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.....

No comments: