07 April 2006

Deny...Then Rationalize

This news is only just breaking and I have already heard and read so many outrageous comments by Bush supporters. I am not angered by that, I more want to plead with them to stop staunchly taking a position that makes them a mockery. I sincerely do not mean to denigrate when I say that. It almost saddens me when I see and hear good Americans passionately involved in this country's political footprint, but somewhere cross the line between supporting their President, even their party and blindly rationalizing a President's abuses of power just because he "was their guy". When are they going to question? When are they going to be angered over their betrayed loyalty? When are they going to show this administration that even their supporters have an absolute obligation to demand the truth?

A couple examples of my responses to rather surprising arguments from the right...

The President has the authorization to declassify any information.
The President...an ethical President does not act in a vacuum. Especially when it comes to N.I.E's, an administration does not whisper in the VP's ear to leak it to the press. Especially when it is done to beat up someone who publicly presented facts that undermined the President's core rationale for taking us to war. You can't sell that now matter how well you paint it. On this, an
AMERICAblog comment provides the following link to the executive order issued by the Bush administration that covers handling of classified material. (Executive Order 13292).

Well, Valerie Plame was just an analyst.
Outing an undercover C.I.A. officer is a crime. Period. And please consider that even Bush, before this broke denounced the action as a crime that would be "taken care of". Also, he had plenty to say on this issue "before". Now, with this information out, "the White House has no comment".


This seems to show the typical pattern - first deny and when you can no longer deny...rationalize. How long does someone do this before they finally admit they are simply backing the wrong horse?

17 comments:

Lucy said...

I have long said that if Bush got up on a stage and ate a live human baby his supporters (sychophantic sheeple) would applaud and claim it has always been proper for Bush to eat babies and that they will start eating babies too.

Jack Jones said...

In your post you castigate those who blindly rationalize positions while doing that very thing yourself.

You seem to imply that Plame was working in a covert capacity when she was "outed". By all accounts that is false. Further, her employment at the CIA was "widely known". That according to Andrea Mitchell. As one who apparently follows current events, you must be aware of both facts, yet you chose to omit them because they don't support your view and lucy's view of Bush as baby killer.

Obviously you are "blindly rationalizing" your position.

As I've written in the past, when you boil it down, leftism is about having an excuse to hate.

C'est Moi said...

Lucy, right or wrong I laughed out loud when I read this. A funny analogy.

Jack, I do not castigate at all as a matter of fact I take the step to say that is not how I feel. I would wish for your own good that you would be more receptive to facts. Her being outed is not false at all, it is fact. Even Bush, who you defend so vehemently knows and admits that. What exactly am I rationalizing Jack? That comment is baseless and makes no sense at all.

Everyone who can discern and/or discuss a fact is looking for excuses to hate? That is really what you think? You force me to feel a bit sorry for you.

C'est Moi said...

p.s.

I decided I had to add that you saying Lucy and I view Bush as a baby killer is the PERFECT example of your ease with distorting the truth, distorting statements, spinning it to suit your view and then stating it as if it were fact.

Gun-Toting Liberal said...

Wow... it's great to see you're blogging again. Blog ON, Ma'am...

C'est Moi said...

G-T L. Hello! How wonderful of you to welcome me back. Oh, how I have missed it.

Daedalus said...

I've given up. You can't rationalize with the right. When you try, you get people like Jack Jones who can't understand the differnce between the facts and flagwaving, and their number one way of arguing is "you did it, too" or more often, "Clinton did it, too." I can't deal with it anymore. I no longer have any patience or tolerance of these people.

penelope said...

Just so you know, George W. Bush is the best president in the history of the USA. He's just not afraid to do what those other cowards were wimping out on. You want food, cars, money? Sure you do. Bush is the one protecting that. Idiot.

Subsunk said...

I guess in the interests of fair play I would ask what you would do when lies are told about you? Would you rise to defend yourself, or ignore the slur? What if the lies, once told, caused the American people to believe you are a liar, turn their support away from the war, and leave, as a consequence of failure of that war, your country in a weakened and defeated condition. That evil people would then feel justified in attacking the country over and over again with weapons as destructive as possible that they could get their hands on. Would you then say, but if he was telling the truth, why didn't he speak up?

The second part of that question is, who should he speak up through? Since the government routinely releases reports, statements, and facts, and 95% of them never make it into the news because the news ignores them, then how would you get important words out to the public without requiring the Chief Executive of the country to justify his existence day after day after day, defending his positions against opposition that neither cares about the truth, nor cares about the American people, but only cares about winning more seats than their opponenets in Congress?

Who has the country's best interests at heart? Those who will win at any cost? Or those who will act first and defend when they must? I only ask because both parties have shown themselves to do exactly these things to the other. This time our existence is threatened.

Subsunk

C'est Moi said...

Daedalus, I do understand the frustration.

Penelope, I respect your opinion but disagree with you resorting to name calling. That solves nothing. Now, in my opinion Bush heads the most criminal administration in our history exercising massive abuses of power. I say this because we are in a war which at its foundation violates the Geneva Conventions on many levels. Intelligence was manipulated to duplicitously gain the trust and support of the American people. He and his administration willfully trample human rights to further an agenda of control, power and greed. I say this also because he is a proven liar. He tells Americans they should be willing to sacrifice their liberty for security. A concept that wholly goes against the American philosophy.

Penelope, this is a portion of my argument and your argument was...."Idiot". If you decide you would like to re-think that argument, by all means stop by again - but only for a reasoned, calm and respectful debate.

Subsunk said...

Les says:

"Now, in my opinion Bush heads the most criminal administration in our history exercising massive abuses of power. I say this because we are in a war which at its foundation violates the Geneva Conventions on many levels. Intelligence was manipulated to duplicitously gain the trust and support of the American people. He and his administration willfully trample human rights to further an agenda of control, power and greed. I say this also because he is a proven liar. He tells Americans they should be willing to sacrifice their liberty for security. A concept that wholly goes against the American philosophy."

So who has manipulated intelligence? The administration who has kept it secret, or the press who has leaked only that which makes the government look evil? And once the intelligence has been declassified and released, who has claimed that it was done for political purposes? The Time article on prisoner 063 breathlessly claims to delineate "torture" of a detainee who is supposedly treated to "extremes" of hot and cold (from 60 degrees to 80 degrees), sleep deprivation (4 hours of sleep daily for 7 weeks), withholding of food and water (unless the prisoner finishes answering the question asked and for no longer than 3-4 hours), and items of clothing (hats and gloves to handle religious items, not underwear, pants, or shirts). And you believe that constitutes torture?

I worked harder and longer on my ships for years than this. If you consider these methods torture, then you are the weakest excuse for humanity I have ever seen. My troops suffered more than this twit on their best day because they WANTED to be better than he is.

You claim the Geneva Conventions have been violated, yet there is NO, I say again, NO evidence of wholesale violations whatsoever. Sure a couple of dozen servicemen have been prosecuted and punished for abusing detainees. Less than 5 have been acused of killing or severely injuring detainees. That is better than the murder rate in America as a whole. There is no violation of the Geneva Conventions because there has been no significant abuse. France abuses more prisoners in their own prisons because they are the third worst prison system in Europe. And conditions in Middle Eastern prisons are 10x worse. So who is the torturer here?

Now who is the proven liar? She who insists there is manipulation of intelligence (which I have personally seen, by the way), lies from the Chief Executive (which have not been seen, unless you can point them out and I can show you what he actually said in the transcript), and "willfully trampl[ing] human rights to further an agenda of control, power and greed" (where? -- show me where your personal rights have been infringed? Have you been imprisoned or fined for saying what you want, going where you want, or sleeping with whomever you wish?).

Show me the violations, dear. Then I'll believe you. Until then, I guess I must quote you about yourself:

"the PERFECT example of your ease with distorting the truth, distorting statements, spinning it to suit your view and then stating it as if it were fact."

"I respect your opinion but disagree with you resorting to name calling. That solves nothing."

Carry on, dear. I guess I will wait for your answer. I also guess I won't hold my breath.

Subsunk

C'est Moi said...

Subsunk,

Your comment and my response got lengthy was better suited for a new post. You can find my response there.

Megan

Tara said...

I have to say that the "baby" analogy was the funniest damn thing I've ever heard!

Anonymous said...

Thank you!
[url=http://tmympjtx.com/xbwn/nsqa.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://bmjomfpt.com/qhch/iind.html]Cool site[/url]

Anonymous said...

Good design!
My homepage | Please visit

Anonymous said...

Good design!
http://tmympjtx.com/xbwn/nsqa.html | http://simlgzbi.com/clsf/prjf.html

Anonymous said...

Very nice site! college scholarships red cross black girls anking guys dicks off Citibank affiliate program Cartoon and cholesterol Bulk email japan list Vga car monitors web design affiliate program Small business seo nepal Use open source software hot tub http://www.awnings4.info/Liposuction.html tramadol office furniture used Affiliate programs for site submission Mazda vehicle parts dealer 000lifekinoitalyindex pay per click Laser facial hair removal in north carolina Licensed sportsbook bets sports betting