Hey Arianna...Who’s "Clueless"?
Arianna "Huff’n’Stuff" has an admission for everyone. She really likes Scott McClellan. After reading her post regarding this, I’d suggest to Mrs. McClellan to take precautions. Arianna is a vulture. But as Arianna is apt to do, in the same post where she is bouncingly infatuated with the White House press secretary, she turns snide and condescending.
It was Holden at FD who red-flagged the hands-down best post-speech Scottie-ism. When asked about criticism of the president’s linking of 9/11 and Iraq, Scottie responded, "And who made any suggestion of a link to the attacks?" Uh, that would be your boss Scott -- you know, the guy who brought up 9/11 five times in his big speech on Iraq.
Of course, this kind of answer is precisely what makes Scottie so endearing and compelling: his willingness to sound like an utter imbecile in the cause of covering his boss’s ass.
And it’s not just his boss… there he was last Thursday (yes, I do keep transcripts of his appearances pressed into my diary with gardenia petals), defending the Veep’s widely-ridiculed "last throes" comment.
First, he fell back on his default defense: "It doesn’t appear that you’ve looked at the context of his comments. And I would encourage you to do that." Context is always a very big deal to Scottie. And so is condescension. But on this occasion he went even further, twice asking a reporter, "You were in the interview?"… thus setting a new journalistic standard, wherein to understand what was said in an interview you have to actually be in the room at the time of the interview. But if, in the Scottie universe, physical proximity = understanding, why does he, the beneficiary of so much physical proximity to the commander-in-chief, always sound so winningly clueless?
Talk about clueless. The president has never—Let me repeat that, NEVER—stated that there was a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. And how many times he cites 11 Sept. In a speech is irrlevent; I’m sure he was trying to remind those on the Left—like yourself—of why we’re fighting this war. It’s not about oil. It’s not about Israel. It’s about liberation and freedom, at this current juncture, in addition to hunting down and destroying these terrorist groups that target innocent civilians.
And as for covering his "boss’s ass" I question the intelligence of Arianna here. The president hasn’t lied. He hasn’t mislead this nation. He cited chapter and verse why Iraq was Stage Number Two in the GWOT. It had little to do with WMDs, even though your side keeps hyping the hell out of it, and more to break up the terrorist connections that Saddam Hussein had. The same connections that Andrew McCarthy cited in his column from yesterday, where it is clearly cited that Iraqi Intelligence officials had declared bin Laden a "national asset" of Iraq, in 1992.
And you people just won’t let up on the "death throes" comment will you. Arianna, where is the intel experience of you or your writers? Have any of you even looked at the facts—presented by an extremely biased MSM—to prove that point? I have. I’ve seen it in the media, and I’ve seen some intelligence. Zarqawi’s losing lieutenants and field commanders, they’re having a problem with recruiting new blood for their jihad, and they are targeting civilians; it’s the last stage for Zarqawi’s forces in Iraq. Nazis in hiding in a post-World War II Germany did the same thing when they knew they were on their last legs.
Arianna, ever notice how your side really doesn’t look at the context of a statement, yet when we cite full statements by your side, and do so accurately, your side seems to state that we’ve taken you out of context? The context McClellan was talking about was in reference to your conspiracy-theory question. The president never said it. Context, Arianna, is a BIG deal for anyone with a brain. I can’t jump the gun on a buddy in a discussion until he says something, and if it raises an eyebrow from me, I want a clarification.
It’s called "language" and "speech". We use it on a daily basis to communicate. (That’s the art that Democrats lack.) You call the White House press secretary "clueless" because of the disdain you have for the administration. That can’t be helped. You’re wackier than the wackiest moonbat. And you think you’re actually making a difference with your little, nutty blog. Were that true, and you were truly winning people over to your way of thinking, why is it usually the butt of jokes by real bloggers, and online journalists?
I read a post by George Lakoff where he was belly-aching over the Rove statements of comparing the liberal response to 11 Sept. with the conservative response. It was made crystal clear by Congressional Democrats, not more than six days after the worst attack this nation has ever witnessed and endured, that they were going to dig in their heels, and refuse to play ball. So, yes, I do support Rove’s idea. He hit the nail on the head, and his message was more than clear.
When it comes to defending this nation, and prosecuting this war, we don’t need the Left in this nation at it’s helm. We need conservatives because they’re not going to walk away when the going gets tough. They have done so before (read: Vietnam), and are talking up the idea of pulling out as quickly as possible. D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R: That’s what a pull out would spell. Get it through your heads.
Normally, I let garbage spouted by Arianna and her ilk slide. There are times where these people are utterly hilarious with their wacko theories and advice. But, I wasn’t going to let her off the hook over McClellan, and Lakoff needs to take a closer look at his party before he throws some stones.
Publius II
Arianna "Huff’n’Stuff" has an admission for everyone. She really likes Scott McClellan. After reading her post regarding this, I’d suggest to Mrs. McClellan to take precautions. Arianna is a vulture. But as Arianna is apt to do, in the same post where she is bouncingly infatuated with the White House press secretary, she turns snide and condescending.
It was Holden at FD who red-flagged the hands-down best post-speech Scottie-ism. When asked about criticism of the president’s linking of 9/11 and Iraq, Scottie responded, "And who made any suggestion of a link to the attacks?" Uh, that would be your boss Scott -- you know, the guy who brought up 9/11 five times in his big speech on Iraq.
Of course, this kind of answer is precisely what makes Scottie so endearing and compelling: his willingness to sound like an utter imbecile in the cause of covering his boss’s ass.
And it’s not just his boss… there he was last Thursday (yes, I do keep transcripts of his appearances pressed into my diary with gardenia petals), defending the Veep’s widely-ridiculed "last throes" comment.
First, he fell back on his default defense: "It doesn’t appear that you’ve looked at the context of his comments. And I would encourage you to do that." Context is always a very big deal to Scottie. And so is condescension. But on this occasion he went even further, twice asking a reporter, "You were in the interview?"… thus setting a new journalistic standard, wherein to understand what was said in an interview you have to actually be in the room at the time of the interview. But if, in the Scottie universe, physical proximity = understanding, why does he, the beneficiary of so much physical proximity to the commander-in-chief, always sound so winningly clueless?
Talk about clueless. The president has never—Let me repeat that, NEVER—stated that there was a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. And how many times he cites 11 Sept. In a speech is irrlevent; I’m sure he was trying to remind those on the Left—like yourself—of why we’re fighting this war. It’s not about oil. It’s not about Israel. It’s about liberation and freedom, at this current juncture, in addition to hunting down and destroying these terrorist groups that target innocent civilians.
And as for covering his "boss’s ass" I question the intelligence of Arianna here. The president hasn’t lied. He hasn’t mislead this nation. He cited chapter and verse why Iraq was Stage Number Two in the GWOT. It had little to do with WMDs, even though your side keeps hyping the hell out of it, and more to break up the terrorist connections that Saddam Hussein had. The same connections that Andrew McCarthy cited in his column from yesterday, where it is clearly cited that Iraqi Intelligence officials had declared bin Laden a "national asset" of Iraq, in 1992.
And you people just won’t let up on the "death throes" comment will you. Arianna, where is the intel experience of you or your writers? Have any of you even looked at the facts—presented by an extremely biased MSM—to prove that point? I have. I’ve seen it in the media, and I’ve seen some intelligence. Zarqawi’s losing lieutenants and field commanders, they’re having a problem with recruiting new blood for their jihad, and they are targeting civilians; it’s the last stage for Zarqawi’s forces in Iraq. Nazis in hiding in a post-World War II Germany did the same thing when they knew they were on their last legs.
Arianna, ever notice how your side really doesn’t look at the context of a statement, yet when we cite full statements by your side, and do so accurately, your side seems to state that we’ve taken you out of context? The context McClellan was talking about was in reference to your conspiracy-theory question. The president never said it. Context, Arianna, is a BIG deal for anyone with a brain. I can’t jump the gun on a buddy in a discussion until he says something, and if it raises an eyebrow from me, I want a clarification.
It’s called "language" and "speech". We use it on a daily basis to communicate. (That’s the art that Democrats lack.) You call the White House press secretary "clueless" because of the disdain you have for the administration. That can’t be helped. You’re wackier than the wackiest moonbat. And you think you’re actually making a difference with your little, nutty blog. Were that true, and you were truly winning people over to your way of thinking, why is it usually the butt of jokes by real bloggers, and online journalists?
I read a post by George Lakoff where he was belly-aching over the Rove statements of comparing the liberal response to 11 Sept. with the conservative response. It was made crystal clear by Congressional Democrats, not more than six days after the worst attack this nation has ever witnessed and endured, that they were going to dig in their heels, and refuse to play ball. So, yes, I do support Rove’s idea. He hit the nail on the head, and his message was more than clear.
When it comes to defending this nation, and prosecuting this war, we don’t need the Left in this nation at it’s helm. We need conservatives because they’re not going to walk away when the going gets tough. They have done so before (read: Vietnam), and are talking up the idea of pulling out as quickly as possible. D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R: That’s what a pull out would spell. Get it through your heads.
Normally, I let garbage spouted by Arianna and her ilk slide. There are times where these people are utterly hilarious with their wacko theories and advice. But, I wasn’t going to let her off the hook over McClellan, and Lakoff needs to take a closer look at his party before he throws some stones.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 3:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home