Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Re: BBC E-mail: Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq

i'm not asking you to change your beliefs.  just dont try to pass them off as relevant to the larger issues of the day.

mcclellan was the United States President's spokesperson to the press;
"irrelevant to governing" -- like an informed public is not part of a responsible government?!

willey was what?

btw the _logical_ conclusion of your argument is bush can't pick a spokesperson.  is dana perino worth listening to by that argument?

and this is your biggest joke to date:  "more informed"!!!   i guess he only got his information from the washington times, certainly _not_ the president, after all "informed", by whom?  he was out there makin' stuff up, because he was "un-informed", and it took bush how long, three years, to figure out his press spokesman was uninformed.  what it _does_ show is how little bush cared about the press.  "Scotty's doin' a great job" -- W.

and to quote the great ronbo, "there you go again .. " what's the trinity church got to do with scott mcclellan and his service to the public?  looks like another one of your red herrings, Ed.

just how far are you from Rush,Ann,Han.  on _this_ one?!!!

keep your ideas; leave the "truthiness" to us liberals.  :-)

-- MM

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 12:57 PM, <ewronka   > wrote:
Both McLEllan and Wiley had jobs that were irrelevant to governing.

Willey made an allegation regarding Bill CLinton and then---according to her---was subjected to threats from the Clinton handlers.

I believe her.

McLellan was a press secretary---a rother poor one at that. I think that Bush could have found a better press secretary by picking someone who was more informed. He has recently tried selling a book in which he criticizes the President.

Do I give his words any creedence? No.

But that is just my humble opinon. I put as much value in McLellan's criticism of Bush as I do in the criticism of Obama for his affiliation of the Trinity Church.

Both are completely irrelevant. I'm sorry if that leads you to believe I am a unreasonable biased advocate. I can't help but believe what I believe.

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Bill Moyers on the Media

this may disturb you as much as me; maybe for the same reasons:


-=+-- Grandpa Marty McGowan 24 Herning Ave
908 230-3739, YIM: applemcg Cranford NJ 07016

Re: FW: Hey Ed

maybe i do hate bush, but

 possibly you mistake my dislike for his public policy as hate, not unlike your brothers (and sisters!!)  who accuse us liberals of being traitors?

 how can i be led by a person who can't (wont try to correctly) pronounce  "nuclear".

 especially in comparison to a president who was a nuclear engineer.

 you can never take bush on the merit.  only in comparison to the clinton of the moment.

 that's what i fail to understand. 

 you are on the wrong side of history when you try to find any merit in the bush presidency.   and what galls me about your stance is when you switched from being  a mccain supporter to a bush loyalist when the bushies thoroughly trashed your man in '00 SoCarolina.  had mccain been the republican candidate in 00, this country would have surely avoided the madness delivered by the bush selectancy.

 you can't/won't admit the destruction of comity in the political arena is a direct result of the hate _you_ spew.  by repeating coulter, hannity, rush, ... arguments.    is there anything these people say you disagree with?   assuredly, the _only_ thing they say I will ever agree with is when they deliver an ironic comment meant to deride.   to paraphrase:  "if we followed the hillary, hussein obama health care plans we'd actually have _socialized_ medicine,   { accompanied by audible sneer } " how can a sentient person do anything but hate that thought (if you can call it thought),  hate the person who delivered it, since they are being evil ( if not un-christian), and hate the persons who would profit, either politically or economically.

 as to the "rant vs rant" approach,   i can't _even_ begin to pay you back for the dreit you delivered during the clinton years,   the problem with your arguments is they have nothing to do with todays problems,
and little to do with the problems of the moment when you made them.

  pointing out that bush's tossing the kyoto protocol is a rant?   you have much to learn.

  " bush's assault on civil liberties ...

  " bush's attempt to fool the working poor that a tax cut for the wealthiest 0.5% favors them ...

  " bush's quashing veteran's benefits ...

  " bush's gutting regulatory agencies in behalf of big donors ...

  what you take as "rant" are legitimate disagreement with his complete disregard of public service in behalf of a narrow group of the powerful.

  your actual rant against the clintons are hung on salacious behavior which has little to do with public policy.

  what i'd like to know is, before the salacious became public, why did you hate him so. my hypothesis is the republican bile was  building for years w.r.t. revenge for nixon, and not able to find a sticking point with carter.   clinton, being a man of the flesh (not, say carter's spirit) was the perfect target.  my data point on this are the republican mis-truths on why bork was turned down for the supreme court:  the current myth is "because of his strong pro-life stance".   nothing could be further from the truth.  while it is a position of bork's, he was really refused the "thumbs up/down" because of his overtly political act of firing the one special prosecutor who was investigating official crimes against the public: namely Archie Cox.   but _that_ little detail, like so many other items of "factiness" escapes capture by the republican myth machine.

 you, my friend are on the wrong side of history.

 witness your opening statement.  "it is you who constantly ... "   were i to lay out a time line of the 8 clinton years against the 8 bush years and and ask who was asking whom to "join you with a pitch fork and demand { }'s head on a stick" ..  you could only conclude i had been the patient one.

 i'll stop "rant"ing against bush when he is no longer president; though i will be writing my democratic majority to conduct a thorough investigation of his administration and recommending appropriate action by the world court

 i'm looking forward to your rants against president obama.   can we count on useless drooling rush-like-dwelling on his "non-christian" names hussein, obama.   to the extent you don't repudiate the idiots who represent your views, you embrace them.

 i'm not solicting your hate, just your finally honest appraisal of the failure he's been.

+=+-- Marty

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:56 AM, <ewronka@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
For the record, it is you who constantly barrage me with emails on how I should join you with a pitch fork and demand Bush's head on a stick.

In the spirit of getting along I usually offer up some level of agreement on a certain amount of short comings with the current President while chastising you for what amounts to wild-eyed over-the top-rhetoric which is far overstated and stipulate that for whatever shortcomings the current President has, they pale in comparison to the jokes offered up by the competing party, including the liar-in-chief and favor seller CLINTON crime family.

If you do not wish to talk about it, then leave me out any emails solicitating hate on Bush. I could do without it. I have never wavered once in my belief that George W. Bush is a far better President than Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or Clinton. The two improvements with Obama are he's honest and forthright about his policy positions (i.e. not taking both sides of every issue) and he keeps the dialogue on the substance of the issues. I watched his speech to AIPAC and found it refrreshing to hear him say that he doesn't think keeping troops in Iraq helps Iran-----I strongly disagreee with it---but its nice to hear him defend his own positions in comparison to last three Democrats who ran for President who would obfiscate such things.

Again---if you don't want to hear me rant against the Clintons or any other Democrat, the solution is simple, don't rant against Bush or McCain or any other Republican to me. (i.e. you started it, but I'm ending it.)

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Re: BBC E-mail: Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq

again ed, the whole context  (Hitchens in Slate).  can _you_ handle the difference of opinion with yours; your quote supporting _mine_  (i don' know why you thought this supports your view?)

When Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill defected from the Cabinet in 2002 and Ron Suskind told O'Neill's story of being surrounded by fools, Michael Kinsley observed that the president deserved all he got from the book. Anyone dumb enough to hire a fool like O'Neill in the first place ought to have known what to expect. So it goes with the ludicrous figure of Scott McClellan. I used to watch this mooncalf blunder his way through press conferences and think, Exactly where do we find such men? For the job of swabbing out the White House stables, yes. But for any task involving the weighing of words? Hah! Now it seems that he realizes, and with a shock at that, that there was a certain amount of "spin" or propaganda involved in his job description. Well, give the man a cigar. Beyond that, the book is effectively valueless to the anti-war camp since, as McClellan says of the president, "I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people."

And let me ask you then,  "Why did the White House castigate such a loyal supporter?"
(the pregnant phrase mcclellan politely omits is " ... ignorently sought to deceive ... ")

I can tell you where Bush finds these guys since Hitchens seems unable:    TEXAS,   where the IQ divided by the population is well below their daily high temps!  

I don't know if i told you, but Regan will go down as the Great Prognosticator:   His quote "The Government IS  (there's that pesky word, again) the PROBLEM".   and under his breath to nancy, "just wait for Bush's boy to take over, he'll make this one stick".

this ain't vitriol, it's merely using these incompetent's words against themselves or their ilk.

as to honest arguments, i opposed the iraq war from the start; read my prior list of "just" wars. and try to find a soul who agrees completely.    if i'm swayed by any opinion makers on this point, it's the US bishops, in a _rare_ show of support on my part.  this being the only issue i can think of where i agree completely with them.

I'm afraid it's too easy for me to answer your honest questions; i rarely see you take on mine, other than to call them "vitriol".   and, in answering your questions, since you have no cogent retort, i guess you fundamentally agree:
   is it possible that Bush is the most incompetent president _ever_?

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM, <ewronka@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
For a day when you feel bold enough to read an in-depth opinion that differs from your own:


---- ewronka@rochester.rr.com wrote:
> Much like Reagan, I think history's verdict on George W. Bush will be much kinder than your vitriol.....

Sunday, June 1, 2008

I get very disappointed when I respond to your email, and hear nothing but crickets....

To change the subject a little...

What is your view of how the two candidates approach the underlying threat of this news story.

To me, I'm indifferent to almost any other issue...this is what I vote on:


About the only other issue on my radar from a Presidential campaign point of view is the struggle between gov'ts which give their people a voice to affect the policy-making apparatus of their gov't vs. those who don't......

My take is all other issues will be inconsequential in a 50 year window of time if these two issues aren't approached correctly.