Blogcritics: Comments on Giving Dubya his due on 9-11

Comment by taliesin

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:34:11 EDT

Because he feels "secure". He said so. With a president who scarcely sets foot anywhere unless the applause has been stitched up in advance. That's security. As for being "in charge", whenever I've been near a TV set with Dubya on it, it was hard to see the man for the strings...

Comment by Al Barger

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:33:41 EDT

Nicely stated, Dalgor. The pure petulant infantilism of much of the opposition [STILL pouting over losing the Florida election] only underscores how fortunate we are to have an adult in the White House.

Comment by mike

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:16:11 EDT

Thanks, Jeb. As if delivering Florida wasn't enough, you go the extra mile by intervening on W's behalf on Blogcritics. His election is assured with a family like this. By the way, if the left is so impotent and powerless, why did you just spend so much time attacking it?

Comment by Dalgor

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:51:23 EDT

I was actually seriously reading the last comment until I came to the phrase "unelected draft-dodging president". I realized at that point that the blog was nothing more than extremist, fundamentalist liberal venting. It still amazes me how those on the left fringe of society can still be so vitriolic in their hatred of Bush, so paranoid and so pathetic. A man with character is in the White House. The same cannot be said of the man who was there before him. Bush was elected despite the discarding of valid absentee votes from our military and the manufacturing of votes in the "dimpled chad" fiasco. And he was in the Texas Air National Guard which is more than can also be said for his predecessor who preferred to be a student overseas. So why the hate? Impotence is probably as good an answer as any. The left fringe is powerless to affect policy, preferring to criticize and demean. They are powerless to affect our lives by governmental dictate and must resort to calumny and distortion. They are powerless to affect our fortunes by taxing us for feel-good programs that result in dependence on those same programs. Instead, they criticize the expenditures that are necessary to defend our country in a war that differs so radically from those we've fought in our short history that our leadership and our people are understandably not sure how to define it. Yes, they criticize the costs required to defend and secure our nation, and, instead, they appeal to our greed: money spent on defense could be used for "education" or "the poor" or any number of causes which are euphamisms for government programs, government bureaucracies, government mandates, government control...in short, government which would absorb those "much needed" funds as a Brawny paper towel absorbs spills. They let us know that, if they were in charge, we might just be allowed to feed at the public trough if only the money weren't being spent on the war against terrorism. They operate by the Golden Rule: them that has the gold makes the rules. Money devoted to social programs gives power to those in control of those programs. Those in control can decide who is "worthy" to receive our tax money and who is "unworthy" by dint of race, creed, or any number of politically correct criteria. They neglect to mention that it is our money that they would spend, our money that would give them power, our money that would make them feel important, or righteous, or whatever. What confirmed my opinion of this blog was the statement of "demands" at the end of it. "Demands" for "justice" and "safety" are the hallmarks of the demagogue, the impotent demogogue who, in all likelihood, knows nothing about achieving either one (else they would have run for President), but it sounds good, it sounds populist, it gets the sound bite on the local news. It also sounds like a small child who would make demands of a parent. Maybe that's another reason for the hate: the adults are now in charge. George Bush has done an excellent job given the constraints of the republic he is defending. His number one priority is to prevent the reoccurance of 9/11, where a handful of homicide hijackers spurned Allah's gift of life by the willful murder of thousands as well as their own. He also is doing his best in bringing to justice those who supported the homicide hijackers and those who want to repeat it. I personally feel more secure with Bush in charge than with any of those who ran for his office in 2000 or who are running against him in 2004.

Comment by mike

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:19:17 EDT

Once again, Al is completely wrong, and it is my patriotic duty to administer discipline to set him straight. Why he hasn't yet seen the error of his ways is beyond me, as I am without doubt witheringly accurate in my criticisms. However, let Eric Alterman of The Nation and MSNBC speak for me, as he has done a great job explaining Bush's failed war on terrorism. Take it away, Eric: http://www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp "Since 9/11 we have gotten nothing but sanctimony laced with acrimony from our national government. We are starved for funds and told to fend for ourselves as our schools go begging, homelessness increases, services decline and the city bleeds money trying to carry the cost of a global terrorist threat on its weakened back. There are days when it appears that Bush, Cheney, DeLay, and Pataki would prefer to see us die; they have other fish to fry — imperial wars, police-state intelligence tactics, and, of course, tax-giveaways to the wealthiest few. They even lied to us about the air quality at Ground Zero, telling heroes who didn't know if it was even safe to breathe to go ahead and risk their lives. (Is there a special circle of Hell for those who lie to persuade others to risk their lives while shielding themselves from all danger? If so, I hope they have a special room for the guys who do it dressed up like fighter pilots.) And for all that, we are no safer as the bloodthirsty 9/11 murderers laugh at the ineptitude of our leaders and their silly, empty macho boasts. Anyway, tough luck, guys. Starve us all you like. Make our senators and representatives beg for a lousy $13 billion while you shower 20 times that much — to say nothing of the lives lost and the families uprooted — on the quagmire you demanded. (The $87 billion is just a down payment.) Refuse the victims' families the right to any information about just why you were so asleep at the switch when your country needed you to protect it. Send John Ashcroft to arrest us if we take out the wrong library books or wear unpopular T-shirts. We're not going anywhere. I just bought a new place and the kid started kindergarten in the very public schools you are trying to leave behind. And though you wisely decided to stay away today, Mr. President, come September 2004, you'll be hearing from us. Just ask Mr. Boehlert? And a special 9/11 New York City shout-out to Brother blogger Andrew Sullivan. It was just about two years ago today that he accused those of us who live in this city — still struggling to recover from the attacks — of being likely traitors to a country that is not even his own. Recall that the nation was instructed by Little Joe McCarthy that "The middle part of the country — the great red zone that voted for Bush — is clearly ready for war. The decadent left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead — and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column." Lucky for Andy, those construction workers I met down on 42nd and Madison don't hang in P-Town (and probably don't read weblogs, either, I'm guessing). Meanwhile, I lifted this from the blog of my friend, Siva Vaidhyanathan. It's on Sivacracy.net. I think he did a great job. Check it out. It's a solemn day. Everyone is a bit quieter today in New York. The sky is as crystal blue as it was two years ago, when al-Qaida blew a hole in my neighborhood and killed almost 3,000 of my neighbors. Since that time our unelected draft-dodging president has: 1) Failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. 2) Failed to dismantle al-Qaida. 3) Alienated the only countries that have had any success against al-Qaida. 4) Ignored the connections between al-Qaida and Pakistan and al-Qaida and Saudi Arabia. 5) Failed to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan. 6) Failed to bring peace and security to Afghanistan. 7) Failed to confront real security threats like vulnerable chemical and nuclear plants. 8) Stretched our military so thin that we are once again unable to adequately react to emergencies. 9) Occupied a country that offered no threat to the security of the United States. 10) Passed the cost of that occupation on to my yet-to-be-conceived children. 11) Absolved the richest Americans from financial responsibility for this hubris and folly. 12) Made the poorest Americans once again pay the ultimate price for hubris and folly. 13) Failed to support New York City and State when they needed the most help. 14) Supported security efforts in Montana with more per-capita funding than either New York or California. 15) Turned his back on the police officers and firefighters who saw their brothers and sisters run up the stairs of the Twin Towers as everyone else was running down. 16) Lied repeatedly to the American people and the world about the state of risk and security. It's time we stood up and told him that we demand justice and safety. And that he has failed us on every count." Thanks, dude. Well said!

Comment by cjones

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:09:48 EDT

I say we thank the front line of law enforcement such as the FBI, local police, National Guard and the soldiers overseas even more because they are the ones getting the job done in the face of resistance. They dont just sign papers they dodge bullets and bombs in order to keep us safe.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:36:00 EDT

About exactly how I feel Al, Bush has come through on the most important issue of the day, and for that he should receive eternal credit and thanks. I may well end up not voting for him, though, due to other concerns, although there is no other candidate I am aware of I can even imagine voting for at this point.