I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
More to the point, this piece suggests that the president had only two options: Be calm to show non-panicky strength, or rush out of the classroom (scaring the children!) to manage the crisis.
This is a false dichotomy. Whatever else might be said of him, Rudy Giuliani did both -- calmly, but methodically managed the crisis. Why couldn't Bush have done so?
More to the point, this piece suggests that the president had only two options: Be calm to show non-panicky strength, or rush out of the classroom (scaring the children!) to manage the crisis.
This is a false dichotomy. Whatever else might be said of him, Rudy Giuliani did both -- calmly, but methodically managed the crisis. Why couldn't Bush have done so?
"Rabble rousing" Michael Moore? But he's "spiritual leader", not "catatonic, indifferent, indecisive".
ips res loquitor
"Rabble rousing" Michael Moore? But he's "spiritual leader", not "catatonic, indifferent, indecisive".
ips res loquitor
ot...I'm sorry to say that I strongly believe bush will put mccain on the ticket replacing cheney. the fact that mccain is now openly campaigning for bush and introducing him to the troops makes my skin crawl. it would be a coup for bush if he could land mccain...and I think it could push him over the top in november. bush will do anything to get elected even if it means having to put up with mccain for four years. the dems best choice for veep is edwards and he could go a long ways to winning a state or two in the south and add strength elsewhere.
"Spiritual leader" does seem he has reached a new level. National spirit maybe, but not phrased well.
Edwards will use the vp nomination to get his 2008 base.
What is he, the fricken' Pope? Where's that ombudsman's email address....
And how can this be?
For Bush is the Kwisach Haderach.
Don't you get it? January 2005 is a momentous month, when we finally acknowledge our nation's foundation in Judeo-Christian holy tradition and are no longer afraid to practice the ancient rites.
Bush was appointed to the position of High Priest by the Sandedrin, because of his ancestry. God chose the tribe of Levi, and out of it again the family of Aaron (Bush), on whom He bestowed the 'priest's office as a gift'.
The inauguration will be known as the "investiture of the High Priest". Bush will be anointed with the holy chrism, which will be poured over his head and touched to his eyes. Then he will be robed in the four golden vestments, with the 12-jeweled breastplate hung around his neck.
Bush will be surrounded by the Fourteen Officers, formerly called the Cabinet, but now to be known as 'council of the Temple,' which will regulate everything connected with the affairs and services of the sanctuary, or "sacred homeland."
He will consecrate the "holy nation" to God, through the 'sprinkling of blood' which will keep us near to, and in fellowship with God. (I'm not sure whose blood is going to be sprinkled, but there are several groups of defiled unbelievers who are being considered.
Remember - you can't spell "President" without P-R-I-E-S-T.
So, On the morning of 9/11 Shrubbie claims he wanted to project "calm" and "strength" and not cause the kiddies any anxiety while he waited 7 minutes in that classroom with his thumb up his ass before leaving the photo op? I don't buy it.
Consider this. What if one of us had been reading to kids in a classroom and had been told that our spouse and kids had been in a car accident and some or all of them might be dead? Would you just sit there for 7 fucking minutes looking like a deer caught in the headlights or would you get the hell out of there to deal with the problem?
Shrub's a loser and an ass.
Archbishop of Chimperbury.
Our vaunted leader sat frozen with fear and confusion.The excuse that he did not want to scare the children is absurd in light of the 911 tragedy.It all sounds much like his excuse for nor revealing his drunk driving arrest:He wanted to protect his daughters.Cowardice in the face of the enemy and using children as hostages to protect his reputation are qualities more often found in the gutter than in the White House.
Maybe they were being sarcastic? Maybe they were talking about a different kind of spirit? Maybe alcohol? Maybe he will shortly be talking from the other side?
He can't be anyworse as a spiritual leader than he has been as a corporal leader and I am not comparing him to Adolf Hitler.
Wait for the book Imperial Hubris to hit the streets. The Guardian has an interview with the author.
Drip, drip, drip, drip, .....
When professional baseball resumed play, he courageously walked to the mound in a crowded stadium and threw out the first pitch.
That's a definition of 'courageous' that Brave Sir Robin would gladly endorse.
Piece of shit reporting.
Its official - the press and their corporate masters have decided that Bush gets 4 more years. There isn't anything we can do about it.
What ridiculous spin. He couldn't have gotten up and calmly said, "Excuse me kids, I have to take a phone call, sometimes the President has to do that. I really enjoyed meeting and spending time with all of you."
What a joke.
Spiritual leader? How about "the nation's chief moron." That useless puke was paralyzed with fear after the attack.
atrios - let the jeebus thingy go...we can't win talking about jeebus...rove knows that!
they keep bringing it up - because americans keep getting beheaded by islamic freaks at a higher rate than before the war on terrArism...
talk about moral relativism!
if shrubbie doesn't have jeebus - what does he have? he has been a miserable failure - but his faith wins over the amurcan sheeple!
The piece also says that he apparently told the commission that he wanted project calmness to the country. WTF?
Did he think that he was being televised live? My surmise is: He simply froze.
He didn't know what to do. Never trained for that kind of stuff. Andy Card was there. Even he didn't think of getting him out of there for 7 min? Where do they find these people? And then when he came out of the room, all he did for 15 minutes was what to say to the country.
Taking control of the situation wasn't even considered.
Kerry and 527s should make this a major campaign issue. This is how leadership mettle is tested.
What jibber-jabber said, possibly leavened with, "But I promise I'll come back and meet each and every one of you." That second trip would've been a photo-op heaven, and nobody on the planet, except the terrorists, would've begrudged him.
I guess it's official. The United States is now a theocracy. What now, any criticism of his holiness will be heresy? Will he start issuing fatwas? Will his thugs start killing people in the name of Georgus H. Bush?
He ain't my leader in any sense.
From AP:
President Bush has spent seven of every $10 he has raised for his re-election campaign, more than half of it on television ads, and is asking supporters for more money.
Bush has collected at least $218 million since he began fund raising in May 2003, easily outpacing Democratic rival John Kerry. But Kerry raised about $25 million to Bush's $13 million in May as the president scaled back his record-setting drive to hold fund-raisers for other Republicans.
Bush spent about $152 million through May and began this month with $63 million in the bank. His campaign filed its monthly finance report Friday with the Federal Election Commission.
(snip)
The Bush campaign plans to leave the airwaves for several days beginning late next week. The campaign is targeting ads toward times it feels the public is tuning in.
The outrage-o-meter continues to spike at 11.
How does this crap get by the editors?
Complete propaganda.
Oy!
Uh, does that picture say Card informing prez of first attack on WTC? Wasn't it the second? First attack happened before he went into the classroom, or am I just imagining things. Just a subtle re-write of history, surely WP will correct
so this is news to Newsweek?
see The Yurica Report for Feb. 11, 2004 "Dominionism in America. The First Prince of the Theocratic States of America". the first paragraphs read:
It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it.[1] And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty.[2] On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition.
Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.
Robertson’s act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush administration was a government under God that was led by an anointed President who would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents awaiting the return of Jesus to earth. The President would now be the minister through whom God would execute His will in the nation. George W. Bush accepted his scepter and his sword with humility, grace and a sense of exultation.
..........
footnotes -
[1] “Religious Right Finds Its Center in Oval Office,” Washington Post, December 24, 2001.
[2] Kevin Phillips, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush, Viking Press, 2004, at page 224.
No matter the bullshit they fling,
The Chimp was knocked out of the ring.
He ran like a slut
With a bug up her butt.
He's a poor excuse for a "king."
And how can this be?
For Bush is the Kwisach Haderach.
LOL! Spike TV had Dune on last night...
I'm surprised the article didn't explore whether Pope Bush will allow heathens like Kerry to take communion (a Holy Pretzel and Holy Beer).
Franklin Graham and Ernest Angeley are gonna be PISSED when they read this.
Aethelraed Unraed* would be proud, though.
* - translated, "no-counsel" - not "unready" as commonly believed
...and the NYT chimes in about the bishops talking smack against pro-choice candidates - a so-called smackdown of Kerry...
Like I said - let jeebus go...my roman-catholic parents are voting for kerry no matter what the church says - thank dog!
The president has surely had some excellent moments.
And seven excruciating minutes.
Like it's all about the Boy King. The preznit didn't have seven excruciating minutes. We did. Fuck the Post.
Ya know, I've always considered Willie Nelson my spiritual leader. At the very least, he's actually a Texan rather than a carpetbagging, blue-blood wannabe. Oh, and he's not a mendacious, snake-tongued asshole, either.
What rot.
Please pass the barf bag. And no, no drinking last night. This article! Anyone have the e-mail for this "Joel Achenbach" so-called journalist? And forgive me for being ignorant about this, but is there an ombuds-critter for WaPo?
Did you all miss the first page of this nonsense?
He's both an executive and a symbolic figure. He's the spiritual leader of the nation as well as the head of state. He's monarch and prime minister.
Early in the article:
"However [this moment] is interpreted, it points out a basic truth about any president: He's both an executive and a symbolic figure. He's the spiritual leader of the nation as well as the head of state. He's monarch and prime minister."
"Spiritual leader" here may possibly be code aimed at the religious right, but there's nothing wrong with the more generic meaning. The sentence Atrios quotes is immediately followed by a list of events:
"His bullhorn performance on the rubble of the World Trade Center is considered a bravura moment. He made compelling appearances at the National Cathedral, before Congress, and in a news conference in the East Room of the White House. When professional baseball resumed play, he courageously walked to the mound in a crowded stadium and threw out the first pitch."
All these have to do with rallying Americans' spirit and illustrate what the writer means by "spiritual leader."
The quoted sentence is a lot less ominous in context. Why don't we also freak out at the idea that the president is a "monarch"?
Note also that the writer says the phrase applies to *any* president. I doubt any of us (us lefties, at any rate) would have objected if "spiritual leader" had been used to describe Clinton in the context of his behavior at a time of grave national crisis.
What I find appalling about the piece is the willingness to accept the thoroughly bogus "don't scare the children" excuse. Or perhaps it wasn't bogus; perhaps that's really what was going through the nitwit's mind, which is even more appalling.
The other really scary part is this:
"Eventually, at the suggestion of an aide, Bush got up and went to a holding room."
At the suggestion of an *aide*???
I can just imagine what was going on outside the classroom: "Why the f*ck is he just SITTING there? Andy, are you sure he understood what you said? Maybe he didn't quite hear you. Somebody's going to have to go in there and tell him again. No, just tell him he has to leave; we can explain it to him once he's out of the classroom..."
The president has surely had some excellent moments.
Yes, arising out of excruciating hours of tragedy, and otherwise unending months of stupidity and banality.
All Hail Lord Clusterfuck.
The Bush campaign plans to leave the airwaves for several days beginning late next week. The campaign is targeting ads toward times it feels the public is tuning in.
Thanks, ecoast, for the great news! Especially for the financing details. When I heard they were dropping teevee ads for a while, it scared the bejeebers out of me. (As in: why would they stop brainwashing the public unless they knew some spectacular/scary fix was in?) But now that I know how effed they are with the finances, it cheers me up immensely. Especially since the end of next week coincides with F/911!
Kate,
Here is the info.
Joel Achenbach: achenbachj@washpost.com
National staff writer, online columnist.
The Post's Ombudsman, Michael Getler, is the readers' representative within the newspaper. E-mail him at ombudsman@washpost.com or call 202-334-7582.
Ombudsman takes up structural issues
(paper coverage or non-coverage,
placement of stories, headlines,
heavy complaints from readers on a single issue, etc) but not this kind of a single report.
You may write a letter to the editor for publication at:
letters@washpost.com.
(please pour crisco all over me so I can begin Prayer)
OUR BUSH, who art in heaven, hallowed be his name...
and smite them well , both dkos and atrios, and
send them not to heaven but to hell.
amen.
(more crisco, please, alterboy)
Pope Willie, sounds damn good to me!!
Will he be doling out "communion"? That's what I want to know!
Suggesting that McCain would replace Cheney forgets a very important point. Its Cheney, who is running things, not Bush. I also think that McCain is in a fence-mending mode here. He is a Republican and nothing else. If he wants to be president someday, he will have to do it as a Republican. By spending the day with Bush and being enthusiastic he helps himself more than Bush in the long run. McCain must know that Bush is a dolt, and does not want to have his name smeared, as it would be if he were VP. Yesterday was pure old time calculated politics.
ecoast -
Thank you! [That was almost suspiciously fast and detailed...I don't suppose I should ask you if you're a journo, should I...] 
Seriously, that was very kind of you, and this is now cut/pasted to my media-list.
In the "spirit" of this topic: blessings upon thee.
That useless puke was paralyzed with fear after the attack.
Abiel: Not fear, IMO--just no clue that he was supposed to do anything.
Bush leads our country in the same sense that a hood ornament leads a Buick.
For 9/11, the turn-out here was close to 100%. People you wouldn't think had any community feeling at all offered their services. Bike messengers spontaneously organized themselves into runners between Ground Zero and the hospitals. My super (and I expect, every super in town) head-counted the building and asked me to get on the horn and chase down every tenent who wasn't snug in bed come Tuesday night, then got together with his Ecuadorian londsmen's group to figure out a way to account for every Ecuadorian in town. Dog-owners who use the dog run down the street figured out who among them was missing, walked their dogs and had new homes for them by the next day. I worked the am shift in a hospital kitchen (a lot of workers were stuck in the bouroughs). Little girls across the street sold lemonade for the Red Cross. And that's not counting all the people who practically ran downtown (no cars or subways) to dig it out with their bare hands.
And immediately after that, the whole rest of the country came to help. Then the rest of the planet.
And Bush is taking credit for this? He claims to have led this? He contributed to this in any fucking way? I know the Secret Service gets antsy if anyone says they want to kill the president. But what if you just think he should be slapped?
Thank you! [That was almost suspiciously fast and detailed...I don't suppose I should ask you if you're a journo, should I...
Kate - No, I am not a journo. But I read the Post everyday, write to reporters,
call the editors, write letters to the editor (when I feel strongly about something), etc.
And the above contact info is on the washpost website.
I am a software entrepreneur, if you must know.
PLease Molly, somebody bitch slap this twit.
Blowback: good one about what type of "spirits" the reporter must have been referring to!!!
He ain't no spiritual leader of mine...I resent such characterization
Um, goddammit, me and everyone else who was near a tv that morning knew something unprecedented was going on well before the second plane hit.
Bush said he saw the first plane (perhaps he meant he saw the smoke) before he even went into the classroom! and he thought it was some 'bad pilot'. The whole thing is ludicrous. The president had worse info and was slower to get what was going on than everyone else in America?
Then when he finally did get it he sat stiff for 7 minutes.
He is the spiritual leader of no one but his own ego.
Molly, beautiful. Thanks for that eyewitness account. Here in Wash DC area, we didn't do any of that, except the emergency workers at the Pentagon. We all just went home (most of the offices were closed from 11AM and it was a traffic mess) and watched the stuff unfold on TV.
Bush leads our country in the same sense that a hood ornament leads a Buick.
Great line.
He sat like a befuddled boob. He ran and hid like a scared rabbit (They later lied about it.)It took him a week to make his speech. FDR made his (infinitely more memorable one) the next day. He got us into two, (2) obscenely expensive, still
potentially disastrous and unresolved,
cluster-fuck wars. The rest of his administration has been one seat-of-the-pants, lie, coverup and scandal trailing the next.
...Oh, that brave, brave man.
As one those harsh critics, I resent the Post claiming that I concede that he rallied us. His performance just after 9-11 was pathetic. Most of us do admit that Rudy was the one who rallied us.
Spiritual leader??? WTF indeed.
Bush leads our country in the same sense that a hood ornament leads a Buick.
From this point forward, I shall forever call him "Resident Hood Ornament".
That loud whirring sound you're hearing?
The founding fathers, spinning rapidly in their graves.
Dear god in heaven! Shrub a spiritual leader? WTF? When will these clowning clowns ever stop making crap up?
Barf bags should be included with the WaPo in order to "digest" this kind of crap.
The "air of calm" is just some Karen Rove/Karl Hughes production, and they're only trying to spin it now because they know it's in Moore's film.
The reality is that Shrub didn't have the tools to deal. His pea brain couldn't make a decision without his handlers telling him what to do.
As we all remember, and as we should remind the Post, it was Guiliani who was on TV walking around in the chaos and rubble of two skyscrapers that just collapsed. Bush scooted off to his hidey hole and didn't even come out til the next day.
Tom Schaller is running a thread on this at Dailykos.
I read the Wapo story again. This now looks to me like a plant from Karl Rove to blunt the onslaught of Michael Moore's movie next wk. (This story ran in Wapo's Style Section, a soft feature section.) Moore apparently ran the whole 7-min sequence with no commentary.
That could have been done much better with a split screen, but I digress.
Here's what I wrote to the editor:
In today's Post, Joel Achenbach refers to the president as "the spiritual leader of the nation as well as the head of state." Sorry, but until the theocratic branch of the Republican party gets an amendment through, I'm going to be looking for my spiritual leaders outside the administration. Especially this administration.
Okay, the last sentence was totally gratuitous, but they'll probably edit it out anyway, if they print the letter at all, which they won't since they've never printed my letters.
I hope Michael Moore's movie, when it shows President Dumbshit sitting for seven minutes with his thumb up his ass, knowing that a second plane had hit the Trade Center, has a split screen showing the buildings on fire and people jumping out or whatever was happening while the unelected fraud just sat there.
The article's reference to the president as the "spiritual leader of the nation" must be a misprint. Didn't they mean "cheerleader of the nation"?
This bullshit article from the WaPo at least calls the movie "Bush-eviscerating." Let's hope so!
Bush sat in the little room with the kiddies for seven minutes because he knew he wasn't needed. Cheney was in charge. Obvious. Card didn't give a shit what Bush thought or did, nor did anyone else. Before Cheney dived underground, he authorized the shoot-downs without Presidential Authority - the mysterious 'phone call' from Bushitler never happened...
too little too fucking late.
i was never 'reassured' by the chimp.
the leaders in NYC? yes. DC? absolutely fucking not.
but then i expected something like 9/11 the way georgie was swaggering around the planet even though he hadn't won.
shithead.
I never saw anything I respected out of that turd in the days followint 9-11, spiritual or otherwise. All I saw was a cowering idiot who ran away for the whole week leaving the country leaderless in a time of need.
What has never ceased to infuriate me my whole life long has been when people label someone else (like "rabble rousing" M. Moore) without addressing the specific arguments that person makes.
It infuriates me even more when such a person is given a loudspeaker like the WaPost with which to make the (vapid) point.
No matter where you are on the political spectrum, you have to address the arguments themselves and not resort to ad hominem attacks. You can call someone an idiot, fine, but the burden of proof is on you to SHOW how/why that person is an idiot, that's all.
"Rabble rouser," of course, suggests that Moore is just appealing to the masses and that the truth content of his films is dubious, when in fact Moore goes to great lengths to support his sources.
FWIW, I have communicated with Joel Achenbach in the past and he is actually a pretty cool guy who mostly writes science and humor columns. He's not a normal reporter.
I agree that calling Bush a "spiritual leader" is egregiously bad, but I don't think Achenbach meant anything by it.
I am amused by the comments, but I don't fault Bush for sitting in the room with the kids. I mean, jesus, I nearly dropped my baby on the floor.
He's still a disgusting piece of crap, though, for a number of other reasons, not the least of which has to do with being more effective about getting the fucking Bin Laden family out of the US than he has been with absolutely anything else during his whole term.
a basic truth about any president: He's both an executive and a symbolic figure. He's the spiritual leader of the nation as well as the head of state. He's monarch and prime minister.
Er, no. At least, not in a secular republic. One can say that a 'strong' executive president in a system such as that of the US is both head of state and head of government, but there's no 'spiritual leadership' implied there. Perhaps you can get away with it in French, where there's that distinction between esprit (as in 'spirited') andspirituel . The president is meant to inspire, but he's not meant to be spiritual
Imagine if someone described Jacques Chirac as the 'spiritual leader' of France? It'd be considered contrary to the constitution.
"Bush leads our country in the same sense that a hood ornament leads a Buick."
Absofuckinzactly. He sat there for seven minutes because he was waiting for orders. He's not the boss. Who knows how many thousands of Americans are dying from hostile action, who knows how many more attacks are underway, and he's supposedly worried about scaring a bunch of schoolchildren.
It's unbelievable to me that he could act that way. If you're in charge, or supposed to be in charge, of ANYTHING, and there's a crisis, you'll start barking orders and taking charge. Even if you have no clue what to do, even if you're screwing up or delaying the response to the crisis, you know that this is what the boss is supposed to look like. It's the subordinate who is supposed to calmly wait for direction. He must have been so used to being the subordinate in his own administration that it never occured to him to look like the boss.
That should have been impeachment right there: the greatest crisis of his presidency, and he's AWOL again.
9/11 inaction and then running scared by GWB proved he was never anything but a pretend president.
Failure to notice this makes me despair for this country.
There's no way to excuse yourself seven minutes early from listening to kids read? No one said he had to stand up and yell, "New York's being attacked! We're all going to die!" The dickhead is the President of the United States. I'm sure he could have told them something had come up for the most powerful person in the world that he had to tend to and apologize for leaving early.
"When professional baseball resumed play, he courageously walked to the mound in a crowded stadium and threw out the first pitch."
Why was this courageous? Does he have a bad rotator cuff?
"You're at a photo op, reading a book with schoolchildren and an aide suddenly whispers that a second plane has hit the World Trade Center. 'America is under attack.'"
I'm just a kid from Brooklyn and not privy to intelligence breifings from the CIA, NSC, FBI, etc. But that morning, when someone on the street said "a plane flew in the World Trade Center," my first thought was terrorism. Because it was a clear sunny day and the WTC towers are pretty hard to miss.
I didn't have George Tenet with his "hair on fire" tell me that Al Qaeda was coming. My daily brief on August 6th, had nothing about "Al Qaeda Determined to Strike Inside U.S." I didn't have to endure a summer of high-terrorist-threat warnings,BUT GODDAMNIT, MY FIRST INSTINCT WHEN A PLANE HITS THE WTC IS TERRORISM. I DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR A SECOND PLANE. They are trying to set a false timetable. It's not just the "seven" minutes that he sat there frozen, he made the wrong decision to go into the classroom. Bush's failures on 9/11 started earlier than the second plane's impact.
Also did you notice that the time he waited is now down to 7 minutes?
Reviews of the movie say 9.
And that is only until the tape runs out. I don't believe we actually see him leave the classroom in the tape.
He leaves the school even later.
Bush my "spiritual leader?"
Not in your wildest dreams.
If I was a Catholic, I'd be extremely offended by this statement. What is Bush now, the Pope? The vicar of Christ or God?
As it is, I'm NOT Catholic and I find such talk not only offensive, but almost blasphemous.
Where do ideas like this come from on the Post's part? Do they really sincerely believe this crap, or do they self-consciously believe that it is their role and duty to always write in these ways and to spin the news in these ways such that their readers always maintain confidence in their nation's political leaders and institutions?
If the situation is the first, then they are just as pathetic and tuned out from reality as John Q. Middle-America. If the latter, they really are no more than self-conscious propagandists.
This is unbelievable.
Remember in 1999 when golfer Payne Stewart's plane suffered a grave mishap in flight? F-16's were sent up within ten minutes to inspect the plane-I heard that the White House was contacted in case the plane needed to be shot down to avoid populated areas-what the hell happened-or DIDN'T happen on 9/11? I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, but this faux admoinistration was looking for a "Pearl Harbor" to justify an invasion of Iraq. In any case,Pretel-Boy should have gotten off his ass and ordered suspicios flights shot sown pronto-and he should have flown back to Washington ASAP and not run like the craven cowardlt thief thar he is.
BTW, the seven minute period of inaction on Bush's part, coupled with the news that Cheney had given the orders to shoot planes down just highlights what we've known all along. Bush is just a fucking figurehead or puppet, and the men who are really making the decisions are people like Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rove and Rice and the rest of these evil assholes.
Bush is a boob.
"a basic truth about any president: He's both an executive and a symbolic figure. He's the spiritual leader of the nation as well as the head of state. He's monarch and prime minister.
Er, no. At least, not in a secular republic."
I'm afraid that Mr. Aschenbach was not paying full attention in civics class. There's always an explanation there which compares and contrasts the British monarchy with the US President and involves explaining that the parliamentary democracy has divided the roles of monarch and prime minister, whilst the US president combines the two. Okay. True enough. But nobody in civics class ever goes on to throw in 'spiritual leader'. 'Head of the Church of England' sure. BUT THERE IS NO SPIRITUAL LEADER DESIGNATED IN THE SECULAR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. None. To assert otherwise is, frankly, anti-American, and to do so so casually as though it were both true and a given makes me ill. There was a role that Shrub could have played - the same one that Mr. Bill played in Oke City - that of comforter and support. It ain't spiritual.
The "air of calm" is just some Karen Rove/Karl Hughes production, and they're only trying to spin it now because they know it's in Moore's film.
The reality is that Shrub didn't have the tools to deal. His pea brain couldn't make a decision without his handlers telling him what to do.
Hey, he was calm. In a Forrest Gump, Chauncey Gardiner kinda way.
As we all remember, and as we should remind the Post, it was Guiliani who was on TV walking around in the chaos and rubble of two skyscrapers that just collapsed. Bush scooted off to his hidey hole and didn't even come out til the next day.
Stinky | Email | Homepage | 06.19.04 - 10:00 am |
I think it's that vestigial survival instinct (not unlike that of a paramecium being prodded by something else's cilia) that served him so well at Harken and the Texas Rangers.
Worst. FUCKING. President. Ever.
Does anyone remember that he cried
while adressing the nation on 9/11
in was in the first broadcast but was snipped out for later.He just kinda blubbered.Remember?
My mother, staunch democrat and barometer for everything mainstream in public opinion, agrees Bush is a toad.
But that moment on the rubble shouting out his "ready to rumble" to the rest of the world, she believes he was "amazing".
If that is presidential, Mr. T could have been just as stately. Only in WWF America could standing on a pile of dead bodies and shouting a primal threat at the bad guy be considered such an act of profound leadership and grace that it trumps all the othr pathetic failures of this administration.
If it weren't so god damn tragic, the marketing of the Bush Boy would be hilarious.
As has been said before in this thread, lil' kingy sat on his ass because he either didn't know what he was supposed to do or didn't give a shit. Now we are told he was collecting his thoughts or some other inane bullshit.
And then he ran like the pussy he is and we are told that it was for security reasons.
Remember what a chickenshit he was on Thanksgiving when he had to be prodded to take the trip to Baghdad and then, about three hours out from the airport, he shit his pants and wanted to turn the plane around? All while Hillary was on the ground in the war zone.
Yeah. He's a real tough hombre.
God, Bush is pathetic. He's accomplished absolutely nothing of any positive worth or merit on his own in his entire life. He's an inept, spoiled, cowardly, overgrown brat who has been enabled all his fucking life by virtue of who his family is and their connections.
He really is no more than an adolescent in a man's body. Bush is not a true man. The irony is for all his macho talk and bluster, he's really just a weak little boy. He's never truly grown up into manhood.
He's not only a pathetic exuse for a president, he's also just a pathetic excuse for a human being.
And look at all the people and interests who have a vested interest in hiding these realites from the public and building him up to be something he's not: corporate America, the corporate news media, friends and allies of his family, the Republican Party establishment, and to some degree, even the Democratic Party establishment (because to truly show us who he is would reveal the sham of the sytem the Democrats are a part of and want to end up running themselves.)
This country is fucked. I think I can understand what it was like to live in Imperial Rome when corrupt and depraved emperors such as Caligula and Nero sat at the head of the most powerful political entity on earth, and the whole apparatus of the Roman state played along with the illusion of their greatness.
And the WaPost's statement about him being a "spiritual leader" is just an example of this corrupt and depraved state of affairs as it exists in our world today.
Now wait a minute, folks. There may be something to this.
I know Bush has caused me to exclaim many times...
"Jesus Christ!"
and "God, please... help us!!"
If that counts, oh yeah..he's a spiritual leader.
"And how can this be? For Bush is the Kwisach Haderach.--sevenless"
The only worm Bushliar ever rode was at the bottom of a bottle of tequila.
After his young sister died, Bushliar went golfing, later burying his mom and dad at the 16th hole, after his driver slipped and busted both their skulls in a freak accident, described in the Whore President's upcoming biography of his early years, "Now Watch This Swing."
-
When professional baseball resumed play, he courageously walked to the mound in a crowded stadium and threw out the first pitch.
Courageous if you buy the BS meme that "everything changed" after 9/11.
Just as in the recent "Ronnie the Saint" coverage, the press erects a myth, then uses the myth as a false predicate.
To do ordinary things in a changed world is brave - Bush did an ordinary thing - therefore Bush is brave?
bzzzzt. Thanks for playing, SCLM.
Worst. FUCKING. President. Ever.
Indeed.
Does anyone remember that he cried
while adressing the nation on 9/11
in was in the first broadcast but was snipped out for later.He just kinda blubbered.Remember?
iota
No, I don't remember this. Is this tape somewhere on the internet?
"Bush said he saw the first plane (perhaps he meant he saw the smoke) before he even went into the classroom! and he thought it was some 'bad pilot'.
No, he's made several public references to watching the first plane hit the WTC tower while he was in the hallway waiting to go into the classroom. He has stated that his first thought was, "That's some bad pilot."
What actually happened, as given in the 9/11 Commission statement:
In Florida, the President’s motorcade was just arriving at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School where President Bush was to read to a class and talk about education.
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told us he was standing with the President outside the classroom when Senior Advisor to the President Karl Rove first informed them that a small, twin engine plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. The
President’s reaction was that the incident must have been caused by pilot error.
Bush didn't watch it - he was told about it. Now he thinks he actually saw it happening.
Perhaps someone with a greater knowledge of psychiatric problems than I can tell us what sort of mental problem this sort of suggestibility is indicative of. It would certainly explain why Bush becomes so absolutely convinced that non-existent events have actually occurred.
Blast from the Past:
Copyright 2001 The Chronicle Publishing Co.
The San Francisco Chronicle
SEPTEMBER 15, 2001
HEADLINE: Exhausted crews keep digging for signs of life;
Bush's visit just an interruption to frantic search for survivors
BODY:The President called them heroes. Many even got to shake his hand.
But after George W. Bush's motorcade drove away from lower Manhattan, the army of rescue workers at the World Trade Center disaster pile returned yesterday to what mattered most to them. They picked up their shovels and gloves for the awful work that has driven and drained them for four days.
[...]
Though they didn't want it to be taken as unpatriotic, some workers were upset that they had to put down their tools for an hour during President Bush's visit.
"That makes a lot of sense, to pull our teams because of the president," Tim Sullivan, a Massachusetts firefighter, grumbled as he waited for visit to end. "I think lives are more important."
His team was trying to get down to relieve another rescue squad, but he had to cool his heels while the Secret Service kept him away.
"As far as we heard, there are survivors and they're hearing noises," Sullivan said, "but we can't get in there."
George W. Bush, spirtual leader, my big fat rosy red ass.
-
still puking over "spiritual leader."
Rather like Reagan's vivid memory of filming the Nazi death camps....
God I am so tired of fourth-rate actors and fifth-rate ad agencies marketing products! It's as tho this country had been turned into a perpetual advertisement for everything you ever bought at a $1 store. And then threw away.
Spritual Leader of the world's Greatest Friggin' Nation? How do I get that job?
A reader at Dailkos, Bushsux, posted this. Apparently, Bush lingered around doing small talk after the goat story.
Read on:
One of the more telling points revealed in the video is that Bush engaged in small talk once the reading lesson was finished. There is NO SENSE of urgency, no attempt to cut short the lesson---his "small talk" actually extends the time before Bush left the room.
And as damning as the "sits there and does nothing" phase of the video is, nothing is more damning than this period of small talk.
Months ago, I transcribed the "small talk portion" of the video.
The video is edited in such a way that we do not see the actual end of the reading demonstration itself.. But according to Deborah Orrin of the New York Post, at the end of the reading demonstration,
[Bush says} "Really good readers. Whoo! This must be sixth-graders." The reading included the phrase "more to come" and Bush asked them, "What does that mean, `More to come'?"
It is at this point that the video resumes. (Note...times cited are to the time in the Booker School video itself, and do not reflect the time passed after Bush being notified.)
[6 minutes: 02 seconds] cut to children with their hands raised
[6:03] unidentified child: {indistinguishable on video, according to Orin of the New York Post, "Something else is going to happen"}
[6:06] Bush: That's exactly right.
[6:08] Bush: Ohh, these are great readers...
[6:10] Teacher: Yes they are
[6:11] Bush: Very impressive
[6:13] Bush: Thank you all so very much for showing me your reading skills.
[6:17] Bush (to teacher): I bet they practice {indistinguishable}
[6:19] Teacher: Oh yes, that's a requirement, homework, reading homework
[6:22] Bush: Reading more than they watch TV?
[6:24] Teacher: Oh yes, oh yes
[6:25] Bush (to children): Anybody do that? Read more than they watch TV?
Many children raise their hands
[6:28] Bush: Oh that's great. Very Good.
[6:32] Bush: Very important to practice.
[6:36] Bush: {indistinguishable} very impressive.
The school principal walks up to Bush. Bush closes his reader.
[6:40] Teacher: Boys and girls close your readers.
Bush looks at the principal, but makes no move to rise to leave the room
It is at this point that the video is again cut. We do not see Bush rise from his chair, and leave the room.
PERHAPS it can be justified as "human" Bush's failure to promptly but gracefully cut short the photo op when he was presented the opportunity. And PERHAPS it can be explained that, once the reading lesson resumed, there was no way for Bush to gracefully interrupt the lesson.
But once that lesson was over, there was NO EXCUSE for Bush to engage in small talk with the teacher and the class. There is no sense of urgency or discomfort shown by Bush at tha moment, he is content to wait until the principal puts an end to this portion of the day's activities per the original schedule. (After the 'r
Continuation of Dailkos posting by Bushsux:
(After the 'reading lesson' part of that days activities at Booker, Bush was scheduled to be taken to another room, where he would give a speech to other students and teachers touting his "educational initiatives.")
One final point---AMERICA WAS UNDER ATTACK. That meant that the President was a LIKELY target---and it was no secret that Bush was in Sarasota at the school that day.
If Bush was genuinely concerned with the welfare of the children, he would have realized that his presence at the school that day placed those children at enormous risk---and ordered an immediate evacuation of the school. Instead, the video shows children playing at the school before the video cuts once again to Bush's speech announcing the "attack on our country."
How many school children would have died, if the terrorists had hijacked an airliner that took off in the Southeast, targetting Bush on that morning?
Brave? Spiritual Leader? I challenge anyone to cite ONE instance, verifiable, that George W. Bush has performed in his entire life that was brave, or decent, or kind, that entailed a more than trivial risk to his person, his livelihood, or his fortune. ONE instance where he took a principled stand that put his privileged station in life at risk.
What is so fucking "brave" about throwing out a fucking baseball. Gimmee a FUCKING BREAK! /rant
When I was a teenager, one of the things I always made a point of reading in the Sunday paper was a column by Joel Achenbach called "Why Things Are". People would write in asking questions about all kinds of topics, he would answer them with a hip, smart-assed but knowledgeable tone, and there would be a goofy cartoon to illustrate the column. Then I found a column by Cecil Adams called "The Straight Dope"....people would write in asking questions about all kinds of topics, he would answer them with a hip, smart-assed but knowledgeable tone, and there would be a goofy cartoon to illustrate the column. And it had been around for more than a decade before Achenbach's column. Any writer who would blatantly copy the style and format of another writer's work like that is capable of all kinds of hackery.
TO: The Washington POST
FROM: The Constitution of the United States
SUBJECT: The President
WaPo, the President is a Federal civil servant, one of only two elected by the people, via the Electorial College. As with all the other Federal civil servants, he is nothing more than the Hired Help.
Indeed, he is only temporary Hired Help.
He is NOT a "Spiritual Leader" in any meaning of the word. He is an administrator and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
Please make a note of this, so that your future stories will better reflect the reality of the duties of the President, not the fervid fantasies of a minority of whackjob "Christians".
Yer Pal, The Constitution
The nitwit broke down at a white house news conference and to cover his weakness when the nation needed strength,he said"Im a loving guy".How many times do I have to watch a bush cry in public?Barbarabush is the only one who doesnt bawl on camera,but she's another story.
ecoast- i've been trying to get to google to find the crying, but google wont let me in! Deleted cookies on plist.
Being a soft-engine can you tell me if this is why i'm on a goole lock out?
i want to show the you the tears-but i can't search
Bylined reporters often have no control over whether an editor places such an inane comment in their story, just as they have no control over whether the Moon crowning ceremony is pulled off of the Post's Web site. By declaring Bush to be the nation's spiritual leader, an editor may be responding to Moon-related criticism by declaring that Bush isn't only his President but his priest as well.
Thing is, if Bush was really this nation's spiritual leader, heads would be rolling. It's like the Catholic bishops' scandal, writ large. Can you imagine finding out that the Inquisition's actual "torture memos" were written in a window overlooking St. Peter's Square?
P.S. The Old Testament is full of prophets calling out God's vengeance on kings for claiming to be their nation's "spiritual leader" with no authority and no righteousness. And you all know about the section of the New Testament where the Pharisees, their theocratic council within a pagan state, gave the Roman Empire pseudo-religious cover to whack someone very, very special. In fact, I think this President Bush would remember his name.
notch-yes i wasn't the only one who saw it!!!!
i was glued to the t.v. all day .
couldn't believe it when i saw him cry.
it was just a total shock after a total shock(9/11).
i remember thinking -this is not very reassuring when i'm totally freaked out
I think that was the most offensive sentence I've ever read in my life.
The only possible competition is Bush I calling himself the nation's "moral compass," which infuriates me to this very day.
I thought that position fell to the Rev. Moon.
Philathles... if you think that's offensive, I've got one quote for you:
"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere ... nope, no weapons over there ... maybe under here?" [laughter, applause]
-George W Bush, Radio and Television News Correspondents Association dinner, 24 Mar 2004
One final point---AMERICA WAS UNDER ATTACK. That meant that the President was a LIKELY target---and it was no secret that Bush was in Sarasota at the school that day.
Yep. Hence the SAM launchers on the roof of his hotel. And anyone remember the report about the 'Arab'-looking guys by the pool who said they had an interview with The Spiritual Leader? This being a day after a fake TV interview team blew Masoud to bits in Afghanistan?
(And yeah. Spiritual leader in that he led his class in knocking back spirits.)
Yea thats right every body is looking to Bush for spiritual elightenment and salvation... if the POST is an indication of what the populace thinks, your country and the rest of the world is fucked.
'scuse me I have to turn toward Washington and speak in tongues now.
Deleted cookies on plist.
Being a soft-engine can you tell me if this is why i'm on a goole lock out?
Iota,
Messing up with plist would do that to you. Boot down and reboot up.
I think it should create a new plist when you go into google. Do some easy searches first to retrain your google.
".. Greenstein said that there are anecdotal reports that, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR held his head in his hands and despaired of the future of his presidency".
What unmitigated rubbish. I defy anyone to name a bona fide source witness to such a scene involving Roosevelt.
As to the characterization of GW Bush as anyone's spiritual leader... "Hey, Washington Post, Kiss My Ass"!
"Bush leads our country in the same sense that a hood ornament leads a Buick." - Molly, NYC
"From this point forward, I shall forever call him "Resident Hood Ornament". - anony mouse
Well done. Apparently Cheney drives a Buick.
I understood that it was our "spiritual leader" who was speaking in tongues, much to the alarm of his handlers. Either that or he was having a little stroke, hard to tell. Actually, it isn't hard to tell, but it's doubtful we'll be told. Acolytes are only allowed to worship, not gain knowledge.
"Spiritual Leader" - hmmmm, Satan, maybe?
Fidei Defensor.
"Little George the Second, by the Grace of God, and a Partisan Supreme Court Majority, of the Red States (and who cares not at all, by the way, for those Liberal Cities) and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Corporations, Defender of the Faith."
http://
www.democracyforamerica.c...0c9457649d008a6
A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands.
Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are "on the run" and that the Iraq invasion has made America safer.
In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as "Anonymous", described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would "inevitably" acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them.
This could be worse for Bush than Richard Clarke's book but you wouldn't think so from the coverage on blogs
Bless you, Molly. I was standing outside the Citicorp Center waiting to give blood all day, and they told us that the building had been evacuated as a possible terrorist target - the planes were all supposed to be down, but when the first military jets came overhead, a couple of thousand of us on line flinched, but everybody stayed.
Not one of those people needed spiritual leadership from a man on a plane flying off to hide and having a tantrum because his phone didn't work, or for that matter from anyone in his administration who, thank goodness, watched CNN in a bunker while Richard Clarke did what he could to salvage the situation.
After they told us there was nothing they needed down there, the people in my office went over to the west side on their lunch hours so they could applaud the rescue workers going downtown.
Then they went back to work.
The New Yorkers who have spent most of the time since then on vacation aren't getting paid for it.
My daughter's teacher had to tell a classroom full of six year olds why their parents might not be coming home. Lucky she didn't have a photo-op to run. Maybe her brother wasn't running for anything.
thanx ecoast
will try
"The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis . . . The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening."
1) The problem is, anyone looking at him sitting there, nearly catatonic, is NOT seeing strength and calm, unless it is the strength and calm of a doe caught in the headlights of a cab-over Pete;
2)Better understand what was happening? How? Sitting there channelling the wisdom he acquired reading magazines in the Alabama Air National Guard? Or at countless drunken revels in the tomb at Skull and Bones? Maybe between the pages of the little goat book he was reading along with the kids.
In short, they wouldn't be "A Telling Seven Minutes" if what they had to tell was good.
Moron.
"Bush leads our country in the same sense that a hood ornament leads a Buick." - Molly, NYC
Remember back in 1993, before Rush retreated to his studio, and he went on the Letterman show? Letterman was goading him, talking about how attractive Hillary Clinton was, how attractive her new hair-do was, and Rush opined that it looked like "a Pontiac hood ornament"?
Letterman replied to the then 320-pound Rush, "You say that being the most perfect physical specimen in the world" (or something like that).
The studio audience went nuts; Rush looked like he might cry. I think at that point he was still laboring under the delusion that ALL of America loved him--not just a relatively small group of pathological, hate-filled morons.
Ah, good times . . .
Later in the segment, Dave interrupted Rush in mid-rant and asked, "You ever wake up in the middle of the night and think to yourself, 'I'm nothing but a big bag of hot air?'"
Scattered pictures . . .
The Yurica Report scares me to the point of nausea.
When Kerry wins, we'll have a Civil War by Christmas.
I work across the street from WTC. When the first plane hit, us early arrivers immediately understood that it was probably a terrorist attack, and, on our own, decided to evacuate the building. I walked down twenty-four flights of stairs and stood on Broadway, wondering if I should try to make it home, or if I should just get back to work. Then the second plane hit. I turned to run away, fell and broke my ankle.
Thanks to the kindness of strangers, I managed to get to a hospital where I sat for a few hours. When the dust settled, literally, I procured a cane and walked two and a half miles to my mother's apartment, where I had to stay for two days cause that area was closed off to traffic.
I remember sitting in the livingroom, watching the coverage and wondering:
Where the fuck is the pResident. Why isn't he telling us what is going on?
Now we know. He was hightailing his ass out of town. For him to now claim his actions as a reason for re-selection is an insult to every American who depended on him doing is job.
Fuck him. And yeah! I was so proud of New Yorkers that day. They calmly evacuated the area and walked en masse across the bridges, uptown, and all around. Along the way, community groups put out chairs and handed out water. Some opened up their bathrooms. Several people offered to help me. On kind soul even offered her bicycle seat so I could give my a ankle a rest.
He was praying, something like this: "Please God, make it go away, let me just sit here with the kids, I'll do anything if you make it so I don't have to get up and face this, please please please make it not true."
And you know what? That voice in his head said, "Everything's all right, just go on reading your story, just sit there with a smile on your dumb mug and God will take care of it."
So that's what he did.
Spiritual leader?
Well, I guess a mitre is just the right shape for his pointed little head.
What the fufuckck?
His sitting around after getting the news about the second plane reminds me of an old Toyota I once owned.
That car was probably the only total lemon that the company ever made. The last thing they tried to take off the carbon was blasting the engine with walnut shells. When that car combusted into flames in my drive way I will admit that I may have waited a minute or two to call the fire department because I hoped that
the car would just go away. They wanted a reason to go into Iraq. 9 11 was seen as an opportunity, not a disaster.
This has always bugged me -- the "What should he have done? Run screaming from the room?" argument. No, he can say "Excuse me" and leave -- the survival of the nation being more important than the hurt feelings of a roomful of children. It's just another straw-man argument holding up a straw-house administration.
there is no hope for this nation. if anybody thinks kerry can turn this drowning country around, you're sadly mistaken. drastic measures are called for, and will not happen.
But, to be fair, the WaPo site redeems itself today with an absolutely devastating report-card article by Rajiv Chandrasekar on the Iraq occupation as it wends its way toward June 30. First of a three-parter. It literally does not leave a single aspect of the Bushco debacle in Iraq unscathed.
OUR SPIRITUAL LEADER
CHOSEN BY THE POST
WILL LEAD US TO HEAVEN
THROUGH DEATH, THE HOST
GO BUSH!
+++
Folks, i hate the Chimperator as much as anyone, but it seems to me that that was a fairly balanced article.
There was criticism from historical experts concerning his behavior and his decision making. Further, it is true that few have been caught on camera at such a moment, yet he is taken to task for that.
furthermore, while I'm an atheist, I can also recognize the metaphor the writer was trying to use and I'm not going to crush him over that.
I think the sappiest part is calling Shrub "brave" for throwing out a pitch at a baseball game. All in all, it seems like the sap is balanced by some salt in the wounds from the criticism.
bvocal sez: I never saw anything I respected out of that turd in the days followint 9-11, spiritual or otherwise.
Well, I did. One thing, only. The night of the attack, he got in front of the TV cameras and read a script. I paraphrase a bit, but as I remember the script said, in part (this was the only part of any value at all) "Hey, my fellow Americans, don't y'all run out and start lynching Ay-rabs."
Of course, once the Ay-rab sons of his father's old business partner bin Laden had been spirited out of the country to the safety of their gilded palaces in Saudi Arabia, that was the last we heard from El Presidente about that. One wonders what his motivations were with the anti-lynching line, which kind of diminishes the lustre of that teleprompted accomplishment.
But still, that one line in that one speech was the absolute high point of GWB's administration, and possibly of his entire life.
He is NOT my spiritual leader. I can't begin to tell you how highly offensive I find that. Bush is to spirituality as fish is to bicycle.
So Bush was projecting calm. Is that what they call flying from one spot to another all day long which earned him the nickname Bunnypants?
The frogblaster is our spiritual leader?
GOD AND COUNTRY
ARE NOW MERGIN'
SHRUB WAS BORN
OF A PURE VIRGIN
GO BUSH!
+++
NOW LISTEN CHILDREN
AND LISTEN CLEAR
I CANNOT MOVE
I'M STUCK RIGHT HERE
GO BUSH!
+++
Folks, i hate the Chimperator as much as anyone, but it seems to me that that was a fairly balanced article.
There was criticism from historical experts concerning his behavior and his decision making. Further, it is true that few have been caught on camera at such a moment, yet he is taken to task for that.
furthermore, while I'm an atheist, I can also recognize the metaphor the writer was trying to use and I'm not going to crush him over that.
I think the sappiest part is calling Shrub "brave" for throwing out a pitch at a baseball game. All in all, it seems like the sap is balanced by some salt in the wounds from the criticism.
Connect the dots
PNAC needed a Pearl Harbor Event
warned of impending attack in US- w takes a months vacation
attacked w does NOTHING
FBI investigation into 9/11 produces nothing that could be tried in a court
Cheneys secret energy policy- possibly take over Afghan + Iraq
LIHOP LIHOP LIHOP
You guys leave the WaPo alone. We at the White House think that Grand Ayatollah George The First is the perfect title for our (and your) Spiritual Leader, the Grand Ayatollah George Himself.
The WaPo, being the den of whor...sorry, absolutely fabulous journalists they are, obviously goes along.
We also asked them to suck off the Christian fundies for us, what with the election coming up and all, and they agreed. No problemo.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Michael Moore!
[BTW, Michael, never mind doing a job on Bliar. Do one on the whore American media, won’t you? There’s a good rabble rouser.]
May I sugest something to Molly, Julia and Elaine?
Since you have such moving first-person 9/11 stories, pls write letters to the editor to the Wash Post, referring to Joel Achenbach's report?
I have a feeling at least one of them will get published, when the editors spot a trend.
Email to: letters@washpost.com
Pls include your full name, address and phone numbers. They will call you to verify if they decide to print your letter. Oh, no f* words please.
Anonymous the anonatroll -
Ever manage to find a real source for that Kerry speech you were blathering on about yesterday?
Didn't think so.
"But even the harshest critics concede that the nation's spiritual leader rallied in the days thereafter."
They're right.
Thanks to Bush's dark and gloomy example of lies, death, greed, and theft, my family and I have found a new life in Satan.
And to think that had he not come into our lives I might have found jeebus?
MYOB'
.
Joel Achenbach on 9/12/2001: Not a word about our "nation's spiritual leader."
--Kynn
For more in the "You've go to be kidding me" dept, check out this quote from Adam Nagourney and Richard Stevenson in the Times:
It is a sign of their relationship that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush insisted on appearing together in testifying before the commission when it asked to interview them about their experiences that day.
For more see the post at Kautilyan
BOW TO THE SKY GOD
DROP TO YOUR KNEES
JUST LET DUBYA
DO WHAT HE PLEASE
GO BUSH!
+++
There once was a troll named Anonymous
who brought forth points dull and ponderous
when asked for real proof
it disappeared with a "poof"
and waited for the next thread to bother us.
I am sick to death of Democracts fawning over John McCain. Now that he has hugged Bush it's time for this fawning to stop. McCain is an honorable who who speaks his mind and has tried to do something about political corruption. But listen to him on foreign policy--he's no better than Bush. How McCain, a victim of torture himself, could cozy up to an administration that ignores the Geneva Conventions is beyond me.
MOSES BROUGHT LAW
WISE MEN BROUGHT GIFTS
aWol BROUGHT SAUDIS
PLANES AND FREE TRIPS
GO BUSH!
+++
But, to be fair, the WaPo site redeems itself today with an absolutely devastating report-card article by Rajiv Chandrasekar on the Iraq occupation as it wends its way toward June 30. First of a three-parter. It literally does not leave a single aspect of the Bushco debacle in Iraq unscathed.
SqueakyRat
Squeaky, You are right - absolutely devastating. The first part is going to run tomorrow on front page. It is already on the site.
I have a feeling this story will resonate through the cable shows this week, when they are not doing Clinton or Michael Moore.
Cornered by the damming findings of the 9/11 Commission report, US President W. Bush has now claimed that the war in Iraq became imperative after Saddam Hussein defied orders by the UN to disarm.
and we all KNOW just how much w thinks that the UN is relevant
THUNDER, LIGHTNING
HAIL AND RAIN
REPENT, OBEY
HE'S QUITE INSANE
GO BUSH!
+++
My letter to the WaPo:
I normally am a big fan of the Washington Post. I've been reading the online version for years and enjoy your reporting. But in today's Post, Joel Achenbach refers to the president as "the spiritual leader of the nation as well as the head of state." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A53548-2004Jun18_2.html)
Really? When did that get added to his job description? The President is the head of the Executive branch of government, the Commander In Chief of our armed forces. He is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. Spiritual duties are not a part of it. Nor should they be.
I'd expect a Republican spin machine like Fox News to mindlessly spout a phrase like "the spiritual leader of the nation", but the Post really ought to know better.
Sincerely yours,
-signature-
OT - Sometimes the satire just writes itself
Salient excerps:
"The commission's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, and its vice chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, said they wanted to see any additional information in the administration's possession after Mr. Cheney, in a television interview on Thursday, was asked whether he knew things about Iraq's links to terrorists that the commission did not know.
"Probably," Mr. Cheney replied
"
"Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton said that, in particular, they wanted any information available to back Mr. Cheney's suggestion that one of the hijackers might have met in Prague in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent, a meeting that the panel's staff believes did not take place. Mr. .Cheney said in an interview with CNBC on Thursday that the administration had never been able to prove the meeting took place but was not able to disprove it either.
"We just don't know," Mr. Cheney said
"
I've saved the very best one for last...
"One outside adviser to the White House said the administration expected the debate over Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda to be "a regular feature" of the presidential campaign.
"They feel it's important to their long-term credibility on the issue of the decision to go to war," the adviser said. "It's important because it's part of the overall view that Iraq is part of the war on terror. If you discount the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, then you discount the proposition that it's part of the war on terror. If it's not part of the war on terror, then what is it — some cockeyed adventure on the part of George W. Bush?"
"
People were scared enough on 9/11 that if Pauly Shore had come out and mumbled a speech, it would have been a rallying point and people would have said he was 'fantastic'.
The thing that Joel should realize is that the 9/11 bombings showed that the United States of America doesn't have a spiritual leader--and doesn't need one.
"When professional baseball resumed play, he courageously walked to the mound in a crowded stadium and threw out the first pitch...."
This guy's fucking joking, right?? I don't know what to say about this; words fail me. Thousands of people lost their lives in an attack which occurred on Bush's watch, yet to the whores at the WaPo, Dear leader showed real courage by throwing out a fucking baseball. This really is some sick shit. I'd say this is pretty solid evidence that our so called "journalists" are every bit as delusional as the Chimp.
oh yeah, he didn't mean anything by it--he's really a cool reporter so just forget it. really. drop it. i mean, god, you guys are just all so shrill! (sarcasm)
People were scared enough on 9/11 that if Pauly Shore had come out and mumbled a speech, it would have been a rallying point and people would have said he was 'fantastic'.
I guess to those who didn't know what was going on two years prior would have thought that. To me, he just appeared like a freak leaning and shouting some shit.
CHRISTOS DOMINOS
AXIS MUNDI
WHO SHALL LEAD THEM?
A DRY DRUNK FUNDIE!
GO BUSH!
+++
(I now return you to your regular programming)
+++
Here's my letter to Achenback:
Subject: 7-minute 3-day lapse
I appreciate what your column "On 9/11, A Telling 7-Minute Silence" (June 19, 2004) was trying to do, but your statement "When professional baseball resumed play, he courageously walked to the mound in a crowded stadium and threw out the first pitch." is just plain silly. What is so courageous about throwing out a baseball? Here is courageous:
-Running up 82 stories with 50-lb packs to rescue citizens from a flaming South Tower, as my cousin did as a Port Authority police officer.
-Working 20-hour days pulling bodies and body parts, which might have been my cousin, from a smoking six story pile of rubble and steel beams in the middle of a lethal chemical atmosphere for months on end. (My cousin's body has never been found.)
-Reporting to work that following Monday at her worksite just three blocks from Ground Zero, breathing in the fumes of the dead and the rubble for months under assurances that 'the air at Ground Zero is safe to breathe' in order to do her part to resume the nation's business, as my sister did.
-Doing one's duty faithfully as a soldier in a war ordered by deluded madmen, risking death or grievous wounding at every moment and leaving one's family, wives, children, and mothers, home to worry and to pray.
-Standing up publicly, for fear of our democracy, to state that the Emperor has no Clothes, risking and suffering personal attack, character smear, loss of fortune and reputation by Republican operatives as have many of our finest public servants: Wilson, Clarke, O'Neill, Beers, Shinseki, Hersch, and many others.
You write:
"But even the harshest critics concede that the nation's spiritual leader rallied in the days thereafter. His bullhorn performance on the rubble of the World Trade Center is considered a bravura moment." For one thing, I find your characterization of the POTUS as a 'spiritual leader' not a little disconcerting. Exactly what do you mean by that? Do you consider George W. Bush the nation's 'spiritual leader' because he invokes God and the Old Testament whenever he speaks? Because he claims to personally converse with God and that God has told him to 'liberate' the Middle East? Personally, I find his religious bludgeoning of dissent offensive, and I expect an elected public servant to REFRAIN FROM proselytizing. I'll find my own spiritual leader, thank you.
Finally, about that 'bravura' bullhorn moment. Don't you think, really, that anyone who was President of the United States would have given a rousing patriotic speech to the nation at that moment in that location? It was 3 days after the event, for God's sake. Hell, Guiliani was all over the place on the first day. I remember clearly that during those three days, I wondered where the hell the POTUS was. Bravura, my ass.
Best,
Cathleen
The Reason for no Ads....and what Bush was doing in the classroom.
The White House and the Press is establishing the fact that Bush wasn't sitting in the classroom with his pea brain whirling in circles. He was concerned about the students and deciding what he would tell the nation. This is in preparation for the release of M Moore's F 9/11 which will show Bush sitting in the classroom with his pea brain spinning.
No ads by Bush for a week and then all the talking points will be how the radical far Left is trying to paint Bush as a dunce. See how out of the mainstream they are?
Sadly, the uninformed public will buy this line.
Excellent letter, Cathleen.
First paragraph of story: "You're at a photo op, reading a book with schoolchildren and an aide suddenly whispers that a second plane has hit the World Trade Center. 'America is under attack.' "
Photo caption: "President Bush listens as his chief of staff, Andrew Card, informs him of the first attack on the World Trade Center."
This poor article can't even get that straight. Both hits didn't happen while Bush was sitting there. I think the commenter above is right, that the first one happened before Bush entered the school.
Here's another bit: "But even the harshest critics concede that the nation's spiritual leader rallied in the days thereafter. His bullhorn performance on the rubble of the World Trade Center is considered a bravura moment." This bravura moment by the spiritual leader happened on September 14, after three days of photo-op planning. You remember the firefighter they chose for the photo, a much older, shorter man, posed with Bush's arm leaning on his shoulder. On September 11 Bill Clinton was in Australia. He managed to get from there to ground zero on September 13, a day when there was still no sign of Bush.
This harsh critic concedes nothing except that this article is one long, elaborate contrivance. I wish the press would do its correct job.
yes,yes,yes!
Cathleen
An obvious alternative explanation suggests itself: Bush did nothing after the attacks and showed no surprise when it did because the Administration knew that the attack was going to happen, knew the exact plan -- and did everything they could to ensure the attack's success, knowing that this would be the event that could be stage-managed to extend and solidify the neocons' power and catapult Dubya into the position of erstwhile figurehead dictator.
As another post said above, "connect the dots." The Secret service was in no hurry to get POTUS to safety; military jets were delayed or scrambled to the wrong locations; the entire Iraq war was based on "faulty intelligence" while Al-Queida is allowed to regroup in Afghanistan and other places. The danger may be that we are purposely led to underestimate Dubya and his handlers as being unintelligent and incompetent. Yet what we mistake as incompetence may in actuality be the workings of a more sinister plan.
There once was a craprag, the Post
which anointed Bush as Holy Ghost
of logic and such
there sure wasn't much
that's what happens when "journalists" coast
Charles Manson was the spirtual leader of Helter Skelter. Jim Jones was the spirtual leader of all those kool-aid drinkers. Adolf Hitler was the spirtual leader of the Nazi party.
Etc...
C'mon, you worthless pundits in the lap-dog media. Can't you say "deer in the headlights"???
Cheers,
gjbivin- I think AQ may be a partner with the neocons to help it in its world dominsation plan.
I would put NOTHING past the bastard criminal 4th Reich.
I heard about the attacks as I was on my way to drop my car off at the repair shop before work. I had about 10-15 seconds where I was indecisive whether I wanted to continue on with my errand, go straight to work and keep my car handy, or go home.
After going a couple of blocks, I made a decision, and headed back home to start trying to contact my family (mostly my mom, who was travelling, since I wanted to make sure she wasn't on a plane.)
It took me ten seconds to make a decision. He sat there like a lump for 7 minutes, and then *chatted with teachers*?
You know what this reminds me of? Clark's comparison of the Clinton White House's handling of terrorism to Bush's. How Clinton would make sure that everyone made terrorism a priority, would have regular meetings and memos to make sure everyone was on top of things. And Bush... well, didn't.
Does anyone doubt that Clinton would have been on top of things the moment word of the first attack happened? That he'd make sure information was flowing?
Off Topic: Anybody else agree that the shootout between Saudi security forces and the AQ hostage takers was in actuality an act of prevention?
http://tinyurl.com/3dkkf
The goal being to prevent them from talking about their agreement with the Saudi royal family?
I mean really? How many times have these people killed off these guys rather than captured any?
These people really are stupid. They should all be American citizens.
MYOB'
.
Uh, does that picture say Card informing prez of first attack on WTC? Wasn't it the second? First attack happened before he went into the classroom, or am I just imagining things. Just a subtle re-write of history, surely WP will correct
I e-mailed them with the correction.
Cheers,
BTW in case you missed it- Chevron and Condiliars old outfit Exxon have been summoned to provide documents in the food for oil illegalities.
The danger may be that we are purposely led to underestimate Dubya and his handlers as being unintelligent and incompetent. Yet what we mistake as incompetence may in actuality be the workings of a more sinister plan.
gjbivin
So you're saying the conspiracy is a conspiracy? I will have to acknowledge this is the most cunning group of people. I've never seen anything like it in my life. They're playing several moves ahead, behind and to the sides, always. But you know what they say, eventually they'll outsmart themselves which they may have already done.
RE civilian contractor indicted for Afghan death
U.S. officials, including Passaro, told the Afghans that Wali had been subjected to sleep deprivation and had drunk "copious amounts of water," Akbar said.
Waterboarding anyone?
I just sent my letter of dismay to WaPo. I hope others do likewise, especially those with personl remeniscences (sp) to tell.
I'm a NYC native who currently lives in California. I worked 3 years in a building right across the street from the WTC. I walked through the councourse at least twice each work day, sometimes three times if I went to lunch there. My sister and an uncle also worked within a one-block radius of the WTC on 9/11/01.
I was awakened very early that morning by my husband, who had been up all night working and found out about the first plane hitting almost immediately. CNN was turned on and I was on the phone with my mother when the 2nd plane hit. My husband and I took turns on the phone trying to reach every family member on the island of Manhattan that morning, and we didn't wait 7 mintues to do it.
I did have to wait a few hours to find out whether my sister was alive, because it took her a while to walk from lower manhattan back up to my parents' house up in the west 80s. That was the one bright spot of the day, finding out that she was OK.
The hardest part was being so far from home. I would have been there on the pile digging with my bare hands if I could.
The other hard part was finding out a longtime friend had been killed in Tower 1. It took a week for me to get the news. She had just started a new job so I didn't know to call and check up on her. 
MY MY MY
By Kristen Hays
ASSOCIATED PRESS
10:45 a.m. June 19, 2004
HOUSTON – Kenneth Lay, Enron Corp.'s founder and former chairman, could be indicted on charges stemming from its 2001 collapse by the end of June, sources close to the case told The Associated Press on Saturday.
Advertisement
Two sources who spoke on condition of anonymity said federal prosecutors are aggressively pursuing Lay, and witnesses with information about him have recently testified before a special grand jury probing Enron's December 2001 collapse.
Barring any delays, federal prosecutors aim to ask the grand jury for an indictment before the Fourth of July, the sources said. The Houston Chronicle first reported the possible indictment in Saturday's editions, citing unidentified lawyers close to the case.
It was unclear what kinds of charges would be filed against Lay, a friend and contributor to President Bush. The sources said any indictment would include conspiracy charges for allegedly participating in hiding Enron's true financial condition before its collapse into bankruptcy.
I hadn't realized that we'd become a full-fledged theocracy, with a god-king and all that, but apparently we have.
Worship Bush, or the terrorists have already won!!
On a more pleasant note, they are finally going to indict Kennyboy Lay for his Enron crimes! About time.
Wow, veritas. That was some synchronicity there!
YOUR TAX (uh your grandchildrens) DOLLARS AT WORK
The Bush Administration has reportedly confirmed that it will be writing off another 500 million dollars from Pakistan's existing two billion dollar debt. ...
Excuse me, I'm now going to courageously walk to the bathroom, and then take a shit.
Presidential scholar Fred Greenstein, a professor emeritus at Princeton, defends Bush's response in the initial minutes.
"It's made a little more complex by being in the presence of little kids," Greenstein said. "It certainly wouldn't present the right message if he turned white, rushed out, and kids started crying."
Krikie! Doesn't Achenbach have enough journalistic descernment to realize how stupid this rationale is? more impressed with the guy's title than his doddering logic.
Fire the dope!
In case you missed it
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration confirmed on Saturday that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales testified in the grand jury investigation into who disclosed the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame.
"I can confirm that," White House spokesman Jimmy Orr said of Gonzales's testimony on Friday before the federal grand jury.
The grand jury is probing whether someone in the Bush administration illegally leaked Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak, a charge the White House has denied. An array of administration officials have been questioned as part of the investigation, including Vice President Dick Cheney.
Notice how they always confirm these things on Saturdays, when no one's watching the news.
OT -
Anonymous (of Imperial Hubris
says:
"The most likely source of a nuclear device would be the former Soviet Union, he believes. Dirty bombs, chemical and biological weapons, could be home-made by al-Qaida's own experts, many of them trained in the US and Britain.
Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called Through Our Enemies' Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.
"
A VOTE FOR CHIMPY IS A VOTE FOR THE T'RR'ISTS!! PASS IT ON!!
Stentor,
Thank you for being the organ donor for the President's brain transplant.
My story is way more mundane. I woke up and turned on the TV in my bedroom and walked to the kitchen to get something to drink. Then I returned to where I'm sitting now to check my email. The sound on the TV was low and I wasn't paying much attention but slowly I realized something was happening on the TV screen behind me and turned around to see one of the towers on fire. I turned the sound up. They were repeating the first plane hitting. Then soon, the second plane hit. It didn't look real, like, computer graphics or something. About an hour later, fighter jets scrambled out of Barksdale Airforce Base which is just don't the street from me here. They throttled up so fast, flying over my home, (which isn't their usual flight pattern), it almost broke out all my windows from the shock-waves. They must have scrambled them in every direction. Local radio was reporting that something important was happening at BAFB. Of course, that's when Bush gave his first response after 911 behind the podium here in Shreveport before ducking down a hole in Nebraska someplace. After a couple of years writing against him prior in the local newspaper, I decided I wouldn't anymore although I wasn't going to support him. I, like most of the left, wanted to rally as a nation. But then, less than a month after those devastating attacks, I saw Bush hopping on a helicopter with Bernard Goldberg's book, BIAS, strategically placed under his arm esasily read so the media there would be sure to film it. That was the most partisan and despicable and unnecessary thing I could imagine and totally demoralized me. It's been one thing after another like that from them. And everything since we've all been through with that creep and the administration including the wing nuts has been a real soul-draining experience. It's been one nightmare after another and all of it unnecessary. The administration shouldn't have thrown our demoralized and bitterly divided country into a cruel war in the Middle East. Quite frankly, I think that was the nail that will seal all our fates. What a shame all this has been.
Incognito: What you said.
Play the exciting new game - Identify the native English speaker!
Is it:
1.Look, it's very hot out here. We have a president from a -- a respectful president here.
OR
2.Afghanistan is emerging from years of oppression to a free, democratic society. And in democracy, you're supposed to be talking to each other. You're supposed to be preparing the country for a better future by negotiating and by understanding each other.
Wile E. Chimp - super genius!
BTW, what is the official wingnut talking point disputing the fact that Bush is a marble-mouthed moron? Or do they even bother?
WASHINGTON - The former head of a Halliburton Inc. subsidiary that's under investigation for allegedly bribing Nigerian officials received "improper personal benefits," the company said Friday.
The former official, A. Jack Stanley, was appointed KBR's head by Vice President Dick Cheney when Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive officer.
But if the TSKJ consortium is found to have paid bribes for as long as seven years, what Cheney may have known about it is likely to come up, another expert said. "It's extremely hard, given American accounting practices, for Stanley to be paying (bribes) without Cheney knowing," said Harvard Business School professor Rafael Di Tella, another expert on corruption.
Three seconds of facial expression...plus ten seconds from Normal-
equals a truth deficit.
Why use fuzzy math?
Because we can!
Neocons dropped the ball on terror on their watch. And before as well.
RNC in NYC '04- Bring It On!
"It's extremely hard, given American accounting practices, for Stanley to be paying (bribes) without Cheney knowing," said Harvard Business School professor Rafael Di Tella, another expert on corruption.
veritas
veritas, our country is corrupt throughout. Look, we've had these huge accounting scandals of billions of dollars which is more than the GDP of many countries while regulators looked away. What happened with energy companies who stuck it to the California rate payers. The FBI in New Orleans. Tom DeLay. Corporate lobbyists. Everyday they're are more reports of huge scandals in every sector of our government and business community all the way down to the local school boards. Our system is utterly corrupted.
I lived in NYC on 9/11. Since I didn't have a TV, I got the news from my hysterically sobbing Canadian ex-girlfriend, who called to give me a garbled version of events that sounded completely apocalyptic. I turned on 1010 WINS, and heard more terrifying misinformation...there were 12 more hijacked planes in the air, and so forth.
I went outside, and a commercial jet flew very low over my apartment building. A guy passing me on the street said, "That doesn't look good."
There were reports of imminent chemiical and biological attacks. My wife and I got into the car and drove north aimlessly, towards Albany.
We had the radio on the whole time, and the misinformation just kept coming. One thing we DIDN'T hear was single goddamn word from Bush, who seemed to have fallen off the edge of the earth. The only thing the White House projected in the first few hours was sheer confusion and panic. and to me, one of the worst terrors of 9/11 was that we had a witless buffoon in the White House when we needed a leader.
I agree with an earlier poster: The only moment at which I approved of Bush was when he told Americans not to take it out on Arabs. And every day that he didn't start dropping bombs of Afghan civilians, I felt comforted that perhaps he was more thoughtful than I'd thought, or had better advisers than I'd thought. But that, obviously, didn't last.
One interesting thing about 1010 WINS...for a few days after the attacks, there were no commercials and all reporting was essentially improvised. There was a lot of rumor and falsehood, but it seemed to reflect the city's mood so well that you couldn't complain. I remember how nauseated I was when they'd recovered enough to invent a somber little "9/11 theme," which they'd play under exploitative collages" of sobbing or shocked commentators. That was when it was obvious that 9/11 had not only NOT changed everything, but was going to end up bringing out the absolute worst in our popular media.
Presidential scholar Fred Greenstein, a professor emeritus at Princeton, defends Bush's response in the initial minutes.
Our kind of "presidential scholar." More like him, please.
I should also say that I spent the night at a friend's house in New England after the attacks, where I got to see the television coverage.
I fstill find it hard to believe that the continual slow motion replays of the planes hitting the towers, taken from every conceivable angle, weren't a conscious attempt at mass hypnosis. You simply couldn't halp watching it, and a few hours' worth of it would drive just about anyone more than a little crazy. I think that as much as people were shocked and traumatized by the events themselves, that initial orgy of repetitive violent imagery did a lot to put this country on the mindless, completely reactionary course that followed.
It probably wasn't actually intentional, though...just irresponsible and ghoulish.
Note also that the writer says the phrase applies to *any* president. I doubt any of us (us lefties, at any rate) would have objected if "spiritual leader" had been used to describe Clinton in the context of his behavior at a time of grave national crisis.
Hell, no. I'd object. I'd have problems with this if it were Clinton or anyone. Heck, I'm Canadian, and having a US President described as the "spiritual leader" of your country disturbs me.
While we're swapping September 11th stories, let's not forget the good folks of Gander Newfoundland (and surrounding area), with a total population of ~10 000, who put up 6600 people for three days...
ot,
Israel's declaring war on Britain?
By Corinne Heller
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Three British parliamentarians have come under gunfire from the Israeli army during a U.N.-coordinated visit to a battered refugee camp in southern Gaza, one of them says.
http://www.reuters.co.uk/printer...&
storyID=532387
Spiritual leader? Where does it say that in the Constitution? Shouldn't the strict constructionists be outraged?
I just courageously made myself a new pot of coffee. Since "everything's changed," I had to punch out a Hamas operative, defuse an IED, and chase off two Al-Qaeda recruiters.
Request for help: have any progressive media-types done a high-level analysis on the winger attempt to create their "culture of fear?"
Note also that the writer says the phrase applies to *any* president. I doubt any of us (us lefties, at any rate) would have objected if "spiritual leader" had been used to describe Clinton in the context of his behavior at a time of grave national crisis.
I'd object, certainly. In the first place, it's presumptuous. It's insulting to those who aren't Christians, and to atheists, and to people who are "spiritual" but don't believe that they need a "leader" to follow. It also goes against what are supposed to be the secular values of this country's form of governance.
Personally, even if I were to define "spirituality" simply as a concern with being a good person and having the correct priorities in life, the lust for power and endless compromises inherent in becoming president would pretty much disqualify anyone who sought office, let alone anyone who won it. The office requires acceptance of rotten behavior towards other human beings. If there are spiritual leaders in the world, they're teaching kids in the ghetto to read, or feeding the hungry in Africa, or working with the developmentally disabled. They're not strutting around in the goddamn White House like a bunch of peacocks on steroids.
Spirituality of ANY sort is a private matter that has to do with how you LIVE; it has nothing to do with the pious claptrap comes out of your lying mouth. And if people wanted to shut the fuck up about it entirely, that would suit me just fine. "By their works ye shall know them," and know George W. Bush in the very marrow of my bones.
Oops, let me repost that...
Note also that the writer says the phrase applies to *any* president. I doubt any of us (us lefties, at any rate) would have objected if "spiritual leader" had been used to describe Clinton in the context of his behavior at a time of grave national crisis.
I'd object, certainly. In the first place, it's presumptuous. It's insulting to those who aren't Christians, and to atheists, and to people who are "spiritual" but don't believe that they need a "leader" to follow. It also goes against what are supposed to be the secular values of this country's form of governance.
Personally, even if I were to define "spirituality" simply as a concern with being a good person and having the correct priorities in life, the lust for power and endless compromises inherent in becoming president would pretty much disqualify anyone who sought office, let alone anyone who won it. The office requires acceptance of rotten behavior towards other human beings. If there are spiritual leaders in the world, they're teaching kids in the ghetto to read, or feeding the hungry in Africa, or working with the developmentally disabled. They're not strutting around in the goddamn White House like a bunch of peacocks on steroids.
Spirituality of ANY sort is a private matter that has to do with how you LIVE; it has nothing to do with the pious claptrap comes out of your lying mouth. And if people wanted to shut the fuck up about it entirely, that would suit me just fine. "By their works ye shall know them," and I know George W. Bush in the very marrow of my bones.
It probably wasn't actually intentional, though...just irresponsible and ghoulish.
Philalethes
The wing nuts still want the planes hitting the towers shown non-stop. They also ran over and watched the Paul Johnson beheading like the Berg video. This after the burnt and dismembered mercenaries in Fallujah. They're now hopelessly insane. I'm not going to view any of that shit. I'm on shaky ground emotionally as it is. I don't need that shit.
Hell, no. I'd object. I'd have problems with this if it were Clinton or anyone. Heck, I'm Canadian, and having a US President described as the "spiritual leader" of your country disturbs me.
Me too! And me too!
While we're swapping September 11th stories, let's not forget the good folks of Gander Newfoundland (and surrounding area), with a total population of ~10 000, who put up 6600 people for three days...
Or put up with. Did the costs ever get settled up in Gander? Not the covered dish suppers but for all the rest? Last I heard the airlines were going to be doing some serious re-imbursing, but I've always rather doubted it.
The action in Gander; that was heroic. 6600 people suddenly, no SUDDENLY, on your doorstep - no organisation but common sense and community. As though the towers had fallen in, oh, say Ogdensburg, NY.
I'm on shaky ground emotionally as it is. I don't need that shit.
You and me both, pal.
Maybe they meant to say spirit leader, which spell check would have ignored. He was a cheerleader, after all.
"Those are not spirit fingers. These are spirit fingers!"
Request for help: have any progressive media-types done a high-level analysis on the winger attempt to create their "culture of fear?"
Fielding Mellish
Well, you have to understand. The basic personality trait of wingers is that they're cowards. It explains everything they do.
This is just more lies, stupidity and laziness from "atrios".
The article says:
"However it is interpreted, it points out a basic truth about any president: He's both an executive and a symbolic figure. He's the spiritual leader of the nation as well as the head of state. He's monarch and prime minister."
You can agree or disagree with this, but it is unquestionable that the writer is referring to the ROLE of president, not to Bush in particular.
The basic personality trait of wingers is that they're cowards. It explains everything they do.
Agreed, if you want to lump insecurity in with cowardice. Fear of knowing oneself, fear of revealing too much...
Someone like Hannity or Limbaugh or Savage...that's timorous, quivering self-loathing and fear. If you've seen some fluffy, weak animal try to puff itself up to ward off predators, you've seen the basic stance of these guys. They've seen the miracles that abject fear has wrought in their own lives, and they think it'll have the same transformative effect on us.
The idea of trying to become comfortable with who you are and where you came from, and to follow the emotions involved wherever they go...that's something that scares the living shit out of these bozos.
If anyone's never read Dicken's "Hard Times," which is essentially an attack on the free market capitalism...check out the villain in it, who is basically IDENTICAL to Bill O'Reilly. He can never stop talking about how poor he was as a child. Eventually, however, the truth comes out and he's a laughing-stock.
In a truly chilling twist, however, he uses his money to set up a society of people who will act and talk just like him, so that society will always have the benefit of his "wisdom." Dickens was on to something, there...
Shaky ground indeed. It's through posting here that I've seen myself for the unstable person I've become. And so I don't post often... though still too often probably.
Thank you all. Hang in there. Peace.
-Speedy
I need to make a huge cheese and jalapeno omelet. Be back later.
But even the harshest critics concede that the nation's spiritual leader rallied in the days thereafter.
Who rallied, hat? Whhy, President George W. Bush. In the days after what, hat? Why, after 9/11.
Jesus Christ almighty, you really are the laziest troll I've ever seen.
But even the harshest critics concede
Also, the "harshest critics" must be far less harsh than myself or anyone I know, because I don't know ANYONE who would "concede" that Bush rallied their spirits, or the nation's, after 9/11. Any president would have done as well as Bush, and most would've done far better.
This crap about Bush watching the first plane hit is just that - crap. Nobody saw that on television until much later in the day, when the one tape of the event was discovered.
He is so stupid he can't even remember what he saw on that morning - unlike most of us, who have the events seared on our brains.
In a truly chilling twist, however, he uses his money to set up a society of people who will act and talk just like him, so that society will always have the benefit of his "wisdom." Dickens was on to something, there...
Philalethes
Shaky ground indeed. It's through posting here that I've seen myself for the unstable person I've become. And so I don't post often... though still too often probably.
Thank you all. Hang in there. Peace.
-Speedy
I'm glad there are blogs like this at this time in our history. It always seems something like this comes along at the most critical time. We don't have a leader but we a huge community of other thinking people to get ourselves out of this situation.
Way, way upthread...but too brilliant not to post again, with bolding for emphasis:
Cowardice in the face of the enemy and using children as hostages to protect his reputation are qualities more often found in the gutter than in the White House. notch | Email | Homepage | 06.19.04 - 7:53 am |
Cowardice in the face of the enemy and using children as hostages to protect his reputation are qualities more often found in the gutter than in the White House. notch | Email | Homepage | 06.19.04 - 7:53 am |
Philalethes
That is stunningly true. Glad you posted it again. I missed it the first time.
Incognito - I need to make such an omelette myself but am culpably inept. They always end up as scrambled eggs. Oh please, tell me the secret? Unlike Olav Glad and Big, who has not kept his promise to send me herring, I will send you green chiles or even my own homegrown ground colorado chiles....
Q: What will spiritual leader Bush's sacrament be?
A: Inedible Turkee!
Q: When will savage ass rape not be considered a mortal sin by his Holiness, George Bush?
A: When it is an American soldier shoving a broomstick up some Arab's behind.
Incognito - I need to make such an omelette myself but am culpably inept.
though I'm a vegan, I'll tell you how I used to do it (actually it's a cross between an omelette and a frittata, but I've had three different people tell me it was the best omelette they'd had, so I figure it's close enough).
Preheat the oven to 400 or so. Beat 3 or 4 eggs well, with a pinch of salt and pepper to taste. Use a cast iron pan, if possible...about 10-12 inches in diameter. Make sure it's buttered well, and let it heat up 'til a drop of water will sizzle in it. Spoon the beaten eggs into it (the pan ought to be level). When the base of the eggs is firm, put whatever you want on top...cheese (grated or sliced very thin), green peppers, onions, whatever). Let it cook 'til it looks pretty firm, but is still wet on the top. At that point, put a lid over the pan and put it in the oven for a little bit. It should be fluffy and moist, but NOT runny. Cut it in half and fold each half over before serving.
If you want to make the usual type of omelette, wait until the omelette is firm but wet on top, and fold one side over the other. Then, cover it and finish cooking it in the oven...that's what really does the trick, keeping it from being dried out OR runny.
Incognito - I need to make such an omelette myself but am culpably inept. They always end up as scrambled eggs. Oh please, tell me the secret? Unlike Olav Glad and Big, who has not kept his promise to send me herring, I will send you green chiles or even my own homegrown ground colorado chiles....
GWPDA
I beat about four eggs thoroughly and leave them alone letting them come to about room temperature. Finely chop some peppers into it. I have two jalapenos for this. Grade about 3/4 cup of cheddar cheese. Add that. Don't add any milk or water. Use a small non-stick pan so the omelte will be about 3/4 inch thick. You add about a tablespoon of olive oil and a dab a butter. Not margarine. Swirl it around covering the entire bottom and sides. The olive oil raises the burning point on the butter for light browning. Get the pan really hot. Pour the mixture in then turn the heat down to low-medium and forget about it. After about 5 to 7 minutes, carefully check the sides for browning. Carefully loosen the omelet from the pan and shift it around but don't turn it. After a couple more minutes, fold half onto the other side. Don't try to completely turn it over. Just fold it over in a half-moon shape. After about 1 minute, carefully turn it over to its other side. That's how I do it.
And with that, I plan to flash grill a streak just long enough for carmalization on its outside to go with it.
I've totally gone off my diet these days. What's the point?
You can agree or disagree with this, but it is unquestionable that the writer is referring to the ROLE of president, not to Bush in particular.
Perhaps someone here is NOT questioning the role of the POTUS as "spiritual leader," as well as "monarch."
But it's certainly a questionable designation, not to say (to overuse a phrase), an unconstitutional one.
The Presidency is the office of the Executive. Power for the government rests in the Congress, who respond to the people. Presidents are still elected by electors, not by popular vote, as Congresspeople are elected. Washington was, in some ways, seen as a "spiritual leader," a role he didn't relish. Few others have filled that role; perhaps Lincoln, but only in retrospect; or FDR, but again, only during the war, and only in retrospect (largely).
To call Bush a "spiritual leader" just because he is POTUS is ridiculous. Would anyone consider casually referring to Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, or Clinton as "spiritual leaders" or "monarchs"? It would be a jarring description, at best; a foolish one, at worst.
Just as this one is. A tempest in a teacup? Sure, considering Iraq, and Bush's outright lie about whether or not he has ever linked Hussein to bin Laden. In light of that, in fact, I'd shudder to call him a "spiritual leader."
I expect spiritual leaders, whether I follow them or not, to always be honest. The Dalai Lama comes to mind. I expect politicians to be politicians. The only reason we call him "Honest Abe" is that we forget the lies he told, when he had to. That's why I consider Lincoln a president; but not the equivalent of MLK, Jr.
Beat 3 or 4 eggs well, with a pinch of salt and pepper to taste.
Oh, I forgot about adding a pinch of salt, preferably kosher.
Hey, I think I'll try your method.
OT,
News Item:
US seeks to indict Enron's Ken Lay.
John Kerry said: It's long overdue that this longtime close friend of the Bush administration be brought to account for his alleged criminal conduct. Every American should be appalled by and ashamed of such flagrant, massive corporate corruption.
Oh, sorry, he didn't say that. Did he say anything when handed this opportunity, or did he talk on some tax policy that got no coverage and that no-one else is focusing on, making it look like he's not even following the news?
Shouldn't he be asking pointed questions about the so-called terror link, while the NY Times is ripping into Cheney over it. Shouldn't he be saying,"so far, when it comes to Iraq, blind faith in this administration has been a losing strategy."
I don't want Kerry to barely manage a win, I want him to kick BushCos. asses upside their heads where the sun don't shine.
Shouldn't he be asking pointed questions about the so-called terror link, while the NY Times is ripping into Cheney over it. Shouldn't he be saying,"so far, when it comes to Iraq, blind faith in this administration has been a losing strategy."
I want to hear Kerry mention what Kos mentioned (assuming it is accurate). That the letter Bush wrote linking Al Qaeda to Hussein was sent to Congress to comply with Congress' demand that Bush show Iraq was linked to 9/11.
If Kerry can say he voted for war on that basis, and Bush lied either then, or now, he can run all the way home on that alone. It gets the question completely off of "Why did Kerry vote for war?" and completely on: "Why did Bush lie then? Or why is he lieing now?"
Incognito/GWPDA, that reminds me:
Yeah, beat the peppers and/or scallions (!) into the eggs BEFORE putting them in the pan, so they'll actually be cooked into the eggs.
I forgot about that. Hey, it's been a long time!
The key to making a good omelette is to have the burner turned down low. Don't be impatient: the longer it takes to cook, the less rubbery the texture's likely to be. And try not to fiddle with it too much once it's in the pan.
And use the right size pan: I'd use a 6in diameter pan for a 2-3 egg omelette.
(Delia disagrees with me on the heat, but it's a good step by step.)
My cheat: add a splash of seltzer water to the beaten eggs.
Hmmmm...which is worse, upsetting a classroom full of kids or potentially having the U.S. Government wiped out? Altho' I knew the Republicans fondest wish was to starve the federal government into oblivion, I didn't realize they would sit on their asses and watch someone else make it happen. After all, how would they then take credit for it?
Riverbend finally has a new post up. Six hours a day of electricity.
And use the right size pan: I'd use a 6in diameter pan for a 2-3 egg omelette.
Depends on the size of the eggs, of course. We used to get those enormous brown ones...
I just clicked on speedy's homepage link and realized it was a body count of Iraq dead and I thought to myself, oh no, my beautiful mind I closed it before I had to read what is happening in my name as an American.
On Topic- I read somewhere that Ari Flisher (sp) held up a sharpie made sign instructing "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET"
Robert M. Jeffers:
Absolutely. Good point.
Incognito - Philalethes - okay, I'm armed now. I have the pan, I have the eggs, I have all the rest (including delightful coarse salt from Trader Joe's), all the instructions. To-morrow I shall cook. Arthur and I shall share.
Meanwhile, where do I send my homemade, ground chile colorado? Unlike Olav Biggy, I keep my promises.... Drop a note to the e-mail.
What I will say if:
BUSH/CHENEY WIN 2004 - Bush was bold, courageous and steadfast in his leadership and provided unwavering moral clarity in the perpetual war on terrorism. In 2001, Mr. Bush, an accomplished jet fighter pilot, single handedly shot down several incoming jetliners on HIS day of imfamy while protecting children in Florida. Throughout his first term children and women weeped with joy and placed rose petals for the beloved spiritual leader to walk upon. Men greatly admired and sought to emulate the greatest president ever. Mr. Bush was known to often meet with Jesus, God and Pat Robertson. Praise Bush.
Mr. Bush enjoyed 98.6% approval rating following his second inauguration and the expunging of all traitors, malcontents, communists, liberals, Democrats, Europeans, homosexuals, wrong religionists, Al Franken, and others not loyal to him. Praise Bush.
Ms. Ann Coulter, Minister of Patriotism, and Mr. Sean Hannity, Secretary of ReEducation, were wildly successful in conduction their "Right Thinking" program. And, following institution of the "elRushbo Selection Process," great prosperity was enjoyed by all right-thinking, deserving Reaganlandians (the country formerly known as "Old America"). Praise Bush.
Seratary Limbaugh, upon retiring from the administration halfway through his first term, was deeded the state of Florida, later renamed Condilandia, for successfully steering the true patriots to power. Praise Bush.
Secretary of Defense Michael Savage was finally able to deploy the "Savage Doctrine" (now the 346th Ammendment to the Constitution), was hailed a hero for eliminating all real and potential oposition (terrorists) & threats throughout the world. Secratary Savage, when first asked by the adoring media about his Savage Doctrine was famously quoted as saying "I just knew that nukes were the answer." Praise Bush.
Mr. Bush enjoyed an average 125% approval rating throughout his next 13 terms ................... Praise Bush.
BUSH/CHENEY LOOSE 2004 - Bush, his cabinet, and all shameless war propagandists/profiteers received severe sentences in 2005 following their convictions of war crimes, human rights abuses, and general crimes against the universe.
President Kerry, in a gesture of compassion, requested that prison terms and executions be allowed to take place on American soil. His request fell upon deaf ears.......................
Just kidding......
Franklin Graham and Ernest Angeley are gonna be PISSED when they read this.
Whatever happened to Angley? I haven't seen him on TV since the '80s.
Anyway, judging from the Reagan eulogy soundbite (I only caught the after-the-fact news coverage), GWB would do a much better job as a Protestant evangelist than he's doing as President of the United States.
At this point, though, I think we should probably interpret anything bearing a Post byline as a blowjob for Bob Woodward rather than as serious reporting.
There are some things that any rational person SHOULD BE afraid of:
- shredding the Constitution
- theocracy
- corruption
- the impotence and corruption of the press
- the Bill of Rights down the tubes
Then there are things we NEED NOT be so paralyzingly terrified of:
- acts of "terror"
We can handle the second well enough(as demonstrated in the remarkable stories of TRUE COURAGE told in this thread today) as long as we remain a democracy.
These traitors and quislings DO make me afraid, just not of the things they WANT to make me afraid of. I'm afraid of THEM.
Two words: MEDIA WHORES!!
And Theodoric of York, great line about 'blowjob for Woodward'!
if pinky lee was prez on 9/11
he would have said,
sorry kids got some
presidenting to do...
that's my job.
Time for Irish whiskey and a pleasant dip in the pool. I'm tired of fear, and refuse any more be poured on my head in the name of Shrub. I'll take my baptism by fire, by faith, by education and by stealth - but not by Shrub.
To the omelettes!
That kind of shit pisses me off. I'd rather get spiritual guidance from the sparrow in the tree outside my window.
That would make more sense.
Re. Bush's 9/11 schoolhouse behavior...what he was doing is paying attention to his presidential image. Image had to be presidential. Other presidents didn't have to think about image before taking action. This one thinks of nothing but. As an aside, it's "martial" law, not "marshall". Much publicity ought to be given to the crowning of Moon by a Republican congressman. Josh Marshall (turning points memo.com) says he and a few others are working on a major story. Stand by.
God is the State and the State is God!
This old Communist mantra --- easily applied (though with altered emphasis) to the architects of radical Islam fits Commander Codpiece like a velvet love-glove. No?
Um, hat, the role of President is to be President.
Not Pope. Not Archbishop of Canterbury. Not Prime Minister - we don't have one of those, we have a Vice President, thankyouverymuch. Not, by all that's holy, monarch in this US of A. (That this is the Washington Post publishing this is yet another sign that irony is passé.)
And not God-Emperor, nor Pharaoh, nor Pontifex Maximus, neither.
At least, assuming they haven't gone and sneaked an entire rewrite of the Constitution on us betimes...
"Bush leads our country in the same sense that a hood ornament leads a Buick." - Molly, NYC
"From this point forward, I shall forever call him "Resident Hood Ornament". - anony mouse
Well done. Apparently Cheney drives a Buick.
jimmiraybob
Some wag posted something a few months ago about this being Cheney's "Project For A New Buick Century".
Heh.
"Spiritual leader" gets doused
see url...
Just kidding......
History
Actually, History, I don't think Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Coulter et al would be allowed to survive... there would have to be some kind of "Night of the Long Knives"-type event to clear them out. Can't afford the competition. Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer and all that.
Excuse me, I'm now going to courageously walk to the bathroom, and then take a shit.
Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had in a long time.
Gotta say, Icognito, Philalethes, and GWPDA---
Sounds like a frittata night tonight. Been awhile.
Thanks for the idea.
Philalethes, quoting me:
Note also that the writer says the phrase applies to *any* president. I doubt any of us (us lefties, at any rate) would have objected if "spiritual leader" had been used to describe Clinton in the context of his behavior at a time of grave national crisis.
Philalethes responding:
I'd object, certainly. In the first place, it's presumptuous. It's insulting to those who aren't Christians, and to atheists, and to people who are "spiritual" but don't believe that they need a "leader" to follow. It also goes against what are supposed to be the secular values of this country's form of governance.
Me commenting:
Well, OK, but I think almost everyone is overinterpreting the phrase as it's used in this article. Once again,
here's what the writer thinks of as acts of "spiritual leadership":
"His bullhorn performance on the rubble of the World Trade Center is considered a bravura moment. He made compelling appearances at the National Cathedral, before Congress, and in a news conference in the East Room of the White House. When professional baseball resumed play, he courageously walked to the mound in a crowded stadium and threw out the first pitch."
Whether you think these actions were particularly "bravura" or "compelling" or "courageous" is beside the point. The writer was using "spiritual" in a very bland, generic, utterly nonreligious sense to refer to people's emotions and morale, the nonpolitical intangibles.
I thought it was a painfully shallow piece. It's just that there's so muckin' fuch that's horribly *real* to be exercised about that I hate to see folks wasting their outrage on banalities like this.
Gotta say, Icognito, Philalethes, and GWPDA---
Sounds like a frittata night tonight. Been awhile.
Thanks for the idea.
Hope it works out nicely for ya! If not, you can always pour the disgusting runny mess down the drain, and open a bottle of scotch!
As for me, I'm eliminating that middle step and going straight for the hooch.
If we want to turn shit into gold, what is this your business? So what if the Dear Leader enjoys children's books? Resistance is futile. We will assimilate you. Wolf Blitzer dines with God. More money now!
I thought it was a painfully shallow piece. It's just that there's so muckin' fuch that's horribly *real* to be exercised about that I hate to see folks wasting their outrage on banalities like this.
To be painfully shallow in this day and age--to pass cynical banalities off as informed opinion--is not a good thing. In the first place, it's kind of immoral. In the second place, it's precisely this sort of media banality that saddled us with the Chimp in the first place, AND patted him on the head as he accompliished the "horribly real" crimes you're complaining about.
Since everyone here is ALREADY outraged about the serious problems you mention, and since the article in question is one more example of the corrupted discourse that brought us to our sorry state, I'm really not sure what your point is.
The reason it's "painfully" shallow is because it's a betrayal of this country and everyone in it.
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- Saudi security agents searched homes in the capital and surrounding deserts Saturday for the body of slain American hostage Paul M. Johnson Jr., while Saudi officials hailed as a victory their slaying of his executioner, the top al-Qaida figure in the kingdom.
But the U.S. ambassador said he doubted the death of Abdulaziz al-Moqrin, who officials said was gunned down in a firefight the night before, would stop the violence against Westerners in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi officials had reported that Johnson's body was found Friday dumped on the northern outskirts of the capital, hours after his captors killed and decapitated him and posted Web photos of his severed head.
But officials backtracked Saturday. "We haven't found the body yet," said Adel al-Jubeir, foreign affairs adviser to Crown Prince Abdullah in Washington. "We think we know the area where it is."
WTF??? Yesterdays report was someone got the license number of the car dumping the body. I smell coverup BS story.
Dear Leader combines the best qualities of Jesus, Winston Churchill, and Albert Einstein. We Americans are surely blessed that the Almighty did not pick a different country for him to run.
As for me, I'm eliminating that middle step and going straight for the hooch.
Well, I've got some Laphroaig in the back of the pantry that's been there awhile...
...so this idea has much to recommend itself, too....
...hmmm..all I have to do is send the wife and child out to Taco Bell....
...no, no, I couldn't do that...those are two people I care about....
...still, scotch....
...ethical decisions...they're such a bother!........
The Dear Leader calls on us to lead all you sheep to the Promised Land. Why waste all your beautiful minds on writing in this treasonous blog? Get on board,and be a real patriot.
Well, I've got some Laphroaig in the back of the pantry that's been there awhile...
I've got Laphraoig 12 and 15. I figure I'll have the 12 as an appetizer, and the 15 as the main course.
For dessert, I'm thinking Lagavulin.
Phila--Always drink the better scotch first, while you palate is fresh.
I love the scotch, but am having martinis tonight, made with vodka infused with ginger, chilis, and mangoes.
Tasty.
Tonight I am snorting coke off a hooker's ass, just like Dear Leader did in his youth.
I had some yummy eggs & corned beef hash for lunch. Screwed my diet but who cares!
I'm not one for Scotch but I have some nice bottles of wine gathering dust, maybe I'll pop open one tonight.
You sillies. Nothing, qua nothing, is more pleasant than IRISH, quietly sipped, whilst floating in the 85F pool. As the palm trees fritter, and the doggie snoozes.... No harm, no foul. Just a sip of Bushmills/Jamesons, quiet, quiet. Mr. Jeffers, there's naught to worry about with the wife and kiddies - if papa is delicate in these things, where's the difficulty....
We're all allowed a quiet, peaceful time in such warm, calm weather. That's the Irish, after all.
It's -tomorrow- for the eggs, to-morrow.
Rorshach--
Actually, I am doing that (or I would be, if I were serious about any of this). I plunked down a bunch of $$$ for the Laphroaig 15, but actually liked the 12 better! Go figure.
Sounds like some fancy martinis...you've come a long way from Kotter's classroom, when you were one of those irrepressible "sweathogs"!
I'd love to partake, but I'm wary of vodka, having had a nasty three-day bout of alcohol poisoning after drinking 12 martinis in rapid succession. Just don't forget the toast: "Forty on the Fourth, thirty-nine on the Fifth!"
You sillies. Nothing, qua nothing, is more pleasant than IRISH, quietly sipped, whilst floating in the 85F pool.
Sure beats the 98.6F pool that Bush is lying around in, after getting blind drunk and wetting himself.
Me, I'm in an undisclosed location- my tent in the backyard, drinking cheap vodka mixed with pink lemonaide mix.
Under the w regime family income went from over a 100G to 35G.
I just hope my family doesn't follow the electric cord and computer cable to my hideaway!
OH YEAH
GAO Finds Pentagon Violated Law
by Hiring Halliburton for Pre-War Planning Work
Hallibuton Watch
Tuesday 15 June 2004
The auditing arm of Congress issued a report today confirming that the Pentagon had violated procurement law by issuing a "task order" to Halliburton to develop plans for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq. The report, issued by the General Accounting Office (GAO), said the task order violated the law because it was issued under Halliburton's LOGCAP contract, which is not authorized to handle oil fires. LOGCAP is a logistics contract that requires Halliburton to feed the troops, deliver supplies in a war zone and construct military buildings. But there is no authority under LOGCAP to deal with oil well fires. The GAO said Bush administration officials "overstepped the latitude provided by competition laws" when they misused the LOGCAP contract to assign the planning job to Halliburton.
In addition, the GAO found Iraq contracts worth billions of dollars were not awarded under full and open competition. All 14 of the contracts the GAO examined, including Halliburton’s no-bid oil infrastructure contract and Bechtel’s billion-dollar capital construction contract, were awarded with limited or no competition.
Tonight I am snorting coke off a hooker's ass, just like Dear Leader did in his youth.
grytpype
I hope you'll take a break from your W impersonation long enough to PAY the poor woman! Method acting is great, but hookers have to eat too...
Sure beats the 98.6F pool that Bush is lying around in, after getting blind drunk and wetting himself.
Immitation being the sincerest form of flattery, I am advising that our youth follow the w success model.
Do Coke
Be a drunk
Dessert your military
Wear God on your sleeve
Start failing businesses
Be friends with corporate criminals
Lie as much as possible
Steal an election
PS Kids- this formula only works if you are in a crime family.
Operation Iraqi Freedom O'Really Style
From the June 17 broadcast of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Because look ... when 2 percent of the population feels that you're doing them a favor, just forget it, you're not going to win. You're not going to win. And I don't have any respect by and large for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group that is -- yeah, there's excuses.
Sure, they're terrorized, they've never known freedom, all of that. There's excuses. I understand. But I don't have to respect them because you know when you have Americans dying trying to you know institute some kind of democracy there, and 2 percent of the people appreciate it, you know, it's time to -- time to wise up.
And this teaches us a big lesson, that we cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again. What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them, just like we did in the Balkans. Just as we did in the Balkans. Bomb the living daylights out of them. But no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain't going to work.
[...]
They're just people who are primitive.
Started to correct an error - and realised that, no, that's pretty much correct already. Besides, Arthur's got hold of Baby Bear, and that means I have to go play.
They're just people who are primitive.
Sure. That's why they call it the "Cradle of Civilization."
By the same logic, O'Reilly could crush someone's kneecaps with a sledgehammer, then yell at them because they walk funny.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday said his review has revealed no evidence that a senior civilian or military officer ordered the abuse of Iraqi detainees in the war on terrorism.
Good enough for the r's, good enough for you?
another thought- note - the war on terrorism, that is why we are in Iraq?
O'Reilly could crush someone's kneecaps with a sledgehammer, then yell at them because they walk funny.
That would be his definition of a really fun Saturday night.
w and his congressional enablers are driving me to drink
Repug Bill Passes, Handing $155 Billion to Corporations While Millions of Children Go Uninsured
The Children's Defense Fund condemned the House's passage of the deceitfully named "American Jobs Creation Act of 2004" (H.R. 4520). The bill will dole out $155 billion in corporate welfare to a long list of special interests, incl. tobacco growers, movie studios, bourbon distillers, bank directors, software programmers, tackle box companies, sonar fish finders, and bow- and-arrow makers." Says CDF's Marian Wright Edelman "For less than the cost of these tax breaks, Congress could have insured every uninsured child in America for the next decade. Instead they have chosen corporate special interests."
Nah, nah - these dreadful people are trying their damnedest to tidy away their ill-gotten gains before their swept out of town - and before there's talk of tar and feathers.
Seems to me the folks in the east are falling down on their job - -where- are their feathers, and -where- is the tar? The children need to know this before too much damage is done.
"Just don't forget the toast: 'Forty on the Fourth, thirty-nine on the Fifth!'"
Philalethes 06.19.04 - 7:04 pm
Given the recent irrational bump up in his polls - lordy knows why - I'm still going for 39% by the 4th.
TEAM HOLDEN
Creeping fascism
By S. Rowan Wolf, Ph.D.
Online Journal Contributing Writer
here are striking similarities between George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler. They both belong to secret death societies - Hitler to the Thule Society and Bush to the Skull and Bones. (Fact: Prescott Bush made a fortune doing business with the Nazi Regime - links below) Both brought their brotherhood and their vision to their leadership in their respective nations (Bush currently has five "Bonesmen" in his administration). Both were "messianic." Both saw their role as a calling to power to lead their nations to global domination. Both thought no cost was too great in this quest. Both acted on the belief that evil means were justified in the pursuit of the greater vision. Both promoted a good/evil dichotomy to their citizens. But these similarities aside, there are other similarities between Hitler's Germany and Bush's United States.
Senate Intelligence Committee has eliminated the restriction that the Department of Defense no longer has to comply with the Privacy Act (the CIA is also exempt from this restriction). What is frightening here is that both the CIA and the military are only tasked to operate outside the Untied States, that is, until the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, and the merging of departments and agencies under the Homeland Security Act, and the various intelligence reorganization policies. Now both of the non-domestic tasked agencies can (and do) operate inside the US.
Likewise the Germans (or rather those selected as loyal Germans) had their fears quieted by the Hitler propaganda machine. They blindly and unwittingly gave up their democracy to fascism because those "rules and punishments" applied to someone else—the Jew, the Gypsy, the immoral, the homosexual, the anti-Reich resister—not to them. Those extreme government actions were for "their" protection and for a greater Germany. It is more than hauntingly familiar. It is playing out day by day in front of our eyes.
This blog is better than the AirAmerica one. You guys know how to turn a phrase and keep it relatively civil...Go you. Now, off subject somewhat: Does anyone else think that one of the most annoying thing that came from 9/11 is the cable news crawl? No, I mean OTHER than Shrub.
This blog is better than the AirAmerica one. You guys know how to turn a phrase and keep it relatively civil...Go you. Now, off subject somewhat: Does anyone else think that one of the most annoying thing that came from 9/11 is the cable news crawl? No, I mean OTHER than Shrub's holier-than-the-whole-world saga.
Why did Bush really go to Baghdad at Thanksgiving?
By Sidney M. Willhelm
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Bush explained to reporters during the flight back to the USA that his visit was an opportunity "to thank them [American troops serving in Iraq] and to send a message—you know, the message I sent, which is we appreciate their sacrifices." But was it? (President Discusses Trip to Iraq with Reporters)
It is highly unlikely that Bush, who has yet to attend a war-related funeral, would take the high risk of going to Iraq just to give a message of support. He did not make the trip to have a special dinner with the troops, for he did not eat his Thanksgiving meal with them.
Bush is not one to make any real personal sacrifices for the troops; he would not have given up his Thanksgiving dinner with his family just for the photo-ops to serve up a plastic turkey.
What, then, could explain the trip?
Recognizing the gusto so vivid when showing off Saddam's own firearm to White House guests, it is much more likely that Bush used the traditional Thanksgiving holiday as a clever cover in order to conceal the real intent for the highly secretive flight to Baghdad: a direct confrontation with Saddam. The trip was taken not to express appreciation to the troops but as an ideal moment for Bush himself to gloat in a face-to-face triumph before a submissive and defeated Saddam jailed within the Baghdad airport.
gottalaff- pls explain cable news crawl
Personally, I think Bush sitting incommunicado for that extra 20 minutes was part of the plan to make sure he couldn't order a shoot down. The PNACers wanted and needed 9/11.
veritas (btw, you're one of my faves)...
The crawl is the little ticker tape that runs at the bottom of the tv screen to distract you from Dubya's sterling, witty, DAILY sermons.
Must say that one of my family values is that no elected official is regarded as a god, demi-god, spokesman of god or whatever. Seems to us to be mighty disrespectful of god.
And I don't think it's a trivial point. I think constitutional democracy just plain won't work unless you reject the idea that your elected official was chosen by or speaks for god.
Frankly, one of the best things we could do for ourselves is simply make a public fuss when people like Bush are designated as our "spiritual leaders". Bush is way beyond the last person I would ask to do that.
I'm like the guy who said "If you had asked me to make a list of, say, 25 million people who might become president, George Bush wouldn't have been on that list".
And with that, happy 420 guys and gals!
gottalaff- that strip is the only place they give real news, the rest is just propaganda or entertainment...
"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Ba'athists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"
Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney
April 1991
that strip is the only place they give real news, the rest is just propaganda or entertainment...
Veritas...
Well...kinda sorta. So much of that stuff is mini-news headlines that explain only so much. A lot of it ends up being misleading, usually favoring St. Shrub.
Sorry, did I say "usually"? I meant "always". Is there a time on CNN or any other channel that DOESN'T canonize these guys?
bush sat there because that was what the daily script called for, and he chatted with the students because that is what the photo-op script called for.
Watch the video closely and you can see that bush is initially annoyed with Card for the interruption.
KevinNYC makes an excellent point upthread, bush should have cancelled the event before going into the classroom, or at the very least postponed the start of the event. He didn't do either because that didn't fit in the daily script.
Tena, if you're out there then you might be inclined to create an open thread since Atrios is off hauling boxes for most of today.
MYOB'
.
Samlex !!!!
How dare you make perfect sense at a time like this!
Bush drop Cheney in favor of McCain in order to turn this election into a cakewalk for him! Oh so shamefully true!
regards
.
littlesky sez...
'bush sat there because that was what the daily script called for, and he chatted with the students because that is what the photo-op script called for.'
perhaps he sat there because it wasn't in his script,the kids were, and as soon as it was over he got on the phone to find out what to do next.
strange thing is...it's almost as if he didn't have a clue what to do. Kinda like the on-lookers at an accident.
Most people just stop and gawk and have to be told what needs to be done next in order to rescue a trapped or injured person.
He literally didn't have the slightest clue how to react. That the photo-op with the kids was more important that being the President at the moment the country was under attack is a clear indication of his lack of character and courage. IMHO, he was hunkering down with a bunch of grade-schoolers until the all-clear signal was sounded. Some fearless leader. Our Commander in Chaleaf
regards
.
Philalathes, quoting me:
I thought it was a painfully shallow piece. It's just that there's so muckin' fuch that's horribly *real* to be exercised about that I hate to see folks wasting their outrage on banalities like this.
Philalathes, responding:
To be painfully shallow in this day and age--to pass cynical banalities off as informed opinion--is not a good thing.
Me commenting:
Gee, I'm not sure where you got the idea I suggested it was a good thing.
Philalathes:
Since everyone here is ALREADY outraged about the serious problems you mention, and since the article in question is one more example of the corrupted discourse that brought us to our sorry state, I'm really not sure what your point is.
Me:
And I'm really not sure what your "sinces" have to do with your confusion as to my point.
Philalathes:
The reason it's "painfully" shallow is because it's a betrayal of this country and everyone in it.
Me:
Mainly it's painfully shallow because there's no depth to it.
Here's my point: How many thousands of words have been wasted in this thread on outrage over a communal misunderstanding of a phrase that was entirely innocuous in context? Is there anything better we could be doing with our time that would actually further the goal of getting those pieces of cr*p out of office?
Sure, it's fine to write letters to WaPo objecting to the boot-licking banality of the piece or even its "betrayal of this country and everyone in it." But none of the letters that fulminate at length about "spiritual leader" are going to be taken seriously, because they obviously completely ignored the context.
I thought Rev. Moon was our spiritual leader.
Remember the "dog that didn't bark," from Sherlock Holmes? It didn't bark, because it recognized the intruder as its master.
Bush is the dog that didn't bark. He didn't react with surprise because it wasn't a surprise. He, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz had been expecting, waiting for, even hoping for the attack for over two months.
Judith, many of the words "wasted" here are your own, so heal thyself. If you feel the words "spiritual leader" are innocuous, and perfectly acceptable in context, good for you. Obviously, some people here disagree. I happen to be one of them.
The idea that you feel competent to suggest that we're all wasting our time when we could be "fighting the power"...well, whatever. I'm so glad to have an Activism Sheriff here...it's long overdue!
My point was that mythologizing the office of the president by portraying it as something it isn't and should not be is part of the problem...part of the system that elevated a sociopathic drunk with delusions of grandeur to a monarch/spiritual leader. The media's COMMUNAL DECISION to reduce complex ideas to banalities is not a distraction from some larger problem; it IS the problem. It's an absolutely central mechanism of control.
The simple fact, to me, is that the president is not the "spiritual leader" of the country in ANY sense. To me, ANY interpretation of the phrase is offensive, because even the most "innocuous" interpretation still implies that George W. Bush is somehow a morally aware being to whom ordinary people can and should compare themselves.
The idea that citizens should "respect the office" is ludicrous; the only person who needs to respect it is the president ...that's the only person who can literally degrade what it stands for. So I object to this conception of ANY president as somehow representing our hopes or morality or spirits, or (God forbid) our best instincts...especially a subhuman wretch like THIS president.
If the quote doesn't bother you, fine. DON'T write the Post about it. If the comments here bother you, switch to another thread, or else speak your mind (as you've done). But please accept the fact that rational people should be able to disagree with you, without being accused of squandering their energy because they took five minutes to write a goddamn letter to the WaPo about something that bothered them. Honestly, Judith, people do worse things every day.
I have 2 questions and a comment.
Didn't Clinton once drop everything to visit the site of a hurricaine because his fellow countrymen were suffering and he needed to assess the situation inorder to effectively offer aid? Even if Bush didn't know the first plane was a terrorist action wouldn't a plane flying into one of the world's tallest building be a disaster at least on the scale of a hurricaine?
Now for the comment, if our founding fathers thought the nation needed a spiritual leader they would have appointed one. There would be an official office with an official salary of SLOTUS (Spiritual leader of the U S) They certainly never intended for the chief resident to become SLOTUS
Hey, since we've gotten off of omelettes and booze and into sanctimony, I want to say I do agree with Judith in one sense. The WaPo won't care about any of these letters. Not if they complain about what Judith considers a misinterpretation...but also not if they complain about banality qua banality, as she recommends.
The only way to deal with these fuckers is to stop giving them and their advertisers money. A lot of people already do this, I'm sure...but if you're reading this and you don't, you might want to consider it. Give up cable if you can bear to, but at least stop buying rags like the NYT and WP. I did both, and I feel a lot better!
You know, if you read the statement as referring to the magazine The Nation...
It still doesn't make any fucking sense.
Anagram time at Corrente:
So far, it looks like "spiritual leader" -> "sillier ape turd" is the winner!
As alert reader pansypoo remarks, "we know shit when we see it!"
Dear Leader combines the best qualities of Jesus, Winston Churchill, and Albert Einstein. We Americans are surely blessed that the Almighty did not pick a different country for him to run.
Sorry, grytpype, but if George W. Bush was sent by God to lead America in its hour of greatest danger, then the Architect of the Universe doesn't have a very deep bench.
My insiders predict God will be active in the free agent market this fall.
I am not, nor have I ever been, Anonymous.
That was mine.
"Sure, it's fine to write letters to WaPo objecting to the boot-licking banality of the piece..."
Judith
Wow. And I was just about ready to make fun of Jon Bon Jovi's music again. Thank goodness... I have been set straight.
Jesus loves me yes I know ...
for the voices tell me so!
For Bush is the Kwisach Haderach.
sevenless
That tears it. If Bush wins in November I'm moving to Calidan.
Anyone seen my Water of Life?
I haven't looked at the clip in a while, but where in those 7 minutes does an aide come in and lead dear leader out?
As KevinNYC mentioned upthread, there is a timeline which shows that in the classroom he was actually being informed of the second plane hitting the WTC. This same account said that he was asked as he left his hotel (the one with the missles on the roof) by a reporter of the Christian Science Monitor if he had a comment about the situation in New York. Bush said something about making a statement later.
In response to the comment about reporters not having control, I can attest to that. When I was a reporter I wrote a story about events a school had planned to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the JFK assassination. The last person to see the story before it hit the presses, decided to add a line (because I did not mention what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald). The copy editor claimed to have looked it up on the internet (this is questionable) and proceeded to incert "Oswald was arrested but not tried as he shot himself in jail two days later."
Of course, you can't make mistakes like that in a story about an event that defined a generation.
And it wound up becoming the beginning of the end of my career as a journalist.
Shouldn't that be "Dear Spiritual Leader?"
Philalethes: Judith, many of the words "wasted" here are your own
Me: This was one instance of a general trend I've noticed lately that I think merits some thought. If folks begin to pay more attention to context, perhaps fewer words will be wasted in the long run.
Philalethes: The idea that you feel competent to suggest that we're all wasting our time when we could be "fighting the power"...well, whatever.
Me: Well, actually I *asked*--granted, rhetorically--but in order to stimulate some thought, not to pass summary judgment.
Philalethes: The media's COMMUNAL DECISION to reduce complex ideas to banalities is not a distraction from some larger problem; it IS the problem. It's an absolutely central mechanism of control.
Me: I'd agree it's *one* of the problems. But I'm not sure complaining about a specific phrase in a particular article, especially when the complaint grossly overinterprets the phrase, is the best use of one's time to combat the problem.
Philalethes: ...even the most "innocuous" interpretation still implies that George W. Bush is somehow a morally aware being
Me: The writer's point was that the *office* implies this kind of leadership, which is a different issue.
Philalethes: The idea that citizens should "respect the office" is ludicrous; the only person who needs to respect it is the president
Me: Excellent point. If this were what the letters to WaPo argued, I wouldn't complain.
Philalethes: But please accept the fact that rational people should be able to disagree with you, without being accused of squandering their energy because they took five minutes to write a goddamn letter to the WaPo
Me: Yebbut, the disagreement is *about* whether they're squandering their energy. Why can't I voice my opinion on that issue?
In any case, it's a matter of the *focus* of the letters, as I've explained; and it's not just the letters, it's the extensive commentary here as well. Plus which, as noted, it's the general trend of freaking out about this or that on the basis of an interpretation that doesn't take context into account.
Dammit, this is what the *right* does all the time. Can't we do better than that? Or should we emulate them because the tactic has been so successful?
Philalethes: I do agree with Judith in one sense. The WaPo won't care about any of these letters. Not if they complain about what Judith considers a misinterpretation...but also not if they complain about banality qua banality, as she recommends.
Me: Not what I recommended. My phrase was "BOOT-LICKING banality," i.e., sucking up to Bush. I also recommended complaining about "betraying the country," as you put it. (And I thought you were the guy *defending* the letters.)
Very quick response to Judith:
But I'm not sure complaining about a specific phrase in a particular article, especially when the complaint grossly overinterprets the phrase, is the best use of one's time to combat the problem.
Well, I'd say you're wrong, obviously. Or at least, LIKELY enough to be wrong that your criticism is less than compelling. Nor am I sure that you're the best person to decide, for other people, how their time should be spent...not least because you don't actually KNOW how they spend it outside this forum. It may well be that some of them do more good things with their time than you, for all you know.
Nothing wrong with offering advice and opinions, of course. But honestly, don't you think you might sound the tiniest bit...I don't know...patronizing? In places? And don't you notice that you've missed the point of my arguments--and their context--as steadfastly as anyone you're accusing of error?
Philalethes: ...even the most "innocuous" interpretation still implies that George W. Bush is somehow a morally aware being
Me: The writer's point was that the *office* implies this kind of leadership, which is a different issue.
Yes, and my last post explained my reaction to THAT issue at some length, which you ignore completely. Other people here explained this perfectly clearly, too...Robert M. Jeffers, for instance. It really seems like you're ignoring this, and I hope it's inattention rather than hostility.
Me: Excellent point. If this were what the letters to WaPo argued, I wouldn't complain.
Well, yeah...except that that would be "out of context" too, by your apparent standards.
Me: Yebbut, the disagreement is *about* whether they're squandering their energy. Why can't I voice my opinion on that issue?
You can and did. Did I say you shouldn't? Look, you started by saying that "us leftys" wouldn't complain if Clinton had been described as a "spiritual leader." That wasn't true at ALL, and a number of people said so. We argued that we felt NO president should have that description, even in the broad context in which you place it. You might disagree...but it's still a principled, reasonable stance that's been explained thoroughly here, and which you're ignoring in order to make an increasingly obscure point.
Plus which, as noted, it's the general trend of freaking out about this or that on the basis of an interpretation that doesn't take context into account.
Which would be a valid point, if it weren't for the fact that your interpretation of "context" doesn't seem much more valid than anyone else's. And given your avoidance of certain of my arguments (and other people's), it seems LESS valid. I'd argue that you're ignoring the CULTURE in which the article was written, for starters. You're treating the article, in effect, as an isolated instance of banality or poor writing, when it's actually a further example of B
Continued...
when it's actually a further example of Bush-centered hhagiography intended to produce a SPECIFIC PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT.
There was more that got cut off, but never mind. I don't anyone's gotten this far. I guess my point is, anyone here is as capable of grasping--or missing--a point as you are. And anyone's as competent to educate you on an elementary point of logic as vice versa. So I don't see any reason why you should be on any sort of high horse.
And as far as the "correct" allocation of people's time is concerned...well, you can always lead by example. Tell us, O Judith, how we may defeat Bush righteously, without squandering our time and energy!
Philalethes: Nor am I sure that you're the best person to decide, for other people, how their time should be spent...
Me: Since when does a post in a Comments section expressing an opinion constitute "deciding for other people how their time should be spent"? Do you feel compelled to take my advice?
Philalethes: Nothing wrong with offering advice and opinions, of course.
Me: You asserted that I shouldn't even be voicing my opinion: "But please accept the fact that rational people should be able to disagree with you, without being accused of squandering their energy because they took five minutes to write a goddamn letter to the WaPo."
Philalethes: But honestly, don't you think you might sound the tiniest bit...I don't know...patronizing?
Me: I don't know, do you feel patronized?
Philalethes: And don't you notice that you've missed the point of my arguments--and their context--as steadfastly as anyone you're accusing of error?
Me: Well, no, if I'd noticed, I probably wouldn't have missed them, don't you think?
Philalethes: Yes, and my last post explained my reaction to THAT issue at some length, which you ignore completely.
Me: I most certainly did not ignore it; you even go on to quote my response. I said, "Excellent point. If this were what the letters to WaPo argued, I wouldn't complain."
Philalethes: Well, yeah...except that that would be "out of context" too, by your apparent standards.
Me: Looks like you've completely missed *my* point.
Philalethes: Look, you started by saying that "us leftys" wouldn't complain if Clinton had been described as a "spiritual leader." That wasn't true at ALL, and a number of people said so.
Me: I think it was two people, one of them you. As it happens, another lefty blogger (sexualchocolate) has just made a post on his blog referencing Atrios and saying pretty much what I said about the "spiritual leader" phrase (see the Trackbacks). He didn't reference Clinton specifically, but I doubt he'd object.
Philalethes: We argued that we felt NO president should have that description, even in the broad context in which you place it. You might disagree...but it's still a principled, reasonable stance that's been explained thoroughly here, and which you're ignoring in order to make an increasingly obscure point.
Me: I don't know whether you're just exceptionally dense, or you're not arguing in good faith. My point was and is that folks were overinterpreting the phrase "spiritual leader" to have religious connotations, which is clearly not what the writer had in mind, and wasting a lot of energy complaining about their own straw man.
I do disagree that no president should have that description, but that's irrelevant to the point I was making, which is why I didn't address it.
Philalethes: Which would be a valid point, if it weren't for the fact that your interpretation of "context" doesn't seem much more valid than anyone els
(continued)
Philalethes: Which would be a valid point, if it weren't for the fact that your interpretation of "context" doesn't seem much more valid than anyone else's.
Me: I provided support for my contention about the context, which you have failed to address. I'll stand by my interpretation.
Philatheles: And given your avoidance of certain of my arguments (and other people's), it seems LESS valid.
Me: Try citing an argument I didn't address *that had anything to do with my point*. But make sure you know what my point is first.
Philatheles: I'd argue that you're ignoring the CULTURE in which the article was written, for starters. You're treating the article, in effect, as an isolated instance of banality or poor writing
Me: I cited it as an *example*, not an isolated instance. Good grief.
Philatheles: when it's actually a further example of Bush-centered hhagiography intended to produce a SPECIFIC PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT.
Me: Of course it is. And I explicitly said I had no objection to this complaint.
Philatheles: I guess my point is, anyone here is as capable of grasping--or missing--a point as you are.
Me: I'd say you've certainly proved that contention.
Philatheles: And anyone's as competent to educate you on an elementary point of logic as vice versa. So I don't see any reason why you should be on any sort of high horse.
Me: Don't know how we got into logic here, but as to my "high horse," I'll just suggest you provided the stilts yourself.
Philatheles: And as far as the "correct" allocation of people's time is concerned...well, you can always lead by example. Tell us, O Judith, how we may defeat Bush righteously, without squandering our time and energy!
Me: In this case, when you're complaining to the media, make sure you're addressing a *real* issue and not some knee-jerk straw-man reflex of your own. "Spiritual"--EEEEK! Horrors! The U.S. is not a theocracy! Bush is not the pope!
Duh.
More generally, *pay attention to context*, or the folks you want to reach aren't going to pay any attention to you.
What *I* thought was the most important part of the piece, as I said (and you ignored), was the report that an *aide* had to suggest to Bush that he wind up the session with the kids and get the hell out of there. If it's true, Democrats ought to make a point of it at every possible opportunity.
Me: You asserted that I shouldn't even be voicing my opinion.
Sorry if you took it that way. What I meant was that you might try a more civil tone, and a more generous attitude.
Me: I don't know, do you feel patronized?
Of course.
Me: Well, no, if I'd noticed, I probably wouldn't have missed them, don't you think?
Hark to her cold inexorable logic. Nothing beats pedantic literalism when you're backed into a corner, eh?
Me: I most certainly did not ignore it; you even go on to quote my response. I said, "Excellent point. If this were what the letters to WaPo argued, I wouldn't complain."
Laziness? Dishonesty? Confusion? Your "excellent" response was to my point about respecting the office. If you didn't ignore my ACTUAL argument, why did you feel compelled to inform me (yet again) that "spiritual leader" referred to the general role of the president, as though the idea had never crossed my tiny little mind?
Me: I think it was two people, one of them you.
I don't care how many people it was. You started out by saying something presumptuous and colossally ignorant, which rightly or wrongly colored my impression of you.
Me: I don't know whether you're just exceptionally dense, or you're not arguing in good faith.
Neither, as it happens. I see you're given to inventing self-serving false dichotomies. Ever considered a job at the WaPo?
I do disagree that no president should have that description
Oh. That's nice. Good for you. So since we're starting from a position of BASIC DISAGREEMENT, I guess it's not very surprising that we...uh...don't agree.
I'll stand by my interpretation.
Obviously.
Me: I cited it as an *example*, not an isolated instance. Good grief.
I argued that the term should be looked at as part of a broader pattern. Personally, I think EITHER interpretation is offensive and cynical, and I can't rule out that the reporter intends for BOTH meanings to be operative.
Me: Don't know how we got into logic here,
It has an odd way of creeping into things, sometimes.
Me: "Spiritual"--EEEEK! Horrors! The U.S. is not a theocracy! Bush is not the pope!
That wasn't the substance of my objection. As you know.
Brief recap:
1. You have an alternative take on the comment from some of us. Fine.
2. You say "lefties" would have no problem with the term to describe Clinton. Bad-faith nonsense.
3. You suggest people shouldn't be wasting their time on what you call a "straw-man." Possibly valid...but only if you're correct, which is debatable. Oddly enough, you concede at least that I'M not doing this...which makes it kind of droll that I'm the one who's bothering to argue with you.
In any case, you've had your say, I've had mine, and anyone who's interested enough to have read this far can make up his or her own mind.
Oh, BTW:
"But even the harshest critics concede that the nation's MONARCH rallied in the days thereafter."
"But even the harshest critics concede that the nation's PRIME MINISTER rallied in the days thereafter."
Doesn't have quite the same ring, huh? And I guess "the President" or "Bush" would've been just too...well, ordinary, I guess.
In retrospect, anyone who complained about the quote did the right thing. And I think Judith was at least potentially a troll in the Karen Schell mold. If so, I apologize for wasting so much time and space here!
Anyone who sees Bush as their spiritual leader is suffering from a severe ontological crisis.
Me: I don't know whether you're just exceptionally dense, or you're not arguing in good faith.
Philalethes: Neither, as it happens. I see you're given to inventing self-serving false dichotomies.
Me: You're right, it's a false dichotomy. On the basis of your most recent thoroughly dishonest but astoundingly clumsy attempt to mangle what I said, it's not one or the other but both.
Anyone who's dubious, go back and look at my post and compare it to Philalethes' malicious selective quoting and calculated distortion. If Haloscan weren't such a clumsy medium for this kind of exchange, I'd do a line-by-line analysis. If Philatheles would like to meet me somewhere on Usenet, though, I'd really enjoy doing a thorough dissection.
Philatheles: "But even the harshest critics concede that the nation's MONARCH rallied in the days thereafter."
"But even the harshest critics concede that the nation's PRIME MINISTER rallied in the days thereafter."
Doesn't have quite the same ring, huh?
Me: All three are equally innocuous in context: ceremonial figure, politician/statesman, morale-booster. As someone else in this thread pointed out, they're metaphors for the main presidential functions. Your point was what, again?
Philalethes: And I think Judith was at least potentially a troll in the Karen Schell mold.
Me: A "potential troll," how droll. I don't know who Karen Schell is, I'm afraid, so I'm missing the full dose of venom here. But that's OK; I'm having a spiritually uplifting belly laugh at the notion that I'm any kind of troll.
Philalethes is potentially a bully. To bad he's incapable of the real thing.
Ahh...pomp and circumstance!
Me: All three are equally innocuous in context: ceremonial figure, politician/statesman, morale-booster. As someone else in this thread pointed out, they're metaphors for the main presidential functions. Your point was what, again?
My point was that each of these metaphors is utter bullshit, and that the term "spiritual leader" is a totally disingenuous and culturally loaded way of saying "morale-booster." The heart of our debate--when stripped of your ever-more fanciful vanity and posturing--seems to be over the word "innocuous." Which is a simple matter of personal opinion, and not worth arguing over to this extent. But I guess you're "outraged over the outrage." You're in good company.
If you want to do a line-by-line analysis of my posts...go ahead, sweetheart. It's a poor workman who blames his tools! There's nothing on God's green earth more pathetic than people who threaten a rhetorical trouncing, then make lame excuses for why they can't be bothered to deliver it.
But if you do it, PLEASE learn to use HTML tags. Deal?
Judith, I don't actually think you're a troll...you just have VERY similar syntax to one that used to haunt these boards, and I had a sudden fear I'd been hoodwinked. That said:
"Spiritual leader" here may possibly be code aimed at the religious right, but there's nothing wrong with the more generic meaning.
So..not being mind-readers, we don't know the author's intent, but we're going to run with your generic interpretation instead of the "code." Why, I wonder?
All these have to do with rallying Americans' spirit and illustrate what the writer means by "spiritual leader."
Two gratuitous assumptions here. First, that the phrase "spiritual leader" has a recognized cultural (or even contextual) meaning along the lines of "secular, generic booster of morale." Second, that the list of actions you reprinted is intended by the author to represent things that such "spiritual leaders" do, and has NO other implications. I think both interpretations are...well, we'll just say individualistic, and you can take it as a compliment if you want.
The quoted sentence is a lot less ominous in context.
Yes, it is. Problem is, it's a context you created. You came up with an interpretation that begs several questions, turned a deaf ear to them, and presented your "context" as a given.
Why don't we also freak out at the idea that the president is a "monarch"?
We do. We did. Re-read the thread.
I doubt any of us (us lefties, at any rate) would have objected if "spiritual leader" had been used to describe Clinton in the context of his behavior at a time of grave national crisis.
Sheer presumption, showing that you're either ignorant (in this matter), or projecting, or willing to jump to irrational conclusions.
I actually agree with everything else you said in the first post, and I already made my arguments about your later posts.
Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. But I find it strange that you went from saying that the phrase was possibly code for the Religious Right...to saying that the phrase was "entirely innocuous" in context and scolding anyone who felt differently. It seemed weird and wrongheaded and contradictory..it still does, in fact. But if I offended you, sorry!
I'm a sucker for a nice apology, so I'm going to ignore the earlier snarky response, proffer my own apology in return, and see if we can't come to understand each other a little better.
P. quoting me: "Spiritual leader" here may possibly be code aimed at the religious right, but there's nothing wrong with the more generic meaning.
P. commenting: So..not being mind-readers, we don't know the author's intent, but we're going to run with your generic interpretation instead of the "code." Why, I wonder?
Me: If it's code, it's code only for the religious right, a relatively small proportion of WaPo's readership. The generic sense is for the rest of us. That's what I was addressing.
I don't think there *is* a coded sense, though, because the writer explicitly lists the actions he considers "spiritual leadership," and all of them are purely secular except for the fact that one speech was delivered in a church. I suggested the code possibility in an attempt to bend over backwards to understand why almost everyone seemed to assume the phrase had religious connotations.
What do *you* see in the piece that supports the assumption it was meant religiously?
P. quoting me: All these have to do with rallying Americans' spirit and illustrate what the writer means by "spiritual leader."
P. commenting: Two gratuitous assumptions here. First, that the phrase "spiritual leader" has a recognized cultural (or even contextual) meaning along the lines of "secular, generic booster of morale."
Me: Not a good choice of words on the writer's part, obviously, but I don't see anything in the article to suggest he didn't have a secular meaning in mind--do you?--and I do see that list of actions that suggests he did. If he were going to use that term, he should have defined it earlier in the piece, but he *did* define it eventually with that list.
And "spiritual leader" *does* have that recognized cultural meaning; it's just not the most common one, especially in this country--and especially not among lefties! We tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to it because of our loathing of the religious right.
I think the to-do was at least partly Atrios's fault, in that he quoted the one sentence out of context. I suspect many people were reacting to his post without actually reading the piece itself.
P: Second, that the list of actions you reprinted is intended by the author to represent things that such "spiritual leaders" do, and has NO other implications.
Such as what? I have no idea what you're getting at. Have you looked at it in the context of the piece as a whole?
P. quoting: The quoted sentence is a lot less ominous in context.
P. commenting: Yes, it is. Problem is, it's a context you created.
Me: Er, no, I'm talking about the context provided by the writer's words--again, specifically, the list of secular actions he characterizes as "spiritual leadership." *He* created that.
"Secular action
(continued)
"Secular actions of spiritual leadership" is not inherently a contradiction in terms; "spiritual" can simply mean "nonmaterial," i.e., emotions and morale, inspiration, uplift, as I've noted. What is "spiritual" is not necessarily "religious," i.e., it can also be secular.
P: You came up with an interpretation that begs several questions, turned a deaf ear to them, and presented your "context" as a given.
Me: But you haven't posed a single argument attempting to rebut my support for that context. Why the list of secular activities if that isn't what the writer intended? Why nothing that even hints at a religious interpretation?
P. quoting: Why don't we also freak out at the idea that the president is a "monarch"?
P. commenting: We do. We did. Re-read the thread.
Me: A very small percentage of the comments did, compared to those blasting the "spiritual leader" idea. I think both complaints are out in left field in terms of what the writer intended.
P. quoting: I doubt any of us (us lefties, at any rate) would have objected if "spiritual leader" had been used to describe Clinton in the context of his behavior at a time of grave national crisis.
P. commenting: Sheer presumption, showing that you're either ignorant (in this matter), or projecting, or willing to jump to irrational conclusions.
Me: Sheesh. In the first place, note my qualifier: "I *doubt* any of us..." In the second place, only a very few people denied it (and with one of them, it wasn't clear that he had taken the secular context into account).
So I was wrong about the "any of us" part: there were a couple of exceptions. BFD. On the other hand, several other people, and one blogger, as I noted, did understand "spiritual leader" to mean something along the lines of "morale-booster." If that were the *general* understanding, I suspect there would be few who would object to the term being applied to Clinton.
(Yes, there are a couple of folk, such as yourself, who didn't like the idea that any such roles, even generic and secular, should be assigned to the office of president. But that's a different argument. I think it's a pretty weak one, but that isn't what I was addressing. I thought you did make one good point along those lines, that assigning roles to the office may inhibit us from evaluating the person who holds the office on his/her own merits.)
P: Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. But I find it strange that you went from saying that the phrase was possibly code for the Religious Right...to saying that the phrase was "entirely innocuous" in context
Me: Oh, please. I said in its *generic* sense it was entirely innocuous in context. The coded sense, if there were one, would be malign (from our perspective); the generic one--which *certainly* existed--should not be. That isn't a contradiction; it assumes that at most the phrase may have had a double meaning (although I'm highly dubious that
(continued)
(although I'm highly dubious that was the case).
Note that if there were a coded sense, it would exist in a vacuum; nothing in the rest of the piece gives support to it. You'd have to actively *ignore* what the writer actually said about spiritual leadership to understand it in the coded sense.
P: and scolding anyone who felt differently.
Me: I "scolded" those who thought it was an overt pronouncement that Bush was some kind of religious leader, because the context simply does not support that interpretation. But the substantial majority of the comments on the phrase made that assumption.
P.: It seemed weird and wrongheaded and contradictory..it still does, in fact. But if I offended you, sorry!
Me: I think you rather grossly misunderstood what I was getting at. I hope I've explained it a little more clearly above. I do appreciate your willingness to give it another turn.
P.S.: If you hadn't guessed, I'm an editor by profession. I make my living by being alert to nuance and context and shades of meaning. I'm not trying to pull rank, just explain why this kind of thing is important to me.
WRT learning HTML codes, I'd dearly love to find a tutorial on how to use them with Haloscan; any recommendations gratefully accepted. (Every blog that uses Haloscan should have a Help system, IMHO.) But even *with* HTML codes, Haloscan is a clumsy medium for extended exchanges like this one, compared to Usenet using a decent mail reader. That's not a criticism of Haloscan; it just wasn't designed for anything but brief comments made online.
The "trouncing" I threatened to give you, by the way, wasn't "rhetorical"; rather, it would have analyzed your misrepresentations and selective quoting of what I'd written. You mostly avoided that this last time around; thanks.
i'm sorry, i must be behind the curve here - i thought they've been trying to push rev. moon as our nation's spiritual leader.
he could have told them something had come up for the most powerful person in the world that he had to tend to tbone 10:31
oh "something" came up alright!
practically the biggest of all possible 'soomethings'!
and it needed tending to -by him-
immediately. He did nothing during
critical minutes of a crisis.
This is no less than filmed evidence of Complete incompetance at the very second it was most needed by the one person most responsible for all
the resources we have that could have
made a difference during a crisis of historical proportions.
Actual able leadership may have saved lives had it prevented the second and third planes from hitting their targets.
Bush was directly responsible.
He did nothing for seven long minutes.
It was FILMED.
what more could we possibly need
to prove the case of his incompetance.
What if one of us had been reading to kids in a classroom and had been told that our spouse and kids had been in a car accident and some or all of them might be dead? Would you just sit there for 7 fucking minutesSteveDEM 06.19.04 - 7:52 am | #
oops forgot to open last tag.
he could have told them something had come up for the most powerful person in the world that he had to tend to tbone 10:31
oh "something" came up alright!
practically the biggest of all possible 'soomethings'!
and it needed tending to -by him-
immediately. He did nothing during
critical minutes of a crisis.
This is no less than filmed evidence of Complete incompetance at the very second it was most needed by the one person most responsible for all
the resources we have that could have
made a difference during a crisis of historical proportions.
Actual able leadership may have saved lives had it prevented the second and third planes from hitting their targets.
Bush was directly responsible.
He did nothing for seven long minutes.
It was FILMED.
what more could we possibly need
to prove the case of his incompetance.
What if one of us had been reading to kids in a classroom and had been told that our spouse and kids had been in a car accident and some or all of them might be dead? Would you just sit there for 7 fucking minutesSteveDEM 06.19.04 - 7:52 am | #
thus the Dukakis question for Bush is:
"Mr.President what would you have done
differently during that seven minutes
if you knew your wife and kids were in one of the twin towers."
-either he says he'd still have done nothing which clarifies his callousness and incompetence, or he says he would have done "such and such" which clarifies what actually
could and should have been done during those very crucial moments.
best site
http//www.onlinecasino.org.in/
pasadena refinancing mortgage loan pasadena refinancing mortgage loan pasadena refinancing mortgage loan. advance cash instant online payday advance cash instant online payday advance cash instant online payday.
bill consolidation loan mortgage second bill consolidation loan mortgage second bill consolidation loan mortgage second. video black jack online video black jack online video black jack online.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
