« Pimp Our New Ride - Part II | Main | Wal-Mart Swamped With Job Seekers »

Sauce for the goose...

I've gotten both a bit of praise and a touch of flak over my response to one particularly idiotic and/or deranged liberal's idea of (and I am really not trying to snicker over this) "put(ting) a humorous spin on the idea that a vast percentage of conservatives simply support the President regardless of whatever he does."

To no one's great surprise, Lair Simon had his response -- and gave it a smidgen more dignity than it deserves by passing the question on to his regular panel of purring pundits. I sent my own response to the e-mail, published here, but looking back at it, I regret sending it.

No, I don't regret the sentiment in the least. But I got distracted halfway through, and my train of thought was derailed. I switched thoughts halfway through a sentence, and it kind of comes across as meaningless. The intent is clear, but the actual wording is a bet messed up.

I was all set to let this go, but I come from a long line of Yankee packrats. I hate to throw anything away. And I hung on to the e-mail while it kept percolating in the back of my brain. And finally I figured out a way to use it to my own ends.

I think I'd like to flip the conceit behind this moron's little "inspiration" and turn it back on Bush's critics, with my own question:

How many orphans would George W. Bush have to save from a burning building before you would admit that he might not be evil incarnate?

And for laughs, I might start a betting pool on how long it would take for the following responses to show up:

1) If Bush had enforced tougher safer standards, the orphanage would never have caught fire in the first place.

2) If Bush hadn't cut spending on public services, the fire department would have shown up faster and would have done the rescuing.

3) Karl Rove probably started the fire so Bush could look all heroic, just like a modern Reichstag.

If someone else feels like running with this, be my guest. I really don't feel like investing that much energy into it.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sauce for the goose...:

» ReidBlog linked with Les encompetents

Comments (25)

Along the line of supportin... (Below threshold)
XB:

Along the line of supporting a president no matter what he does-I have another contest idea for liberals:If Bill Clinton had been shown to have committed forcible rape, would you continue to support him and pretend you had never heard of Juanita Broderick?

"George Bush doesn't car... (Below threshold)

"George Bush doesn't care about orphans." - Kanye West

When I read this....the cla... (Below threshold)
Robert:

When I read this....the classic arguement comes in my mind, "Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?"

If Bush said pitchforking b... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

If Bush said pitchforking babies was bad they'd be all for it...oh wait, many already support partial birth abortion so scratch that...bad example.

I suppose it is a mind s... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

I suppose it is a mind set, after all, that determines how you view the political world ,or your political bias. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. And I have a feeling this is what determines Bush's way of thinking as well as most of his supporters, and in equal measure, his bashers, whom I count myself unapologetically, as one.

Don't forget:4) If... (Below threshold)

Don't forget:

4) If one black orphan dies, in spite of the fact four white orphans died, then Bush is a racist. Even if Bush saves 50 black orphans.

I'm waiting for: If Bush... (Below threshold)

I'm waiting for: If Bush hadn't sent their parents off to Iraq, there wouldn't be any orphans in the first place

It's funny that you would a... (Below threshold)
jp2:

It's funny that you would accuse someone of extremism and bad humor. Funny since your response was completely over the top as are many of your posts here. (If I recall correctly, didn't you say liberals were "jizzing all over" something last week?)

Anyways, his point is right on. Conservatives support this administration, no matter what. There has been zero accountability.

Torture - we need the info! It never happened. La la la I'm not listening.
Katrina - shrug
Misguided spending policies - the economy is awesome. (It's not)
Tax cuts during war - the economy is awesome. (It's not)
Horrible pre-war intelligence failure - the whole world was wrong!
Horrible pre-war planning - hey, they did their best.
Domestic spying - (my new favorite) It's terrorist surveilence!

I guess the main point is that - and think about this for a second - there is absolutely nothing this administration can do to lose your vote. Let me repeat part of that - nothing. If there is something that would cause them to lose your vote, please let me know. (I'm talking about an actual policy)

I'm not saying that some liberals aren't the same or anything like that - but I don't think they tolerate incompetence as much. And any way you slice it, that's what you are tolerating. Repeatedly.

No jp2, there is something.... (Below threshold)
LJD:

No jp2, there is something. It's called proof. When you get used to seeing so many lame 'fake but accurate' reports from the left, you kind of lose interest after a while.
You corroborate one accusation with proof, and I'll be the first one on the impeachment wagon. You know, something like lying under oath (while wagging your finger).
Your enthusiasm could be so much better directed- like towards the UN, where corruption STILL manages to take food from the mouths of babes, courtesy of the U.S.taxpayer.

Jp2: Honestly how can you ... (Below threshold)
Scotty:

Jp2: Honestly how can you be taken seriously when you give a laundry list of items which is so easily refuted by FACTS.

Torture – Quit hyperventilating. We are not torturing! It is a lie you are perpetuating. Unless you can give ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of torture, please stop perpetuating this lie or you may consider yourself a liar.

Katrina – Mistakes were made with tragic consequences. We need to hold accountable those who are responsible for the mistakes. Lets start with 1) the individuals who decided to “ride it out” and 2) Local authorities who were in charge of evacuation who failed miserably 3) State authorities who did not support the local authorities 4) Federal officials who did not back up the state and local authorities in a timely manner. Well of this list, only the Feds have held anyone to account. Everyone else has been given a pass.

Misguided spending policies – If you can’t read the simplest of leading economic indicators and find that the economy is good. Please stop giving financial advise.

Tax cuts during war – You said the same thing: Bad Economy? Are you retarded?

Horrible pre-war intelligence failure - the whole world was wrong is true. How is this an impeachable offense?

Horrible pre-war planning – Pre-war planning was not horrible. This has been and remains today a brilliant military strategy well executed. What do you point to that indicates it was otherwise?

Domestic spying – Again, please provide ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE that an American citizen who was not involved with a terrorist organization has been “spied” upon and hey you may have a point. But that is not what is going on. Each case has been fully disclosed to congressional (both parties) and judicial oversight so we know that is a FACT. To perpetuate that it is domestic spying is another lie. Stop lying you lying lier.

I'm waiting for:<i... (Below threshold)
NorthwestNeocon:

I'm waiting for:

"An August 6 memo made a vague reference that matches may be involved in a potential orphanage fire somewhere in America. So see, Bush knew and he didn't do anything about it!"

Boy, you didn't address the... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Boy, you didn't address the just of my post at all, but if you want me to refute you, ok.

"Unless you can give ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of torture"

You have to add up the basic points:
"Cheney Seeks CIA Exemption to Torture Ban"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110500410.html

And the fact that, yes, people have been tortured and murdered. Maybe you haven't seen the photos of Abu Gharib...
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.outlookindia.com/images/photoessays/abu_gharib_IPE_20050110.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.outlookindia.com/photoessays.asp%3Fserial%3D5%26foldername%3D20050110%26filename%3D2IWorldPE%26storyid%3D1%26mode%3D1&h=351&w=400&sz=13&tbnid=Nf7mY5PJYa4J:&tbnh=105&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dabu%2Bgharib%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D&oi=imagesr&start=3
Or heard of the Iraqi general who was murdered...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0601220400jan22,1,4874887.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Anyways, that one was easy.

"Katrina – Mistakes were made with tragic consequences."

Agreed. Browine was held accountable, despite his heckuva job. There is still more to go - I suggest Chertoff next.

"Bad Economy? Are you retarded?"

Who suggested the economy was bad? Re-read, then come up with a better insult.

"How is this an impeachable offense?"

Again, I'll step you through this. Who mentioned impeachment? (Hint:you) To me, this is just an example of incompetence and a confirmation of what everyone smart already knew - the facts were fixed around the policy.

"Each case has been fully disclosed to congressional (both parties) and judicial oversight so we know that is a FACT."

Update your talking points. Full disclosure means all members of congress, not a few on a committee. Even the Vice Chair strongly opposed it.

"Domestic spying – Again, please provide ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE that an American citizen who was not involved with a terrorist organization has been “spied” upon and hey you may have a point."

Ok, I'm ready for you to concede my point! Everybody pay attention - maybe there IS a moral line that wing nuts won't cross! Here we go!

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/14/national/14santacruz.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=7ad11f5bQ2FpqFQ2ApxWQ25Q7ERWWZQ3CpQ3CwwipwQ5BpQ5BspQ2BVZ.WQ2BV!pQ5BsQ7EVQ2BZVQ25RSQ60Q3BJZh!

UC Santa Cruz students spied on for protesting war. No links to terrorists. Spied upon. That fits the frame you left me. (And that's just one example) Phew. That was easier than I thought.

Peace.

jp2:First, next ti... (Below threshold)
NorthwestNeocon:

jp2:

First, next time you link to the NY Times try to remember that the those capitalist pigs now make you pay to read their archived stories. So, I'll help you out and others by giving them this link at no charge to the same NY Slimes story.

UC Santa Cruz students spied on for protesting war. No links to terrorists. Spied upon.

According to the article, "Since classes began on Jan. 5, they have stepped up their effort to figure out whether they are being spied on and if so, why." So they don't really know, they're still trying to figure it out. Not exactly proof there, skippy, just suspicision.

Gee, and I can't imagine why on Earth their own university would be "spying" on them. Might it be because students were "storming" the building and "the tires of their (recruiters) vehicles had been slashed"? No, couldn't be. SAW are just a pleasant group of "peacful dissenters", right? Right.

Oh, and as Rep. Sam Farr put it: “Santa Cruz is not a terrorist town....It’s an activist town. It’s essentially Berkeley on the coast.” And UC Santa Cruz long ago supplanted Bezerkeley as the foremost Moonbat U. in the UC campus system. To take just about anything that comes out of there seriously is a gross error in judgement.

Gee, that was easier than I thought.

Jp2 you are right I didn't ... (Below threshold)
Scotty:

Jp2 you are right I didn't address the "jist" of your point at all. Because I recognize a straw man when I see it. As to your attempt at refutation, it was pathetic. A bunch of links to left wing propaganda, PLEASE! If these sources are all you are using to inform yourself, there is no wonder why you are so confused.

The Cheney torture article. He was addressing a hypothetical for extreme circumstances. This is NOT proof that torture has happened.

Abu Graib: The crap that went on there is not torture. There is a definition for torture and humiliation is not on the list. Besides the soldiers did this on their own (proven in court) and it was against policy. The general who died was not tortured. Read full account and outcome of the investigation.

I want a real example of torture. I restate, we are not torturing. You said that was easy to refute, but you didn’t even scratch the surface. Stop perpetuating the lie.

Katrina- Chertoff? Whatever! You aren’t even trying now.

Economy: I re-read. You said in response to the economy is awesome: “(its not)” So to answer who suggested it was bad, I suggest that YOU suggested it. Unless you are arguing the definition of what the word “is” is. As for a better insult: “Your way out of your league dumb dumb!!!!!!” (6 exclamation points makes this insult better)

Who suggested impeachment? Yes, it was me. It is the logical outcome of your question of what this administration could do to lose our vote. We’ll since we don’t “Vote” on a daily basis. The only way to make sense of your question is to put it in real terms. A vote of no confidence, so to speak, or Impeachment. Thanks for walking me through it though it was a real big help. By the way I don’t smell refutation in the room yet.

Full disclosure: Parse away! Touché, what a stinger! The Vice Chair Strongly opposed. OHHHH! If that how the left “Strongly” gets it done, I am glad they are not in power. To feel so strongly and do nothing about it is possibly a sign of incompetence. Also, what are they doing now? Nothing! Well, except whining and trying to gain politically. If this is really a problem, DO SOMETHING! Their inaction speaks volumes.

The Santa Cruz thing: Now you’re simply tilting at windmills. That is not domestic spying. Not even close. Videotaping a bunch of hoodlums in a public space for safety purposes does not amount to domestic spying. They were in plain sight for crying out loud. Just one example you say. Well if that was your best shot, I think you have failed in your attempt at refutation.

For those of you who were wagering on the outcome let me remind you of the score:
jp2 = 0 : Scotty = 7

No, seriously, how many cat... (Below threshold)

No, seriously, how many cats would this guy have to kill before you guys take off the berets? Aw hell, give it up, JP2. Can't you see these guys are in love...?

Your are right Scotty, on ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Your are right Scotty, on one point: the score is indeed, 7-0. that is 7 for the convictions of the indictments of torture, to the military grunt scapegoats, and 0 for the top brass who set the policy that condoned these actions.. 'Support our troops' means supporting our troops that is supporting the foot soldiers, not just those at the top of the chain of command who don't take responsibility for the guidance they gave to those facing the fire.

"If there is something t... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

"If there is something that would cause them to lose your vote, please let me know. (I'm talking about an actual policy)"

The Democrats could start running real candidates on real platforms, again, for a start.

"I'm not saying that some liberals aren't the same or anything like that - but I don't think they tolerate incompetence as much."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You sure got me! When I read the first part of this post I thought you were serious! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

How many orphans would G... (Below threshold)
mantis:

How many orphans would George W. Bush have to save from a burning building before you would admit that he might not be evil incarnate?

Well that depends. Did Ponyboy get out ok?

What people don't get (to b... (Below threshold)
Synova:

What people don't get (to be semi-serious just for a moment) is that the whole reason that there is an *appearance* of unwavering stability in Republican support is that "the base" and whomever else, are utterly free to oppose the President on any issue at any time. Nothing falls apart when that happens.

Support for Bush was never hero worship in the minds of anyone but the Bush haters. If Bush killed a kitten with a hammer (assuming it didn't carry a deadly virus and no other method of taking care of it were available) I'd condemn the kitten killing. Would I reflexively oppose every policy of this Administration? Why would I? The kitten makes no difference concerning Iraq. The kitten makes no difference concerning the economy. The kitten makes no difference on border issues.

But see... people who support *policies* must be doing it because they just LOOOOOOVE Bush, yeah! Oh, man... do I LOOOOOOOVE Bush. But if my illusions of his heroicness were dashed? Oh, my whole world would come a tumblin' down, come a tumblin' down.

Uh huh.

Some people just don't function on hero worship. This may be incomprehensible to those who can see no other reason why anyone isn't lock-step with the opposition, since they are so incredibly obviously *right* after all.

But lock-step isn't required. It's not *Bush* that's being supported. The support never has been without question. It's never been uniform. Flexible things are strong, not weak.

The kitten question says more about the people asking it and the view they have of the world and the assumptions they make about people they don't have a clue about than anything else at all.

Short version...Ye... (Below threshold)
Synova:

Short version...

Yes, Virginia. There *is* such a thing as a stupid question.

"How many orphans would Geo... (Below threshold)
No Exit:

"How many orphans would George W. Bush have to save from a burning building before you would admit that he might not be evil incarnate?"

That would depend: it would depend on whether or not he caused the fire in the first place, perhaps by drunkenly falling down, while holding a lit match...

Does it get you all hot and bothered when you think of your idol running in and out of a burning building (perhaps wearing his flight suit that was sent over by central casting!), carrying babies?

I voted for the piece of scum in 2000. Now, after 5 years of him, I have renounced all things republican forever. NEVER AGAIN will any candidate from this disgusting, corrupt, filth party ever get my vote again.

But that's okay. It's not like republicans actually count those votes. They just create them on a computer.

Did you pay this guy to pos... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

Did you pay this guy to post after you, Synova? It is a most excellent illustration of your point.

Steve CrickmoreAga... (Below threshold)
Scotty:

Steve Crickmore

Again, I take umbrage with the use of the term torture with respect to Abu Graib. This incident, whatever horror it illustrates, falls far far short of torture. With respect to accountability, these people are not scapegoats. Give me a break. Their actions during the night shift can only be described as debauchery and I am not talking about what they were doing with the detainees. These people were having orgies and other bizarre antics on their own. They weren’t told to do this by Rumsfeld or Bush. Their lowbrow depravity carried over to detainee handling and that deplorable outcome can only be the responsibility of them and their immediate superiors who allowed this appalling lack of discipline to occur. The responsibility should only go as high as the first General Officer in this chain of command. Anyone who suggests that the Administration is responsible for the actions of a handful of unsupervised freaks looses all credibility. I view this point of view as simply another example of Bush Haters trying to indict the Administration for every bad thing that happens in the world.

Ah crap! I got a flat tire. The rubber in these tires must have been of low quality. Probably the tire company had poor labor policies that lead to a failing in their quality control. If the Bush Administration had better control on labor relations this would never have happened. Plus I am sure the tire company had big business ties that meant they could cut corners and no doubt that Bush received campaign contributions from the CEO. That evil Bush is responsible for my flat tire!

<a href="http://blamebush.t... (Below threshold)
Synova:

http://blamebush.typepad.com/

Just in case anyone forgot.

Scotty says -- "Again, I ... (Below threshold)
Al:

Scotty says -- "Again, I take umbrage with the use of the term torture with respect to Abu Graib. This incident, whatever horror it illustrates, falls far far short of torture. With respect to accountability, these people are not scapegoats. Give me a break." "They weren't told to do this by Rumsfeld or Bush."
.
.
Scotty - Scotty - Scotty
.
Didn't you read the first hand report listed above - www.supportmpscapegoats.com ? Didn't you also read in the News that Gambone (Undersecretary of Defense) gave orders to Boykin, who gave orders to Miller, who gave orders to Sanchez, who gave orders to Pappas, who gave orders to Jordan, who gave orders to Wood, who gave orders to the MP's.

"In August 2003, while he was still the commander of Guantanamo, Miller was sent to Abu Ghraib to assess interrogation procedures there. At the time, the insurgency was heating up and Miller delivered to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez a copy of Donald Rumsfeld's April 16, 2003, policy. This policy is notable for authorizing severe interrogation techniques that were previously forbidden."
.
Scotty pull your head out of the biased sand.
.
What the MP's did - did came from Rumsfeld. Bank on it. The W controlled Congress would not permit an Investigation into Abu Ghraib.
.
The Army did their own investigations. An example was the Fay Report. Gen. Sanchez (see above) brought in Gen. Fay. General Fay had the active duty experience of a Regular Army Captain, yet he was a two star General. General Fay told the troops -- If anyone abused a detainee, it's punishable under UCMJ. If anyone saw abuse and didn't report it, that's also punishable under UCMJ. Then Fay asked - Now who abused detainees?? Who saw detainees get abused??. Fay was a Vice-President at Chubb when he was activated. Now he is retired from the Army and back with Chubb. Do you wonder to whom he has loyalty. Check on what Sgt. Provance said about Fay at the recent Whistle-Blower hearing. Also see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5016950

Rumsfeld appointed his friend Schlesinger, to do an investigation. Let me repeat - RUMSFELD appointed his FRIEND Schlesinger, to do an investigation.
.
But no Congressional Investigation ---
.
Again - What the MP's did - did came from Rumsfeld. Bank on it.
.
see http://www.supportmpscapegoats.com





Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy