Posted on 08/28/2007 7:12:42 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
Like the pope, the president doesn't admit error. This was an early governing principle in the Bush White House. Policies could "evolve." Talking points could be replaced by new ones that contradicted the earlier ones. The president could even resist a centralized approach to homeland security and then announce the creation of the second-largest department in the history of the federal government devoted to that purpose. But a president could never admit a blunder, because it irrevocably diminished his authority. This led to a famously awkward press conference in April 2004 where President Bush was unable to come up with a mistake he had committed and explain what he had learned from it. Since then, he has tried to improve on that answer but has admitted aloud only that he wishes he hadn't used certain phrases, like "Bring 'em on" when referring to insurgent attacks in Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Wow. Slur both Catholics and the President in the first eight words of the article. A new record!
Yes and the baseline for admitting error was William Jefferson Clinton. Always eager to admit a wrongdoing.
It is amazing—I really think that to be liberal you have to have an extra chromosome (Al Gore)floating around in your system.
How can liberals on one hand declare that the Constitution is a living breathing document that is subject to the whimsy of the judiciary...and yet, Presidential policy must be rigid and unchanging? Can’t Presidential policy be fluid...
By that kind of thinking, when the USSR collapsed in 1991— we would still be facing off with them like we did in 1981-— still be building our army and navy just like we did during the height of the cold war...right libs—we wouldn’t want Presidential policy to evolve now would we.....
I stopped reading here. And its the first friggin sentence!
As a Christian I am deeply offended and I demand reparations for my pain.
(Hey it works for Mooselims, why not me?)
I read this article today, and wondered, “what would the comments on the Free Republic be for this article”. I don’t come here much, but decided to see if there was any critical thought or commentary regarding this article. To my dismay, I found the first 5 comments on this piece were:
1)Someone interpreting a factual statement as a slur.
2)An attack on Clinton, who wasn’t mentioned in the article.
3)A ridiculous strawman argument about “liberals” supposedly wanting Presidential policy to be rigid and unchanging, that doesn’t even address the article.
4)Someone who admits they don’t read articles critical of Bush, and
5)A stupid joke that doesn’t make any sense (and uses the word Mooselims).
Thanks for reminding me why I don’t vote with you guys.
I’ll grant you the joke was lame, but if you are incapable of seeing the religious bigotry in the first sentence and you are oblivious to the fact that Bill Clinton is an adjudicated liar who still refuses to take responsibility for his actions, then by all means continue drinking the Kool Aid.
Have you met Earl, Junior and Earl Jr.?
“Thanks for reminding me why I dont vote with you guys.”
You’ll need to remind us why you’re here in the first place.
lololol
This account has been banned or suspended.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DO NOT POST TO ME (lol)
“All your pings are belong to us.”
CM...a friend, put an AWFULly funny post on that thread if you get a chance to check it out.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1888013/posts?page=335#335
I always thought he just used the ZOT9000.
Not sure, hard to tell with the mask (lol) That thread you linked has some great pics on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.