HOME | CATALOG | DOWNLOADS | LINKS | EDITORIALS | DISCUSSION | CONTACT

Where's Bush?

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Log Out | Edit Profile | Register
Night Shade Message Boards » Politics and Religion » Where's Bush? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

paulw
Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 05:25 am:   

A terrorist attack in the capital city of our one major ally. Blair immediately speaks out and rushes back to his capital -- providing a stark contrast to Bush's performance on 9/11. Meanwhile, there is no statement released from Bush offering condolence and support for his ally, which is currently also his host, and no statement of reassurance for an American public who may well wonder if they are next.

Pathetic.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gordon Van Gelder
Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 06:02 am:   

Well, you know, President Bush was recuperating from having run over a security officer yesterday with his bicycle. . . .
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 07:17 am:   

Gordon, obviously Bush mistook the security officer for a terrorist and was attempting a heroic act....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

paulw
Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 07:28 am:   

Damn! I hadn't thought of that. And in fact, perhaps he didn't "mistake" him at all. Is it a coincidence that no bombs went off in Scotland, at the G8 conference? Bush prevented a terrorist act, then sought to downplay his own heroism by pretending the whole bicycle thing was just an accident due to his own clumsiness. Makes ya proud to be 'Merican!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 07:31 am:   

Exactly, Paul! Our Prez...the hero of the day! And humble, too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

pauwl
Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 07:44 am:   

Well, in fairness, I see that he has issued a statement at last. Better late than never, I guess.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 07:54 am:   

Yup. I just saw it. He's very concerned.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave Eland
Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 09:01 am:   

President Bush's statement was Late? Is there a deadline for offering condolences? Would you like make a wager on whether President Bush spoke personally to Prime Minister Blair within an hour or two of the attack?

For shame. Only ghouls would use this tragedy to make jokes and mock President Bush. You have no class.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

neilw
Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 09:08 am:   

Dave, they were in the same hotel, I think it's pretty obvious that they talked almost immediately.

To be fair to Bush (and I'm certainly no lover of him), he made a statement not long after Blair did. There was also a joint statement from all of the leaders at the G8 which included not just the 8 main guys but also the leaders of China and India, plus Kofi Annan.

Let's not jump all over each other guys. It's not worth it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 09:13 am:   

Mocking Bush is in season at any time of year. The man doesn't have a sincere bone in his body. And as for propriety, what...? Should be a morartorium on criticism of a president be declared after a terrorist incident that rises from a climate he has helped to create? I don't think so. The terrorists themselves are the chief architects of villainy, true, but even Republicans are beginning to ask the question as to whether or not our adventure in Iraq has created a thousand Bin Laudens. You, pal, must have a room temperature IQ to be worried about propriety at this late hour.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

paulw
Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 11:32 am:   

And considering all the political and personal capital that Bush has made out of exploting tragedies (9/11) and creating them (Iraq), I see nothing to apologize for.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

jim
Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 01:00 pm:   

C'mon, it's not like Bush mentioned 9/11 FIVE times in a nationally televised pre-empting rah-rah speech about how important it is we are in Iraq, since of course the Iraqis and their former ruler had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, despite our gov't spending billions trying to prove otherwise. Oh, wait...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

StephenB
Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 12:04 am:   

Did anyone else see the Tony Blair speech with George W. standing behind him? Where Tony talks about how the attacks were barbaric and the people behind them have no value for human life. As he's saying this, George's eyes go back and forth. The good ol' boy sure can relate with them terrorists.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Liz
Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 02:01 am:   

Bush gave a short but moving speech about 'those who have evil in their heart' (it moved me, anyway. Out of the lounge and into the bathroom), before delivering a presentation on behalf of the Global Benevolent Fund - oh sorry, I meant the G8, which it apparently is. I thought it was an organisation that protected Western trade tarriffs, but nope, according to Bush, it's to preserve the environment, something he cares deeply about, and to end poverty. My own ignorance appalls me sometimes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AT
Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 05:06 am:   

We saw that clip here, too. (And Liz, tsk tsk. That moving speech is Bush being what is often hailed as "Wilsonian".) But for some reason, our national broadcaster, SBS, omitted the warning that it intones before most everything it shows: "contains material that may disturb some viewers and is not suitable for children."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 07:55 am:   

We've grown accustomed, unfortunately, to that rhetoric over here. Everything not-Bush is evil. And oh yeah, he's a beast on poverty. Kind of like the last pope, he's agin' it, it's __Bad__.

Blair just press-conferenced and skated over a question about British offshore banks being a major resource for African tyrants who're draining money from their countries and the reporter who asked it also pointed out that the increase in African aid was too little, too late-- Blair responded that people who complain about this sort of thing are generally those who're not trying to do anything about it and said once the aid started flowing, other flows would start, in a human gush of giving. He's smoother than Bush, but...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

T Andrews
Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 08:55 am:   

Lucius, nice to hear there are reporters actually throwing hardballs.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 09:08 am:   

Yeah, it's different, huh? Can you imagine Bush trying to defend his various policies in Parliament?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Liz
Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 12:08 pm:   

The C4 news has just been asking difficult questions about the extent to which our policies in Iraq may, just may, have contributed to what happened yesterday.

A human gush of giving...a human gush of something, that's for sure.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lucius
Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 12:18 pm:   

Man, that's just not done over here. Bush is protected by friendly reporters.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

T Andrews
Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 01:11 pm:   

Yup, that Gannon/Guckert plant (the republican-friendly 'journalist' who used alias while a member of the white house press corps in case anyone's unaware of him) pretty much says it all.

Parliamentary proceedings may often be a farce of blowhards v.s. blowhards, but there's a certain transparency that's appealing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

StephenB
Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 06:22 am:   

If I had the opportunity. I'd ask Bush why they invaded a Iraq, based on bogus evidence and manufactured justifictaion, when in Africa, genocide was taking place? Wouldn't the military have been better utilized in Sudan?

Also, I'd ask him. How are the bombings in Baghdad, which killed many people and included civilian and medical buildings, any less barbaric and disregardful of human life than what just happened in London?

What do you think he'd say?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 08:07 am:   

He'd likely say that the difference is that God is on "his" side and that his bombing of Baghdad was done in the cause of "good" by "good" people while those who bombed the London underground are "evil" trying to achieve "evil" aims.

But I'm just guessing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 09:57 am:   

If American troops had invaded Sudan, people like you would scream bloody murder about "American imperialism" and complain that Bush didn't topple Saddam's murderous regime instead.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But by all means, keep wringing your hands... Osama likes it when you do that. Namely, nothing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

StephenB
Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 11:26 am:   

Who said anything about invading, occupying -- corporate takeover?

I'm talking about using the military to save lives and stop genocide. What does Osama have to do with this?

But you aren't worth it.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

TCO
Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 09:19 pm:   

You guys suck. Time for a love story with Blair and Bin Ladin, Gardner?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sam T. Shrove
Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 11:11 pm:   

His numbers are dropping like a stone. As foolish as the Americans might be even they can be said to realize what a mess they are doing to the world. Although the imperialism, religious fanaticism, and greed of American society will arguably make life worse for everyone for years to come. The following is a bit crude, but it's from a news site generally deemed free of Western bias.


quote:

Ever since imperialism raised its ugly head in the world, it has been engrossed in aggression and war. In the new century, too, the means for the existence of the imperialist forces remains unchanged.

Aggression and war are inevitably required by the politico-economic structure of modern imperialism.

Munitions monopolies dominate the economy in the imperialist countries and their rise or fall entirely hinges on those monopolies. The military spending in the imperialist countries is on the steady increase and the militarization of their economy is aggravating the crisis of imperialism. The overall economy remains in the doldrums, increasing the joblessness and weakening its competitive power. Imperialism seeks a way out of this daily worsening crisis in pursuing aggression and war.

A series of wars provoked by imperialism in different parts of the world after the end of the Cold War were chiefly aimed at settling this economic crisis by saving the munitions monopolies and helping them increase their profits. As a matter of fact such purposes have been achieved through the imperialists' aggression and war. The imperialists have taken pleasure in attaining their politico-economic goal and realizing their wild ambition for domination through aggression and war against other countries and nations. That is why the imperialists are desperately clinging to the policy of aggression and war and becoming more cunning and vicious in their methods. The reality requires all the countries and nations aspiring after independence and peace to properly see through the criminal true colors of the imperialist forces who regard aggression and war as means of their existence and main job and dynamically turn out in the struggle against their moves for aggression and war.

KCNA




Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tivo
Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 08:14 am:   

I thought you guys might find this interesting...

Aug. 13, 2005, 8:56PM

The article below was written by novelist E.L. Doctorow for The East Hampton Star, and was originally published on Sept 9, 2004. Since that time the number of American war dead in Iraq has risen to more than 1,800.

I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn or a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life ... they come to his desk as a political liability, which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret, and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.

He wanted to go to war, and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options, but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.

Yet this president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends.

A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the president who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead, he does not feel for the 35 million of us who live in poverty, he does not feel for the 40 percent who cannot afford health insurance, he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills it is amazing for how many people in this country this president does not feel.

But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest 1 percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the quality of air in coal mines to save the coal miners' jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a-half benefits for overtime because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class.

And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it.

But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, that spontaneous aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over the world most of the time.

But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war.

The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble.

Finally, the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail. How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president?

He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.

Doctorow is an award-winning author whose most recent novel, The March, will be published next month bt Random House.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

LS
Posted on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 04:50 pm:   

Now, with Scooter Libby rolling, claiming that Bush authorized him to out Valerie Plume, now we're going to see if the press does their job. Could the shit hit the fan on this one?

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Log Out | Edit Profile | Register

| Moderators | Administrators |