New Bedfellows
September 25th, 2002 | by Tony Steidler-Dennison |Dubya’s had an interesting couple of days when it comes to use of language. Yesterday, he remarked that the Senate, “is more interested in special interests” than in the security of the country. How embarrassing. Here he stands, the Democratically controlled Senate ready to approve his overreaching Homeland Security bill, and he chooses to insult them rather than work through the few remaining issues. He just seems, sometimes, to really show his spoiled rich-kid roots.
Today, he was asked in the Oval Office whether he thought Saddam Hussein was a bigger threat than al-Qaida:
After a long pause, he replied: “That is an interesting question. I’m trying to think of something humorous to say, but I can’t when I think about al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein.”
“… The danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al-Qaida becomes an extension of Saddam’s madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. Both of them need to be dealt with. You can’t distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”
Or when you talk about the effectiveness for the controlling political party of an ongoing “war” at election time. We’re not being led down the garden path, anymore. We’re being pushed and shoved by a president we didn’t even elect.
9 Responses to “New Bedfellows”
By Brad on Sep 25, 2002 | Reply
cant wait for The Daily Show to get ahold of this one.
By Ryan K. on Sep 26, 2002 | Reply
I have just one statement
“I Agree with you”
By Taltoz on Sep 26, 2002 | Reply
Sorry man. While agree with you on most technology issues I don’t agree with you here. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion I see no way that we are being pushed or shoved. As for having a President we did not elect I would have to disagree with you again. I know I voted for him and as a Floridaian I can assure you that despite what the press made it out to be so did the state of Florida. Therefore, under our election system WE, being the country, did indeed vote for him and therefore should stand behind OUR President.
By Denis E. Ambrose, Jr. on Sep 26, 2002 | Reply
As for the first comment, while he was elected, the majority of the country did not vote for him (the evil of the electoral college). However, he is the president, and I certainly respect him for that.
Getting back to Tony’s post, Dubbya seems to want to convince us that Saddam and Al-Qaida work together. This is not true. Saddam and Osama hate each other; just like Saudi Arabia and Iraq hate each other. Their is no doubt in my mind the only reason Bush is pushing for war as hard as he is and bashing the Democrats at the same time is because he and his Party are generally scared they will loose control of the House and not get control back in the Senate. This would be a foreshadowing of the 2004 presidential election. War always makes presidents, and their party, very popular (the only exception being perhaps Vietnam, but that is another debate). Also, generally speaking, I give very little support for a man who cannot speak the English language on a regular basis.
And yes, I will definetley watch The Daily Show to see what will be said about Bush!
By Tony on Sep 26, 2002 | Reply
Think it’s even more insidious than just the mid-term elections. Since his “election,” the country has lost more that 2.2 million jobs. Wall Street has, in the form of massive selloffs, scorned his economic policy or lack thereof. Prices continue to rise, wages are, for the most part, flat. Simply put, I think Bush has no clue about how to turn the economy around and, as a result, has to keep hammering away on the war against terrorism. That’s what will keep Republicans in office in the mid-term elections - certainly not talk about the state of the economy.
And, just as happened with Bush Sr., someone has to remind the Republicans that, in the end, “it’s about the economy.” As the Republicans liked to say shortly after 911, if the economy continues to decline, “the terrorists win.” I think the money we’ll inevitably spend on a questionable war with Iraq could be better spent at home.
By Tony on Sep 26, 2002 | Reply
Taltoz:
Let’s dissect these numbers a bit differently.
There are roughly 200 million eligible voters in the US. Of those, less than 100 million turned out to vote. Of those roughly 48 million voted for Bush. You do the math. Bush is the first president in the history of the US for which 152 million people did not vote. Electoral college or not, he was not the choice of the people.
While I certainly don’t wish him ill, I also have no respect for the bullying tactics he’s used with Congress to push his agenda. Nor do I agree with the position his administration has taken on civil rights. Nor do I agree with the billions of dollars currently being spent on stretching the target of the war from terrorists to tyrants. I’d certainly never disagree that Saddam is a tyrant, but so are many, many other leaders. We don’t seem to be pursuing them as “friends of the terrorists.”
In the end, I’d much rather see the money spent on the pursuit of al-Qaida or Saddam spent on strenghtening the country internally. Our people are our greatest strength, not our military.
By Taltoz on Sep 26, 2002 | Reply
As someone who works in social service (granted on the tech side) I am all for spending the money internally. However I also beleive in protecting ourselves, even if it is pre-emptively. Again though, each person is allowed their own opinion. The one area where I will argue though is your economy. It has been established in economics that lasting changes to the economy (not to be confused with temporary scares and the like) take 5 years to take place. Therefore the economic downturn we are experiencing is the result of our previous president’s economic blunders not our current one.
By Denis E. Ambrose, Jr. on Sep 30, 2002 | Reply
Sounds like a typical conservative: it is not my fault, it’s the other party’s, really!
Seriously, folks. Besides the dot-com crash-and-burn, the economy under Clinton was amazing, and we as a country saw eight years of solid economic growth. Even after the intial shock on Wall St. of the terrorist attacks, the market bounced right back. It was the accounting scandals that have caused this economic downturn. And, leading the way, was Enron, whom firmly controls the White House (did you know Bush Sr. is a major stock holder of Chevron, the owner of Enron?). But, just like what happened to Bush Sr, so too will happen to Bush Jr: lose the election because they wouldn’t pay attention to the economy.
By fp on Sep 30, 2002 | Reply
Why is it that people think that the phrase “everyone is entitled to their own opinion” is some kind of great leveler? An ill informed opinion, or a moronic one has no more weight in the marketplace of ideas than poorly written code. It breaks down under scrutiny.
Bush has no mandate to pursue an aggressive policy of any sort, whether domestic or foreign. Very few of us voted for him in 2000, fewer still respect him in 2002. He has however, assembled a mandate of evil… he unites the country behind jingoistic patriotic nonsense that is intended to mask his own special interests. Fortunately, the interests of Bush and Big Oil in the Iraqi reserves are just too big to hide.
He’s going down, and anyone with a speck of moral courage and above a room temperature IQ will help to put him back in isolation where he belongs.