You are on an individual archive page

Click here to return to the main page

Wikipedia does good things. Reward them.

The Daily Links Page
Got a link to submit?
  • New Evidence Proves First Flag Made By Betsy Ross Actually Shirt For Gay Friend
  • Colbert Leads Huntsman in S.C.
  • Polish prosecutor 'shoots self after news conference'
  • Jim Rome leaving ESPN. Bonus: Footage of Jim Rome getting attacked by Jim Everett & crying like a baby
  • Broncos, Tim Tebow stun Steelers in OT, win 29-23 in NFL playoffs
  • Video: Remember 2008
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop faces weapon and drug charges
  • Video: Green Bay anchorman loves lamp
  • Video: Rodgers & Raji in the new Discount Double Check ad
  • Jim Rome: out of The Jungle and onto the (horse) farm
  • New IL Law Requires Photo ID To Buy Drain Cleaner
  • Fawn Cuddles Kitten, Hearts Explode
  • The priest who changed the course of history for the worse... by rescuing four-year-old Hitler from drowning in icy river
  • Get Fit or Get Fined: Web Service Offers to Charge You for Skipping the Gym
  • Fine proposed for botching US national anthem
  • Why Best Buy is Going out of Business...Gradually
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Edina boutique takes heat for trashing $4,000-plus gowns
  • Law Student Goes 'Homeless by Choice' Touts Value of Gym Club Membership
  • VIDEO: Snoop Dogg on 'The Price Is Right'
  • Flynn and Out
  • Don't put Bielema on the firing line
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Your end of the season Vikings comment thread
  • Mass. budget motel fights forfeiture by feds
  • Vikings scrutinize downtown Mpls. stadium site near basilica
  • Kelly Clarkson criticized on Twitter after singer endorses Ron Paul for President 
  • Political Predictions for 2012
  • We're All Doing The Best We Can
  • Video Of Little Girl Getting Pissed Off About Pink Toys Will Make Your Heart Swell
  • The 10 best sports-related Hitler Reactions of 2011
  • Happy Endings on the housing crisis
  • Why You Just Got New York Times Spam
  • There Will Be No Friday This Week In Samoa
  • The Most Hipster State In The US
  • Online Merchants Home in on Imbibing Consumers
       [ 1 comment ]
  • On islamic fashion
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Sears as Lampert's 'Mismanaged Asset' Loses Customers to Macy's
       [ 1 comment ]
  • 5 social network predictions for 2012
  • Cheetah, chimp star of classic Tarzan movies, dies at 80
  • The Hottest Things on TV in 2011
  • Beer in cans: It's not just for Bud anymore
  • Seven Packers earn Pro Bowl selections
  • The Worst Angry Christmas Tweets In the World
  • Minnesota cities try to hold back on rented housing
  • Why Iowa Shouldn't Vote First Anymore
  • Some Falcons Players Upset Drew Brees Went For The Record Last Night
  • We've Identified Jilted Packergirl
  • With its 'W' initiative, ESPN tries to solve the equation of serving women sports fans
  • Owner surprised to find cat regularly catches bus
  • Charles Barkley: Skip Bayless Has Surpassed Peter Vecsey As The Biggest Jackass In The History Of Journalism
  • Handicapping the 2011 NFL MVP Race, 2.0


  • Bush Derangement Syndrome Strikes Again

       December 27, 2005

    The discussion in the comments to James' latest post has inevitably turned to the domestic spying "scandal". One reader noted that the public seems to have little interest in the topic:

    I have actually yet to hear a single individual mention the subject of domestic spying at all. Anyone who suggests that they expect the president to obey every law is lying. Presidents are expected to defend the country's interests regardless of the law, hence the general disinterest in the domestic spying case.

    The country is perfectly willing to ignore incidents like Iran-Contra or the Bay of Pigs precisely because they were done in our interests. You may argue that they were poorly conceived or poorly executed, but they were done in the name of the country, and not to the personal benefit of the president.

    Personally, I thought most of the disinterest was due to the fact that Americans were busy getting ready for Christmas, but I think the reader brings up a great point. Think of action movies for a second. The hero doesn't let rules and regulations get in the way of solving a crime/getting the bad guys/preventing the the evil Goldfinger from detonating an atomic bomb. Yes, James Bond had a license to kill, but is that actually legal in England? Do you think the English public knew about it? And let's not even get into Jack Bauer's exploits. The point is that sometimes there's a cause more important than upholding the letter of the law. Leaders have to make those kinds of decisions. That burden is the price of power. In fact, I'm willing to wager that one of the reasons Bush beat Kerry in 2004 is that Americans believed, rightly or wrongly, that Bush would do anything to protect America from another 9/11, while Kerry would consult a cadre of lawyers and the UN before doing anything.

    Of course, that's wrong. I've no doubt that President Kerry would put the safety of the American people first in a crisis (the difference was how the dealt with the world before it got that far). That's what Presidents do. The poor folks suffering from Bush Derangement Sydrome don't see it that way. Bush's actions are seen through glasses which magically transform the President into a combination of Hitler, Stalin and Darth Vader. Everything the President does is soley in the interests of the Bush/Rove/Cheney/Halliburton empire.

    I'm not saying the President's perfect or that he doesn't consider the political implications of policy decisions. However, on the night of September 11th, I'm quite sure the President wasn't thinking "Yippee!!! Now I have the perfect excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq so my Texas oil buddies can get richer. Not only that, I can finally put my plan to round up liberals into re-education camps into action. Yes!" Nope. I think the President thought, like anyone in his position would, that this would never happen again on his watch. He would do whatever it took to protect America.

    You can agree or disagree with what the President has done in the name of protecting America, but to think that his goal was something other than protecting America is to assign him some helluva evil motives. In his post, James described this as "grade school politics". I think that's too generous. It's kindergarten politics. Kids around this age are still learning to view things from another's perspective. BDS sufferers still haven't mastered this skill. In their minds the President is an evil genius (who also happens to be a moron) and nothing can change that.

    Posted by at December 27, 2005 12:15 PM

        The trackback entry for this page is :


    Trackback Entries
      replica watches linked with replicas



    #  December 28th, 2005 12:31 PM      mbrlr
    Wow. Where to begin?

    Internally, the President seems primarily concerned with helping out the rich, even completing the picture by doing so at the expense of the poor and the middle class. The President also, with the help of his VP, became obsessed with Iraq rather than the folks who actually committed the 9/11 offense.

    No genius anywhere to be found in all that, just cupidity and evil and a willingness to lie on issues of state.

    As for leadership, well, I remember that when 9/11 occurred the President froze for a moment, but then found the strength to finish reading that story to the class down in Florida before springing to manly action and dealing with the consequences of having ignored memos relating to the planned attack. We then --- and again, no intelligence but a good deal of idiocy on the part of both the public and the administration --- stopped looking for the terrorists and began the war we've since waged based on false information. I was almost brought around when the President appeared, flight suit and all, on deck and proclaimed we'd won but I couldn't help noticing as time went on that the war just didn't seem to be over.

    American presidents are currently the most powerful people in the world, but even they are meant to be restrained by the limitations on the powers of the presidency that the founders put in the Constitution. I'd just like there to be some recognition on the part of this administration of those restraints.

    Do you want to know something rather amusing? I admit I thought Bush would do *anything* to protect America and I admired him for that --- really, I did --- but I came to realize that his "anything" and mine differed since his seemed to revolve around doing anything necessary to protect and enrich himself and his cronies and refusing to admit that he could make a mistake. Damn near papal in that respect, he is. He doesn't even pretend to respect the boundaries of the Constitution; although that Scalia-esque quality might get him on the Supreme Court (there's no requirement of a law license), it created one, among many, of the reasons I voted against him. We do not have, as did the Romans, the concept of a limited-term dictator to be relied upon in times of national emergency. Instead, we have three branches of government that live within the rules that allow them to operate together within constitutional boundaries and they must deal with the restrictions that sometimes limit their actions. GW has trouble admitting that there are restrictions on his powers.

    I suppose the president just must have missed that part of civics class, huh?

    We're no safer than we were, 2000+ soldiers have died and God knows how many have been injured and disabled, Osama's still out there plotting and feeling very hurt that no one in the current administration seems to care about him, and we've engaged in both torture and other various and assorted war crimes. Forgive me if I'm not exactly grateful for all that, would you?

    As for intellect and intent, I don't think the President is intentionally evil. I don't think the President is a closet genius. I don't, and this may surprise you, think the President is a moron. I do think, though, that the President doesn't grasp or respect the Constitution, doesn't respect the alliances our nation worked many years to build, and doesn't respect our troops or the general public. Many deaths and injuries have resulted from GW's actions, but many of those deaths and injuries have resulted from the false information spewed out by his administration and the one death I'd even sort of like to see --- again, that of bin Laden, the one who actually masterminded 9/11 --- seems to have been pushed aside as we dealt with Saddam and his fabled WMD. I do believe the protection of America was just a small portion of the rationale for this war and that states pretty clearly one of my two main problems --- the other being the rather brazen attempts to enrich the rich while screwing the poor --- with GW and his faults.

    Anyway, I'm just trying to focus on 2009 and deliverance.  
    #  December 28th, 2005 6:36 PM      Daddy
    I've no doubt that President Kerry

    Let's pause for a shudder, there, shall we? *uuuhhhhh*

    BTW, I'm angered to see that phrase, even in supposition, when there are so many seditious and willfully ignorant individuals referring to our current President as "Mr. Bush".

    But I digress.

    I've no doubt that President Kerry would put the safety of the American people first in a crisis (the difference was how the dealt with the world before it got that far). That's what Presidents do.

    I disagree with this from the very bottom of my heart. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that John Kerry would put American lives at risk to serve what he believes is a greater purpose--getting France, Germany, et al to like us again.

    While putting our safety first is what Presidents are supposed to do, partisan hacks like John Kerry are more concerned with being liked and staying popular.  



      page rendered in 0.0392 seconds | ©2004, 2005