PDA

View Full Version : Tony Snow on Bush


Taco John
04-26-2006, 12:12 AM
<blockquote><p>– Bush has “<strong>lost control of the federal budget</strong> and cannot resist the temptation to stop raiding the public fisc.” [<a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/tonysnow/2006/03/17/190225.html">3/17/06</a>]</p>
<p>– “George W. Bush and his colleagues have become <strong>not merely the custodians of the largest government in the history of humankind, but also exponents of its vigorous expansion</strong>.” [<a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/tonysnow/2006/03/17/190225.html">3/17/06</a>]</p>
<p>– “President Bush distilled the essence of his presidency in this year’s State of the Union Address: brilliant foreign policy and <strong>listless domestic policy</strong>.” [<a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/tonysnow/2006/03/17/190225.html">2/3/06</a>]</p>
<p>– “<strong>George Bush has become something of an embarrassment</strong>.” [<a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2005/11/11/175174.html">11/11/05</a>]</p>
<p>– Bush “has a habit of <strong>singing from the Political Correctness hymnal</strong>.” [<a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2005/10/07/159692.html">10/7/05</a>]</p>
<p>– “<strong>No president has looked this impotent this long</strong> when it comes to defending presidential powers and prerogatives.” [<a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2005/09/30/158842.html">9/30/05</a>]</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>– Bush “<strong>has given the impression that [he] is more eager to please than lead</strong>, and that political opponents can get their way if they simply dig in their heels and behave like petulant trust-fund brats, demanding money and favor — now!” [<a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2005/09/30/158842.html">9/30/05</a>]</p>
<p>– “<strong>When it comes to federal spending, George W. Bush is the boy who can’t say no.</strong> In each of his three years at the helm, the president has warned Congress to restrain its spending appetites, but so far nobody has pushed away from the table mainly because <strong>the president doesn’t seem to mean what he says.</strong>” [The Detroit News, <a href="http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47839&Disp=53&Trace=on#C53">12/28/03</a>]</p>
<p>– “The president <strong>doesn’t seem to give a rip about spending restraint</strong>.” [The Detroit News, <a href="http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47839&Disp=53&Trace=on#C53">12/28/03</a>]</p>
<p>– “Bush, for all his personal appeal, <strong>ultimately bolstered his detractors’ claims that he didn’t have the drive and work ethic to succeed</strong>.” [<a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2000/11/16/167623.html">11/16/00</a>]</p>
<p>– “<strong>Little in the character of demeanor of Al Gore or George Bush makes us say to ourselves: Now, this man is truly special!</strong> Little in our present peace and prosperity impels us to say: Give us a great man!” [<a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2000/08/25/160026.html">8/25/00</a>]</p>
<p>– “George W. Bush, meanwhile, talks of a pillowy America, full of niceness and goodwill. Bush has inherited his mother’s attractive feistiness, but he also got his father’s syntax. At one point last week, he stunned a friendly audience by barking out absurd and inappropriate words, like <strong>a soul tortured with Tourette’s</strong>.” [<a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2000/08/25/160026.html">8/25/00</a>]</p>
<p>– “He recently tried to dazzle reporters by discussing the vagaries of Congressional Budget Office economic forecasts, but his recitation of numbers proved so bewildering that not even his aides could produce a comprehensible translation. <strong>The English Language has become a minefield for the man, whose malaprops make him the political heir not of Ronald Reagan, but Norm Crosby</strong>.” [<a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2000/08/25/160026.html">8/25/00</a>]</p>
<p>– “<strong>On the policy side, he has become a classical dime-store Democrat.</strong> He gladly will shovel money into programs that enjoy undeserved prestige, such as Head Start. He seems to consider it mean-spirited to shut down programs that rip-off taxpayers and mislead supposed beneficiaries.” [<a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2000/08/25/160026.html">8/25/00</a>]</p></blockquote>



http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/25/snow-on-bush/

Ugly Duck
04-26-2006, 12:20 AM
?? This is Bush's new press secretary? How the heck is that going to work out? I don't get it....

patteeu
04-26-2006, 06:23 AM
?? This is Bush's new press secretary? How the heck is that going to work out? I don't get it....

Tony Snow's position on the President is about the same as mine and you guys think I'm a relentless apologist. Maybe that will help you understand.

Adept Havelock
04-26-2006, 06:50 AM
Serving as the new press secretary must be the neocon version of self-flagellation for Tony.

BTW- patteuu, we've covered this before:

Don't like the definition of a word? Take it up with those that write the dictionaries. :shrug:

a·pol·o·gist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pl-jst)
n.
A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


apologist

n : a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; "an apologist for capital punishment" [syn: vindicator, justifier]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

.

Chiefs Express
04-26-2006, 06:58 AM
:rolleyes:

Opinions....only opinions.

patteeu
04-26-2006, 07:11 AM
Serving as the new press secretary must be the neocon version of self-flagellation for Tony.

BTW- patteuu, we've covered this before:

Don't like the definition of a word? Take it up with those that write the dictionaries. :shrug:

a·pol·o·gist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pl-jst)
n.
A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


apologist

n : a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; "an apologist for capital punishment" [syn: vindicator, justifier]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University



.

Please help me understand why you are offering this dictionary definition? :shrug:

In the meantime, let me offer one for your review:

re·lent·less Audio pronunciation of "relentless" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-lntls)
adj.

1. Unyielding in severity or strictness; unrelenting: relentless persecution.
2. Steady and persistent; unremitting: the relentless beat of the drums.

re·lentless·ly adv.
re·lentless·ness n.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

patteeu
04-26-2006, 07:18 AM
:rolleyes:

Opinions....only opinions.

No, they are partial, out-of-context opinions.

If this was all you knew about Tony Snow, it would make you scratch your head and wonder why the WH would pick him to be it's spokesman. But if you actually read the sources, you will get a different perspective since most of these criticisms are fairly narrow and are often offset by counterbalancing praise. And if you go further and review the entire body of Tony Snow's output, you would find that he is as much a supporter of this administration as I am. Like me, he has bones to pick with them, but also like me, he thinks the good outweighs the bad and that the democrat alternative would be much worse.

KC Jones
04-26-2006, 07:22 AM
Tony Snow's position on the President is about the same as mine and you guys think I'm a relentless apologist. Maybe that will help you understand.

:hmmm:

I see you more like this:

http://www.mccgd.org/images/content/devote-mast.jpg+http://graphipedia.squares.net/image/Weapon/Spear/Partisan.jpg


:D

patteeu
04-26-2006, 07:24 AM
:hmmm:

I see you more like this:

http://www.mccgd.org/images/content/devote-mast.jpg+http://graphipedia.squares.net/image/Weapon/Spear/Partisan.jpg


:D

I wish I knew what that meant because I bet it's humorous. :)

KC Jones
04-26-2006, 07:26 AM
I wish I knew what that meant because I bet it's humorous. :)

look at the names of the images...

I'm just kidding by the way.

patteeu
04-26-2006, 07:49 AM
look at the names of the images...

I'm just kidding by the way.

ROFL OK, thanks.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-26-2006, 11:30 PM
No, they are partial, out-of-context opinions.

. Like me, he has bones to pick with them, but also like me, he thinks the good outweighs the bad and that the democrat alternative would be much worse.


I'm trying to think of one time where you actually criticized something that Bush and Cheneyburton did...I'm sure you can dig up a quote, so please do so, because one does not come to mind.

jAZ
04-27-2006, 12:17 AM
I find it interesting that the primary news coverage of this hiring was about Snow's criticism of Bush and NOT that Snow is a conservative ideologue working at Fox News going to work for the Bush PR wing.

It's almost as if the WH was pushing these quotes in order to establish some "street cred".

patteeu
04-27-2006, 12:54 AM
I find it interesting that the primary news coverage of this hiring was about Snow's criticism of Bush and NOT that Snow is a conservative ideologue working at Fox News going to work for the Bush PR wing.

It's almost as if the WH was pushing these quotes in order to establish some "street cred".

That's a pretty good theory. Of course, I have no idea if it's true, but it's interesting.. Kudos to them if they are that clever.

jAZ
04-27-2006, 01:01 AM
That's a pretty good theory. Of course, I have no idea if it's true, but it's interesting.. Kudos to them if they are that clever.
I also have no idea if it's true, but it's not outside their pattern of behavior.

patteeu
04-27-2006, 01:11 AM
I'm trying to think of one time where you actually criticized something that Bush and Cheneyburton did...I'm sure you can dig up a quote, so please do so, because one does not come to mind.

Sure. Here you go.

I accused him of pandering just 2 days ago. I didn't say so explicitly, but I'm not a fan of pandering.

This is pandering to an irrational public. Probably politically necessary, and it will probably do no harm, but it's pandering nontheless. I don't think Bush believes the oil company's are doing anything illegal.

I've been critical of spending under Bush and have pointed to some of his primary domestic "accomplishments" as examples of Bush initiatives I've disagreed with on several occasions. The most recent example was a week or two ago:

I must have been unclear. Far from hanging my hat on NCLB and Prescription Drugs, I'm saying that with "accomplishments" like those, a little legislative ineffectiveness will be a welcome change.

I've even been critical of some of the President's positions in the GWoT (which on balance is the area where he earns my support). Here is something from early this year where I listed a bunch of my positions. All four of these put me at odds with the President:

I was pro-death in the Terri Schiavo affair

I don't think the government should be able to detain US citizens taken unarmed on US soil as enemy combatants (ala Jose Padilla). I think US citizens deserve access to legal representation and a day in court. They should be charged with a crime if held (or at least stripped of their citizenship in an adversarial procedure before being held without charge).

I'm pro gay marriage (although I suppose this isn't really all that libertarian).

In general, I think the government should have to get a judicial warrant before searching someone's home. I think the Patriot Act goes too far and I'm against making it permanent in any case.

I think the reason you don't notice when I'm in disagreement with the President is because I refuse to call him a chimp-in-chief or dumbya or bushitler or any of the other hate names he's branded with on a daily basis. I disagree with him a lot, but I find enough to like (especially his prosecution of the international portion of the GWoT) and believe the alternative would be far worse so at the end of the day I'm a supporter.

Have you ever said anything nice about him?

patteeu
04-27-2006, 01:12 AM
I also have no idea if it's true, but it's not outside their pattern of behavior.

You mean a pattern of crafty but honest manipulation of a hostile media?

jAZ
04-27-2006, 02:36 AM
You mean a pattern of crafty but honest manipulation of a hostile media?
If you consider deliberate deception through obfuscation and distortion "honest", then I understand why you are so pro-Bush and don't see anything wrong with their pre-war promotion.

I'm sure you were cool with Clinton too, knowing he didn't lie underoath because he was honest as he pointed out that it "depends upon what the definition of is, is".

patteeu
04-27-2006, 07:02 AM
If you consider deliberate deception through obfuscation and distortion "honest", then I understand why you are so pro-Bush and don't see anything wrong with their pre-war promotion.

I'm sure you were cool with Clinton too, knowing he didn't lie underoath because he was honest as he pointed out that it "depends upon what the definition of is, is".

Why do you have to bring Clinton into this? :p

There isn't anything comparable between Clinton lying under oath to prevent a US citizen from having their day in court and an administration trying to shape the coverage of a political appointment. If your standard for "honesty" is really so high (and I know it isn't because you pimp Josh Marshall), you can't possibly support ANY politician, EVER.

jAZ
04-27-2006, 10:23 AM
Why do you have to bring Clinton into this? :p

There isn't anything comparable between Clinton lying under oath to prevent a US citizen from having their day in court and an administration trying to shape the coverage of a political appointment. If your standard for "honesty" is really so high (and I know it isn't because you pimp Josh Marshall), you can't possibly support ANY politician, EVER.
I'm not arrogant enough to claim that if I support someone, and they commit a similar act of deception (in this case here we are presuming they are manipulating media coverage by planting factual, but deceptive quotes) that they are being "honest". It's not honest. But I agree, this case here that we are discussing is very much the standard protocol for being a national politician anymore.

Now lying us into war, deliberately cherry picking intel to create a false picture of the need/urgency for preemptive war, that's a whole 'nother level of rotten and dishonest.

As for Clinton, technically speaking there is no set of facts that have proved Clinton (without question) *lied* under oath. But I'm not arrogant enough to parse the facts and try to pretend that Clinton didn't lie under oath... we all know, that technically speaking or not, he was very obviously trying to deceive investigators. I'll call that lying.

If the Republicans were to apply that same literally flexible standard of "lying" to GWB, he would have been impeached prior to the 2004 election.

Cochise
04-27-2006, 10:40 AM
I like Tony Snow and have long respected him. He was always good on Fox News Sunday, and in his guest spots on other programs and sitting in for O'Reilly, though I have not heard his radio show.

He's a solid conservative, but he's critical of party bosses when he doesn't like what they do.

patteeu
04-27-2006, 11:13 AM
I'm not arrogant enough to claim that if I support someone, and they commit a similar act of deception (in this case here we are presuming they are manipulating media coverage by planting factual, but deceptive quotes) that they are being "honest". It's not honest. But I agree, this case here that we are discussing is very much the standard protocol for being a national politician anymore.

Now lying us into war, deliberately cherry picking intel to create a false picture of the need/urgency for preemptive war, that's a whole 'nother level of rotten and dishonest.

It's not like these Snow quotes can't be investigated and put into context. Taco and ThinkProgress were kind enough to provide links to each source. Tony Snow's columns are readily available on the internet. What you are saying implicates the leftwing media (ThinkProgress, not Taco) even more than it does Bush since we KNOW they disseminated this biased information and we are only speculating that Bush's people might have done so. Josh Marshall (and other members of the partisan media) do this kind of thing all the time. You and I do it here at ChiefsPlanet. I think what is going on here is that you have some kind of utopian dream where everyone would give both sides of every story instead of the reality where the best thing we can hope for is an adversarial process where each side spins and rebuts and by taking both sides into account, a reasonably intelligent person can figure out approximately where truth is.

As for Clinton, technically speaking there is no set of facts that have proved Clinton (without question) *lied* under oath. But I'm not arrogant enough to parse the facts and try to pretend that Clinton didn't lie under oath... we all know, that technically speaking or not, he was very obviously trying to deceive investigators. I'll call that lying.

If the Republicans were to apply that same literally flexible standard of "lying" to GWB, he would have been impeached prior to the 2004 election.

LOL, right. And Karl Rove is going to be executed. :rolleyes: :p

Clinton broke the law for personal gain. Bush didn't break the law and acted in what he believed was the nation's interests after being elected as the top guy who's supposed to protect those interests. These two situations aren't even comparable.

Chief Henry
04-27-2006, 11:16 AM
I like Tony Snow and have long respected him. He was always good on Fox News Sunday, and in his guest spots on other programs and sitting in for O'Reilly, though I have not heard his radio show.

He's a solid conservative, but he's critical of party bosses when he doesn't like what they do.


BINGO.....one rep heading your way.

Chief Henry
04-27-2006, 11:17 AM
Clinton broke the law for personal gain. Bush didn't break the law and acted in what he believed was the nation's interests after being elected as the top guy who's supposed to protect those interests. These two situations aren't even comparable.



REP

jAZ
04-27-2006, 11:47 AM
It's not like these Snow quotes can't be investigated and put into context. Taco and ThinkProgress were kind enough to provide links to each source. Tony Snow's columns are readily available on the internet. What you are saying implicates the leftwing media (ThinkProgress, not Taco) even more than it does Bush since we KNOW they disseminated this biased information and we are only speculating that Bush's people might have done so. Josh Marshall (and other members of the partisan media) do this kind of thing all the time. You and I do it here at ChiefsPlanet. I think what is going on here is that you have some kind of utopian dream where everyone would give both sides of every story instead of the reality where the best thing we can hope for is an adversarial process where each side spins and rebuts and by taking both sides into account, a reasonably intelligent person can figure out approximately where truth is.
I think you are missing my point here on the Tony Snow thing. I'm simply saying that I won't call deception "honest" even if the deception involves (as I pointed out and I think you must have missed) factual quotes. I'm not even remotely trying to suggest that Snow, the media or the WH (if they are involved here, which isn't known) is lying in about the quotes. I take them as fact. But I don't dare refer to spin as "honest" as you seem to do. That's my point regarding Snow.

My more abstract point involves your approach to the issue of honesty in general. With GWB, you (and others, you aren't alone) seem to have a criminal based standard (ie, it's not lying unless you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt... otherwise it's honest). You seem to be unable or unwilling to recognize that one can be fairly judged as being dishonest and/or a liar by applying the more widely adopted civil standard (more likely than not).

The example of Clinton comes into play in that under the civil standard (the standard that the media, the public, Republicans and myself have used to "convict" him of lying under oath) Clinton is indeed "guilty" of lying under oath. But under the higher criminal standard (Note: Please don't confuse applying the higher criminal standard of judgement with actually being tried or convicted criminally), Clinton is not guilty of lying under oath.

When it comes to judging Bush's actions, his supporters (almost always the same people as the Clinton-lied-under-oath people) refuse to apply anything but the highest criminal standard ("beyond a reasonable doubt", and often the even higher "beyond *any* doubt" standard) when judging him on his actions that led directly to 2500 preventable deaths. While continuing to judge Clinton using the lowest possible standard ("more likely than not").

IMO, judging both men using the "more likely than not" standard is the more appropriate of the standards. Clinton lied under oath, Bush lied us into war. The difference here is that we were permitted a critical investigation into Clinton's actions... and Bush's defenders refuse to even acknowledge that there's a compelling need to investigate further until Bush's critics can prove "beyond *any* doubt", that Bush committed a literal crime. Only at that point is investigation even warranted.

I find that to be the very distrubing.

jAZ
04-27-2006, 12:03 PM
Clinton broke the law for personal gain. Bush didn't break the law and acted in what he believed was the nation's interests after being elected as the top guy who's supposed to protect those interests. These two situations aren't even comparable.
There is an underlying assumption here that you are making. One that isn't based in fact, but opinion.

You are assuming that Clinton's motives were purely personal and Bush's were purely altruistic (best for the country). It's very possible that Clinton felt that the entire fisaco surrounding his personal behavior (and the political and policy fall out) might prevent his administration from persuing their chosen policies and efforts, including protecting the country. In fact, the case is pretty easy to make that the "no war for monica" crowd was trying to destroy Clinton politically as he was trying to kill bin Laden.

The same case can be made that Bush was acting out of complete personal interest, hoping to one-up his father and define himself for history, and that his personal ego was his driver for decision making on Iraq policy... which led to his rejection of contrary evidence and his willfully cherry picking evidence that let him have his singularly defining moment with history.

Point is, you flipantly assume Clinton=bad, Bush=good, as if it's fact. It's not even remotely fact.

patteeu
04-27-2006, 02:05 PM
I think you are missing my point here on the Tony Snow thing. I'm simply saying that I won't call deception "honest" even if the deception involves (as I pointed out and I think you must have missed) factual quotes. I'm not even remotely trying to suggest that Snow, the media or the WH (if they are involved here, which isn't known) is lying in about the quotes. I take them as fact. But I don't dare refer to spin as "honest" as you seem to do. That's my point regarding Snow.

The problem is that there is no such thing as a "no spin zone." To you, it is dishonest spin to distribute specific quotes from Tony Snow that, taken alone, might give the uninformed reader a false impression of what Tony Snow is all about (nevermind that you only seem to identify this form of dishonesty when it comes or might be coming from the Bush administration). But it is honest evidence of a different proposition. It is honest evidence that Tony Snow isn't in lock step with this administration and has criticized the President from time to time.

I don't think I'm missing your point at all. I know you aren't saying these things were lies, but what you are doing is seeking a utopian ideal that no one in this world (not even you, I'm sure) really agrees with. Do you do any advertising for your businesses? Have you ever gone on a date with a woman who didn't know everything about you? Anytime you are emphasizing something you want your audience to know while leaving what you don't want them to know unsaid, you are doing what you claim to be against.

My more abstract point involves your approach to the issue of honesty in general. With GWB, you (and others, you aren't alone) seem to have a criminal based standard (ie, it's not lying unless you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt... otherwise it's honest). You seem to be unable or unwilling to recognize that one can be fairly judged as being dishonest and/or a liar by applying the more widely adopted civil standard (more likely than not).

The example of Clinton comes into play in that under the civil standard (the standard that the media, the public, Republicans and myself have used to "convict" him of lying under oath) Clinton is indeed "guilty" of lying under oath. But under the higher criminal standard (Note: Please don't confuse applying the higher criminal standard of judgement with actually being tried or convicted criminally), Clinton is not guilty of lying under oath.

When it comes to judging Bush's actions, his supporters (almost always the same people as the Clinton-lied-under-oath people) refuse to apply anything but the highest criminal standard ("beyond a reasonable doubt", and often the even higher "beyond *any* doubt" standard) when judging him on his actions that led directly to 2500 preventable deaths. While continuing to judge Clinton using the lowest possible standard ("more likely than not").

IMO, judging both men using the "more likely than not" standard is the more appropriate of the standards. Clinton lied under oath, Bush lied us into war. The difference here is that we were permitted a critical investigation into Clinton's actions... and Bush's defenders refuse to even acknowledge that there's a compelling need to investigate further until Bush's critics can prove "beyond *any* doubt", that Bush committed a literal crime. Only at that point is investigation even warranted.

I find that to be the very distrubing.

You're wrong. I'm still waiting for evidence that Bush lied "more likely than not" on any major justification for going to war. I'm not going to say that I don't think Bush has lied in the same ways that all other politicians lie or that he hasn't misstated something along the way. For example, he might have said he was going to veto some bill when he knew he wouldn't. Or he might have said he had total confidence in Harriet Miers when he was starting to doubt. Or that he spoke with unqualified confidence about some aspect of the Iraqi WMD issue when he knew that there might be dissenting opinions somewhere in the intelligence food chain. But on the typical things that people accuse him of lying about wrt getting us into war, I'm still waiting.

patteeu
04-27-2006, 02:12 PM
There is an underlying assumption here that you are making. One that isn't based in fact, but opinion.

You are assuming that Clinton's motives were purely personal and Bush's were purely altruistic (best for the country). It's very possible that Clinton felt that the entire fisaco surrounding his personal behavior (and the political and policy fall out) might prevent his administration from persuing their chosen policies and efforts, including protecting the country. In fact, the case is pretty easy to make that the "no war for monica" crowd was trying to destroy Clinton politically as he was trying to kill bin Laden.

The same case can be made that Bush was acting out of complete personal interest, hoping to one-up his father and define himself for history, and that his personal ego was his driver for decision making on Iraq policy... which led to his rejection of contrary evidence and his willfully cherry picking evidence that let him have his singularly defining moment with history.

Point is, you flipantly assume Clinton=bad, Bush=good, as if it's fact. It's not even remotely fact.


There is some truth to what you say, but people elected Bush to make national security judgements within the constraints of the law and the Constitution. Nobody elected Bill Clinton to stand in the way of justice, defy the law, and deny a citizen her day in court.

It's possible that Bush is acting out of self-interest even if he knows it's not in the country's best interest, but the results and his resolve in the face of falling poll numbers argue against that. The "more likely than not" test leads us in the opposite direction, IMO.

It's not possible for President Clinton's illegal actions to be justified on the basis of working toward the greater good of some national interest. The President is bound to uphold the Constitution and it's not even arguable that cheating someone out of their day in court is consistent with that duty.

picasso
04-28-2006, 05:12 PM
There is some truth to what you say, but people elected Bush to make national security judgements within the constraints of the law and the Constitution. Nobody elected Bill Clinton to stand in the way of justice, defy the law, and deny a citizen her day in court.

It's possible that Bush is acting out of self-interest even if he knows it's not in the country's best interest, but the results and his resolve in the face of falling poll numbers argue against that. The "more likely than not" test leads us in the opposite direction, IMO.

It's not possible for President Clinton's illegal actions to be justified on the basis of working toward the greater good of some national interest. The President is bound to uphold the Constitution and it's not even arguable that cheating someone out of their day in court is consistent with that duty.

Realisitic comparison:
A blow job, a bimbo, a lie and an attempted dodge from embarrassment.

or

The death of thousands of people, the spread of worldwide hatred, the threat of nuclear war, benefits of soaring oil prices, McCarthyism of society, abuse of prisoners of war, rights and freedoms of women abolished, the political gain and demise of many administration members, the raping of national forest land, the acceptance of illegal immigrate infiltration, the control of our ports to foreigners, the neglect of our childrens education by selection, and most of all conducting the control of our country with the element of fear. All to make his daddy proud.

What is the greater good you speak of?
I think the only thing that Clinton can take ownership of is making your teenage daughter think that giving a blowjob isn't sex and lying to you about it. But then she did before according to 50% of teenagers poled then and 75% today.

GOCHIEFS!!

patteeu
04-28-2006, 05:26 PM
Realisitic comparison:
A blow job, a bimbo, a lie and an attempted dodge from embarrassment.

or

The death of thousands of people, the spread of worldwide hatred, the threat of nuclear war, benefits of soaring oil prices, McCarthyism of society, abuse of prisoners of war, rights and freedoms of women abolished, the political gain and demise of many administration members, the raping of national forest land, the acceptance of illegal immigrate infiltration, the control of our ports to foreigners, the neglect of our childrens education by selection, and most of all conducting the control of our country with the element of fear. All to make his daddy proud.

What is the greater good you speak of?
I think the only thing that Clinton can take ownership of is making your teenage daughter think that giving a blowjob isn't sex and lying to you about it. But then she did before according to 50% of teenagers poled then and 75% today.

GOCHIEFS!!


Yea, that's a realistic comparison. :rolleyes:

But you forgot the "Bush makes old people eat dogfood, poisons our air and water, Reichstags the WTC towers, and eats black babies" aspersions. I'm afraid you only get a B+ for stupid. Stick around though and 'Hamas' will tutor you.

Baby Lee
04-28-2006, 05:34 PM
Realisitic comparison:
A blow job, a bimbo, a lie and an attempted dodge from embarrassment.

or

The death of thousands of people, the spread of worldwide hatred, the threat of nuclear war, benefits of soaring oil prices, McCarthyism of society, abuse of prisoners of war, rights and freedoms of women abolished, the political gain and demise of many administration members, the raping of national forest land, the acceptance of illegal immigrate infiltration, the control of our ports to foreigners, the neglect of our childrens education by selection, and most of all conducting the control of our country with the element of fear. All to make his daddy proud.

What is the greater good you speak of?
I think the only thing that Clinton can take ownership of is making your teenage daughter think that giving a blowjob isn't sex and lying to you about it. But then she did before according to 50% of teenagers poled then and 75% today.

GOCHIEFS!!
You know, if you want to encapsulate the 8 years of Clinton that shorthand, and attribute all those 'ills' solely to Bush, that is absolutely fine with me.
The encapsulation of Clinton just might take, and the encapsulation of Bush will cause all but the most passionately jAZ-ercised of eyes to roll.
Just might be the best thing to happen to Bush in a while.

Frankie
04-28-2006, 11:49 PM
Tony Snow on BushBarbara would pay good money for the negatives.
:hmmm:

Frankie
04-28-2006, 11:53 PM
Realisitic comparison:
A blow job, a bimbo, a lie and an attempted dodge from embarrassment.

or

The death of thousands of people, the spread of worldwide hatred, the threat of nuclear war, benefits of soaring oil prices, McCarthyism of society, abuse of prisoners of war, rights and freedoms of women abolished, the political gain and demise of many administration members, the raping of national forest land, the acceptance of illegal immigrate infiltration, the control of our ports to foreigners, the neglect of our childrens education by selection, and most of all conducting the control of our country with the element of fear. All to make his daddy proud.

What is the greater good you speak of?
I think the only thing that Clinton can take ownership of is making your teenage daughter think that giving a blowjob isn't sex and lying to you about it. But then she did before according to 50% of teenagers poled then and 75% today.

GOCHIEFS!!
:clap: Rep.

Ugly Duck
04-28-2006, 11:58 PM
Realisitic comparison:
A blow job, a bimbo, a lie and an attempted dodge from embarrassment.

or

The death of thousands of people, the spread of worldwide hatred, the threat of nuclear war, benefits of soaring oil prices, McCarthyism of society, abuse of prisoners of war, rights and freedoms of women abolished, the political gain and demise of many administration members, the raping of national forest land, the acceptance of illegal immigrate infiltration, the control of our ports to foreigners, the neglect of our childrens education by selection, and most of all conducting the control of our country with the element of fear. All to make his daddy proud.

What is the greater good you speak of?
I think the only thing that Clinton can take ownership of is making your teenage daughter think that giving a blowjob isn't sex and lying to you about it. But then she did before according to 50% of teenagers poled then and 75% today.

GOCHIEFS!!I'll become homosexual if you'll marry me (and if you'll change your team to Oakland).

Frankie
04-29-2006, 12:11 AM
I'll become homosexual if you'll marry me (and if you'll change your team to Oakland).
ROFL ROFL ROFL

banyon
04-29-2006, 10:49 AM
I'll become homosexual if you'll marry me (and if you'll change your team to Oakland).


Isn't the former a prerequisite for the latter parenthetical? :p

patteeu
04-29-2006, 10:54 AM
I'll become homosexual if you'll marry me (and if you'll change your team to Oakland).

What's this "become" part? :p

patteeu
04-29-2006, 10:55 AM
Isn't the former a prerequisite for the latter parenthetical? :p

Yours was better than mine. :thumb:

Frankie
05-03-2006, 12:15 AM
Tony Snow on BushThis thread is worthless without pictures.