Presidential epithets

[fumetti]

Regarding the email in today's column about Steven calling Bush the "Hand Puppet":

"It comes off as petty and despite one's political opinions, the office or the ideal of the office can and should at least be respected enough to refer to that person as the President."

Yes, I distinctly remember Republicans refering to Clinton only as "President Clinton." I never once heard "Slick Willy" or worse.

And of course, the right-wingers all rallied behind Clinton when he sent soldiers into Kosovo to end ethnic cleansing and when he bombed Al Qaida. Yes, all the country singers stood up to write patriotic songs, and FoxNews condemned any critic as being anti-American. I never once heard "Wag The Dog," because that would be disrespectful to the office.

Bullshit.

Again, I express my disdain for the ridiculous hypocrisy of the political right.

[Steven Grant]

I am reminded of the immortal Elvis Costello couplet:

"Though you say I'm unkind
I'm being as nice as I can"

Seems to be my inadvertent motto, actually...

[bartl]

Again, I express my disdain for the ridiculous hypocrisy of the political right.
Oh, one can find ridiculous hypocrisy everywhere.

[bartl]

I am reminded of the immortal Elvis Costello couplet:

"Though you say I'm unkind
I'm being as nice as I can"

Seems to be my inadvertent motto, actually...
By the way, although our politics differ, I find myself largely in agreement with your letter to Michael Moore. ROGER & ME, TV NATION and THE AWFUL TRUTH did some good, and told people things they didn't already know. To my observations, BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE and F-911 only served to convince people on both sides that they were right all along.

[Inkthinker]

Hell, I agree with Steven's politics, and agree on Moore. The man would do himself and his films a favor if he'd just stay behind the camera. He makes it far too easy for people to criticise him, and not his film or its CONTENT, which should be the ONLY focus of a documentary.

I get that he's a driven, active, forthright go-getter, a dedicated hound who sets his teeth and shakes until something breaks. I also get that he's got a deep-seated need to make sure everyone else knows that. I suspect that I also understand all too well the sort of upbringing of rejection and humiliation that instills that need into some of us, but I think his work suffers from it.

[jhauge]

Yes, I distinctly remember Republicans refering to Clinton only as "President Clinton." I never once heard "Slick Willy" or worse.

And of course, the right-wingers all rallied behind Clinton when he sent soldiers into Kosovo to end ethnic cleansing and when he bombed Al Qaida.




Are you saying it's OK to start a war for humanitarian reasons?

I think most right wingers supported bombing Al Qaeda, they just questioned the timing as it was a bit aggresive from his normal stance of threats and retreats. The other question was how come no further attempts were made to dismantle Al Qaeda if they were so bad.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005237.php
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

From the washington post:

Foreign leaders and diplomats may be urging restraint on the Clinton administration in the showdown with Iraq, but a growing chorus at home is calling for stronger measures than the air attacks currently being planned, with the objective of bringing down President Saddam Hussein.

Prominent members of the foreign policy establishment and some leading members of Congress say they are convinced that air attacks aimed at coercing the Iraqis into cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors would not succeed, and would result in too narrow a victory even if they did.

Instead, they argue, the United States should go beyond the objective of curtailing Iraqi weapons programs and adopt a far-reaching strategy aimed at replacing the Baghdad regime. Although they are far from consensus on what that strategy should be, a few openly advocate the possible use of U.S. ground forces, a much greater commitment than the options being pursued by the administration.

Many supporters of a more forceful strategy are conservative Republicans and longtime defense hard-liners, such as Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and former Pentagon official Richard L. Armitage. But they also include former representative Stephen J. Solarz (N.Y.), a liberal Democrat who with former Pentagon official Richard Perle is circulating a letter in Congress and foreign policy circles seeking bipartisan support for a more ambitious policy.

In addition to a crushing bombing campaign or the possibility of ground troops, some advocates of tougher measures are suggesting seeking Iraq's expulsion from the United Nations, indicting Saddam Hussein as a war criminal, or blockading the port of Basra to halt illicit oil exports — an action that would infuriate Iran, which shares the Shatt al Arab waterway with Iraq.

Such moves, if made unilaterally, would almost certainly draw the ire of most of the United States's U.N. partners and frame the crisis even more starkly as a conflict between Washington and Baghdad. But public opinion polls may indicate support for such a route. A Los Angeles Times poll published on Monday showed that by 68 percent to 24 percent, Americans favor airstrikes provided they are designed to remove Saddam Hussein from power, not just force him to accept the commands of the U.N. Security Council.1

[badMike]

Are you saying it's OK to start a war for humanitarian reasons?That's not what he said at all. He was commenting on the fact that many/most "right wingers" who say now that it's "unpatriotic" to not support "The" President actually mean it's just "unpatriotic" not to support THEIR guy. Any bullshit many/most right wingers now say about showing "respect" the office of the POTUS is just that: Bullshit.

Thanks for sharing your agenda with us.

Jeez, you cut one loose on this board and another takes his place. I think Hydra is really running the conservative movement these days...

[dancj]

Regarding the email in today's column about Steven calling Bush the "Hand Puppet":

"It comes off as petty and despite one's political opinions, the office or the ideal of the office can and should at least be respected enough to refer to that person as the President."

Yes, I distinctly remember Republicans refering to Clinton only as "President Clinton." I never once heard "Slick Willy" or worse.

And of course, the right-wingers all rallied behind Clinton when he sent soldiers into Kosovo to end ethnic cleansing and when he bombed Al Qaida. Yes, all the country singers stood up to write patriotic songs, and FoxNews condemned any critic as being anti-American. I never once heard "Wag The Dog," because that would be disrespectful to the office.

Bullshit.

Again, I express my disdain for the ridiculous hypocrisy of the political right.

There's no hypocracy there - unless the person who wrote the letter is themself guilty of calling Clinton names. They don't have to answer for anyone else's behaviour.

Personally I can't see any reason why anyone should show any respect to Bush, but that's beside the point

[Adam Crocker]

When I first read that letter I hypocrisy never came to my mind, though I did think, "man, how many times has PD been through this particular point?"

[fumetti]

I am reminded of the immortal Elvis Costello couplet:

"Though you say I'm unkind
I'm being as nice as I can"

Seems to be my inadvertent motto, actually...

Much nicer than me. I'm still convinced he's evil. Anyone who gets a chuckle from carrying out the death penalty has no human soul.

Are you saying it's OK to start a war for humanitarian reasons?

I don't think I was anywhere near the same time zone as saying that. Specific policy doesn't enter into it.

That's not what he said at all. He was commenting on the fact that many/most "right wingers" who say now that it's "unpatriotic" to not support "The" President actually mean it's just "unpatriotic" not to support THEIR guy.

Exactly the point.

If "supporting the president" is expected regardless of how one feels about policy, then that cuts both ways. Same with Presidential epithets.

[fumetti]

To my observations, BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE and F-911 only served to convince people on both sides that they were right all along.

I'll give you Bowling For Columbine, but how did Fahrenheit 9/11 convince Bush supporters that they were right to take Bush's side about the terrorist attacks and the Iraq invasion (especially now that every rationale has been debunked)?

Are Americans truly so spiteful that the truth has no effect anymore? (I'm talking big picture, not niggling details.)

[bartl]

Much nicer than me. I'm still convinced he's evil. Anyone who gets a chuckle from carrying out the death penalty has no human soul.
I'm not familiar with that reference. Do you have a cite handy (or any additional information that might help me find one)?

On the other hand, I seem to recall a first season Saturday Night Live sketch about various ways to execute Gary Gilmore (it was a medley of Christmas song parodies), and a lot of people laughed.

[bartl]

I'll give you Bowling For Columbine, but how did Fahrenheit 9/11 convince Bush supporters that they were right to take Bush's side about the terrorist attacks and the Iraq invasion (especially now that every rationale has been debunked)?

Are Americans truly so spiteful that the truth has no effect anymore? (I'm talking big picture, not niggling details.)
But that's the point; Fahrenheit 9/11 contained a large number of half-truths and fabrications among the facts, to the point that a competing movie, FahrenHype 9/11 was made. Here's an article on the subject by left-wing columnist Christopher Hitchens:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

[Bob Violence]

I'm not familiar with that reference. Do you have a cite handy (or any additional information that might help me find one)?

On the other hand, I seem to recall a first season Saturday Night Live sketch about various ways to execute Gary Gilmore (it was a medley of Christmas song parodies), and a lot of people laughed.
When he was Governor of Texas and running for president, he mocked Karla Faye Tucker, who was on death row. I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone at SNL, not even Lorne Michaels, had the power to execute someone.
link (http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Photo+Gallery/568.aspx)

[Paul McEnery]

But that's the point; Fahrenheit 9/11 contained a large number of half-truths and fabrications among the facts, to the point that a competing movie, FahrenHype 9/11 was made. Here's an article on the subject by left-wing columnist Christopher Hitchens:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
Only someone intending to deceive (or five years out of date) would call Hitchens a left-winger anymore.

Go to Democracy Now and watch the debate between him and Galloway to see the ugly truth.

[Michael P]

Only someone intending to deceive (or five years out of date) would call Hitchens a left-winger anymore.

Go to Democracy Now and watch the debate between him and Galloway to see the ugly truth.
I almost got in to see that the other night.

[fumetti]

I'm not familiar with that reference. Do you have a cite handy (or any additional information that might help me find one)?

On the other hand, I seem to recall a first season Saturday Night Live sketch about various ways to execute Gary Gilmore (it was a medley of Christmas song parodies), and a lot of people laughed.

As another poster already pointed out, Tucker Carlson is the source for the chuckle. Tucker asked Bush if she was there to speak to him what would she say, and he responded glibly--hands raised defensively--"oh, no, please don't kill me." Or something very close to that.

As for SNL or anyone else not connected to policy making or enforcing, they can and will joke at their discretion regardless of taste.

But Bush asked the people of Texas for the authority to make that grave decision on their behalf, so the least he could do is take it seriously.

We're talking about a man who executed a defendant whose counsel literally slept during the trial. "Err on the side of life..." yeah, right. The guy should at least have gotten a retrial.

[fumetti]

But that's the point; Fahrenheit 9/11 contained a large number of half-truths and fabrications among the facts, to the point that a competing movie, FahrenHype 9/11 was made.

I did my own research about Iraq and the war prior to F-911's release (30 pages for an undergrad history research course). My own findings were echoed in Moore's movie, and even more critical in many areas. Sure, he spiced it up in his own way, but everything significant about his criticisms were true--at least more truthful than anything Bush has told us.

What some people call a "half-truth" is often a case of not couching your words so that the subject doesn't complain. In the worst case scenario, Moore's movie was a 2-hour tit-for-tat in response to the constant 24/7/365 right-wing media machine. I don't find anything reasonable in saying that two hours of limited-access commentary against Bush is somehow unfair in comparison to 525,600 minutes (for just one year of FoxNews, not including right-wing radio) of commentary pumped into millions of homes for almost free (included in the cable bill) that has distorted, "half-truthed" and "fabricated" in favor of Bush.

Fahrenhype 9/11, or an equivalent, would have been made anyway. (The Swiftboat ads got made, didn't they?)

[bartl]

When he was Governor of Texas and running for president, he mocked Karla Faye Tucker, who was on death row. I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone at SNL, not even Lorne Michaels, had the power to execute someone.
link (http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Photo+Gallery/568.aspx)
Thanks for the link. Let me point out that neither does the Governor of Texas. Gov. Ann Richards found that out (using inductive logic), when, in spite of her best efforts, Texas executed a man for a murder even though another man confessed (for those who are confused, the point is that the governor of Texas does not even have the power to STOP executions).

The line that Bush supposedly gave was remniscent of some Saturday Night Live sketches. I wonder if Tucker Carlson has the alleged quote on tape.

[bartl]

I almost got in to see that the other night.
It's going to be repeated tonight at 9:00 on C-SPAN2; I intend to watch it.

And, while Hitchens has broken away from the "party line" on Iraq, on most other issues he remains left-wing.

[bartl]

I did my own research about Iraq and the war prior to F-911's release (30 pages for an undergrad history research course). My own findings were that Bush was entirely right, and Moore is a lying idiot.

Well, as long as you approve of such tactics...

[Inkthinker]

Gov. Ann Richards found that out (using inductive logic), when, in spite of her best efforts, Texas executed a man for a murder even though another man confessed (for those who are confused, the point is that the governor of Texas does not even have the power to STOP executions).

He doesn't? What happened to the whole "phone call from the governor?"

In all seriousness, I thought the state governor always had the power to at least delay executions.

[bartl]

He doesn't? What happened to the whole "phone call from the governor?"

In all seriousness, I thought the state governor always had the power to at least delay executions.
Depends on the state.

By the way, I did some more research on the Tucker Carlson interview; apparently, a statement was released by George Bush's communications director that the quote is false.

[badMike]

apparently, a statement was released by George Bush's communications director that the quote is false.Who was that at the time? Karen Hughes? And what do you think Bush's side would say about it? And why would Tucker Carlson lie?

[bartl]

Who was that at the time? Karen Hughes? And what do you think Bush's side would say about it? And why would Tucker Carlson lie?
Looking it up again (by the way, in my search, I found that the governor of Texas can only stay an execution by 30 days). Yes, it was Karen Hughes. I had looked up Tucker Carlson's biography on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Carlson) and saw it there.

To save on multiple posts, I did see the Hitchens/Galloway debate on CSPAN2 last night. A few notable things:

1) Galloway did categorically deny being involved in the oil-for-food scandal.

2) Hitchens brought up something that had not occurred to me before, but was obvious in hindsight: If the insurrectionists had popular support, they would just vote themselves into power rather than disrupting the elections.

3) Hitchens criticized Galloway for heaping praise and support on the killers of Casey Sheehan, then going to Cindy Sheehan and expressing condolences.

[Steven Grant]

2) Hitchens brought up something that had not occurred to me before, but was obvious in hindsight: If the insurrectionists had popular support, they would just vote themselves into power rather than disrupting the elections.

Yeah, that worked out real well for Nicaragua...

[Drew Van T.]

2) Hitchens brought up something that had not occurred to me before, but was obvious in hindsight: If the insurrectionists had popular support, they would just vote themselves into power rather than disrupting the elections.

The Sunni insurrectionists do enjoy popular support among Sunnis. But with Sunnis as a whole being less numerous than Shi'as, so many Sunnis fear that the ballot box will end up locking them out of power. This makes it impossible for anyone to "vote themselves into power" (real power, that is, and the votes of a tiny minority are not real power) in that part of the country.

More importantly - and in all parts of the country whether Sunni, Shi'a or Kurd - it is mainly the Islamist terrorists disrupting the elections and not the insurrectionists, so Hitchens' proposition is flawed by failing to make that distinction.

[bartl]

More importantly - and in all parts of the country whether Sunni, Shi'a or Kurd - it is mainly the Islamist terrorists disrupting the elections and not the insurrectionists, so Hitchens' proposition is flawed by failing to make that distinction.
Actually, Hitchens did say that a large portion of them were being exported from Syria and Iran, but Galloway denied it. Since I don't have the figures at my fingertips, I avoided the issue.

[Chris Thomas]

yes-the texas governor can only issue a 30 day stay--once per prisoner. but he does appoint the parole and pardon board that can change the sentence from anything to a 120 day stay to a full pardon. he appoints everyone on that board.

and the quote was in talk magazine. although hughes may state that it was not true--I haven't seen any clear formal rebuttal or legal action

[fumetti]

Well, as long as you approve of such tactics...

Um, what are you talking about? And I guess your misquoting of me is supposed to make some kind of point.

Which dodges the point of my post. I don't care if Moore used creative editing to make Bush look like a fool. The truth I found in Moore's movie was deeper than the imagery and quotes he presented. He didn't need to play games to make his point (which is my criticism of the movie: that he didn't need to play the showman, the bare evidence was damning enough).

1) Bush was lackadaisical regarding terrorism pre-9/11.
2) Bush flip-flopped on the importance of "getting" Osama Bin Laden.
3) Bush exploited the "war on terror" to start a war of aggression against an uninvolved nation.
4) Bush lied about the threat of Iraq (particularly WMDs).
5) Bush has a very direct financial ties to middle east oil, and an equally direct financial interest in looting Iraq's oil industry.

All these things are true. Just as it's true that military recruiters target the poorer neighborhoods.

Sure, Moore's presentation was over the top. I won't bother defending that. But it's pretty darn suspicious that these tactics were not so vehemously attacked when he used them against the evil corporations. I never heard much grumbling about how unfairly he treated CEOs.

I found it curious that the people who complained most about F-9/11 are also regular FoxNews watchers. If they hate Moore's showmanship so much, why do they so loyally support a whole network that surpasses anything he's ever done? (They're also the people who fell for the Swift Boat Vets lie campaign.)

All of Moore's film career combined still doesn't equal one regular week of FoxNews. So, no, I won't really care what right-wingers say about Moore's movies so long as they keep watching FoxNews.

[fumetti]

Depends on the state.

By the way, I did some more research on the Tucker Carlson interview; apparently, a statement was released by George Bush's communications director that the quote is false.

And we all know how honest and forthright these guys have been. Not a chance he could be covering Georgie's butt.

I saw the footage of Bush giving the camera "the finger" prior to a TV appearance (back when he was governor, I believe). So Bush has proven himself to be pretty juvenile. Being callow about the death penalty is well within his exhibited character.

[badMike]

I saw the footage of Bush giving the camera "the finger" prior to a TV appearance (back when he was governor, I believe).There's also that great footage of him cleaning his glasses on a woman's shirt (unbeknownst to her) during a commercial break of a talk show (I think Letterman).

[SoulOnIce]

There's also that great footage of him cleaning his glasses on a woman's shirt (unbeknownst to her) during a commercial break of a talk show (I think Letterman).

Letterman has showed this clip on his show a number of times.

The utter sense of entitlement is staggering.

[fumetti]

There's also that great footage of him cleaning his glasses on a woman's shirt (unbeknownst to her) during a commercial break of a talk show (I think Letterman).

Y'know, if Georgie was a working class kid playing pranks to see what he could get away with, this stuff might come off as funny. (Because most of us living a "real life" in America know how hard it is to get away with anything.)

But Georgie is a grown man who's never had to answer for a single mistake in his life. When your life is so well lubricated, a touch of humility (if only held/expressed in public) is in order.

But no, Georgie's gotta rub his untouchability in everybody's face.

(Just another reason why I say he has no human soul.)