Bush has vetoed stem cell research and the war bill that would end the war. In both cases the lives of Americans are at stake. In both instances the president voted… to kill Americans.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
The Common Feature In Bush’s Only Two Vetoes
May 1st, 2007
45 Comments
Yeah, the pro-life President who also had more death penalty executions under his watch as governor. I used to call him the Equal Opportunity Fryer. Maybe that still applies.
While I disagree with the President, I must admit that I find your “commentary” to be overly simplistic. Perhaps you’re trying to be cute? Given the gravity of both issues, they deserve more thought than this.
It would be nice if more people could get away from the type of logic that would merely fomulate a slogan on a bumper sticker. This is what I see here. This will my first and last visit to this page.
I prefer someting more intellectual (regardless of the political bias).
Don’t let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.
“I prefer someting more intellectual (regardless of the political bias).”
Hear him and Tremble! The Gilded Moderate has Spoken!
Yes the discourse was so beneath him he felt the need to stoop down and actually tell us how intellectually superior he is!
guess I’m not the only one who thinks your brand of yellow journalism is lacking….
Yellow? Stop questioning Oliver’s patriotism!!!!
#
When calling your representatives please remember to speak in a respectful tone. Don’t name-call, don’t raise your voice. Just calmly and eloquently tell them that you expect them to continue to send the same bill, with time-tables, to the President until he finally signs it.
Let your representatives know it is time to bring the boys home. Just do be calm when you make that phone call.
Oliver, you really and I mean really sound like a super sized moron when you write stuff like this.
I know pinheads like Frameone like it, but is trolling for the dregs really worth it?
Every sperm is sacred. American soldiers and Iraqi babies? Not so much.
Oh, and seeing Jay and Pedro lecturing someone about civility is kind of like hearing … oh hell, I can’t come up with anything nearly so hypocritical.
I actually agree with Jay (and Paul, I guess, even though he appears to be a complete douche) here. I strongly disagree with Bush’s two vetoes, but it isn’t nearly so simple as you’re making it, Ollie.
Sure, it’s that simple, or should I say, essential. The essence of Bush’s presidency is to do evil. The rest is smoke and mirrors.
Dunno if you’re joking or not, Mike… but I’ll respond as though you’re being serious.
I think that GW is profoundly incompetent. I truly believe that he’s an idiot, or suffering from some low-grade dementia. As President, I think that he has been an utter disaster in nearly every way. On a more personal level, I loathe the man.
However, I don’t believe he’s evil. Truth be told, I don’t believe that “evil” really exists in terms of being an accurate descriptor of persons; MAYBE it could be applied to actions, if one were to take an objective POV (i.e., a utilitarian weighing the net negative value of the Holocaust). I’m not quite sure about that yet…
But anyway, getting back on point… Bush truly believes that he’s doing right by these policies. He vetoed stem cell research because he thought it immoral, and he vetoed this bill because of analogous reasons. There’s nothing “evil” about Bush, or his Presidency because of this.
I think that it’s much more reasonable to point to these actions and argue that he’s got a skewed worldview, or that he’s overly simplistic, or that he’s downright stupid. Much easier argument to wage than suggesting that he’s “evil,” or suggesting that “he voted to kill Americans.”
Of course it’s more complex, mambochicken, but the connection that Oliver is pointing to is there.
Republicans, nativists, jingoists, tribalists, right-wingers in general only feel comfortable in a society where they can kill or marginalize whomever they want and keep others from killing or marginalizing whomever they want.
The fetishizing of the fetus goes hand-in-hand with the cavalier attitude toward war and capital punishment and the utter lack of concern for poor children without health insurance and the murderous effects of bad environmental policy.
Being against abortion and un-plugging the braindead gives the right powerful ideological cover for their pro-death policies everywhere else.
think that GW is profoundly incompetent. I truly believe that he’s an idiot, or suffering from some low-grade dementia. As President, I think that he has been an utter disaster in nearly every way.
Isn’t there anything in the constitution that would preclude that from being President? Anything at all.
Wilbur, I don’t disagree with you.
I’m saying that while OW is asserting that Bush voted to kill Americans (his words, not mine), Bush is more likely to believe that he voted to SAVE lives (in the case of Iraq) and to protect a perceived sanctity of life (in the case of stem cell research). Is Bush wrong about the consequences of his actions? I believe so, absolutely. This may make him stupid, stubborn, and short-sighted… hooray for alliteration… but it doesn’t make him evil. He’s not making decisions with express malicious intent, he’s instead making decisions that serve his own faulty ideology.
So yes, in a way, I’m wholly agreeing with you. I’m saying that it’s his worldview, his ideology, that’s the underlying problem, and these decisions are merely incidental to that ideology.
Duros, I’m not sure what you’re driving at. I’m not saying that Bush should be President. In my perfect world, a man like him would be nowhere near a position of power. And yes, it stems from him being incompetent. Am I missing your point?
I think Duros is referring to the competency provisions of the Succession Act.
Good luck with that trick.
He vetoed stem cell research because he thought it immoral, and he vetoed this bill because of analogous reasons.
If Dugger can invoke the “we don’t know his inner thoughts” when people say Bush has lied, I can invoke the same when anyone pretends to know the reasons for his vetoes.
I can come up with several other possibilities besides morality.
Mambo- being reasonable doesn’t always fly here. Oliver looks to make the best talking points, and doesn’t really care if the President is actually “evil” or not.
He writes things he wishes that Democrats would say regardless of how over the top it may sound.
Yes, Quaker, and you can probably think the best of a person, like most people do concerning most people.
It’s the inability to do that as far as Pres. Bush is concerned that some people would describe as “Bush Derangement Syndrome”.
I think Oliver just does this to draw people offsides.
I mean, nobody can be this stupid, right?
You never did identify a single thing Bush has done for America that can be called a good thing.
…you can probably think the best of a person, like most people do concerning most people.
It’s the inability to do that as far as Pres. Bush is concerned…
I give people the benefit of the doubt. Until the prove otherwise. As this President has done. With alarming consistency.
And yes, the point I was trying to make is that I was wondering if there was any provision in the Constitution for removing a President who was bat-shit crazy or just completely incompetent to hold office.
Not having been able to get through the whole document myself, I’m interested in these competency provisions you speak of.
Quaker, you’re right that there are other possibilities other than his own personal moral code for Bush vetoing these two bills. I don’t dispute that. But to me, moral reasons (that I deem completely wrongheaded) seem exceedingly more likely a reason for his vetoes than the chance of him actually sitting around the Oval Office and thinking, “Shit, is there any other way I can maximize my body count here…” As in most things, I will go with the explanation that seems most likely.
I don’t think that any reasonable person can actually believe that Bush behaves with the express purpose of doing “bad” things. Instead, he does bad things with the express belief that he’s doing “good” things. He’s just wrong… not evil.
You never did identify a single thing Bush has done for America that can be called a good thing.
Seriously, what is up with that? Not one positive aspect from our right-wing brethren.
Not having been able to get through the whole document myself, I’m interested in these competency provisions you speak of.
Before you struggle through the whole thing (it is worth it, but you can live without it, for now), you need the Presidential Succession Act – easily Googled. The “incompetency provisions” go back to when Woodrow Wilson had a stroke before he left office.
They’re a little harder to find stuff, but it’s there.
You never did identify a single thing Bush has done for America that can be called a good thing.
Seriously, what is up with that? Not one positive aspect from our right-wing brethren.
Why even bother? So we can be told it didn’t happen / it was just politics / it was just diverting attention from this or that / it really wasn’t important ?
It’s not worth the effort. This is a blog where people blame Bush for everything, INCLUDING the weather. What thing could you say about him here, that would pass for good?
That’s what I thought.
What thing could you say about him here, that would pass for good?
Probably nothing. Now there are two ways to explain that: a) all us lefties are deluded nutjobs, or b) Bush really is a total f*ckup.
I’ve seen no evidence that counterindicates the answer (b). Though I admit I am biased against answer (a), evidence against it includes the fact that we’ve turned out to be right about quite a few important issues over the past few years.
Even on conservative blogs, the only think I see Bush given consistent props for is pissing off democrats and making wogs’ heads explode.
Game’s up, Frank. We call. You got Joker high against a full house.
um, that was me.
It’s the inability to do that as far as Pres. Bush is concerned that some people would describe as “Bush Derangement Syndrome”.
But then, by assuming “derangement,” one would be just as guilty, no?
mambo, you seem to think unintentional evil is not evil. I think the opposite is quite often the case. I once read a book by Scott Peck, a darling of the religous right, describing cases of what he considered ‘evil’ from his counseling practice. He had a number of convincing examples, like the parents who gave their son a rifle for his birthday – the very same rifle that his older brother had used to commit suicide. The parents were apparently genuinely astounded at the notion that they might have done something wrong.
That kind of total moral incompetence: that’s Bush to a T. The fact that he may not intend evil does not make what he does any less evil.
Actually, no… I was only referring to term used by some people. To assume that a person is never doing anything right, but is always doing something evil, intentionally or unintentionally, is certainly an erroneous judgment.
The term “derangement” is not mine, and is not to my understanding, limited to that aspect alone.
That kind of total moral incompetence: that’s Bush to a T
Everyone here is entitled to their opinion, and I claim no expertise in this area, but based on what I’ve read here over the years, moral competence may be beyond the ken of about 95% of the posters here.
I’m just sayin’.
Here’s a few websites on Pres. Bush’s accomplishments — more to follow
I was going to set up categories, where you could disqualify the contribution by number (#1 Clinton actually did it; #2 It was Congress, etc., but I thought I’d let you do the work)’
This represents “accomplishments of Bush administration (without quotes) 5 Google pages in
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot07401.htm
http://www.ccd21.org/news/white_house_factsheet.htm
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Bush.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/July/03_crt_414.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1194891/posts
{see Post # 2}
http://www.doi.gov/Hunters_Anglers_Accomplishments.pdf
http://www1.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=307
Batterer up!
b) Though I admit I am biased against answer (a), evidence against it includes the fact that we’ve turned out to be right about quite a few important issues over the past few years.
evidence against it includes the fact that we’ve turned out to be right about quite a few important issues over the past few years
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Gosh, Frank, is it possible that you don’t realize how pathetic that litany of links is?
I mean seriously: you confine yourself to the most rabidly partisan sources and still, the best you can come up with is in-house propaganda from 2001 and ludicrous lists of “accomplishments” like “President Bush presents Medal of Freedom to George Tenet” (link #3).
I’m sure Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss has a simlar list of accomplishments.
Of course! What else would such a list be?
It has been predicted:
Why even bother?
It’s not worth the effort.
What thing could you say about him here, that would pass for good?
Posted by: fd10801 | May 2, 2007 2:48:32 PM
Where would I get such a list, where the list would satisfy you?
Maybe from one of these blogs?
Altercation
American Politics Journal
Atrios
Benny’s World
Bob Geiger
Brad Blog
Bring It On!
Calling All Wingnuts
Celebrity Pictures
Cliff Schecter
CREW
Crooks & Liars
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Daou Report
David Sirota
Deltoid
Digby
DKelSmith
Eat The Press
Ed Cone
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Firedoglake
First Draft
First Draft
Flavia Colgan
Glenn Greenwald
HuffPo
Hughes for America
ImproveMan
James Wolcott
John Edwards
Jon Swift
Jousting for Justice
Kevin Drum
Kirsten Powers
Kung Fu Monkey
Mark Warner
Mathew Gross
Maximum365
Music Videos
MyDD
National Chronicle
News America Now
One Billion Movies
Pandagon
Paul Waldman
Pharyngula
QandO
Raising Kaine
Reality-Based Community
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No
Scoobie Davis
Seeing the Forest
Shakespeare’s Sister
Stakeholder
Steve Michel
Suburban Guerrilla
Talking Points Memo
Tapped
TBogg
The Horse’s Mouth
The Poor Man
The Sideshow
Think Progress
This Modern World
Total Centrist
TPMCafe
TPMmuckraker
TVNewser
Washington Fix
Waveflux
Wes Clark
Will Bunch
Wonkette
Xoverboard
Kim Kardashian
Boomnation
Or maybe ?
I guess the answer to my question is “yes, it is possible”.
Yes, Frank, I’m sure Kim Kardashian has a list of George Bush’s positive accomplishments.
Oh, this is nice.
Geneva Conventions notwithstanding. Extraordinary renditions notwithstanding.
Jack Bauer, where are you?
Actually, no… I was only referring to term used by some people.
What’s that? The “some say…” construction? You have studied the master well, grasshopper.
Let us hear no more accusations against Mr. Willis of “insinuation” from you.
Here is one of the things you guys – especially Marty – need to understand about this fricking blog.
I say what I think. Not what somebody wants me to, not what I want you to, but what I think. If I think someone is an asshole I say it, if I think they aren’t, I say it. No double-super-secret messages to decode.
I hope so, Oliver.
I wasn’t insinuating anything, Quaker. My take on it was clear. It’s you, and more often, other posters, who think I’m the Delegate from Conservatismia, and you ask me to explain every statement from Justinian to Hannity.
What I said was simple enough: The idea that Pres. Bush can do nothing positive is a part of BDS.