RSS
Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for Bush's 2004 campaign, told reporters yesterday that it was Katrina that broke the president's bond with the American people and toppled the bully out of him when he watched his own government flounder in response to the hurricane. Dan Bartlett, former White House communications director claims Katrina was the final nail in the political coffin. Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Colin Powel, compares Bush to Sarah Palin and says that he was a "personality vacuum, character vacuum, details vacuum, experience vacuum." These comments are part of a Vanity Fair oral history of the Bush White House for its Feb. edition that comes out on Jan. 6. Surprisingly, this story hit the wires yesterday and is still within the top 10 AP stories today.
Meanwhile, Muntazer al-Zaidi, the Iraqi shoe throwing journalist, is enjoying world fame from behind bars while awaiting trial for the charges of "aggression against a foreign head of state during an official visit." Mrs. Bush last week popped out of the woodwork long enough to declare the incident an attack on her husband. Starkly taking a different point of view, US activists say that to prosecute al-Zaidi would increase anti-American sentiments, so the incident should be treated as civil disobedience instead.
Ideally, the media exists and functions for the people by acting as the government's watchdog. To release such a damning "history" now, well before the inauguration of the next president, is a very large example of one of the reasons Islamic extremists despise Western ways. Outside the camp of Islam is the Arabic cultural tenet of pride and insult, and once again, the last laugh is on Americans. Al-Zaidi knew very well what he was doing when he launched his shoes and expects to pay the price. In all likelihood, he would be shunned far more if left unpunished for his act of "grave insult," and Bush would not be absolved from his shame.
This lame duck president is now tarred and feathered and de-nutted in ways far worse than his own actions could ever do. If Bush was so pitiful to begin with, why was he elected for a second term? Be careful what you wish for, or you just might get it.
11 comments:
I consider this a very appropriate essay about that man who has misled millions.
Great article.
I've never been a fan of Bush, not by any means. However, I do not believe it's right to be so disrespectful to the man.
Here's how I see Bush. On social issues, he is conservative. When it comes to government expansion, at best he is a moderate.
Katrina was a local issue, and showed the failure of city and state officials of Louisiana. I lived through a major hurricane, Hurricane Floyd, when I lived in eastern North Carolina. My hometown has still not fully recovered from this natural disaster.
Yet, the media and their sheep are so quick to make Bush the scapegoat. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? My brother and I went out and bought several chainsaws and were helping people clear out the wreckage. I tore out walls and floors and carried furniture to the curb of flooded homes. This went on for weeks. When it was all said and done, I was exhausted.
Bill Clinton showed up for a photo op during it all, but I was too busy working and helping people to notice. I didn't see a radio or TV for days. I didn't sit back and wait for someone to do something for me. I was proactive.
I get tired of people who always look to the government to bail them out.
As for the Iraq War, prominent Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry saw the same classified information and voted for the war. Yet because all has not gone well, people want to make Bush the scapegoat.
And what would you (plural) have done after 9/11, the World Trade Center laying in a giant heap, having been bombed by domestic terrorists? Bush led. HE did the best he could with what he had. This after 8 years of Bill Clinton doing nothing, because he was so scared it might damage his already frail (Lewinsky, impeachment) legacy.
See, I think criticism of top government officials is fair game. However, too many tree huggers out there have a slanted point of view, and there is no way to please them.
Anyway, I'm tired of typing. Happy New Year.
Paul, very valid and important points. Much of this would be nonexistent IF the media just reported facts instead of opining and editorializing.
I sure don't need to be told what to think. When I write news stories, I don't think - I just write out the facts as presented. If I'm not clear, then I ask for clarification. I do my thinking about it all well after it's submitted for publication. I have no right to impose what I think on others.
If I weren't so "old school" about it, I wouldn't be able to write for the newspaper. I do not believe we are well served by the media, the analysts, the editorials or the politicians who all play a game called popular opinion. What, if you're popular with the media, then everything's ok? The media does not represent the people, the politicians do. The media as a watchdog should be keeping the politicians honest! The media should not be leading public opinion!
Still, it's a basic thing to attack behavior and actions, but not the person. This ain't grade school, and name-calling ain't allowed.
Happy New Year!
I love the conclusion of this -- why was Bush elected for a second term? The answer to that is simple -- John Kerry is even easier to hate than Bush is (and that's saying something).
Yeah, I know many people voted against Kerry. Sigh. They keep offering us lame, broken down old nags for choices to run the country...
Anyone who is smart enough to be president, is smart enough not to run.
You gotta point there, Paul! LOL
Aw, man. Paul, marry me. Personal responsibility is dead and Bush is indeed the scapegoat.
"US activists say that to prosecute al-Zaidi would increase anti-American sentiments, so the incident should be treated as civil disobedience instead."
It's EXACTLY this kind of nutty wrongheadedness that makes activists a joke. Besides, it's Iraqi's and Iraqi law that will prosecute. And from what I've been reading what that moron did is a serious offense in Iraq and Arab culture.
And you explain in the second to last paragraph exactly and succinctly why: they've no clue how Arabic concepts of pride and insults work. They've no clue how their intricate honor systems and different values function at the social level.
The joke is always on the Americans because you guys keep cannibalizing yourselves in a futile attempt to seek some sort of "truth." In reality, all that's happening is a valueless naked power struggle between groups.
Think of it. Within American borders it's all good. But when you mercilessly attack your leader in public how do you think your enemies take it?
My gal, who is an educator and apolitical (and half-Lebanese), put it this way when she saw the shoe guy and the subsequent defending of him: Even if you disagree with Bush he's your leader. Respect him. You can't cross that line. She sees that in school these days. Parents no longer respect teachers. No one respects anyone. I'll go a step further. Just because you respect doesn't mean you can't question his authority. But the way people do it has become intellectually ghoulish. And yes one example is how Katrina suddenly directly became Bush's problem.
It's ugly out there. I'm staying inside. I just have to make sure I have enough Mini-Wheats.
Yes, throwing the shoes was a "grave insult" and that usually means death.
I do believe that the only time you seen the chain of command respected is in the Armed Forces, and their training includes many instances of 'respect or die.' For everyone else, all was lost when someone decided that money = happiness, yet another fallacy. In the end, it's existing superficially, and that will be what is written on the tombstone.
So Al, if Canadians are heading down the same path, it won't be long before you run into the same perceptions.
Better stockpile those Mini Wheats!
Meh.
Post a Comment