NOTING THAT JANET RENO IS CRITICIZING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S WAR ON TERROR POLICIES, SayUncle is conflicted:
I couldn’t decide which bit of smarmy commentary to use, so I’ll use both. Which comment should Uncle have made:
1 - Janet Reno criticizing the heavy-handed tactics of the Justice Department is like Michael Richards criticizing me for racial insensitivity.
or:
2 - When someone who set people on fire says you’re setting a dangerous precedent, it may be time for some serious introspection.
Decisions, decisions?
The link "SayUncle" references is from the National Rifle Association. These are the same yahoos that were screaming that Clinton was going to take all their guns away while decrying the "jackbooted thugs" who sent Elian back to his biological father. They're the same flavor of nut that blame the US government for Waco and not the heavily-armed apocalyptic religious cultist David Koresh. Now they yawn at the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping, torture of US citizens and gutting of habeas corpus, while real conservatives blast them.
Incidentally, the NRA story, surprise!, neglects to mention this about Reno's brief:
The brief is also notable because its signatories include two U.S. attorneys from the Reagan years -- W. Thomas Dillard and Anton R. Valukas -- in addition to prosecutors from the Clinton and Carter administrations and Philip A. Lacovara, a counsel to the Watergate special prosecutor.
"It carries more weight because these are high-ranking officials in several administrations from both parties," said Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.
I don't know how a law professor misses this stuff.
UPDATE:
It appears "SayUncle" has called me an "idiot" in response. My response is in the comments section below.
Memo to "SayUncle" -- stop digging.
UPDATE 2:
SayUncle just doesn't know when to quit. He writes,Last I checked, Tom Delay is not the NRA, who were the nuts you referred to as using the term jackbooted thugs.
Actually, the term I used was "yahoos" and I wasn't just referring to the NRA. I was referring to Putz, you, the NRA, the far-right wing of the GOP at large, which includes Tom DeLay. You know, the kind of people who troll NRA websites looking for snippets of news with which to ridicule Clinton-era officials, while they completely ignore the far more egregious legal excesses of the current administration.
I'm quite aware of the disconnect between the right's treatment of bush v. clinton. Hence, the second comment about introspection. I don't like either administration's justice department.
If you don't approve of the Bush justice department, SayUncle, I apologize for lumping you in with Putz. However, since you were calling Janet Reno a blood-thirsty murderer in bashing her legal critique of the Bush administration's anti-terror policies, it's easy to conclude that you didn't think her criticism was justified. Putz, who has been hammered time and time again by real libertarians for glibly brushing aside any concerns that BushCo has trampled on the constitution and extended the reach of the federal government well beyond anything Clinton adminstration would've dreamed of, doesn't get the same consideration.
And you've illustrated the problem with Waco: you can't talk about the .gov's failures without being lumped into the black helicopter crowd.
Sorry, this is just batshit crazy. Suggesting that there might have been tactical mistakes made by the federal officers on the ground is decidedly not the same thing as claiming Janet Reno intentionally "burned people." Geebus.
UPDATE 3:
This guy just keeps on comin'.
Having read his update in which we learn he cannot write in a manner in which one can determine who he is calling a yahoo; that he says I called Reno a blood-thirsty murderer who did it intentionally; and makes the reference to Clinton-hating (see rule #3); and other misstatements, the term idiot stands.Hey Uncle--it's called context: in this case, the context is Putz's link to your post. Pretty simple. And I doubt many people will buy your claim that the phrase "Janet Reno set people on fire" doesn't indicate malicious intent, but good luck with that.
7 comments:
Actually, the NRA page is a copy and paste from an AP wire.
The Jackbooted Thugs coment by the NRA was directed at the ATF when Bush 1 was in charge after ruby ridge.
Being a religious nut does not justify sending a tank through the front door or using incindiary devices. No matter how crazy a dude is (and koresh was nuckin futs), it's not a justification for excessive force
The government also shared blame for the fiasco at Waco, according to those 'nuts' in congress.
And given the fact the post was also about the 'illegal wiretapping, torture of US citizens and gutting of habeas corpus', I'm not sure i follow you.
Good post, other than getting substantially everything wrong.
Regards,
-SayUncle
Actually, the NRA page is just a one paragraph snipet from the AP article, which excludes the important fact that Reagan-era officals are also siding with the evil people-burning Reno.
Kind of a glaring omission, isn't it? And since when is the NRA the best place to get news?
As far as Elian goes, Tom DeLay (along with plenty of other wingnuts) called the agents who took him in custody "jackbooted thugs." You've heard of him, right?
I'd highly recommend Google.
And if you don't "follow" the obvious disconnect between the far right's weird paranoia about the sinister, overreaching black helicopters of the Clinton federal government and their current yawning at the excesses of the Bush administration, I'm afraid I can't help you. I'd recommend reading the Cato link, and laying off the NRA.
Thanks for dropping by!
Blue Texan
Could be a glaring admission but the more likely explanation is that the NRA posts one paragraph, like they do with every other item in their 'news' section. And if you're trying to tell me the NRA is biased, well duh. CATO is too.
Last I checked, Tom Delay is not the NRA, who were the nuts you referred to as using the term jackbooted thugs.
I'm quite aware of the disconnect between the right's treatment of bush v. clinton. Hence, the second comment about introspection. I don't like either administration's justice department.
And you've illustrated the problem with Waco: you can't talk about the .gov's failures without being lumped into the black helicopter crowd.
Regards,
SayUncle
I am forever amazed at people who mythologize Waco. In the face of these heavily armed lunatics, I was happy with the government using whatever force they wanted to. I was rooting for them to napalm the whole place on Day 1 and be done with it. Had Koresh and company not falsely cloaked themselves in religion, they would have been overwhelmed with force immediately. Instead, we had the government walking on eggshells to appease the knuckle-draggers who think the earth was created 5000 years ago.
SayUncle has a perfect name, by the way. He/she/it is crying more than "uncle" after Blue Texan responded. SayUncle conveniently calls Koresh crazy, but leaves out the absolutely relevant point, which is that he was crazy, heavily armed, and resisting arrest. And of course SayUncle doesn't "follow" the references to illegal wiretapping. That would require an ability to think critically, something that the Bushies lack.
As to Instaputz initial link, of course he would link to this lunatic screed thing approvingly. Putz gets wood just thinking of guns.
Actually,
I always thought the phrase jackbooted thugs originated with John Dingell, a democrat from Michigan (who has had no qualms about criticizing Bush - either Sr or Jr. - over the years).
Regarding the NRA and Bush conenctions you make - most NRA members I know are pretty darn fed up with Bush and the Justice Department. Heck, even the grand wizard of the right wing - Grover Norquist of Americans for Taax Reform - the the guy who controls the (purse) strings that control Karl Rove has expressed some serious concerns over the actions of the Bush justice department. In fact, as far as I can tell, the first serious, broad based, discussion of an organized campaign agains the Bush justice department post passage of the Patriot Act occurred at one of Grover's weekly meetings of his conservative faithful where he invited the ACLU and CATO to sit next to him at the lead table and direct the conversation and planning.
Thanks for dropping by Tom. I really don't know how else to read "Janet Reno set people on fire."
Not "Janet Reno's incompetence led to people being burned alive" or "Janet Reno's mistakes got people killed."
But "Janet Reno set people on fire." One sets a fire intentionally.
Pretty clear.
Based on the comments posted above, its obvious that a good chunk of SayUncle's readership subscribes to that viewpoint.
*S.A.stamps foot petulantly*
why won't you say uncle?
Post a Comment