Resignation, Leadership, Explanation, Incomplete, Fishing
March 25th, 2007 2:51am
I agree, it really calls him on his shit.
"THE PRESIDENT: Earlier today, my staff met with congressional leaders about the resignations of U.S. attorneys"
Resignations? Are you fucking kidding me?
How come? If Gore created the Internet, those judges definitely resigned!
Whoa. My head is spinning.
March 25th, 2007 10:09am
Is he same strategy they used on the war on terror, WMD, dictatorship, freeing irak people...
I seriously doubt that it would work this time. But that won't stop em from trying
March 25th, 2007 1:04pm
>Bush is to public discourse as Three Card Monte is to card game.
>[george bush] doesn't care what he's saying, and afterward he doesn't consider himself bound by what he's said.
>The implications are unpleasant. Someone who doesn't care that he's lying to you, and doesn't care that you know it, doesn't respect you, and doesn't consider you part of his social or political universe. Look at how many reasons Bush has tendered for cutting taxes for the rich, or going to war with Iraq. The only connection between those statements and his actions is that he believed that saying those things would get him what he wants.
and a comment by TNH later down:
>To be precise, what I said was not that Bush's statements can be assumed to be lies. I said that his statements can't be assumed to have any meaning at all, beyond the momentary effect he wants to produce. I know Brad gets that distinction.
>Sometimes you can divine meaning from multiple statements. For instance, Bush said that the strong economy he inherited was a good reason to cut taxes. Later, when the economy slumped, he said that that was a good reason to cut taxes. He's come up with quite a number of other reasons for cutting taxes. What we can divine from this is that (1.) he intended all along to cut taxes; (2.) his desire to cut taxes is independent of the state of the U.S. economy; and (3.) the reasons he gives the general public for his tax cuts are meaningless.
>The same goes for his multiple justifications for the war in Iraq. In that case, what we can divine is that he intended all along to go to war with Iraq, and that the reasons he gave us for doing so were essentially meaningless.
>Sorry about that. It's how language works. This is like the story about the fellow whose defense is that the other guy's fall from a high window was an accident, not murder; furthermore, the guy wasn't pushed, he jumped; furthermore, he was somewhere else that day; and finally, he was only acting in self-defense. Any one of them might be true, but there's no way they can all be true.
>In truth, the only reliable index of Bush's intentions are his actions. That wouldn't be a problem if he were running a private business, but he isn't. He's supposed to tell us what he's up to. Objecting when he fails to do so doesn't make us whiny subservients who can't understand a paternalistic management style. It makes us citizens.
>[Another poster] has it right. An analysis of Bush's speeches that mention 9/11 and Saddam Hussein would demonstrate that those speeches were artfully constructed to convey the idea that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, while avoiding any short, explicit, quotable statements to that effect. Trouble is, for most people that analysis would make very boring reading.
>Bush now claims he never said Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Is he telling the truth? Of course not. This isn't a game. You don't accidentally generate a series of speeches that all just happen to give the impression that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, all the while avoiding short, explicit statements to that effect. What that means is that you meant all along to give that impression, but you knew you were lying when you said it.
March 26th, 2007 1:07pm