"Secondly, the Abramoff -- I'm not, frankly, all that familiar with a lot that's going on over at Capitol Hill, but it seems like to me that he was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties." [emphasis mine, story from cnn.com]
So our President admits to being ignorant of a scandal that's been all over the news for several months, and he claims that he doesn't really know much about the doings over in Congress -- the same place he tries to get his legislation passed. Either this guy is the total moron that many of us claim he is or he believes his supporters are total morons. Or both.
I especially like the touch about Abramoff being "an equal money dispenser," which Bush then defines as "giving money to people in both political parties." If I give you a nickel and give my friend five bucks, I suppose that makes me an "equal money dispenser" according to Bush.
14 comments:
If the president were ever left alone with the press corps (the press corps that doesn't have to ask preapproved questions to the administration), I don't think that the President could tell them what day it was, let alone anything going on in the country or the world.
There are days when I don't know all that much, but I forgive myself because I'm not the president.
My, my, you are on a roll this week.
You know, when I don't comment when you post about the B-man, it's just because words fail to capture the bitter sorrow in my heart. (Or possibly because the g-d word verification hurdle proved too high that day to the dyslexic peanut gallery. I give up after three tries.)
However, I silently and ruefully agree with everything you write about that jackass.
On aol today, one of the headlines was "White House Approves Ban on Torture."
And that should be headline news, even on aol?
When, oh, when, comes the comeuppance?
Technically, the President is supposed to be 'an average American.' No wonder half the world hates us...
Did I just say 'us?' I've lived in this country too long...
Bush doesn't upset me anymore. I'm actually kind of pissed that it's not as bad as everyone said it would be back in 2000. Just being dumb inspires more boredom in me than anger.
LB,
It's about 5000 times worse now than I ever thought it would be in 2000. In 2000 we hadn't invaded another country on false pretenses and there was no inkling we would. In 2000 we were running surpluses not deficits. In 2000 we were respected in the world. In 2000 US citizens didn't have to fear warrantless searches, false imprisonment, and unprecedented surveillance.
Hey,
I'm not a fan of Bush, so don't take this as a defense of him. (I actually held fundraisers at my apartment for Howard Dean & John Kerry).
- Country invasions, etc. Bush has simply continued a long, 50-some-odd-year tradition of the US defying international law and opinion with regard to invading other countries and supporting despots. People forget that *any* bombing of another country without a UN Security Council resolution is a violation of international law. That's been done with very little thought under every US presidency since WWII.
- Deficits. If you believe that governments regularly spend money wisely, and without running a debt, then I've got some swampland I'd like to sell you in Louisiana.
- World respect. Again, Bush's policies are just a continuation of over 50 years of US hegemony, intimidation and general global management by the iron fist. If you believe that the world loved us, and as soon as the Bushies took office, hated us, then I've got some swampland to sell you in North Carolina, too.
- Warrentless searches. Seriously, do we really have to worry about this? This is something I never hear about. Other than the Quakers having their anti-war meetings infiltrated, can anyone point to any specific egregious thing that the government has done in this regard?
LB,
Now you went big picture on me. I agree with your points, except the last. It's not whether it's happened yet -- although the news today shows that Bush OK'd in 2002 exactly that, and that it's been used -- it's that the door has been opened to further erosions, and the government has used these open doors in the past (hello, cointelpro).
And your deficits response is a red herring -- it's not about whether gov'ts tend to spend money wisely as a rule, it's that the turnaround has been so remarkable in such a short time and Mr. Bush appears clueless on the subject.
- I'm leary of any predictions of dire, horrible consequences. With 99% of cases, it turns out to be not as bad as the naysayers predicted. Plus, 535 legislators make the law, not one douchbag from Connecticut with a Texas accent.
- He's certainly clueless, but deficits and government are just par for the course. Your original point was that, "In 2000 we were running surpluses not deficits." My point was that ok, maybe in 2000 there was a rare case where the government had a surplus, but that was the exception, not the rule, and definitely not something to pin down as unique to Bush.
And all that supports my original points that 1) Bush isn't as bad as everyone was predicting in 2000, at least compared to what the US had already been doing for 50 years, and; 2) Bush's being dumb is more hum-drum than it is anger-inducing.
It's nice to have a slow day at work so I can debate online ...
LB I don't agree about the prediction part. I don't think many people envisioned a country in which basic scientific principles were under such heavy assault and we'd be in a baseless war. I don't know who you were hanging around in 2000, but most of my friends, while disappointed, thought the worst thing we'd face would be accelerated attacks on the poor and women's rights.
I'm not even taking your point about the legislators making the laws seriously. It's like a civics essay question teaser. The branches work together/fight together to enact legislation. BushCo sends legislation to the hill. His admin. drafts language for bills. Sure the legis. (incl. dems) is part of the issue, but the direction of legislation often comes from the admin.
Dearest Mass,
A perfect example of my point about wrong predictions of doom and gloom is the 1970s environmentalist movement. People said the oil was running out and would be gone in a decade; people predicted that our water would soon be undrinkable; the food was going to run out; resources will be gone; and on and on and on ... and we're still waiting for it to happen. But I'm digressing. As to the scientific principles part, I could have easily predicted that in 2000 (if I was a predicting-type person). The country has been full of holy molys for a while now. No surprise. The war in Iraq is also a no-brainer. Clinton had been bombing Iraq for almost a decade and Sadaam had tried to kill Bush's father. It's not too much of a leap that the things you mentioned are happening now.
"I'm not even taking your point about the legislators making the laws seriously." Wait, so you're saying that the president (one man) makes the laws? Oh, ok. My bad.
Kindest regards,
LB
And this proves my point even more so.
LB like I said we tend to agree. However, I never stated that the President makes the laws. I only stipulated that the President has quite a bit of influence over which bills get proposed and his staff often have a hand in drafting some legislation. He sets a tone for much of the legislation -- he doesn't make the laws.
Yea, I think we do agree. I forget what we were even discussing in the first place. Let's be friends again. And, perhaps, even get together and play some guitar.
Have a good weekend.
LB
Post a Comment