Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I just want to make sure I have this right.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 11:54 AM
Original message
I just want to make sure I have this right.
Edited on Wed Jan-24-07 11:55 AM by AndyA
Our Congress, composed of people from the Independent, Democratic, and Republican Parties attended the State of the Union last night, presided over by current pResident George W. Bush. They stood and applauded him as he entered, during his speech, and after his speech. Standing and applauding are signs of respect and admiration for a job well done.

And that is what I don't understand.

George W. Bush is the man who spent a good part of his first year in office on vacation. During this time, he and his misadministration ignored repeated warnings from reputable sources that terrorists were determined to strike the United States. Despite these advance warnings, virtually nothing was done to circumvent or disrupt or prevent such an attack.

On September 11, 2001, the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil occurred, and immediately our entire country backed the President and his administration, and gave them anything and everything they needed to fight the war on terror, a war that was forced upon us by the events of 9/11.

We learned shortly after that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind behind the attack. It was implied that bin Laden had ties to Saddam Hussein. And that Saddam was also planning to attack us with weapons of mass destruction. Reports that Saddam was hiding WMDs from UN inspectors were presented by none other than Colin Powell. Spy photos showing these weapons being relocated were submitted. We were told that Saddam was the biggest threat to our country.

Meanwhile, the super secret new Energy Policy was passed behind closed doors. The members of the committee that wrote the bill were not disclosed, as that information was confidential. Why? Why would the identities of the people writing an energy policy be confidential? What is being hidden? How could our enemies use this against us?

Congress at that time gives pResident * permission to use the military in Iraq, based on the information given to them by *. Shock and awe happens, televised for all the world to see, almost like a sporting event. Shortly, an announcement is made: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! And we have our fearless leader in a jumpsuit appearing on the deck of a Naval Carrier as proof.

Then the American people discover that the information leading up to the war in Iraq was wrong. Bad information, flawed. And that * knew this was the case before he was given permission to use military force. But he didn't correct that information to Congress. We now knew that the war in Iraq was based on lies. There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, Osama bin Laden, or other terrorists responsible for the attack.

OK...so then why are we over there again? We learn that Saddam considered the terrorist groups that were our true threat were also a threat to him, and they had virtually no presence in Iraq when he was in charge. Although no one questioned Saddam was a cruel man, torturing and killing the Iraqi people, this was and is also happening in other countries. So why Iraq? You'd think we had something to settle with Iraq.

Our innocent troops are being killed in the war in Iraq and that war is based on lies and bad information that pResident * allowed Congress to believe was accurate in order to start the war. Is this not treason? Is this not a crime against the United States of America?

While this is going on, we have reports coming in from reputable sources that Bush and Co. did indeed know that some of the information they had given Congress was inaccurate. And they set out to punish these people for making the administration look bad. Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame were just two of the people involved. Plame, a CIA agent fighting the war on terror by keeping an eye on all things nuclear was outed by the administration with the full knowledge, and apparently the permission, of pResident *. When asked by the media what would happen if anyone in his administration was found to be responsible for this leak, Bush acted as if he knew nothing about it and said they would be dealt with. When Bush made that statement, he knew full well he was involved. So were VP Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and others. Yet * acted as if he had no knowledge of anything. Isn't this obstruction of justice? And just because after the fact * said it was OK to expose Plame because he authorized it doesn't make the fact he lied to cover it up any better.

Then we learn we are being spied on. We learn that Bush is violating the law by listening to our phone conversations, reading our electronic and other mail, and monitoring our bank accounts. All because he has to do so to fight the war on terror. Forget about our civil rights and the Constitution.

Oh, and if Bush doesn't like a law passed by Congress, he just modifies it to suit his whims. He does this by adding signing statements that modify the law as passed by Congress, and he's done this more than all other Presidents in history put together. So, the people elected by the American public aren't really passing the laws. George Bush, alone, has the final say as to how the law is interpreted.

The war in Iraq costs the country billions of dollars. Our budget surplus in the treasury at the time * took office is wiped out, and new all time high record deficits are posted.

Under *'s leadership, it's OK to allow citizens of New Orleans to die in the streets after Hurricane Katrina. It's OK to let their dead bodies become food for rats. It's OK to ignore them, allow them to live in filth, get sick, die, and disappear. We can't help them, or anyone else in America, because there isn't enough money. Yet we can send billions over to Iraq each and every month. And for what? Oh yes, that war that is based on lies.

We discover that * has appointed friends to positions they are not qualified for, and as a result harm is done to the American people. Our hard earned tax dollars are squandered away and not accounted for. The cost of the liberation of the Iraqi people is forgiven, the oil in return that was promised to us will not be coming. And oil prices soar higher than ever before, partly due to the lie of a war in Iraq, and partly due to the super secret Energy Policy * pushed through for his oil buddies.

We discover that the Republican-led Congress is one of the most corrupt in history, working fewer days than any previous Congress, and presenting legislation that the Democratic representatives have not had time to even glance at. Not that any of this matters, anyway, because Bush will just use a signing statement to modify anything he doesn't like.

In addition to all this, *'s free trade policies are sending quality jobs out of the country in record numbers. Manufacturing collapses. Millions of high paying, good benefit jobs are lost, replaced by low paying jobs with no benefits. And we are told this is good, new jobs are being created. America is growing and prospering.

The hyper wealthy get tax breaks that allow them to bump up their already obscenely lavish lifestyle into an even higher dimension. And the average American is breaking his or her back just to try to make ends meet. Health costs soar. Millions of Americans have no health insurance, and can't afford prescription drugs. And our government will not allow Medicare to negotiate better prices with foreign countries. Why? Could it be so that the drug companies can make more profits off of Americans?

We become concerned that something just isn't right with George Bush. He says he's a recovered alcoholic, but there are indications he never really recovered. He has difficulty speaking. He can't pronounce common words properly. He has strange, uncontrolled movements when he speaks. He also professes to be a born again Christian man, yet so many of his actions are not those of a Christian.

We aren't certain that our elections have been fair, and there is a good possibility that George Bush should have never been President. He lost the popular vote in 2000, but was placed in office by a Supreme Court that should have not been involved in the elections at all.

In November 2006 the American people, fed up with the knowledge that our government was not working for us, but against us, changed the control of our government by electing an overwhelming majority of Democrats to the House and Senate. Virtually overnight, the people spoke and the message was one of change.

We sent a message to President Bush, his administration, and Congress that the war in Iraq needed to end. Yet they don't appear to be listening to us. They appear to be functioning as if they alone are responsible for making decisions, and that the people who voted to put them in office can just be ignored.

And it all came to a head during last night's State of the Union, where the House, full of elected officials and special guests, all stood in adoring adoration and support of a man who has done us more harm than the terrorists on 9/11. He is responsible for the deaths of more of our brave troops than the number of people killed by the terrorists.

This man has violated laws. Abused his power. Used the system to work against the American people. Lied to us and to Congress. Stolen money from our treasury.

And I would like to know just one thing: what were they applauding for? Do they support this man and his policies? Did they not get the message from the people they work for in November?

WHAT WERE ALL THOSE PEOPLE APPLAUDING LAST NIGHT? AND WHY DID THEY ENCOURAGE CONTINUED MISBEHAVIOR BY THIS SHOW OF SUPPORT??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's all Kabuki theater...
now they're going to kick his ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. "You're doin' a Helluva good job Brownie."
Remember Bush saying:

"You're doin' a Helluva good job Brownie."

and then having Brownie's head on a platter a few days later?

'Same principle.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. I think the reason they applauded is because the American public is watching.
And as we've all seen, the American public isn't too good at separating fact from what looks good. So, if everyone but the rethugs sat there in silence, the rethugs could say something along the lines of "see how disrespectful they are of *. They just want to bash bush. Blah blah blah..." Behaving in a traditional manner the American public is accustomed to seeing allows the Democrats to continue to be on the good side of the average American- the ones who vote without much knowledge of policy and fact.

In 1995, the rethugs were rude to Clinton. But, somehow their rudeness is seen as strength while ours is seen as whiny and bashing. That's what happens when there is media deregulation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ms liberty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. You are correct...if it wouldn't have been televised the room would have been deadly silent n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ms liberty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. It wasn't a show of support for Shrub...
It was a show of courtesy and good manners, and respect for the OFFICE of POTUS. Don't confuse that with approval or support. When they stood and applauded through the speech, it was agreement with the general idea of what he had said - not approval of his policies, or encouragement of his misbehavior. And not all of them stood or applauded. The Republicult did, of course, and they were as loud as they could make themselves, however I saw some Democrats that never applauded after the intial greeting.

The lack of manners or courtesy by the GOP is not an excuse for us to act the same way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. You are correct, of course. But I am recommending this post
because even conceptually/rhetorically, it is well worth reading.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. agree - all those people we watched last night are our employees


nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ninkasi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. I wish I could recommend this twice
Since I can't, I'll just tell you that it seems very strange to me, too. Apparently, when on camera, politicians are merely following a ritualized response to the SOTU speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
8. Perhaps applauding the office, not the man. I keep thinking that
here in this country, we can't tell the difference between this government AND government.

Which pretty much means, the Chimp could have eaten kittens and there would be applause. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
10. My husband said "What a circus!" - summed it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hashibabba Donating Member (894 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
11. I heard someone saying last night that they applaud as a sign of
respect for the office, not the man. It may have been Hillary Clinton who said it, but I can't really remember. I think Tweety asked her if she was going to clap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Standing out of respect for the office, I would buy.
Applauding, just because it is expected, is gratutious and undeserved and just plain wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Who was the woman in the front row who turned away and
refused to shake his hand? I'd like to buy her some flowers!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Howard Dean said it
In an interview I heard yesterday.

I think it's smart to show respect myself. If they clap, the only folks who are upset are a few on DU. If they don't, the whole media comes crashing down on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
12. Some of that applause:
: may have been given to demonstrate support for the proposals bush was giving out...sort of like saying: "Yes I agree with this proposal and we will damn well hold you to doing just that as opposed to doing the opposite". bUsh is well known for saying things the people want to hear then making sure that the end product is opposite of what was promised. (Clean Air Act = more dirty air, No Child Left Behind = less educated children, for instance)

btw: Nice synopsis of bush's legacy AndyA, I would add to that list: salting/poisoning the Middle East with depleted uranium oxide and nurturing an environment conducive to the growth of terrorism against America. I believe bush and saddam hussein have much in common: Both invaded countries under false pretenses, both used wmd against their perceived enemies as well as their own, both made extensive use of a large prison system while ignoring common sense laws against torture, both have done tremendous damage against any stability in the middle east, both have outraged the majority of the civilized peoples of this planet, both faked the democratic process in order to seize and hold power. bookmarked
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC