Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Hating President Bush

Page: (1)2

23:02 / 23.09.03

President Bush's approval ratings are still decent, though they have been dropping. The news analysts seem to think that he has a very good chance of re-election.

But it also seems that, if you look to those who tend to dislike him, you very quickly find those who positively detest him. T-Shirts declare him an international terrorist, people refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the election; they call him a tyrant, a fundamentalist, and the greatest threat to world security. I heard an economist on Fresh Air say that he was more dangerous to America than the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11.

I'm worried that someone's going to assassinate him. In fact, I'll be quite surprised if no one gives it his best shot. Now, I'm sure that most of the folks here don't want that to happen, but I wonder what you think of the risk of this. And maybe the implications.

23:32 / 23.09.03

Well, even if there is no risk, the administration is using it to it keep the picture on the news more... positive.

CNN Story: The American Civil Liberties Union asked the federal courts Tuesday to prevent the U.S. Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters far away from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages up close.

23:45 / 23.09.03

99% of the Bush Hating Massive haven't realised that 'hate' is a *very* strong word. I disagree with GWB on nearly every issue, but can I hate the guy? I'm sure I could have a friendly beer with him as long as we talked about pop music or something. I don't subscribe to the view that he's a bad person per sè - how can I? I've never met him.

As the antithesis of cool (clumsy, conservative, christian) to take this exaggerated, extremist view (from "tending to dislike" to "positvely detesting") is really quite "in." Snappy t-shirt slogans, graffitti, etc, a nice way of coming across all anti-establishment for that touch of rebel chic.

To look at things from a very Bushlike perspective, most people who don't like Bush are "nice" and think he is "not nice." "Nice" people don't carry out hits, I feel - anyone feel it jars slightly when a wooly liberal declares the world would be a better place if he got taken out tommorow?

Frankly, I doubt anyone would have the balls to do the job (or for all the rhetoric, even celebrate his death) but every cause has it's nutcases I suppose. If he went down tommorow, I'd be guessing the bullet came from a 9/11-type fundamentalist.

If it came from a homegrown antiBush kinda chap, they'd have shat all over their own doorstep: his supporters would be more right-wing and committed than ever, a large number of those opposed to him would feel the whole thing had gone too far and quieten down a bit, and so on. Everything would go even further in a Bushy direction. I'd be more worried about that than his re-election.

00:15 / 24.09.03

As for assassination, well, when was the last time you heard the phrase "gun-owning Democrat"?

Meaning, probably not, and besides which, I don't like the guy, or more specifically the crowd he's got around him, but I would dread what would follow something like that. All of the media attack dogs on the Right would be demanding that the Democratic party be outlawed, and I could see plenty of "retaliatory" hits on the Clintons, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle...Truck bombings in Hollywood, that sort of thing. Anyone with a "Gore/Lieberman" sticker on their car probably wouldn't be safe either.

Groups like the Weathermen and suchlike are viewed quite dimly here, and if such an event happened, the specter of such groups would be ressurected to spook the masses. The Bill of Rights would be chucked out the window to shouts of "SEE! I TOLD YOU WHAT THOSE NO-GOOD COMMIE LIBERALS WERE UP TO!!!"

You can't really claim the protection of the rule of law when you just chucked it out the window, or as Guy Parsons so eloquently put it, "shit all over the doorstep".

Granted, this isn't from any detailed political analysis on my part, I just read Julius Caesar in high school.

01:01 / 24.09.03

I was looking up 'this day in history' yesterday morning, and it was the anniversary of one of the two assasination attempts on President Ford... it seems odd that such a (in retrospect) dull president would have two close attempts made on him... anyone know why?

01:26 / 24.09.03

If I recall correctly, there were some weird numeric correlations between the Kennedy assassination and the Lincoln assassination that also came up for Bush. Of course, that's a whopping correlation of two people, so I don't think GWII has much to fear.

09:24 / 24.09.03

"President Bush's approval ratings are still decent, though they have been dropping. The news analysts seem to think that he has a very good chance of re-election."

I am deeply sceptical of such polls, usually carried out by corporate US media organisations who, on the whole, would cheer Bush on even if he declared 10 more wars, as long as their sacred profits continued to grow, at ANY price.

Up to 50% of Americans cannot put a rizzla between the policies of the only 2 parties and, not surprisingly, don't waste their time voting. Are they included in these polls? If so, then how come Bush comes out on top, again?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

10:23 / 24.09.03

I think Bush is unlikely to be assassinated by a homegrown opponent - unless he does something wild like announce that he's strongly pro-choice, at which point who knows? As to international assassins, I imagine he's as well guarded as any President has been, and probably only marginally more disliked abroad.

Personally, I despise assassination - and actually, almost any form of political violence - so I can't find anything approaching a logical justification. I just can't see any evidence that it ever achieves anything good. On the other hand, when did not having a coherent reason ever stop anyone from trying to kill someone they didn't like?

As to Bush being 'clumsy', I suggest you read 'Fortunate Son'. He's a lousy orator, and he doesn't travel, but he's a smart political operator. I think it's an appealing and reassuring mistake to believe he's a stupid man.

Tryphena Absent

10:29 / 24.09.03

Yuk. And who wants Bush to be martyred?

10:57 / 24.09.03

Nick, i'm against violence too, but if Bush got rubbed out tens of thousands of innocent lives, perhaps a lot more, might be saved.

We also wouldn't have to listen to his constant threats against other countries.

11:11 / 24.09.03

Bush is not the prime mover in the Project for a New American Century though. Removing him removes only a sock-puppet figurehead. Those propelling the US in its present political direction would only be strengthened by any assassination attempt on Bush and his popularity ratings would likely benefit hugely too.

As for hating him, you can "hate" public figures and celebrities with a passion sometimes, just as you can feel passionately for them. But it's only the public projection with which you engage and that engagement is largely an illusion.

Despite the fact that Bush makes my flesh crawl and represents a political cast of mind I find repellent, I think I probably could indeed sink a few (theoretical) jars in comparative comfort with the real individual behind the Bush persona. But that would depend upon him dealing with me honestly and with respect. Neither of those conditions seems likely to be met given his public utterances.

12:11 / 24.09.03

LIES FOR MASS MURDER: WHY BUSH NEEDS TO BE ASSASSINATED, FAST

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." - George W. Bush, September 12 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." - George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." - George Bush, February 8 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George Bush, March 17 2003

"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them." - George Bush, April 24 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so." - George Bush, May 3 2003

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program." - George W. Bush, May 6 2003

We're The Great Old Ones Now

12:36 / 24.09.03

Absolutely none of which is a reason to assassinate anyone. Ever.

12:39 / 24.09.03

Over at The New Republic, Jonathan Chait lays out some very good reasons to hate Bush—most of them variations on the themes of hypocrisy and betrayal:

although he ran as a moderate centrist, he's pursued a radically conservative agenda

he's a poseur—a pampered frat boy playing at being a rough-hewn "man of the people"

he is either genuinely stupid or simply intellectually incurious, which amounts to the same thing

while paying lip service to "the neediest Americans," he has quietly and persistently pursued an agenda that undercuts their interests while pandering to those of the wealthiest Americans (who are his natural allies)

he stinks of White Male privilege and cronyism

having been handed, in the form of the 9-11 attacks, an opportunity to (a) rally the country behind him and (b) pursue a more internationalist (and just) foreign policy, he fucked up—leaving us with a bitterly divided nation that is itself increasingly isolated from the international community

There's a lot more. It's a long article, but well-documented and thoroughly damning. Recommended, too, is the back-and-forth debate about Bush-hate being carried on elsewhere on the site, by Chait and TNR conservative pundit Ramesh Pommuru.

12:47 / 24.09.03

None of the above is meant to justify assassination, either—only to refute Guy Parsons' view that "hate is a very strong word," and that "he's probably a very nice man really."

That's a naive view, I'm afraid: at the risk of bringing Godwin's Law down upon my head, I'd reckon that Hitler was probably a nice chap to talk to, too—so long as the conversation stuck to, say, trends in modern painting, or vegetarian recipes, or magick.

Does that make him any less of a monster?

In Bush's case, I think hate is the only appropriate word—and indeed the only appropriate response. Chait argues (and I agree) that Bush-hating makes sense in a way that Clinton-hating never did.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

13:07 / 24.09.03

Interestingly, I learned to hate Clinton in retrospect. He was a master of sleight of hand. I believed in Clinton, and then I found out he was making dirty deals with the Taliban about oil pipelines, for example. I loathe Blair for the same reason - I wanted him to be real. By contrast, I find the Tories in the UK laughable, and Bush, though he's far from funny, I don't actually hate. I just thing he's terribly, terribly wrong.

14:13 / 24.09.03

With Clinton, I feel—not hate, but—a tremendous sense of disappointment: he promised an ideologically-driven agenda—the "politics of meaning"—but settled for compromise and deal-making.

Bush, by contrast, promised compromise and yet pursues an agenda that's terrifying in its ideological purity.

In the US, the loathing for Clinton during his Presidency came from the right (the left are, as you said, learning to hate him in retrospect), and was driven largely by the ideology he represented, not for anything he actually accomplished—for what he daid he'd do, rather than what he was actually willing to do.

If anything, the Clinton years prepared the ground for W's handiwork, as conservatives were free to pursue their agenda with only minimal resistance—a furrowed brow and a passionate speech, as a prelude to the inevitable compromise—by a man who was, poisonously, more interested in being liked than in doing the right thing.

Professor Silly

14:47 / 24.09.03

I see no justification for assassination...ever ever ever.

Just as I see no justification for capital punishment...ever Ever EVER.

It might seem fitting to some, given Bush's actions toward Hussein and other so-called "terrorists." The current administration seems to see assassination as a legitimate method of settling differences...remember, the first actions in the most recent war with Iraq involved attempts on Saddam's life. Factor in the lack of condemnation from the Bush administration concerning Israel's assassinations of Palestinian dissidents, as well as Bush's capital punishment records from when he was Governer of Texas...and a clear picture emerges.

So I could see how any assassination attempt might seem...ironic. Still, assassination seems more like the methodology of those in charge, not those that disagree with him. The pro-peace folk just don't have it in them!

I also agree that such an action wouldn't depower the current administration...it would put Cheney in charge (shudder/gasp!!!). I would personally feel justified smacking any would-be assassin upside their head.

15:33 / 24.09.03

Were I Bush, I'd be far more fearful of the short patience of the American public than I would an assassination attempt.

49% in the last polls I read. And falling fast.

16:37 / 24.09.03

And even if he were to be assassinated (though I prefer the term "retroactively aborted"), I've heard there is a seemingly infinite supply of animatronic Bush look-alikes that can talk, sing, dance, and break into displays of patriotic fervour courtesy of the folks at Disney. (Its a small world after all.)

17:13 / 24.09.03

Bush is not the prime mover in the Project for a New American Century though. Removing him removes only a sock-puppet figurehead. Those propelling the US in its present political direction would only be strengthened by any assassination attempt on Bush and his popularity ratings would likely benefit hugely too.

What I was going to say basically.

Presumably the lack of assassination attempts is due to the fact that after thinking about the consequences for about 30 seconds it becomes clear that the same people would remain in power and furthermore would be able to doubly entrench their paranoid ideologies and perpetual-war terrorist fantasies..

It's for that reason that most people who carry out assassination attempts against leaders of democratic countries tend to be more from the 'lone-nut' side of things.. any dumbass can see that politically speaking it's just shooting the tip off an iceberg..

We're The Great Old Ones Now

19:45 / 24.09.03

Hm. I think you're all a little over-confident in this notion that Bush is a sock-puppet. This guy was a political strategist in his father's campaign, and if I recall correctly it is asserted in 'Fortunate Son' that he engineered the ad campaign which asserted that Dukakis' approach to crime would leave serious offenders free to commit rape. In other words, he was the one who said "It's time to play hardball."

At the least, he's a natural political animal, and mean as a weasel.

21:09 / 24.09.03

I find it very difficult not to hate this man. I probably dont have the right to hate him; he's never had any direct effect on my life (oh, other than turning my xboyfriend onto a murderer), yet every time he comes on TV i want to throw things at the screen. Just the sheer cheek of going against the UN, and then having the balls to ask them for help reassembling what he has just torn apart.

As for assasinating him; its tempting, but im not stooping to their level.

00:19 / 25.09.03

I certainly don't think Bush is stupid, or a puppet. He's certainly not the only (or even prime) architect of the policy that he is promoting. But you don't get to that level of political power without having some skills - somebody else will take the position from you before you get there. He has a lot of advantages in terms of background but there are others with similar. I'm told that in person he appears witty and charming, and that's necessary to gain support.

His down-home Texas boy casual style and his pronouncements. In speeches. As if he is reciting. Holy writ. Are calculated to appeal to a certain section of the American electorate, and may appear crude and stupid to others (particularly others abroad) but it's all PR, and it's not aimed at you. It certainly seems to be working.

The longer I spend here, the more I appreciate the calculated skill behind his media persona.

07:06 / 25.09.03

Nick, would you have objected to Hitler's assassination?

08:43 / 25.09.03

Hm. I think you're all a little over-confident in this notion that Bush is a sock-puppet.

I'm not necessarily saying that - just pointing out that assassination in non-totalitarian countries is a pointless strategy because leaders don't stand alone - they're figureheads for larger political/social/economic powerbases.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

08:44 / 25.09.03

GreenMan:

Yes. But also, when?

And consider some others:

Had you been a British colonial goverernor, would you have advocated Gandhi's assassination?

If Osama Bin Laden is assassinated now, will it increase or decrease the chances of terror attacks around the world? And isn't it possible that Bin Laden, like Arafat and Sadat and Begin and Adams and any number of others, will be a mover for peace in twenty years, and we might need him?

13:41 / 25.09.03

Nick, by your "yes" reply, I take it you WOULD have objected to the assassination of Hitler who, by the way, I find it hard to compare with Ghandi, Arafat, Adams, Sadat, or even Begin!

I'm not really convinced either way, but can't help thinking that, in the cases of Hitler and Bush, humankind would benefit if they had been bumped off.

Tryphena Absent

13:46 / 25.09.03

That's assuming that you can lay the blame entirely on Hitler's shoulders though- a common assumption indeed but not necessarily accurate. What about the other high level members of the Nazi party? Can you really presume that because the leader was dead the Nazi's would have collapsed? Likewise the Republicans would quite happily continue to bomb the shit out of everywhere and they would have an even bigger excuse than September the 11th. North Americans do not like their leaders dead.

14:12 / 25.09.03

Anna, I'm not convinced of your explanation either because, as can be seen by history, charismatic, magnetic and ruthless leaders, e.g. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc are often irreplaceable once they have been removed, frequently because they themselves have purged anyone with any popularity as a threat to their leadership.

There is hardly ever any real personalities that survive to follow these types, so a careful 'nip in the bud' could save untold millions upon millions of the most terrible deaths.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

14:43 / 25.09.03

Was the last 'rational' murderer Lee Harvey Oswald (without wanting to sidetrack this thread into whether he really did it or not)? Because it seems to be that most assasinations seem to be the work of people who are what are known in psychiatric parlance as 'completely fucking bonkers', the guy who shot Raygun was doing it just for Jodie Foster, Chapman was loony, even Barry Bulsara was a nutter with a Freddie Mercury obsession. So, is there any kind of tradition in the non-paramilitary left-wing to think that violence solves anything?

I also think I could probably have a pleasant drink with Dubya. I'd be wanting a rent boy to keep me company and a few lines of coke, as well as a persuasive barman to persuade Bush that he could really really do with a few Sex in the City cocktails, of course...

15:51 / 25.09.03

Was the last 'rational' murderer Lee Harvey Oswald

He was a patsy.

Sirhan-Sirhan, however.....

We're The Great Old Ones Now

16:03 / 25.09.03

GreenMann (see? I can spell your name right if I really try):

Nick, by your "yes" reply, I take it you WOULD have objected to the assassination of Hitler who, by the way, I find it hard to compare with Ghandi, Arafat, Adams, Sadat, or even Begin!

I'm not really convinced either way, but can't help thinking that, in the cases of Hitler and Bush, humankind would benefit if they had been bumped off.

I would have objected to the assassination of Hitler any time up until the start of WWII. After that it becomes more difficult to draw a line between assassination and military action.

It's not, incidentally, that I think there's a valid comparison between Gandhi and Hitler, but that's because I'm not a member of the British Imperial Service during Gandhi's period as a leader of resistance in India. As far as the Empire was concerned, Gandhi was a troublemaker, an insurrectionist, and a traitor to the Empire. He represented disintegration, the greatest fear of the Imperial administration.

Arafat, Sadat, and Begin have all at one time or another been terrorists or monsters to someone, and all are now thought of as statesmen - like Gandhi.

And yes, it's easy to say in retrospect that Hitler should have been killed off. At the time, however, the Endloesung wasn't common knowledge and Hitler was a democratically-elected leader - albeit in a rather murky sense of the term. But that awareness of election-rigging and the perversion of democracy is part of the post-WWII world.

More, we cannot know what shape the world would have taken without Hitler. Consider the spectre of Stalin (never by any means a Socialist or a lover of freedom under any banner) ripping through Europe from the East to possess a de-industrialised Germany, and grant himself access to the resources of France and Spain. Then see the UK failing to withstand Stalin's onslaught, and the possible consequences of the US facing off against a Eurasian Socialist Republic. You can imagine a war running to a decade, concluded only by a limited nuclear engagement which inflicts famine and fallout across the planet...

Or any number of other things. Assassinating fulcrum players in the global arena does not decrease insecurity.

16:06 / 25.09.03

Starlin was irreplacable? then why did it take the USSR so long after his death to finally collapse?

Oddly enoughI recall one of the reasons that British Intelligence shelved plans to assassinate Hitler in WWII was that aside from being a charismatic leader he was an inept strategist - removing him would have concievablely placed a more able comander in the leadership role making the allies task harder.

17:22 / 25.09.03

...and Gandhi was of course assassinated, in the end.

And who's to say the results were entirely negative? Seems to me that it forced the issue that GreenMann alluded to—the "great man" theory of historical progress—by proving that a free and democratic India could survive the death of its founding father, could move forward without the Great Soul there to force it to do the right thing by starving himself, without the cult of personality and moral blackmail on a nationwide scale. Every boy must kill his father, literally or metaphorically, before he can truly be a man: the same holds for nations.

I don't subscribe to the Great Man Theory, myself. I think that systems fall into motion and that the wheels grind along more-or-less inexorably: had Adolf Hitler died in the cradle, for instance, I believe that there still would have been a major European land war at some time between 1935 and 1950. The specific outcomes might've been very different, but the general shape of things would, I believe, have been much the same.

Economic and social circumstances lie around like a loaded gun on a coffee table: if one guy doesn't pick it up, somebody else is sure to do so.

And for that reason I find it all too easy to believe the George W Bush (see how I brought that back on track?) is just as stupid as he seems. In fact I find it amusing that so many of his critics assert that his dimness must be a carefully-calculated act, as fridgemagnet does above. The argument seems to be: No one can be that stupid.

Wanna bet?

Page: (1)2