Dunque Cosi: Hate, and the hating haters who hate bush

Excellent article, basso.

I'm enjoying watching the liberals here attempt to deny how this article perfectly portrays them. Acknowledging you have a problem is the first step, lunatic fringers.

 

I agree, they should not even be considered scandals; they are matters of public policy and subject to debate. That was my point.

That's why attacks on the President on these grounds really don't compare to the attacks on Clinton (which is what David Brooks tries to do, with a sheepish implicit admission, followed by an admonishment)... and a distinction that I shouldn't have glossed over in my first post.

 

The real "Exhibit A."

 

I think calling me a "hater" is exhibit B of what the article would purport to attack, but anyway...

I strongly agreed with Bush's AIDS initiative in Africa, and I strongly agreed with his handling of the Afghanistan conflict, especially in the early stages.

 

Thanks, Basso, for Exhibit A.

I present Exhibit B:

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65091

RocketManTex, GreenVegan, glynch, Oski, Deckard, mcmark, Maynard, MacBeth, andymoon,

DEFEND YOURSELF

 

Uhhh... So, let me get this straight from T_J's argument.

A playful (at worst, offensive) deck of cards made in France

*equals*

Smear campaigns funded to the tune of millions, attack advertisements on American television, the appointment of independent investigations for personal matters, et alia.


Hum. You can learn new facets of mathematics all the time, I guess.

 

But that's the problem. As you said, and you seemed to have agreed, there's a difference in kind between criticizing the Presidents fiscal policy and criticizing the President's wife's sexual preference.

So I think his admonishment is not valid, because the point he made then doesn't quite translate.

I suppose that the personalization of politics is what he laments, the fact that the President is openly running against Bush. Well, guess what David Brooks: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams ran personalized campaigns too so that's nothing new.

 

There was no commentary by me one way or the other in regards to bush or his administration in that thread. All I did was post an article about a Russian deck of cards playing off the pentagon’s war deck.

nice try

Now I <i>can</i> link several other threads where I do attack this administration that would be a much better example for you to site.

 

Oh and basso!

You're siting a NYT article?!?!?!?!

how liberal of you...

 

First of all, I am not a "Bush Hater," nor am I even a Democrat. However, since I despise some of the policies that this administration has pushed through, I thought I would answer this one.

I thought that Bush's initial handling of 9/11 approached statesmanship. He did a good job of reassuring the American people that they were safe and secure despite having suffered a horrific act of terrorism.

I thought that the Department of Homeland Security was an idea whose time was overdue in order to ahve an agency responsible for overseeing the often redundant efforts of the CIA, NSA, FBI, ATF, etc.

I was fully in support of the war in Afghanistan and was very proud of the way we went in there and kicked Taliban and al-Qaeda a$$.

I support the policies that I agree with, but I disagree with a lot of this administration's policies because they come from so far off the right wing that I just cannot step into formation like the GOP seems to want everyone to do.

I will continue to voice my issues with the government as I believe it is my duty to my country.

 

No, again, if you read my post, I said very clearly that the shoe does not fit. Thank you.

You said "any of you bush haters (sic)," and I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you meant anyone who is commonly in a position critical of his policies. From what I can tell, that's what any of these people mean when they say "bush hater."

If you meant a smaller group of posters, that makes more sense.

 

Bush Hater?

Nope.

Bush Policy Hater?

Abso-frikkin-lutely!

 

The Republicans invented it? How about Robert Bork?

 

No problem.

All I did was post a link to an article that describes a deck of playing cards with Bush and his cronies on it. It is obviously a reaction to the deck of cards that the Bush Administration put out on Saddam and his cronies.

T_J, show me where I displayed a hatred for George W.

You know, one that rivals the hatred you spew towards Bill White in your ridiculous signature.

I double-dog dare you.

The funniest thing about it, T_J, is how you and your ilk go out of your way to defend every single thing the man does. Maybe you have something to hide as well!

 

Hmmmmmm.......

 

So, are you accusing us of putting that deck of cards together???

I think it is a funny prank, nothing more. What exactly were you asking me to defend?