Now for the angry September 11th post

[trinityvixen]

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 newredshoes, but I'm sure she'd encourage me to pass it on).

Comments

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

I was more asking how Bush could have done anything, short of resigning, that would have satisfied the protester kooks. Or, for that matter, you (though you're of course nothing like the protester kooks--sorry for the insinuation.)

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.

[newredshoes]

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?

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?

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

(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.)

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.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

Oh, and not to be rude, but I thought you were done defending the Bush administration? You declared as such some time ago. And that seems an odd thing to go back on just for trolling purposes.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

Defending their policy, yes. But they're not evil, or hateworthy, and for all their flaws, they're not the ones who split the nation. And at the moment (I really did see those 500 idiots yesterday in person,) I'm not too happy with the left. You might even say I'm angry.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

And, excuse me again, but I call bullshit on this, too:
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.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

Your initial post: 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?

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.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Fine, okay, let me address this, and then I'm through with this for now because it's just putting in a bad mood, and you and I are not going to agree and we are playing a "You started it" at this pace. That takes care of 4.

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.