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

[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.