exactly what you are -- whether you admit it or not.
And please, don't consider me "rabid" or "frothing at the mouth." I simply enjoy pushing the buttons of monkeys like you. It's so easy. Believe me, I'm not angry at all. I'm sitting here, smoking a cigar, having some Scotch, and grinning... because my guys have the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court.
So, why on Earth would *I* be pissed off?
I'm lovin' life, dude!
Catchin' on? ;)
Oh, Zeb...
So hostile. I feel as if I've been slapped by a white glove. Did it feel good to vent? I hope it did.
First, feel free to call me names (as would a 7th grader) if it eases your frustrations. Doesn't bother me. I have broad shoulders.
Second, if the host of this blog doesn't want anonymous comments, he can easily not allow them. Currently, he does. So, if you have an issue with that, take it up with him. You have his phone number, as I'm certain you two are fast friends.
Third, who the fuck actually uses the word "moniker?" Seriously. It makes you sound like a fag. And I don't want you to sound like a fag... unless you're a fag, in which case using the word "moniker" will be fine.
If you feel good attacking me, please do. But you should very much welcome my presence on this blog. If nothing else, at least my comments spark discussion here.
Have you noticed... whenever I choose to participate, the number of comments almost always climbs into the teens. But when I choose to refrain and say nothing, the comments usually number... one. Or a sad little zero. So, at least credit me for keeping the game alive.
Were it not for me, this blog would be only for the host himself, and a few of his liberal friends and associates chiming in with their occasional "Here here!" and "Right-O!" comments. Wouldn't be too interesting, now would it? You're lucky I don't charge a fee.
Finally, I am not 15. The scotch was Glenlivet, a single malt which I enjoy. The cigars are not quite Cuban, but most people who call themselves cigar aficionados would THINK they were Cuban, which makes them good enough for me.
Any more questions, comments, or clever barbs? I'm here for you, Zeb. Waiting.
Love,
The Little "Troll" Who Frustrates You So ;)
Post a Comment