Thank you, La Shawn, for pointing out a very interesting article I would have missed had you not seen it, first. And I also enjoy your thoughts on it.
Now, the rest of you are wondering what in the world I’m talking about. Tom Junod wrote an excellent piece for Esquire on the Case for George Bush. He has done his homework well. He doesn’t like Dubya at all, but thinks he is absolutely right in his desire to fight terrorism.
I will say no more about it. I’ll let La Shawn and Tom speak for themselves. They both do it quite well, you know.
So you think George is the man to trust with the war on terror? It depends on whether the goal of the war on terror is to reduce the amount of terror in the world or whether the goal is just to try and increase the amount of terror caused by your side until it balances out. This is a serious question, what IS the goal of a war on terror? If you don’t know the real answer you can’t judge your leaders accurately.
It occurs to me that there is a character in the Bible that George Bush really resembles. I’m talking about Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate decided to defend his empire from the threat of a fringe religious group. Pontius decided on the common tactic of torture and show trials. Now George Bush is using the same tactics as Pontius did and for the same reasons.
If George had read the bible, and the story of Jesus in particular, he might have looked at how historically, torturing religious zealots does not defeat them. I believe Jesus knew from personal experience that torture is bad policy. The official Roman policy of torture didn’t stop Christianity did it? Before Christ was killed Christianity was just one of many groups on the fringes of the Jewish faith. Do you think torture will stop the radical forms (not the typical form, but the fringe forms) of Islam? Or will torture just be the flame to spread it world wide, just as the martyrdom of Jesus became one of the cores of Christianity? Years from now will George Bush be a hero of Christianity? Or will he be the Pontius Pilate who helped jumpstart a new world wide religion sprung from one of the groups now on the far fringes of Islam?
Comment by Big Time Patriot — July 31, 2004 @ 3:32 am
I don’t see how, with an open mind, you can accuse Bush of advocating torture and show trials.
Has terror increased? My guess is that it has. But where? All the increase can be attributed to losers in Iraq who don’t want to give up. Everywhere else, terrorism is down. The goal is not to reduce terror, but to eliminate those who advocate it.
How will Bush be remembered by history? You and I will never know. We will be gone before an honest history of Bush is written. He understands that.
Comment by Bunker — July 31, 2004 @ 5:50 am
Actually it won’t take long for history to judge Bush, he is already held in comparison to the likes of Harding, and U.S. Grant. I doubt it would take too many more gaffes to rank him with Milard Filmore as the worst ever. I just do not see in him what the right wants me to. Kerry while not my ideal is at least pretending to give a damn about those of us at or below the median income level of 32k per annum. This president has NEVER had to think of trying to survive on 32k a year, and he refuses to even acknowledge those of us in that stratum. I can not comprehend how people are swayed to vote against their own best economic interests by these republicans. “What’s the matter with Kansas” indeed
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — July 31, 2004 @ 8:19 pm
If we are talking the war on terrorism, one just has to look at the convention speeches to see where the difference is. Edwards said, “if we are attacked we will respond” with some sort of furious anger. Why must we wait for more of our citizens to die before we do anything about it. That is the fundamental difference. If you think that we cannot defend ourselves until we are attacked, then vote for Kerry. I feel it is much better for me to be fighting the enemy in his land that him fighting us in ours.
One may also argue that there is an increase in terrorism. In Iraq, yes, but in the rest of the world it has slowed down considerably, even in Israel. We are seeing desperate acts by individuals in Iraq who are scared because they were a part of the former government. We are also seeing members of Al Qaeda trying to kill American service members. We have taken a supportive government out of their grasp, and they are determined not to let the US gain a friendly government in its place. We are continuing to erode their base of support.
And to think that it is religious ideology we are fighting is to kid yourself. I know a lot of their “soldiers” are very pious, but the leadership involved is not. In Afghanistan, they murdered a truckload of people who were going to register to vote–not helping the US, not fans of the government (based on their tribal affiliations), just going to register to vote. They also want to capture an American service woman to repeatedly rape her and then kill her. This is nothing new, but something one never hears about. The leadership of the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq want sole power of their governments and to continue to keep their people subjugated. This is for them solely about personnel power.
Therefore, we have embarked on a great mission to free repressed people, something once championed by the left when the right was more isolationist. Through the leadership and vision of our president, who sees all people having a basic right to freedom, we will be able to make a difference in the Middle East. This is too bold a move for instant political capital, but something that is characteristic of a true leader. Don
Comment by Slice — August 1, 2004 @ 7:27 am
Bush isn’t now being judged by history, but by contemporaries. They don’t have all the information, facts that will come to light only long after we are gone. Your citation of people like Filmore and Harding only shows you’re listening to people rather than paying attention independently. Bush has done what needs to be done. Some don’t like it, and are eager to highlight any “gaffe” they see, whether it is there or not. Hell, people like Hillary keep saying this is the worst economy since Hoover–and say it without any supporting fact. I actually did some economic research and found unemployment (by numbers) has remained a constant for the last 40 years.
If you don’t like Bush, fine. I think he is a leader who will make the tough decisions. Kerry has never made a decision in his life that he didn’t back out on later. And Kerry has never had to balance a personal budget, let alone deal with human resource problems such as tax withholding, Social Security payments, union/management issues, health care costs for employees, or anything else he claims to understand. Bush has.
Tell me again how Kerry’s “intentions” are going to save the US, and what they are going to save us from?
Comment by Bunker — August 1, 2004 @ 12:20 pm
I don’t dislike Bush per se’ just his policies, and the small minded thugs advising him. I see all the same media garbage you all see, and if this is a “liberal” media I sure as hell do not wish to see “conservative” media. Case in point: The 87 billion Kerry voted for then against, well the president threatened a veto of the version Kerry voted for, but passed the version he liked. Then the media follow the republican spin-points on this and call Kerry a “flip-flopper” but NEVER excoriate Bush for being one also. I believe that Osama was hiding out in Afghanistan, NOT IRAQ, pray tell me again why we are in Iraq?? Look I firmly believe that all politicians are self serving scum, as I said previously Kerry is at least PRETENDING to give a damn about the middle class, Bu$hco doesn’t give a rat’s ass about those of us not in the 200k plus bracket, and that my friends is the difference. If I am going to be lied to, at least I can have some one telling lies I like to hear. The Bu$hco response to why we are in Iraq has changed too damn many times for me to have one iota of faith in anything they say. Just look at the latest “terror” alert (issued 8-1) why oh why does it seem every time things are looking bad for Bu$hco, they trot out yet another terror alert??? I obviously love my country, but I honestly can not afford another four years of these policies. You do know that on Aug 23rd there will be a “restructuring” of over time rules designed by the genius’ this president appointed. A restructuring that would cost me more than five thousand a year were I not in a union and under contract. So yeah I loathe this guy’s policies, and I also loathe the simple fact that he has zero extemporaneous speaking skills. Now I won’t go so far as to say his lack of speaking skills make him “stupid”, but they sure do not help his backers make a case in his favor. Remember all politicians are self-serving scum.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — August 1, 2004 @ 8:26 pm
Interesting you say the media picks up on Kerry’s flip-flops. I haven’t seen that. I’ve seen commercials, and I’ve read things on line. But I can’t remember any of the networks ever accusing Kerry of a flip.
You don’t seem to want to judge Kerry and Bush from an even base. If you did, you would see that Kerry has nothing but contempt for the average American. He lives, in his view, on a higher plane. Like the rest of his ilk, he tolerates lesser people. He certainly doesn’t embrace us.
On the other hand, Bush is comfortable with crowds. He has a sincerity with people most politicians don’t. If you are sincere in wanting someone who understands what it’s like to be a working man, Bush is by far the better choice.
Now, that is an assessment based on their personalities, not their politics. If you like Kerry’s politics better than Bush’s, that’s your decision. But at least judge them honestly.
Comment by Bunker — August 2, 2004 @ 5:57 am
Color me cynical Bunker, as I have now mentioned three times “All politicians are self-serving scum”. Perchance you misunderstand my previous point, while not exactly “thrilled” with Kerry, to me he is the LESSER of TWO EVILS, they all f–king lie and cheat and steal. AT LEAST KERRY IS TELLING ME LIES I LIKE TO HEAR. I know f–king right well he is lying, just like Bu$hco lied to get into office. Difference is I like Kerry’s lies, doesn’t mean I believe the damnd things, but they SOUND better to me. To me all elections in my life have been a choice of the lesser of two evils. In 1976 the lesser of the two evils to me in my first election was Gerry Ford, the match up I would have wanted was Goldwater v Humphrey, that would have been two campaigns of ideas and ideals. In 1980 when to me the lesser of two was probably Carter, I decided to strike a principled stand and voted for Sen. John Anderson of Illinois. In ’84 I wrote in Goldwater. By ’88 I was getting truly disgusted with the way campaigns were evolving and I threw in the towel and wrote in the characters Bill the Cat and Opus from the comic strip “Bloom County” In ’92 when to me there were two stiffs and a lunatic on the ballot, I took a different strategy, I began writing in dead presidents, on the theory that “a dead guy is better than these stiffs” My write in that year was FDR. For the ’96 campaign, the dead guy theory again, only this time my dead guy was Truman. 2000 came about and between the 23 month long media excoriation of Gore, and the marble mouthed Bu$h, I went yet again for the dead guy, this time it was Nixon, oh how I wish Bu$h was only as mendacious as Nixon was. This administration has been so bad even John Dean of Watergate fame has said of this administration and I quote, “Worse than Watergate”. You want to know who I would vote for in a NY minute… John McCain. Only I now have doubts about him after Karl Rove and company smeared him in SC in 2000, I do not understand how he has not taken the opportunity to choke the living shit out of W. Now McCain eagerly endorses W, boy talk about putting party loyalty first. Bu$h comfortable with crowds??? Are you serious man?, he has to have ALL protests placed well out of sight and earshot. You tell me which man is more comfortable the one that engages the protestors at his rallies or the guy that shunts them off to a fenced in area minimum a mile away??? Which guy is more comfortable with crowds the VP that demands you sign a loyalty oathe to the president before you get a ticket to a “public” rally for him, or the nominee that is willing to try to sell himself to those that do not know him?? Use those neurons and axons well, I eagerly await your reasoned response. Oh and FYI I am a registered INDEPENDENT here in the state of NJ. So I come to this party with no axe to grind other than the axe of cynicism.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — August 2, 2004 @ 7:39 pm
I don’t agree that all politicians are scum. I think many go to DC with the best intentions. I had a friend in high school who eventually served three terms as a congressman. He was one of the finest people you would ever meet. He decided three terms were enough and left. I haven’t spoken with him since then, but would guess his values weren’t served there.
I think you’ve listened to the “Bush lied” cries too much. He hasn’t. Every “lie” has been show to have been just the opposite. Unlike most politicians, Bush hasn’t made this his life’s work. Comfort with crowds and “common” people is an issue you raised, and I responded. If you think Bush controls crowds, you don’t understand the Secret Service very well. And what goes on now is little different than it has been since Kennedy was killed. With the threats that must come in daily, I think they’ve done pretty well.
Why should protesters get special treatment. I don’t want people yelling at me, either. Protests are an ego thing more than anything else. They serve absolutely no purpose except to interrupt the lives of many people.
Let’s consider, for a moment, some logic. All politicians lie. You like Kerry’s lies better than Bush’s lies. Logic dictates you should then support Bush, as he is sure (by your reasoning) to NOT do what he says. Kerry, whose lies you like, will surely do what you DON’T like.
Comment by Bunker — August 3, 2004 @ 5:37 am
You forgot “self serving” the quote is “All politicians are self serving scum” Bu$h included. Now I am going to range into the realm of hyperbole here, and I may yet end up with “the men in black suits” at my doorstep for saying this: “There is nothing wrong with Washington D.C. that a small thermonuke wouldn’t cure”, (sarcasm over now). The very fact that I have to point out I am being sarcastic is enough to piss me off, I have been making that joke for over 15 years, and now I not only have to pre-explain that it is a joke I also have to add in a post joke explanation when I make it on-line. Yeah I feel safer. If I want to live in a frigging theocratic oligarchy I’ll gladly move to the middle east, in the mean time give me better fucking candidates to choose from. Like I have implied and you apparently can not understand (seriously misfiring synapses I assume) I’ll be voting for a dead president yet again this year. THEY BOTH SUCK BEYOND BELIEF. We have a choice between a buffoon and his certifiable henchmen, and a effite snob, boy some choice. Oh yeah I forgot the egomaniac trying to run as a “third party” alternative, he too is an effite snob, who had he run 35 years ago might have made a difference, but now he is just a damned side-show. I loathe what politics has become for us, this is such a far cry from what the founders envisioned it is pathetic.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — August 3, 2004 @ 9:56 pm
MUST READ
Many thanks to Bunker for pointing me in the direction of The Case for George W. Bush. I do not understand the gut feelings of distaste that many have for President Bush, for when I look at him I see…
Trackback by trying to grok — July 30, 2004 @ 6:47 am