Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-07-2008, 01:17 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default The Uninvited Guest

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-07-2008, 02:10 AM
somerandomdude somerandomdude is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

When he talks about the war, Mickey Kaus really is extremely, extremely stupid. Shorter Kaus: if we assume that Iraq will turn into a peaceful, stable democracy, then the war will have been worth it!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-07-2008, 03:36 AM
Nate Nate is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 195
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Awesome looking cake!

Was it any particular flavor?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-07-2008, 08:52 AM
ogieogie ogieogie is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 79
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate View Post
Awesome looking cake!

Was it any particular flavor?
Crow, with a dash of sage.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-07-2008, 11:12 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Quote:
Originally Posted by ogieogie View Post
Crow, with a dash of sage.
Nice. Even better than the mousse.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-08-2008, 12:55 AM
Drew Drew is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 10
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

I'm disappointed the cake featured Bob and Mickey yet did not "deploy the moose".

Last edited by Drew; 02-08-2008 at 12:56 AM.. Reason: Incomplete thought
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-08-2008, 03:18 AM
Eastwest Eastwest is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 592
Default Re: "Don't Ask for Self-Censorship..."

Per Baltimoron:

Quote:
But, don't ask for self-censorship from members of this forum just to attract someone who probably shouldn't be on this medium to begin with!
Actually, "self-censorship" is not the issue. It's really just a matter of suggesting that, if one wasn't taught basic manners by one's parents or rather felt it was a measure of one's manhood to refuse to learn even though taught, now, having moved out of one's parents' living room into the wider world, perhaps one might consider adopting manners where they are generally considered to be the norm, that's if it doesn't feel too self-castrating to avoid ad hominem rudeness in expressing disagreement with views expressed by guests.

That's all.

EW
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-08-2008, 03:32 AM
Sgt Schultz Sgt Schultz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 69
Default Obama will mobilze the Latin vote - against him.

Go ahead and be OFFENDED.
Latinos will not be daunted by your case of the vapors.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-07-2008, 03:49 AM
david_d david_d is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

I rarely agree with Mickey Kaus, and I often suspect him of arguing in bad faith, but I do find him entertaining and I think he provides a service by doing his whole counterintuitive thing by getting people to think about things differently. But I found his advice to Obama to be rather silly. Why on Earth would Obama want to reverse himself and back the surge now, just as it's waning? Why on Earth would Obama want to start supporting the continued conflict in Iraq when it's still phenomenally unpopular? And although Petraeus has done a reasonably good job at tamping down violence in Iraq, it does seem to be on the rise again. If Obama were to become an surge supporter now and the violence were to greatly increase, he would be in a tough spot because now he'd be on the line as well. But if he endorses the surge now after having opposed it for so long, he looks like a Johnny-come-lately who only supported the thing after it seemed to work and then gets smacked around by Hillary for flipping on the war and by McCain in the general if he got there, which he almost certainly wouldn't, on the grounds that McCain was the one that had the right judgment first, etc. Wouldn't that be ironic? Now, supporting a long-time troop presence is one thing, but that wasn't the suggestion. Why support something like the surge that's going to be ending soon that can only hurt him? It makes little sense to me. Mickey, think this one through!

This said, I do think that Kaus is dead-on about Obama's campaign being the ideal vehicle for left-liberal change--non-threatening, unity message, and all the rest. For me, admittedly, this is a positive, but I grant the point. If I were Mickey, though, I wouldn't worry too much about a McCain Administration. Either Dem could beat him pretty soundly by just saying the word "immigration" in conjunction with "McCain" as often as possible. The more often you say it, the more you remind conservatives of St. John's original sin, and the more they get disillusioned. Clinton could probably pull this off smartly.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-07-2008, 04:02 AM
Eastwest Eastwest is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 592
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

MK about as enlightened as usual on Iraq. (EW rolls eyes, prays for the recruitment of more depth on the home team...)

Some tolerable inside baseball on the pseudo-science of the unpredictable (i.e. horse-race politics).

"Feiler Faster"... Good. I'm glad this now long-obvious "psychological stampeding of the citizenry sheep" phenomenon has gotten a name.

We find here how deeply sensitive is RW. See his "Plea for Civility" where he grieves about someone (Ann Coulter, maybe?) refusing to be exposed to BHTV's notoriously abusive Commenter's Peanut Gallery. (BTW, RW goes on for some time about this with typical quietly humorous circumlocutions. I only DL'd the first fragment.)

Good DV for doing dishes, sweeping floors, etc. Sort of breakfast table chat quality.

Amiability Index = A;
Startling New Ideas Index = B-;
Thought-Provocation Index = B;
Minor Guilt-Tripping Index = B+
(Actually, this last category can be broken down into two sub-parts:
Sense of Shame with Respect to Oneself Sub-index = A-;
Dread of Blame with Respect to One's Peers Index = B.)

Yes, yes, three cheers for civility. Penance may be done by those to whom this applies (and you surely know who you are...) by forcing yourself to listen to three interviews on RW's Meaning-of-Life-TV..

EW
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-07-2008, 05:54 AM
Nate Nate is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 195
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Bob and Mickey are both stupid.

...and ugly.

...and naive.

...and evil.

...and beneath contempt.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-07-2008, 06:30 AM
Eastwest Eastwest is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 592
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Good one, Nate.

With gratuitously-dispensed nastiness like that, not even I would think this an audience of interest. Keep it up and maybe BLTV will be reduced to BW and MK alternating doing "man-on-the-street" interviews.

Let me see: You're a plant from the deep-Right attempting to undermine pleasant, nuanced discussion by civilized Left, Right & Center literati?

Actually, that could explain the sorts of posts about which RW sighs so deeply.

Well, OK, at least now BLTV has an alibi. They can just explain departures from civility like that as authored by "infiltrators," "not one of ours," etc.

EW

Last edited by Eastwest; 02-07-2008 at 06:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-07-2008, 08:53 AM
ogieogie ogieogie is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 79
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate View Post
Bob and Mickey are both stupid.

...and ugly.

...and naive.

...and evil.

...and beneath contempt.
Bob and Mickey are both very nice.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-07-2008, 11:39 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvantony View Post
I'd guess David Frum and Eli Lake might support Bob's plea.
Dunno about David Frum, but Eli's a good man. I'll never forget when he started off a diavlog by saying, "BloggingHeads viewers, you can't stop me. You can only hope to contain me."

As violently as I disagree with Eli on matters of policy, I think he has class.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-07-2008, 11:14 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

EW:

Quote:
Penance may be done by those to whom this applies (and you surely know who you are...) by forcing yourself to listen to three interviews on RW's Meaning-of-Life-TV..
Won't work. Some of us obnoxious louts love MoL.tv.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-07-2008, 12:10 PM
Namazu Namazu is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 185
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Gosh, I hope the comments didn't chase away Camille Paglia! Say it ain't so! I assume you are trying to book her, aren't you?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-07-2008, 12:48 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Quote:
Originally Posted by Namazu View Post
Gosh, I hope the comments didn't chase away Camille Paglia! Say it ain't so! I assume you are trying to book her, aren't you?
If it was Camille, say it is so. I'm still recovering from the last time I tried to read something she wrote.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-07-2008, 04:30 PM
Happy Hominid Happy Hominid is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 147
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

I was thinking it might be Ann Coulter. But I guess Mickey would have known she was a potential guest even before Bob did. Plus, she must be pretty thick skinned.
__________________
It's another day in paradise...
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-07-2008, 06:57 PM
Namazu Namazu is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 185
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Quote:
If it was Camille, say it is so. I'm still recovering from the last time I tried to read something she wrote.
Brendan: I'm not sure what your medical issues have to do with bhtv's booking policies. Don't you have your own blog? Don't you ever worry about getting voted off the island (first)?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-07-2008, 07:43 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Quote:
Originally Posted by Namazu View Post
Brendan: I'm not sure what your medical issues have to do with bhtv's booking policies. Don't you have your own blog? Don't you ever worry about getting voted off the island (first)?
I should refrain from expressing my opinion because there are other outlets available to me? And if so, why doesn't this reasoning also apply to you?

If you want to start a movement, feel free.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-07-2008, 06:48 AM
Incompetence Dodger Incompetence Dodger is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 45
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

So, any guesses as to the identity of the titular uninvited guest?

My first hunch was Jessica Valenti, but a couple of minutes later, Bob mentioned that the uninvited guest "isn't primarily a blogger." Plus, surely she of all people is aware of the, um, occasional incivility on bhTV.

Speaking of Ann Althouse, wow Mickey, well-played on the gratuitous shot.

To recap:
1. Female
2. Recommended by Mickey
3. Would have been a big catch for bhTV
4. Not primarily a blogger (inference: blogs on the side)
5. (inference) Hasn't been on bhTV before
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-07-2008, 11:45 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

ID:

Quote:
Speaking of Ann Althouse, wow Mickey, well-played on the gratuitous shot.
To coin a phrase: heh, indeed.

Quote:
So, any guesses as to the identity of the titular uninvited guest?

...

To recap:
1. Female
2. Recommended by Mickey
3. Would have been a big catch for bhTV
4. Not primarily a blogger (inference: blogs on the side)
5. (inference) Hasn't been on bhTV before
Ann Coulter is the obvious first guess, but I just can't see her being afraid of a little flaming. Therefore, I guess: Condoleezza Rice or the woman whom Mickey thinks is carrying John Edwards's baby.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-07-2008, 03:01 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Eva Braun, any Mexicana, Ma McCain or Ms. Huckabee

Eva Braun, Hitler's mistress, is the obvious choice. She read posters' comparisons between Der Fhrer's views and those of David Frum and felt her husband had been slandered.

If I'm wrong on that, I'd go with any Mexican woman in the USA, afraid of the Mickey "illegal" smear.

Then there's John McCain's mother who hates it when you call her boy a crazed warmonger, or Mrs. Huckabee who finds the epithet "scientist" offensive and has never heard the word "fuck."

Last edited by Wonderment; 02-07-2008 at 03:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-07-2008, 03:05 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Eva Braun, any Mexicana, Ma McCain or Ms. Huckabee

Best post of the thread!
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-07-2008, 06:59 PM
Incompetence Dodger Incompetence Dodger is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 45
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
ID:

Ann Coulter is the obvious first guess, but I just can't see her being afraid of a little flaming. Therefore, I guess: Condoleezza Rice or the woman whom Mickey thinks is carrying John Edwards's baby.
I dismissed the possibility of Ann Coulter (Camille Paglia too, for that matter) for the same reason. Plus, it's beyond belief that Bob would be running point on recruiting her.

Rice, no way for at least five different reasons that immediately come to mind. More broadly, I doubt that anyone in the current Administration, currently involved in a campaign, or seriously in the running for a job in the next Administration is going to participate (c.f. Jim Pinkerton).

Given those constraints, Madeleine Albright is the best guess I've seen so far. Plus she has a book to sell. Does she blog, though? Remember Bob said "She's not principally a blogger."
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-07-2008, 07:40 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

ID:

Hard to believe that you took my guesses seriously.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-07-2008, 11:24 AM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

I don't understand why Mickey Kaus (or, for that matter, Ann Althouse, assuming she still is associated with BHTV) continues to contribute to bloggingheads. Near as I can tell, I'm the only person who likes his diavlogs. Only Robert Wright seems to like him personally, and I don't think Wright thinks Kaus has any worthwhile insights on anything. So ... why keep him around? I doubt very much that he would be missed.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-07-2008, 11:48 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Bobby G:

Naw. I used to like Mickey a lot, and after being in a rut for a while, his last couple of appearances have indicated that he might be climbing out. I don't find anything useful in his views on the Iraq War or immigration, and I frequently suspect him of pushing an ongoing agenda to sabotage the Democratic Party, but I do like some of his contrarian observations. Plus, there's no denying that he and Bob have chemistry -- if nothing else, it's fun to hear them banter.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 02-07-2008 at 12:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-07-2008, 03:06 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

I never heard of MK before discovering BHTV, so I only know him as a gossip columnist, smear artist and anti-Mexican bully.

It seems like Bob has a long relationship with him, where Mickey's role is to play devil's advocate to Bob's political views.

Mickey is smart and funny though, so you gotta wonder why he ended up wasting a good mind writing a silly column at Slate. He must have some kind of decent resume to get that job, but why would he want it?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-07-2008, 04:34 PM
Happy Hominid Happy Hominid is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 147
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

While I often disagree with Mickey, I think he makes a great guest. If Bob had someone to agree with there would be no fun. I have 2 regular segments that I never miss - Bob and Mickey and Science Saturday.
__________________
It's another day in paradise...
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-08-2008, 03:48 AM
Allan Allan is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

The Bob Wright-Mickey Kaus and the John Horgan-George Johnson diavlogs
are the only ones I never skip.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-09-2008, 03:44 PM
petty boozswha petty boozswha is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 14
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Au contraire. I like Bob Wright a lot, but his opinion on the war was stupid and beneath contempt. Around the 28:50 mark [can't get the hang of this dinglelink thing] he asks, so what was so bad about Saddam after all? D'oh, again I slap my forehead. Nix your revisionism Bob - poor misunderstood avuncular grandpa Saddam was not victimized by the diabolical neo-cons, and if your party runs on that theme in the election McCain might win. On October 10, 2002 the US Senate passed the AUMF 77 to 23 - I think even Hillary Clinton voted for it - and it listed the reasons we had to go to war with Saddam's regime. I suggest you reread it, for example, WMDs were not one of them. From his training of terrorists at Salman Pak [read the Duefer Report] to his financing of suicide bombers who intentionally focused on American tourist teens in Israel to his assistance and sheltering of the 1993 WTC bombers, he was a nogoodnik that could no longer be tolerated as a role model on the world stage.
If you want to argue that the war was so bungled that the cost will never equal the benefits, you may be on stronger ground, but even there I don't know if Mickey isn't right in the long run. If you had asked was the Korean War worth 54,000 American lives in 1958 our opinion might have been very similar to the way we feel today - that's why Truman left office with a 21% approval rating.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-09-2008, 04:07 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Quote:
Originally Posted by petty boozswha View Post
Around the 28:50 mark [can't get the hang of this dinglelink thing] he asks, so what was so bad about Saddam after all?
Are you referring to what Bob says, here?

If that's what you're referring to, you are completely misrepresenting what Bob said.
__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-09-2008, 04:20 PM
petty boozswha petty boozswha is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 14
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Yes thank you, that is the quote I was referring to, and I respectfully dispute your contention that I'm misrepresenting what Bob said. He asked what was intolerable about what Saddam was doing at the time, and I answered his question. I am no apologist for GWB, I agree 200% he has mishandled this situation, but I still believe of all the bad options available in 2002/2003 this war was the least bad. It's impossible to prove alternative history as to what would have occurred had we not taken him out, but I think every plausible scenario would have left us in a worse position than we are now: on the other hand, if, say, McCain had been president this war would have been fought a lot more competently and explained to the public a lot more honestly, and I think we would be in much less of a spot than we are now.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-09-2008, 04:34 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Quote:
...on the other hand, if, say, McCain had been president this war would have been fought a lot more competently and explained to the public a lot more honestly, and I think we would be in much less of a spot than we are now.
Give me a break. There was no way of selling this war without the WMD lies. McCain would either have lied like Bush did, or he wouldn't have had any support for his war.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-09-2008, 04:44 PM
petty boozswha petty boozswha is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 14
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Again our recollections differ - in my recollection support for the war in the US was strong and was not dependent on the WMD argument. WMDs were emphasised to appease Tony Blair as the most salable case to the UN and the international community; Cheney, for example, was appoplectic when we gave Saddam a chance to wiggle off the hook if he complied with UNSCOM. Much like getting Al Capone on tax evasion, it was a sincere charge but transparently not our primary motivation, and should not have been presented in the manner it was.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-09-2008, 05:10 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Quote:
Originally Posted by petty boozswha View Post
Yes thank you, that is the quote I was referring to, and I respectfully dispute your contention that I'm misrepresenting what Bob said. He asked what was intolerable about what Saddam was doing at the time, and I answered his question.
No, you totally misrepresented what Bob said. You have him wondering whether there really was anything wrong with Saddam at all. Specifically, you claim that Bob asks "what was so bad about Saddam after all?"

This implies Bob thought there was nothing wrong with Saddam. Then you claim that Bob feels that "poor misunderstood avuncular grandpa Saddam was [] victimized by the diabolical neo-cons."

This is all manufactured by you out of whole cloth. To start with, he never mentioned Saddam, never claimed he was misunderstood, never said he had done nothing wrong, and never said he was a victim. In this segment, he didn't even refer to Saddam at all. (He was talking about Iraq.)

But more important, you omit the context in which Bob made his point: A comparison of the danger we face from Iraq and the Middle East before and after the disasterous invasion. Bob's point was CLEARLY that however bad things were before, they are far worse today.



Quote:
Originally Posted by petty boozswha View Post
I am no apologist for GWB, I agree 200% he has mishandled this situation, but I still believe of all the bad options available in 2002/2003 this war was the least bad.
This would explain why you are misrepresenting and distorting what Bob said, because Bob directly addresses this point; In the clip you highlighted, Bob was specifically pointing out that we are worse off now than we would have been without the invasion.



Quote:
Originally Posted by petty boozswha View Post
It's impossible to prove alternative history as to what would have occurred had we not taken him out, but I think every plausible scenario would have left us in a worse position than we are now
OK, so now you're including the context that is critical to understanding what Bob said: Was the bad situation before the war better or worse than the bad situation after the war. The only problem is that you omit this context from your representation of Bob's argument, instead falsely claiming that Bob claimed there was nothing wrong with Saddam at all.



Quote:
Originally Posted by petty boozswha View Post
if, say, McCain had been president this war would have been fought a lot more competently and explained to the public a lot more honestly, and I think we would be in much less of a spot than we are now.
I'm not sure we'd be in that much of a better situation if McCain had been president. There are things that even Superman could not have fixed -- like overwhelming resentment and resistance against America conquering Iraq, stealing their resources, and imposing our will on them. It cannot be doubted that McCain or almost anyone else would have managed the war better than Bush. The results might not have been terribly different, but the management would clearly have been better.

Bush is in a class by himself when it comes to being an incompetent failure. And you know what's funny? Most incompetent failures are ashamed of themselves. But not Bush. He's as cocky as he is incompetent.

It must suck to be a Bush voter. In the years ahead, Bush voters will deny they voted for Bush the same way people once denied voting for Nixon.
__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith

Last edited by TwinSwords; 02-09-2008 at 05:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-09-2008, 05:42 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

Quote:
It must suck to be a Bush voter. In the years ahead, Bush voters will deny they voted for Bush the same way people once denied voting for Nixon.
Yes, this is a remarkable and depressing aspect of politics and human nature. When I lived in Spain it was nigh on impossible to find someone who had supported Franco. Everyone who had an even remotely plausible narrative about being secretly pro-democracy suddenly had "always opposed the dictatorship."

Unfortunately, most people (especially pre-Internet) don't have to go on the record, and even when they do, they have some wiggle room. That's why I liked Edwards. At least, he had the decency to say he was wrong and he was sorry about voting to authorize the war.

Hillary's explanation is, IMHO, disgraceful and insulting. Still, as I've said before on this forum, if she is the candidate I will devote every moment and every spare penny I have to ensuring her election. Nothing could be worse for this country than another 4 years of deranged Republican hawkery.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-09-2008, 07:06 PM
petty boozswha petty boozswha is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 14
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

TwinSwords,

"To start with, he never mentioned Saddam, never claimed he was misunderstood, never said he had done nothing wrong, and never said he was a victim. In this segment, he didn't even refer to Saddam at all. (He was talking about Iraq.)"

Reading your comments I can only deduce you believe there is a substantive difference between talking about Saddam Hussein in 2002 and talking about Iraq as a geopolitical entity in 2002 - to me that is a distinction without consequence. I did not say Bob Wright claimed Saddam did nothing wrong, I said he apparently believes his crimes did not deserve the retribution they provoked. The dinglelink quote above cannot be interpreted any other way, IMHO. I think the revisionist history concerning the origins of this war induced by Bush Derangement Syndrome among the Bob Wrights of the world is not healthy. This does not mean I'm deliberately misquoting him or that I do not think he is a sincere man of goodwill. He just has a defective take on the facts.

Last edited by petty boozswha; 02-09-2008 at 07:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-09-2008, 07:32 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Uninvited Guest

petty:

Sorry if I appear to be piling on, but FWIW:

o I, too, heard Bob discussing Saddam in the section of this diavlog that you refer to only as a threat to the national security of the US.

o You may think that Bush invaded Iraq for reasons other than WMD, but that is how the war was sold. I refer you to the "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" meme and Colin Powell's presentation of "mobile biological weapons labs" at the UN, to name but two examples. I'd give you long odds that a random sample of 100 Americans asked, right now, "Why did Bush invade Iraq?" would yield "WMDs" as an answer from at least 95 of them.

o Your right-wing sound bites appear in good order. Of course it is us evil lefties who are engaging in "revisionist history." Of course we have "BDS." Of course we are unable to understand "facts."

What, you just got your batteries recharged at CPAC 2008?
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 02-09-2008 at 07:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.