I have a lot of sympathy for Attorney General Eric Holder, who is caught between his two masters, the President and the Law. That’s true of all Attorney Generals, but in this case its particularly intriguing because the President has made it very clear that his preference is that allegations of misuse of power by the Bush Administration should *not* be investigated, and that we need to move forward. Holder is assuredly not a lefty scalp-hunter, though he will certainly be painted as such if he follows his conscience and decides to move forward given the troubling weight of the evidence, especially recent revelations that Cheney did not disclose the existence of the CIA’s clandestine, targeted assassination program to Congress’ “gang of Eight” as legally required. The overall picture that emerges from this, from Cheney’s assertions of executive privilege and being a “fourth branch” of government, and the entire issue of torture, is of a “shadow government” operating in the West Wing during President Bush’s tenure, completely immune to oversight or checks and balances by either Congress or the Judiciary. Whether any actual crime was committed and let me go on record as believing that the technical letter of the law was probably never violated, though the spirit was violated with equal certainty – only an investigation can reveal. The problem is that such an investigation will motivate Republicans to declare all-out war and obstructionist fervor, thus derailing the domestic agenda that President Obama has envisioned. So, what’s the right thing to do? Without an investigation, the astonishing power-grab by Vice President Cheney will remain unchallenged, even if ultimately legal, meaning that future Veeps may well see fit to emulate it. Its a hard choice and I do not envy Holder the task of making it. I am content to leave it to his discretion.
I do think that we need a constitutional amendment of some sort however to rein in the Office of the Vice President so that no one can use or abuse the office as Cheney did again.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 40 comments }
Let me make a prediction here for you Aziz.
If Eric Holder pusues his purely partisan desire to go after Bush administration officials for alleged torturing, it will set off the most damaging era of political warfare that we have seen since Watergate, perhaps even worse. The result will almost certainly be a marginalization of Obama’s already damaged Presidency and will almost certainly end up with the CIA in open battle against the White House.
You can assert what you like, but there is no compelling LEGAL reason for Holder to indulge his partisan desires. Not only is it likely that there were no LAWS broken, but it is also likely that as more and more of the truth is revealed, mainstream America will be presented with a view of an administration determined to protect them from vicious animals, who had to fight people like Obama and Eric Holder to do so. Public opinion will turn in favor of Dick Cheney. Furthermore I don’t leave it to you and people who share your ideology to decide what the “spirit” of the law is, and when it may have been violated.
All of your frothing at the mouth about the “abuse” of the role of Vice President is simply that, frothing at the mouth. Show me a constitutional provision that Cheney violated in his role. The fact that Cheney had such an active role in the adminstration is nothing more than a demonstration that Dick Cheney was a powerful and effective leader working for a President who was not afraid that he was going to be marginalized by his VP.
The larger part of me hopes that Eric Holder can reign in his attempt to criminalize policy differences because I believe the damage will be Watergate level damage to this country’s political process. A smaller part of me says “bring it on, you ideological idiot, let’s have this battle and see who wins THIS time.”
you have no cred if you think Holder is a blind partisan. the rest of your argument is nonsense since it is based on that premise.
Gee, it was so much easier when the AG had to choose between Bush’s Desires and the Law, because then All Right Thinking People knew that it just made him evil if he considered the President’s wishes.
Aziz:
Eric Holder first became prominent in the national scene when he actively lobbied Bill Clinton to acquire politically convenient pardons for convicted financier Marc Rich and the FALN terrorists in order to advance Hillary’s electability in New York.
If you believe this man is some sort of pure idealist, YOU are the one who is spouting nonsense, not me.
Oh, and I don’t think he’s blind. I just think he sees what he wants to see. I think he is in full blown Bush Derangement like many of his peers.
As I said, I am making predictions here, how credible I am will largely be determined by how accurate they turn out to be.
Marc Rich is a topic in the Newsweek profile I link to in my post. I suggest you read it and give the man a fair shake, before deciding you know everything about him.
Your ability to diagnose BDS would be more credible if you also were able to diagnose its Obama equivalent.
If Obama doesn’t like something Holder does, he can fire him and appoint another AG. In other words, if Holder does something, he does it with the consent of the president.
All Attorneys General work at the pleasure of the President. If they don’t like what they’re being told to do, they are expected to either do it anyway or resign.
My own gut says that what the current Attorney General wants to do is posture as if he wants to go after Dick Cheney, but not actually do anything, in order to appease at least some of the President’s base.
Call me a doubter that any law was violated, Constitutional or otherwise, in spirit or otherwise. Indeed, my strong suspicion is that Holder already knows this is almost certainly true, as does the President.
It does, on the other hand, indeed raise interesting questions about the Vice Presidency: what DOES happen when a President chooses to delegate significant authority to the Vice President? These are not particularly easy questions to answer. Vice President is a very odd office. A strong case could be made that it’s simply unwise for a President to delegate much to a Vice President precisely becuase it invokes questions like this. It would also tend to mean that if a President is impeached, his Vice President is in danger of same, which raises the odds of coups–real ones–being engineered by the Congress.
And yes, questions do arise: who has oversight of the Vice President besides the President? And yet, is the Vice President immune to scrutiny of anyone but the President–essentially making it potentially an office where Presidents can do anything they want so long as they have a compliant Vice President?
By the way, a little known fact is that there was what can only be called a coup attempt by Congresswoman Bella Abzug and a few of her friends in the Congress in the 1970s. Specifically, Spiro Agnew, the Vice President, had resigned, and it became increasingly obvious that the President, Nixon, was facing impeachment. Abzug and a few others tried to stop Nixon from being allowed to nominate a new Vice President; had they succeeded, the Speaker of the House would have become President the day that Nixon resigned.
Fortunately, the Speaker at the time (who was a Democrat and thus a member of the party in opposition) was a man of principle and would have nothing to do with it. It didn’t hurt that Nixon had nominated the unobjectionable Congressman Gerald Ford. But had the Speaker been less a man of principle, he could have taken the Presidency for himself and his party.
Massive bonus points for anyone who can name that Speaker, by the way.
Texas, I’ve made that point many times.
Aziz, “Newsweek profile”. Am I supposed to consider Newsweek a credible source for ANYTHING? Seriously?
OK, on this latest accusation that I suffer from ODS, let’s look at that.
What have I accused Obama of doing?
I have accused him of lying about signing statements, transparency, taxes on those making under $250,000 a year, numerous national security issues. The only argument you can make that Obama was not LYING when he promised those things is that he is the most naive and ill-prepared President in our nation’s history. I give him more credit than that. I think he lied.
I have accused him of sacrificing our nation’s economic prosperity to chase moonbat ideological environmental fantasies such as the insane idea that we can replace coal and natural gas as our nation’s primary energy suppliers. His Cap and Trade scheme is nothing but a punitive tax on coal and other fossil-fuel power plants and will have the effect of doubling electricy bills with all the economic impact that implies.
I have accused him of going on a worldwide apology tour where he has been repeatedly outthought and outmaneuvered by our enemies.
I have accused him of treating our longest and most valuable allies shabbily.
I have accused him of siding with despots and tyrants over citizens who look to the US for help in attaining and maintaining freedom.
I think every one of those accusations is supportable, factual and DEMONSTRABLE.
Bush deranged moonbats accused Bush of lying to get us into a war, when their OWN LEADERS said the same things Bush did. They accuse Bush of going to war to avenge his father for Saddam’s execution order. They accuse Cheney of supporting war to enrich his Halliburton buddies. They accuse Bush and Cheney of sadistically imposing torture on prisoners. They routinely compare Bush and Cheney to Hitler or to Darth Vader. They openly wish for Bush or Cheney to die horribly.
Frankly Aziz, I am deeply offended you cannot recognize the difference between my rather tame attacks on Obama and these deranged Leftist fantasies the BSD crowd has about Bush.
“apology tour” is pure ODS. he hasnt apologized for anything. I have posted transcripts of all his major speeches and I defy you to find apologies in any of them.
“lying” is pure ODS. At worst hes had to face the reality that giverning is not the same as being a candidate, the same as all president elects do, even Bush.
“sacrificing our economic prosperity for moonbat fantasies” is pure ODS. You can disagree with eth economic theory behind teh stimulus, but elections have consequences, and Obama is just like Bush in that he intends to do what he thinks is right to fix things, not pursue nebulous ideological aims at teh expense of the common good. He may be wrong but he acts in good faith, not the bizarre conspiracy you accuse him of.
“treating our allies shabbily” – pure ODS. are you still on about some DVDs? What concrete and significant evidence do you have about this? which allies? what did he do that was so terrible and unconcionable? What are teh consequences? Did we nuke London or revoke MFN status for Germany or something when I wasnt looking? We certainly havent been renaming our french fries under Obama’s watch.
“siding with despots” – pure ODS. did you read the Cairo speech? the Africa speech? show me where in there he “sides” with any dictator. Define dictator, in fact – is Mubarak a dictator? did Obama hold hands with King Abdullah? what about Putin, did Obama look into his eyes and declare his man-love?
in summary, ODS can be detected easily by amazing mind-reading power insight into Obama’s motivations, which one concludes are venial, duplicitous, and fundamentally in bad faith rather than give him the honest beneft of the doubt that here is a man with disagreements on political issues and strategy, but who still intends to do teh right thing. He is just The Enemy, and thats ODS in a nutshell.
and I am sorry you are offended, but “The Left” is not me and their BDS is not relevant, so Im not sympathetic to your “tu quoque” rationalizations. But everything you have spouted thus far is really no dofferent from the BDS I’ve observed all the time on the left as well: Bushitler and Obamessiah, yin and yang.
Dean, thats the dilemma. Obama has said everytime he has discouraged investigations into the bush Admin that the ultimate decision is the Atty General’s, so Holder has some cover if he feels the need. Ultimately I think Obama wont interfere, he just wanted to bias the decision but isnt going to try and manipulate the process.
Here’s the problem with your “ODS” analysis, Aziz. These aren’t “disagreements”. These are 180 turns on clear, plain statements.
He stated unequivocally, “if you make less than $250,000 a year, then your taxes will not go up. They will in fact go down.” Then, he raised taxes on tobacco, wants to place taxes on sugar water, supports cap and tax, and is even backing off on not raising income taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year.
He put “Sunlight before signing” in the ethics section of his Blueprint for Change. Since then, he hasn’t waited five days on 80%+ of the bills he’s signed. That’s a promise that literally requires nothing of him (all he has to do is nothing) but he won’t keep it. Presumably he thinks — or thought, at least — that this is a moral issue, or it wouldn’t have been in the ethics section.
He held out shutting down Gitmo as a deep moral issue. He then got into office and decided that Gitmo is A-OK as long as he is running it. He held out warrantless wiretaps as immoral and wrong. Now he wants more of them.
On a few things, I could buy your incompetence argument. (Calling it “recognizing the realities” is simply a nicer way of saying “too incompetent to realize them before he got into office.”) But at some point — especially on issues like sunlight, transparency and the WoT that he held out as moral issues of right and wrong — there’s a tipping point where the evidence stops pointing at naivety or incompetence and towards cravenness and ill motives.
“siding with despots” – pure ODS. did you read the Cairo speech? the Africa speech?
Uh, have you followed any of his statements about Honduras? Even if you don’t think that Zelaya was a dictator, Obama was still siding with Chavez and Castro, who are undeniably dictators.
in summary, ODS can be detected easily by amazing mind-reading power insight into Obama’s motivations, which one concludes are venial, duplicitous, and fundamentally in bad faith rather than give him the honest beneft of the doubt that here is a man with disagreements on political issues and strategy, but who still intends to do teh right thing. He is just The Enemy, and thats ODS in a nutshell.
And Obama Fanboi Apologism is easy to detect as well. It’s indicated by dismissal of any criticism of Obama as either a distraction, misunderstanding, or ultimately, an unconscionable attack on Obama’s patriotism.
Aziz:
If you can’t find apologies in Obama’s speeches, you simply aren’t looking for them. I had listed several examples from his speeches, including the unconscionable inclusion of a quote from John Adams which had been EXTORTED from him by Barbary Pirates, but there’s no point. If you don’t see the apology in them when hearing them, you will dispute them when I point them out.
You can assert that my calling Obama’s lies by their true name is ODS, but I notice you don’t actually REFUTE any of my examples. You just call me ODS. You can believe that Obama was so incredibly ignorant and naive that he did not realize that he would have to raise taxes on more than those making over $250,000 per year, but all you are doing is calling him not only stupid, but deaf as well since, among others, Joe the Plumber got right in his face during the campaign and said “YOU CAN’T DO THAT OBAMA!” I hardly think that defending his lies by saying he’s a literal imbecile is helping your argument. The same holds true for his promise to leave Iraq, his promise of transparency, the WHOLE FRIGGIN LITANY of lies. You can call me ODS all you like Aziz, the man is a liar, he’s not nearly STUPID enough to believe all that crap when he said it. Just as he is now trying to say that he never promised any results from the bailout when he MADE FRIGGIN GRAPHS showing results. Defend this liar all you like, I think I’ve made my case very well.
We’ll see how much of a moonbat fantasy my comment about sacrificing our economic prosperity is when we hit 11% unemployment and your electric bill doubles Aziz.
I WISH the extent of Obama’s snubbing of our allies was restricted to his debacle with the DVDs. Why don’t you go read some British press on the subject of how shabbily they’ve been treated? And Israel? I mean come on Aziz. You can’t be that blind.
You call me ODS for saying Obama sides with despots as Obama is LITERALLY siding with Castro, Ortega and Chavez on the Honduran issue. How is it ODS to report an actual fact Aziz?
I stand by my analysis and my predictions. We’ll see how well they pan out compared to the predictions made by BDS moonbats.
Aziz wrote, ““lying” is pure ODS. At worst hes had to face the reality that giverning is not the same as being a candidate, the same as all president elects do, even Bush.”
So, in other words, it’s CHANGE you can believe in, right?
At worst, the President didn’t “face reality.” At worst, he either made promises he knew he could not keep, or he made promises without knowing if he could keep them at all.
That his statements today are different from those of January or on the campaign trail is not necessarily lying. We used to call it “waffling.”
Curiously, ODS and BDS seem to have similar definitions of lying. The President said one thing and another happened. ‘Course that implies Congresses actions, the courts action, individuals states action, the actions of private citizens, the actions of foreign leaders, and others at is the responsibility of the President.
Lets be honest (cause the pols won’t), if a politician is talking about spending or taxing he is not telling the whole, unvarnished truth. So, if you like the guy, he is being realistic or a good salesman, if you don’t like the guy he is a lying weasel. The biases of the observer rule.
Same thing happens regarding foreign relations, court cases, etc.
Frankly, most of these conversations are getting to be less interesting that Yankees/Red Sox or Laekrs/Celtics fans getting into flame wars on Espn’s message boards.
I’m starting to enjoy watching him troll you people.
Not that he does it with that specific intention, of course. I don’t think he’s either smart or observant or just plain considerate enough to realize that he’s doing it.
But the effect is the same, so it’s still trolling.
Anyone comparing this alleged ODS with BDS – knock that shit off right now.
Here are symptoms of BDS – Bush took us to war to enrich his oil buddies and was part of a conspiracy that at least aided, and at worst planned the 9/11 attacks. Bush knew full well there were no WMD in Iraq and started a war there for money and because Saddam was mean to his dad.
That’s BDS. ODS is apparently symptomatic of candidate Obama claiming to be a centrist and making a litany of promises, and then not keeping, well, any of them.
Those two things are not even REMOTELY similar. All Aziz does by inventing ODS is to attempt to make all the BS the lunatic left shrieked about with Bush seem okee dokee. Those of us with a brain, remember what real BDS looked like and will not forget.
Agreed, Acksiom, Aziz IS a troll. Why he is a front page contributor here is a complete mystery.
Its not trolling. Trolling is one of those goofy Internet terms that have popped up to make us feel better about our World View.
Actual blog trolls could (would) easily be sniffed out on this site. I think that explains Micheal Demmons.
Sorry, Mike.
I pretty much limit my blog visits to Deans World, that is, if I am in a serious mood or looking for informed opinion.
Aziz brings a perception that is important. To me, anyway. I-next-to-never think he is correct. But, in a world, where Perception sits its Fat Ass on top of Reason, no opinions should be ignored.
ODS—-BDS. Red—Blue.
Only in baseball is it acceptable to bury your most sincere devotion into Truth. I can’t believe the NL blew the All-Star game AGAIN.
Ok Rodger, whatever you say. If you cannot see the difference between the two, well, sad for you.
Trolling is supposed to be someone who intentionally and egregiously says things he knows is going to anger people for the sole reason of eliciting angry responses and hurt feelings.
Although a lot of us do this once in a while, I’ve never seen Aziz as being this way on anything like a regular basis. I consider him one of our best front page contributors, thank you very much, and I’m often amazed at how much personal abuse he’s willing to take just for taking stands that are unpopular here.
The fundamental core problem with the whole theme:
“allegations of misuse of power by the Bush Administration”
Latest information, in case anyone is listening to the MSM, is that the “secrets” were discussions of scenerios never authorized for action. It is not legally, ethically, or morally a misuse of power to discuss “secret” things and not report the discussion to Congress, nor is it wise. The “secret things” were secret until disclosed to Congress, when they somehow suddenly became public knowledge. Suppose we have a contingency plan somewhere to, I don’t know, invade Venezuela; can you imagine the problems disclosure would generate?
“allegations of misuse of power by the Bush Administration” is a pretty strong (but not conclusive) indicator of BDS.
“allegations of misuse of power by the Bush Administration” is a pretty strong (but not conclusive) indicator of BDS.
because the Bush Administration was infallible?
I dont much care what people think, but for teh record I have praised Bush on many an occassion, and critiqued Obama on many as well. BDS/ODS sufferes cant abide ANY critique of their chosen one.
as far as trolling, if your definition of trolling is “expose you to ideas you disagree with” then the entire internet must be a scary place. Fortunately for you there are really high-quality echo chambers – heres one, heres another, both of which I’ve posted many diaries at, have been a user since teh beginning, and been variously insulted and praised. Of course those of you here who insist on categorizing those sites in particular (mostly teh first one, given the dominant bent) are usually talking out your ass since you know noting of them aside from what teh other site says about it.
my ohilosophy is to jmp in and get dirty with people i disagree. its moderated and heavily shaped my opinions over time. I am either a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative depending on where I am posting – always ouut of teh mainstream, and always accused of being a troll. Its a badge of honor, even if its false, to be accused such. So I thank you. Im not your mommy, so its not my job to tipotoe around your comfort zone fluffing your pillows.
And FWIW I dont think CC suffers from ODS. I do think he comes close, but i draw the line between his simple partisan stubborness and true ODS. CC, i only invoke ODS to show you how weak your arguments are – because of the pattern. You haveyet to oraise Obama for anything (unlike myself, with Bush) or critique Bush for anything (unlike myself, with Obama). You approach teh issue a-priori as Obama is Wrong and then you craft your perspective around it. Thats partisanship, not ODS, but its still bass-ackwards.
Funny, as for me, I distinctly recall praising Obama for a visit to the troops in Iraq. Then, about three days later, I had to rescind it and criticize him when I found out that his handlers had segregated the troops based on how they voted and sent all the McCain voters to the back of the room.
Phelps,
That really happened? LOL! Seems like Obama has no problem sending the people he doesn’t like to the back of the proverbial bus.
First it was whites doing it to blacks, now it’s a black man doing it to GOP voters. The irony is delicious. Like a sweet roll. Yummers!
I found out that his handlers had segregated the troops based on how they voted and sent all the McCain voters to the back of the room.
I call bullshit. youd be rightly skeptical of the same if it were a story about the Bush admin and Kerry voters.
I call bullshit. youd be rightly skeptical of the same if it were a story about the Bush admin and Kerry voters.
Funny, no one was skeptical about the fake “fake turkey” story.
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2009/04/07/about-that-obama-iraq-visit/
http://www.nocompromisemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/obamasuprisevisittoiraq2.jpg
Well, I guess we all owe Aziz a big thank you for attempting to open our eyes to the self-congratulatory echo chamber we all live in (and not coddling us like our moms is also nice). I mean, after all, Aziz has disagreed with the right…. and the left!!! Does one need any more proof of clear unbiased thinking than that?
Plus, as Aziz likes to point out, he extends the benefit of the doubt to all of us, while never receiving the same consideration in return. Shame shame.
that email talks about a receiving line, not a press conference. a picture of troops hugging Obama doesnt prove anything one way or the other either. but fine, believe what you want to believe.
So you are OK with quizzing our troops on how they voted so that the receiving line can be segregated?
Phelps,
Dude, I looked at that pic, and the guy was right! All the digital cameras being held by the soldiers up front are the exact same!
In fact, I can’t see a different looking camera in the entire picture. There’s something pink near the top right that could be a camera but you can’t really tell.
Aziz:
Your assertion that my arguments are “weak” does not make them weak. I state again that you attack ME but you have not yet refuted a SINGLE argument I have made. Your BEST attempt so far is to say Obama wasn’t really LYING, he was just too STUPID to know better, and too ARROGANT to listen to anyone trying to tell him the truth. I suppose I have to put that on the list of POSSIBLE explanations for why Obama has said one thing on DOZENS of IMPORTANT issues, and within weeks did EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE when push came to shove. Sure maybe he really is an imbecile.
However that doesn’t pass Occam’s Razor with me. Here’s why.
When I ask “Why would a man say things that are demonstrably untrue, defend them strongly when challenged, and then when his actions became important do EXACTLY what his opponents said he would do?”
Option 1. The man is an idiot.
Option 2. The man is a liar.
For Option 1 to be true, it would be nearly impossible for Obama to have gotten to where he is. The man admittedly ran a BRILLIANT campaign (including the lies, btw). He has written two books. He edited the Harvard Law Review. The man is NOT an idiot.
Now, look at option 2. What does the man have to GAIN from lying? Well, he stands to gain the PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES. That’s a powerful incentive.
So when I put the analysis of option 1 and option 2 together I get a COMPELLING result that the man simply lied in order to get elected.
Now, I will concede that there are probably SOME cases where Obama did not “lie.” I’ll suggest that two of those might be the signing statements and the transparency issues. On those you could plausibly argue that Obama, as smart as he is, was simply NAIVE about the process of passing laws and learned better when he got into office.
But that does NOT address the fact that he presented those as MORAL imperatives in his campaign. What that means is that EVEN IF HE DIDN’T LIE, then he determined that PRAGMATISM TRUMPS PRINCIPLE.
On the other major issues, such as the promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year, his statement that he would not nationalize health care, his attacking of John McCain for suggesting taxing of some benefits, etc…
Those were simply lies. He knew better when he said it. Because in those cases the ONLY alternative is that he simply can’t do math, and NOBODY on his team can do math. (Hmm… well, he DID think there were 57 states…..)
That’s why I call him a liar. His current public statements saying that he NEVER promised any jobs for the first six months of the recovery act is ANOTHER case. THE MAN PUBLISHED GRAPHS showing the jobs it would save.
He’s a liar. I contend that he is MORE of a liar than any recent President. I contend that he USES lies as a RHETORICAL TOOL to achieve his goals. I contend that the lies are DELIBERATE.
Call me ODS all you want. I think the evidence is clear and overwhelming. And I call the press lapdogs for not SHOWING the lies as what they are.
Bill Clinton was a liar. His lies are on record. The difference between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama is that Bill Clinton lied to protect himself, he did not use the lie as a deliberate rhetorical device to advance an agenda. No more than any other politician does.
Oh, and one other thing. The accusation that I have never praised Obama.
I have REPEATEDLY praised Obama in these areas:
1. He ran a BRILLIANT campaign, both in the primary and the general election.
2. He is an ACCOMPLISHED and INSPIRING public speaker.
3. He has INSPIRED millions of Americans of all colors through his life story.
4. He has proven SMART enough once in office that he has maintained the VAST MAJORITY of Bush policies to keep this country safe. In all fairness this is something I should say more of. I did PREDICT that would happen during the campaign when most of the lefties here were crowing about the FIERCE MORAL URGENCY to get Bush out of office for those policies, and who have been SILENT about them since Obama has maintained them. Some fierce moral urgency, eh?
5. I have praised his family focus.
Now, go find where I PRAISED Bush on this blog. I was far more often critical of Bush than praising him. That’s because I’m a normal human being who is more motivated to speak when I have a PROBLEM than when I am HAPPY. That’s just normal.
A legitimate criticism you COULD level at me, Aziz, if you really wanted to, is that I am SIMULTANEOUSLY calling Obama out on his lies about National Security issues, while praising him for doing it. That’s definitely the act of a partisan.
But my analysis of his lying behavior is not driven by partisanship. That is driven by my deep concern over how this man uses lies to advance an agenda that is DANGEROUS for this nation.
… heh… the benefit of long boring conference calls… one more point…
Another difference between me and BDS sufferers. I DON’T think that Obama is an evil man. I think he adheres to a failed ideology and his actions in pursuit of that failed ideology are the biggest threat this nation has encountered since the Cold War, but I DON’T think he’s evil.
I think he sincerely believes that what he is doing is BEST for this nation. He’s not alone in believing that. In fact he’s probably got a third of the nation firmly believing the same thing.
I DO believe that he has made a CONSCIOUS decision that the “ends justifies the means” and that he has decided that in order to achieve his goals he has to misdirect the public from his intentions because he feels the majority of people simply aren’t smart or informed enough to know what’s good for them. His “clinging to guns and religion” comment is the real man. He doesn’t HATE those people, he feels SORRY for them and wants to make their lives better through government policies. He, along with many other people, believe that it is IMPERATIVE for our national policies to change, and if that means we have to mislead folks for a short time, that’s not too high a price to pay.
But fundamentally I think Obama is a good guy. I think he’s smart, dedicated, hard-working and truly has the best interest of the nation and the world at heart.
However, I think it is HIM and his ideological peers who are the deluded ones. They are pursuing policies that will bankrupt this country and will probably cause MY CHILDREN to live lives SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult than mine has been. And I frankly won’t put up with that without a fight.
But I don’t call him “evil” or accuse him of insane Hitlerish sorts of actions.
Oh, for Pete’s sake, Aziz.
“i only invoke ODS to show you how weak your arguments are.”
Invoking ODS, in fact, does the exact opposite.
“that email talks about a receiving line, not a press conference”
A) The difference is inconsequential to the point.
B) Phelps didn’t say it was a press conference. The term Phelps used was “visit.”
If you do get called a troll, Aziz, it’s not a badge of honor. If it’s not your intent to troll, then it’s an indicator that your comments may be conveying that intention in spite of you.
FWIW, I don’t think Aziz is a troll. I think he’s one of the more reasonable voices in the blogosphere most of the the time. But then I think the same about Dean, and Dean can go on the most bizarre tears sometimes….
I do think Aziz does post sometimes to stir things up, but I don’t think he does it to emotionally rile up people, which is what a “troll” is in my mind.
To be clear, in case I wasn’t, I don’t think that Aziz is a troll. My point is that certain behaviors in forums and newsgroups can make one look like a troll, in spite of oneself.
Not that I’ve ever done that. (*SNERK*)
I’m gonna make something clear here:
Aziz is my brother and I love him. If you got a problem with Aziz, you got a problem with me.
Period.
See… that’s the sort of “tear” I mean. ;)
Does bullying (or intimidation) in response to critique of another count as “defending the liberal tradition”? ;)
Comments on this entry are closed.