You Say Tomato, I Say Unrestrained Hubris
"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense." - George W. Bush
No, you work for us. We're the deciders, you arrogant son of a bitch.
posted by Zafrod at 11:33 AM
15 Comments:
I'm with you. I can honestly say I will dance naked in the street while singing opera if that man just up and dies. I don't care how it happens or how painful it is. Actually, the more painful, the better.
I try not to wish harm on anyone, but wow... the hubris of this statement, and the utter lack of respect it shows for high-ranking retired generals is just off the charts. He really does think he's beyond criticism.
No, just beyond YOUR criticism.
You don't even understand how a Representative Republic works.
the President was well within his rights to remind the Attack Dog Media and the whining, complaining democrats that he is the Boss.
He has the CONSTITUTIONAL Authority to have whoever he wants in Rumsfeld's position, whether you like it or not. (Even if it's Rumsfeld.)
And he has every right to tell you guys to get over it.
So get over it.
He is the President. You are a Blogger.
The most powerful man in the World does not answer to you.
The most Powerful Man in the Wolrd? Only by proxy. he represents us, he is our employee. I realize a lot of folks on the right would like to grant him his wish of Imperial rule, but it ain't happened yet.
I love, by the way, that you include 6 highly decorated retired generals within the category of "the Attack Dog Media and the whining complaining democrats." That's just CLASSY.
You're right, he does have the Constitutional Authority to have whoever he wants in Rumsfeld's position, just as we have the Constitutional right to call him out on bad decisions.
He's the President. I'm a citizen. That means it is my duty to hold him accountable. Not cow-tow to him.
You know, I think it's funny now the way I used to criticize Democrats for the high esteem in which they held Clinton. At least they never implied that he was beyond the criticism of the citizens.
Yes, they did.
Not only that, they refused to hold Clinton to any standards at all, much less the type of standards that they are trying to hold President Bush to.
Have you forgotten that Clinton attacked a soveriegn Nation in order to try to divert attention away from his own Legal Troubles?
He did. Clinton Lied, and People died.
When we elect Leaders, we put them in charge, and then we trust their judgement.
There are no provisions for second guessing of the decisions of electees by the electorate, unless you can bring evidence that they have broken the law. (Which you guys have failed to do against President Bush.) (No matter how hard you have tried.)
Yes, President Bush answers to you. If you don't agree with his decisions, then don't vote for him. (Oh, yeah, that's right...he isn't running for office anymore. You're stuck with him, for now. Sorry to break it to you.)
And that whole "Imperial Rule" farce is really cute, but it is not accurate.
Look up "Empire" on "Dictionary.com" and then you might understand the meaning of the word.
President Bush was elected by a majority of American Voters, and he has the authority to make decisions on behalf of Americans.
The fact that you don't agree wit him is irrelevant.
You were, and are in the MINORITY. (That means you LOST.)
You don't get to set the agenda until you WIN an Election.
Until then, President Bush is the Elected Leader of America.
You can scream and yell, write cute little attack pieces and anti-Bush Rehtoric on your little blog here until you turn blue, but he still calls the shots.
Once again, GET OVER IT.
Oh, and regarding the 6 or 7 retired Generals who are criticizing Rumsfeld, What about the 8,000 or so who have nothing bad to say about him?
Are their opinions to be disregarded?
Once again, your opinion, and the opinion of the 6 or 7 people you refer to is the MINORITY opinion.
Get used to it.
[sigh]
Mikey, you're very, very loud, even in writing. Loud people tend to be compensating for something.
There are no provisions for second guessing of the decisions of electees by the electorate, unless you can bring evidence that they have broken the law. (Which you guys have failed to do against President Bush.) (No matter how hard you have tried.)
I like that you wrote this right after you second-guessed Clinton. He was never convicted of a crime either, you know. It's also difficult to bring a committee up to investigate when both houses are run by the party of toeing-the-line. We'll see what happens in November.
Regardless, Clinton bashing tends to roll off me, bud. I never supported the man. Voted against him the first time I ever voted.
Yes, President Bush answers to you. If you don't agree with his decisions, then don't vote for him. (Oh, yeah, that's right...he isn't running for office anymore. You're stuck with him, for now. Sorry to break it to you.)
That doesn't mean he's above my critique, or anyone else's. You're taking this really personally. Almost as if by calling out the president, I've indirectly criticized something you stake your very personality on. Strange, that.
And that whole "Imperial Rule" farce is really cute, but it is not accurate.
Look up "Empire" on "Dictionary.com" and then you might understand the meaning of the word.
Empire: 1) A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
Yeah, I was refering to a single supreme authority. Did you even look this up before you recommended that I do so?
President Bush was elected by a majority of American Voters, and he has the authority to make decisions on behalf of Americans.
Only one out of two elections, and 50% is failing, even under No Child Left Behind. Regardless, you're stuck on this point. Yes, he's President. No, I don't dispute that. Yes, for that exact reason he is subject to my scrutiny and, when required, my criticism.
You were, and are in the MINORITY. (That means you LOST.)
You don't get to set the agenda until you WIN an Election.
Until then, President Bush is the Elected Leader of America.
You can scream and yell, write cute little attack pieces and anti-Bush Rehtoric on your little blog here until you turn blue, but he still calls the shots.
I'm not running for any office, so I won't be winning any elections. I'm still going to voice my opinion, because that's, you know, my constitutional right, just like it was the constitutional right of all the right-wing media folks who whined through the entire Clinton presidency. Should they have "gotten over it"? If they had, Clinton never would have been brought up on perjury charges, of which he was deserving. You're not going to protect the President by making us feel bad for speaking our minds. You kind of just come off as scared. Rightfully so, too. Did you hear Newt Gingrich's predictions for the November elections?
Oh, and regarding the 6 or 7 retired Generals who are criticizing Rumsfeld, What about the 8,000 or so who have nothing bad to say about him?
Uh huh. Let's play history. How many retired generals came out against the Vietnam war and how it was run? I'll save you some time here... exactly one. Go look it up if you need to. As I recall, that turned out to be a pretty unpopular war. So now we've got six, and that's just so far. It's VERY odd to see even one retired general come out to criticize civilian commanders, much less six. It's not about ratio, it's about precedent. This event, by the way, is unprecedented. Regardless, calling Zinni a whining Democrat really just shows that you're not at all familiar with the man.
[sigh]
[Sigh]
My point was that America is not building Empires. President Bush is not, nor is he trying to be an Emporer.
He is the Elected President of the United States of America.
Twice now. (Gore failed to steal the 2000 election through the court system, in case you forgot.. That doesn't mean that Bush stole it, it means that Gore FAILED to steal it.)
Newt Gingrich 9is entitled to his opinion, as are you and I.
I happen to believe that he is wrong.
As are you.
I am not scared. My side is winning, and has won.
And will continue to win.
I am not the one cowering in the corner worried about "Imperial Rule" and other such nonsense.
By the way, I really apreciate your condecension, telling me that I am "Compensating for something", and that I "Come off as scared."
I am not. I just know that I am right.
YOU DON"T GET TO CHOOSE THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, be you a Taxpayer, Citizen, Illegal Alien, Blogger, Congressman, Senator, Journalist, Retired General, Liberal, Conservative, Doctor, Lawyer, or Indian Chief.
Unless your title is President of the United States, You have no input.
At all.
And the man who DOES have the final say on that particular issue has every right to say that he does, which was your point of contention in this post.
You stated that the President has to answer to YOU. I said that he doesn't.
I'm right.
You're wrong.
End of discussion.
Kadrummer, Why would the President need to read the filtered news from the papers when he gets the raw feed?
He knows more than the best informed reporter on a BAD day.
Approval polls are a creation of the Media to try to manipulate public opinion, and have no rellevance to a President serving his last term in office.
President Bush Needn't, nor shouldn't pay any attention to them at all.
They are created and pushed by the Media for simpletons like you and Zafrod in order to try to keep you interested, and make sure that you remember to vote against Republicans in the upcoming Elections.
The last time Osama Ben Laden caused you any trouble was when he came out and endorsed John F. Kerry for President in 2004, ensuring a Bush victory.
I fully understand why you are still obsessed with his capture even though he clearly is no longer callin the shots anywhere.
Demanding his capture is a lesson in barking up the wrong tree.
The Iraqi Army has lately been taking over operations in Iraq, with amazing success.
Casualties have been dropping steadily for everyone but the Terrorist Insurgents, who are beginning to pack up and leave.
We are winning there, no matter how much you guys scream to the contrary.
If Gas Prices bother you, then send a letter, or an E-mail or make a phone call to your Senator or Congressman and demand drilling in ANWAR, or off the coast of Florida, or in Idaho, or Nebraska, or the resumption of drilling in Oklahoma, or California, or New Mexico, or any number of other places that the Enbvironmentalist Left has opposed drilling, and let's become Domestically secure in our Oil Supply.
While we are at it, let's enact tax cuts for the Rich who want to invest their money in Alternative Energy Sources.
If you make them profitable, they will come. (But be forewarned, someone is going to get rich in the process, or it will never happen.)
Hurricane Katrina?
PLEASE...
The Government has spent more money (TAXPAYER MONEY) on Hurricane Katrina than on any other single disaster in American History, and it hasn't made any difference.
If anything, Katrina should have served to teach us all the lesson that we must take responsibility for our own well-being.
Government cannot solve our problems for us.
If you want to point a finger of blame for the Katrina Disaster, point it squarely at the VICTIMS of Hurricane Katrina for not looking after themselves, and not making use of the resources made available to them.
FEMA is not a first reponding Agency. Never was intended to be.
The President provided everything he was asked to provide by the local officials on the ground in New Orleans. (FACT.)
You cannot honestly lay responsibility for any Katrina-Related Misery at his feet.
THINK, PEOPLE.
I know you can understand, if you will only lay aside your hatred, and honestly look at the facts.
[Sigh]
Just forget it.
I know you guys will never do that...
Nice talking to you...
My point was that America is not building Empires. President Bush is not, nor is he trying to be an Emporer.
He is the Elected President of the United States of America.
My point was that claiming the President isn't accountable is bringing him closer to Imperial rule. Go back, read it, and learn to parse semantics.
Twice now. (Gore failed to steal the 2000 election through the court system, in case you forgot.. That doesn't mean that Bush stole it, it means that Gore FAILED to steal it.)
Funny how who stole what tends to depend on perspective. Point of fact, though: he wasn't elected by the 'majority of voters' in 2000. Your phrase, not mine.
Newt Gingrich 9is entitled to his opinion, as are you and I.
I happen to believe that he is wrong.
As are you.
Really? You think I'm wrong? I hadn't noticed. Thanks for clarifying.
By the way, I really apreciate your condecension, telling me that I am "Compensating for something", and that I "Come off as scared."
I am not. I just know that I am right.
You know that you're right? 100% absolutely sure? Damn, Mikey, I thought that God was the only omnipotent being. Didn't realize I was debating an honest-to-Mikey diety here. I have to say, I think I'm holding up rather well, under the circumstances.
YOU DON"T GET TO CHOOSE THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, be you a Taxpayer, Citizen, Illegal Alien, Blogger, Congressman, Senator, Journalist, Retired General, Liberal, Conservative, Doctor, Lawyer, or Indian Chief.
Unless your title is President of the United States, You have no input.
Yeah, that's kinda what Bush originally said about Harriet Miers. Funny how that turned out. Let's see what happens to Rumsfeld once the pressure starts boiling, eh?
I'm right.
You're wrong.
End of discussion.
See, now that's a persuasive argument. That's what I get for debating a divine consciousness.
Approval polls are a creation of the Media to try to manipulate public opinion, and have no rellevance to a President serving his last term in office.
You know, I always think it's funny how any numbers that don't prove people like Mikey are right (which obviously he is... he SAID so) are 'irrelevant' or 'tools of the media'. I always thought public opinion polls were meant to guage the opinions of the public. My bad.
The last time Osama Ben Laden caused you any trouble was when he came out and endorsed John F. Kerry for President in 2004, ensuring a Bush victory.
I fully understand why you are still obsessed with his capture even though he clearly is no longer callin the shots anywhere.
Demanding his capture is a lesson in barking up the wrong tree.
No, actually, the last time Osama Bin Laden caused real trouble is when he gave the orders that led to the deaths of thousands of Americans. With the frequency Bush reminds us about 9/11 to support the Iraq occupation, I'd think you'd remember that. Are you saying that trying to bring to justice the man responsible for thousands of American deaths is "barking up the wrong tree?" I would LOVE to have you on record as saying that.
The Iraqi Army has lately been taking over operations in Iraq, with amazing success.
How many Iraqi squadrons could fight without American supervision a year ago? 4. How many are solo-capable now? Zero. Yeah, absolutely amazing success. What else did Ann Coulter tell you?
Casualties have been dropping steadily for everyone but the Terrorist Insurgents, who are beginning to pack up and leave.
US Casualties in the last 6 month period (10/05-3/06): 396
US Casualties in the previous 6 month period (4/05-9/05): 398
Wow. Yeah. That count dropped by 2. Plus, there have been more American deaths this month through the 16th than the entire month of March. Just watch those numbers drop. Don't you HATE it when hard numbers screw up your argument?
I know you can understand, if you will only lay aside your hatred, and honestly look at the facts.
I keep trying to look at the facts, Mikey, but they just keep failing to prove you right, which, as we all know, means there must be something wrong with the logic. Maybe someday I'll get it.
If it weren't for the "Copy and Paste" function on Blogger, you couldn't argue with me at all, could you?
No, I am not an Omnipotent Being, I am just right in this instance.
Even if Casualties only dropped by Two, they still dropped.
Where is the Civil War in Iraq that you guys have been dreading?
It ain't there. That's where it is.
And it ain't coming, either.
The fact is, (And this is all I was trying to say) The Iraqis are standing up, and the U.S. can soon stand down there.
(And John Murtha had nothing to do with it.)
Iraq HAS NOT been a failure, by any standard.
We have installed a working Democracy in a formerly oppressed Nation with less American Casualties than in ONE DAY of fighting in WWII, and less casualties than we incurred in a week in the Viet Nam War, and freed 20 Milloin people in the process.
That is a Noble Undertaking and a result to be proud of, in my book.
Why you see no reason to be proud of this accomplishment is beyond me.
But, again, you are entitled to your opinion, misguided as it may be.
catching Osama Ben Laden would be nice, but I don't believe that it would signal the end of the War on Terrorism, nor should it be a really high priority right now.
He has done what damage he can and will ever do.
We need to be chasing those who are planning future attacks against American Citizens and American Soldiers, EVEN IF IT MEANS THAT BEN LADEN GETS AWAY FOREVER.
I am more interested in preventing future American Deaths, than I am in exacting Revenge for wrongs committed in the past.
Terrorism is not a legal problem, it is a Military problem. (A fact that the Left has never begun to understand.)
It is more important to PREVENT Terrorism than it is to punish Terrorists after the fact. (After the fact, the victims are already dead. Bringing their killers to justice will not bring the victims back.)
I am still right, whether you agree with me or not.
If I were not, then Donald Rumsfeld would have resigned or been fired today.
(Or have you forgotten what we were arguing about?)
Thank you for reinforcing my argument, Kadrummer.
Especially with that last quote.
I'm not sure that you ended the debate, though...
No, Mikey, I'm not showing off copy/paste (or even using it, actually). I'm addressing you point by point, mainly because I CAN. You're like the perfect straight-man. You just keep setting 'em up for me.
Even if Casualties only dropped by Two, they still dropped.
2 out of 398 isn't really a statistical change, Mikey. Regardless, an increase this month over last kinda kills the whole 'steady drop' argument no matter how you look at it.
Where is the Civil War in Iraq that you guys have been dreading?
It ain't there. That's where it is.
Really? So what do you call it when vans full of executed Sunnis show up in Sunni neighborhoods? Friday?
Look, they're not going to dress in blue and grey and fire muskets at each other over the Mason-Dixon. This isn't going to look like traditional civil war. But when you have two opposing militias within one country, and they're killing each other... well...
Civil War: 1) A war between factions or regions of the same country.
So why ISN'T it a civil war?
The fact is, (And this is all I was trying to say) The Iraqis are standing up, and the U.S. can soon stand down there.
Yeah, but you didn't address the point ka and I both brought up. The number of solo-capable Iraqi platoons has dropped to zero. The only good news is that it can't drop any further. I'm assuming the inconvenience of this information makes it something you'd prefernot to deal with, but these are military estimates. Is this another of Condi Rice's 'tactical errors'?
catching Osama Ben Laden would be nice, but I don't believe that it would signal the end of the War on Terrorism, nor should it be a really high priority right now.
He has done what damage he can and will ever do.
We need to be chasing those who are planning future attacks against American Citizens and American Soldiers, EVEN IF IT MEANS THAT BEN LADEN GETS AWAY FOREVER.
Okay, but you do know that none of the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq, right? I just want to make sure we're clear on this.
I mean, you're saying that in response to 9/11, and in our ongoing war on terror, we should ignore the man most responsible, and focus instead on the occupation of a country that wasn't involved. That's pretty fuzzy logic, but if you say so. You are right, after all.
Iraq HAS NOT been a failure, by any standard.
Well, it has by MY standard. And the standard of about 64% of Americans, too. Of course, we're not right, but still, you have to include it in any standard.
We have installed a working Democracy in a formerly oppressed Nation with less American Casualties than in ONE DAY of fighting in WWII, and less casualties than we incurred in a week in the Viet Nam War, and freed 20 Milloin people in the process.
A working Democracy? How are those leadership talks going? Oh, they're completely stalled? Really? How come? Oh, because the Shiites won't give up their candidate, and the Kurds and Sunnis won't comprimise, and there's no method written into new Iraqi law on how to handle the situation outside of U.S. interference? Wow. So by 'working Democracy', you mean the same as calling a hole in the ground a 'working Toilet.'
Why you see no reason to be proud of this accomplishment is beyond me.
Not sure I can put it any clearer. We invaded a country almost devoid of terrorists because we thought they had weapons of mass destruction, abandoning a country that was still chock full of 'em to do it. When it turned out that intelligence was faulty, suddenly we were introducing democracy. Now that the democracy is failing, we're trying to stabilize the region and hunt down terrorists that weren't there until after we arrived. I dunno. This just doesn't read like a touchdown to me.
He has done what damage he can and will ever do.
I hope you're right. But 4 years ago, wasn't the far-right giving themselves coronaries over how badly Bill Clinton undersestimated Osama Bin Laden? Yup. They were.
I am more interested in preventing future American Deaths, than I am in exacting Revenge for wrongs committed in the past.
Wow. You must be really pissed off about the 2,377 preventable American Deaths suffered in Iraq then, right? I mean, our ports are no safer than they were 5 years ago, the borders are still leaky, and 2 dirty-bombs made it into the country just a couple weeks ago during a security test that failed miserably. So we haven't prevented anything on the homefront. Meanwhile, our guys are dying over the occupation of a country that wasn't involved in terrorism. Stunning.
I am still right, whether you agree with me or not.
If I were not, then Donald Rumsfeld would have resigned or been fired today.
Wait, so if President Bush agrees with you, then you're automatically correct, even if all facts and data go against you? Wow.
I guess it really IS pronounced "NEW-cew-ler".
Those people who were found murdered in vans around Iraq were not Iraqis, they were Terrorists. They were Foriegn Insurgents who were killed by Iraqi Citizens.
That is not a Civil War, that is the Iraqis standing up.
I'm glad you feel you are winning this, because I know that feelings matter more to Liberals than actual reality.
Time will prove to you that I am right about all of this.
The more actual facts and figures that come to light, the more right I will be proven to be.
And no, Agreeing with the President does not make me right.
My point is that the President can choose whoever he wants to be the Secretary of Defense.
You seem to think that he works for you, and must fire Rumsfeld because YOU don't like him.
He doesn't.
He is the President. Like it or not.
If you have to call him an arrogant bastard for standing behind his choices over the objections of the Party of Losers, then that is your right.
It doesn't mean a hill of beans, but knock yourself out.
He doesn't work for you. You can't make him fire anybody.
I'm right about that. Your'e wrong.
Have fun being wrong.
I'm going to bed.
Those people who were found murdered in vans around Iraq were not Iraqis, they were Terrorists. They were Foriegn Insurgents who were killed by Iraqi Citizens.
What??? Dude, now see, that's the kind of stuff that makes you guys seem over the top loony. Some of the targeted are under 8 years old... probably not quite old enough to be hardened insurgents. Many of them are killed for being teachers, a new favorite target, mainly because they teach girls. This is all established. You have GOT to break away from Fox News once in a while.
That is not a Civil War, that is the Iraqis standing up.
Well, yeah. It's Iraqis standing up to kill members of opposing factions. Do you know why journalists in Iraq can't travel out of the Green Zone? It's not because Iraqis are 'standing up.' It's because some Iraqis are 'indiscriminately killing people.'
I'm glad you feel you are winning this, because I know that feelings matter more to Liberals than actual reality.
Now, now, in fairness, I have conceded many times that you are right, based on your fervent insistence of the fact.
My point is that the President can choose whoever he wants to be the Secretary of Defense.
You seem to think that he works for you, and must fire Rumsfeld because YOU don't like him.
He doesn't.
He is the President. Like it or not.
No, you really misunderstand. He works for all of us, because he's the President. His salary comes out of our pockets. He is our employee. We can even fire him if need be... that's what the impeachment process is for.
That's not what I'm calling for here, though. As I pointed out earlier, the President has punted before, when reminded who runs the country. Harriet Miers is one example. The Dubai punt is another. Vocal citizens do have an effect, as much as you seem to wish otherwise.
He doesn't work for you. You can't make him fire anybody.
I'm right about that. Your'e wrong.
Yes, yes, you're right, I know. But I didn't say the President worked for me. I said he works for us. And we can make him fire somebody. The public can put a lot of pressure on the office of the Presidency, even without an upcoming election.
In a lot of ways, though, I hope he keeps this sort of arrogance and wllfullness up. As is pointed out by every single opinion poll... I'm sorry, 'tool of the media'... it is hurting not only his approval numbers, but that of the Republican Party. Less than 30% of people now trust the Republicans to best handle matters such as immigration, the economy, and the war in Iraq.
Which, yeah, I guess means that only 30% of Americans agree with you, so 70% are wrong. But even wrong people get to vote, you know.
Have fun being wrong.
You know, I'm starting to think you might be wrong about my being wrong, based on the fact that the only real 'fact' you've brought up, about the executed Iraqis being 'terrorists', is tin-foil-hat untrue. The rest has all been semantics and opinion, in the face of numbers and data. I may stop conceding this point soon. Just a warning.
I'm going to bed.
Nope, wait, there's another fact. Damn. You got me on that one. I can not debunk that.
Post a Comment
<< Home