Business Up Front, Democratic Party in the Back
I love politics. I spend hours a day wallowing in it on the Drudge Retort.
I also hate politics, and I'm going to pick on a couple of frequent contributors to Workbench to show why.
You put in a couple of words he DIDN'T say, to try and create One More Bush Screwup, and screwed up yourself. Admit it, instead of trying to contend that black is white. It just shows your bias to be nearly impossible to overcome, and contaminates any other arguments you might make on something he really did wrong.
Plame and Wilson's motivations for lying, not doing their jobs and (in Wilson's case) trying to make political hay in the process are matters for serious consideration, but you're not interested in anyone's bad acts but Republicans, I guess. Fine by me, but don't pretend you're serious about national security, covert status or the law.
I know both Chad and Mike from my mullet-coiffed college years at the University of North Texas. I'm glad they comment here because I enjoy jawing over politics with them, but it's interesting to see how little credence they give to the notion that my viewpoint is motivated by good faith.
Even though we know each other, I can't take a toedip into the subject of current American politics without being accused of being a hopelessly biased Democratic hack. Even on a minor item that said merely that a presidential malaprop was "funny."
It's not that big a deal -- this is nothing compared to the grief I get over that 1990 mullet -- but it's tough to talk politics when people put you on the defensive. Standing up for the sincerity of your own intentions is a sucker's game, like calling a press conference to declare that you only banged prostitutes in Washington D.C. and the brothel owner in New Orleans is a lying whore. It never helps.
Comments
"It's not that big a deal -- this is nothing compared to the grief I get over that 1990 mullet -- but it's tough to talk politics when people put you on the defensive."
Yes, indeed! I can certainly attest to that, can't I?
"Standing up for the sincerity of your own intentions is a sucker's game, like calling a press conference to declare that you only banged prostitutes in Washington D.C. and the brothel owner in New Orleans is a lying whore. It never helps."
At first perusal, I thought your post was a tongue in cheek acknowledgement of some old friends, as you implied. Then, on re-reading this, got the joke.
The above Republican under consideration is a fool, and his attempts to misdirect his prurient interests (to save his job) is futile and only serves to embarrass everyone around him. Whereas, if he had only been a Democrat, his contrition or excuses would be accepted, because he didn't have any moral stance with which to start. Indeed, the other moraliphobes would agree with any excuse the subject thought to utter, in saving his face (and theirs by proxy).
"Take it easy, he's of age now, and has given up the prostitution ring!"
If I could change any one thing about politics, or perhaps political discourse, that's what I'd change.
We can't have an informed debate of any kind about any thing if "disagreement -> evil/stupid/malicious" logic is in play.
It is a reflection of our vulgarity in an increasingly vulgar age. Whereas the Victorians could skewer with a well placed and intelligent turn of phrase, we've descended to the level of braying donkey's with our "You're just a .... to be saying that!" (and that's the polite version.
Contrast that with this policical observation made by the old Queen herself on the woman's movement...
" I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights', with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection."
Perhaps Rogers should have a good whipping wished upon him for his misdeeds instead.
Regards,
etc.
Post more mullet pix.
"Perhaps Rogers should have a good whipping wished upon him for his misdeeds instead."
I may be wrong, but I thought the "disagreement -> evil/stupid/malicious" was directed at my closing comment about acceptance of criminal activity within the Democratic ranks, above, and not at Rogers who really didn't disagree with Bush in this instance.
However, I thought your effort to compare a personal attack on our president (disguised as a joke) with the effort to gain Women's Rights in England, very interesting! Of course, Victoria's efforts to revile and mock the freedom fighters was much more like the joke attempting to vilify Bush (not that it was Rogers' to begin with), wouldn't you honestly say?
And, that's what I dislike most about partisan politics, you 'deep-thinkers' treat it as some sort of sporting contest, where you defend and support your 'team' no matter what! Even if they are pedophiles, you stand beside them and maintain their positions in politics; while you run Republicans out of town on a rail for pinching a women in an elevator, or pretend that it is business as usual to harass employees, treat the Whitehouse like a whorehouse and attempt to ruin the reputations of anyone who tries to tell the truth about you ... then lie to the courts under oath!
That's just normal 'private' stuff for the morally bankrupt.
Your freudian acceptance of Rogers as the 'culprit' though, is precious -- thanks.
I was thinking that his misdeeds reached a pinnacle with the decision to sport a mullet. I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly.
Indeed, it did not end with him becoming a recovering mullet wearer. He has said in the past that women continue to flock to his hair stylings - now a perfect shade of grey it seems for some wall treatment.
I can only guess at the depths of depravity Rogers must be reaching, being hair-partisan. I can see that it elicits those, such as the comb-over post above, stretching to cover his predilection for defending Bush at all costs.
Hair and Bush, all in one post. Who'da thunk it...
Regards,
etc.
"I can only guess at the depths of depravity Rogers must be reaching, being hair-partisan. I can see that it elicits those, such as the comb-over post above, stretching to cover his predilection for defending Bush at all costs."
I hope you don't think you're fooling me with this effort to sidle around a cogent response -- not that you would ever do so, mind you. Bush doesn't need a defense in this instance, and since the criticism/joke is invented out of whole cloth, and you know it. You are the one slavishly defending Rogers' and can only project your own faults as an insult.
I don't have any hair to comb-over, and if the response from me, above, is so easily mocked, a casual observer might wonder at your apparent reluctance to do so directly on subject, rather than run away from it with the typical mockery/misdirection that Leftists are becoming infamous for using, exclusively, in place of reason (your Canadian, so no Democratic).
Holy shit, for a second I thought that was George Stephanopolous in the pic. Or maybe Scottie McMullet.
I felt bad, like really bad and regretful, about the above section of my comment, and another part too. I suppose the intensity of my response was due to the fact that I know you're not a partisan guy, but your argument in this case seems so very partisan. You (like every other liberal I know) don't make noise about any other national security "problems" (and there are so very many) but are pretty solid on Libby being part of a conspiracy, the details of which I can't seem to draw you into defining to my satisfaction.
My questions are few and simple: 1. Why continue (for years) to pretend to try to find a leak you already know the source of? 2. Why does anyone believe Richard Armitage would help Bush and Cheney put themselves out if they were on fire, much less discredit Joe Wilson? 3. Why are we ignoring Plame and Wilson as potential bad actors who very much need to explain their actions and the reasons thereof, and not letting them use this supposed "crime" as a free pass? and the big one, #4: Why do liberals think there's political mileage in Libbytown anyway?
It seemed to me that Rogers was carefully not addressing those questions most harmful to his argument, which frankly made me sad. Now I find that he feels the same way about me and what I said, in a slightly different but just as depressing vein. I suppose that makes me feel less bad about being a dick but more bad about assuming Rogers was being one on purpose in his demonic service of Hillary/Obama. Now I see we're all unintentional dicks! Hey, we really are all just people trying to get along. Let's hold hands and sing until a new Utopia arises!
Shorter Mikey: fucking internet.
Rogers,
The only thing more dispiriting than debating politics must be working in politics.
Keep debating... it keeps the mind sharp while moving small bits of brain matter towards a more rational world. There's this mass of human consciousness at the center of the polarized participants that moves on the field. It's a statistical process.
Of course, the conservatives have put more resources into R&D and have moved the ball pretty effectively of late. But people eventually realize that they are acting against their own interests and for the interests of the few and they push back.
The effects are often called pendulums since politics likes to reduce the debate to a scale of one-dimension (right vs left).
Reality can only effectively be modeled in 4 dimensions.
And furthermore ...
I may be wrong, but I thought the "disagreement -> evil/stupid/malicious" was directed at my closing comment about acceptance of criminal activity within the Democratic ranks, above, and not at Rogers who really didn't disagree with Bush in this instance.
It wasn't really directed at anybody in particular. I don't even know what comment you're talking about. Consider it an interesting exercise in inkblot.
...and further more:
"U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. "
That's some sort of "proof"? The judge expresses that he can't rule on the case - not that it has no merit.
Regards,
etc.
Thanks, Mikey. Right now I'm either Edwards or Obama, the two candidates to whom I've given donations. I'm not sure about Hillary, because I fear eight years of triangulation.
1. Why continue (for years) to pretend to try to find a leak you already know the source of?
Knowing something and proving it are two different things. My take on Fitzgerald's actions is that didn't have a strong enough case against anyone but Libby, so that's all he pursued. He certainly gave Rove every chance in the world to get his head out of the noose. How many times did Rove come back and testify?
2. Why does anyone believe Richard Armitage would help Bush and Cheney put themselves out if they were on fire, much less discredit Joe Wilson? 3. Why are we ignoring Plame and Wilson as potential bad actors who very much need to explain their actions and the reasons thereof, and not letting them use this supposed "crime" as a free pass?
I haven't paid that much attention to any of them for two reasons: They're small fish and they didn't get prosecuted for anything. I tend to ignore political scandals until there's a strong reason to care, such as an indictment or conviction. When Sandy Berger was convicted, I played it big on the Retort. I'd still like to know what was so damning in those documents that he risked his freedom to destroy it.
#4: Why do liberals think there's political mileage in Libbytown anyway?
I don't care about the mileage. I think Libby lied to cover up Cheney's involvement and was rewarded for this by the commutation, and I think that's wrong. This is a better country when an aggressive Justice Department prosecutes crimes committed by politicians.
I did want to see Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. Losing that possibility was hard.
See, I just assumed you'd play this issue for what you thought you could get out of it politically. There I go again, believing the worst about you. Bad Mikey. Thanks for the answers, Mr. Poopy!
I really need to look up frog-marched, when I try to imagine what it means there are actual frogs involved and that can't possibly be the case. Can it?
When you are picked up by your belt like that, your feet only touch the ground and you are forced into a tiptoe march where your knees move outwards, and which appearance is similar to a frog jumping.
The most profound evidence that Plame was not covert is the revelation of the CIA information officer that Plame worked at the WMD desk, Deputy Director of Operations, there at Langley.
Covert status is deep, deep cover and where your entire life is disguised as being what the cover documents and business make of it. This is required since the agent will be on their own, handling sources, and where they can't be associated with intelligence agencies in any way.
The CIA Information Officer would NOT have a record of employment on any *covert* agent, because that access might endanger the life of whomever that record identified -- a breach of the law the agency fought to be made into law.
I know, because I was trained in intelligence by the US Army, and whose security is the same in regards to covert status; if less compartmented than the ultra-paranoid CIA ...
Partisan belief in Plame's covert status is a desperate attempt to change reality and to support the interference of the CIA in domestic politics. What a partner, right? The super secret police establishing the continuation of the Democratic party as the 'controller' of congress, the executive and the judiciary.
Waterboard West ...
treat the Whitehouse like a whorehouse and attempt to ruin the reputations of anyone who tries to tell the truth about you
Okay Taddles, while it's true that Cheney did attempt to ruin the reputations of Val and Joe Wilson for daring to tell the truth about his lies Spud takes exception with the whorehouse comment. As far as Spud knows Gannon didn't get paid fer any of those sleepovers at the WH. That was just him "serving at the President's pleasure"
Be Well.
PS: The Mullet pic was freakin' hilarious!
Also the headline was pretty good too.
Howdy to TPS.
Be Well.
I'm quoted out of context, "treat the Whitehouse like a whorehouse and attempt to ruin the reputations of anyone who tries to tell the truth about you"
And the response, "Okay Taddles ..."
From the very start, this partisan starts the effort which I assert is done to those who try to tell the truth about [you] leftist/Democratics.
Spud spins on, "... while it's true that Cheney did attempt to ruin the reputations of Val and Joe Wilson for daring to tell the truth about his lies ..."
Truth? What "truth" did Joe Wilson tell? Please list one.
"... Spud takes exception with the whorehouse comment. As far as Spud knows Gannon didn't get paid fer any of those sleepovers at the WH. That was just him 'serving at the President's pleasure'"
I suppose you have a dress with presidential spunk spewed on it, and the smell of a wet Cohiba permeating it -- do you? How about a recording where Gannon brags on playing the whore, satisfying the hero of the Democratics daily via oral, and other methods of prurient relief -- do you?
No, as I mentioned, you Leftist/Democratics can only attempt to ruin the reputations of those who say any kind of truth about the whoremaster and his style of politics. And, here you are beginning your effort to defame me -- make me the subject directly and by proxy -- right?
Hey, Dethspud just laid it all out for us. Why some liberals are beneath contempt intellectually, that is.
Why some liberals are beneath contempt intellectually, that is.
Are you actually trying to insist that "intellectual" and "conservative" are to be used together in the same sentence without the qualifier "not"? Really? Cos that'd be funny fer Spud..
Spud considers true Conservatives to be a dying breed in the states and the term Intellectual Conservative to be a serious mis-nomer.
Bush has made blind faith a replacement for original thought and carefully crafted a faux folksy image that befits his incurious nature. Do you guys somehow deny the fact that Dumbya (or Bi-
Curious George as Spud calls him) isn't a closeted bisexual man?
Hell, you kids think BushCo actually believed there were WMDs in Iraq, that the black sites are A-OK, that torture is justifiable, that Iraq is about economic survival for the nation rather than corporate hegemony, that there's no malfeasance in the DOJ scandal, that depleted Uraium is not a problem, that Bush is a real War President etc etc ad nauseum ad infinitum.
In short the Right in America, at this time, is not only intellectually bankrupt but morally so as well.
'Beneath contempt' doesn't even begin to describe their shortcomings.
Be Well.
PS: What "truth" did Joe Wilson tell? Please list one
The obviously forged documents that talked of a Niger connection were picked up by NeoCondi at the behest of Dickless Cheney in order to foist a campaign of fear and misdirection on the American people and the world. Conflating the crap that the US sold Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war into "WMD" was a stroke of evil genius. The sixteen word in the SOTU were lies. Deliberate lies that have led to uncounted numbers of dead and millions of displaced people living in misery. But you cats will ignore all that and try and tell Spud that Britain still backs up the intelligence and that the war was based on 'bad intelligence'. It was, just not the kind you guys mean.
I'm quoted out of context
Yeah, Dude that's wot Spud calls flippin' yer spin.
Gotta watch Spud, ya know. "He'll flip ya, He'll flip ya fer real"
It's also part of Spud's ongoing campaign to bring Ta-d'oh kicking and screaming into the light of the new millenium and to slowly wean him off his Clinton Deflection Addiction.
Waterboard West
Yup, and Unka Mikey thinks the left are the ones beneath comtempt.
Do you kids even listen to yerselves or do you just fade in and out?
Be Well.
Whoa, Spud! No one knows what you are talking about! The message is lost.
I've always liked an energetic debate where the protagonists joust verbally. But in this kingdom, the commoners aren't allowed lances like you guys. It seems you can pin us, well at least me, to the turf at will, while I must pull my forelock in respect for your cavalierness. My horse is removed from me, in a seemingly magical way, a mysterious pass of the wizard's hands.
(uh...am i bleeding?)
In answer to the one (1) thing Wilson did not lie about:
According to the Committee report, Wilson misstated to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, in an interview for a 6/12/03 report--an interview conducted at a time when Wilson was still anonymous. According to the report, Wilson told Pincus that he had determined, as part of his trip, that the famous Niger documents were forged. The problem: Wilson had never seen these forged documents. Indeed, the documents weren't even in US hands when he took his trip to Niger. According to the Committee report, Wilson "told Committee staff that he was the source" of the Pincus article.
SENATE INTELLIGENCE REPORT (page 73): Conclusion 13: The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.
WILSON (letter to the Intelligence Committee): My article in the New York Times makes clear that I attributed to myself "a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs."...I went to great lengths to point out that mine was but one of three reports on the subject. I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred and did not occur.
Shorter Douchespud:
Zeep blorp smiggle dee Bush is gay gleep fladdle conservatives are dumb zoopitty doodle paranoid fantasies
To poach a line from Will Ferrell, "are you British, or retarded?"
I don't understand?
There are others on this site who have argued, even vehemently, that Wilson is a hero and Plame a victim. Where are their comments and support? It isn't just Dethspud's Canadian interests in supporting this literal coup against Bush' presidency, is it? Aren't there any Americans that still faithfully believe these agents of partisanship are telling the truth and have the truth to relate to us?
What truth do you claim Wilson told, where is your proof that Plame was covert -- it is disappeard! Will that be the end -- just a sort of embarrassed silence?
And, is that journalism's responsibility and right? To accept defammation and vilification because it satisfies our partisan hopes and bias'? Then, when it becomes known that journalism itself has been duped -- is it a right and responsibility to fail and retract the calumny and continue in silence the impressions the media has manufactured in its zeal?
Come on, Rogers!!!
Put another thread up, so that this one can disappear from the front page, and be ignored completely (and not just by putting their collective heads in the sand) by the Leftist prevaricators which might otherwise be commenting on this site!
I'm surprised you haven't disappeard it, already!
Let the intellectual runaways, like the potato-heads they are, have some relief ... they are even intimidated about posting on your main blog subverting this war and promoting heroism for efforts to profit from this war!
Add a Comment
All comments are moderated before publication. These HTML tags are permitted: <p>, <b>, <i>, <a>, and <blockquote>. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA (for which the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply).
Social Media
Subscriptions
Blogroll
Projects
Statistics
This blog has been published since Nov. 7, 1999 (a span of 9,151 days).
Thank you for visiting Workbench.
