Sep 27 2006
Roadkill weaves accross the center line and rides the left shoulder for a few miles
Let me preface this by saying that Possum at Roadkill and I generally have a good deal of respect for each other, even when we disagree.
One thing we have butted heads on is alignment.
Politically, I am a fiscal conservative social moderate, which usually labels me a centrist. But the word moderate to Possum means you have to have a perfectly middle of the road philosophy, which in his opinion apparently translates to "hate everyone". So when ever I lean a little to the right, which I admittedly do, I am hounded by him as a moderate in training.
Well Possum is MINO, a moderate in name only because he seems to fly far out to the left fringe at a moments notice, then springs back toward the middle for a while.
Unlike me though he seems determined to maintain the fiction that he is moderate. I encourage the reader to review his comments in my blog and see how moderate he is.
Tuesday he posted a blog about the President Clinton/Chris Wallace interview. Here is how he opened:
REPUBLICAN PARTY SUICIDE - THE NEW REALITY SHOW
By now most of us interested in politics has had a chance to view – or review – the “debate” between Bill Clinton and Chris Wallace aired by FoxNews over the weekend, and bootlegged by the Beavis channel over at YouTube…
So wait, an interview with Clinton was Republican Party Suicide?
An interesting twist. I eagerly sought the logic, the research and the painstaking observations that must accompany that.
I didn’t watch it – I don’t watch TV – and I won’t stoop to the level of the Drudge class hatemongers and patronize the Youtube crap, which, according to Crooks and Liars, has been deliberately altered to WJC’s detriment…
I had no trouble finding the unedited video, so I don’t understand his laziness.
And to rely on Crooks and Liars, a Liberal Pothole in the Roadkill highway, why it cannot be that he trusts liberal sources could it?
I guess those who watch it will have to judge Crooks and Liars claim for themselves. For myself, I’d settle for a full transcript, which I haven’t been able to find at Fox – I suppose this means so few Fox viewers read that there’s no demand…
So I was forced to rely on what Crooks and Liars provide at the aforementioned link, claiming it to be “a rough transcript”…
I played the video and read the transcript and it is not too bad, but it is rough indeed.
But without seeing the video or at least hearing the audio, you lose so much by just trying to read a dry transcript, as your own biases tend to provide the inflection and emotion.
How disappointing. Well, moving on, what was his conclusion?
Reading, not watching… Bill Clinton wiped the floor with that little smartass… I’m surprised he didn’t end the interview by giving Chrissy a noogie…
Did he read the right interview? And I fail to see how Clinton blowing his lid and losing his temper is wiping the floor with him? Clinton looked like an overly defensive fool.
My conclusion seems to be reinforced by one of the few objective accounts I can find on the interview, that of Slate’s John Dickerson
Perhaps, but Possum overlooks the most telling aspect of this.
According to Slate, Clinton Set Wallace up, whereas Clinton claimed he was set up, as did his wife and his loyalists.
Bill Clinton wasn’t sandbagged, because he is a smart politician. He just spent several weeks fighting ABC over its interpretation of his administration’s hunt for Bin Laden. He knew the question was coming and he took advantage of it. Forty-three days before the election, he has provided a moment to rally party activists and attack the GOP at the heart of its perceived strength on handling terrorism.
So Slate did nothing but confirm what most of us know, that Clinton is a lying manipulative man.
So how did this affect the Highway Marsupial and his views of Clinton?
Apparently it impressed him:
Leave Bill Clinton alone. Muzzle and chain your rabid attack monkeys, if you have to, but leave him alone. He is hands down the most popular and charismatic politician alive today – there is more charisma in Slick’s “willie” than GWB’s administration. If you take him on, you will lose.
And that’s from someone who utterly detested Clinton when he was President.
Read that again….
And that’s from someone who utterly detested Clinton when he was President.
Apparently not any more.
I must admit, my opinion of WJC has improved since January 2001. He’s made a far better ex-President than he made President – his style better suites the elder statesman / I told you so niche. And things have gone so badly the last 6 years that his administration can’t help but look better than it actually was…
Don’t take him on…Especially on a subject where he is undeniably right. Any review of the facts will show Clinton did far more than Bush to find Bin Laden, and for less provocation.
Well, not really. And again, you are comparing 8 years of active indecisiveness and bureaucratic dysfunction in the face of yearly attacks to 8 months of inaction before any attacks, which has been followed by 5 years of highly decisive action.
Of course OBL was easy to find, he wasn’t really hiding. How many times did Clinton have him in his sights and let him go? Too many according to the people who were there who are NOT names Richard Clarke.
And on a side note, Clinton’s insistence on Clarkes divinity is interesting. Many of the accounts in Clarke’s book contradict his public statements, his 911 commission testimony and other validating sources.
But I digress.
Possum summarizes Bush’s failings:
And ultimately, Bush did follow Clinton’s plan, but with a lot more force at his disposal, more bases, and more allies… And he still didn’t get Bin Laden.
No, not really. Bush took the military and applied it as a military solution to a military problem Clinton took the military and applied it as a police force to criminal matter. Two distinct differences in approaches:
Bombs or indictments.
And of course OBL has been hard to find. He is a frightened man who is hiding for his life because there is finally someone serious abotu finding and killing him.
Possum then accuses everyone of pandering to minorities, by not critiquing Rice:
I think Rice is utterly incompetent. The left – Ted Rall’s demented humor aside - won’t say it, because…
She’s black.
She’s a she…
The left just doesn’t criticize black women. The neocons won’t criticize their black women; they need every one they have…
Leaving of course his noble self to critique her. Her professionalism and qualifications are fairly well regarded on both sides of the aisle. But Roadkill takes the extreme left position again.
He also is hoping for more intelligence leaks, and in my comments has shown he clearly has no regard for what the consequences will be. Nothing leftist about that, right?
A very HuffPo Horsesass Daily Kos-worthy attitude.
So in summary, what are we to make of the Parkway Possum? Is he a moderate?
If moderate means "I hate everyone, but I hate Republicans much more then I hate Democrats" then yes. And thats my honest opinion, as most of his blogs and comments have leaned pretty hard to the left.
Of course, when your hero is Slick Willy, it is hardly a surprise that you can dazzle the critics with some fast talk and quick steps.
Note to Possum.
Before you wallow in your admiration of Wild Bill, remember who he admires according to the article:
Karl Rove.
Since the left is generally universal in their hatred of Rove, the fact that Clinton not only admires him, but honors him for what he sees as Rove’s mastery in political manipulation, well, that should tell you everything you need to know about what Clinton is. If that’s your role model, so be it.
Possum is just a liberally leaning moderate, who just leans a bit too far occasionally.
He should just fess up to it, and be done.
7 Responses to “Roadkill weaves accross the center line and rides the left shoulder for a few miles”
"And of course OBL has been hard to find. He is a frightened man who is hiding for his life because there is finally someone serious abotu finding and killing him. "
Who is that? Last I heard, Bush didn’t think about OBL at all.
"Politically, I am a fiscal conservative social moderate, which usually labels me a centrist."
Me, too, but we’re talking about principles, not positioning. A moderate can appear to be on a fringe in an immoderate climate. If you define yourself by those around you, you have no real positions.
Digression: I endorsed Slate’s analysis based on it’s quality, not it’s conclusions. I never took a position of who set who up… I assume both sides sought to set the other up…
"I had no trouble finding the unedited video, so I don’t understand his laziness."
TV is a drug, and these video snippets are as well. I don’t want the damned video. I notice you have nothing to say about Crooks and Liars assertion the Youtube stuff was juiced… I’ll assume that it in fact was…
I want a true written copy. If your arguments cannot be cogently presented in written format they aren’t worth my time. I am not interested in subjective voodoo crap like body language - if you were more studied in the matter, you would understand 1) Body language is not universal and 2) Body language is manageable. In other words, people can learn to use it as a tool - it’s called acting, Karl. Republicans used to deride Clinton for being able to "cry on cue" - I recall several memorable incidents where he was literally caught at it… But he didn’t invent it. The first President to grasp the value of TV staging was Kennedy, and the first one to get really good at it was Reagan, which is reasonable, considering his vocational history. His successor, Bush 41, was a bad actor - which probably contributed to his demise. He ran against a clown and a genuine talent. What do you expect?
That, BTW, was about the time I unplugged. I’m right about this, and I don’t care how many people gainsay it. You’re all stoned.
You’re stoned, Karl. And I don’t care if everyone else is stoned, too. What everybody does doesn’t alter my views. It may constrain my actions, but never my views.
You’re stoned, Karl… And a bit infantile - which is one of the side effects of watching too much TV for too long. This form of media gets at you on an emotional level you can’t control, at the same time degrading reason. Why do you think those idiotic commercials work?
Hate? Don’t be silly, that’s a five year old’s reaction… Or the reaction of a mass murderer… Or someone stoned on the glass tit. The closest to an emotional reaction any of these antics inspires from me is a moderate disgust… Pardon the pun.
But on that score, I will add another digression: I think - not feel, but think - that the real emoters are to be found among the Bush supporters, not detractors. It is a parallel of what I refer to as hyper anti-anti Semitism - some people love Bush so much you automatically interpret any criticism as "Bush hate." I think the real issue is "Bush love:" People who are so fanatically devoted to Bush they cannot see him for what he really is - a failure. At the risk of over-using a bad, worn out analogy, I think - not feel - some of the hardcore are as devoted to Bush as the SS were to Hitler. That kind of devotion is unhealthy.
A failure? Reading, again - not watching - I am evaluating all sorts of accounts from all over the world. Even when I’m not posting, I’m reading - "listening" takes precedence over "speaking." If it’s in English, I’ll consider it. I cross check, fact check, and reality check. The conclusions are becoming clearer all the time: Everything this administration has done has backfired. Which leads to Rice… I stand on my position, which stands on her record. I notice you do not refute my conclusion on peoples’ unwillingness to honestly assess her, and you offer no defense of her record, other than to say people on "both sides" admire her. I’m not on a side, and I’m not looking for endorsements that may well be as tainted as a confession obtained by torture.
So I’ll ask again: What has she accomplished?
So was it "suicide?" I think I failed in making the point. I should have shortened the piece, I suppose, but…
Bill Clinton has kept his mouth shut to a remarkable degree since January 2001. He has conformed well to the "speak no evil" principle of former Presidents, unlike Jimmy Carter, an ex-President whose views I do appreciate. Clinton has gone so far as to say he would have done the same thing in Iraq as Bush - which means he would have been just as wrong.
But now, people who I assume get no direction from the White House, the Party, or even Rove - I don’t believe in "talking points" - go after Slick Willie in a very personal way. I ask, as I asked yesterday: Are these boobs a fifth column?
Or are they just desperate? This matter would have never come up but for that "B" rate TV movie. Why provoke a rattlesnake?
Because the makers of that flick are stoned… And everything to them is a game. Because living in TV La La land has reduced them to all-feeling, no-thinking fools. Life isn’t a game. People like that are a good argument for bringing back duelling.
One last. I’m sorry, but I have to call you on some "facts:"
"Well, not really. And again, you are comparing 8 years of active indecisiveness and bureaucratic dysfunction in the face of yearly attacks to 8 months of inaction before any attacks, which has been followed by 5 years of highly decisive action.
1) There was no "8 years." Al-Qaeda grew slowly from talk to fact. If we want to throw in the whole Kahuna, you need to go clear back to… Just keep going. Some might argue the writing was on the wall clear back when the Marines were bombed during the Reagan years - the people who pulled that off are the predecessors of today’s Al-Qaeda allies. If the neocons are going to conflate, as some have, the Somalia disaster with Al-Qaeda - who had nothing to do with it at all but to cheer after the fact - then you have to add in a lot more conflations. Bin Laden - who I remind all was supported by the US when his Mujadaheen were kicking Russian butt - got his wind up when the Saudis allowed our troops to base in the Moslem Holy land - but it was just rock throwing until the embassy bombings, and the strength of the threat didn’t really become apparent until the Cole bombing… In 2000…
Further, the August 6 2000 leaks - KUDOS TO THE PATRIOTIC LEAKERS - Make a real lie out of the idea the Bush administration pursued Al-Qaeda before 9-11.
And since then? A botched operation that we’re still botching. It’s getting serious. Newsweek has a good piece today: "The Rise of Jihadistan"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14975282/site/newsweek/
So let’s not pretend the administration has done anything that is both effective and efficient. Really what has been done has been neither…
And a final matter:
"He also is hoping for more intelligence leaks, and in my comments has shown he clearly has no regard for what the consequences will be. Nothing leftist about that, right?"
Call it whatever you like. It is an issue of principle. Our government - especially this administration - has driven the "national secrets" concept into the ground. WE DON’T NEED ALL THESE SECRETS. THEY ARE ANTI-AMERICAN. We have an administration that attempts to cover its butt by classifying the evidence of failure. The consequences? Misplaced support of bad policies.
And I’ll remind you most of the leakers are government employees…
Show me one example where any of these leaks have caused a genuine harm. We have reporters riding shotgun with troops on the ground. We have reporters connected with peoples the government tells us are the enemy. We’re swimming in reporters. If there was a desire to cause harm with leaks, there is ample opportunity. Where has it happened?
It hasn’t. The only thing that has been harmed is the shrub’s reputation. Show me proof. Show me soldiers dead because somebody tipped the enemy. Show me a decisive operation pulled because of a leak. You can’t. You can assert, but you have no examples because they don’t exist.
The worst you can assert is that some reporters might choose to be better conduits for information to our side. 1) You don’t know they aren’t doing just that, and 2) Doing so would destroy their ability to contact the other side. There is ultimately no value in that.
George W Bush is not my leader. He isn’t my Commander in Chief - I never served. He is my servant. He is in my employ, and I want to know what he is doing, or I want a straight explanation as to why I can’t know. And in an environment where leak after leak demonstrates bungling at best and perfidy at worst, the burden of proof is on the servant…
Now… I may cross-post this, but I really have more important things to write about - such as the ongoing disintegration of our bungled war efforts…
And BTW, that tagline is silly… You’ve been taking the Orb too seriously…
Errata: The above line: "Further, the August 6 2000 leaks - KUDOS TO THE PATRIOTIC LEAKERS - Make a real lie out of the idea the Bush administration pursued Al-Qaeda before 9-11." should read August 6, 2001…
Now, if I can get Blogger to work, I’ll change it over there…
"If the neocons are going to conflate, as some have, the Somalia disaster with Al-Qaeda "
Ok, this really has to be about the weirdest statement in this rant. Osama is on record, on video tape, as saying the Somalia disaster had direct bearing on the 9/11 attack. It showed him America was weak. Its this news to anyone? Ok, so there is a pretty direct link there, it is not exactly a conflation.
exactly.
Thanks your comment is amazing. I will definitely read your diary.. bye