trinityvixen (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
trinityvixen) wrote2006-09-11 08:57 pm
trinityvixen) wrote2006-09-11 08:57 pm
Now for the angry September 11th post
From The New York Times:
Sunday evening, Mr. Bush paid tribute to the victims, laying wreathsin small reflecting pools at ground zero, one in the footprint of eachtower. It was a hint of life in a place that still brims with memoriesof death, a reminder that even five years later, the attacks are not sovery distant.
He vowed that he was “never going to forget the lessons of that day.”
Oh no? How come all of the goodwill and togetherness got swept away so you could continue doing as you wanted? Perhaps because you played hate politics to stay in power? Do you not remember how it was immediately after? How people came together and how the world wanted to help us, help us heal, share our grief? Perhaps you don't remember, Mr. Bush. Maybe Jon Stewart can remind you. (Link stolen from![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
newredshoes, but I'm sure she'd encourage me to pass it on).
Sunday evening, Mr. Bush paid tribute to the victims, laying wreathsin small reflecting pools at ground zero, one in the footprint of eachtower. It was a hint of life in a place that still brims with memoriesof death, a reminder that even five years later, the attacks are not sovery distant.
He vowed that he was “never going to forget the lessons of that day.”
Oh no? How come all of the goodwill and togetherness got swept away so you could continue doing as you wanted? Perhaps because you played hate politics to stay in power? Do you not remember how it was immediately after? How people came together and how the world wanted to help us, help us heal, share our grief? Perhaps you don't remember, Mr. Bush. Maybe Jon Stewart can remind you. (Link stolen from
newredshoes, but I'm sure she'd encourage me to pass it on).
no subject
There was verbal goodwill right after 9/11. French newspapers printed, "We Are All Americans." But those were apparently just cheap words, because there was never any more sign of that goodwill to be seen. And what, exactly, did Bush do to provoke this hatred? From 9/11/01 to 3/20/03, a full year and a half, the American military didn't strike at anyone other than Afghanistan. Bush didn't start agitating for an attack on Iraq until 9/12/02, a year later. Bush didn't attack until after the U.N. refused to enforce it's own Security Council resolution. The goodwill had already evaporated by then (and in Palestine, never existed.) There wasn't a hate-filled presidential election to blame on him, though there was a relatively low-conflict midterm election.
There are plenty of things I don't like about the Bush administration, but I've never understood the left's visceral hatred of him--so strong that the media believed obviously falsified Bush service reports, and agitated for two years over the Plame nonscandal (and granted, the far right wasn't much better during the Clinton years.) The GOP kicked out some of its most hateful bigots, while the Dems stood behind Cynthia McKinney when she started punching policemen. So, I'm not going to blame Bush for the loss of goodwill.
no subject
Besides that? Why I dislike him? He wheels and deals with the Constitution to push his agenda. His agenda is almost entirely opposite from mine, and I dislike that he's in power and gets what he wants. More than that? I fucking hate that he makes the office of the President a fucking joke. He comes off as good ol' boy, with all the detriments it comes with. He embarrasses the country almost every time he steps outside it (getting turned around onstage in China, okay, groping Angela Merkel, not so). His administration has an anti-intellectual bent to it, and as someone making her living in academics and a proud science major, I resent being told by people who aren't qualified that a political message (God! God! God!) has to be shown alongside my textbooks with their tested and retested evidence. There's a lot of reasons, in other words.
And, before I sign off--about the protestors? If you're going to use the fringe of a political wing as proof that the entire spectrum on that side of the left/right divide shouldn't ever point fingers (or that what they both shake fists at equates them or forces them to share the shame among the radical and moderate alike), then I have to say, yes, I can see how that's insensitive and shame on me for sharing a mutual hatred with those whackos. You, on the other hand, have fun sharing the hatred spewed by folk on the side of the spectrum you fall on. I'll take those conspiracy nuts over the people who go to a funeral to spew homobigotry as a soldier who died for his country is laid to rest.
Basically, angry sarcasm aside, I don't believe you support that, so don't show up on my journal with this bullshit and attempt to make me feel guilty for hating the Commander in Chimp just because some asshole nutjobs also dislike him, thanks.
no subject
As you say:
He wheels and deals with the Constitution to push his agenda.
If you're talking about the signing statements, I doubt you liked him much more before that came to light in late 2005. If you're talking about something else, I'm not sure what that is (if it's passed by Congress, and approved by the Supreme Court, what's the legal problem?)
His agenda is almost entirely opposite from mine, and I dislike that he's in power and gets what he wants.
And that's where I blame the left for dividing the nation rather than Bush. He won the election! The Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-2, finished approving it. None of the recounts showed him losing the election. He's in power because a majority of electors put him there, and because that's how we decide who becomes president. Meanwhile, a majority of Congressmen were in his party, again due to the democratic process. So yes, he gets to pass his agenda. That's because the democratic process said that he did. That's a reason to disagree with him, not to hate him.
I fucking hate that he makes the office of the President a fucking joke. He comes off as good ol' boy, with all the detriments it comes with. He embarrasses the country almost every time he steps outside it (getting turned around onstage in China, okay, groping Angela Merkel, not so).
And I fucking hated that Clinton sold out the Lincoln Bedroom as a hotel while flashing his willy to any girl he found attractive and could corner in private. But Clinton wasn't a divider, right?
His administration has an anti-intellectual bent to it, and as someone making her living in academics and a proud science major, I resent being told by people who aren't qualified that a political message (God! God! God!) has to be shown alongside my textbooks with their tested and retested evidence.
Agreed. But...when did Bush say that, rather than the uninformed hicks who voted for him?
And more importantly, what does this have to do with 9/11? You hated him before, and why should he change his domestic policy to please you afterwards?
So back to foreign policy...
Perhaps the goodwill really dried up as it became increasingly evident that BushCo was getting a little carried away with what they could get away with using the unification in sorrow of Americans (and, for the first time in half a century, congress) as a reason. Seriously, was anyone asking what he was doing? What the realistic plan was for rooting out terrorism using conventional warfare?
Have the terrorists successfully attacked American soil since 9/11? No? Looks like we're rooting out terrorism using conventional warfare to me. Those financial records searches that the New York Times felt like telling the world about seem to have helped as well.
You can read the international dry up of sympathy as turncoating or ignoring pledges of human being solidarity or frank honesty and expressing concern over our behavior (rereading some folks' blogs has shown that a lot of us were feeling a tad reactionary back then).
What behavior? The goodwill dried up before we invaded Iraq. Specifically, it dried up right when we asked France, Germany and Russia to stop talking and start enforcing the UNSC resolution they had already passed and approved.
(Sidenote: If it's civil liberties you're concerned about, we should be hanging Lincoln in effigy rather than praising him as our greatest president. Or FDR, for that matter.)
So yeah, hate the president all you want. But don't blame him for destroying good will that was never all that much there to begin with.
no subject
Oh noes! A politician is getting a blowjob from someone who's not his wife! Let's shut down the government and scream about it!
Hi. We don't actually have much to talk about, but I'm an Ohioan, and you cannot convince me that Bush won here under any fair circumstances. But let's not dwell on the past when there's so much to do in the present, right?
no subject
I always thought Washington was celebrated as the greatest president, not Lincoln. Lincoln was at best second, but I'd say both Roosevelts and Kennedy get to be in the running, too. And, of course, if you ask half the country, Reagan.
I'm a James K. Polk fan, myself.
no subject
no subject
no subject
And more importantly, what does this have to do with 9/11? You hated him before, and why should he change his domestic policy to please you afterwards?
The world changed after September 11th. Is it too much to ask that our President do as well? His domestic policy did change--for the worse. He cultivated fear instead of caution, blackmailing us to believe our safety depended solely on letting him do as he wanted. I resent that he abused and exploited the memories of the attacks to make paranoid people in this country and that he hasn't delivered on the few good promises he made.
He doesn't have to change his policy to "please me." What the hell kind of grade-school debater do you think I am? What, do you imagine I go home crying each day because the meanie president wont' do what I tell him? Waaaaaah, I am clearly some kind of adult child who simply cannot take it when she doesn't get her way.
I am entitled to dislike the man whether he feeds the fundies or he does a puppet walk for the liberal elite, first off. I liked Clinton's managerial approach, but didn't like the man. Do I dislike Bush's policy and tactics? Abso-fucking-lutely. Do I also dislike him personally? Yes. Do I, as you implied, confuse the two? Hardly. I am grown up enough to sublimate personal dislike in a debate. I dislike his post-September 11th policies in the extreme. Why should he change policy to suit people like me? Well, ideally, as his policies before 2001 didn't please me, if he wanted to unify people, truly, and keep them unified, he'd have to extend an olive branch to liberals. That, and he would need them to win again, in most thinkings. Turns out he didn't, which irritates me, but again, because of the tactics I deplore, and as a separate irritation from his twangy abuse of English.
I haven't called you on it before, but I'm sure as hell doing it now: knock off the patronizing schtick. Are you more read on some of this stuff? Fine. If you think I'm underread, perhaps not sourcing my objections with conciseness, fine. Say it to my face. Do not adopt this tone of, "I'll have you know..." crap. I won't be condescended to, which I feel you do just about every time you rebut. You should be able to disagree with me without comparing me to fringe fanatics and accusing me of being a spoiled liberal crybaby.
no subject
Go ahead and hate him. But don't blame his post-9/11 behavior for dividing the nation when it was already divided.
I am sorry for the implication that you're like the fringe fanatics in any way but (1) being significantly left of center politically and (2) hating Bush. Yesterday, I went to the WTC site after I had shown up for my interview about 45 minutes early. These idiots were at least as bad as the God Hates Fags nutjobs, based on the fact that they chose to protest yesterday while family member memorials were still going on in the pit. I'd also been reading this post and its comment roll afterwards, and got PO'd again by another example of bad lefty behavior. After seeing all this, I get a little mad when hearing people blame the right wing for dividing the country.
The nation just wasn't really united after 9/11. We were all saddened and outraged, but often over different things. This post explains it a lot better than I can.
So, to clarify:
1: I don't think you're like the fringe protesters
2: I don't think you're a "spoiled liberal crybaby"
3: I do think you shouldn't hate Bush for voting like a right-winger and acting like a Southerner.
4: I don't think he deserves the blame for dividing America.
no subject
1 and 2, thank you for clarifying. I know it's hard to detect patronizing because I'm guilty of it. Sometimes it really does just take people telling you to even see it. So if I snapped it's because that's a buzzkill and immediate bad-mood maker for me (probably directly as a result of being guilty of it myself).
As for 3: I shouldn't dislike Bush for voting right and acting like a Texan? But I do dislike that behavior when you make it national policy. The beauty of our system is that, if that flies in Texas, Texas can do it until the cows come home. On a federal level, you should be forced to compromise more and not just insult or insinuate about your constituents' "manliness" (God, I hate testosterone politics) or their being with the terrorists (if you're not with us, us being BushCo, that's who you're effectively with) until they back down. I hear name-calling on both sides--this is politics, but I didn't hear the left saying "If you don't go to war and stay warring indefinitely despite all the problems therewith, you're a pussy and a traitor." I call that pretty friggin divisive. Suddenly, that greatest savior and exercise of our freedom--dissent--became treason. That's tarring with a wide brush, and I dislike that kind of generalization. Maybe that makes me an effete liberal intellectual, but while I can have a sense of humor about that in a conversation where I can easily turn it right back and make some licentious comments about my inbred redneck friend, on a national debate level, fostering anti-intellectualism, polarized policies on international relations, and dogged penis-size contests with hostile or hesitant leaders? Come on, that's just immature. I'm free to dislike Bush for being an immature, informal President when he's supposed to be doing his job.
no subject
Perhaps because you played hate politics to stay in power?
I believe this is the key element that the above poster isn't addressing as far as unity and goodwill goes. For any Michael Moore, I raise you an Ann Coulter with some Limbaugh for good measure.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I appreciate the apology. If we are going to use the fringiest of the fringe to define our positions, there can be no debate. That is why I do not believe the left is the one to have divided the electorate. Bush started it back in 2000 with his absolutely DEPLORABLE campaign tactics that managed to get John McCain--whose policies were centrist enough and he was venerable enough that I would have voted for him over Gore, probably--to look like an insane bastard-fatherer when he was a patriot, an established statesman and a wonderful man who adopted children regardless of their race. I don't want to get bogged down in a "You started it!" thing, but Rove's tactics were scarily effective, and he used them to drive the wedge against the center by promising things to the fringe. As soon as the election was over, Bush forgot about occupying the center--surprise surprise--and went right back to the big-business friendly right. That's not very centrist or unifying, you ask me. And most people did accept, even if they hated it, that he was president and that was that (I sure hated it and it felt like a cheat, but I wanted the thing to be over so we didn't look ridiculous).
Speaking of looking ridiculous...
And I fucking hated that Clinton sold out the Lincoln Bedroom as a hotel while flashing his willy to any girl he found attractive and could corner in private. But Clinton wasn't a divider, right?
Aside from asking Lewinski to lie, there isn't anything about his affairs that affected his presidency, was there? Leaders of other countries were embarrassed for us that we made such a big deal over Clinton's sex life. He had plenty of other failings, and we chose the one that most scandalized our Puritan sensabilities whereas most of the rest of the world thought it was the height of rudeness to call attention to a man's mistresses. It's funny I should argue they're right given that's the most sexist drivel ever, but the point is that it didn't stop him being effective as a President until they impeached him and forced things to stop for it.
Bush, on the other hand, actively acts an idiot when he's out of the country, calling into question his fundamental ability to do the job he was elected to do. There is a lot of forgiving of his obvious lack of high intelligence and understanding of subtlety because he's "one of us." Pardon me, but a man who can't read prepared speeches well, who forgets key words when introducing the People's Republic of China, and who basically pals around instead of working with foreign leaders? That's damaging. He behaves in an undignified manner when working in an official capacity. Much as I loathe Clinton's sexual practices, he didn't hump legs at meetings or while he was on the job (and the man worked some ninety-hour weeks, so that he fit in an affair around that is actually pretty impressive).
The foreign goodwill dry up? Was because Bush was bent on Iraq. No, we hadn't invaded. But he had no evidence and he was carrying a grudge, so some weren't too thrilled about his redirection from Afghanistan. It's a tribute to his successful spinning that some double-digit percentage of the population does still believe Saddam had anything to do with September 11th (but, because the President never sssaaaaaaaaaaiiiid that exaaaaaaactly, he can't be called a liar, even though he heavily implied and raped the September 11th raw emotions to do it). Why did he take issue with Iraq not following a UN resolution? Why not examine the abuses of other nations, equally faulty with less brittle history with the Bush family? Hmmm, I wonder...
no subject
Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Bush 9/11/06