Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Science and Technology » Bin Laden Thanks Administration Officials For Planning “Assistance”

Bin Laden Thanks Administration Officials For Planning “Assistance”

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In light of the upcoming Homeland Security Department report outlining a dozen “frightening if hypothetical scenarios,” terrorist-mastermind Osama bin Laden has reportedly sent gourmet gift baskets to President Bush and others in the administration.

“On behalf of myself, and my fellow terrorists, I’d like to personally thank the Bush administration for their wonderful suggestions as to how to best destroy the Great Satan,” said the world’s most wanted terrorist, on a videotape aired on Al Jazeera television this morning.

“Spreading pneumonic plague in public restrooms…Infecting cattle with foot and mouth disease…these are some seriously great ideas,” said bin Laden.

“Sure, we were already thinking about the nuclear, excuse me, my English is not so good, I mean nukyaler, option, but blowing up a chlorine tank? That’s genius. Who would’ve guessed a single tank could kill 17,500 infidels? Certainly not me,” he continued.

“And did you know that an ‘estimated 350,000 people could be exposed to an anthrax attack by my Holy Warriors spraying the biological weapon from a truck driving through five cities over two weeks’? I didn’t. But according to this report, an estimated 13,200 people could die. That’s great news. For us, at least.”

Bin Laden went on to say he hopes the President and other administration officials enjoy the gourmet gift baskets. “I’d love to give Mr. Bush a something a bit more personal, perhaps some homemade falafel, but something like that is a bit hard to arrange when you’re living in a cave. All I have to say is thank Allah we still get the Internet.”

Powered by

About copygodd

  • Richard Porter

    Perhaps you should wake up from your dream. Today, in the REAL world, there are terrorists out there who will do and try anything to achieve their goals. Do you actually think that they have not thought up any, if not all, of the scenarios listed?

    Try supporting the President and the forces of good that work daily to prevent any future attacks on our soil and on our citizens.

    And one more thing, you would probably cry the loudest if something happened near you and then you would write another blog post smothered in traiterous sarcasm.

  • http://copygodd.blogspot.com copygodd

    dang, rich. and i thought my article was funny.

    sure, it’s just a small bit ‘o parody about our constant revelations of “new” ways the terrorists could attack us, but your comment kills on every level.

    seriously. “traitorous sarcasm”? that’s comedy gold, rich. comedy gold.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    You think Bin Laden couldn’t come up with scenarios like this on his own, or find someone who had spent some time in America to come up with them for him? Hell, I can think of dozens even better than the ones you list which might be easier to achieve. I still don’t understand why they haven’t tried bombing shopping malls. It would be so incredibly easy.

    Dave

  • Richard Porter

    Dave

    I agree. The problem is that there are too many scenarios to cover everything that might occur and even though we have worked hard to prevent another attack, I also feel we have been very lucky.

    Maybe that’s why I became a little angry about the “humor” in this post. What could possibly materialize one day is too horrifying to even contemplate.

  • Eric Olsen

    and yet must be quietly and persistently contemplated for the purposes of prevention.

    I also think part of our “luck” thus far is that the Bush Doctrine of staying on the offense and chasing the fuckers down on their home turf has been at least somewhat effective.

  • Richard Porter

    Eric

    I agree with you as well and as you’ve seen from my previous posts and comments I believe in what the President has done and is doing to combat and prevent additional attacks.

    Unlike John Stewart, I do hope my children can read about President Bush in our history books as maintaining a very successful administration for the United States and the world.

  • Eric Olsen

    I know you have Richard, and I hope so too. If the Middle East is transformed, he will be

  • http://copygodd.blogspot.com copygodd

    i totally agree. it is too horrible to contemplate. but someone has to, and i’m glad our government is. because god knows the terrorists certainly are.

    my only point (which i believe eric nailed with his “quietly” comment) was that i don’t understand why the government continues to publicize their findings. to announce we’ve determined that 300,000 would be killed by this, or 2 million would be killed by that seems (to me, at least) to serve no purpose other than to scare people even further. maybe i’m wrong though (it has happened on more than one occasion), and people will start keeping a closer eye on chlorine tanks now that they’ve been alerted to the danger.

    i just hope we continue to work as hard on preventing these scenarios from coming true as we are publicizing the results of our projections.

  • http://www.anti-everything.us a-[e]

    copygodd: Great piece, as usual. Very funny. This thread just gets unintentionally funnier and funnier.

    To the rest of you: you’re idiots. You people need to get a sense of humor and take that 10 ft. American-made flag pole out of your asses. Who in the hell gets even “a little angry” over something like this? Did the terrorists steal your sense of humor? What you self-righteous, chest-beating humorless “patriots” don’t realize is that you are the biggest jokes of all. You’re all so busy trying to act like real serious American tough-guys you don’t realize that we’re all laughing at *you.* You people are doing what terrorists and the administration want. You’re cowering inside and voluntarily living in fear. At least you’re providing us with something to laugh at though. Thanks.

  • Richard Porter

    When the Government does not publish findings then they are being secretive and hiding something.

    When they do publish their findings to show what they are doing to help combat terrorism then they are being careless.

    It seems they cannot win with you. But guess what? They do not win with you, they have to win for you.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    It’s healthier to confront terrorism with humor than to cower behind overwrought hand-wringing phrases like “too horrifying to even contemplate.”

    Be angry all you want, but it won’t help solve the core problem of terrorism, which is that the worst wounds ever suffered by terrorists’ targets are the self-inflicted wounds.

    Terrorists have no real power except what we hand over to them. Free societies are resilient enough to shrug off the worst attacks any evil genius could possibly dream up — if we hold fast to the central values that make us free societies.

    The attacks of September 11 2001 are a prime example. The worst terror attack the world has ever seen, and the feeble bastards who did it fell short of killing 3000 people, in a nation of nearly 300 million. This tells me al-Qaida never will be a serious threat to the survival of our nation.

    We lose more people every month in traffic accidents on our nation’s highways than we have lost to al-Qaida in all the terror attacks they have ever hit us with, across the world over more than a decade since they decided they were at war with us.

    What we really lost on September 11 was not our security. Al-Qaida remains powerless to destroy the United States, no matter how much they may hope and wish to do so. What we lost was our illusionary belief that terror attacks always happen somewhere else. If al-Qaida hadn’t done that, someone else eventually would have. The vast majority of the damage springing from that dark day was inflicted on us by our own actions.

    Al-Qaida did not force travelers to cancel their travel plans and spiral our country’s major airlines into bankruptcy courts. We did that to ourselves, because we allowed ourselves to be ruled by irrational fear.

    Al-Qaida did not force Western tourists to stay away from Bali after bombing one nightclub. We did that ourselves, because we allowed ourselves to be ruled by irrational fear.

    I make no apologies for the evil bastards behind the September 11 attacks or any other terror act. We’re all better off if they are stopped before they carry out their plans. Osama bin Laden and all his allies deserve nothing more than to live as hunted fugitives until the day they are all caught or killed.

    My point is that these pathetic sick fools would have far less power to terrorize us if we would more steadfastly refuse to terrorize ourselves.

    If we can increase our resilience by contemplating and confronting the worst scenarios we can imagine, I’m all in favor of that. So I disagree with the premise of copygodd’s humor, even though I agree with using humor as a healthier response to terrorism than fear.

    The worst danger is not that we might give new ideas to the terrorists. The worst danger is that we might let our fear stop us from having new ideas ourselves.

  • http://copygodd.blogspot.com copygodd

    richard, i never said that by not publishing things like this the government was being “secretive and hiding something”. nor did i say that by publishing things like this they were being “careless”. i simply said i don’t see the need, or the reason, for publishing these particular findings.

    i know they’re working on these scenarios. you know they’re working on these scenarios. the terrorists know they’re working on these scenarios. so again, what’s the point of continually telling us they’re working on these scenarios? to scare people? to pat themselves on the back?

    if someone can explain to me why they feel the need to tell us how many people will be killed in each type of terrorist attack, i’m all ears.

  • Richard Porter

    For the most part, it appears we are in agreement. Since I live not far from where the towers fell, 3000 people, 300 people or 3 million people, the numbers really do not matter. Remember this, on that day the hospitals waited with full staffs to treat the wounded and yet it was probably one of their slowest days. The numbers really do not matter and I, like you, believe the United States will be successful in their war with terrorism.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Richard:

    If we can’t laugh in the face of horror then we’re truly doomed.

    Dave

  • Richard Porter

    Dave

    Regarding this issue, I wish I could feel the same way (for now). Hopefully, as it is said, time will heal these wounds.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    The post talks about helping Osama further his ideology but in a satirical way.

    Since his ideology is terror and grief, it’s irony that it is within the comments that Osama could find an achievement of his agenda.

    Kudos copygodd, it’s a good post that shows people you aren’t living in fear.

  • Tristan

    Reactionary Terrorists suck!

    That’s what the present neo-con fascist pseudo-religious administration is doing: REACTING ……….

    Where is the effective PRO-ACTIVE policy-making and TRUE LEADERSHIP this country used to have ~~~

    Not only are we the laughing stock of the entire globe right now~~~
    for almost EVERTHING we have been aTTEMPTING (and never accomplishing—starting with being unable to catch the #! most wanted terrorist in the earth for THREE YEARS now~~~

    but we are creating and implementing a policy to “deal” with terrorism–that not only has not a chance of a snowball in hell of “defeating” terrorism—but is doing exactly the OPPOSITE: we are creating new terrorists faster than we can count them~~!!!!

    WHY is there TERRORISM ……….???
    just because there are horrible hating people in the world that just wnat to kill millions and themselves in the process …???? Taht makes NO SENSE if you will simply stop a second and think about it!

    POVERTY and HOPELESSNEE and INJUSTIC is the CAUSE of Terrorism—–
    The only real way to defeat and eradicate “terrorism” is to remove the root causes of it………….

    THIS solution is one that the right wing capitalist corporate regime will NEVER entertain because it entails redistributing the wealth of the world so that there are no longer a few thousand Ultra-Rich Ultra-Elite families running and directing the world’s major Corporations—-and appropriating some of those financial resources to the areas of the world that have little or no food, little or no health care, and little or no HOPE …… THIS is what creates TERRORISM!!!!!!

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Redistributing wealth will not be enough. Poverty and hopelessness are among the root causes of terrorism, but throwing money at poverty will not solve the root causes of poverty. Many people are poor because they not only lack wealth, they also lack the institutions and culture that would let them build and retain wealth if they had any.

    A handful of economists have started to show us how we can resolve the root causes of poverty and hopelessness. These include Jeffrey Sachs in the Western world, and Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh (founder of the highly successful Grameen Bank development effort).

    Such steps could reduce the future recruiting pool for the terrorists, but at the same time, we must also deal with those who have already made the decision to become terrorists. There is no excuse for such acts. People who actively participate in terror acts must be brought down with all available legal and military force.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I agree with the concept that poverty and injustice breed terrorism and these are key elements to defeating it, however what you are overlooking is that those in poverty over there would technically be wanting to kill those with money over there, but they come over here instead.

  • geo

    “New” ideas to someone not acquinted with terrorism. Any terrorist, Mossad, KGB and CIA operative worth his/her salt would be well versed. Gee, I wonder who the idiot was that plagerized a pile of known scenarios and tried to pass them off as original thought.

  • http://www.mangosblog.com Mango

    Wow.

    It appears as though some people are still living in some paranoid alternate universe.

    Yes, terrorists CAN attack. They’ve proved that. However, the US military CAN attack, too.

    Everyone can attack everyone.

    You can’t stop everything.

    You can’t be afraid of everything.

    Some drunk can hop into his car and run you over in the middle of the parking lot. Does that mean that I should get angry anytime someone makes a drunk driving joke?

    I’m fairly certain that copygodd was joking. In fact, his site calls it a “satirical look at serious issues”.

    Maybe satire isn’t your thing?

    But, Jeez.

    “Try supporting the President and the forces of good”

    Forces of good. That’s funny.

    Remember, good is a relative term. Outside of the US, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone describe the current administration as the “force of good”.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    The report was never meant to be made public. Someone in Hawaii goofed, and the NYT picked it up…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “POVERTY and HOPELESSNEE [sic] and INJUSTIC [sic] is the CAUSE of Terrorism”

    Then why aren’t the impoverished Bolivians or the starving, oppressed people from Zimbabwe attacking us?

  • http://edadkins.com ed adkins

    you know the best defense against terrorism?

    comically narrow world views pushed ridiculously right or left, void of all humor or enlightenment.

    wasn’t it hoover who said our greatest strength is in our simplistic masses, with egos inflated by radio show hosts and evening news soundbits? something like that, i saw it in readers digest.

    anyway, its obvious copygod is a threat to our future as a nation. my suggestion is we get rid of him- that way we caould get so humorless the terrorists will lose interest since picking on us wont be fun anymore.

  • http://www.genuineblog.com Genuine

    Sorry Ed we don’t have the budget for copygodd’s demise. I say we just beat the shit out of him! We’ll show those terrorists who is boss.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>POVERTY and HOPELESSNEE and INJUSTIC is the CAUSE of Terrorism—–
    The only real way to defeat and eradicate “terrorism” is to remove the root causes of it………….<<

    And of course the US is the source of all poverty and injustice. We breed terrorists because we are so successful and our success is built on the suffering and degradation of the rest of the world. We’re like a huge leech sucking away their wealth and hope.

    Cough Cough.

    Please get a grip. Without our help, and our business and our ‘exploitation’ there’d be more poverty, suffering and injustice in the world.

    What breeds terrorism is greed, irrational resentment and the lust for power of demagogues who use terrorism as a tool to advance their own power.

    Dave

  • Ben Sadden

    By creating scenarios and terror alerts every now and then, the administration had also achieve its aim of mooting peoples’ minds that the terrorists are ‘out there’ when actually they are ‘in here’. A great majority of us failed to ponder whether all this, begining with 9/11, had been created by our own administration to enable us to go out and control the oil producing regions.

  • SFC Ski

    “WHY is there TERRORISM ……….???
    just because there are horrible hating people in the world that just wnat to kill millions and themselves in the process …???? Taht makes NO SENSE if you will simply stop a second and think about it!” It may make no sense, but there are people willing to do just that. You might not understand them, or condone them, but you better be aware of them. Not only that, but giving them all the money in the world won’t buy them off.

  • Eric Olsen

    setting aside all the issues brought up here, “economic justice” cannot be achieved by redistribution, even drastic redistribution: there simply isn’t enough to go around. The only solution to poverty is to continue to grow the pie and to keep opportunity as open as possible.

  • JR

    The pie can only grow so big on the resources of one planet. I think the only real solution is to shrink the population.

  • Eric Olsen

    the more virtual the economy the fewer the physical resources required to sustain and grow it

  • JR

    Virtual food is unsatisfying.

  • Eric Olsen

    there’s plenty of food – distribution is still an issue

  • http://copygodd.blogspot.com copygodd

    what a great thread this has turned into.

    my favorite part has to be the threats of bodily harm to my person. ;-)

  • http://messengerpuppet.com MP

    I heart sarcasm, even the “traiterous [sic.]” kind.

    I sure hope we find this “terror” character soon and kick his a** before he gets a hold of this book.

  • Tristan

    Terrorists are MADE – not BORN!

    no baby is born an Osama Bin Laden~

    when YOU don’t have enogh to eat-and your stomach is churning—you TOO could become a “terrorist”!

    and there is MORE than enogh food , medicenie, and other resources to go around—-

    there are warehouses wher food sits ROTTING—–
    and will NOT be “given away” to people that are hungty!

    same with MEDICINES—–
    funny isn’t it—how when the United Nations Relief group gets enough cash allocated and goes to the pharmaceutical companies—they can buy all the medicenes they WANT then!!! Just takes CASH….right ????

    See the “problem” is:

    COMPASSION” and feeding/housing/providing health care to the POOR—–
    DOESN’T MAKE ANY COMPANIES MONEY …

    THAT’s the PROBLEM!

    Let’s hear it for CAPITALISM!

    and I wonder why —in this Capitalist society we live in~~that spouts off constantly that all our problems in the marketplace result from government intervention & regulation—and that if we just left the Marketplace alone and let pure Capitalism work—it will work great!

    OK then~~~ let’s start with all the electric and water companies–OK ???
    Let THEM have Competition too–since that’s supposed to work BEST, eh ????

    when you have government sponsored monoplies like the utilities—where is the MOTIVATION to streamline and get more efficient and cost-effective!

    HEY! Here’s an idea:
    what about the MILITARY monopoly—
    why do you think they buy $3,000 toilets, eh????
    Let’s have a BUNCH of militaries—let THEM compete against ecah other—and the better ones will make the others work harder to perform better!!!
    THAT’s Capitalism!

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    when YOU don’t have enogh to eat-and your stomach is churning—you TOO could become a “terrorist”!

    Sorry, Tristan, I don’t buy this argument. Too many people swallow their hunger and subsist on the moral decision instead.

    Terrorists in the ME are carefully trained and supported by a cultural background that rewards them as heroes for their actions.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>when YOU don’t have enogh to eat-and your stomach is churning—you TOO could become a “terrorist”!<<

    And if YOU have too much free time and parents to pay your expenses, you TOO could become a mindless liberal.

    Terrorist leaders in the middle east overwhelmingly come from the educated, wealthier classes. It’s a political route to power for them. Now, the actual terrorists who strap on bombs and blow themselves up are a different matter. They’re poor, hungry and fanatical and they come from backwards countries like Sudan and Yemen. They are recruited by the terrorist leadership because of their ignorance, desperation and how easily they are manipulated. They are victims of terrorism as much as the people they kill. But they are NOT the real terrorists. Those are the multi-millionaires like Bin Laden who plan the operations.

    Dave

  • http://www.anti-everything.us a-[e]

    Man. This thread just keeps getting funnier. copygodd, you are a genius.

  • http://www.ang6666.blogspot.com Angie

    I do hope my children can read about President Bush in our history books as maintaining a very successful administration for the United States and the world.

    Oh you must be joking!! LOL

    (decides to just walk away before I strange people)

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    So Angie, it’s worth sacrificing the welfare of the nation and the world to make sure Bush goes down in history as a bad guy? You don’t care about freedom, human rights, genocide, terrorism, world hunger or anything else? So long as Bush goes down in flames the rest of the world and our country can go to hell too and that’s just fine with you?

    Lovely.

    Dave

  • http://www.mangosblog.com Mango

    Dave,

    Regardless of what Angie or you say, think or do, Bush’s actions will determine what history thinks of him.

    Right now, it’s still a work in progress.

    I DO care about freedom and human rights, and those are currently taking a beating in the name of “homeland security”.

    Last I checked, terrorism and world hunger were still happening, too.

    It’s foolish to think that one person, one country, one army can provide freedom, human rights, and end genocide, terrorism and world hunger. Change takes both time and people willing to change.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Regardless of what Angie or you say, think or do, Bush’s actions will determine what history thinks of him.<<

    Well, that would be my position too. But Angie seemed to think that just because he’s Bush it would be a good thing if the world were destroyed by nuclear wildfires so that he’d get the blame.

    Dave

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    It’s doubtful whether Osama bin Laden was ever hungry a day in his life, at least not until after he decided to become a terrorist leader. He grew up in quite wealthy circumstances.

    Now that he’s a hunted fugitive, he might occasionally experience hunger, but somehow I find it difficult to feel all that sorry for him.

    If he wants food, he can always turn himself in to stand trial. I’m sure the authorities will make sure he doesn’t starve to death in custody, as that would make him into a martyr, and no sane person wants to see that.

  • JR

    Dave Nalle: But Angie seemed to think that just because he’s Bush it would be a good thing if the world were destroyed by nuclear wildfires so that he’d get the blame.

    And you say that based on what evidence?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Her comment, JR. Did you read it?

    Dave

  • JR

    Yeah, and I didn’t see anything about “nuclear wildfires” anywhere on this thread until you brought it up. Did a comment get deleted?

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Dave is just misreading Angie’s comment, and tossing in a bit of temperamental exaggeration for spice.

    When she said “you must be joking” it was fairly obvious she was dismissing the likelihood that Bush will be remembered as having done much good for the world.

    She never said anything about wanting the world to suffer misery just so she could have the satisfaction of seeing Bush fail. That was all in Dave’s imagination.

    I don’t think any comments were deleted.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I admit to engaging in a bit of extrapolative hyperbole. Pity Angie isn’t here to tell us what she actually meant by that comment so I don’t have to leap to conclusions from its open-endedness.

    But I suspect that if she were here to follow it up it would just give me more encouragement to be a meanie.

    Dave

  • Jay Barnica

    >>>
    Terrorist leaders in the middle east overwhelmingly come from the educated, wealthier classes. It’s a political route to power for them. Now, the actual terrorists who strap on bombs and blow themselves up are a different matter. They’re poor, hungry and fanatical and they come from backwards countries like Sudan and Yemen. They are recruited by the terrorist leadership because of their ignorance, desperation and how easily they are manipulated. They are victims of terrorism as much as the people they kill. But they are NOT the real terrorists. Those are the multi-millionaires like Bin Laden who plan the operations.
    <<<

    Parallel to the way things operate in the U.S. Not many poor folks calling the shots in Washington. Not many rich folks lugging around M16s doing Washington’s bidding around the globe. Consequently, I’m not really sure what your point is…

    Jay

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Hard to imagine someone can’t see the difference, but I’ll spell it out for you.

    >>Parallel to the way things operate in the U.S. Not many poor folks calling the shots in Washington.< <

    Yes, but here in the US every poor person has a vote equal to that of every rich person plus the right to organize and campaign and work to see that people get into office who implement the policies they want. That is not the case in the terrorist dominated nations of the Middle East.

    >> Not many rich folks lugging around M16s doing Washington’s bidding around the globe. < <

    True, the officers usually carry a personal side-arm. But they still fight in the front lines.

    >>Consequently, I’m not really sure what your point is…<<

    No, you clearly lack the frame of reference to get my point.

    Dave

  • SFC Ski

    Jay, like so many others, has no real idea of what the US military is about, he gets his info from TV.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    >>so I don’t have to leap to conclusions from its open-endedness.

    LOL. Have to … hahahahaha. compelled, even I bet. hoohoo. Good one.

    !@#$%

    There’s these things called questions, see? They lead to greater understanding and unlightenment and, it is said, can even arrest those leaps.

    More questions, less declarations make one.

  • http://www.ang6666.blogspot.com Angie

    Wow! I didn’t what I meant by that was the topic of choice here. Thanks for the email nudge to come clarify myself.

    it’s worth sacrificing the welfare of the nation and the world to make sure Bush goes down in history as a bad guy? You don’t care about freedom, human rights, genocide, terrorism, world hunger or anything else? So long as Bush goes down in flames the rest of the world and our country can go to hell too and that’s just fine with you?

    Real nice how you twist what I said around Dave. Takes talent to do that.

    And … funny, but perhaps I’ve been living on another planet these last few years, but I don’t recall bush accomplishing any of that. In my opinion the guy has been a complete failure. A laughable one at that.

    In fact, what I have seen him do is get us into a “war” that we should never have been in. Listen to him want to take away women’s right to do what they wish with their own body. Talk about denying homosexuals the same rights others have.

    Just lovely. Definitely something worth looking up to. (sarcastic for those who can’t tell)

    So Dave, go ahead and twist those very direct words around. :)

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    No need to twist anything. Looks like I got you exactly right the first time, Angie. You wouldn’t piss on Bush to put him out if he were on fire.

    But deny reality all you like. History will judge Bush one way or another and in the end your ill-wishful thinking won’t count for anything.

    Dave

  • JR

    Dave Nalle: But deny reality all you like. History will judge Bush one way or another and in the end your ill-wishful thinking won’t count for anything.

    Your malicious comments don’t count for anything either. They just stink up the place.

  • Richard Porter

    JR

    I take it that you cannot effectively interpret what Dave said?

    Malicious? Come on!

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    The vague open-endedness started with Richard’s comment 6:

    I do hope my children can read about President Bush in our history books as maintaining a very successful administration for the United States and the world.

    The word “hope” has at least two possible connotations in this sentence. It can be interpreted as saying it is likely the Bush presidency will be remembered in a positive light by historians. It can also be interpreted as saying it is desirable for the Bush presidency to be remembered as a success.

    Richard seems to use the vagueness of his wording to mean both of these things.

    Angie, in comment 40, responded primarily to the claim of likelihood. Clearly in her opinion it is already too late for the Bush administration to achieve anything positive, and so she considers it unlikely any honest history text (leaving aside the question of whether any such thing really exists) will look upon George W. Bush in a good light.

    Dave’s subsequent comments misread Angie’s point. Whether out of deliberate malice or simple minded incomprehension is unclear. He assumes she has said it would be undesirable for the Bush administration to succeed in its stated goals, when it is very clear she has only said it is unlikely.

    He does this in a clear attempt to vilify her. Conveniently, he fails to present any arguments that might disprove the statements she has actually made.

    It is an illustrative example of the classic straw figure fallacy. When you cannot defeat your opponent’s actual argument, create a false argument that is much weaker, and refute that one instead.

  • Richard Porter

    Victor Plenty

    Thanks for clarifying what I said…no, what I meant….no, what I thought…no, what I inferred…no, what I desired….

    Thanks for the contribution!

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    It’s my duty to help those who cannot help themselves.

    I’d rather be helpful than enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

  • http://www.ang6666.blogspot.com Angie

    You wouldn’t piss on Bush to put him out if he were on fire.

    Oh please Dave, get over yourself huh? I may not like the guy or how he’s running the country. And I may think he is a complete (edits self), BUT! I would at least throw water at him if he was on fire.

    and in the end your ill-wishful thinking won’t count for anything

    Funny, but I do believe that there are MILLIONS that feel as I do. Perhaps it’s your wishful thinking that won’t count for anything.

    Only time will tell.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>I take it that you cannot effectively interpret what Dave said?

    Malicious? Come on!<<

    But Richard, my comment is automatically malicious because it opens up the possibility that Bush might leave a positive legacy in history.

    Anything good about Bush is ‘malicious’ and he’s always a ‘complete failure’, perhaps because he’s a ‘fascist’.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Victor Wrote:

    >>Angie, in comment 40, responded primarily to the claim of likelihood. Clearly in her opinion it is already too late for the Bush administration to achieve anything positive, and so she considers it unlikely any honest history text (leaving aside the question of whether any such thing really exists) will look upon George W. Bush in a good light.< <

    So you're saying she's just ignorant and ill informed rather than deliberately trying to misrepresent Bush's record and potential for success. I guess that's a valid opinion.

    >>Dave’s subsequent comments misread Angie’s point. Whether out of deliberate malice or simple minded incomprehension is unclear. He assumes she has said it would be undesirable for the Bush administration to succeed in its stated goals, when it is very clear she has only said it is unlikely.<<

    You could only say that, based on the current situation, if you choose to ignore facts and instead substitute a baseless presumption of failure which can only originate in a desire to see Bush fail. There’s no other way to come to the position she has expressed.

    He does this in a clear attempt to vilify her. Conveniently, he fails to present any arguments that might disprove the statements she has actually made.

    Here’s a quote from her second comment:

    “In fact, what I have seen him do is get us into a “war” that we should never have been in. Listen to him want to take away women’s right to do what they wish with their own body. Talk about denying homosexuals the same rights others have.”

    This means that she’s actually fallen for the Liberal propaganda that Bush is pro-life, anti-gay and a warmonger, when everyone with any awareness of current events and the fine line Bush is treading knows perfectly well that this is not the case. Have abortions been banned? Has Bush supported civil unions? Did we bring democracy and self-government to Iraq?

    She’s either delusional or deliberately misrepresenting reality in order to attack Bush. You pick.

    Dave

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    False choice, Dave. Some people honestly think the real situation in the world is different from what you think it is.

    You can call those people “delusional” if it helps you be more comfortable with your own delusions, but anyone making sincere efforts to take an unbiased view will realize such tactics only undermine your own claims.

  • http://copygodd.blogspot.com copygodd

    wait a second…bush is pro-choice? when did that happen?

  • JR

    Dave Nalle: But Richard, my comment is automatically malicious because it opens up the possibility that Bush might leave a positive legacy in history.

    Your comment is malicious because you accused someone of wishing for nuclear war. (I’m assuming that such a mindset would reflect badly on her, and that that’s why you wrote the comment. If anyone wants to challenge my assumptions, feel free to speak up…)

    Have abortions been banned?

    Some, yes. He signed a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. He gave no indication that he intended it to be struck down by the courts.

    Has Bush supported civil unions?

    Not that I’m aware of. What’s he done?

    Did we bring democracy and self-government to Iraq?

    Not yet. They still need our troops, among other things.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>False choice, Dave. Some people honestly think the real situation in the world is different from what you think it is.<<

    They sure do, Victor. But since I base my assessment on fact and they don’t, I’ll stick with mine.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>wait a second…bush is pro-choice? when did that happen?<<

    He always has been, but he’s done a remarkable job of making sure that everyone thinks he’s not. He’s had to for political reasons.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Have abortions been banned?

    Some, yes. He signed a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. He gave no indication that he intended it to be struck down by the courts.< <

    So, you think that pulling a living baby from the womb and stabbing it in the skull to kill it is an abortion?

    >>Has Bush supported civil unions?

    Not that I’m aware of. What’s he done?< <

    Endorsed them during the election. No one has sent him any federal legislation on the issue so he hasn't done anything more than that so far.

    >>Did we bring democracy and self-government to Iraq?

    Not yet. They still need our troops, among other things.<<

    Not an answer to the question.

    Dave

  • JR

    Well, now look who can’t read?

    It clearly is an answer to the question, if not the answer you were looking for.

  • MCH

    Re comment #52:
    “Jay, like so many others, has no real idea of what the U.S. military is about, he gets his info from TV.”
    – SFC Ski

    Agreed Ski…no different than so many other of BC’s civilian keyboard warriors, namely Eric Olsen, Dave Nalle, R.J. (Bobby) Elliott, David Flanagan, Al Barger, et al.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    JR, an answer to the question “Did we bring democracy and self-government to Iraq?” is not “They still need our troops, among other things.” You seem to think I asked if they were completely self reliant. Not the same thing, or else you think that the presence of our troops automatically means we’re running the country, in which case there’s no point in even trying to have a discussion with you.

    Did they vote? Are they running their own infrastructure? Can they set their own policies without asking our permission? The answer to all of these is ‘yes’, so you figure it out from there.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    MCH – see my Chickenhawk article.

    Dave

  • JR

    Dave Nalle: Did they vote? Are they running their own infrastructure? Can they set their own policies without asking our permission? The answer to all of these is ‘yes’, so you figure it out from there.

    It’s not even clear that the answers to all of those questions is ‘yes’, let alone that those three things constitute running a country. What can you prove?

    By the way, you said in Comment 63: This means that she’s actually fallen for the Liberal propaganda that Bush is pro-life, anti-gay and a warmonger, when everyone with any awareness of current events and the fine line Bush is treading knows perfectly well that this is not the case.

    But when copygodd asked when Bush became pro-choice, you responded in Comment 68: He always has been, but he’s done a remarkable job of making sure that everyone thinks he’s not. He’s had to for political reasons.

    So who’s responsible for the belief (false, according to you) that Bush is pro-life? Was it Bush or liberal propagandists?

    Victor Plenty: Some people honestly think the real situation in the world is different from what you think it is.

    Dave Nalle: They sure do, Victor. But since I base my assessment on fact and they don’t, I’ll stick with mine.

    Facts are self-consistent; your assessments are anything but. Dude, you’re like the Charles Ives of cognitive dissonance.