But It’s OK When Our Guy Says It
September 21st, 2006 | by Ken Grandlund |Speaking to the UN General Assembly this week, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez referred to US President George W. Bush as the devil.
“The devil came here yesterday,” said Chavez, who then crossed himself and looked skyward. “It smells of sulphur still today.”
This comment, of course, drew a variety of responses from US officials.
Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice: “I am not going to dignify a comment by the Venezuelan president to the president of the United States.”
US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton: “We’re not going to address that kind of comic strip approach to international affairs.”
Yet just a few short years ago, conservatives in office and the general public alike had no problem with President Bush designating various countries to be evil, indeed constituting an Axis of Evil.
Naturally, when our guy says something, it is considered above reproach, dignified, and not at all cartoonish.
Frankly, they’re all a bunch of buffoons, Chavez, Bush, Rice, Bolton, Amedinejad, and the whole stinking lot of them. And if they weren’t causing such devestation around the world with their rhetoric and asshattery, it might even be laughable.
[tag]Chavez, Bush, Rice, Bolton, Devil, Axis+of+Evil[/tag]
58 Responses to “But It’s OK When Our Guy Says It”
By Tom Harper on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Yup, there’s definitely a double standard. We’re number one and we can get away with slandering and namecalling. But those Third World dark-skinned natives need to watch their mouths.
By Jersey McJones on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Chavez? I don’t get it, Ken. He seems lie a pretty good guy and pretty good leader. Don’t you think?
JMJ
By ken grandlund on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
My point Jersey was that (1) our gov’t officials DO seem to think they are immune from similar criticism and (2) real leadership should rise above such ridiculous statements.
Since I’m not a Venezuelan, I can’t really give much input on what kind of leader Chavez is. From what I’ve read, he is clearly making attempts to raise the quality of life for that country’s vast poor. He seems to have a broad base of support among the country’s people, excluding the rich upper classes. But honestly, I don’t know much about him personally.
By windspike on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
The truth hurts - I personally liked the quotes where Chavez said that Bush was racist and the like…I only saw a brief synopsis in the local rag, but was a “fire and brimestone” style speech if ever there was one…and that the W, Rove and Co has a corner on the market of identifying devils is wrongheaded thinking on their part.
In the end, we may indeed agree that “it takes one to know one,” here.
By Jersey McJones on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
One of my favorite quotes from Castro was “Bush couldn’t debate a Cuban ninth grader.” Amedinijad may be another nut but he’d slaughter Bush in a debate.
JMJ
By SteveIL on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
None of the commenters before me on this thread seemed to have graduated kindergarten.
By Jersey McJones on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Oh, we did, my fine friend, and with better than C averages too! I guess that means we can’t be presidents, huh?
JMJ
By windspike on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
SteveIL,
I see…are you resolute in maintaining your active membership in the legions of the GOP faithful sucking hard and deep on the W, Rove and Co crack pipe? Remember, simply because you attack and try to assassinate my character does not lead us to any solutions to the problems created by your icons in this, “the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century.”
Try again with some logic and reasoning that elevates your discourse out of the playground and then perhaps you will have some credibility on this thread.
By ken grandlund on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Hey SteveIL- I’m rubber and you’re glue- whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Hmmmm.
Kim Jong Il has starved and oppressed his people; Ahmadinejad and predecessors have imprisoned bloggers, hung gays, stoned rape victims and, oh yes, sponsored terrorism in numerous countries and threatens genocide; Saddam was a mass-murdering butcher of a ruler and Bush waged two wars to liberate roughly 50 million people from tyrany.
Tell me again how Bush is evil just like the other three?
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Jersey,
When you graduate from Yale with a C or better, you too can be President. :^)
By steve on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Hey, Craig…
Let’s get some money together and form an anti-Chavez group, send them to Venezuela, let them visit Venezuela’s poorest area and let’s get some leader to praise America and call Chavez “a man who eats too many beans and farts a lot” and let’s see what happens. Who ever comes out alive wins 1,000,000 bucks. We can sell it to Fox as a reality show. Unfortunately, that “reality” wouldn’t have such a liberal bias now would it?
Deport Chavez and Amen-in-a-shod!!!
By liberal vet on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Chavez has been using money to create social programs. He also as I am sure you are aware offered oil to the Katrina victims. Overall he made some valid points except when he crossed himself. LV
By sumo on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
SteveIL…
Perhaps you graduated kindergarten…but did you pass Sandbox?
By ken grandlund on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Craig, Steve(s)- you are all missing the point of this post. This is not a debate about who can claim the most or least amount of evil. It is about the double standard that exists among our executive branch leaders and their henchmen.
You can call other people evil all you want and it may well be true. But when others call you evil back, you can’t characterize their comments as comic bookish or cartoonish while pretending that your own similar comments are the exact opposite.
This is not a post in defense of Kim Jong-Il, Amedinejad, Hussein, or any other brutal tyrant. It is comment on the absurdity of the double standard they think should exist simply because the US has more might and wealth than anyone else. If Chavez’s comments are childish or simplistic in nature, they are no more so than similar utterances from the mouth of Bush.
And as yet, it is far too premature to claim that Bush’s actions have liberated anyone. Afghanistan is falling back to the Taliban, Iraq is a bloody mess of insecurity, North Koreans are still starving by the millions, and Iran could give a shit about what the US thinks. Show me one nation that Bush has liberated who are now materially, physically, and/or practically better off than before he went in or before he designated them as evildoers.
Bush, though not a brutal tyrant in the classic definition, is still a petty tyrant in his own right, and is indeed responsible for a good deal of bloodshed in the world. He began the war in Iraq, not someone else.
It would be fair to note too that the justice department has imprisoned a blogger in the US, and the republican led political machine has used gay marraige as a political football for several cycles. Our government has also supported those groups we now call terrorists, including bin Laden ’s predecessors and mentors in Afghanistan in the 80’s, and the regime of Saddam Hussein at various times in our not so distant history.
By windspike on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Ken,
Indeed.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Ken,
Yes, you’re right. Mine wasn’t the point. I just thought it fair to point out that three of the four mentioned by me actually deserve the title “evil”, whether they were ever an “axis” (and they weren’t, really: Iran and Saddam, for example, were mortal enemies although Iran might have thought about dealing, directly or indirectly with NK regarding things nuclear that doesn’t come near to resembling the WWII Axis) or not and when Bush had declared the axis of evil, he wasn’t engaged in diplomacy; he was angry that his country had just been attacked and he was rallying the nation.
Anyway, being off topic, I’ll shut up and apologize now.
By H. Evers on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Dear Mr. Grandlund,
I see you are once again running down your homeland. Just thought you might want to hear what Cong. Charlie Rangle and Cong. Nancy Pelosi had to say on the same topic
Cong. Rangle: “AN ATTACK ON BUSH IS AN ATTACK ON ALL AMERICANS… ‘You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State’…”
Cong Pelosi: “Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug. Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations, “he demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela.”
I wonder why they get it and you don’t
All the best
By ken grandlund on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Evers- First off, I’m not running down America, jus tour executive and his double-speaking appointees. Big difference, but clearly not to you. That you see Bush (or ANY president) as synonymous to America is troubling to say the least, but not altogether shocking based on our previous encounters.
That elected officials can’t seem to see the difference is incredibly unnerving.
Secondly, the UN building and the land that it sits on is NOT United States property but international territory. Same thing as with foreign embassies. Again, for an elected official of the federal govcernment to assert otherwise is both disingenuous and factually in error. That many people will fall for that utter drivel and fail to recognize the distinction is also not much of a surprise. Just because Chavez had to traverse US property to get there does not mean he made his statements in Rangle’s district.
Thirdly, their protestations are much akin to something my sister used to say when we were children. “Nobody gets to beat on my brother except me.” Really, having to compare these statements to childish utterings only reinforces my initial supposition that our politicians (and clearly other nations’ politicians) are acting like a bunch of children.
If anyone doesn’t ‘get it’ - the ‘it’ being that these people are all acting foolish and hardly acting in a way becoming someone of national leadership status- it seems to be you and the other talking heads who act as if Chavez just broke the world’s last Ming vase or something.
By windspike on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Looks like Evers is still sucking hard on the GOP crack pipe. Last I checked people on US soil are still promised and garunteed the right to speak their minds, wether we agree with them or not.
I would have to disagree that a verbal lambasting is an attack on the president worth of escelating to bold letters in a blog comment. But hey, that’s just me.
By H. Evers on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Dear Mr. Grandlund,
I noted you mention of a Bloger in jail. In reading the article I could not find any mention of sources that this Bloger was protecting; “Violence ensued, a police officer’s skull was fractured, and authorities say a smoke bomb or firework was put under a police car. Wolf sold some of his video to local TV stations and put more up on his blog. Prosecutors demanded that Wolf testify before a grand jury and hand over everything he shot. Wolf refused and, yesterday, a federal judge found him in contempt and sent him to prison, where he could stay until the grand jury’s term expires next summer.” What do you think are the responsibilities of journalists as citizens to report crime and aid the prosecution?
All the best
By H. Evers on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Dear Mr. Grandlund,
You maybe interested to know that Mr. Chavez made his comments in Cong. Rangle’s district not at the UN. “Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez launched a new personal attack against President George W. Bush, calling the US leader an “alcoholic” and a “sick man” during a tour of the New York district of Harlem.
Speaking while walking in a Harlem street, Chavez told a group of passers-by: “Bush is an alcoholic, a sick man with a lot of hang-ups.”
“He walks like John Wayne,” declared the left-wing Venezuelan leader. “He doesn’t know anything about politics, he got there because of Daddy.” Bush’s father, George Bush, was also a US president.”
Also you might note that all presidents are considered to represent our country. If you think that Mr. Chavez’s comments were not intended as an insult to the United States in general then you would be mistaken.
All the best
By ken grandlund on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Evers-
Moving on to something else you might pick at, eh? Fine, I’ll play.
Personally, I think the guy is an idiot for not handing over the footage. He is citing the sanctity of ’sources’ in a specious way since he is out shooting video, selling it, and posting it as well. None of those actions involve a ’source’ in the classic understood sense. Further, even if he had a source tipping him off to the action he taped, that is not what was being requested.
However, Craig noted that we weren’t jailing bloggers so I found one that we were. I could find other bloggers who have been jailed, but they were so for crimes against property or people. This guy was jailed for being a blogger who (wrongly IMO) thinks his video tapes are somehow inviolate.
You should know though that citizens( journalists or otherwise) are not obligated to report crime or testify about any knowledge of a crime unless they are subpoenaed. So what I think is not relevant, especially to this post’s main thrust. But for the record, in general, I think people should report crimes that result in the injury of another or another’s property.
By H. Evers on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Dear Mr. Spike,
Just to be absolutely correct constitutional guarantees really do only apply to citizens of the United States. Mr. Chavez is operating under diplomatic immunity. I just find the glee with which you greet this type of childish behavior rather telling.
All the best
By ken grandlund on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Well Evers, if you want to include comments that I did not post about then feel free. And if the congressional quotes refer to the Chavez quotes I did not refer to then you are clearly guilty of bait and switch tactics in a discussion. Congratulations on your disingenuity and misdirection.
Regardless, my answer refers to my post, not your ‘but what about this’ comments. And presidents are considered to represent our country when they are abroad. It is generally understood that they do not speak for all Americans when in the homeland.
By H. Evers on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Dear Mr. Grandlund,
Good post I quite agree with you judgment about the obligations of citizens and Blogers.
All the best
By windspike on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Glee? My goodness, you are giddy Evers - don’t suck so hard on the GOP crack pipe and you might actually come back down to earth where things are relevant.
By H. Evers on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Dear Mr. Grandlund,
I was referring to this part of your post; “Secondly, the UN building and the land that it sits on is NOT United States property but international territory. Same thing as with foreign embassies. Again, for an elected official of the federal govcernment to assert otherwise is both disingenuous and factually in error. “ I felt that it might be germain if you knew that the comments Mr. Chavez made were not made totally at the UN but that he sought out a venue in Cong. Rangle’s district to voice further insults.
All the best
By H. Evers on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Dear Mr. Spike,
I believe you are mixing your metaphors.
All the best
By SteveIL on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
As Craig and H. Evers said, along with Congressman Rangel (and I’m glad he did it), it is one thing to bitch about the President, even calling him some of the most vile things I’ve ever heard. But for an American to take the side of a thug like Chavez just means that said American has no clue what kind of brute Chavez is. Case in point, this comment by liberal vet:
He’s stealing the money and giving out just enough to keep the people poor enough not to want to overthrow him. There’s a report on how he’s increased his military spending. We do that here and there are those who accuse the government of being warmongers. But no criticism of Chavez from these same people when he does it. And it’s not that his Parliament and Chavez do this, it is just Chavez himself. This is what dictators do and Chavez is a dictator. He has to do this because if Chavez doesn’t pay off the military, they will overthrow him. So the only thing Chavez has to do is take care of the military, regardless of what happens to the rest of the Venezuelan population. If you don’t believe me, see Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong Il.
“Offered oil to Katrina victims.” It was actually heating oil to residents of New England and Rep. Delahunt almost went for it. Chavez pushes oil like a dealer pushes crack.
By ken grandlund on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Evers-
That’s all well and good, but again, my comments referred to my original post and not to your attempt to change the occasion. I try to make the distinction between ‘post’ and ‘comments’ so to avoid just this sort of wrangling. Finicky, perhaps. But certainly an effort for clarity.
This post referred to what Chavez said at the UN and the reactions of administration personnel to those comments made at the UN. Your comments to the post referred to comments Chavez made elsewhere. Coming from two entirely different incidents, we are both correct as to the place, the statements, and the ownership of said land at the locations.
You want to confuse the issue and say that both sets of comments were part of the same then that’s fine. But that clearly isn’t what my post was about.
Also, at no time did I defend Chavez’s remarks or issue my unyielding support for him or his policies, and any attempt to infer as much is nothing but a bunch of crap. Just pointing out that a double standard seems to be in place, and that to me, such attempts to differentiate the comments of Bush (axis of evil)and the comments of Chavez (Bush is the devil) are very thin indeed.
Anyone who wishes to equate my criticism of the criticisms of Chavez’s remarks as somehow ‘unAmerican’ are free to do so. I can’t stop you from reading things into what I have written (that are not there) to satisfy your own sense of righteousness.
By Jersey McJones on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
SteveIL - you just compared America to a crack addict.
Ken doesn’t strike me as a Chavezista. But I am! I love the guy. I think he’s doing great. He’d better be careful, though. There’s a lot of Americans out there, even on this board, who would love to kill the man just for acting in a way that runs contrary to Laizzez Faire, Capitalist, American Hegemony.
JMJ
By SteveIL on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
No, JMJ, I compared Delahunt to a crack addict, since he was the one who was going to take Chavez’s bait. As far as the rest of what you said, well, no comment.
ken,
Frankly, your original post is an object lesson in useless moral equivalency. Prove me wrong.
By steve on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
LOOK YOU ALL MISSED IT!!!
Hugo and Ablah-ni-jihad come here to our soil where people live free to spot all the shit they want about Bush. Even Green Day’s Billie Joe Armstrong has a whole lot to say about Bush at one of their concerts and they do it here on our soil, and people pay to see that shit…
But… turn the table..
Go to Iran or Venezuela as a leader of America and curse their politicians, their governments and see what happens. Hugo is nothing but an oil barron with some money to fuck around with. He wants to play with the big boys and he comes to the “land of the free” to make his mark.
Turn the tables my friends… Protesting blogs like this one don’t exist over in Iran. They don’t. American leaders protesting on their soil don’t exist either…
I think of Reagan over in Berlin asking for Gorbechev to tear down the wall. Wouldn’t exist back then if Reagan were on the other side of the wall in oppression.
Go burn that one windspike!!
By SteveIL on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
steve, you are so right!!! My sentiments exactly!!!
By Jersey McJones on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Okay, folks, explain to me how the several-times-over-in-one-way-or-another, coup surviving, popularly elected president of Venezueal is a “stealing” “thug.” Lord knows, I’d take him over that pile of steaming craps you sleazy cons put in office!
JMJ
By steve on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Great Jersey!! I think between SteveIL, H. Evers, and myself, we can come up with the funds for a one way ticket to send you there, where you can live free. By the way, when does Chavez’s term end?
By tos on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Here you go JMJ, Maybe you think Venezuela would be a great place to live,after all you live in New Jersey:
“Chavez, a former paratrooper who rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel, staged an abortive coup attempt in 1992. Today, twelve years later, he has staged a second coup with the ham-fisted vote rigging of electronic election machines. His regime has been plagued by a rise in crime, unemployment, human rights abuses and gross corruption, and characterized itself by the fervent will of its leader to cling to power.
Army General (R) Nestor Gonzalez Gonzalez, one of the leaders of the dissident Militares Democraticos officers, stated that Chavez’s “link to the uncovered fraud is another affirmation of Chavez’s obsession with keeping himself in power at any cost.”
” - Where the public trust is concerned, election officials must go out of their way to satisfy a transparent result. But for Chavez, who needed to legitimize his latest coup, all he wanted was electronic vote rigging with no software audit and no paper trail.”
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Wow. Diebold operate in Venezuela as well?
By liberal vet on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
It seems to me there is enough vitriol to go around. This IL person is a boot licking, sycophant toady who would lick Bush’s a-hole. I never said Chavez was a great man. As far as using oil like crack that statement is assanine at best. Overall Chavez’s people are enjoying the benefits of his tyrannical reign. So IL kiss my liberal ass and go suck on your neo-con crack pipe, you’re the one out of touch. Fondly to all my neo-con friends. LV
By tos on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
LV-
That’s great that Chavez’ people are enjoying the benefits of his tyrannical reign. That’s how dictators stay in power and are able to come knock down your front door if they choose. Great benefits!
By liberal vet on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
TOS was being facetious. Secondly in essence Venezuelans are far better of than under an acceptable Dictator certified by the good old US of A. Are you so naive as to believe this great nation will not or have not traded with Dictator’s, Pleeeze we have a long history. Look at Batiste in Cuba, Idi Amin, Stalin, and yes even Hitler! In case you’re curious Prescott Bush was involved and sold goods to good old Adolph. OOPS forgot those good old Saudi’s nothing like a good stoning for a uncooperative women. Ya know I still Luv Ya. LV
By ken grandlund on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Vote rigging, corruption, human rights abuses….all bad things right? I agree…all bad things.
Yet when the Neo-Con juggernaut spearheaded by Rove and Bush do the same things it’s OK?
Thanks guys for reinforcing the title of this post. Those of you defending Bush with such zeal seem to have a better reason to adore Chavez than, say, the average Democrat who visits here. He seems to embody all the traits you like so much about your messiah Bush.
By liberal vet on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Right on Ken. Great post, hypocrisy is alive and well and residing everywhere. LV
By windspike on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
The GOP stalwart argument is a lesson in dualistic duplicity: “All things by W, Rove and Co good; Things not done by W, Rove and Co Bad: even if already perpetrated by the W, Rove and Co themselves.”
There is no shortage of object lessons in hypocrisy perpetrated by the W, Rove and Co administration…and their legion of faithful continues to support them, proving yet again that leadership by faith over fact is intoxicating.
By tos on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Hey LV-
I wasn’t defending the Saudi’s or any of the other above named.
But thanx for the sentiments anyway,XXXOOO
Boycott Citgo!
By H. Evers on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Dear Mr. Grandlund,
You do have proof of those charges don’t you? I suggest you take them to the relevant District Attorney’s office and get those bad guys. What, no mass move to court? Could it be that you have no proof? Could it be that the charges are, shall we say, fabricated? Tisk, tisk and why would anyone say such false and terrible things about their own country? Why Mr. Grandlund?
All the best
By ken grandlund on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Evers- There are several republican congressmen already convicted of and/or under investigation for corruption. Do the names Cunningham, Ney, DeLay mean anything to you? Guess that covers corruption.
Vote rigging? Can I prove it? I think it’s been well established that it can be done easily and undetectably. Did you follow the link? Do you only believe what a neo-con says? Do you have proof that they haven’t taken advantage of the ability? If not, my assertion is as valid as yours that they haven’t.
Human rights abuses? Remember Abu Ghraib and those photos? Known and ignored by Rumsfeld until he couldn’t do so anymore. Advocating and defending the right to torture?
Tsk, tsk, Evers…the more you defend these guys, the worse you make yourself look.
Why would anyone defend such terrible actions from their own country Evers? Why?
By H. Evers on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Dear Mr. Grandlund,
“Vote rigging, corruption, human rights abuses….all bad things right? I agree…all bad things. Yet when the Neo-Con juggernaut spearheaded by Rove and Bush do the same things it’s OK?”
Those Congressmen (Republicans and Democrats) who break the law go to jail. You implied in the above quote that they got away free which they do not. You obviously know that you were saying something that was at best deceptive and at worst a total fabrication but you say it anyway.
“Vote rigging? Can I prove it?” No you cannot so all the suppositions in the world does not change the fact that you appear to be writing to deceive.
“Human rights abuses? Remember Abu Ghraib and those photos?” Once again you give half the story. As you well know those responsible are now in Jail. If you have proof otherwise please bring it forth.
“Why would anyone defend such terrible actions from their own country Evers? Why?” I am sorry but you appear to have misunderstood the entire point. I am not defending I am just asking for proof of your assertions. Your inability to substantiate any of your claims make it unnecessary for me to defend anything.
All the best
By ken grandlund on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Evers- Again you want to play games with words and hide behind the obfuscations of this administration. You should really apply for a position at the White House. You asked for proof, I gave you examples. That you can’t see the connection only adds to your own lack of objectivity.
Corruption is endemic in our politics and especially so in the current Republican party. That the bastards are shifty enough to evade prosecution does not relinquish them their guilt. Were that the case, no organized crime figure could be guilty ever. But to you I suppose that just means they never broke the law. Are you also of the opinion the OJ didn’t really do it?
Vote rigging- it has been proven that the electronic voting systems are easily corruptible. You can not prove that they haven’t been . Your assertion that no vote rigging has been performed is no less deceptive than my assertion that they have been. And the fact that the systems can be rigged, and fairly easily it turns out, makes my claim more credible and plausible than to believe that corrupt politicians and operatives wouldn’t attempt and/or succeed to do just that.
Abu Grhaib- All the guilty are in jail? Oh, I see, you are another apologist for an administration and heirarchy that not only knew about the abuses and tried to keep them quiet, but facilitated them in the first place, encouraged them in the second place, and then refused to accept any responsibility for the actions that occurred. What great leadership. What stand up guys.
I misunderstood nothing in your apologistic nonsense. You accuse me of saying things that are false and terrible as if America is a country ensconced in a halo of goodness. That, my dear Evers, is simply absurd.
By windspike on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Wahoo…when can I sign up for ceremony that gets me “ensconced in a halo of goodness?” Ken, you win today’s prize for pithy retorts! Well done.
Not to worry, Evers and his ilk willingly expose their own flaws in public on a regular basis. It’s fun to watch them peel away the layers of hypocrisy.
Evers - an absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, is it? Or at least that is what the W, Rove and Co would have us believe in the grand WMD bait and switch that is Iraq. If it’s a good enough philosophy for them, then it’s good enough for the blogisphere, no?
By SteveIL on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Ken,
Vote rigging by Republicans? Yeah, right. How about this…16 Democrats have been convicted of vote fraud in East St. Louis over the last two years. Gee, and East St. Louis is a dump. Go figure. How about 5 Democratic operatives in Milwaukee, including two who are sons of prominent Milwaukee Democratic politicians, convicted of slashing the tires of vehicles by Republican Get Out the Vote workers? How about Chuckie Schumer’s Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee perpetrating identity theft to try and sabotage Republican Senate candidate Michael Steele?
And how about Democrats trying to stop a voter ID (with photograph, and which is free) to stop the rampant voter fraud in Democratic controlled cities from Baltimore to LA, because there’s never enough dead people and illegal aliens to vote for Democrats?
There is a problem with the machines that are now being used to handle electronic voting. But, considering the continuous theft of votes by Democratic operatives, the whole voting machine problems are overblown and overhyped, and being used as a fearmongering technique by Democratic politicians with no other way of getting into office.
By ken grandlund on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
I won’t even pretend that Democrats haven’t done their share of voter fraud schemes, but the historical record says otherwise, as does the current one.
It was the Republican party than really began the practice after the Civil war and they continue it to this day.
You can pretend that Republicans play by all the rules, but that is pure fantasy.
By steve on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
H. Evers:
You are one observant bastard!!! I love it!!!
Ken:
He got you… surrender, like France!! Move on to the next issue!
By H. Evers on Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
Dear Mr. Grandlund,
“You asked for proof, I gave you examples.” I am sorry but unsubstantiated inventions are not examples.
“That the bastards are shifty enough to evade prosecution does not relinquish them their guilt.” Like you allegation of illegitimate birth what am I to make of your assertion that we should ignore the rule of law? Was it not you who wanted to closely adhere to international rules on torture? It is interesting that you now wish to set aside the rule of law in this country and practice gilt by association against those you oppose.
“You can not prove that they haven’t been.” Just curious as to how you prove a negative? In this country, you are presumed innocent until convicted. You do not have even one scintilla of evidence that could be used to charge much less convict and yet you trumpet these defamatory untruths as if they provided proof of wrongdoing.
“Abu Grhaib- All the guilty are in jail?” Yes, I believe so; unless, you have evidence to prove otherwise, do you? If you do bring it out and I will support the prosecution of the criminals. If you do not then what you offer is mere conjecture unsupported by fact for political gain.
“I misunderstood nothing in your apologistic nonsense. You accuse me of saying things that are false and terrible as if America is a country ensconced in a halo of goodness. That, my dear Evers, is simply absurd.” I just had to quote this last in its entirety because it so completely exemplifies you technique. First: you misinterpret the word “apologetic” (providing an excuse for a fault, failure, insult, injury). I have provided nothing of the sort. Rather I have requested that you provide proof of your allegations, which you have not done. Next: You distort what your opponent says. Since you cannot offer any proof of your allegations, they are mere unsupported conjecture. A person making scurrilous, unsupported, and criminal allegations against his/her own homeland causes the objective reader to question that person’s motive. To question your demagogic motive does not imply that the reader believes that “America is a country ensconced in a halo of goodness” it questions your fairness, your truthfulness, and your objectivity. Finally, you finish up with the misinterpretation of the word “absurd” (utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation). I would offer that since your assertion is, at best, tenuous, your logic weak, and your refusal to provide proof in the face of reasonable questions, contrary to common sense, it is you who best fit the designation of absurd. But then the statements of demagogues (1. a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people. 2. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.) are generally absurd. I believe you fit #2 quite well don’t you?
All the best
By H. Evers on Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
Dear Mr. Spike,
You really should try to apply some reason to your comments. “Evers - an absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, is it?” Let us see, I accuse you of say bank robbery. I have no proof but under your “principal”, I make this unsubstantiated charge. I destroy your reputation, your career, and have you hounded by the media all because I dreamed this charge up. Is that what you have in mind? Unfortunately, for your “principal”, in this country you are innocent until proven otherwise. I realize that it makes it hard for a good character assassination but there it is. Of course, you can still lie and claim that you have proof; however, this tactic does cause problems when you are asked to produce said proof and cannot, which is the case here.
All the best
By H. Evers on Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
Dear Mr. Grandlund,
You really should check your sources. For instance, this one is out of all context, “Federal soldiers also intimidated voters into voting Republican by menacing them at the polls. As Lincoln biographer David Donald has written, “Under the protection of Federal bayonets, New York went Republican by seven thousand votes” in 1864.” Meaning exactly the opposite of what your source alleged. Troops sent at the request of the NY governor and after the horrendous draft riots of the previous year, insured voting would take place rather than prevented it. This quote is even funnier; “The Republican Congress even created three new states — Kansas, West Virginia, and Nevada — to help rig the 1864 election in favor of Lincoln, so concerned were they over pervasive antiwar sentiment and massive desertions from the federal army.” First off, West Virginia was admitted to the Union at that states request in April of 1863. Kansas was admitted to the Union even earlier at that states request February of 1861. Only Nevada was admitted in 1864 and had no impact in the 1864 presidential election. As for massive desertion from the Army and the prevalence of anti-war sentiment, it is generally acknowledged that the soldiers of the Union Army voted overwhelmingly in support of Lincoln and continuing the war. Desertions in 1861-62 were 180,000. In 1863-64 desertions were down to 150,000. Desertions were a problem for both sides but were not a consideration during the 1864 election where entire regiments were put on leave so as to go home and vote.
All the best