In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on London's public transportation system, Tony Blair, as usual, was able to show emotion with strength by using his oratorical skills to make his point: "We shall prevail; they shall not."
Then our very own GWBush made his statement. Full of "ums" and "uhs" and his usual staple of "evil" and "freedom" words thrown in. He couldn't even put his purpose at the G8 Summit into a concise, clear, impactful sentence as a means of drawing a comparison between cowardly acts of violence on innocent people and working to assist developing nations economically and socially. Whether you believe the G8 was a waste of time or not, this was GWB's opportunity to draw that distinction clearly, to perhaps convince a few people of his belief in the G8 Summit. A litany of "ums" and "uhs" and recycled platitudes from 9/11 just fell flat. Missed opportunity; but that is no surprise.
In another missed opportunity to look like a good friend to the British people and Tony Blair in particular, GWB's statement, which after two sentences about London and its people, veered off into what the US was doing to secure its own citizens on their way to work. On 9/11 did Tony Blair say, "We feel bad for you, America. Now back to us!!"? No. He at least made the effort to talk about the tragedy for Americans for longer than 60 seconds before launching into his plans to keep Britons safe. I was embarrassed. Just completely embarrassed.
19 comments:
As much as I am an ardent supporter of GWB, it is rather disheartening at times to see his rather poor, inadequate, and completely lacking public oratory skills. Frightening, to say the least.
In light of what negatives you assign Bush, anonymous, it could really stimulate and perhaps excite us, your readers, if you could perhaps share with us what qualities of his win your "ardent support". Failing that, speaking for myself, I find you more "frightening" than Bush himself.
Well, considering this is E's blog, and not mine, I will refrain. Sorry to hear that I frighten you.
I know so many of your type of Republicans, pretending to a knowing sophistication over those of GWB's unwashed brethren from the Red States. You say you don't like Bush "all that much" because of A, B, or C. But you keep voting for him because of "what the Democrats offer", as if it were just a game, and because you want to screw liberals. You are pathetic because you are too myopic to see that who you have been screwing for years are the American people in general. Whether you are whores or pimps I can't tell. All I know is your compliance has enabled Bush to fuck our country's legacy. I don't so much have fear of you so much as I have contempt for you. You are scum.
Different anonymous, fyi.
I voted for Bush twice, so I suppose that would categorize me as an "ardent supporter", but I don't feel that is an accurate portrayal. I wanted to like Kerry, kept waiting for his ideas to excite, inspire or even convince me of anything. But in the end, Bush's strength of leadership and ideas won me over. Or at least disgusted me less.
Anyway, my votes were not about being anti-Democrat, or pro-right wing, just who I thought was the lesser of two evils.
Then you really need to re-think your political ideas. To vote based on personality, or to consider candidates to be'two evils' is to ignore the important fact that political parties are not individuals but vast groups of people who, together, promote very different philosophies of government and work toward different legislative and policy goals. By virtue of the two major parties' great difference, you must prefer one to the other based on something besides their chosen candidate's projected, media-massaged personality. Otherwise your analysis is so shallow as to be unthinking -- which is exactly what is frightening.
"Otherwise your analysis is so shallow as to be unthinking -- which is exactly what is frightening."
Yes, Miko. You nailed it.
"kept waiting for his ideas to excite, inspire or even convince me of anything..."
Pardon me for butting in, but what exactly would you need convincing of? Excite, inspire, convince. No, Kerry didn't do much of any of those. But Bush, he didn't either. His ideas terrified, denied, defied, dismissed, destroyed, and confused.
Bush supporting the deaths of 12,000 foreign civilians is disgusting, so what exactly made Kerry so un-appealing? His stance on abortion? Pro-murder they called it. Well, the only difference between Bush and Kerry on that one, is that Bush waited for the kids to be mature before he sent them to die.
I would say that you haven't picked the lesser of two evils, but rather supported the idea of masked evil itself. You will probably disagree with me, but if the US administration was in any other country right now, you would likely be supporting their immediate "regime change."
Exactly.
These GOPers say they held their noses as they voted for Bush because something Kerry said or didn't say makes him undeserving of their vote.
It doesn't occur to them what future their country deserves, what the American people deserve.
I can only conclude that whatever peculiar rationales they spout, they are masking the fact that they are really voting to protect their tax cuts.
We understand them better than they understand themselves.
Well. Regime change. Tax cuts. Abortion. You folks are good at finding the hot buttons, eh?
What my voting decision came down to was "who do I think will be the better leader of this country?" Period. I don't make enough money to care much about tax cuts, think abortion should be legal (but still find it, in most cases, immoral) and...what were the other points made? Oh, the "very different philosophies of government" promoted by the two parties: I don't feel particularly represented by either party completely on that front, but tend to agree more with the Republicans than the Democrats. For example, I love America and want her to be defended against threats, not apologize for being so big and powerful and we'll be over here in a corner trying to seem smaller than we are (but with economic sanctions, naturally).
I suppose that's what it boils down to for me: I am frightened by the Democrats dislike of our country's power and money. The Republicans are CERTAINLY flawed, do not respond to me like they are my Great White Hope. Just the "lesser of two evils". Which is merely a turn of phrase, not a moral categorization, btw.
You left out how much you admire Bush-Cheney's un-provoked, unnecessary and largely unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq (UULUIOI).
Oh yes, you are right, there is much to be admired in that...
I don't claim to have all (or any!) of the answers, nor do I love our Iraqi invasion. But I think it is important to follow through and finish what you have begun or you show weakness and invite more attacks on US soil.
What was Clinton's response to the first bombing of the WTC by Bin Laden in '93? Or the USS Cole? I don't even remember.
Your memory needs some assistance: glad to help out:
Clinton did not start foreign wars he couldn't finish.
BTW, when you say I think it is important to follow through and finish what you have begun or you show weakness and invite more attacks on US soil.
You defy logic to such an extent I can't render justice to you. (There is not enough HTML support in these pages!)
I'll have to be content with reminding you that it's not my war. This is your war. If things go bad in Iraq, they reflect on your president, not mine.
Everything this sorry-ass prez has done has reflected poorly on the once great country of ours, and the sooner we get out of Iraq, the sooner we can put him, and the horse's asses he rode in on, behind us.
And you can take that personally.
Alright. You enjoy attacking well-meaning people personally AND not answering the Clinton question. You told me what he didn't do, not what he did. I already knew he didn't start a war. Moron. (sorry, that just slipped) :)
And you say "Everything this sorry-ass prez has done has reflected poorly on the once great country of ours" - you didn't even support the war in Afghanistan? We certainly had lots of world support for that one, or is my memory still lacking?
I'm hearing a lot of emotion from you, but very little substance. I hate to be the one to tell you, GWB is your prez, too, unless you are not American. Clinton was my prez, even if I didn't agree with everything he did or said. Where is your loyalty/patriotism/faith in the US as a republic to weather any leader the (misinformed or simply apathetic) masses may choose to elect?
Afghanistan: Al Gore would have gone after OBL, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban unstintedly, without a major $200 billion detour into Iraq. So, as much as you would want me to, I am not disposed to give GWB any 'props' for what little he has accomplished in Afghanistan (which is slipping from our grasp as we speak.)
(Having problems straightening out the syntax of your last sentence.) Whatever....
My "loyalty/patriotism/faith in the US as a republic" mandates that I do everything I can to restore our once-great Republic to its prior standing in the world. As a first and indispensable step that requires regime change in Washington followed ASAP by popular repudiation of this cabal's 'achievements'.
As far as this un-provoked, unnecessary and largely unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq (UULUIOI) is concerned - according to the last USA Today poll - repudiation is well underway: http://www.sozadee.com/e107/forum_viewtopic.php?36.49
OK. I finally get it. You have your ideology down pat and don't want to have an exchange of ideas. Whew.
(one last ditch effort: what DID Clinton do after WTC and Cole? What Gore might have done is pure conjecture)
Darn!
How could I have forgotten! We're in this political, fiscal, diplomatic, and military pickle because of Clinton!
Am I that unclear? You seem unable to answer a straight question, so I'll bid thee adieu. Have fun in your anti-Bush, GOP-hating world!
Well, should you change your mind, you know where to find me.
Post a Comment