"Higher gas prices are a sign of a failed presidency."
- Dick Cheney, 1998
Under no circumstances
Harvested squeezings from mirth's most irritated pore
Monday, September 26, 2005
(JavaScript Error)
Previous Posts
- Cutest. Cephalopod. Ever.Can I keep him?
- Best. Beer ad. Ever.
- Fascism: n.1. A system of government marked by cen...
- Here's another entry for the I-Can't-Make-This-Shi...
- I did not know this:Ezekiel 16:48-5248 As surely a...
- Okay, here's the first possible draft of our forma...
- The New Yorker has must-read ecumenical version of...
- Avast! 'Tis National Talk Like A Pirate Day, me h...
- WARNING: Post may contain spoilers for Final Fanta...
22 Comments:
If you'd learned anything from the Bush fans who've contributed to this page, you'd know that accurately quoting them or their heroes is the foulest play.
The Republiban are the slimiest hypocrite shits in world. For example, they say "legislatures, not judges, should be making the law." But when the California Legislature passes gay marriage, Ahnuld says that he will veto because the courts should decide. With the Republiban, up is down.
Whoa, speaking of crazy shit GOoPers do, guess who's been hired as a FEMA consultant? Here's a hint, his new job will include helping to evaluate what went wrong with the Katrina efforts. C'mon, guess! Think "What Would Shrubya Do?"
You sure? Can't guess?
Mike Brown. Yes, THAT Mike Brown.
Citizen F?
Oh, sneaky author.
No, the "annonymous" on this page is not me, actually. Sorry to make that confusing with the way I posted.
Annonymous, it's okay if you don't want to identify yourself, but it would help if you'd at least use some unique handle around here, so we can keep our conversations straight :).
I agree with Cheney in that quote to the extent that it applies to the situation discussed. The administration could and should be able to curtail high gas prices. The three biggest factors I've heard that have been blamed for the higher prices (excluding mother nature) are OPEC, to few refineries and higher profits for oil companies. The administration is in charge of foreign policy, so OPEC is no excuse. Congress and the President are both held by republicans, so allowing approval of new refinery construction is certainly within the President's control. As for the oil companies, Teddy Roosevelt got them in line, so creative legilation should be able to get those companies to play ball, be it through tax incentives or (scary words from a Republican, but...) some form of regulation.
Citizen F
Embarrassing as it must be to be caught without a talking point (and unable to think for one's self) when the herd has moved on, it'll be interesting to watch a certain ilk's reaction to Brownie's show trial, now that Bush has for once in his presidency (life?) accepted vague responsibility. So Bush has shown leadership and delegated: the White House will essentially continue to refuse "to play the blame game", while Brownie continues to blame every Democrat involved. Are there any sheep dumb enough to continue to proclaim both positions? That's probably a silly question, so how about this one: will Bush give Brown the Medal of Freedom?
I want to make sure I understand the viewpoint presented here, so I'll try to get some clarification. Do you want a bi-partisan committee to hold hearings to find out what went wrong, why it went wrong and who was to blame AND, at the same time, want no Democrats to be mentioned or blamed by anyone at the hearings? Is that the position? I'm just trying to understand. Is the position also that Mike Brown should be criticized but should not have the opportunity to present his version of the events and his explanation as to who, in addition to himself, failed? Is that the position presented? I'm just trying to understand.
FYI, the above post is from me, in case anyone cares or is curious.
Citizen F
Has anyone suggested that no Democrats are to blame? Fortunately, no one here seems to have much in common with you. You're the one who dedicated himself to the White House line that there was no sense playing the "blame game", and that at the same time Bush was absolutely faultless and only the Democrats screwed up (which they did, and Nagin seems to be doing again). Even the White House eventually backed off that particular talking point, about when the Post admitted they'd printed White Houes lies without challenge (fool them twice . . .) so although you obviously couldn't have been expected Bush to take "responsibility" for the first time, it'll be hilarious to hear more about how *you* are not the "sheep" here.
Aleks, try not to guess at people's positions and express them as fact. I think my direct quote was that the Bush administration "fucked up". So, I hardly would equate that to them being "absolutely faultless". At the same time, I see no answer to my question. Did I accurately access your position? I just want to understand so I don't jump to conclusions.
CF
No, you said that the Democratic Governor and Mayor fucked up, and Naggin certain did (and is doing so again); as for Blanco, it's hard to see a clear picture under your ilk's smear campaign, I know (because the Washington Post acknowledged that they'd been tricked) that the specific allegations made against her were lies, but doubtless there were other flaws hidden behind the mud your ilk threw. After all, my uncle is *not* a child molester, but he is a chainsmoker. You said that Bush was the person involved who could not have done anything, total exculpation. But, since no one here is much like you, noone here is calling for a report that criticizes no Democrats. Do you see any reason to believe someone is, or are you just making it up? Naturally I think this is like when you decided we were criticizing "the Right" for making political speeches in churches, even though noone had made any mention of anyone on "the Right" making political speeches in any churches. If this is somehow different and you're turning over a new leaf, please cite the statement which leads you to honestly and intelligently assume that anyone "want no Democrats to be mentioned or blamed"?
Aleks,
Call it a new leaf, call it what you will. I will tell you that if you read something previously and misunderstood, that's cool. But I did blame the federal government in the "fucked up" post. I believe I said "to a lesser extent", but I still said they "fucked up". I'm sure you just misunderstood what I meant, but that happens. If I didn't articulate my point effectively, I'll say it now how I meant it: The local and state government in New Orleans failed to prepare for this disaster and they failed in its aftermath. The federal government failed to meet the needs in New Orleans after the storm and they failed to coordinate the efforts between various federal organizations. FEMA, headed by a Bush appointee, did not show the necessary leadership to solve problems. Hopefully that clears things up. Now, I asked a question about whether a commission should be made that doesn't assign blame to Democrats and whether Mike Brown shouldn't be able to say who, in addition to himself, made mistakes. You seem to be answering "No." You seem to be saying that Brown should be allowed to point out who else failed and at what level and that Democrats should be criticized on that commission. Is that correct? Is that your position? I know you can't speak for the rest of the blog, but you were the only one who responded so I can at list get your opinion, even if it is only yours. Do I have it right now? If not, what is your position? I don't want to put words in your mouth, I just am trying to see whether we agree.
CF
I think that anyone is entitled to criticize anyone, and that a commission intended to discover what went wrong with a government action should criticize anyone who had a hand in that failure. In this case, blame is certain to fairly fall on Mayor Nagin, and despite the halo of being yet another victim of your ilk's lying smear campaign's, Blanco should also be fair game. No, why don't you pull out some of that honesty and integrity and intelligence you've been bragging about but brilliantly hiding for a year now and demonstrate that ANYONE here said ANYTHING to indicate that Democrats should be shielded from criticism? Why are you hiding from responsibility for your own words again? If such an intelligent person as you claim to be, or even a reasonably intelligent person, was honestly misled by any statement here that seemed to say no Democrats should be criticized, shouldn't you be able to quote it? I answered your question, why do you continue to weasel away from mine?
Aleks, you always assume the worst. I didn't try to put words in anyone's mouth. I read people saying that Mike Brown was blaming Democrats. I don't see anything wrong with that and I don't know why anyone would. I wasn't sure if someone was actually saying there was anything wrong with that, so I asked if that was the case. You said no. I don't know why you and author brought up Mike Brown and his assignment to help determine what went wrong, but I do know that you did not criticize it because you told me you didn't. I was trying not to jump to conclusions by asking your opinion rather than assuming I knew it based on my interpretation of what was said. I was correct to not jump to conclusions, because we seem to completely agree that Brown should be involved in the process of what went wrong. Does that answer your question?
CF
So you're refusing to cite any statement of ours that an honest or intelligent person could conceivably interpret to mean that we "want no Democrats to be mentioned or blamed by anyone at the hearings"? I think that pretty much sums you up.
Aleks, I'm saying that I never said that you or anyone else said that. If I had, you shouldn't care anyway, but I didn't. I'm sorry to disappoint you.
CF
"Do you want a bi-partisan committee to hold hearings to find out what went wrong, why it went wrong and who was to blame AND, at the same time, want no Democrats to be mentioned or blamed by anyone at the hearings? Is that the position?"
Does that help? So there was no statement of ours that any honest or intelligent person could conceivably interpret to mean that we "want no Democrats to be mentioned or blamed by anyone at the hearings"?
There was no statement that I definitively interpretted to mean that you "want no Democrats to be mentioned or blamed by anyone at the hearings". Why do you ask?
CF
Well, I obviously didn't ask that, as even you must know. You could at least try to live up to your self promoting! I asked what anyone had said that suggested such a position because you said "Do you want a bi-partisan committee to hold hearings to find out what went wrong, why it went wrong and who was to blame AND, at the same time, want no Democrats to be mentioned or blamed by anyone at the hearings? Is that the position?" Put some of that magnificant brain power you tell us you have to work solving this mystery.
In the meantime, I guess I have to keep asking: "So there was no statement of ours that any honest or intelligent person could conceivably interpret to mean that we 'want no Democrats to be mentioned or blamed by anyone at the hearings'?" Why are you hiding from such an easy question, and answering one noone asked? Weren't you the "honest" and "intelligent" one? Are you too stupid to even see the difference between "conceivably" and "definitively", or so dishonest you simply pretend there is none (and also so dumb as to get caught in such a ridiculous dishonesty)?
Aleks, I won't try to speak for every honest or intelligent individual in the world, I will only speak for myself. No one said anything that definitively asserted that position, but Brown's involvement with this process was referred to as "crazy" on one instance and in another post it was said that "Brownie continues to blame every Democrat involved". Both those comments could be interpreted to mean that there was something unfavorable about Brown blaming Democrats. I didn't definitively interpret them as such, but I thought it was a possibility. That is why I asked if such was the case. Since it was also possible that what was "crazy" is that Brown was being referred to as a "FEMA consultant", not that he was providing his first-hand experience, I could not be sure which was actually "crazy". Since it was possible you were criticizing the White House's claim that they won't play the "blame game", and not criticizing the the fact that Brown was blaming Democrats, I could not be sure which was actually being criticized. I wanted to ask so that it was clear, rather then jumping to conclusions or making assumptions. If you were unsure of my position, wouldn't you ask me what it was rather then criticizing a point of view you weren't sure I had?
CF
Post a Comment
<< Home