White House Press Secretary

Okay. Scott McClellan is out.
Who should replace him?

It's not that I have an educated guess about who Scott's replacement should be...
I do have an opinion about someone who has been mentioned as a possible replacement.
Tony Snow.
He seems to be honest and straight forward in his opinions.
I do not think this makes him qualified for the job.
He is not a Bush apologist and he does not go searching for reasons to support the administration.
This, in my opinion, disqualifies him for the position.

Two other names, which escape me now, have been mentioned.
A little help?

Carl Rove is out.
Almost.
All I can say is that I am glad to see him go and never understood why he had the position of Deputy Chief of Staff anyway.

Posted by Dawn at April 19, 2006 6:46 PM
Comments
Comment #141787

Sean Hannity!!!

Posted by: Duano at April 19, 2006 7:04 PM
Comment #141789
Carl Rove is out. Almost. All I can say is that I am glad to see him go and never understood why he had the position of Deputy Chief of Staff anyway.

As long as Carl Rove has the President’s ear, we will still be extremely powerful. His “change of duties” is meaningless.


Posted by: Steve k at April 19, 2006 7:13 PM
Comment #141790

What does it matter? The new guy only has to proficient in two answers.
“I’m not going to comment on an ongoing legal investigation” and
“The president has the utmost confidence in (insert name of incompetent sycophant here)”

Posted by: NotaChickenHawk at April 19, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #141797

NotaChickenHawk,
You left out “Bush lied”, “Bush is the leaker”, ad nauseum infinitum! Press secretary for Clinton?, defending a President who did lie to the American people and with a straight face. Pushing the nuts and sluts attacks on Monica and having NO attacking press corp nipping at his heels! Please keep comments semi-intelligent.

Posted by: JR at April 19, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #141799

“… and I will continue stomping on his ashes until I think of someting meaner to do to them.”

-Douglas Adams-

JR,
Each one of them in his turn has lied. Can we not agree that it is time to hold them accountable for those misdeeds?

Posted by: Ted at April 19, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #141800

In other news today,

From the AP;

“The U.S. government released the first list of detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay prison on Wednesday - the most extensive accounting yet of the hundreds of people held there, nearly all of them labeled enemy combatants.

In all, 558 people were named in the list provided by the Pentagon in response to a Freedom of Information lawsuit by The Associated Press. They were among the first swept up in the U.S. global war on terrorism for suspected links to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

Those named are from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and 39 other countries. Many have been held at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay for more than four years. Only a handful have faced formal charges.”

One wonders why it took so long to have an accurate count. It’s not like these guys are going anywhere.

Posted by: Rocky at April 19, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #141801

Um… Rove’s first name is spelled with a “K,” not a “C.” And as for not liking Tony Snow…because he is honest and straight forward? And he’s not a Bush apologist? Nor does he go searching for reasons to support the administration?

Are you kidding? Really. Being ironic? You do NOT want someone honest and straight forward? Holy cow! And what about the sheer insanity of HAVING to be an apologist or searching for reasons to support something. You know, in most circles, the term “apologist” is not a good thing. I’m fairly certain about this.

Posted by: tmkg at April 19, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #141802

Jr.
Sadamm had links to 9/11
There are WMD in Iraq
I will fire the leaker
Brownie you’re doing a heck of a job
We do not torture
Harriet Meyers is the most qualified
Deficits do not matter (president by proxy)
The war will last six months and will cost at most 60 billion
MISION ACCOMPLISHED

Posted by: NotaChickenHawk at April 19, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #141808

‘Um… Rove’s first name is spelled with a “K,” not a “C.”’
…that’s what I get for copy and pasting a name.

I said those are the reason’s why he IS NOT qualified.
I meant by the standards of those deciding who will fill the position.
Sorry if I did not make that clear enough.

Posted by: dawn at April 19, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #141810

Dawn:

Sorry. I was being snotty. You WERE being ironic, and I missed it.

Posted by: tmkg at April 19, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #141812

BTW-

Tony Snow would actually say something like…
‘I cannot answer that right now because the whole story is not clear at this time. I will not speculate. I will not spin. I expect YOU to wait until I can give full, accurate details.
I also expect YOU to give an honest report without speculation or spin. Is that possible?’

What I would like to see is HONEST and FACTUAL answers.
What I would like to see is HONEST and FACTUAL reporting.
Sometimes things cannot be answered at the time they are asked and the press should be able to accept that once in awhile without accusations of hiding info.
I would also like to see a room full of press who DO NOT ask virtually the same questions OVER and OVER and OVER because they think they can get the press secretary to slip up.
I would also like to see the press print what people say NOT what they THINK they MEANT when they said something.

Posted by: dawn at April 19, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #141813

The crew of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln put up a sign saying “Mission Aocomplished” and Bush haters have been running it into the ground ever since.

My nephew was a Marine assigned to security detail on the Abraham Lincoln. I think he knows more about who and why that sign was put up then people who weren’t there.

He told me some of the crew asked the ship’s captain if they could put the sign up as part of their homecoming in San Diego.

“Mission Accomplished” referred to the ship and its crew in completing the longest battlefield deployment without a port of call in Naval history: 10 months.

When Bush referred to the sign, he was addressing the officers and men of the Lincoln. Of course, the media and some wingnuts on the left saw an opportunity to turn it into an anti-Bush campaign.

So go ahead and keep kicking the dead horse. The only people who really matter know the truth.

Posted by: ulysses at April 19, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #141819

Gotta love the GOP Culture of Corruption….

“Abramoff, the e-mails show, bombarded then General Services Administration chief of staff David Safavian—who later worked in a senior position at the White House—with offers of sports tickets, golf outings, a lavish overseas trip and a lucrative job with his prestigious lobbying firm. At the same time, the e-mails show, Safavian offered to set up meetings and briefings for Abramoff and his associates and provide insider information that could have potentially benefitted his lobbying clients. Although there is no evidence that any of the deals actually came off, prosecutors say they illustrate how Safavian, who is due to stand trial next month on charges of lying to the FBI, “spent his energies looking out [for] Mr. Abramoff’s interests.””

Posted by: Aldous at April 19, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #141820

tmkg,
An apologist is someone who defends something by argument.It isn’t a pejorative term.

Posted by: traveller at April 19, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #141825

traveller,

You are right, of course, in terms of debate and academia. In common usage, however, you know it has come to imply one taking an indefensible stance, one who is apologizing or excusing a person or cause.

Yet another way our wonderful language is always changing.

As for ulysses… well, having a relative “over there” in no way guarantees an inside track to the truth. I wish like hell there were some way to ascertain the truth. As it is, none of us have any way of getting at it, and so we pit ourselves against each other like dogs.

I’m with Dawn… I’d just like some honesty.

Posted by: tmkg at April 19, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #141827

Aldous,

Any chance you can let us know where you got that quote?
Not just because it would be nice …but because, I believe, it is proper etiquette.

Posted by: dawn at April 19, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #141843

Ulysses,
Please tell former Press Secretary Ari Fleisher to retract his damnable fake confession:

“For months, the Bush administration denied that it was responsible for the banner, blaming the aircraft carrier crew itself. Since then, White House officials have acknowledged it was their idea.

“We put it up. We made the sign,” Fleischer said. “But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished… the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/politics/main614998.shtml

“Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush’s right shoulder and the “Mission Accomplished” banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call “magic hour light,” which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.

“If you looked at the TV picture, you saw there was flattering light on his left cheek and slight shadowing on his right,” Mr. King said. “It looked great.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/05/16/nyt.bumiller/

It was never about the crew themselves, or their long deployment, or the completion of that mission. It was about Bush using the Abraham Lincoln as a prop for a campaign commercial.

For that, Bush deserves harsh condemnation.


Posted by: phx8 at April 19, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #141850

New Press Secretary?

Someone who can say:

“I cannot comment on on ongoing criminal investigation.”

Harriet Miers.

Or someone who can say, with a straight face:

“Due to concerns for his health, the Vice President has resigned.”

McClellan announced Secretary of Interior Gale Norton’s resignation ‘for personal reasons’ without his pants catching fire. Tough act to follow. Hmmm.

Ok. I’ve got it.

A Mime.

Imagine a mime gesturing “I cannot comment on an ongoing criminal investigation.” Can’t be done. Bush is home free.

Posted by: phx8 at April 19, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #141851

Move Cheney to SecDef…
Move Condi to VP…
Move Rumsfeld to Press Secretary… :>)

Posted by: HadaAbeche at April 19, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #141856

Ha!A mime! I love it. At least he won’t have to lie.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 19, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #141860

It does not matter. The Press Secretary is a spin mouthpiece for the President pure and simple, there has never been an open and honest one, ever. Though a few have tried and fried.

The shake up is nothing more than a cover up for the fact that all these failed agendas and policies will continue to fail. They are just trying to put a new face on the same old broken policies in the hopes of a face lift for the November elections.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 19, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #141867

Here you go, dawn:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12357359/site/newsweek/

Posted by: Aldous at April 20, 2006 12:27 AM
Comment #141868

Ari Fleischer!

Posted by: Michelle at April 20, 2006 12:28 AM
Comment #141876

The sheer volume of ongoing White House criminal and legal investigations which McClellan could not speak about should tell all voters something loud and clear!

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 20, 2006 3:41 AM
Comment #141883

Thank you, Aldous.


David,

People have been calling for a ‘shake up’.

‘It does not matter. The Press Secretary is a spin mouthpiece for the President pure and simple, there has never been an open and honest one, ever. Though a few have tried and fried.’
posted by David.

Putting someone in there who can change this opinion of the Press Sec would be a giant step that possibly future admins would attempt to follow in.
As it is now… these ‘press conferences’ are a waste of time.

Posted by: dawn at April 20, 2006 7:17 AM
Comment #141885

Since 1937, there have been 26 Press Secretaries (though the position has changed a bit over the years). This works out to an average tenure of 2.65 years per Press Secretary.

McLellan has been Press Secretary since 2003. Do the math and see if this is anything outside the historical norm. Bill Clinton had 4 Press Secretaries (Myers, McCurry,Lockhart and Siewert), though the last guy was there only a few months, so its more like he had three.

You guys are all too funny. You take something that fits into the historical norm for the past 70 years and conflate it into a huge story to meet your voracious need for a huge story. This is just the next “huge story” in your litany of complaints…I expect the next “huge story” will show up shortly after you get bored with this one.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 20, 2006 7:30 AM
Comment #141886

joebagodonuts,

I don’t really consider this a big story.
This is Bush’s chance to do one of the things he said he would.

Posted by: dawn at April 20, 2006 7:44 AM
Comment #141889

The other two individuals who have been approached for the Press Secretary position is: Tori Clarke(former Pentagon Spokesperson) and Dan Senor(former Spokesperson for Paul Bremer) and for Tony Snow not being a Kool-Aid drinker that’s true but if he signs on as Press Sec. he serves at the pleasure of the President, he is VERY qualified and can help the Bush Administration’s communications dept. a great deal!

Posted by: Andy at April 20, 2006 8:01 AM
Comment #141890

Andy,

I believe Tony Snow is a very good choice.
I do not believe he would really get the job - if he even wants it.

Posted by: dawn at April 20, 2006 8:23 AM
Comment #141894

Dawn,

To answer your question, they should get one of these robot receptionists that looks like Hello Kitty:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/04/01/8372813/index.htm

They would only have to program it to say a few things:

“We can’t comment on ongoing legal investigations.”

“We just captured Al-Qaeda’s No. 2 man in Iraq.”

“I think you’ve forgotten the lessons of September 11th.”

“I DID answer your question.”

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 20, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #141895

Dawn,

The press secretary says exactly what he is told to say, regardless of party.

Jr.

“You left out “Bush lied”, “Bush is the leaker”, ad nauseum infinitum! Press secretary for Clinton?, defending a President who did lie to the American people and with a straight face. Pushing the nuts and sluts attacks on Monica and having NO attacking press corp nipping at his heels! Please keep comments semi-intelligent.”

Thank you for being Republican.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 20, 2006 8:57 AM
Comment #141900
Okay. Scott McClellan is out. Who should replace him?

Posted by Dawn at April 19, 2006 06:46 PM

How about someone who will only tell the truth? Maybe like Jim Carrey in “Liar, Liar” Posted by: Dave at April 20, 2006 9:19 AM
Comment #141902

Dawn,

I must disagree, if he wants it it will be his, although I don’t believe he’ll take it. He is a former speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush and the current President Bush has chosen alot of former Cabinet officials from his father’s administration.
I would love to see Tori Clarke, but the rumor is she has expressed dis-intrest in the position.

Posted by: Andy at April 20, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #141907

Dave,

I didn’t care for the guy myself…but, in his defense he normally reported to the press (when he could comment at all) what was allowed by the WH. If a press secretary is told something is true and he reports it that way…

Don’t shoot the messenger.

I’ll be glad to see someone else doing the job because I was definately tiring of him.

Posted by: Tom L at April 20, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #141916
He is not a Bush apologist and he does not go searching for reasons to support the administration. This, in my opinion, disqualifies him for the position.

And that’s just the reason Tony Snow won’t get the job.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 20, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #141917

Tom,

You’re a very forgiving man. McClellan’s not a stupid guy, he knew he was lying. Or at least he knew he wasn’t telling the truth (i.e. he knew it wasn’t true, but didn’t know what the truth was).

At first I felt a little sorry for the doughboy while he was getting pummeled, then I would remember all the years he spent screwing over anyone who asked a real question and only took the softballs. Reap what ye sow, man.

Posted by: Dave at April 20, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #141923

I’d like to see Laura Ingraham. Or maybe Ann Coulter. Anyone who’d give it back to those political hacks in the press corps.

Posted by: nikkolai at April 20, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #141938

ulysses,

“Mission Accomplished” referred to the ship and its crew in completing the longest battlefield deployment without a port of call in Naval history: 10 months.”

That is a flat out lie. What else do you know about what goes on from the Lincoln? I can’t wait to hear the next falsehood. We here in the city of Everett are proud of the men and women who serve on our Aircraft carrier. What we do NOT like is people who bend the truth to make their points sound rational. I urge anyone who believes this guy to contact ANY person from the Lincoln to find out the truth. You will not find that “ulysses” has a clue.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at April 20, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #141939

Dawn, a poor press secretary can harm a President’s otherwise good and well intended policies. But, the best of press secretaries cannot mend a President’s bad policies or programs rejected by the people.

That’s why I say, it doesn’t matter about the press secretary. The real need according to polls is for a new President, not a new press secretary. The polls show the people don’t accept the President’s actions and policies, and let’s face it, McClellan did his best to put the best face on them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 20, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #141942

David R. Remer,

Great point.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at April 20, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #141969

Vega, your comment to Ulysses is dead on. The President’s own speech aboard the carrier indicated a successful end to major combat operations in Iraq. The President’s own words defined the meaning of that banner on the carrier.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 20, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #141993

It bothers me how Rove’s disciples change history. They win elections by doing this and it is time for us on the right, in the middle and on the left to stand up for the truth. I watched a soldier’s wife being interviewed recently. The question posed to her was, “Why are we fighting in Iraq?” Her response was, “To get the people who got us. Don’t you remember 9-11?” That scares me. And it saddens me that our government has confused the public so well for so long. Our men and women are brave and strong enough to hear the truth. They will not stop fighting no matter what the cause. That is their job and I know they are proud of it as we are of them. Our job is to make sure they are putting their lives on the line for the right cause. We have done a horrible job at that. The least we can do is put in half the effort our troops do. This war is on the American publics hands. We elected them.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at April 20, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #142042

In the interest of truth, here are the first couple paragraphs of Bush’s speech on board the Lincoln…according to him, the mission in Iraq was accomplished:

(AP) Remarks by President Bush announcing the end of major combat operations in Iraq Thursday evening from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln:

“Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment — yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage — your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other — made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.

Posted by: Lynne at April 20, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #142089

Lynne, thanks for the quote. A quote is always better than my recollection.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 21, 2006 4:56 AM
Comment #142103

Rush Limbaugh for press secretary.Master propagandist,shameless apologist for the party and best of all doesnt give a rats behind what people think about him.Everything a press secretary should be.

Posted by: john doe at April 21, 2006 9:32 AM
Comment #142105

David and Vincent the hit man-

Not to enter into the fray, but you do need to add the context for Mr. Bush’s speech. It was at a time of public debate as to the “legal” end of combat operations in Iraq, and his words on the aircraft carrier were basically be required by administration counsel. That’s not to say that political guys didn’t make a nice photo op out of the whole thing (which is their job I guess).

As to the press secretary, I like Tony but his own politics would probably get him in trouble with the corp and the administration.

Posted by: George in SC at April 21, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #142106

John Doe,

You should actually try listening to Rush Limbaugh before you call him an apologist or a propagandist! How often do you hear someone challenging him on the facts…..not very often! Also, he opposes the Republican Party when they lose their conservative roots(CONGRESS more than anything)! However, one thing you did get right, he doesn’t care what anyone thinks about him!!!

Posted by: Andy at April 21, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #142135

Rocky pondered:

One wonders why it took so long to have an accurate count. It’s not like these guys are going anywhere.

Well, they were trying to get an Accurate Count - but it kept dropping day after day, and they kept having to start over…


Ulysses:

Man, did you ever get spanked! I was going to put up the same thing phx8 did but, as usual, he beat me to the punch! And then to be further pummelled by the Truth from Vincent Vega and David Remer - wow, that’s gotta hurt, huh!>

Ulysses…? Are you Out There? I’m responding to your Invitation:

So go ahead and keep kicking the dead horse. The only people who really matter know the truth.

Yeah. It looks like you were right about That Part…


Oh, and, here’s my suggestion for the new Whore House Press Secretary:


Posted by: Betty Burke at April 21, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #142172

Maybe we should look at the White House Press Secretary in a new light and appoint a “think tank”. Preferably made up of retired generals. They seem to have the best handle on things (or at least are able to convince people that they do)

Posted by: steve smith at April 21, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #142242

Yes, I’m still here. And I have a question: What is truth?

Some truth is extremely subjective and is the result of being filtered through our values, our beliefs, our biases, our agendas and our point of view on a given subject.

Other truth is based on fact and imperial evidence. The Earth revolves around the sun. That is a factual truth. Bush is a Nazi. That’s a subjective truth.

It’s like five people witnessing the same event and coming up with five different versions of what happened. Drives police investigators crazy.

But each individual runs what he sees and what he hears through those filters mentioned earlier.

For example, two men come upon a black man being beaten by a group of white men. One of the men is a priest; he calls the police. The other man is a Klu Klux Klan member; he calls it justice.

It’s all about the filters.

As far as the Abraham Lincoln is concerned, believe what you want to believe.

As far as getting a spanking, if it makes you feel better and feeds your egos, swing away.

To paraphrase a quote from Thomas Jefferson, your opinion neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Posted by: ulysses at April 21, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #142265

Vincent Vega

I spent over half my life living on military bases. And it always amazed me that the civlian population around the base always KNEW what was going on there even though they’d never been on the base.

The other thing that is also commonplace among civilians who live near military bases is their professed “pride” in the men and women who serve there.

No, Mr. Vega, it’s not pride; it’s not biting the hand that feeds you. How much money does the Navy pump into the economy of Everett?

I checked out the City of Everett’s official website. I was especially interested in your mayor’s message to visitors to the site.

He spoke of the city’s pride as the home of Boeing’s 767 Dreamliner, the Silvertips hockey team, the Everett Hawks football team, a minor league baseball team and the great salmon fishing.

What I didn’t see was the Abraham Lincoln or it’s crew mentioned anywhere in the mayor’s message or on the site.

Why, if you hadn’t told me, Mr. Vega, I wouldn’t even have known the ship was there.

Yes indeed, the city of Everett is really proud of the men and women who serve on “OUR carrier.”

I also noted that in 2004, Everett recorded 62 cases of rape in a city of about 92,000 population. That’s 63.4 rapes per 100,000 population, twice the national rate.

Does that have something to do with the Navy personnel stationed there? I bet it does. But, like I said, you don’t bite the hand that feeds you, do you?

By the way, Mr. Vega, I don’t have to lie or twist the truth to make a point. And neither does my nephew. And I am very proud of him!

Lynne

Wonderful quote. Yes, he said combat operations was ended and the mission to free the Iraqui people had been accomplished.

At that point in time, his statement was accurate. It’s what the Iraqi people chose to do with that freedom that later made that statement false.

He, like many other reasoning, sensible people, believed the Iraqi people would rise up and throw the terrorists and thugs out of their country.

That didn’t happen and we’re still engaged in combat against those same terrorists and thugs.

That might make Bush naive, but hardly a liar.

Now, all you left brain people out there debate that all you want. I’m going to bed.

Some of us still have to work for a living.

Posted by: ulysses at April 21, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #142316

u(Little ‘L’)lysses reasoned:

The Earth revolves around the sun. That is a factual truth. Bush is a Nazi. That’s a subjective truth.

For example, two men come upon a black man being beaten by a group of white men. One of the men is a priest; he calls the police. The other man is a Klu Klux Klan member; he calls it justice.

Yes, I see your point: there is simply no way to determine whether a Lynching is actually Wrong, or whether it might be thought of as Justice. After all, the Klansmen in your example share a Moral Equivalency with the Priest - they just happen to have differing Viewpoints!


A perfect example of Conservative Thought.


How vile.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 22, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #142329

ulysses:

Wonderful quote. Yes, he said combat operations was ended and the mission to free the Iraqui people had been accomplished.

At that point in time, his statement was accurate. It’s what the Iraqi people chose to do with that freedom that later made that statement false.

He, like many other reasoning, sensible people, believed the Iraqi people would rise up and throw the terrorists and thugs out of their country.

That didn’t happen and we’re still engaged in combat against those same terrorists and thugs.

Anyone with half or less a mind knew before illegally entering that sovereign country that a simple invasion and quick military sweep would bring no immediate peace to Iraq…that country has been overtly factional forever…Kurds, Sunnis, Shi’ites…only a tough dictator could hold it together and once the dictator was gone it was every faction for itself…

Blame the British…they’re the ones who cobbled Iraq together for the sake of BP!!

Posted by: Lynne at April 22, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #142383

“Yes, I see your point: there is simply no way to determine whether a Lynching is actually Wrong, or whether it might be thought of as Justice. After all, the Klansmen in your example share a Moral Equivalency with the Priest - they just happen to have differing Viewpoints!”

No, Betty, you see nothing because you can’t get by your own biases and self-rightious attitude.

In the example I gave, I said nothing about a LYNCHIUNG. You saw the terms “group of white men” and “black man,” filtered it through your own biases, values, beliefs and life experiences and transformed a beating into a lynching.

That was the whole purpose of the example and you proved my point. Your whole response was base on your view of the world.

I susepect you are the type of person who would kill, or at least hate, the messenger because you didn’t like the message.

You know, Betty, being intelligent is not the same as being smart. Some of the smartest and wisest people I know have no sheepskins or parchments papering their walls.

After following the postings on this site for several months, one thing has become abvious to
me: Many of you are elitists and intellectuals.

A Klu Klux Klan member is the moral equivalent
of a priest? That may be the elitist and intellectual view, but it’s miles from smart.

I’m sure the priest would be honored by your assessment of his moral view of the world.

You know, an alcoholic will justify his drinking by telling everyone that he doesn’t drink any more than his friends. Of course, all his friends are alcoholics.

Vile, Betty? That’s a subjective truth!

Posted by: ulysses at April 22, 2006 5:55 PM
Comment #142388

Ulysses wrote:

Some truth is extremely subjective

No, that’s wrong. Truth is NOT subjective. The truth is by definition objective. The example you gave is a racist joke twisted slightly to turn it into an allegory. Betty didn’t “filter… it through [her] own biases, values, beliefs and life experiences and transform [it] into a lynching.” You describe a a KKK member watching a bunch of white guys beating up a black guy calling it justice. How is that not a lynching? Perhaps you can imagine a scenario where it is perfectly acceptable for a group of men to beat up another man? (maybe he looked the wrong way at one of their women?)

But my real point is this. You seem to have an answer for everyone except phx8:

“We put it up. We made the sign,” Fleischer said. “But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished… the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein.”

You wrote: “As far as the Abraham Lincoln is concerned, believe what you want to believe.” But there is an objective truth here. Either the sailors requested it to be put up or the White House did. It can’t be both. Why would the White House press secretary lie about this and admit to doing something they didn’t do?

Posted by: adverbal at April 22, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #142389

Darn, why didn’t I preview that before I posted it??????

Sorry for the messed up formating. I’m positing it again. Perhaps if the moderator is kind he’ll delete the first one.

Ulysses,

Some truth is extremely subjective

No, that’s wrong. Truth is NOT subjective. The truth is by definition objective. The example you gave is a racist joke twisted slightly to turn it into an allegory. Betty didn’t “filter… it through [her] own biases, values, beliefs and life experiences and transform [it] into a lynching.” You describe a a KKK member watching a bunch of white guys beating up a black guy calling it justice. How is that not a lynching? Perhaps you can imagine a scenario where it is perfectly acceptable for a group of men to beat up another man? (maybe he looked the wrong way at one of their women?)

But my real point is this. You seem to have an answer for everyone except phx8:

We put it up. We made the sign,Fleischer said. At I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished. The mission was to topple Saddam Hussein.

You wrote: “As far as the Abraham Lincoln is concerned, believe what you want to believe.” But there is an objective truth here. Either the sailors requested it to be put up or the White House did. It can’t be both. Why would the White House press secretary lie about this and admit to doing something they didn’t do?

Posted by: adverbal at April 22, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #142401

It sounds like you believe me to be, at a minimum, a vile, fascist, racist, woman-hating, anti-Semitic, anti-American, atheistic, homophobic, perverted, word-twisting liar with no hope of salvation.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But, I shall leave you in peace and depart so as to not to incur your righteous indignation. However, I leave the following for your consideration.

Υποκριτής, παίρνετε αρχικά την αποσύνδεση του ματιού σας, και έπειτα θα δείτε σαφώς για να πάρετε speck από το μάτι του αδελφού σας. Ευαγγέλιο του Matthew, κεφάλαιο 7, στίχος 5.



Posted by: ulysses at April 22, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #142402

Lynching:

Main Entry: lynch law Function: noun Etymology: after William Lynch (1742–1820), American vigilante : the punishment of presumed crimes (usually by death) without due process of law

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


It sounds like you believe me to be, at a minimum, a vile, fascist, racist, woman-hating, anti-Semitic, anti-American, atheistic, homophobic, perverted, word-twisting liar with no hope of salvation.

You forgot: Xenophobic, Jingoistic, Ignorant and Inhumane.


Vile, Betty? That’s a subjective truth!

Here’s what’s NOT: you posted a Big Lie above, with respect to “Mission Accomplished.” You were caught out in Direct Quotes from the White House Press Secretary - the official spokesman for the President. And your little Anecdote was countered by a Counter-Anecdote from someone who lives in the Home Port of the ship in question (no that Duelling Anecdotes matters much, in the face of the ADMISSION BY THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY.

So, if the last part of your List:

word-twisting liar with no hope of salvation

has been shown empirically to be True, what then can we assume about the first part of it?

Q.E.D.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 22, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #142403

I am hopeing for someone like Lt. General Russel Honoree.. Somehow I think the Press Corps would be a bit less insulting and more respectful. Besides it would be funny as hell hearing him tell the Press Corps they are “stuck on stupid” for asking the same question three different times.

Darrell

Posted by: Darrell at April 22, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #142407

does anybody know what that jibberish at the end of ulysses’s post is supposed to be? I’m guessing its a bible passage copied from another site that didn’t paste correctly.

Posted by: adverbal at April 22, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #142415

My guess is that was not nice.
Probably something to be kicked off the blog for.

Posted by: bug at April 22, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #142463

And the winner is …. adverbal!

“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thy own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 7, Verse 5

Sorry, bug.

Posted by: ulysses at April 23, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #142483

I’m so excited that I won! Hooray!

And the prize, perhaps, is that you’ll respond to my question… if what you said in your original post is accurate, why would Ari Fleisher lie?

I’m NOT calling you (or your son) a liar, Ulysses. I can certainly envision a scenario by which you made your post in a spirit of full integrity. But I don’t want to put words in your mouth (or on your fingertips, so to speak) and I think you need to account for this discrepancy.

Posted by: adverbal at April 23, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #142499

adverbal

I’m not saying Fleisher lied. But, I can envision a circumstance where it would be politically expedient for a politican to take credit (or blame) for something they did or did not do.

You and the others who have ridiculed or insulted me for my comment about the Abraham Lincoln may indeed be correct.

But, I don’t know that to be a fact.

My nephew served in the Marine security detail on the carrier at the time of the Bush visit. That is not a lie. He said it happened as I posted. I have no reason not to believe him.

I realize this doen’t answer your question, but in the absence of hard evidence to the contrary, it’s the best I can offer at this time.

I noticed in another post that you are a member of academia. I have a high school diploma and am a shipping clerk for a manufacturer of radio and television transmitters.

I suspect that many of the others who post on WatchBlog have similar credentials as yourself.

In a sense, WachtBlog itself is, in a sense, a think tank, with the blue side being for those with liberal views and the red side for those with conservative views.

A bit out of my league.

Posted by: ulysses at April 23, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #142507

ulysses:

I noticed in another post that you are a member of academia. I have a high school diploma and am a shipping clerk for a manufacturer of radio and television transmitters.

I suspect that many of the others who post on WatchBlog have similar credentials as yourself.

In a sense, WachtBlog itself is, in a sense, a think tank, with the blue side being for those with liberal views and the red side for those with conservative views.

A bit out of my league.

If you think that thinking about issues that affect all Americans is out of your league, where does that leave common citizens? It leaves them at the mercy of those who are more bombastic…don’t underestimate yourself…right now too many are voting against their own interests and against their own country’s interests…if you sit back and think a little about what’s really happening, read what’s happening…are informing yourself on both sides of an issue…you are performing your job as a citizen…if you just give up and say you don’t have the education, then that leaves the “leaders” in good position to screw you…is that what you want??

Posted by: Lynne at April 23, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #142512

ulysses,

I teach elementary school. While that does qualify me as “member of academia,” I certainly don’t think it puts me in any sort of elite or elitist group. (people often refer to me as “smart” but it’s usually followed with a hyphen and a three letter suffix beginning with “a.” But I digress.)

As far as being out of your league, I’m not sure what your point is. Do you think that I think you don’t have a right to post? If so I’m a little offended (but only a little). The rules here are the same for everyone - if you have an opinion on a topic (and preferably something to back it up) then you should post it. But there’s no need to turn so defensive as soon as someone pops a hole in one of your balloons. Go back and read what Pxh8 wrote in response to your post - no attack on you, no insults, just facts. A few people after that got a little rougher but you could easily have diffused them with what you said in your last post.

My point earlier was that rather than accusing you (or your son) of lying, I felt the more likely scenario is that he was lied to. I mean no disrespect to our men and women in the armed forces but it certainly is nothing new to have higher-ups order servicemen and women to lie to promote some kind of agenda. (see Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch if you need recent examples).

You say that I and others ridiculed you, but I don’t think I did. If you can point out anything I wrote that attacked you I’ll apologize for it.

Posted by: adverbal at April 23, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #142532

ulysses et al.

Here are a few good thoughts from Nigerian novelist Ben Okri; what a much better country and world we’d be if we took these words to heart and acted upon them:

“Freedom is the big issue of the 21st century. Not terrorism. Not even religion. We think that freedom is the freedom to do just whatever we want. We think freedom is consumerism, that freedom is having unlimited choices. But I feel that this idea of freedom is too materialistic. The new freedom that we should take upon ourselves is the freedom of not delegating our thinking to some cultural figurehead or personality. People accept things unthinkingly. They assume viewopints before thinking for themselves, before figuring out how they feel about issues. People must use their freedom to think for themselves.

“I believe this very strongly for one very simple reason. I believe that we all fundamentally share the condition of the artist. We all fundamentally share in the ability to listen and to sort out what is of value to us, what is good for us and for our children. And what kind of people we enjoy being with. This age of Internet and vox populi actually enables people to express themselves more than ever. But the essential thing that is missing is clear thinking. It is not taught in school; it never has been. It does not exist in any aspect of the curriculum, in any of the disciplines apart from philosophy. Thinking should be included as a subject in all schools. I have been to many classrooms and watched—often very good—teachers teaching and I noticed two things. Teachers rarely ask the right questions and children are shy about expressing themselves. It is either shyness or fear. Children can only learn how to think by learning to give answers to questions they are asked. We must encourage them to speak out at an early age. I think we lost something when we discarded the Socratic form of teaching, the Socratic dialogue.

“Once we acquire clear thinking, we don’t need all these people—including me—to come along an interpret the world for us. We are not free until we have cultivated the art of clear thinking, until we grasp the freedom to ask questions about all the things we assume about the world: about our history, about what we see with our own eyes and what we don’t. It is the freedom to venture behind the television and beyond the newspaper. It is the freedom not to believe what we are told anymore. It is the freedom not even to trust the evidence of our own eyes. Then we will no longer need others to make our decisions for us. We surrender too great a part of our destinies to our leaders adn we sit back and let them make decisions for us. And then we pretend that we do not feel guilty about those decisions if, for example, they involve bombing other people halfway across the world for reasons that are not clear to us.

“It’s not healthy for people in the street to be wandering around not knowing what they think and then reading in the paper at home what others have to tell them. People should be able to hear what’s going on and able to discuss this amongst themselves. That way, better decisions are made. We have to raise the quality of thought and discussion and debates amongst all of our citizens….

Posted by: Lynne at April 23, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #142548

Lynne

Thanks. I needed that.

To All

My apologies if I unnnecessarily offended anyone.

I’m not just having a bad day; it’s been a bad week for me on the medical front.

I know that’s not a valid reason to be rude and obnoxious to people. It certainly wasn’t my intention and it’s certainly not in my nature to do so.

Again, please accept my apology.


Posted by: ulysses at April 23, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #142584

Ulysses, I am going to lay down my Sword and offer you Balm.

(And please, don’t think I would do so except for your Honest and Earnest post offering that the Conservative Claptrap you wanted to believe might not be right…)

Here is what I can, in the best spirit of Loving The Sinner, offer up to you:

- Much of what you want to Believe from the “Right” is Wrong.

- Liberals are NOT America’s - or Humankind’s - or Your - Enemy.

Here is the definition of Liberalism - taken straight from the dictionary:

lib-er-al-ism ( P )

n.
1.) The state or quality of being liberal.

2.) A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

Now what about that seems Bad to you?

Without Progressives, mankind would never progress!

So USE YOUR MIND!!! You obviously have a good one! Snap out of it! You have been LIED to - for years - by Conservatives leaders and Conservative news outlets!

USE the power of that Mind and ask yourself this:

“If I had been Lied To, for years, so that I wasn’t even aware of it - how would I know unless people kept slapping me around trying to get the Truth in?!?”

Question what you have heard!

Open your heart and your mind!

Tear yourself away from the vile Propaganda Machine that has stultified your Growth and your Love and your Awareness!

And join with your Progressive Friends in moving our Society - and indeed, Humanity at large - Forward rather than Backward!

We will welcome you: how much more beloved is a Prodigal, returned from the wasteland, than those who never wandered from the Truth?

I extend an olive branch. I apologise if I have stung you. But if you will not see, then I must necessarily take up my sword again, for you will be an Enemy to all of Human Progress then, and that, I must fight against.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 23, 2006 9:43 PM
Post a comment