My Pet Goat and the Trio of Rabbits:
What Osama, Moore, and Eminem Have in Common
Culture — By Joe Carter on October 31, 2004 at 11:31 pm If a man is defined by his enemies, then it speaks well of George W. Bush that three of his biggest detractors are Michael Moore, Eminem, and Osama Bin Laden. Although the three initially appear to be strikingly different, they share a remarkable number of similarities. All three are exorbitantly wealthy, monomaniacaly egotistical, and motivated by hatred. And all three are, not surprisingly, immoral cowards.
Each member of this cantankerous trio has recently released a video that is critical of Bush. Moore
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itAdditional comments powered by BackType
25 Comments
Joe,
Welcome back.
Ten out of 10 people would have had different reactions in that scenario. Bush chose to remain calmly seated and compose himself. Kerry might have reflected a moment and then excused himself. I cannot say either is right or wrong, just each person’s reaction.
My own reaction on that day was to disbelieve that a second plane had hit the towers. Two people were talking about it on a street corner and my internal reaction was (“wow, look how quickly a story changes from the facts”). My mindset was so against terrorism taking that form that I fit the facts to my perception. Others may have taken the news more quickly at face value.
The bottom line is this, if you think this is some big criticism of Bush, you’re a very silly person indeed.
Mark s.
Joe wrote:
Jim,
You go from:
“If Bush had quickly excused himself, I’m sure we’d all be arguing opposite things: Republicans would laud his quick thinking, while Democrats would decry his hastiness to battle.”
To:
“If Bush had quickly excused himself, I’m sure we’d all be arguing opposite things: Republicans would laud his quick thinking, while Democrats would decry his hastiness to battle.”
To reiterate, and to go with your first quote above, this is not an issue and it is silly (yes, silly, not just a difference of opinions, but silly) to go on about it. It’s fine if you have criticisms of the President. This can’t be one for a thinking person.
Mark S.
To be sure, the hatred that many of us have of Bush is not in response to his “courage” and “resolve”. Our hatred stems from his stupidty, incompetence and, most importantly, lack of compassion for the American people, and frankly, people in general.
To say that Bush demonstrates courage and resolve demonstrates nothing more than your ability to rattle of Bush-Cheney ‘04 talking points at the drop of a hat. The sad truth of the matter is that Bush has been incredibly inept when it comes to fighting terrorism, whether you want to understand that in terms Homeland security initiatives (i.e. failing to scan incoming cargo, funding first responders…heck, even creating the Dept. of Homeland security for that matter) or fighting terrorism abroad (See: Iran; all of; Saudi Arabia; all of; Afganistan; see kidnapped election workers and record breaking opium production; Iraq; see terrrorist getting tons of powerful explosives and pretty much having run of the place). Oh, yeah, and Abu Ghraib.
The simple truth of the matter, Joe, is that we hate him so because he is the worst President in American history.
Just a last general criticism of this post. What I found so interesting about this one is that you’ve seemed to finally venture on into Ann Coulter land in that you don’t even make a half-hearted attempt to couch any of this in reality. You simply give us the ravings of a mad man…no arguments, no facts, no nothing.
I think the stress is finally getting to you homeboy. My suggestion…hit the showers sport. You gave it your best shot, but it just wasn’t good enough.
Our hatred stems from his stupidty, incompetence and, most importantly, lack of compassion for the American people, and frankly, people in general.
Wow BCB, you forgot to mention that Bush eats cute, little puppies for breakfast and spends his weekends foreclosing on orphanages and kicking old ladies off their farms so he can put up a WalMart or oil rig.
To say that Bush demonstrates courage and resolve demonstrates nothing more than your ability to rattle of Bush-Cheney ‘04 talking points at the drop of a hat.
I really don’t see how anybody who saw Bush after 9/11 can say this and expect to be treated as anything other that an irrational Bush-hater. You may not like his policies, but to say he has demonstrated no courage or resolve is to lump yourself in the “immoral coward” category.
The sad truth of the matter is that Bush has been incredibly inept when it comes to fighting terrorism, whether you want to understand that in terms Homeland security initiatives (i.e. failing to scan incoming cargo
I am not sure that it is technically possible to inspect even 20% of incoming cargo without serious (possibly catastrophic) disruption of world (not just US) trade. While this is a nice Kerry talking point, it is unlikely that there is anything he could do to improve the sitation.
funding first responders
I always thought this was a bit of a non-sequitor. First responders don’t fight the WOT, they respond in the aftermath of terror attacks and natural disasters. We don’t send firefighters and paramedics to kill bad guys and first reponders don’t prevent terror attacks (or natural disasters). But let’s accept the premise that funding FR’s is a critical part of the WOT, Bush has increased funding, Kerry thinks we increase it more. I don’t see how this is a huge deal, Democrats always want to spend more than Republicans.
heck, even creating the Dept. of Homeland security for that matter
I fail to see how creating DHS has hurt the WOT. I remember the big issue WRT the creation was whether or not the employees should be unionized, not whether or not we should have one.
fighting terrorism abroad (See: Iran; all of; Saudi Arabia; all of; Afganistan; see kidnapped election workers and record breaking opium production; Iraq; see terrrorist getting tons of powerful explosives and pretty much having run of the place). Oh, yeah, and Abu Ghraib.
Dude, you really need to learn how to use a semi-colon; this statement is very hard to decipher. Regarding Iran and Saudi Arabia, are you saying that we should have invaded one of them instead of Iraq? I don’t recall Kerry saying that. Regarding Afghanistan and the rest, you seem to think that if only Kerry were President, in a few short weeks (months?) he could transform Iraq into Sweden on the Tigris and Afghanistan into the Belgium of the Hindu Kush. Whatever.
The simple truth of the matter, Joe, is that we hate him so because he is the worst President in American history.
Worse than Buchanan, Hoover, and Nixon? Really BCB, you need to get some historical perspective.
I think the stress is finally getting to you homeboy. My suggestion…hit the showers sport. You gave it your best shot, but it just wasn’t good enough.
While it is possible for Kerry to eke out a victory, the numbers favor Bush. I am sure you here this from many of your female friends, but I think you are a being bit premature.
I am not sure that it is technically possible to inspect even 20% of incoming cargo without serious (possibly catastrophic) disruption of world (not just US) trade. While this is a nice Kerry talking point, it is unlikely that there is anything he could do to improve the sitation.
X-rays…big one’s, of course.
I always thought this was a bit of a non-sequitor. First responders don’t fight the WOT, they respond in the aftermath of terror attacks and natural disasters. We don’t send firefighters and paramedics to kill bad guys and first reponders don’t prevent terror attacks (or natural disasters). But let’s accept the premise that funding FR’s is a critical part of the WOT, Bush has increased funding, Kerry thinks we increase it more. I don’t see how this is a huge deal, Democrats always want to spend more than Republicans.
If by “Bush has increased funding” you mean he decreased funding, then yes. Otherwise, you’re wrong. http://www.hillnews.com/news/031104/firefighters.aspx; http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0904/093004a1.htm; http://www.projecttahs.org/tahsjsp/newscontent.jsp?newstype=3&filename=041005112702.txt
Dude, you really need to learn how to use a semi-colon; this statement is very hard to decipher. Regarding Iran and Saudi Arabia, are you saying that we should have invaded one of them instead of Iraq? I don’t recall Kerry saying that. Regarding Afghanistan and the rest, you seem to think that if only Kerry were President, in a few short weeks (months?) he could transform Iraq into Sweden on the Tigris and Afghanistan into the Belgium of the Hindu Kush. Whatever.
Actually, that’s meant to illustrate Bush’s incompetence. I didn’t make any statements about Kerry. You’ve just responded to an argument I didn’t make. Way to go.
The whole thing with the semi-colon is supposed to be like a dictionary or index. It was supposed to be funny…is this thing on…tough room.
I fail to see how creating DHS has hurt the WOT. I remember the big issue WRT the creation was whether or not the employees should be unionized, not whether or not we should have one.
You might be thinking of the TSA, which is a subset of the Dept. of Homeland security. But, no, Bush opposed the creation of the department as a whole. Also, I thought defensive measures were sort of part of the fight against terrorism.
Worse than Buchanan, Hoover, and Nixon? Really BCB, you need to get some historical perspective.
I have historical perspective, homie. Let me say it again. Worse President ever! He’s even worse than Grant.
While it is possible for Kerry to eke out a victory, the numbers favor Bush. I am sure you here this from many of your female friends, but I think you are a being bit premature.
I actually wasn’t talking about the election here. I’m really just worried about Joe’s mental well-being. But in response to you’re whole “female friends say you’re premature” comment, I’ve got to responses:
1. What? Are you like 12 years old or something?
and since two can play that game…
2. Your Mom says I can screw for days, Biatch. Go ahead. Ask her.
I think you need to hit the showers, sport.
Joe’s premise, that Bush is OBL’s #1 enemy, is flawed. OBL is surely praying for a Bush victory. Since 9/11 Bush has done exactly what OBL would have wanted him to do — get US troops to occupy yet another Muslim country, inflame Islamic hatred toward the US around the world — in short, to create more recuits for Al Qeada. Consider, by the way, the timing of OBL’s recent tape. Experts agree that the release of this tape will likely give Bush, not Kerry, a boost at the polls. I imagine that, say, Howard Dean would have been OBL’s worst nightmare.
BCB–Like most libs (and Pat Buchanan), you have shown that you can’t take a little good natured kidding without responding like a angry idiot. Perhaps I struck a little too close to home. If that’s the case, I apologize. I was always taught not to make fun of people’s medical difficulties.
The recent OBL tape: It
I must say I agree whole-heartedly with DS.
To Rob Smith: “I really don’t see how anybody who saw Bush after 9/11 [and fails to see his courage and resolve] can say this and expect to be treated as anything other that an irrational Bush-hater.” This is not quite sporting. I am one of those, like BCB, who fails to see it. What you see as courage and resolve, I see as foolishness, failure to acknowledge reality or to admit error, and so on. Certainly, we can agree to disagree. But you can hardly call those who don’t see it your way nasty names. One could just as easily say “I really don’t see how anybody who saw Bush after 9/11 and fails to see his cowardice can expect to be treated as anything other that an irrational Bush-lover.”
Yes, lets all pretend Al Qaeda Doesn’t care about our election. Just like they didn’t care about Spain. Cunning indeed. Nothing to see here, just keep moving.
OBL must be one of the foreign leaders Kerry claimed had secretly pledged him their support. Besides Kim Jong-Il that is.
But you can hardly call those who don’t see it your way nasty names.
Wow, you think “irrational Bush-hater” is a nasty name. You must have lead an incredibly sheltered existance. I’ve been called much worse on this very blog and never once saw you comment about it. Heck, BCB just called me a “biatch” and claimed to have had copious amounts of sex with my mother all because of a relatively mild jibe.
Regarding your failure to see any courage or resolve in Bush, again I find it hard to attribute it to anything other the “irrational Bush-hatred.” You may not like what he did, but it took a lot of guts to do it. He could have followed the Clinton policy of launching a few dozen cruise missiles at some empty training areas, making a grand speech and then calling it a day. Instead he is risking his presidency to try to change the culture that produces terrorism and sticking it out in the face of significant opposition at home and abroad. If that is not courage and resolve, then you and I must use a different dictionary.
I agree with 99% of what DS said above (I disagree with the tenor of the failed to capture OBL part).
There, that wasn’t actually that difficult.
Mark S.
Rob I see both courage and resolve in President Bush. But there’s a problem with resolve and courage untempored by self reflection and flexibility. Neither courage or resolve do any good if you’re wrong. In fact one could argue effectively that both attributes are a handicap in that circumstance.
Rob Smith:
Actually, yes they do fight the WOT, because IIRC a disproportionate number of them are reservists, and are being called up. Who fills the void they leave behind?
Actually, yes they do fight the WOT, because IIRC a disproportionate number of them are reservists, and are being called up.
That’s a little like saying that WalMart clerks are fighting the WOT, because some of them are in the reserves or NG and got called up.
Who fills the void they leave behind?
I can only speak anecdotally, but I have friends in the “first responder” community and my wife is a nurse at a local hospital. I have not heard from them that call-ups have serverely impacted readiness. Believe me, if a bunch of doctors and nurses from my wife’s hospital had been called up I would know about it.
C3 try and put on your thinking cap here and stop focusing on your partisan goal of reelecting Bush. OBL will remain our enemy no matter who wins. His goal is to establish a theocratic Islamic state spanning from Turkey to Indonesia. From the perspective of AQ, the difference between Bush and Kerry is about the same as the distinction to us between Kim Jong-Il and Kim Il-Song of North Korea. We may slightly prefer one over the other, but the difference is not significant in terms of our position on those leaders and the enemy state they lead.
He is aware of the division in this country and he will use it to further his goal. He doesn’t care about you, or me, or Bush, or Kerry. He would happily torture both you and I along with our families to death on video tape to impress his fellow jihadists, whether we vote for Bush or Kerry or Nader or Badnarik or anyone else.
After this election is over and a winner is chosen, OBL will take credit for it just as they did in Spain. Spain is a good model to understand this. The bomb that went off didn’t take the ruling oparty from a majority to a minority as many have brazenly stated as fact. The ruling party was traling the challnger badly prior to the attack in Madrid because assisting the US in iraq was terribly unpopular by a ratio of 8:1 among Spanish voters.
Right now the election looks very tight. That means Bush OR Kerry might win C3, so you’d better get used to that possibility and accept it if Bush loses; for that would be the will of the people. If you’re dumb enough to play into OBL hands in the aftermath of a Kerry victory, then the only people you’re hurting is US.
You’re half right. If Kerry wins, the Islamists and the Saddamites will be able to claim that it is America’s repudiation of our fight against Al Queda and Islamic extremism. And, they’ll be exactly right.
Lemme get this right. When OBL or whoever it was says that “red” states will be forever considered an enemy who wants war with “us”, us being terrorists, and the “blue” states will be considered states who want peace, what does that mean to you?
A Kerry election will mean just what we all know it means: we withdraw from Iraq. We sit down with “allies” like France and Germany and Russia to hammer out initiatives to work together to disrupt terror networks and will get nothing done, zero, except send billions of dollars overseas to flush down the toilet. We will elect the most anti-Israel administration in history, which will validate suicide bombing. We will cut loose the fledgling government of Afghanistan. And we will put out a clarion call to the whole world that the United States isn’t serious about protecting ourselves, and that we have no principles at all, let alone any worth fighting for.
“We will elect the most anti-Israel administration in history, which will validate suicide bombing.”
Have suicide bombings increased or decreased since Bush took office, Kevin?
Probably increased. Why?
The Spanish population was indeed heavily against the war (as much as 90%), yet the polls leading up to the election showed that the PP (Aznar’s Popular Party) was in about the same electoral shape as the current Bush administration. In other words, it was a dead heat at worst. It appears that prior to the madrid bombing, people may have had more on their minds than Iraq, as hard as that might be for some to believe.
Of course OBL hates us all, Democrats and Republicans alike. But that doesn’t mean he has no interest in who the Commander in Cheif is. The reason he wants to sow discord is so we’ll be less of a threat. Do you really think Bush and Kerry are equally dangerous to Al Qaeda’s continued existence? You can be sure that if the terrorists thought so they wouldn’t be threatening Bush supporters.
Rob, no one ever calls me truly nasty names. I think “doo-doo head” is the worst. Anyway, I think we use the same dictionary, we simply disagree on the facts. I don’t at all see how Bush’s decision to invade Iraq took “guts.” We have first-hand testimony that Bush was expressing, as early as 1999, his desire to be seen as a great wartime President, to avoid Daddy’s fate of riding high in the polls during war, then sliding afterward due to a weak economy. What you see as principle — “going it alone” — I see as foolishness (i.e., ignoring reality on the ground).
Of course Clinton’s action was absurd. But that hardly makes Bush’s decision courageous. And, again, I do not agree that he is “risking his presidency to try to change the culture that produces terrorism and sticking it out in the face of significant opposition at home and abroad.” I think he is stubbornly (most likely, unknowingly) advancing the neoconservative agenda of creating a global US empire, a policy that is more likely to increase, not decrease, the number of terrorist attacks. Of course, you are free to disagree with this interpretation of the facts. But you musn’t assume that the data conclusively show what you think they show about the President’s character.
DS – I was directly engaging you in your comments. . . which you seem to have side-stepped-(brilliantly). . .
I’m glad that you realize, at the end of the day that you and I are on the same side no matter who is re-elected.
The thing is, I don’t care what OBL thinks or what he wants. – My point was that he sounds like he’s parroting the Democratic party line… and you’re saying that he doesn’t give a hoot who wins. His words prove that you are mistaken in your assesment of what he wants or doesn’t want. He really does want his words to affect the outcome of the election – because he couldn’t get a bomb here to do the same. Whether he takes credit for the outcome of the election-(no matter who wins) is irrelavant… The fact that he couldn’t set a bomb off here is. I guess we should credit Kerry with that feat, since he’s such a resolute leader in the GWOT.
Do you think it’s by accident nothing has blown up on our soil (at the hands of terrorists) since 9/11?
Oh… But Bush is doing a horrible job on the GWOT. Okay… and I’m the partisan one. BTW, I’m a democrat that’s voting for Bush… because I just don’t know where Kerry stands on anything re: terrorism… still – at this late date… Geeeeezuz.
Here’s one for Larry Lord, the Palestinian cause sympathizer:
“New York Times – article 11/1/04 -3pm est. . .
ISRAEL – A 16-year-old Palestinian blew himself up in an outdoor market here today, killing 3 Israelis and wounding 32 other people, in the first suicide bombing since Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian president, left the region for urgent medical attention in France.”
Just remember, Larry, the Arabs have 3,000,000 square miles of land – and the Israeli’s have 10,500 square miles of land.
You do the math, Larry, and then go ahead and validate the reasons behind the homocide bomber’s motives.
BTW, Larry, it’s all about land – you f**cking idiot!
Oh, and killing as many Jews as possible.
But you go ahead, Larry, and tell us how horrible the big-bad Jews in Israel are for retaliating and trying to protect themselves against more senseless murders by terrorists.
Who, BTW, are sending their children to do their dirty work.
Sick f**cks. . .
Here are some exerpts from a previous post by Larry – Just so you all can get a glimpse into the mind of a terrorist sympathizer… especially the terrorists who oppose democracy:
Best of Me Symphony 57
Be Ye Angry, and Sin Not says anger is prone to sinfulness.