This page best viewed with

A Book By CM. Click To Get A Copy

OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets
Created by OnePlusYou

No Rights Reserved. Take Anything You Want, But If You Steal Any Text Link To Here.

Send Your Hate Mail To

........

Greed:High
 
Gluttony:High
 
Wrath:Low
 
Sloth:Very High
 
Envy:Low
 
Lust:High
 
Pride:High
 

Take the Seven Deadly Sins Quiz

King Gambrinus - Patron Saint of beer.

Friday, May 30, 2008

Press Secretary Bullshit

You may be wondering what my "take" on this whole former Bush press secretary tell all book thing is.

Or maybe you do not care. But guess what? I do not care that you do not care. You are going to get my "take" on it anyway.

I tend to believe the stuff in the book. I have not read it, nor do I plan to - but I still tend to believe the stuff in it is true.

And you know why? Listen CAREFULLY to the assholes who still support the President. Here is what I have heard the Bush supporting pundits say on various cable TV news outlets.

1. He was so loyal.
2. He is trying to salvage what is left of his reputation.
3. I do not understand why he wrote the book - he was so loyal.
4. He was left out of the loop and does not know what he is talking about.
5. He is disgruntled and upset over something.

And so on. Listen for yourself! Do not take my word on this! But what do these statements mean?

He was so loyal. Lets start there.

Notice how they do not say "this is all bullshit". They are expressing dismay about the book because he was so LOYAL.

So why is this a big deal? Because if you are really really super duper LOYAL, you keep your mouth shut. You never tell the truth. EVER. Just sit there and shut the hell up.

THAT is loyalty to the Bush people.

So when they (the pundits) express dismay about the disloyalty, what they are REALLY saying is "I can not believe this guy dared to spill the beans". They can not believe that someone so incredibly loyal would publish the truth.

At least this is how I take it.

Point 2, he is trying to salvage a damaged reputation. A former assistant Bush press secretary said this on Fox. I heard it. But what would have damaged his reputation in the first place? Lets just assume he IS trying to salvage a damaged reputation. What was his former job? What damaged that reputation to begin with? Could it be LYING for Bush for all those years? Is that what damaged his reputation? Being associated with Bush?

I would think so. It is not like he left that job with a great deal of positive reputation and then became a transvestite carny who forgot to use all the bolts that came with the Tilt-A-Whirl and caused a horrible accident that disfigured a dozen people or something.

What reputation is he trying to salvage? What caused the damage to it? Hummmmmmm.....what was his former job again?

OH YEA! Thats right! He was Bush's press secretary! Silly me.

Now for number 3. He was left out of the loop and did not know what he was talking about. This is rather new. At first it was all "but he was so loyal!". And now it is he was left out of the loop. Well maybe he was. I mean, what if the press secretary knew so much and accidentally slipped something NOT scripted to the press!!! Why that would be bad!

Still, this is pretty lame attempt to sweep this under the rug.

And now point 4. He is "disgruntled". Oh really? Well what was he when he left, loyal or pissed off? Because it seems to me the two terms are not interchangeable. You are either a loyalist OR pissed off. You do not hear about loyal factory workers busting a cap in the boss's ass after they are fired. No, it is ALWAYS someone disgruntled that does that.

Really - listen to the pundits for yourself. Try to remember what they were saying a few days ago as opposed to today. What were they saying BEFORE the official "this is what to say" memo was put out. What words were they using?

And what do you think it means?

I did this. And I reached my conclusions.

Labels:

4 Comments:

Blogger Lily Strange said...

I think it would have been more interesting if he had become a transvestite carny!
I honestly have not been following this situation. But your take on it was good.

08:59  
Blogger daveawayfromhome said...

I love the "disgruntled former employee" excuse, it's such a chestnut.
Who's most likely to complain about their boss? People who still work for him? Not if they eant to keep working for him. People who quit but only because they had to move or something but still think their old boss was da bomb? No, not likely, especially if they think they might be looking for a job with him (or his friends) in the future. That pretty much leaves people who quit, and didnt like their boss, or the job, or what they saw going on at the job; i.e., "the disgruntled".

17:12  
Blogger The Lazy Iguana said...

Lily - you are right, it would have been more interesting if the guy had become a transvestite carny.

Dave - It is all just damage control. Nothing really new here. I just find the choice of words used to be interesting. All this talk of loyalty and all.

02:38  
Blogger Fuzz said...

Here's about all I have to say, but nobody cares anyway. I'm not sure I do.
http://fuzzypol.blogspot.com/2008/05/mcclellans-book.html

20:43  

Post a Comment

<< Home