Blogcritics Comments on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Comment by Eric Berlin on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:45:00 EDT

Well, I try to follow that model, certainly. And it's my hope and pleasant surprise when others of different Belief Systems do the same. As you said, then we can do business. But lovey-dovey? Nosir..

Comment by Al Barger on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:27:24 EDT

Ah Eric, but we'd best stop with the lovey-dovey. People with say we're in love. [I'm having an image of Hannibal saying this to Clarice, of course.] We have somewhat different maps of reality (Belief Systems). It's good to be able to compare notes in a friendly manner, and try to figure out where both of our maps jibe or don't with the actual road in front of us.

Comment by Eric Berlin on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:16:15 EDT

Ah but Al, if only you could join me in Reality World! (joke... thanks for the words -- it's not always fucking easy, my friend)

Comment by Nancy on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:11:38 EDT

Dave - LOL! I would settle for that, as long as he wasn't allowed any coaching or cheating. I think I could accept that.

Comment by Al Barger on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:09:59 EDT

Mr Berlin, I wasn't accusing you of agreeing with me or Dave on any opinion at all. I wouldn't do that to you. I'm just saying that you're a reasonable, friendly person of good will who generally tries to deal with reality in an honest manner- as opposed to being belligerant and condescending (Smirk) or determinedly willfully refusing to deal with reality. (Air America is eating Rush Limbaugh's lunch!) I like Alan Colmes, too. Besides being more pleasant and collegial to exchange words with you, your basic commitment to reality and civility gives us a resonable place to start talking seriously about civic affairs.

Comment by Dave Nalle on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:09:54 EDT

I say we put Bush in an F-102 and see if he can take off and land the thing and if he can we leave it at that. Dave

Comment by Joe on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:04:11 EDT

MCH- Do any of those statements constitute being brought up on charges or are you unfamiliar with the concept?

Comment by Nancy on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:02:32 EDT

I don't think so, but it's possible. Most Americans have the attention span & intelligence of gnats, & are incredibly fickle to boot, as we've seen: hero today, bum tomorrow. Would that they WOULD pick up bin Laden, AND Zarqawi (sp?); I think that would go a long way to helping cut off the hydra's head, & is much to be wished for even if it does re-elevate Smirk when he doesn't deserve it.

Comment by Dave Nalle on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:58:36 EDT

All he has to do is catch Bin Laden and he'll be #1 with a bullet again. Dave

Comment by Nancy on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:36:56 EDT

Smirk's days are numbered: his approval rating is down to 38%, except among the die-hard rightist non-sentients.

Comment by MCH on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:07:11 EDT

"And as soon as I see charges brought against him (GW Bush) by one of his commanders (for desertion), I'll join you in denouncing him." - Joe "To my knowledge, he (George W. Bush) never showed up. Had he reported in, I would have some recall, and I do not. If we had a first luietenant from Texas, I would remember." - Lt. Col. William Turnispeed, Ret. (Boston Globe, May 23, 2000) Lt. Col. Turnispeed was the commanding officer at Dannelly Air National Guard Base to whom GW was ordered to report in May, 1972. source...www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/ "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report." - Lt. Col. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, May 22, 1973, signing a report on why they could not complete his annual evaluation. Harris and Killian were GW's superior officers at Ellingson AFB, where he was ordered to report back in Nov., 1972. www.archive.democrats.com/display (see #2) "His (GW Bush's) unit continued to fly the F-102 until 1974. If he had come back to Houston (Ellingson AFB), I would've had him flying the 102 until he got out. But I don't remember him coming back at all." - Major Bobby W. Hodges, ret. (Boston Globe, 5/23/2000) www.archive.democrats.com/display (see #3)

Comment by valery dawe on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:25:50 EDT

>>We were not being attacked by Buddhist terrorists to be in Vietnam is the short point on that.<< Who was attacking us "to be in Vietnam"? Remind us again of the Gulf of Tonkin hoax, Mr. Barger.

Comment by Dave Nalle on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:54:30 EDT

Nice to know we can still count on Pat Robertson for pure, undiluted insanity. Makes me feel all warm and cozy. Dave

Comment by Eric Berlin on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:50:25 EDT

By the way: I don't think I went along with anyone right-ish on this post... You (Al) and Dave and I were tiffing it up pretty smartly a couple of dozen comments back. But oh well -- it's only words and only politics.

Comment by Eric Berlin on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:48:34 EDT

Awww Al... what can I say? I'm just trying to keep it sane and keep it real in a world gone bonkersville. What's a guy to do when he's trying to wind down and go to sleep, and then sees that Pat Robertson has called for the assassination of Venezuela's President? If I can bring some level of balance to the blogosphorce, than I can rest easy...

Comment by Dave Nalle on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:45:04 EDT

Al seems pretty reasonable to me, and I know I've been persuaded to a new postion more than once by those who make good, reasoned arguments - which admittedly doesn't include most of those on the left who just rant and repeat what they're told. But I publicly admit to having been persuaded by arguments made by both Gonzo and Steve S, among others. Dave

Comment by RogerMDillion on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:40:08 EDT

"Which would make Dave or me either one more likely open to persuasion on some points." And when has that ever happened on this site?

Comment by Al Barger on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:32:48 EDT

John, your hostile and adverserial pose is not necessary here, nor productive, nor pleasant for any of us. For starters, the automatic denunciation of Dave (and me?) as "desperate Bushites" just doesn't reflect reality. Dave is an Elitist Pig, but certainly no knee jerk supporter of the president, nor am I. We may have honest disagreements, but simply trying to be honest and show basic goodwill goes a long way. If I can praise him without discrediting him among his pinko friends, Eric Berlin stands out here at Blogcritics as a reasonable leftie. As you may notice from his comments in this thread for example, he tends to take a liberal interpretation of things, and definitely is not a supporter of the Iraq war. Yet he gets along about 99% great with Dave and I and other rightish types here. I credit that to his honesty and goodwill. He will defend his position, but he recognizes facts and actually incorporates them into his opinions. Plus, he generally avoids calling us all right wing doo doo heads, even when maybe we sometimes are. Part of that commitment to reality means that he will sometimes recognize that a hawk has a legitimate good point- even if he's got perhaps a better one with which to counter. Which would make Dave or me either one more likely open to persuasion on some points. XOX Eric

Comment by Dave Nalle on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:08:33 EDT

>>Of course I'd run into this problem, Dave. There is no perfection in this world. That's why I go as close to the source of info as I can. The info I read came from Cindy Sheehan's online diary, written in the evenings after very long days of 100 degree heat. It was quite sly for the Bushites to dig around until they found a disparity.<< The disparity isn't the issue, though it might raise questions. The original statement has always been the issue of concern. No one likes anti-semitism much, so it stood out. >> Perhaps I should see if you can remember each sentence of one of your posts from several months ago. We can see if you turn out to be as "honest" as Cindy Sheehan. You do remember everything you've said, I presume.<< Hell no, but I do tend to be consistent. If I'd said something anti-semitic it would be so out of character that I'd remember it. >>I figure the dishonesty inherrent in the string of ever changing statements about Mr Bush's reasons for the war should be something you would understand in all its imperfection in your search for truth, but apparently not.<< As far as I can tell the reasons are always what I've believed them to be. I was writing about why the Iraq was was a strategic move against the entire region back in 2004. >>But I do see more clearly how desperate a Bushite smear campaign can be. I'll keep it in mind.<< When someone makes anti-semitic comments publicly it's not a smear campaign to express concern. Dave

Comment by John on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:50:23 EDT

Of course I'd run into this problem, Dave. There is no perfection in this world. That's why I go as close to the source of info as I can. The info I read came from Cindy Sheehan's online diary, written in the evenings after very long days of 100 degree heat. It was quite sly for the Bushites to dig around until they found a disparity. Perhaps I should see if you can remember each sentence of one of your posts from several months ago. We can see if you turn out to be as "honest" as Cindy Sheehan. You do remember everything you've said, I presume. I figure the dishonesty inherrent in the string of ever changing statements about Mr Bush's reasons for the war should be something you would understand in all its imperfection in your search for truth, but apparently not. So, would you like to stick with the assault on Cindy Sheehan, an assault on the next Gold Star Mother, or the next one, or should we perhaps begin to parse the statements of, say, Dick Cheney? Perhaps a new thread is in order. But I do see more clearly how desperate a Bushite smear campaign can be. I'll keep it in mind.

Comment by Al Barger on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:26:53 EDT

Valery, Iraq is a very different situation than Vietnam. Even Vietnam wasn't really Vietnam, but that's another story. We were not being attacked by Buddhist terrorists to be in Vietnam is the short point on that. John, clearing up that specific factual issue does give us at least the beginning point of trying to have a rational discussion. As to being a "Bushite" however, I am proud to state categorically that I have never, ever voted for anyone named Bush- father or son.

Comment by Dave Nalle on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:23:25 EDT

John, if you just stuck to the verifiable truth rather than what DailyKos or your preferred leftist talking points source TELLS you the truth is, then you'd never run into this sort of problem. The fact is that no one on the right is trying to 'narrow the debate' - they've got their hands full enough shooting down the lies flying out of the left wing disinformation machine. Dave

Comment by valery dawe on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:15:46 EDT

Barger wrote: >>I hope you have a more reasonable idea than US coming home with our tails between our legs and a presumption that this would cause our enemies to back off rather than redouble their evil.<< Riiight! We wouldn't want a repeat of the Vietnam debacle which resulted in the VC invasion and occupation of Alaska.

Comment by John on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:13:19 EDT

I read the info link you provided and accept its validity. I see I have fallen into a trap I'd hoped to avoid. That of allowing the Bushites to form the nature of the debate and to narrow discussion of an insane war, how it started and why, down into a discussion of the specific words in one sentence in a single email, then using it to slime everything their target has said or written. I call it Bushwhacking. The Bushites are very, very good at doing this. I'll try not to allow them to suck me into it again.

Comment by Al Barger on George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:54:40 EDT

Ms Sheehan seems to think the dead son gives her some kind of wild card license to say anything whatsoever without being called out or questioned. Something she said turns out to be inconvenient later, then she never said it- even if it's documented in multiple directions. Oh, what's wrong with me? Her son was killed, so how can I demand that she be truthful?