posted on November 11, 2001 06:04:41 AM new
How to feel calmly patriotic and yet
not the slightest bit reassured by
Bush & Co.
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
This much is true: It really is possible to love your
country and value your freedoms and still believe the
government is full of fools and prevaricators and BS
artists and Dick Cheney. Really.
It is still possible to feel warmly patriotic in personal
and important ways and yet believe the military and
the generals and the war machine do not have your
best interests at heart and really couldn't care less
what those interests are anyway but thank you for
sharing now please sit down and do as we tell you
and by the way, thanks for all the flags and the
money.
And it is still possible to feel unified and spiritually
connected to all that is good and righteous about your
generally nonviolent Americanism -- you know, wine
and sex and good music, large dogs and literature and
clean water and tongue kissing in the streets -- and
still be depressed when our famously nonintellectual
president talks to the country like we're all five years
old and heavily dosed on Ritalin.
When Bush employs phrases like "bring the evildoers
to justice" over and over, 17 times in one speech
alone, and he furrows his brow like a serious Muppet
and offers carefully scripted reassurances
deliberately lacking in polysyllabism and detailed
explanation because that would be, you know,
complicated.
When he repeats primitive little maxims like "There
are no negotiations" and responds to
press-conference questions about the vitriolic anti-US
hatred that has blossomed around the globe by
saying, "I'm amazed. I just can't believe it because I
know how good we are," thus causing a giant global
spasm of multinational cringing and openly insulting
the intelligence of anyone who can walk and breathe
at the same time.
When he delivers very earnest speeches he had no
part in writing, and when he is forced to speak
extemporaneously, sans script or TelePrompTer, and
is reduced to simplistic good-guy/bad-guy platitudes
and flustered, rapid blinking, and who cannot for the
life of him articulate a complex idea, some sort of
nuanced elucidation of our nation's motives and
positioning, that contains more than one possible level
of meaning.
But perhaps that's too harsh. Unfair. He's the
president, after all. He is a Good Man. He's our
leader right now, he's doing his best and he's all
we've got. This is our rallying cry, our motto: He's all
we've got. There's your bumper sticker. And there
he is.
Except for Cheney, which isn't exactly reassuring.
No one has ever seen this man's mouth actually
move. No one can take one look at his oddly
spiritless and wan figure and not think, oh dear God,
that man is running on fumes. From a bunker. With
ropes and pulleys.
But you're not supposed to. In fact, you really aren't
allowed to criticize the president or the veep right
now, not supposed to feel strangely leaderless and
adrift, not permitted to look upon the events of the
past weeks with much wariness or bitterness or a
disquieting sense that we're setting things in motion
that have no predictable outcome -- ugly,
subterranean, hateful things that could last years and
will surely cost billions and will deeply entrench the
nation in a bizarre and poisonous shell game with
shadowy opponents of largely unknown capability
and do you hear that? That soft roaring? That's the
sound of the GOP-stroked military machine, quietly
cheering.
Never mind the staggering multibillion-dollar political
mess in Saudi Arabia that fueled bin Laden's network
for years, or the enormous oil fields that are
desperately vulnerable to terrorist attack at any
moment. Never mind the US government's outright
rejection of new advancements in alternative fuels to
get us away from oil and out of the Gulf entirely.
Instead we get: Evildoers. Air strikes. Hundreds of
dead civilians. Rumsfeld denials. And Bush,
squinting, saying things only small children and
GasMaskExpress.com shoppers find comforting and
manly.
It is, Bush tells us, a war on terrorism. We will
eradicate terrorism through largely violent and
aggressive means, because that is what we must do
and what we always do and everything else takes too
damn long. We have to do something. This is the
common wisdom. Bush said so. Mr. Rumsfeld told
him so, with his black and shiny hawk eyes all
a-glimmer. Disagree? You traitorous whiner.
This war, it will be just like the War on Drugs. It will
be potent and effective and our objectives will be
clear. The nation had a nasty drug problem and we
declared a war on drugs and spent billions over many
years and now you can't buy drugs anymore. It will
be just like that.
There is more than one way to respond to the horror
of Sept. 11. And there is more than one kind of
patriotism. We forget this. You do not have to rally
around Bush and tolerate Cheney's chthonic
creepiness and wave a frantic flag and believe every
scripted half-truth that drizzles out of the Pentagon,
applaud the nonstop attacks on an already
demolished nation. Pro-America does not mean
pro-war. Or pro-Bush. Or anti-Afghanistan. Or
pro-little-flags-on-SUV-antennas.
It means thinking independently and getting better
informed and filtering your news very carefully and
realizing that just because one version of the
American aggro attitude is currently being ramrodded
down society's throat doesn't mean you have to
swallow.
It means you don't have to find Tomahawk missiles
really cool or think all those tens of thousands of
Europeans and Egyptians and world citizens
protesting the US bombings must be commie jerks, or
feel sad and morally depleted when you can't seem
to draw any intellectual nourishment whatsoever
when Bush declaims, "Terrorists want us to stop our
lives, stop our flying, stop our buying. But this nation
will not be intimidated by evildoers." You don't have
to buy into that infantile hokum for a moment.
posted on November 11, 2001 06:32:30 AM new
TeeHee. I could tell from the title that we'd have a message from our fearless leader.(We watched Woody Allen's "Sleeper" again last night. I have as much confidence in Bush's statements as the rebels in the movie had in the pap delivered from their leader - or his nose.)
posted on November 11, 2001 09:51:03 AM new
Believe it or not, those of us who did choose bush over Gore and who do think that thus far our response and strategy have been appropriate, do not necessarily think that our government, and Bush, are always right. We do not, contrary to what many seem to believe, swallow everything that is said and done without ever questioning. We, too, find Bush hard to listen to--he is not our idea of a silver-tongued devil either.
The implication that we are mindless drones who wave our flags and never question--or accept others' questioning--is absurd. The notion that we, and the GOP, are ecstatically pursuing war and destruction with no sense of concern about where it might lead is simply ridiculous. It is possible to understand that events could take dark and dangerous turns ahead without falling into the trap of indecision and inaction that has characterized our pathetic attempts, in the recent past, to curtail terrorist attacks.
[i] And it is still possible to feel unified and spiritually
connected to all that is good and righteous about your
generally nonviolent Americanism -- you know, wine
and sex and good music, large dogs and literature and
clean water and tongue kissing in the streets --[/i]
Gotta tell you, bud--you haven't mentioned much there that plenty of other countries don't have as well. Maybe you need to spend a little more time thinking about what really is unique and important about this country. If that is all you see as good and righteous about your generally nonviolent Americanism, it's pretty thin. One of the many things that I believe is good and righteous about this country is that you and I are free to question our leaders and our actions as a nation. So don't try to tell me that some vague, menacing "they" is trying to prevent you from spouting any criticism you want. You just managed to get your criticisms printed for the public to read...and I'll just bet that no flag-waving, gun-toting troops appeared on your doorstep to arrest you when you did!
editied 'cause I can't get the durned italics where I want 'em!
[ edited by elfgifu on Nov 11, 2001 09:53 AM ]
[ edited by elfgifu on Nov 11, 2001 09:56 AM ]
[ edited by elfgifu on Nov 11, 2001 09:59 AM ]
posted on November 11, 2001 10:26:03 AM new
Obviously not every Republican blindly endorses everything Bush&Co. espouse. I would think that this article is directed at the Rush Limbaughs of the world- the ultra-conservatives who can't tolerate anything remotely critical of the Prez, his administration and their policies. As of 9/11/01 criticisms have understandably tempered, and those who are so inclined do yet have the glorious freedom, that many have died for, to voice their feelings. Somehow this discussion brings to mind what is perhaps the quintessential ideological battle- the right to burn the flag without prosecution. Is it a grossly unpatriotic act, or is it a dramatic expression of what a democratic country is all about- freedom of expression? Although I did not serve in the military, it angers me greatly to see someone burn the flag, and yet I feel it should not be a prosecutable offense. To me this has some relation to those who do not tolerate dissenting political opinion.
posted on November 11, 2001 10:39:07 AM new
With regard to flag-burning, I am with you, Stusi. I defend the right of anyone who chooses to engage in such a disgusting display.
It seemed to me that the author of the article at the opening of this thread was actually bemoaning the fact that he doesn't see much opinion on his side. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans is on the same page as Bush & co. It can't be easy to find yourself of the minority opinion, but I am tired of hearing and reading that there is no tolerance for dissent. That just ain't so.
posted on November 11, 2001 11:16:19 AM new
Since when was Bush elected President anyway? I used to be a moderate republican, until that mess in Florida last year. Bush and all the crooks should practice what they preach. Stealing and buying elections is really patriotic huh?
posted on November 11, 2001 11:29:16 AM new
LOL Helen, Then you would be famous for having the longest sig line ever!
I agree, this is a very good article.
Just last night President Bush was asked if he thought that BinLaden had nukes. He thought for a moment and then said : "I don't know if he has nukes but I do know this....pregnant pause here ~ and me sitting,hoping that some words will come out that make me proud ~instead we get this...He is EVIL. "
The scariest part was that he really had to think about it to come up with his reply.
posted on November 11, 2001 11:37:05 AM new
Muttering under her breath..."I will be tolerant...I will be tolerant."
Stealing and buying elections is really patriotic huh?
See how tolerant we can be? I can actually read that crap without, well almost without, gagging!!! This is normally the point when I should ask for some proof of such a ridiculous assertion, but as I have no intention of entering such a tired and worn debate, I'll pass. Please don't feel the need to pursue the topic for me.
posted on November 11, 2001 02:22:03 PM new
rawbunzil
lol, I think that the word would be "infamous"...famous with an evil element. But what else is new?
The latest Bush & Co. verb that made the front page headline of the Washington Post, used by the Pentagon's Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold when he informed reporters that "the combat power of the Taliban has been "eviscerated."
So, we are now disemboweling or gutting the Taliban, bringing to mind the image of medieval combat with swords.
posted on November 11, 2001 06:33:41 PM new
I thought the article was stupid. This guy tries to sound like he's a political step above the average citizen, but comes off more like Dennis Miller. He sounds like he probably lost his shirt in the stock market or something and is trying to blame the President for everything. I wonder if he can count the number of wars that had to be fought so he could say such dopey things???
posted on November 11, 2001 07:42:52 PM new
Yeah, Kraft--the guy is definitely condescending, but how would the rest of us know that we should think for ourselves if he didn't tell us?! And of course, if we just would think for ourselves, we would undoubtedly concur with him!
posted on November 11, 2001 10:09:18 PM new
I keep hearing that "this is a battle of good -vs- evil". The evil is apparent but I'm still looking for the good. I can't seem to see it.
posted on November 12, 2001 04:04:52 AM newI thought the article was stupid. This guy tries to sound like he's a political step above the average citizen, but comes off more like Dennis Miller. He sounds like he probably lost his shirt in the stock market or something and is trying to blame the President for everything. I wonder if he can count the number of wars that had to be fought so he could say such dopey things???
the guy is definitely condescending, but how would the rest of us know that we should think for ourselves if he didn't tell us?! And of course, if we just would think for ourselves, we would undoubtedly concur with him!
Oh Puleeze! Did either of you bother to read the entire article or was it just the first couple of paragraphs and then skim down to the bottom??
Pay attention to this part -
It means thinking independently and getting better informed and filtering your news very carefully and realizing that just because one version of the American aggro attitude is currently being ramrodded down society's throat doesn't mean you have to swallow.
Regardless of your political persuasion, the sentiment behind the article is clear. We are fed what the party machines want us to see, hear, think. Don't blindly accept the spin. Use a little initiative - investigate, read and digest, then make an informed decision.
posted on November 12, 2001 08:23:53 AM new
Pay attention to this part -
"It means thinking independently and getting better informed and filtering your news very carefully and realizing that just because one version of the American aggro attitude is currently being ramrodded down society's throat doesn't mean you have to swallow."
My point exactly palaco. That's why I said the article was so stupid.
posted on November 12, 2001 04:16:57 PM new
Amen, Kraft. Apparently Palaco doesn't get that those of us who are independent thinkers don't need this clown to tell us to put our b.s. filters on. And our thinking for ourselves is not a guarantee that we are going to agree with him--or with Palaco, for that matter.
posted on November 12, 2001 06:23:43 PM new
I'm beginning to question everything that I hear on the news or read in the newspaper. I have a feeling that we are being hoodwinked by lies and lack of information.
posted on November 12, 2001 06:56:36 PM new
On veteran's day, we should remember that Bush chose not to serve in Vietnam. Is this how he shows 'his' patriotism?
On this Memorial Day weekend when our commander-in-chief suddenly finds himself less in command, we might think back to the day that 22-year-old Lt. George W. Bush of the Texas Air National Guard filled out a form that asked whether he wished to volunteer for duty overseas.
Overseas in 1968 meant Vietnam, and Bush had signed up for the Guard just 12 days before he was eligible to be drafted whether he wanted to or not. He returned the form with a check in the box next to the words "Do not volunteer."
A 22-year-old Dubya stands with his proud papa, former President George Bush.
Bush had no moral objections to the war, for he soon after took a four-month leave from the Guard to join the campaign of Edward Gurney, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Florida whose primary criticism of our Vietnam policy was that we were not fighting hard enough.
"Win or get out!" went one Gurney slogan.
Bush secured the job through his father, then a congressman who vigorously supported sending other men's sons to Vietnam, volunteer or no.
"Telephone calls were exchanged, and young George came to Orlando," recalls the campaign's media strategist, Pete Barr.
American boys were dying at the rate of 350 a week as the younger Bush traveled about Florida, sheepdogging the media and carrying the seat cushion his candidate required due to a bullet wound to the spine suffered in the Battle of the Bulge.
"Bush always says he was the pillow-toter," Barr recalls.
Gurney's wound made campaigning extra arduous, and he periodically retired to his Winter Haven home. Bush whiled the time away with Barr.
"We would play a lot of tennis and drink a lot of beer," Barr says. "He just had this very nice personality. Everybody liked him. Very polite ... a lot of fun ... a neat guy."
Bush would then grab the war hero's pillow and rejoin the campaign against the legendary former Gov. Leroy Collins. Gurney called his Democratic opponent Liberal Leroy, a reminder that Collins had been the first elected official in the South to speak out against racism.
Collins had excoriated storekeepers on the radio for barring black patrons and fought to desegregate schools when polls showed four of every five white Floridians opposed him.
In 1965, President Johnson had dispatched Collins to Selma, Ala., to serve as a peacekeeper between civil rights marchers and the police. A news photographer had snapped Collins negotiating with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. during the march.
Three years later — just six months after King's assassination and only days before the Senate election — this picture of Collins "marching" with the slain civil rights leader appeared on thousands of pro-Gurney leaflets and posters. Barr insists, "We didn't have anything to do with those pictures."
"We never used that photograph, but it crept in in places," he says.
Gurney won by 300,000 votes, thanks largely to a late surge among white undecideds. Bush returned to the Guard and took another leave in 1972 to work for a Republican Senate candidate in Alabama.
Time-Tested Tactics
By 1988, Bush's closest political buddies included Lee Atwater, who proposed using the infamous Willie Horton commercial against Michael Dukakis when Bush's father ran for President. Atwater died repentant, but the younger Bush did not shy from similar tactics when he made his own bid for President last year.
Bush faced John McCain in the primary, and the pilot who had checked the box "do not volunteer" did not hesitate to smear a pilot who had survived the Hanoi Hilton. Bush then faced Al Gore.
On Dec. 10, a hand count that promised to determine the next President commenced in none other than the Leroy Collins Public Library in Tallahassee, Fla. Collins' retort to a rabid segregationist was inscribed on the wall.
"I don't have to get reelected, but I have to live with myself."
At 2:42 p.m., a cell phone rang with word that the U.S. Supreme Court had voted, 5 to 4, to halt the count. Bush became President despite losing the popular vote nationwide and continued to be viewed by many as a "neat guy."
