Looks like Bush's "Faith-Based Initiatives" is nothing more than BS.

[lazur]

perhaps this claim would be more valid if you applied this to your own conduct.

just saying is all.

P.S. I've always thought your named was pronounced "lah-soor" am I correct? or is it like "laser" but all l337-ified?

Bah, forget it. Pronounce it in whatever way makes you feel better, I really don't care.

 

[jaguarr]

Yes, you're right, it's another way of saying "loser". Feel better now?

Lah-soor doesn't sound like "loser" to me. It sounds like a French word of some sort. I don't think that's what Sparkle was saying, dude.

jag

 

[lazur]

Lah-soor doesn't sound like "loser" to me. It sounds like a French word of some sort. I don't think that's what Sparkle was saying, dude.

jag

Meh, whatever.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

it was an honest question, and you're being wayyyyyy too sensitive.

 

[cass]

The author of the book has claimed that his work has been miss "captured" by the media. So all of this "Bush hates Christians" is for naught.

Kuo Disavows Olbermann take on Tempting Faith

The MSM's full court press on keeping evangelicals away from the polls this November hit a road bump Monday when controversial author David Kuo spoke to former journalist turned OlbyFave Richard Wolfe and turned on Keith Olbermann. Taking his cue from KO, Wolfe asked "How are you dealing with the firestorm your book has sparked?"

David Kuo: When this thing [excerpts from an early copy] started appearing on Keith Olbermann [on MSNBC], my jaw was just wide open. Every part of my 6 foot 5 inch body was on the floor. I've written a very profoundly personal, political and spiritual memoir here. This was a very, very hard book to write. It required an enormous amount of very painful soul-searching and I don't think it has been well captured by Mr. Olbermann and all the subsequent media.

 

[sinewave]

See, this is where you're completely off the track. You sit here and say "you're taking the bush administration's side without knowing the facts yourself", which is complete bull*****.

I *never* took the Bush administration's side. ALL I DID was ask people like you not to AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME guilt where there MAY be none based on a book written by a guy who contradicted himself on the subject.

But I can see that asking people NOT to jump to conclusions is the wrong thing to do, expecially when it provides ANY kind of political ammo (however unfounded and/or unproven) to use against Bush.

Go figure.

let me ask you this, surely you've noticed the large number of people who have left this administration and then spoke up about the incompetence and lies they've witnessed, what do you think of that? do you believe any of them or do you just automatically assume that it's all self serving b.s.?

 

[sinewave]

Haven't you ever noticed that WHOMEVER is in charge is also corrupt, regardless of political party?

And you're wrong - people are people are people, regardles of political party. Being a democrat does not diminish or reduce one's chance of being "corrupt". If anything, I'd venture a guess that it increases given that democrats also reject "religious" principles - aka much of the "morality" our country was founded upon. That's not to say that all democrats are without morality, but a good many are self-admittedly "amoral", which clearly blurs the lines between "right" and "wrong".

Again, that doesn't mean they all break the law (or that most of them do), but it does shed some light on how they perceive what's right and what's wrong as it relates to "mainstream society".

so, you admit that there has been a lot of corruption by the republican party since they've been in power?

 

[sinewave]

The author of the book has claimed that his work has been miss "captured" by the media. So all of this "Bush hates Christians" is for naught.

that doesn't prove jack.

check out this interview with him:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/60Minutes-Kuo.mov

 

[lazur]

so, you admit that there has been a lot of corruption by the republican party since they've been in power?

Negative. There has been SOME. What I'm saying is that no matter who is in office, the ALLEGATIONS of corruption are overwhelming from whatever the opposing party is.

 

[lazur]

let me ask you this, surely you've noticed the large number of people who have left this administration and then spoke up about the incompetence and lies they've witnessed, what do you think of that? do you believe any of them or do you just automatically assume that it's all self serving b.s.?

Oh yeah? Who are you talking about? Give me some names, please. You said a "large number" of people have left this administration and then spoke up about the incompetence and lies. Who are you talking about?

 

[lazur]

Here's an interview with Tony Snow, which outlines what Kuo said in his letter to the President upon his departure from employment in the White House. Check out the bold parts.

Here is the relevant portion of the transcript.

Q -- Changing topics a bit. In this midterm climate, there are reports coming out that the former number two official at the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is writing that during his time here at the White House some of the evangelicals who are prominent were described in very derogatory ways, called "nuts," "ridiculous," "goofy," "boorish" -- terms that might be viewed as offensive --

MR. SNOW: Do you think? (Laughter.) Yes, I think you could construe it that way. (Laughter.)

Q -- while they were publicly embraced by the White House and by senior Republicans and so forth. At a critical time, with the election coming up, to have this come out -- first of all, is it true? And do you think it will have an impact on the race?

MR. SNOW: I'm a little confused, again. You guys have had a better glimpse of the book than we have. We haven't seen it.

When David Kuo left the White House, he sent the President a very warm letter, talking about how wonderful it was. He said, "two-and-a-half years later," after joining the White House, "I'm proud of all the initiative has accomplished. Building on the extraordinary work that John," -- John DiIulio -- "started in 2001, we have advanced the cause of the faith-based groups, ensuring that they are treated fairly by the federal government and have the tools necessary to make their efforts successful. He said, "Ultimately, however, it's your staff's keen awareness of your unwavering support for this initiative that's made the difference."

When you're talking also -- I know Karl Rove, we've asked Karl, did you say the things attributed to you? He said, no. These are people who are friends of many of us in the White House, when you talk about a Richard Land or James Dobson. These are people who are friends. You don't talk about friends that way. I don't -- David has apparently written a book that has a lot of this stuff. I think we are going to need the benefit of being able to take a look specifically at what he says and how he frames it up, and all that, before we can give you detailed answers.

I'm a little bit perplexed, because it does seem at odds with what he was saying inside the building at the time he departed.

Q So is he mistaken?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. Like I said, it's hard for me to respond to whether he was mistaken or not. Is he mistaken in thinking that the -- let me put it this way, because, again, I haven't seen the book, but the assumption, or insinuation, seems to be that the administration takes lightly faith-based groups. False. You've seen the President. When he talks about the faith-based initiative, this is something that's really important to him. This is one of these things where he believes years and years down the road, when people are reviewing this White House, this is going to be one of the signal accomplishments. Using -- harnessing the power of faith to deal with people one on one, face to face, in dealing with some of the most intractable problems that our society faces.

Q But these are more about some of the individual characters or personalities --

MR. SNOW: Like I said, I can't -- until I get a chance, until we get a chance to see the book, what we're doing is we're trying to respond to generalities, and I think it's probably unfair to David and unfair to us. So when we get a chance to give it a look, we'll be happy to go through it. I think it comes out Monday.

Q Is it possible that the office was used for political purposes?

MR. SNOW: No. No. And what's interesting -- and we went through this, this morning -- if you take a look at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which is hardly a conservative group, it came to the conclusion that the faith-based initiative was dispensing money not on the basis of ideology, in fact most of the money was going to blue states.

The President has been really clear, this is not to be used for politics. This is to be used for compassion. You know, talk about the armies of compassion, this is to be used as a way of trying to used faith-based groups who know who the constituents are, who know who the neighbors are, who know what the problems are, to use their own compassion and their own knowledge of the local circumstances to be more effective in delivering services. So, no, not for political use.

Martha.

Q Is it possible that Karl Rove called them nuts, the evangelicals?

MR. SNOW: He says no.

Q You've asked him about the quotes that are already out?

MR. SNOW: The nuts quote he was asked about. I don't know if there are any additional ones, but I'll be happy to run all by Karl. But here's what your -- Karl made the same point I did, which is, "these are my friends, I don't talk about them like that."

And again, this is LARGELY about Karl Rove - not George Bush. If anything, maybe Bush should be called on the fact that one of his staffers (Karl Rove) *may* have said/done some things that were inappropriate and he needs to get a handle on that, but he should NOT be cited as a party to the problems this guy is talking about.

 

[maxwell's demon]

Lazur- you're aware that people write fawning letters all the time in politics, especialy when they're still in the employ of (and/or on their way out from) different officials, right? This is a non partisan fact and says nothing of any individuals personal integrity- only of the way business is done inside the beltway.

That letter means nothing to me except misdirection. Snow never dealt with the issue head on.

 

[sinewave]

Oh yeah? Who are you talking about? Give me some names, please. You said a "large number" of people have left this administration and then spoke up about the incompetence and lies. Who are you talking about?

kuo, former colin powell aide lawrence wilkerson, powell himself, all the generals that served under rumsfeld in iraq and have spoken up against his policies since they retired, and former cia official tyler drumheller. is that enough?

 

[lazur]

Lazur- you're aware that people write fawning letters all the time in politics, especialy when they're still in the employ of (and/or on their way out from) different officials, right? This is a non partisan fact and says nothing of any individuals personal integrity- only of the way business is done inside the beltway.

That letter means nothing to me except misdirection. Snow never dealt with the issue head on.

And, in all fairness, you also realize that people write politically motivated books all the time that have no basis in fact?

This was more than a letter fawning over the President. It *specifically* addressed the "Faith-Based Initiatives" he later criticized in his book.

I do quite understand what you're saying, but this wasn't a "Hey, it was nice working for you" type of letter. He was specific in what he said, and he later contradicted it. If he wanted to maintain credibility for a book later on to tell "the real story", he certainly didn't help himself by being that specific in his letter.

And again, the core of my problem with this whole thing - it's NOT about Bush. It's about Rove. As I said, Bush should be called out on Rove, one of his staffers, getting out of line (if indeed the book is even accurate, that is), but that's about all the blame he should take in this, as far as I can see from what everyone's describing the book as talking about (since I've not read it, nor do I plan to).

 

[sinewave]

Here's an interview with Tony Snow, which outlines what Kuo said in his letter to the President upon his departure from employment in the White House. Check out the bold parts.



And again, this is LARGELY about Karl Rove - not George Bush. If anything, maybe Bush should be called on the fact that one of his staffers (Karl Rove) *may* have said/done some things that were inappropriate and he needs to get a handle on that, but he should NOT be cited as a party to the problems this guy is talking about.

i think the reason that bush is tied in with all this is because he's the boss. he selected all of these people to help support him in his administration so anything they do reflects back on him.

those quotes still don't prove a thing.

 

[maxwell's demon]

i know, Lazur. all i'm saying is, everything i've read about this administaration says that Bush does NOT like, or even condone, critics... and the only time people are free to speak their mind is once theyre out of the administraion.

That said, i'm not trying to insinuate i'm willing to believe the guy yet, either.

 

[lazur]

kuo, former colin powell aide lawrence wilkerson, powell himself, all the generals that served under rumsfeld in iraq and have spoken up against his policies since they retired, and former cia official tyler drumheller. is that enough?

Going back to what you said: "a large number of people who have left this administration and then spoke up about the incompetence and lies".

Kuo is the first to talk "insider problems" or what you libs might call "lies". But he's not talking about Bush - he's talking about Rove. And while Colin Powell disagrees with certain aspects of the Iraq war, he CERTAINLY HAS NOT called the administration "incompetent", nor has he used the word "lie" to facilitate his points.

As to Tyler Drumheller, he was a 26 year vet of the CIA - not appointed by Bush. Of COURSE he's going to sit here and deny that it was an intelligence failure. Funny thing is, though, everyone in the world knows that it was. After all, it was HIS OWN BOSS, George Tenet, not Bush, who first said, without a doubt, that Iraq had WMDs.

And U.S. military generals don't count as "White House staffers".

So ... I ask again ... who is this "large number"?? You've listed two guys who have called into question this administration's integrity - only ONE of which was actually IN the Bush administration (Kuo).

Since when does TWO = "a large number", hmm?

And don't even get me started on past Presidencies and "former staffers" who have done the same things in FAR greater numbers. But hey, why bring up the past, right?

 

[maxwell's demon]

could you stop calling people you talk to "you libs"?

its' inflammatory, perjorative, and certainly does help if you want us to take you seriously as someone with at least half an open mind.

thanks

 

[lazur]

could you stop calling people you talk to "you libs"?

its' inflammatory, perjorative, and certainly does help if you want us to take you seriously as someone with at least half an open mind.

thanks

I'm not sure why libs consider "lib" a dirty word. If someone called me a "con", I wouldn't take offense.

 

[jaguarr]

I'm not sure why libs consider "lib" a dirty word. If someone called me a "con", I wouldn't take offense.

I think it's certainly taken as a derogatory term in the way that you use it and it's also seen as a pretty gross generalization. Either way, it undermines the points you are trying to make.

jag

 

[lazur]

I think it's certainly taken as a derogatory term in the way that you use it and it's also seen as a pretty gross generalization. Either way, it undermines the points you are trying to make.

jag

Yeah, but Sinewave is a self-admitted liberal. I don't see how my calling him what he admits to being is a problem.

 

[Darthphere]

Yeah, but Sinewave is a self-admitted liberal. I don't see how my calling him what he admits to being is a problem.

If I made an argument against you and I told you im black, and you said "Well all you black people think like this...." im black, so I shouldnt be offended correct?

 

[sinewave]

Yeah, but Sinewave is a self-admitted liberal. I don't see how my calling him what he admits to being is a problem.

it's the way you phrase things. if i make a statement you attribute it to all "libs", like i'm speaking for everyone who was ever associated with the liberal philosphy.

 

[lazur]

If I made an argument against you and I told you im black, and you said "Well all you black people think like this...." im black, so I shouldnt be offended correct?

This isn't about race. Someone's race and someone's political beliefs are FAR removed from one another in terms of how you can refer to people.

 

[lazur]

it's the way you phrase things. if i make a statement you attribute it to all "libs", like i'm speaking for everyone who was ever associated with the liberal philosphy.

Please don't act like you don't engage in similar tactics when addressing "neo cons".

What is this, a pity party? Someone need a hug?

Quit being so hyper sensitive.