It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
by Tucker Carlson | Sep 01 '04
Six and a half years after I first met him, I still don't know what I think of George W. Bush. Initially, I was won over by him. In interviews, he was relaxed yet unapologetic about his political beliefs. He exuded decency. His political skills were awesome. He had an intuitive understanding of people, coupled with a Ripley's-Believe-It-or-Not ability to recall details about their lives: what schools they'd gone to, the names of their wives and parents and children, how many dogs they had. He was like Clinton�maybe better�and much less weird and needy. The first time I saw Bush ......
So what does it mean when Tucker Carlson and Andrew Sullivan both declare they can't vote for Bush in November? That they're whores? That they're reading the tea leaves and don't want to get stuck on the wrong side of history? That they're tools and hacks and don't matter?
Perhaps. But they do have their own sphere of relevance, and frankly, every right-wing pundit that turns away from Bush is a victory for us. And the latest Esquire magazine, in addition to running Ron Reagan's anti-Bush screed, also treats us to Carlson and Sullivan declaring their disappointment in the failed Bush presidency.
Carlson, in particular, is brutal on Bush, taking him to task for his cowardice on 9-11 [Esquire: "A Conservative's Dilema (no free online version)]:
... The attacks initially made me sorry I voted for him. For most of that day, as my wife and children stayed inside our house listening to the roar of fighter jets overhead, and black smoke from the Pentagon hovered above our neighborhood, Bush failed to return to Washington. My family sat unprotected a few miles from the scene of a terrorist attack; Bush hid in a bunker on some faraway military base.
It infuriated me, as did the subsequent excuses from White House spokesman. There was a risk in coming back, they said. There was a risk in coming back, they said. Of course there was. That's the point: Leaders must take risks, sometimes physical ones. Bush should have elbowed his Secret Service detail out of the way and returned in a display of fearlessness to his nation's capital. I found it distressingly revealing that he didn't.
So did I. It was one of my earliest thoughts that fateful day. Say what you will about Giuliani, and most of what I would say is bad. But Rudi showed the type of leadership Bush only wishes he could muster.
What's worse, Rove knew how bad Bush's cowardice looked, so much the same way they handle any obstacle they face, they lied. Rove claimed they had received credible threats against Air Force One, a ludicrous assertion that was proven false days later. But in the chaos of the moment, both Bush's palpable fear and the lies used to cover it up were lost.
But as Carlson says, the incident was revealing. Just as Kerry's heroism half a world away is revealing. There's a reason the Swift Boat Liars are going after the story so hard. Kerry turned his boat into the danger he faced. Bush ran to Nebraska and cowered in fear.
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
AMUK, I didn't say Rush was a Libertarian. I said he, Tucker and others were full of themselves.
I do agree that most true conservatives are really libertarians. Like me, for example.
Originally posted by Amuk
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
AMUK, I didn't say Rush was a Libertarian. I said he, Tucker and others were full of themselves.
I do agree that most true conservatives are really libertarians. Like me, for example.
I had thought Rant said Rush was a libertarian unless he edited it out I guess I was wrong
Did you edit it out Rant?
Or are my meds kicking in?
Originally posted by RANT
... The attacks initially made me sorry I voted for him. For most of that day, as my wife and children stayed inside our house listening to the roar of fighter jets overhead, and black smoke from the Pentagon hovered above our neighborhood, Bush failed to return to Washington. My family sat unprotected a few miles from the scene of a terrorist attack; Bush hid in a bunker on some faraway military base.
It infuriated me, as did the subsequent excuses from White House spokesman. There was a risk in coming back, they said. There was a risk in coming back, they said. Of course there was. That's the point: Leaders must take risks, sometimes physical ones. Bush should have elbowed his Secret Service detail out of the way and returned in a display of fearlessness to his nation's capital. I found it distressingly revealing that he didn't.
So did I. It was one of my earliest thoughts that fateful day. Say what you will about Giuliani, and most of what I would say is bad. But Rudi showed the type of leadership Bush only wishes he could muster.
What's worse, Rove knew how bad Bush's cowardice looked, so much the same way they handle any obstacle they face, they lied. Rove claimed they had received credible threats against Air Force One, a ludicrous assertion that was proven false days later. But in the chaos of the moment, both Bush's palpable fear and the lies used to cover it up were lost.
This is all true, but what can anyone actually expect. I mean Bush is a typical school-yard bully. He talks ALOT of Bulls**t, but anytime he' s confronted with ANYTHING, he either turns tail and hides like a coward. Or, he has his little cronies do his dirty work, and hides behind them (Like a Coward).