If you have some time on your hands, please go through my scribblings and utterances here or elsewhere and tell me what are the worst things I have said or written about GW Bush or even that wretch Cheney.
I am sure that I said that I thought GW was unintelligent, deluded and foolish, but I don't recall having said that he was dishonest or a thief. I am sensitive about such attack's upon a person's character. If I did that, let me know, please. pl
You have never done so and have served as a good model to temper my own conduct in such regards, though I have not always been successful in doing so.
The time has come pl
I was going to chase this “stick” down memory lane, but after a year of archives, I think I’ll quit. My favorite post was the photos of Dubai from a 2005 entry. Well, maybe not favorite, but interesting. I still remember looking at it the first time.
There was another Joe Wilson, who was posted about also.
The evolution of this site has been interesting.
I have to answer my critics, among them myself. pl
My apologies, the first part of my comment was omitted:
Well, I searched your blog via google for the posts that contain the words Bush and lie. And Bush and dishonest (and a few others).
I’m sure I missed much, but here are a few things I found:
9/27/06 Not specifically about Bush or Cheney, but about the “Bush camp”:
From what? Pl
Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile.
What has prompted this, may I ask?
Echoing Fred a bit, but I have read your site for
several years and even before I discovered it I always strongly suspected George was being duped. In fact I consider him to be a sypathetic figure, someone
who has always meant well.
Had you ever accused George of malice I am sure I would have taken great note of it. I really would be surprised to find that here.
I’ll look a bit in the early archives on Sunday
I’ve always wished for a search feature on this site,
I guess this is the time to mention that.
Well, I don’t have time on my hands tonight to go poking in the archives, but I’ve seen enough of what you’ve written over the last six months or so to opine that you’ve never been off the mark once so far as this wretched pair goes. I don’t recall reading anything that made me feel, “The Col.’s lost it.”
Why the circumspection? You write a very solid blog, and these two wretches deserve all the obloquy one can heap on them for what they’ve done to our country, starting eight years ago today. With their records it’s not like one has to make things up about them. It’s almost impossible to exaggerate the damage they’ve done.
Introspection and self-criticism are usually valuable traits. They are to be cultivated, but not overly fertilized. Regarding the words in question, anyone who takes on debt that he has no intention of paying is, by any reasonable definition “a thief” (also, ask among the families of those who died in Iraq — Affie is still an open, though much soiled, book).
Likewise, if intellectual honesty is part of the equation, a review of the Administration’s lies about 9/11 and the botched military reaction to it leaves little doubt that Bush, personally and professionally (not a word that suits the “man” very well), is little more than a fundamentally dishonest individual.
He was dishonest, so was Cheney, numerous times.
I specifically said that they DID NOT lie.
In my world to call a man a thief, a liar or a cheat is much worse than calling him a murderer. pl
To me, Saddam was a more sympathetic character, more honest and a much better leader of his country. Until he allowed himself to be lured into Kuwait he brought Iraq to it’s modern peak. Why bother calling Bush a thief, a liar or a thief. It would be like calling the Ocean wet.
A site search using google as follows:
Bush Cheney Thief site:turcopolier.typepad.com
Doesn’t turn up anything. To the best of my knowledge and belief you have never called either Bush or Cheney a thief.
This google site search:
Bush Cheney dishonest site:turcopolier.typepad.com
Does turn up quite a few results.
However in every single posting that I clicked on the word “dishonest” plainly refers to political dishonesty, intellectual dishonesty and so on.
Hope this helps.
Well, your hierarchy of “sins” is pretty much on target. There are worse offenses than “murder.” There’s lots of folks out there “in need of killin'”, but few that need to be lied to or cheated.
Ah yes, two of the main protagonists of the period from 9/11 to late ’07. Off topic, but was just listenin’ to a track from way back in ’92 by a heavy metal band, Megadeth, titled “Symphony of Destruction”:
“You take a mortal man,
And put him in control
Watch him become a god,
Watch peoples heads aroll
Just like the pied piper
Led rats through the streets
We dance like marionettes,
Swaying to the symphony…
Acting like a robot,
Its metal brain corrodes.
You try to take its pulse,
Before the head explodes.
The earth starts to rumble
World powers fall
Awarring for the heavens,
A peaceful man stands tall
Col., sir, funny how metal bands seem prescient of things to come…
Yes, I agree Bush would probably not cheat at cards. But he lied about a lot of important things. Maybe that doesn’t make him dishonest, the fact that it was about important matters?
Let’s put it this way, and take out all the adjectives that can be used on Bush out of the picture. A dozen hurricane Katrinas or Bush for 8 years – which do you choose? My choice is unequivocal – a dozen Katrinas.
The Colonel asks whether any of us recall him making those charges, the answer is no, sometimes frustratingly no.
I fully appreciate why lying cheating and stealing are honor offenses while murder is just a crime. It is the same in all fraternities worth being a member of.
Nevertheless, it is also appropriate that those caught lying, cheating and stealing be “drummed from the corp” otherwise one betrays all those who honor the standard.
I have said it before here, but it seems clear to me that a very particular kind of lying is accepted in Washington, even among the military in Washington, and particularly among the lawyer class there, that should dishonor them all.
They are simply not playing by the same rules. I do not think it has always been so, but just imagine if a cadre of smart guys had the reins of power and thought that the Colonel’s outlook was “quint” and that it was OK to lie to the American people, congress and the press when they “knew” that their policies were in the best interest of the United States but would be unpopular if truthfully presented?
Speaking of disrespect to Presidents, I should have mentioned a book I found at the public library today.
It is by Michael Haas, and has the title: George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes.
The dustjacket says these are 6 war crimes committed in launching a war of aggression, 36 war crimes committed in the conduct of war, 175 war crimes committed in the treatment of prisoners; and 52 war crimes committed in postwar occupations. “For each of these 269 war crimes of the Bush administration, Professor Haas gives chapter and verse in precise but non-technical language including the specific acts deemed to be war crimes, the names of the officials deemed to be war criminals, and the exact language of the international or domestic laws violated by those officials.”
The book has a foreword by Benjamin B. Ferencz, Former Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg Military Tribunals. While granting that under our tradition, the presumption is innocence of the accused, he writes that Professor Haas is “acting in the finest traditions of our democratic nation. His book deserves respectful and careful consideration.”
Whew! I’ll be sure to pen a letter of protest if Professor Haas dares write of Bush as a dishonest war criminal. As long as Professor Haas acknowledges Bush as a war criminal of outstanding character, all will be well.
Wilson intended to insult the President of the United States. There are many who claim that Wilson was factually correct. Even if this is so, what Wilson wanted was to tell us that Obama intentionally chooses to deceive us. Otherwise, he could very easily have shouted “Not so!” or “You’re wrong”, or a dozen other things.
There are also many other places where he could have chosen to yell. However, he specifically did so at a point where he wanted to imply that Obama is sympathetic to illegal aliens, perhaps trying to imply that Obama is one himself, along with the attendent rascist overtones, et al. Personally, I believe that the outburst was planned.
Be that as it may…it is also true that there is a very recent ex-President of the United States who intended to deceive his country. Is there a difference between the two Presidents? From my perspective, yes, there’s a difference. But I cannot prove this to an unsympathetic yet fair-minded witness that such is the case. There exists no objective proof. This does not change the fact that I convinced that I know difference between good and evil, right and wrong, a gentleman and a cad.
I would just like to say that in your most admirable attempt at self-examination and self-criticsm, let us not forget this. It is never necessary to satisfy ever critic – only the internal one. Without doubt, I am sure that everyone understands this, but it is probably worthwhile to say it anyway.
Col. Yes it has.
Regarding Mark Logan’s comment: for the hundreds of thousands of dead of Iraq, staring up from their graves, I have sympathy, for George W. Bush, duped or not, I have none.
Like the others, I recall no blatant name calling or character attacks — even though in some cases you would always have truth as a defense. I don’t always agree with you, but it’s inspiring (literally) to hear someone speak without fear or fawning — and with knowledge …..japh