If you’ve ever wondered about the sort of mindset that allows the kind of horrific response to Hurricane Katrina to happen, wonder no longer. Here is, moments ago, George Bush explaining that he finds similarities between terrorists needing to fund their attacks on innocent people… and the federal government of the United States.
There is no way to effectively run our government if you hate it. The Bush presidency is proof positive of that.
Here’s a true statement:
Al-Qaeda terrorists and US marines are both willing to kill and die for what they believe in.
Waiting patiently for Dugger et. al. to accuse me of calling US marines terrorists …
Only those portions that are not the responsibility of the government to provide. Do you know any Republicans that resent providing taxes for the military?
He must really hate himself.
No argument from me.
Obviously, Bush was trying to say that he was fighting terrorism while at the same time letting citizens know that he understands how much they resent paying taxes.
His body language says so much more than his mere words. We all understand his message just fine.
Why indeed? Because he knows that his base resents every penny that they pay to have a government in the first place.
Republicans do hate and resent government. It amazes me that anyone thinks they can govern with such an attitude.
For someone who hates the government so much, Bush has presided over an enormous increase in government spending programs. He must really hate himself.
I don’t know…ask Oliver to provide the rest of the quote so we can see it in context.
“Bush probably didn t, but Oliver cut the video so we couldn t see.”
And where, exactly, pray tell, does one go after one says that terrorists and the federal government both need money? If it’s a simple statement of fact it is so stupidly obvious only a moron would feel the need to point it out.
I love it when he ad libs… always entertaining. “And if you’re not careful, you just might learn a thing or two – hey hey hey”
I don’t know…what does he say next? Why does the clip stop? All I know so far is that terrorist organizations and governments need money…well, duh…so does my grandmother.
Frameone,
The difference between your statement and Bush’s is that you stopped your comparison at that point. Bush probably didn’t, but Oliver cut the video so we couldn’t see.
Why would he use the federal government as an example? Why couldn’t he say terrorists need money like any organization needs money? Like Wal-Mart or PBS.
“Only those portions that are not the responsibility of the government to provide.”
Tell me again what those responsibilities are, keeping this in mind:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“Turns out the terrorists need money just like the federal government…”
It’s a true statement. If you disagree with it then I conclude that you want to halt efforts to cut off funding sources to terrorists.
I missed the part where he stated or implied that he hated the federal government.
Where is the League of False Equivalnecy now? Did he just say that the Fedral Govmint is like a terrorist organization?
“It s perhaps stupid to throw federal government and terrorists in the same sentence, but the analogy is an apt one.”
You guys really blow me away with the lengths you are willing to go to make sense of the gibberish that dribbles from Bush’s lips. Yes, it’s an “apt” analogy but for what purpose? It’s so patently obvious as to be devoid of all significance entirely. Terrorists need money just like the federal government? So what? How does the comparison help anyone better understand how terrorists function and operate?
Indeed, it actually serves to obfuscate the nature of the terrorist threat because al-Qeada is not some massive bureaucracy the requires billions of dollars just to keep the lights turned on.
Frame…
And where, exactly, pray tell, does one go after one says that terrorists and the federal government both need money?
According to Oliver, one must necessarily go on to say that one hates the federal government, and that the federal government is like a terrorist organization. I look forward to hearing the rest of the context to see if Oliver is right.
I need money. Make me President!
Frameone, part 1:
Frameone, part 2:
First, frameone demonstrates that an oversimplified comparison should not be taken to mean equivalency. But then, frameone goes on to support the contention from a clip taken out of context that Bush is equating terrorists and the federal government.
Which is it?
Actually, that’s where Bush ends, he went on to talk about John Snow (the Treasury secretary) working to cut off terrorist funding. It wasn’t relevant to him equating terrorists funding their networks and the federal government. The mountain of other comparisons he could have used is staggering – gangs, organized crime/mobsters, the Nazis even – but almost without thinking about it, he thought of terrorists using money and the next thing that came into his mind was our federal government.
“Which is it?”
It’s up to you JWG. Either the president is a simple minded moron or he’s a total hypocrite. Take your pick.
And please do tell me how keeping people from going hungry and homeless while making sure they have access to a education and health care and does not constitute promoting the general welfare and so should not be the responsibility of the government?
JWG aqsks: “Do you know any Republicans that resent providing taxes for the military?”
Yes. The ones in congress and the WH. They are borrowing money to pay for the military because they reduced taxes.
It’s an apt analogy.
Terrorists require money in order to complete whatever goals they have.
The federal government requires money in order to complete whatever goals they have.
It’s perhaps stupid to throw “federal government” and “terrorists” in the same sentence, but the analogy is an apt one.
This isn’t really a big deal IMO.
In context, the use of the word “promote” means that the government has the responsibility to ensure an environment exists to allow people to live decently. It does NOT say the government should “provide” for people’s welfare. It is not a guarantee. If you think our current spending programs are simply a safety net for “keeping people from going hungry and homeless,” then you’re not paying much attention.
Not from the government. Can you point to where those “rights” are addressed in the Constitution? I suppose if you seek the minimization of religious expression, then the only thing left is the government, right comrade?
“It is not a guarantee.”
I love this. Eating and having a roof over your head are not a guarantee. Woo hoo! I can’t wait to live in the country of conservative wet dreams. A place where poverty is once again a sign of moral degeneration deserving of punishment rather than a systemic condition of free markets. I can’t wait to live in a country that can hold it’s head high knowing that, in allowing children to starve, we are helping to build their characters. What a wondeful thing you all hope and strive for.
Someone please tell me why Iraqis have a RIGHT to live in freedom and we are respnisble for PROVIDING THEM WITH IT but we are under no obligation to provide basic sustenance, housing and health care to Americans in need?
Watching that video, the way he smirks and the way his eyes twinkle, it’s pretty clear Bush meant to diss the federal government.
But that’s OK – we already know how the Republicans feel about the government (that is, the parts that don’t illegally spy on citizens or give fat handouts to the already obscenely rich):
My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. — Grover Norquist
I found the transcript of Bush’s Q and A. Previous to his quip cited by Oliver he discussed at length the deficit and government spending, including this statement:
Having previously discussed the need to control governmental spending, Bush referenced that when he started to discuss how they were trying to limit the flow of money by terrorists. It was a clumsy move, and it seems that Bush recognized it.
Oliver goes overboard, as usual, in saying that Bush equated the two. Controlling spending was the clear point on Bush’s mind given the context.
JWG How quaint. Anyone who criticizes our government is a Commie. You ought to update a little.
“It was a clumsy move…”
Face it guys and gals, you elected an idiot.
“Please point to where all these poor Americans are dying of starvation, can t find shelter if they want it, and are turned away from the emergency rooms.”
How about if I point to your post above in which you imply that the government should not be involved in preventing hunger and homelessness or access to health care?
And as to you seond point:
” … choosing to use that might for other nations is debatable, but remains a responsibility of the government. It s all there in the Constitution.”
Um, okay. So our Constitution ensures the freedom of Iraqi citizens? And you have a problem with illegal immigration why?
frame, if you’ve read most of what I’ve written, you’ll realize that “you guys” is not the proper way to address my ‘apt’ point
Just sayin’.
1) Please point to where all these poor Americans are dying of starvation, can’t find shelter if they want it, and are turned away from the emergency rooms.
2) Providing citizens with the military might to ensure freedom is a responsibility of government…choosing to use that might for other nations is debatable, but remains a responsibility of the government. It’s all there in the Constitution.
“… if you ve read most of what I ve written …”
I hang on your every word …
“I suppose if you seek the minimization of religious expression, then the only thing left is the government, right comrade?”
Do I seek the minimization of religious expression?
Um, I didn’t imply anything of the kind. The government has a duty to “promote” activity that helps its citizens’ welfare. My point is that is not the same as “provide” the welfare. Additionally, the goverment is already doing waaaay more than just helping people not to starve or die from medical emergencies, and you want it to take responsibility for even more.
Wow, your eyes must be tired today. I clearly said the use of our military resources in Iraq was debatable. That’s a long way from “ensures.” If we do choose to employ our military then it remains a governmental responsibility. In other words, the responsibility to engage foreign governments in combat belongs to the American government.
However, philosophically, you may choose to debate our responsibilities to the world if you believe in the statement:
While not legally binding as is the Constitution, the statement does imply that everyone, not just Americans, has a right to freedom.
Actually, the terr’ists are far better at managing their money, and, as witnessed by their targeting oil pipelines, they actually have a more cohesive and coherent energy policy than the Bush administration.
You caught Oliver’s disease. I clearly made a sarcastic point which had nothing to do with those “who criticize our government.” If anyone was criticizing the government it was me (for adding never-ending financial responsibilities specifically left out of the Constitution).
The USSR supressed individual responsibility, primarily expressed within religious faiths, in favor of increased governmental responsibility for caring for its citizens. Do I really think the Left wants us to become a communist state? No, but what’s the point of reading a political blog if you can’t make a sarcastic comment once in a while?
I prefer “folksy.”
“The government has a duty to promote activity that helps its citizens welfare. My point is that is not the same as provide the welfare.”
I’d love to know which category you think the food stamp program falls into.
Also Head Start, unemployment insurance, Social Security, medicare, the prescription drug program and welfare.
Oh and if you want to employ such an expansive view of the Declaration of Independence to support the invasion of Iraq, could you please tell me how you apply it to the isse of illegal immigration.
“I prefer folksy.
Not surprising. Self-deception has been at the heart of Bush’s support from the beginning.
Obviously, they fall into “providing.” I’m curious where the Constitution outlines the rights of certain American citizens to have their food, education, medical care, periods of unemployment, and retirement forcefully funded by other citizens?
What other “rights” should we force our citizens to pay for? You mentioned the right to housing before. What about the right to a college/vocational education? How about transportation? Internet access? Vacations?
I must’ve missed the part where the DoI advocated breaking the law in your pursuit of happiness.
[...] serious? Once again, the government cannot work for the people when you elect people who hate the government.
[...]
For all of you making excuses for Bush’s statement, do you also condemn the attacks last year on Sen. Dick Durbin, when he said, commenting on a an FBI agent’s official report on detainee conditions at Guantanamo:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011106.html
? Conservative politicians and commentators pounced on this, choosing to interpret this as Durbin calling American troops Nazis.
And also recall that even though Bush himself has repeatedly explained that he never said that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and that there is no evidence that he ever aided Al Qaida, that because of the administration’s incessant conflation of Saddam and 9/11 in the same breath leading up to Bush’s launching the Iraq war, that polls at the time showed that 45% of American’s believed the administration’s intentionally created false impression that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
So it’s hard to believe that Bush’s newest comparison of the federal government to terrorists is entirely innocent here.
“I must ve missed the part where the DoI advocated breaking the law in your pursuit of happiness.”
Ya, and I missed the part where it made pre-emptive war to “liberate” other countries a national priority. Get rid of all the programs that you think the government shouldn’t be providingand we’ll see in which direction the “general welfare” heads. And it’s called the “general” welfare because we are a national community, JWG, we are in this together.
And as to this:
“What about the right to a college/vocational education? How about transportation? Internet access? Vacations?”
You don’t think universal college and vocational training would help provide for the common welfare? You got a problem with buses and subways and other forms of public transportation? You don’t think that in the 21st century libraries should provide free internet access? And finally, you got a problem with weekends? Ya, weekends, the two days of the week we get to “rest” because unions in this country fought for the right for a 40 hour, five day work week. And why the hell shouldn’t the average American worker be entitled by law to two weeks vacation time every year? Hell, the French get six. You want to run on a platform of doing away with buses and subways and the 40 hour work week? Go for it.
“I m curious where the Constitution outlines the rights of certain American citizens to have their food, education, medical care, periods of unemployment, and retirement forcefully funded by other citizens?”
How about this part:
Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 8 – Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Let’s look to the Federalist Papers (#41 specifically) for some clues, shall we?
It appears that ol’ Madison should’ve paid more attention to the likes of frameone who advocates additional rights under the guise of “general welfare.” Madison continues:
In other words…you conveniently left off the list that followed your “general welfare” quote from the Constitution. It was there for a reason.
How about clothing?
Um, JWG, I suggest you pass these passages on to defenders of Bush’s warrantless wiretapping.
[...] House of Representatives. It s your own hatred of government (perhaps you could stop comparing it to Al Qaeda) that is preventing you and your [...]