Saturday, September 4

Bushittery

A point from another Concerned Reader (hey, Hawkie, welcome back) that bears public comment.

People need to quit talking about how stupid Bush is.

Because it's a pose. It's a tool he uses to work the country. Like that fake-ass good ol' boy Texas accent. Think he talked that way when he was at Yale?

He PRETENDS to be stupid.

Calling him stupid gives him entirely too much credit. It's an excuse we offer him, because he comes across on TV as a regular guy. We want to believe he just doesn't understand how much damage he is doing to our country. We want to believe his administration does rotten shit because he's too stupid to stop Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Guess again.



9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think he's going to win.

I came to this realization maybe five minutes ago. And partially, it's because of that attitude he has.

Kerry's underestimating him. The only people who are going to vote Kerry are those who want Anyone But Bush. That's not going to get swing voters. It's still getting alot of voters...but not enough.

If it ends up, like it's seeming, as a tie...who's going to win? Who won last time on account of many ties with the Supreme Court? Oh. Right.

I've, for the record, never seen such polarization--and I live in the most conservative province of an otherwise fairly socialist country.

Excuse me. I'm going to go throw up.

--HalfaPrayer

Anonymous said...

I hope he doesn't win the elections. In my country (Switzerland) the hatred against the US is increasing because of him. In my school I hear anti-amarican comments nearly everyday.
I think Bush is damaging the US more than he can help it with his anti-terrorism campaign: before the attack on Iraq it was SO obvious that Bush didn't want the UN controlleurs (sp?) to succeed so he could attack the country. He doesn't want to give diplomacy a chance.
That's his big fault.
And I hope he'll lose his job for it.

Andi

Mastadge said...

Bush. . . ahhh

Most of my family is voting against Bush. The problem is, some of them think he's a better President than Kerry will be. Which is a moot point, considering Bush is going to win, but still, it's pretty messed up. This election sucks. I get depressed just thinking about it.

I was amused by the comic in the paper the other day. Read along the lines of, "Four years ago, President Bush inherited a lousy economy, a nation divided about foreign policy, etc, etc. Now, he's about to do it again."

HAWKi102 said...

Anti-american comments huh?

Well do me a favor and the next time you hear an anti-american comment walk up to them and politely inform them that the reason us americans are fighting in the first place is because of 9-11.

The next time you hear someone else mad at US for DEFENDING OURSELVES you tell them that we were ATTACKED on our HOME SOIL. That our CIVILIANS were KILLED. Beginning to get the point now?

I'm sure you can come up with literally hundreds of reasons why being in Iraq might be the wrong decision, but guess what...that is a tremendously moot point and one not even worth making. And that statement is true for two reasons:

1) It's done and over with, we've now planted our foot firmly in a heep of shit 10 feet tall, and I'd tell you to instead worry about what to DO about it...

And..

2) If 9-11 had never occured then the Iraq invasion would never have occured, mainly because Bush would not have had such a gigantic excuse at his disposal.

You know, if there is one country out there, just one, who would watch it's own people be killed mercilessly by foreign groups and then do absoluetly NOTHING about it...well I sure as hell would never want to live there.

Maybe now you people have a new reason to be glad you're living in the Good Ole U.S.A.

Anonymous said...

"You know, if there is one country out there, just one, who would watch it's own people be killed mercilessly by foreign groups and then do absoluetly NOTHING about it...well I sure as hell would never want to live there."

Then, it might be more efficient for that country to go after those specific foreign groups, instead of bombarding a nation...

What you guys need the CIA and other spy networks for? If they are unable to fish-out a bunch of terrorists, they might as well go collect garbage.

The way US acted gave a negative impression word-wide. I wouldn't think that this benefits the US. Nor people like Bush benefit the US. And, since here we all seem to be fantasy afficionados, I can't but make the comparison: Bush is like your stereotypical incompetent king who is taken advantage by his advisors. For God's sake it's too fucking story-like to happen in the real world, but, hell, it does. And it's getting all of us into trouble.

Anonymous said...

Hawk, no one is going to blame America for defending itself. I agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan. And I'll agree that, now, it's a moot point to say USA should never have invaded Iraq.

But you can't be surprised that other countries are pissed, and that anti-Americanism is rising. Iraq has not a thing to do with 911 and you know it. Also, "freedom fries" is bloody moronic.

--HalfaPrayer

Anonymous said...

The whole thing Bush is doing is madness: he wastes billions for newer weapons, a bigger military and so on. He thinks that only HE can do it right, that only HE can stop the terrorism and only with WAR. But this war plays right into the terrorist's hands and that's why it's wrong for Americans (for other countries it's wrong because of other reasons too). Force will result in counter-force and that's the main reason I'd vote for Kerry; Kerry seems more willed to give diplomacy a chance. With people like Cheney, Powell, Pearly and Wolfowitz in the Withe House we all lose (sound kinda like a sentence in 'Shatterpoint' ;)).

Anonymous said...

Being stupid is doing something, and knowing better. Bush knows better than to bring our country to Hell, but he does it anyway. Therefore, he IS stupid.

He's just not dumb.

Anonymous said...

--The next time you hear someone else mad at US for DEFENDING OURSELVES--

Against whom? If we were truly "defending ourselves," why did we strike at Iraq and Saddam, instead of at Osama bin Laden?

--you tell them that we were ATTACKED on our HOME SOIL. That our CIVILIANS were KILLED. Beginning to get the point now?--

Of course we have the right to defend ourselves if we are attacked. But it makes no sense to go after someone other than the person or people responsible for the attack.

The only reason to attack Iraq was that Saddam is a really rotten person...and that was SPECIFICALLY REJECTED by the Bush administration as a reason for attacking Iraq.

There have been NO connections found between Iraq and 9/11. NONE. But now we're supposed to think that attacking Iraq was NOT in retaliation for 9/11. No, no one in the Bush administration ever said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, even though they hinted at it, alluded to it, and implied it almost constantly. (Affecting wide-eyed doe-caught-in-headlights expression): "Now, why on Earth would the American people have EVER gotten the idea that Saddam was responsible for 9/11? We just don't know."