Pelosi calls out Bush on Timetable flip flop

link

The president said, in his comments, he did not believe in timelines, and he spoke out very forcefully against them. Yet in 1999, on June 5th, then-Governor Bush said, about President Clinton, “I think it’s important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they would be withdrawn.” Despite his past statements, President Bush refuses to apply the same standard to his own activities. Standards — that’s the issue.

I disagree. The issue is double standards. That's what you get from people who want others to play by the rules and tell them the truth but think they don't have to.

Comments :

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You obviously do not understand

You see, what Republicans said during the Clinton Administration cannot be brought up and used against them today because Clinton was evil and got a blowjob, so therefore whatever they said at the time was necessary in order to rid the country of the horror of blue dresses with semen stains.

qui tacet consentire

…………

I suppose

you are right. It seems so obvious now that you explain it...

………… parent

I agree.

The issue is double standards.

This is absolutely correct.

That's what you get from people who want others to play by the rules and tell them the truth but think they don't have to.

And so is this. The Democrats are consistently applying one standard to themselves and another to everyone else. I of course don't subscribe to this philosophy which is why I assume that the Democrats are living by the Golden Rule ... in other words the way that they treat the Republicans is the way that they want to be treated themselves (in terms of the rhetorical devices that are employed as part of the public discourse).

So when you see something that I, as a Republican, say that appears to be a double standard it is not. I am merely applying the time honored Democrat tradition of triangulation. I stick my finger up in the air to see which way the Democrat windbags are "blowing" and then I simply follow their lead (in terms of rhetorical techniques, that is).

Bush is merely doing the same. When the Democrats were in power they apparently didn't want to set any timetables, so now that is the norm. By calling for them now THEY are the ones changing their tune. We merely want to play the game by the same rules which they applied to themselves.

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

…………

There wasn't a need

for timetables as we were actually making progress. And at the time, about 11,000 American troops were in Bosnia and Kosovo working alongside about 55,000 soldiers from allied countries. If only!(link )

I agree that Bill Clinton triangulated too much. But there is where your point should end. Just because someone else did something wrong does not give another person, particularly another president, carte blanche to say one thing and do another.

Furthermore, we are not doing what is most popular and avoiding hard decisions, as John McCain would accuse us. We are doing the right thing here. Just ask a General who is willing to tell the truth. (link )

George Bush is a two-faced liar and blaming Bill Clinton for that is just unacceptable!

………… parent

This is a lie.

George Bush is a two-faced liar ...

Bush has not lied.

[Sorry, nothing personal, this is just my new standard reaction for the Bush Lied / Bush is a Liar crowd. It is sort of the equivalent of hitting "standard reply #3" on the tape recorder.]

I respectfully disagree with the remainder of your reply ... except for the "Clinton triangulated too much" part.

BTW, I am NOT blaming Clinton for Bush's decisions or political posturing ... I am merely pointing out that Clinton set the bar for what is now considered normal conduct.

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Liar

is a pretty strong claim, I agree, and one that requires conclusive evidence.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

How about

this nugget of beauty?

Now, by the way, anytime you hear the United States government talking about wire tap, it requires—a wire tap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.

That was April, 2004 - before the news broke that the President had been authorizing wiretaps without court orders since 2001.

I think "liar" is a fairly accurate term, at least here.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

The court order is required only for domestic

surveillance. These wiretaps all involve foreign surveillance and don't even apply to any calls which both originate and terminate wholly within the US ... which is what this comment was clearly based on.

You choose to focus on the domestic side of the call. I choose to focus on the foreign side of the call. Is there some reason to say that your perspective is "correct" and mine is not? I don't think so.

So, from my perspective, Bush has not lied. From yours, I can see why you might think so but you still can't make your claim without ignoring the true nature of the wiretaps allowed under the program.

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

How are you reading this?

When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.

That's pretty unequivocal there. No "domestic" versus "interational" involved, period. You're developing your own case for separating out types of wiretaps, but none of that is in the original quote.

He made a blanket statement: we do not wiretap without court orders. If you want to defend his right to wiretap foreign calls without, that's fine, but it's not what's at issue here.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Please point me to the full context for this quote

and the text thereof. I tend to agree with your point here, assuming that the quote is accurate and not taken out of context.

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Here you go:

from the White House website: full text . The relevant portion's about halfway down, when he starts describing the difference between traditional wiretapping and "roving" wiretaps. He also talks about FISA (without mentioning it by name) by discussing the ability of the White House to order post-facto warrants for wiretaps.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Cleaning up loose ends...

OK, pico made a fair point . I will try to go through and respond to any dangling points on the "Bush Lied" meme. If I miss yours let me know and I will get back to it. This is my last round on this topic, though. You all can have the last word on your respective threads...

pico:

Here is a larger piece of his actual statement:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

From this it is evident that the term "roving wiretap" has a very specific legal meaning, and that such wiretaps were not available for use against potential terrorists ... only against drug lords for whatever reason. It is also evident that this was a common practice that was already in place well before 9/11 or the Patriot Act. The only thing that the Patriot Act did was alter the scope for where roving wiretaps are applicable.

As far as I can tell, and as the text of the speech makes clear, the use of these "roving wiretaps" still require a court order to apply. Bush has explicitly stated as such directly in the speech. Do you have any evidence that this specific type of wiretap has been used without a court order?

Given that the context of the quote you originally provided was referring specifically to "roving wiretaps" (as opposed to the so-called warrantless wiretaps within Bush's formerly secret program to listen to calls between the US and Foreign Countries made by individuals suspected of having ties to terrorist organizations), and given that we, presumably, ARE obtaining proper warrants in conjunction with these "roving wiretaps" Bush's comment within the speech that you highlighted is NOT a lie.

You do recognize that we are talking about two distinctly different types of wiretaps which are applied in distinctly different circumstances, correct?

One is these "roving wiretaps" which existed as a tool (apparently for the DEA) prior to either 9/11 or the GWOT. The other is the so called "warrantless wiretaps" which only apply to calls which either originate or terminate in a foreign country (created as part of Bush's secret program).

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Hmm...

I think you're making a much more creative reading than the text warrants. Let's take this passage again:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.

It's clear from the context that when Bush says "any time you hear the US gov't talking about wiretaps", he's backing up to talk about all wiretaps, not only the roving ones. Keywords here are "by the way" and the lack of a qualifier in front of the second "wiretap".

I'll make up an example using the same sentence structure:

This class is going to discuss French literature. Now, by the way, any time you hear me talking about literature, I'm referring to poetry and prose.

What you're trying to argue - and what I find totally not believable - is that my second "literature" refers specifically to French literature. I cannot imagine a reasonable listener who would come away with that impression, and if any of my students did, they'd have a hard time coming out of that class with a passing grade.

So in order to believe your reading, we'd need all these criteria to be met:

1. The President really intended to refer only to roving wiretaps, but chose a very poor way of doing so;
2. The President's assurance that "nothing has changed" in terms of copyright law was intended only to refer to roving wiretaps (in which case he may still be lying by omission, since he had long since instituted changes for other wiretaps); and
3. Not one of the roving wiretaps between 2001 and 2004 were issued without a court order, which means that Bush's super-secret program was not using the type of wiretap that he defends as the most necessary in the war on terror.

I still call B.S. There's nothing either in your reading or in the larger argument that convinces me he was not intentionally misleading his listeners here.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

You can believe what you want ...

I'll never be able to convince you either way. What is clear from the context, as you say, is that all three of the relevant paragraphs from start to finish are discussing NOTHING but roving wiretaps. They are mentioned in the opening sentence as well as the closing one, and several places in between.

What I find unbelievable is that you have to spin things to the point where he basically is jumping out of the middle of this text to suddenly be intending all wiretaps, not just the ones that every other piece of the text is discussing.

To be perfectly honest, what this sounds like to me is that he was actually trying to talk through this in his own words and was mangling them how he always does. Are you not the people who harp on and on about what an inarticulate boob he is? But now the finer points of his "grammatical sentence structure" are suddenly the key point of this discussion?

Keywords here are "by the way" and the lack of a qualifier in front of the second "wiretap".

Give me a break.

So in order to believe your reading, we'd need all these criteria to be met:

1. The President really intended to refer only to roving wiretaps, but chose a very poor way of doing so;
2. The President's assurance that "nothing has changed" in terms of copyright law was intended only to refer to roving wiretaps (in which case he may still be lying by omission, since he had long since instituted changes for other wiretaps); and
3. Not one of the roving wiretaps between 2001 and 2004 were issued without a court order, which means that Bush's super-secret program was not using the type of wiretap that he defends as the most necessary in the war on terror.

Counter points:

1) Consistent with your [the liberals] "he's an inarticulate boob" position.

2) In this entire section of the speech he was explaining what the provisions in the Patriot Act did, correct? What the Patriot Act actually authorized relative to other existing capabilities. Within that context, only the roving wiretaps apply, correct? I don't think that the Patriot Act actually says anything about his "secret programs" does it?

3) See number 2 above. Also, unless you can provide proof to the contrary, as far as we know they are, in fact, obtaining the required warrants for the roving wiretaps.

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Now you're playing intentionally dumb.

You can dismiss what I say as nitpicking, but look at the example I gave above. There is no way that anyone with half a brain and no agenda wouldn't consider that segment a digression to qualify all wiretaps. And what's irking me is not only that you know this, but that you're pretending you don't, and throwing it back at me as if this were some creation of mine.

This section of his speech is an attempt to explain the difference between traditional and roving wiretaps. He's trying to assure the audience that roving wiretaps do not break from the law that governs all wiretaps, and he promises that nothing has changed in that respect.

Nothing I said implied he was an "inarticulate boob", but I guess you're having as much trouble reading my comments as you do the Presidents.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Ha!

Nothing I said implied he was an "inarticulate boob", but I guess you're having as much trouble reading my comments as you do the Presidents.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Have you actually read your own reference?

Here, let me widen the scope even more and give you a play by play of the logical flow of the points being made:

Up to this point in the speech the President was basically thanking lots of people and talking about the issues with the Iraq war and Saddam.

At home, we've got a lot of work to do. We've got a lot of work to do. We're a freedom nation, we're a big nation, people come and go. And we needed to change the whole attitude about how we protect the homeland. We'll do everything we can to stay on the offensive. But just remember, we've got to be right 100 percent of the time; and the enemy has only got to be right once. And so we've got a tough job.

It means we've got to coordinate between the federal government and the state government and the local government like never before. We've got to share information on a real-time basis, so first responders and police chiefs can move as quickly as possible. We're going to talk about that communication today.

We created the Department of Homeland Security which would allow us to better coordinate between agencies. It's kind of -- what happens in bureaucracies is you get what they call stovepipes -- in other words, people don't talk to each other, they kind of stay in their own lane, and they don't share information across the lanes, and therefore, vital information may show up, but it's not widely disseminated so there's not real-time action on, say, a threat.

Part of the problem we face was that there was laws and bureaucratic mind-sets that prevented the sharing of information. And so, besides setting up the Homeland Security Department and beefing up our air travel security, and making sure that we now fingerprint at the borders and take those fingerprints, by the way, and compare to a master log of fingerprints of terrorists and known criminals, to make sure people coming into our country are the right people coming into our country. I mean, we do a lot of things. But we change law, as well, to allow the FBI and -- to be able to share information within the FBI.

Incredibly enough, because of -- which Larry and others will discuss -- see, I'm not a lawyer, so it's kind of hard for me to kind of get bogged down in the law. (Applause.) I'm not going to play like one, either. (Laughter.) The way I viewed it, if I can just put it in simple terms, is that one part of the FBI couldn't tell the other part of the FBI vital information because of law. And the CIA and the FBI couldn't talk. Now, these are people charged with gathering information about threats to the country; yet they couldn't share the information. And right after September the 11th, the Congress wisely acted, said, this doesn't make any sense. If we can't get people talking, how can we act? We're charged with the security of the country, first responders are charged with the security of the country, and if we can't share information between vital agencies, we're not going to be able to do our job. And they acted.

This section of the speech is talking about Gorelick wall between the FBI and the CIA, and how it prevented us from connecting the dots that needed to be connected.
This is making the case for the need to change the law via the Patriot Act.

So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.

And here is the transition to talking about the Patriot Act and what the main items that it addressed are. This paragraph is discussing the the first point (keywords: "the first thing I want you to think about"). In case it escaped you the point was: one thing the Patriot Act did was break down the Gorelick wall.

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

This section is talking about the second important point he wants to make (keywords: "Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps."). Surprisingly enough, the context of this section is talking about "roving wiretaps", what they are, why they are important, and that they still require warrants (keywords: "So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps").

Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs.

We had real problems chasing paper -- following paper trails of people. The law was just such that we could run down a problem for a crooked businessman; we couldn't use the same tools necessary to chase down a terrorist. That doesn't make any sense. And sometimes the use of paper trails and paper will lead local first responders and local officials to a potential terrorist. We're going to have every tool, is what I'm telling you, available for our people who I expect to do their job, and you expect to do their jobs.

We had tough penalties for drug traffickers; we didn't have as tough a penalty for terrorists. That didn't make any sense. The true threat to the 21st century is the fact somebody is trying to come back into our country and hurt us. And we ought to be able to at least send a signal through law that says we're going to treat you equally as tough as we do mobsters and drug lords.

This section is talking about the third important point he wants to make (keywords: "Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants."). Surprisingly enough, the context of this section is talking about "delayed notification warrants", what they are, why they are important, and the message we are sending by applying them in the GWOT.

There's other things we need to do. We need administrative subpoenas in the law. This was not a part of the recent Patriot Act. By the way, the reason I bring up the Patriot Act, it's set to expire next year. I'm starting a campaign to make it clear to members of Congress it shouldn't expire. It shouldn't expire, for the security of our country. (Applause.)

And then this is the paragraph where the talk transitions from "what we have already done" (via the Patriot Act) to "what still needs to be done" (in preparation for a call to action).

I don't know how much public speaking you have done, but speeches are typically organized around a logical flow which focuses on making very specific points.

As I said above, this section of the speech was clearly walking through the three main points he wanted to make about the Patriot Act:

  1. It tore down the wall between law enforcement agencies.
  2. It provides roving wiretaps which require warrants.
  3. It provides delayed notification warrants.

So, I will ask you again, if the three paragraphs which talk about roving wiretaps are clearly scoped within a section discussing the changes that the Patriot Act put into place (as the other surrounding sections do as well), why would he suddenly try to talk about wiretaps that applied to a program that he considered to be a national security secret?

You are just hearing what you want to hear because you want him to be a liar. I understand this. I don't particularly care or blame you for it. But this is an objective analysis of what he said in the context of the actual speech. And within this context, his statement was NOT a lie.

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

I know this is pico's battle

but I just wanted to jump in here and say if you held Bush to the same standards as us here , then Bush should have said 'roving wiretaps' in that 'BTW' section that pico pointed out properly as a backtrack. Without that qualifier (according to you), he is discussing 'all wiretaps'.

………… parent

This is (ever so barely) a fair point, Specter.

Feel free to jump in if you want. I am always happy to "correct" the record, although in the case you may wish that I hadn't. :-)

First, let's review the point that I believe you are trying to make. In this post I make the following statements:

Even in the context of your original comment the phrase "the rich" was clearly directed at "wealthy white people". This is clearly implied in your comment.

...

You didn't say "the racist rich" or "the rich who are racist", you just said "the rich" in a context where that clearly translated to "white". And I would have called you on these phrases as well, BTW, because no matter how you try to hide it or cover it up it is a bigoted comment.

So, what was "in the context of your original comment" referring to? Let's see.

pico wrote:

I may be wrong, but I always thought the opposition to and support for vouchers was always primarily a money issue. Basically (cue Norquist), the people paying the highest in taxes are also the least likely to be sending their children to public school, so in effect it's like paying for double the education costs of your own child. I know in New Orleans there's a strong level of racial animosity added to this, as well: the city public schools are predominantly black, with white private schools sprinkled throughout.* So it's not just that the wealthy are paying twice as much in education costs, but they're doing it to support people that, in the New Orleans case, they'd rather leave to their own devices. The city is not exactly ground zero for racial reconciliation anytime soon.

*(a quick pseudo-defense of some of them: private schools around the country sprung up in opposition to school desegregation, but the New Orleans situation is often the result of religious tradition - for example, my own school is well over a century old, so its founding wasn't tied to segregation issues or race. Its history since then has been, unfortunately.)

And Specter replied:

No, you are right. My education series was going to cover 1) Student's rights in the age of school shootings (done), 2) Standardized testing (doubt I will do this one now, as I addressed most of my points briefly below), and 3) the stratification of the educational system (still plan to complete).

You touch on an important point: the alternative education of the rich. The racial component is sad. Basically, the rich are saying they should be able to buy segregation. Sad.

I was originally going to simply highlight that in Bush's case he actually DID use the term "roving wiretaps", multiple times in fact, AND in the opening sentence of the three paragraphs from his speech that we are discussing. In your case you (personally) did NOT ever qualify your use of "the rich" even a single time.

Upon further review, however, I see that pico, much to his credit, did in fact provide clarification of his intended targets in the form of his footnote wherein he at least acknowledges that some of the people in the group encompassed by the term "the wealthy" have other good faith reasons for sending their kids to the privates schools other than "trying to buy segregation" as you later termed it. This is why I did not feel the need to jump on his comment like I did on yours.

I still maintain that within the context of your statement, the phrase "the rich" refers to the group "all wealthy people living in New Orleans who send their kids to private schools," but since pico did provide a qualification I can see how a reasonable person might assume that his qualification was also implied in your use of "the rich".

So, given this, I stand corrected and hereby retract the foul and evil epithets I hurled at you.

Now, let us review. You have claimed that in your use of "the rich" you were only referring to the racist ones in that group, not all of them. You have no specific defense of this within the text or your original comment, but I can see how you could find one indirectly through pico's text in the form of a footnote.

In Bush's case he clearly lead off the entire section (thus setting the scope of that discussion) by using the qualified term "roving wiretaps", and he re-iterated this term multiple times throughout the three paragraphs in question.

Of these two, I would argue that Bush clearly has the stronger case. Would you not agree?

Now, after having reviewed the original context of your comment and recognizing my error, I have in good faith admitted my error and retracted my admonition. Thus I am clearly and with out a doubt holding both you and George Bush to the same exact standard.

It occurs to me, however, that this now leaves you in a bit of a conundrum, or a pickle if you will.

If you accept the above logic which lets you off the hook for having made a bigoted comment, does it not also let Bush off the hook for having lied (in this specific case)? And given that I have so graciously admitted that I was wrong for having claimed your comment was bigoted would it not also be a reasonable gesture on your part to admit that Bush did not lie (in this specific instance)?

Hmmm. Decisions, decisions.

Either the reasoning above is correct (and therefore you did not make a bigoted comment and Bush did not lie, at least in this case), or that reasoning is incorrect (and therefore Bush [may have] actually still lied [by picos argument] but then my original argument about your [possibly] bigoted comment still applies).

:-)

So, Specter, which is it? Is Bush a liar (in this case) or was your comment bigoted?

[ Just for the record I don't really think that Specter is a bigot, even though I do believe that his original comment was careless and could be interpreted as such. My only purpose of one of raising awareness. ]

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

I do not buy the premise

I do not buy the premise that calling out segregationism is bigotry. You never answered how that one works.

Lastly, my comment was also more in context than Bush's as I explain here to show it follows a previous comment in a thread as you sometimes acknowledge and sometimes don't, while Bush's comment is clearly a backtrack as pico points out wonderfully through this example (which you still have not addressed):

This class is going to discuss French literature. Now, by the way, any time you hear me talking about literature, I'm referring to poetry and prose.

(edit): Before you answer this, see my comment below about 'Paradox and Values'.

………… parent

Black is he black

I don't see color....... said Stephen Colbert.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Raising awareness.

NOTE: Most of this commentary is explaining my previous position which I have now retracted. I offer it here merely as an explanation to help you understand my mindset at the time.

I do not buy the premise that calling out segregationism is bigotry. You never answered how that one works.

I guess that this depends on our respective definitions of bigotry. Webster will work fine for me in this discussion:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Based on the affirmative action training I have had over the past 20 years, a slightly different way of saying it is that bigotry is the act of applying a negative stereotype to all the members of a group, rather than solely to those individuals who exhibit it. Example: The black man that complains that we should not call him lazy just because he is black.

So the issues at play here are as follows:

1) Being racist is bad (i.e. negative).
2) Promoting segregation is racist.
3) Democrats promote the stereotype that Republicans are racists.
4) Democrats promote the stereotype that Republicans are mostly Rich White People.
5) Ergo, your statement is applying a negative stereotype to all of the members of a group (which is also aligned with a racial component).
6) Ergo, your statement is a valid example of a bigoted statement.

I think that if you examine all of the examples of where I complain about bigotry the logic will be similar to this.

I do speak out against bigotry. Here, I will do so now: "Bigotry in all of its forms is evil and should be abolished wherever it lives. We should denounce any and all that harbor such inclinations."

Feel free to quote me on that. :-)

So when I see your comment as being bigoted and I speak out against it, I am just walking the walk. I am against bigotry in all of its forms, not just the bigotry against the politically correct list of accepted groups.

For the most part, the politically correct groups have entire organizations to speak out for them. Because of this I don't spend much time chiming in because those groups are pretty well covered.

I spend my "walking the walk" time speaking out against the lesser known forms of bigotry such as the one I claim to have noticed here. As you say, you have likewise seen other examples from me.

I am most sensitive to bigotry against "moderately successful white males." I think we get a bad rep in society today and I speak out against it, but I don't necessarily limit myself to this group.

As you have noted, I will also tend to speak up for Christians, not because I am one but because I believe that they too are getting a bad rep in society today.

But I would also not be above defending those "left handed hermaphrodites with blond hair and six toes" out there if I thought they were being unfairly attacked/discriminated against.

From here we have:

I was speaking directly to this comment which was right above mine. It was not a blanket statement about all wealthy people, but, in the context of responding to pico's previous comment, it was a direct reference to a particular situation. Furthermore, in this context, it is only the rich who are putting their children in private schools due to racism, which is also heavily implied by the context. So rich racists in New Orleans who segregate their children are who I was discussing. Particular and specific. Not all.

I understand your analysis. Had it not been for pico's footnote, however, you would have no ground to stand on ... and I really doubt that the footnote was foremost in you mind when you made your comment. I believe that a more accurate characterization of the group you had in mind at the time you wrote the comment given this context was: "Rich White People in New Orleans that send their kids to private schools." Only you know for sure.

If not for his footnote my argument would still be 100% correct given the semantics of the English language and the most narrow interpretation that you could claim/support would be the one I present above which, in my estimation, would still be a bigoted comment because I am sure that there are at least SOME rich white people in New Orleans who send their kids to private schools for reasons other than racism.

I still maintain that to the casual reader the impression was clearly that you were saying the rich white people in New Orleans are racists, which is what I reacted to.

Either way it is moot. I have already acknowledged my error as stated above.

There is a lesson for all of us here. When I was being so hyper-critical of an innocent comment how did that make you feel? Did you feel that I was being unfair, ridiculous, unjust? Well that is how I feel about many of the talking points that come out of the Democrat leadership ... especially when they are playing the race card. Unfortunately comments like this one just play into that meme.

Trent Lott paid a pretty heavy price for comment related to segregation at an old man's birthday party, and I believe that his comment was just as innocent as yours was here. And I believe that the left was being every bit as hyper-critical in that case as I was here.

points out wonderfully through this example (which you still have not addressed):

This class is going to discuss French literature. Now, by the way, any time you hear me talking about literature, I'm referring to poetry and prose.

It is all well and good to sit here and play games with the sentence structure when you have all the time in the world to get everything just so. In Bush's case he was just talking. And was trying to connect with people by saying things more in his own style rather than reading every word off of a teleprompter.

When speaking we all make fits and stutters which come out as grammatical faux pas in the transcripts. I think that it is fundamentally unfair to scrutinize every last word out of a spoken speech, especially from a section where he had clearly lost his place and was still recovering his thoughts.

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.

This sentence, the very one that you are so concerned about, is clearly malformed. Keywords: "it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order".

When I read it this sounds to me like he was launching into his talking point about roving wiretaps and then something caused him to remember that he had a very important point to make here ... maybe he was remembering some coaching he had before the speech to remember to talk about how these wiretaps need warrants ... not to forget to mention the warrants.

So there he is, following the highlights on the teleprompter and putting things (somewhat) into his own words when he hits this point and the neurons fire and all of a sudden he begins to get distracted by remembering the coaching to remember the warrants. So things get jumbled in the process and for a sentence or two he forgets to qualify things with the word roving.

Can I prove this? Obviously not. Certain never to your collective satisfactions. So I didn't even try.

I stand by my analysis of the overall structure of the speech coupled with the observation that I seriously doubt that he ever meant to talk about the warrant, or lack thereof, in such a high profile speech for a program which was [at least once] considered to be a national secret. This latter point makes no sense at all IMHO.

Edit: Almost forgot ...

Let's consider the following statement now:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. These wiretaps require a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

Before you go all ballistic, I KNOW he didn't actually say this. I merely changed the offending sentence to one that might have flowed more naturally when speaking but STILL LEFT THE UNQUALIFIED REFERENCE TO WIRETAPS. So, the question is, in this text what does the underlined word "wiretap" refer too? ALL wiretaps or just roving wiretaps?

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Paradox and Values

I've noticed something recently when you have been calling me bigoted for referring to groups as racists.

Let's go through a recap of the instances just so we are on the same page. These are only the instances I remember off the top of my head, so there could be more.

The first time you did this (not directly to me) was when you said people on this site (I don't exactly recall, but I think it was pico, missliberties, and CLC) were bashing Christianity because they were in favor of Happy Holidays (I was busy writing my own diary on the matter so I was not really involved in this discussion).

The second time that I recall is when I called out Schlafly who was invited by the college republicans to speak at a college, in which she said many sexist remarks. Purpleface added to this conversation by stating that there was a thread with multiple posters agreeing that women should not have the right to vote, to which I made a joke at Ender's definition of the GOP as the party of individuality and freedom.

The most recent is the discussion of private schools in which I said that it is sad that the rich can buy segregation in reference to what pico said as you point out above.

Ok, the first thing I want to point out is that it is mostly impossible to meet your standard of only calling the people directly related for the racism out rather than a larger group. For example, is it fair for me to say that whites in the South had slaves before the civil war? Or do I have to go find census reports to find the slave owners' exact names to meet your tough standards?

In the Schlafly scenario (or numerous Coulter examples), she was invited by the college republicans which is a group endorsed and sponsored by the larger republican party. As such, saying the GOP (joke as it was) endorsed her comments is not that big of a stretch (though I do not actually believe this is a GOP platform or anything). In these scenarios, I think a statement about a larger group is fair within the context.

Next, I wanted to discuss the use of paradox which I think you are often trying to point out without using that terminology. You basically say that I am being intolerant because I am not accepting of difference. You also say that I am applying my comments to a larger group than what is called for. The latter I try to answer above, but I will make an attempt to be as specific as possible within reason in the future (but please take context and threads into consideration in these discussions).

About the former (intolerant of the intolerant): this is indeed a logical paradox if taken to the extreme as pure tolerance accepts all difference. Paradoxes are always a double-sided coin though, two mutually true comments that do not coincide with each other. While I can clearly point out a racist's intolerance on one side of the coin, you can clearly point out my intolerance for the racist's intolerance on the other. Perfectly valid argument logically. It is a paradox admittedly. So what do we do from here?

Since we are social animals, we then return to the human realm and focus on values to overcome the paradox. What kind of world do we want to live in. A world that values merit and hard-work, or one that prefers established privilege over others because of racism? If you value the former, then you over-ride the logical paradox by using your value system to say we should give one side of the paradox coin more credence (the saying racism is bad and we will not tolerate it) than the other side (we should value and defend racism). We can remain static in the realm of language and logic while these problems persist or we can tackle the problems using the values we appreciate.

Let's try to avoid the nit-picky arguments about the logical consistency of 'intolerance' and focus on the real problems which we can determine by our values. So what is it? Are you with me in fighting the racist intolerance or are we going to play word games on this site all the time?

[Thanks for actually not thinking I'm a bigot. I don't actually think you defend bigots. I do think I should be more careful with my wording when discussing groups, but I think you should spend more time condemning the true bigots.]

………… parent

Proof of Lying

When asked if Harriet miers was the best qualified candidate for the Supreme Court bush said:

"Yes," he answered. "Otherwise I wouldn't have put her on."

There is no stretch of imagination that a petty bureaucrat with no legal training would be the best qualified candidate for the SCOTUS.

The best thing about this example is even hard core right wingers have difficulty arguing against it.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

Not so.

Despite what you might think, the term "best qualified" is actually pretty sketchy. "Best qualified" along what dimension? There are many such dimensions to consider when contemplating some one's "qualifications" to be a judge on the Supreme (or any other) Court.

Weighing the relative merits of a person's qualifications amongst these varying dimensions comes down to a judgement call, which is all Bush did when he said what he did. At the time she was the best qualified person in his opinion, and as President it was his opinion that mattered in the nomination process.

You may not agree with his opinion, but luckily for the rest of us your agreement, or lack thereof, is not the deciding factor in determining whether someone "lied".

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Not *that* subjective.

There is no axis on which harriet Miers is the best qualified.

You may not agree with his opinion, but luckily for the rest of us your agreement, or lack thereof, is not the deciding factor in determining whether someone "lied".

A statement of opinion so divorced from verifiable reality is a lie. That or the speaker is insane.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

In your opinion ...

There is no axis on which harriet Miers is the best qualified.

but unfortunately for you, it was President Bush's opinion that mattered.

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Actually...

...his opinion didn't matter since that comment was met by total derision even from Redstate. He blatantly lied and even his base told him to shove it.

And it was shoved. Notice that Mrs. meirs is not in fact a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

Irrelevant to the point at hand.

Which is whether Bush lied (when he said she was the best qualified), which he didn't.

his opinion didn't matter since that comment was met by total derision even from Redstate. He blatantly lied and even his base told him to shove it.

And it was shoved. Notice that Mrs. meirs is not in fact a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

And his opinion DID matter because she actually WAS nominated which is all he gets to say about it. Her absence from sitting on the Supreme Court is not for lack of his nomination.

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Question for you.

Let's, for the sake of this discussion, assume that Bush DID lie in the quote you provided above. This then raises the question of motive. What do you believe was Bush's motivation to lie under these circumstances? What would he hope to gain by nominating her?

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Gee, I wonder...

Harriet miers is a loyal Bushy (to use their term). What possible point could there have been to Bush trying to stack the highest court in the land with people who are intensely loyal to him?

That's a pretyy obvious self answering question you got right there.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

Not obvious at all.

But under this scenario where we are assuming that he actually DID lie (i.e. he knew she was not qualified), he would have known that she was lacking in qualifications and therefore would not ever actually make it onto the court. So your response doesn't make sense in this case, since he would have known she was a bust.

Given this, he must have had some other reason than actually expecting her to be confirmed.

Do you have anything else?

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Truth and lies

He would lie because it is politically disasterous to admit to nominating someone for SCOTUS even though there are other better qualified people. Particularly when you are sensitive the past accusations about all of your successes being based on who you know and who your family is.

Bush doesn't lie because he doesn't care what the truth is. Was HM the most qualified? Who cares, the most advantageous answer is 'yes' so that is the response. Truth or falsehood is never analyzed and is irrellevant.

Call it a truth or a lie as you choose, but there is certainly nothing resembling integrity in it.

………… parent

You make a level headed point.

And his response was most likely the knee jerk response that you articulate, but does that make it a lie? I think not. The only people who would try to interpret his comment as anything more than the standard knee jerk response are merely engaging in political spin (and that includes me).

But I can't resist this flippant response:

there is certainly nothing resembling integrity in it

I don't know. Isn't standing up for those you believe in something that resembles integrity? Having put her out there as a nominee, isn't standing by her and defending her something that resembles integrity?

What, in your mind, would a person of integrity do in these cases?

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

I understand

that what I consider a lie is not a lie to you, because, among others, we both live in alternate realities, but how do you explain something like this to a normal person (who lives in a reality where a lie is defined as: a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker)

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. "
President Bush (09/01/05)

Sic semper tyrannis

………… parent

I begin by ...

who lives in a reality where a lie is defined as: a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker

Explaining to them that (a) constitutes the controlling definition of the term "lie" in these circumstances, whereas (b) does not. The manner in which the liberals are using the phrase "Bush Lied" is clearly intended to imply "intent to deceive", but we have no way of determining that Bush knew or believed what he was saying was untrue.

I understand that you probably pulled these from some dictionary definition someplace, however I would further argue that in common usage of the term "lie" that (b) is not even a valid definition. By this definition, any statement which is not 100% true and accurate constitutes a "lie".

Example:
Random Person: How do I get to 101 main street from here?
Me: Head north two blocks and turn right.

Now, if I gave my answer in all good faith and truthfully to the best of my knowledge yet it turns out they needed to turn left instead of right, have I "lied"? I say no.

If you prefer to say "yes" in this circumstance then you are removing from the equation my intent, for it matters not whether I intended to deceive.

I may have been confused as to which block we were on or I may simply have misspoke (i.e. I meant to say left but for whatever reason the word that came out of my mouth was right) or I may simply have been incorrect in my understanding of where 101 main street actually was. I don't believe that in common usage very many people would claim that I had "lied" under these scenarios.

If you accept (b) as being a valid definition of "lie" then it is a true statement that everyone posting on this site is also a "two face liar" because at some point in their lives they will have made and incorrect or inaccurate statement.

Do you all accept that you are a bunch of "two face liars" because of this? If you do then I guess that you are basically the same as President Bush in this respect.

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Well,

I'm sorry, if in your alternate reality Webster is just some dictionary - in mine it's pretty authoritative. If you have a problem with this definition you should really take it up with them.

Repeating a statement that is not true is not lying? You might not have the intent to lie but you certainly didn't take diligent care to assure that your statement is 100% correct (as in "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - which in my opinion is quite an overkill - but completely unambiguous)

As to the last two paragraphs - it's irrelevant - we are discussing Bush - not ourselves, and, what is even more important, in the example quote i posted, preponderance of evidence shows that Bush intentionally made his "incorrect" statement.

Sic semper tyrannis

………… parent

You're clutching at straws.

Repeating a statement that is not true is not lying?

Who repeated what?

You might not have the intent to lie but you certainly didn't take diligent care to assure that your statement is 100% correct

Funny, I don't see anything about taking diligent care to assure 100% accuracy in your definition.

(as in "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - which in my opinion is quite an overkill - but completely unambiguous)

And when was anyone under oath in this context?

As to the last two paragraphs - it's irrelevant - we are discussing Bush - not ourselves, and, what is even more important

They are not only completely relevant, but the very core of this discussion. The point being contested is what it means for something to constitute a lie.

So, since you were not 100% accurate with that statement I guess you must be a liar.

in the example quote i posted, preponderance of evidence shows that Bush intentionally made his "incorrect" statement.

I must have missed that part. Where have you provided anything but you own interpretation of the circumstances, much less a demonstrable "preponderance of evidence" to support your here to fore unfounded assertion?

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Apparently you missed

the interview with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director Michael Brown on August 31, 2005 where he said:

Larry, let me tell you something I did. When I became the director of FEMA a couple of years ago, I decided it was time we did some really serious catastrophic disaster planning. So, the president gave me money through our budget to do that. And we went around the country to figure out what's the best model we can do for a catastrophic disaster in this country? And we picked New Orleans, Louisiana, being struck dead on by a cat five hurricane.

This did not happen in this event. But that cat 4 hurricane caused the same kind of damage that we anticipated. So we planned for it two years ago. Last year, we exercised it. And unfortunately this year, we're implementing it.

Hurricane Katrina's Aftermath

and a SPECIAL REPORT from THE TIMES-PICAYUNE

Levees, our best protection from flooding, may turn against us.

I think this sufficiently establishes that not only there were people who predicted the breach of the levees, which makes the statement false

And this doesn't really require any comment from me:

The [Senate Homeland Security] Committee released documents showing that the White House situation room received a report at 1:47 a.m. the day Katrina hit, predicting that Katrina would likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching. A couple days later, the president said no one anticipated that the levees could breach.

Katrina: Who knew what when?

Sic semper tyrannis

………… parent

Video documentation

that Bush knew before the storm (shows Bush giving a thank you to Brownie and a meteorologist who directly discusses the levee breach before the storm hits).

………… parent

checkmate

Pièce de résistance.
and
Coup de Grâce.

Sic semper tyrannis

………… parent

Safe to say

Bush lied.

Now official.

………… parent

This video is crap.

You aren't seriously putting this over-editted video up as proof of anything, are you? woodsman has mounted a better case above than this.

My comments on the video:

1) No one in the video actually claims that the levees will actually be breached. One guy mentions it as a "possibility" and a "grave concern". Somehow I doubt that Bush watches this particular news guy, either, so the hyperbole about "were you listening" is completely over rated here. Do you know, for a fact, that Bush saw this guys forecast BEFORE the storm hit?

If not, then this proves nothing.

2) Everyone else in the video is talking about it being a big storm. I didn't hear any mentions of levee breaches in any of the other segments. Given the absence of any such direct discussion with Bush present, these segments are moot.

My more general comments:

3) Again, without giving me the full context of his statement I have no way of knowing whether you are twisting his meaning. For example, what was the intended universe of people he meant to encompass when he said "anybody". Anybody in the country? Anybody in the government? Anybody in the federal government? Any of his direct reports?

4) What was the context and which meaning of the term "anticipate" was he intending here?

Main Entry: an·tic·i·pate
Pronunciation: an-'ti-s&-"pAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -pat·ed; -pat·ing
Etymology: Latin anticipatus, past participle of anticipare, from ante- + -cipare (from capere to take) -- more at HEAVE
transitive verb
1 : to give advance thought, discussion, or treatment to
2 : to meet (an obligation) before a due date
3 : to foresee and deal with in advance : FORESTALL
4 : to use or expend in advance of actual possession
5 : to act before (another) often so as to check or counter
6 : to look forward to as certain : EXPECT

If, per chance, he meant meaning number 6 then I would argue that he was correct. If he was thinking of the FEMA guys and using meaning number 3, this too could be viewed not only as correct but as an admission of responsibility as well (i.e. for failing to do number 3).

So, come on guys, do you have any PROOF of which of these were running through his mind when he was making his statement? His state of mind and his intent to deceive are the primary elements of a lie.

Given that you think he is such a clear cut liar and all, you seem to be having a lot of trouble making a completely airtight case for that fact.

Personally, I think that you just hate him and are looking to read what you want to hear into whatever is convenient. Make a case to prove me wrong here.

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Your standard of proof is

getting ridiculous. You're doing your best, "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is," but you are doing it poorly. In this context, 'anticipate' means 'to expect' and 'anybody' means the government (he is talking about the response of the government) as seen clearly by the interview shown here .

A better version of the video in which Bush is shown lying from his previous statement he made in the video above (the ABC interview) is here .

I know Bush was watching this 'particular news guy', because the whole presentation was done specifically for him through a conference call.

Here is further evidence that he was warned by this 'news guy' in advance (and if your last excuse is to blame the 'librul media' you will lose a lot of standing in my eyes--I will even start out with your favorite news source just in case):

FOX News : Video Footage Shows Bush, Chertoff Were Warned of Katrina's Potential Impact

BBC : Video showing President George W Bush being warned on the eve of Hurricane Katrina that New Orleans' flood defences could be overcome has emerged.

USA Today : Video shows Bush, Chertoff warned before Katrina

CBS : Tape: Bush, Chertoff Warned Before Katrina

MSNBC : ideo shows Bush got explicit Katrina warning
President, Chertoff were clearly told of storm’s dangers numerous times

CNN : Transcripts, tape show Bush, Brown warned on Katrina

ABC : Video shows Bush was warned about Katrina

Washington Post : White House Got Early Warning on Katrina

A sampling from this article:

In the 48 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit, the White House received detailed warnings about the storm's likely impact, including eerily prescient predictions of breached levees, massive flooding, and major losses of life and property, documents show.

A 41-page assessment by the Department of Homeland Security's National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), was delivered by e-mail to the White House's "situation room," the nerve center where crises are handled, at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, the day the storm hit, according to an e-mail cover sheet accompanying the document.

He had verbal and written warning.

In other words, Bush lied.

………… parent

Seconded

NIce work, btw.

Fascinating the mindset of subtlety and denial suddenly discovered by the right.

The irony that they lambasted Kerry as too "nuanced", and now the right finds itself nuancing til the cows come home to make it seem like Bush never lied.

And....... drum roll..... please....... Bush is now using Kerry's definition of what like stability would look like in Iraq, an acceptable level of violence.

Yesterday:

"President Bush — without saying so explicitly — embraced Kerry’s definition of success against terrorism. “Success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives.”

Kerry was crucified for saying exactly that. That terrorism is not a matter of war but a matter for the law.

My new favorite is ...... Bush never linked Iraq and 9/11!

Rush Limbaugh's nuanced version to rescue Bush as a truth ranger, "Bush never said the government of Iraq attacked us on 9/11, only that there were links between Saddam Huessein and al_Queda. (another falsehood to cover a falsehood)

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent