Saturday, September 03, 2005

***A Concession for My More Conservative Readers

As I was walking the dog this morning, stepping over branches that littered the road and squinting in sunlight that reached through newly thinned forest, courtesy of the remnants of Katrina, I realized that my hatred of Bush has reached a point of utter irrationality. I was still fuming as I came over the top of the hill when it hit me that I hadn't yet let go of my hatred, and, as you know, by the time I get to the top of the hill, I'm usually emptied out of everything that's bothering me. But I was wondering when the last time was that a U.S. President has overseen so many separate calamities so costly to the U.S. population. There are an estimated 297,000,000 of us. We lost 2,986 people on September 11th. As of yesterday, we've lost 1,885 troops in Iraq and 233 in Afghanistan. Of the known dead from the hurricane, there are 411 direct deaths and 631 related deaths. Twenty thousand people are missing and the death toll will, when all is said and done, be in the thousands. Senator David Vitter thinks we should expect at least ten thousand dead. And we still have three more years. Who in America will not have lost someone they know to a national disaster on Bush's watch by the end of this? Seriously. If someone had told you six years ago that one out of every 20,000 Americans would be killed by this Administration's decisions or bungling during times of calamity, would you have believed it? I wouldn't have. According to the National Weather Service, your odds of getting struck by lightning are one in 700,000. That's right. You have a better chance of being killed during the Bush administration by the administration's incompetence than being struck by lightning. This is utter insanity and I don't know how to talk about it without becoming insane myself. So, as a favor, from here on out, any post that seems like it might devolve into a hate-fueled rant against Bush will be marked by three stars in the title (i.e. ***A Concession for my More Conservative Readers) and anyone who'd rather not watch me foam at the mouth can just skip it. You're welcome.

7 Comments:

Blogger Kat Coble said...

I find it ironic that the folks who maintain that this man is stupid also maintain that he could singlehandedly hold back the tide of a hurricane.

I personally think there is a lot of rage and feelings of helplessness floating around these days. Most people do better if they can crystallize their wrath on one person or thing, and GWB just happens to be your flashpoint.

9/03/2005 03:37:00 PM  
Blogger Peggasus said...

To answer your first question, that other President would be our much-revered Kennedy (who really was a pretty big fuckup himself, policy-wise), and Johnson after him, with a little thing called 'Vietnam.'

And though I harbour no love at all for GW, I do not think it is fair to 'blame' him for 9/11. The foundations for that tragedy were laid long before he took office, by Clinton (whom, by the way, I also harbour no affection for) and his predecessors, including Bush the First. We were just naive. It's a totally diffferent world now. There is plenty of blame to go around. As there will be in this case too.

No matter what side of the fence you're on, 'Live and Learn' is a pretty shitty way to determine national policy, whether it be for international events or Acts of God. We definitely should expect more from ALL of our elected officials than this.

9/03/2005 04:16:00 PM  
Blogger bridgett said...

Not to speak for our host, but perhaps I have not been specific enough. I don't blame GWB for the hurricane. I blame him for the levee break that was far far FAR more destructive. I blame him for the slow federal response that has killed thousands and is poised to kill thousands more through post-flood disease outbreaks. I blame him for the lack of National Guardsmen in Mississippi and Louisiana, men and women deployed elsewhere in what has been a fruitless effort to install a "democracy" free of whatever human rights developments have occurred in the 20th century. I blame him for the dearth of federal monies to cope with disaster relief, money that has been spent to blow the hell out of various countries and then reconstruct them badly. I blame him for appointing a group of Nixon and Ford-era nitwits who pursued an antiquated energy policy better suited to the realpolitick of 1970 than the global realities of 2005. I blame him for encouraging the Republican leadership of the Senate for pursuing the repeal of the estate tax at a time when wealth disparity in the United States is at an all-time high and the country's poor desperately need tax relief. I blame him for rendering my beloved country a dangerous place and for cheapening the citizenship I cherish.

And let it be noted that he asked for this responsibility and accepted the accumulated weight of our blessings and our rage when he took the helm of the most powerful nation in the world. If he didn't want to be held responsible, he should not have pursued that office and he should have figured it out the first time through. As a second-term president, he's had plenty of time to figure the job out. Leaders do not expect to be excused from their duties when the going gets tough, nor do they seek to blame-share. They lead. He's my "flashpoint" (as you say) because like it or not, he's my president. And he's doing a piss-poor job.

9/03/2005 05:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow. your my new friend.

9/04/2005 12:14:00 AM  
Blogger Ryan said...

Gotta side with mycropht on this one.

B, you know i'd rather eat glass than discuss politics, but I have to disagree with you here.

But, as always, you offer a good read and something to think about.

R.

9/04/2005 12:21:00 AM  
Blogger Aunt B said...

Ryan, that's why I implemented the starred warning system and said right up front that I've given over totally to irrationality when it comes to him.

Hopefully the starred system will allow you to read the parts of me that still make sense to you.

9/04/2005 09:36:00 AM  
Blogger Kat Coble said...

Except that I had to read the whole thing before I got to the part about the *** being a warning for future posts.

I thought that somewhere in all of those paragraphs I was going to get a bigger concession than "If you see a triple asterisk in future, I'll be really upset at Bush and you should skip it".

I felt all baitandswitchy about it. Yet, I lived. And I feel bad that you are so plinthed about it all.

9/04/2005 10:35:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home