Wash. Post article on Bush "taking ... opportunities to explore his sensitive side while discussing his legacy" omits mention of Hurricane Katrina
SUMMARY: In an article headlined "Bush's Sensitive Side is Showing," Washington Post reporter Dan Eggen quoted former Bush official John DiIulio saying, "Clinton talked, 'I feel your pain.' ... But as Bush showed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he truly does feel deeply for others and loves this country with a passion." Despite quoting DiIulio's characterization of Bush's expressions of empathy as genuine and Clinton's not, at no point did Eggen mention Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina, for which he was widely criticized.
In a December 14 article, headlined "Bush's Sensitive Side is Showing," Washington Post staff writer Dan Eggen reported that President George W. Bush was "getting a bit misty in his final weeks, taking frequent opportunities to explore his sensitive side while discussing his legacy -- from the importance of his Christian faith to his conviction that, sometimes, all we need is love." Eggen wrote, "The wave of presidential emoting comes as part of an effort by Bush and his aides to highlight the positive side of his legacy as he nears his final month in office, while also bidding farewell to world leaders and longtime colleagues." Eggen quoted John J. DiIulio Jr., former director of the Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives, saying: "[Former President Bill] Clinton talked, 'I feel your pain.' ... But as Bush showed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he truly does feel deeply for others and loves this country with a passion." At no point in the article -- in which Eggen quoted DiIulio purporting to contrast what he said was Bush's genuine empathy with what he characterized as Clinton's disingenuous expressions of empathy -- did the reporter mention Hurricane Katrina or note the widespread, bipartisan condemnation that Bush received over his response to its devastation.
For instance, as Media Matters for America noted, in an August 26, 2006, article, the Post quoted numerous Republicans criticizing the White House's handling of the crisis and commenting on the political challenges that resulted from it: Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-NC) said that Katrina "undermined" Bush's reputation as an able leader; Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) described the crisis as "a break in the levee of political goodwill and the Teflon coating that the administration had been enjoying up to then"; Rep. Jim McCrery (R-LA) complained about the images of Bush "joshing amid the devastation"; and White House counselor Dan Bartlett referred to the storm as a "setback."
Terry Ebbert, then-head of New Orleans' emergency operations, reportedly said of the federal government's response to Katrina: "This is a national emergency. This is a national disgrace."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said in a September 6, 2005, press release, "This is not just a natural disaster; this is a failure to prepare." Pelosi later added: "The American people expect and deserve accountability, they expect leadership, and they expect competence. They didn't see any of that coming out of the White House following the disaster of Katrina." Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) said in a September 3, 2005, statement: "The good and decent people of southeast Louisiana and the Gulf Coast -- black and white, rich and poor, young and old -- deserve far better from their national government." The New York Times reported on September 2, 2005, that "Representative Harold Ford, Democrat of Tennessee, said in a statement that Bush's speech on the hurricane from the Rose Garden on Wednesday was 'uninspiring and uninstructive' and added that he was struck by Bush's 'cavalier attitude toward the plight of poor people across Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.' Ford added that "now is not the time in the face of pain, anguish, and death to be weak and uncertain."
Bipartisan committees in Congress also leveled harsh criticism at the Bush administration over its handling of Katrina. Media Matters documented the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs' release of a report in May 2006, which concluded that the Department of Homeland Security "failed to lead an effective federal response to Hurricane Katrina" and listed specific steps that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff failed to take both before and after the storm. The report stated, "Secretary Chertoff failed to make ready the full range of federal assets pursuant to DHS's responsibilities under the National Response Plan (NRP)" and "failed to appoint a Principal Federal Official (PFO), the official charged with overseeing the federal response under the NRP, until 36 hours after landfall." Michael Brown, the PFO that Chertoff eventually chose, "was hostile to the federal government's agreed-upon response plan and therefore was unlikely to perform effectively in accordance with its principles." Moreover, the Senate report stated, "Even when appointed PFO, Brown remained the Director of FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency], an apparent violation of the NRP's requirement that a PFO not be 'dual hatted' with any other roles or responsibilities that could detract from their overall incident-management responsibilities.' "
Similarly, the House of Representatives' Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, which released its final report on February 15, 2006, found that "critical elements of the National Response Plan," parts of which Chertoff was responsible for, "were executed late, ineffectively, or not at all." The report also asserted that "DHS and the states were not prepared for" Katrina.
From Eggen's December 14 Washington Post article, "Bush's Sensitive Side is Showing:
For President Bush, it seems, love is in the air.
Standing Friday before a welcoming crowd at Texas A&M University, he talked about the "unconditional love" he received from his father, the "gift of love" given by a couple who care for foster children, and his eagerness to return to the "place I love" once he leaves office.
The president who once dared militants to "bring 'em on" is getting a bit misty in his final weeks, taking frequent opportunities to explore his sensitive side while discussing his legacy -- from the importance of his Christian faith to his conviction that, sometimes, all we need is love.
[...]
Such touchy-feely rhetoric is not entirely foreign for Bush, who first ran for the presidency as a "compassionate conservative" and spoke frequently about his religious faith and the need to "love a neighbor" in his 2000 campaign. But during eight years that have included war, partisan battles and an economic catastrophe, Bush's kinder and gentler side has not often been on such full display.
The wave of presidential emoting comes as part of an effort by Bush and his aides to highlight the positive side of his legacy as he nears his final month in office, while also bidding farewell to world leaders and longtime colleagues. Between boasts about vanquishing terrorists and succeeding in Iraq, many of his recent speeches and interviews have focused on social programs and initiatives -- such as anti-drug and anti-AIDS efforts -- that lend themselves to an emotional appeal.
[...]
Bush's rhetoric has always offered a mix of the tough and the tender, reflecting the personality of a taciturn Texan who nonetheless has talked publicly about his struggles with drinking and the born-again Christian experience he had after he turned 40. John J. DiIulio Jr., the first director of Bush's Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives, wrote in 2002 that "in many ways, he is all heart."
"Clinton talked, 'I feel your pain,' " DiIulio wrote, referring to the 42nd president's famous public empathy. "But as Bush showed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he truly does feel deeply for others and loves this country with a passion."
His sensitive side?
I doubt he even has a sentient side.
He is already throwing himself at the mercy of the court. Oh, how I wish!
I wish Kanye West could read or type. He could weigh in on this subject.
he should have been more concerned before 9-11. standing on a pile of rubble was not a substitute for being asleep at the switch. had he continued the weekly meetings that clinton devoted to counterterrorism and which richard clarke wanted to keep going, we might have avoided the attack. he paid no attention when, as the 9-11 commission noted, "threat reports surged in june and july" 2001. we might not have had to watch people jumping from 100 stories.
i think you just insulted plants! lol
"I doubt he even has a sentient side."
that would probably destroy his "street cred".
"I wish Kanye West could read or type."
by comparison to afghanistan and iraq, katrina is almost minor. oh, did i mention the near total of the country's economy? so many things to choose from!
that should read: near total destruction of the country's economy.
you weren't that far off. "near total of the country's economy" equals about fifty dollars.
Bush's legacy is ducking two size 10 shoes, reading my pet goat and choking on a pretzel.
Don't forget taking the Summer of 2001 off, to spend time in Crawford to clear brush while he ignored all the security warnings about a pending attack by bin Laden. That will be my long lasting memory of GWB.
Yes he was "widely criticized" as you say, but that's because you wouldn't blame the real culprit of Katrina, that numbn*ts mayor laying around the French Quarter;
Rock'n Ray Nagin
Thank you Tbone, you have actually told me something I did not know. I never realized that the Mayor of New Orleans was responsible for FEMA and the Federal govts response to a natural disaster. Thank you so much for clearing this up.
the city of new orleans was overwhelmed by what happened. only the federal government could step in with the massive amounts of manpower and material needed. bush had his usual "what me worry" response.
Isn't it amazing that whenever a hurricane hits florida Bush is right on top of things? I'm pretty sure his brother being governor of florida when that happened had absolutely nothing to do with it...
Wrong. His brother takes the blame for slow responces during state disasters. If you live in a hurricane zone, you the individual should be prepared to either evacuate or hunker down for at least a week.
Gov Bush has handled these emergencies just fine.
Bush's Hurricane Plan
Plan for schools
More on the Plan
Why didn't the demorats have a plan in LA?
With all due respect, did you visit New Orleans after the storm? The level of devastation was beyond imagining, and no amount of preparation would have helped the people there handle that "just fine". As Irony mentions below, 80% of the city was underwater.
And remember, what happened to New Orleans was a levee failure. The levees were supposed to be strong enough to handle a Category 3 storm. The people who had prepared for a hurricane and had provisions and generator fuel for a week or 10 days of no power were not prepared for what happened after the storm passed. When Katrina hit all the way up in New Orleans, having dragged itself through the coastal wetlands, it was not a 3 any longer, most meterologists agree that it was at best a strong 2, yet the levees collapsed in several places and flooded the entire city. It was an unprecedented disaster. Comparisons to other storms, even Andrew or Camille, are meaningless because the real disaster was the levee failure and it was just too big. Again, if you've toured the city post-Katrina, you understand the level of devastation. If not, you don't.
GW's culpability is certainly ascertainable in the aftermath of Katrina[I lay most of the blame on Nagin and the Governer in the 5 days prior] but I don't think this is truly a MMFA issue. His[gw's] legacy is subjective and his sensativity is not something most people think is salient at this point, just the usual GW punching bag.
and he's provided the material to be that punching bag. is this the part where we all shed a tear for all that criticism he's getting as he leaves office? he's earned it.
You can shed a tear for Saddam Hussein, mefirst, because I'm certain that's where your sentiments lay.
is this the part where you tell me we removed a dictator [one of how many around the world?] and fifty million iraqis are free? you don't have to love saddam to recognize that going into iraq was a boneheaded move, and we only put ourselves into the middle of people who have been trying to kill each other for 1000 years over religious dogma. if the criteria is removing a dictator, how many of the other dozens around the world are you proposing we remove by force?
Don't you think that's a low blow? Bush critics do not equal Saddam sympathizers.
His[gw's] legacy is subjective
And when one of Shrub's cronies is allowed to spout propaganda uncritically, then we are allowed to call him on it.
To repeat an above poster, what resources can a mayor bring to bear for such a massive looming disaster? Only the feds had the necessary resources. And the governor's national guard troops were kinda busy dodging bullets in Iraq. So maybe you should re-think your opinion.
5 days to evacuate the city---It was his responsibility but "chocolate town" mayor was lazy and incompetent---he was right there and did nothing---it was the governor's responsibility and her's alone, to call out the National Guard and after 5 days to do just that, she didn't---all of the people who lay the bulk of the blame on GW have no idea about logistics and the train of events that happened. Mayor Nagin was well aware of the condition of the levees and so did all of the mayors and governors before them for over 25 years. Most of the funds allocated to shore up the levees was "William Jeffersoned" and everyone knows it. GW has plenty of things to lament concerning his legacy, but Katrina shouldn't be one of them. The corruption in Louisiana is legendary, long before GW took office. Bobby Jindel is the only hope they have.
William Jeffersoned the levees? So your putting the substandards used in levee construction at Clintons door? No thats a new example of Clinton Derangement Syndrom for me. Is there anything your unwilling to blame Ole Bill for? Your sex life, the elvi, the heartbreak of phorriesis, Paraguay?
Nice sidestep on federal responsibilites also.
William Jefferson the congressman from Louisiana who was indicted and eventually voted out of office this year, you know, the one found with 90k in his freezer. Sorry to take the wind outa your sails but I never mention Bill Clinton unless it is pertinent. Too late to take down your post and I'm certain you won't acknowledge your error, especially after the spurious insults.
Why would you be sure of that?
Pyrrhonest has a differing opinion below on WJ's effect on the levee's soundness. I don't see you agruing back about it. Why not?
Sometimes it seems pointless to discuss anything in forums like this after what eweston expressed. To make such an error and then followed by an series of ignorant, personal remarks leads me to believe your'e insincere about much of the things you post.
After what you posted above, I doubt sincerely that Eweston is insincere. :-)
Most of the funds allocated to shore up the levees was "William Jeffersoned" and everyone knows it.
Sigtek, I know personal accountability isn't a normal Republican hobby, but look at your statement here. I understood what you were trying to say, but only because I listened to enough right wing radio accounts of the Katrina aftermath that I was able to translate.
Keep in mind that you've been trained in a special language only understoof by dittoheads and those who study them in the wild. Stating theories as fact doesn't make them true, even if you add "we all know it", as many con posters here do.
I think it's sort of irresponsible on your part to try to charge another poster with an "error" because he doesn't know your code words and right wing chants.
The error was saying I was referring to Bill Clinton, followed by a slurry of offensive remarks.
K, I was caught out not correctly interpreting your prose. Dang me! The possibility that I might be wrong on occasion is always on my mind. Some folks correct me nicely, some see if a mountain can be made of it. Other possibilities would include?
None. I appreciate it---I really am fair---to be quite honost, this is the first "chat room" I have ever engaged myself in. I've learned not to use exclamation points, excessive bold type etc. I try not to offend and I truly listen and try to understand the points of view from others, especially those views I don't agree with. The most important thing I've learned in discourse like this is to try to focus on the issue and leave people out of the conversation who have nothing to do with the subject at hand---i.e. "well ya know Bill Clinton blah blah blah.....
We get people who will blame Bill for their warts. We get reasonable and honest conservatives here as well. Some change upon exposure to this forum, some repeat talking points after having them debunkted. Some of the latter take alot of abuse.
It's not all smooth but welcome to it. There are few comparible forums for a good all sides considerred argument.
Thanks, I do appreciate it.
---all of the people who lay the bulk of the blame on GW have no idea about logistics and the train of events that happened.
You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. First of all, the disaster was man made. The levees collapsed because the Corps of Engineers covered up the defects in them. Secondly, the magnitude of the disaster was greater than what any state or municipality would have been able to handle. People still don't grasp that 80% of New Orleans was under water. Federal help was needed immediately. When Bush and Karl Rove finally arrived in New Orleans several days later they were more concerned about taking away control of the National Guard from Gov. Kathleen Blanco in what can only be described as a typical Karl Rove maneuver designed primarily for political purposes. More valuable relief and rescue time was lost while this meaningless detail was negotiated. What the hell was Karl Rove doing here anyway? Why didn't they do this to Haley Barbour next door in Mississippi?
I also recall George W. Bush campaigning in Baton Rouge in 2000 when he promised Louisiana that coastal retoration, to blunt the effects of powerful hurricanes, was going to be a major priority in his administration. He lied. After he was elected he cut the budget instead.
If you think Bobby Jindal is a saviour I feel sorry for you because whatever positives Jindal may bring to the table are counterbalanced by his goofy religiosity...such as his support of fringe groups attempting to insert the teaching of creationism into science curricula.
Ray Nagin is a buffoon. But Katrina was a disaster of momentous proportion, far greater than what any city could handle, and one which any citizen would expect help from the federal government. Bush dropped the ball...and, no, Brownie did not do a helluva job.
Sorry, sigtek44bc1345, but IRONY and ME, well, we live in New Orleans, so don't try to parse what happened here. You obviously don't have a clue. It is also very obvious that you love and admire George W. Bush, the one person who had the power and the resources to by-pass all barriers to immediate action whenever a disaster strikes. He was, and unfortunately still is, the President of the United States. He also promised (Ha!) to re-build and improve the levee system when he became the President. That was FIVE YEARS before Katrina! Your boy, George LIED to us, my man. As for Bill Clinton, there is NO doubt that HE would have moved immediately to get troops, supplies, and a competent Homeland Security to save as many lives as possible, REGARDLESS OF THEIR POLITICAL LOYALTIES. Am I suggesting that George resorted to pay-back for New Orleans' 80% vote for Kerry? You bet your sweet bippy I am! I can just hear Rove and Cheney saying, "F**K 'EM!"
As for Bobby Jindal, well, he's one of yours. I wish we could "return to sender".
Exactly, Dog. Even in a time of disaster it was still all political to Bush and Rove. They didn't make Haley Barbour jump through hoops to get help. I ain't buying this bull about Bush's alleged compassion. He was certainly willing to get over four thousand brave Americans killed in Iraq (and see countless Iraqi civilians killed) simply to advance some goofy neocon theory of world domination that Dick Cheney brought to the White House. Bush was and remains the least qualified man to serve as president in my lifetime. Good riddance, I say...
As for Bobby Jindal I would say he's a smarter and more articulate version of Sarah Palin...just cookie cutter right wing ideas with a heavy religious overlay. Wait until people really get to know him better and what he's all about.
All we need is a creationist for a governor. What's next? Flat Earth? Sorry..,just my old liberal refusal to accept "another point of view".
Your'e in the same sinking boat as ewe and you say you live in NO but don't know of William Jefferson? Hmmmmm......
I know your comment was directed to someone else but I know all about William Jefferson..and his shenanigans have nothing to do with the abysmal response to the Katrina tragedy by George W. Bush. And, as you are aware, Jefferson has been voted out of office.
I was hpoing readers would understand that the italics of WJ were to illiustrate the corruption in Louisiana that diverted funds, for decades, earmarked for re-construction and maintenance of the levees. Had the levees been properly maintained, much of the devastation may have been averted and had Nagin and Blanco done their jobs, many more lives would have been spared. The response by FEMA and the Bush administration was abysmal but if the aformentioned criteria had been met, the disaster would have been minimized but still a disaster.
Who exactly in Louisiana do you contend had the power to divert federal levee protection funds from their designated project? The federal levee system is a multi-state system overseen by the Corps of Engineers. Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco had nothing to do with it - it's much bigger than them. We couldn't have a federal levee system if state politicians could divert funds away from it toward their own pet projects - the whole thing would collapse from the weight of interstate rivalry for the funds. The Corps controls the funds once they are allocated, and not enough funds were allocated. It's not a corruption story, it's a federal level incompetence and neglect story.
It's called oversight. If money was allocated by the federal government for the levees, I, as governor, would be on the seen to ensure it was taking place. As mayor, I should have enough sense to see the work being done and if it wasn't done, according to you, where was the outrage from both of these public servants?
seen?---scene.
No, it's called life in a politically unimportant state. The point is that not enough money was allocated. You said in a previous post that funds from the feds were "William Jeffersoned", or diverted by corrupt Louisiana politicians. That isn't true. I know Hannity and some others said it was the case, but they were just wrong. The money was never diverted because it never arrived.
And there was outrage. There was begging and there was state-wide condemnation of Bush's reversal of his stated position on levee prctections and slashing of the Corps' budget for the projects that Corps scientists insisted were absolutely essential. But the outrage wasn't noticed outside the area until New Orleans drowned.
I saw your meaning in the post about "William Jefferson". Others may have seen it as a swipe at William Jefferson Clinton, but I did not. Of course we know all about our honored (Ha!) William Jefferson. What is this swipe at me being "in the same sinking boat"? This is my HOME, you dumb-bell. Your comment just drips with the usual conservative lack of understanding, let alone empathy. I think you brought the wrong date to this party.
You brought Bill Clinton into the conversation, just like ewe, but you used a hypothetical anecdote. Mr. Clinton may well have done what you stated, maybe not. But Bill Clinton has nothing to do with this thread---that was the "sinking boat" I was referring to.
Dumb-bell? Come on.
You are awfully sensitive for someone who wrote "You can shed a tear for Saddam Hussein, mefirst, because I'm certain that's where your sentiments lay."
I'd say your getting off lightly with dumb-bell and doofus.
how bout it, siggy? you going to own up to painting me as defending saddam hussein, something i have never done, but something you were "certain" of?
Never said you defended him.
Honest, knowledgeable and forthright conservatives such as yourself are the reason the movement is enjoying the success that it is today. Keep up the good work!
then what would i be shedding a tear over?
Funds for levee strengthening were not "William Jeffersoned", they were "George Bushed" - the funds were slashed by Bush after he promised the help that Mary Landrieu and those who went before her had begged for for decades. Landrieu conducted tours for other Senators every chance she got - she constantly campaigned for Cat 5 protection but her pleas and those of John Breaux and Bennett Johnston before her were ignored because levee protection wasn't a good political issue for Senators from the other areas of the country. Bill Jefferson had absolutely nothing to do with that particular debacle - although I'm sure he would have rerouted funds his way if could have. And Kathleen Blanco may be an idiot, but that story about her just sitting around dithering for 5 days is BS. Bush and Rove demanded control of the National Guard in exchange for help - something that nobody asked of Haley Barbour, former head of the RNC. The fact is that Mississippi and Louisiana were treated completely differently for political reasons. Bobby Jindal may be alot of things, some good, some bad - but he is not Louisiana's only hope.
Good one, Pyrrhonist! Ever get the feeling you are talking to a pile of bricks? Just as thick and hard-hearted as well as completely uninformed. As a native of Louisiana, I have always been aware of the foolishness of our so-called leadership, but never so much as the Katrina debacle. Absolutely NOTHING was done right. But that's when you expect the highest authority in the land would take charge and be a leader. Wrong. What did "he" do? "Quick, find me a little black girl to hug!" There is NO WAY this weasel can weasel out of this.
The old Louisiana-brought-it-on-herself myth just makes me crazy. After watching the federal government ignore the looming levee problems for years, and then living through the result with neighbors who lost so much and then worked so hard to rebuild despite FEMA foibles and the bad practices of the insurance companies, it is hard to stomach the stereotype of the lazy, stupid, corrupt populace that supposedly dominates south Louisiana. The truth is so different, and so heart-breaking, as you know of course.
Shrub has feelings for his class,but even they are feeling a little put out at their finacial losses these days.
The ONLY sensitivity "w" has ever shown is to rich people (his base, remember?) and oil companies and other assorted cronies. The guy is empathy impaired.
And I can't beleive there are great eejits here who could possibly argue otherwise. Oh, I guess only those as stupid and incompetent as "w", that's who.
Btw, What's the plural of doofus? Doofuses or Doofi? :-)
Even better, juliajayne, what's the female version of "doofus"? Doofix?
Even better, juliajayne, what's the female version of "doofus"? Doofix?
I dunno, Donald. But I think we should start a rating system based on how stupid some of the above posters are by assigning a "doofus" value.
So on a scale of one to five, how many doofuses, doofi or doofix would you give one of those posters above? :-0) Say sigtek for example....?
It's 9:55 A.M. where I'm at, julia---shouldn't you be on the short bus to 6th grade right now?
When I go into chat rooms like this, I always learn things I didn't know before. But when I read comments like those from juliajayne, I picture someone unwilling to express her beliefs to anyone other than those she agrees with. I'ts a lazy and unrewarding lifestyle. The arrogance of a "rating system" for those with whom you disagree but would you accept the same from someone who disagrees with you? Flag my comments, contact MMFA and tell them you don't want any conservatives posting on these threads so that you can post without being uncomfortable.
When I go into chat rooms like this, I always learn things I didn't know before
Well, I'll give you 2 doofuses or doofi for that little soliloquy. It was very dramatic. :-0) How 'bout this? Just learn more before you come here next time and nobody will treat you with disrespect . And the strawman of trying to silence you is an oldy and moldy ploy we've heard here a thousand times. Perhaps you can come up with more original material.
In all fairness, when you come to this site and repeat political myths and urban legends which were debunked three years ago, you do open yourself up to some ribbing.
Ribbing I can handle. Overt rudeness and name calling I won't. "dufuss"? Childish at best. To date, I've yet to call anyone names and I would expect the same in return. I was accused of resurrecting Bill Clinton on this thread 3 or 4 times and I had not. And right along with the accusation came a series of poignant names, none of which have been refuted. Have your lively discussion w/out anyone challenging you. It's like playing chess with a chimp, your'e always gonna win. I'm certain I've left myself wide open with that remark.
Dude or dudette, you will need a sense of humor to post here as we are often irreverant, so don't take yourself so seriously
And know that we don't suffer fools with fallacious arguments that we've heard thousands of times before.
Other than that, carry on my doofus brother or sister....:-0) And once you get better arguments, you'll be welcomed.
I have a tremendous sense of humor, julia---guess I'm just learning the ropes.
Atta girl, Julia! Don't you just LOVE it when they get so mad at ya? I just read some of the replies to your post. Remember when David Letterman (good old Dave) had Bill O'Reilly as a guest? Bill was just being himself, trying to attack Letterman for his ideas about Iraq, etc. "Where do you get these crazy things from, Dave? How can you sit there and criticize what we are doing in Iraq?" Dave just calmly, but forcefully said, "Well...I have THOUGHTS." Big difference, don't you think?
He will go down in history as the worst president in the History of this country. To find anyone demonstrably less effective or more destructive, you'd have to go far enough back, to names that few of us even remember - Filmore, Pierce, Bucannan. (Yes, admitedly the Civil War was probably worse than what we're facing at the moment.) But the lawlessness of this administration and the contempt they've shown for the Constitution makes Watergate look like a "page 6" level story. (And how can they even still be talking about the meaningless and totally irrelevant Clinton "scandals"?)
Any tears shed by that arrogant bastard are well earned and well deserved. To say that he has empathy assumes he has a conscience.
To say that he has empathy assumes he has a conscience.
Nicely and succinctly put, Eddie.
Who is talking about Clinton?
Every right wing commentator with a microphone. If you seriously don't know this, try turning on Hannity & colmes or listening to Rush L. or Hannity. any day of the week.
And Sigtek, don't be so sensitive. Only one poster implied that you were bringing up Clinton, and I think it was a joke on your bizarre, unsupported theory.
The "You just don't want to hear a different opinion" victim cry, as has been mentioned, is old, and it was weak when it was new. It's the life raft for the quitter who's unable to defend his argument.
I listen to both sides on a daily basis, Col. O'Reilly in the A.M. while I drive and Olbermann in the evening. Ok, I won't be so sensitive. I rarely claim victim status but the ewemeister teed me off---accused me of something I didn't do and went on with the tirade---wasn't a joke but I can play.
ewemeister?
Do you have access to Air America, Nova M, or The Jones network? Keith speaks some progressive, but is by no means the whole story.
Quite a bit of it remains accessible only on the "netroots." I'd recomend, crooks and liars, firedoglake, rawstory and some others for where the liberal/progressive voice speaks clearly.
Thanks. I'll check it out. I've got the conservative side down-pat but the liberals baffle me sometimes(and I'm sure they say the same about me). My wife lived in Germany for 15 years so I hear meister alot.
S'ok like the lady said, few thin skins arround here. I did have to restrain myself from making a joke out of it. Being from Montana where we have special feelings for our sheep.
Ya don't have to be from Montana to have those feelings. I'm from Nevada.