President Bush: "It's unacceptable...
jaydfox 20 Sep 2006
The whole article is a good read, though a bit too long to quote in its entirety.
Bush owes us an apology
The President of the United States owes this country an apology.
It will not be offered, of course.
He does not realize its necessity.
There are now none around him who would tell him or could.
The last of them, it appears, was the very man whose letter provoked the President into the conduct, for which the apology is essential.
An apology is this President's only hope of regaining the slightest measure of confidence, of what has been, for nearly two years, a clear majority of his people.
Not "confidence" in his policies nor in his designs nor even in something as narrowly focused as which vision of torture shall prevail -- his, or that of the man who has sent him into apoplexy, Colin Powell.
In a larger sense, the President needs to regain our confidence, that he has some basic understanding of what this country represents -- of what it must maintain if we are to defeat not only terrorists, but if we are also to defeat what is ever more increasingly apparent, as an attempt to re-define the way we live here, and what we mean, when we say the word "freedom."
...
With increasing rage, he and his administration have begun to tell us, we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right, that Colin Powell cannot be right.
And then there was that one, most awful phrase.
In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark.
“It's unacceptable to think," he said.
It is never unacceptable to think.
And when a President says thinking is unacceptable, even on one topic, even in the heat of the moment, even in the turning of a phrase extracted from its context, he takes us toward a new and fearful path -- one heretofore the realm of science fiction authors and apocalyptic visionaries.
That flash of lightning freezes at the distant horizon, and we can just make out a world in which authority can actually suggest it has become unacceptable to think.
Thus the lightning flash reveals not merely a President we have already seen, the one who believes he has a monopoly on current truth.
It now shows us a President who has decided that of all our commanders-in-chief, ever, he alone has had the knowledge necessary to alter and re-shape our inalienable rights.
This is a frightening, and a dangerous, delusion, Mr. President.
...
There needs to be an apology from the President of the United States.
And more than one.
But, Mr. Bush, the others -- for warnings unheeded five years ago, for war unjustified four years ago, for battle unprepared three years ago -- they are not weighted with the urgency and necessity of this one.
We must know that, to you, thought with which you disagree -- and even voice with which you disagree and even action with which you disagree -- are still sacrosanct to you.
...
JonesGuy 20 Sep 2006
This is the president that caused a new word "Bushisms"; I think that positing that he says what he means is a lost cause - even if it makes him look bad.
That said, a retraction would be nice.
Utnapishtim 20 Sep 2006
Bush is not a gifted public speaker and says lots of stupid shit. That has to be a given at this point. I don't think that fixating on particular word choices or sentence chunks is healthy or useful. All this gleeful point scoring off somebodies verbal hiccups achieves is a more contrived less spontaneous and less sincere speeches by public figures.
But then the speech is basically Keith Olberman preaching to the choir and promoting Keith Olberman the new Walther Cronkite/conscience of America. With Rathers and Brokaw gone the fake gravitas throne stands empty.
20 Sep 2006
In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark.
“It's unacceptable to think," he said.
Wow.
Brainbox 20 Sep 2006
rahein 20 Sep 2006
Take for example the NYC tunnel bombing plot. It was just a few messages posted (bragging) online about how they could flood NYC by bombing a tunnel. Not only did they not have any explosives or plans. The idea would not have even worked. To the best of my knowledge these people disappeared and no one has heard from them since.
Now Bush is telling people that they can even THINK things. This is a free country with free speech. Everyone, especially kids, BS about that type of crap. It does not mean they are going to do it. They are free to talk all they want about it.
Just saw ‘V for Vendetta’ the other day and I have to say:
“People should not fear their governments. Governments should fear their people.
bgwowk 20 Sep 2006
rahein 20 Sep 2006
It doesn't matter if someone was asking him if 1+1=3. He can say it is wrong, but he CAN'T tell someone that they are not allowed to think it. This is not out of context quoting. The context is America and in America you are allowed to think what you want.
jaydfox 20 Sep 2006
It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between trying to save the life of an 80-year-old with colon cancer and trying to save a 12-year-old with leukemia.
It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the disenfranchisement of a white student because of an affirmative action program and the disenfranchisement of a black student because of segregation.
"It's unacceptable," a visibly angered Bush told the press, "to think there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists, who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."
That is far from stating something as profoundly obvious as "It's unacceptable to think 1+1 =3."
It's not wrong, because it's a complex subject, complex enough that there are plenty of parallels between the two situations, even though there are plenty of differences. The comparison might not be exact, and indeed may be seriously flawed, but it speaks to a grain of truth.
When it becomes unacceptable to critique our own moral fiber and whether we can retain the moral high ground given the actions of this administration, we've lost one of our greatest freedoms.
It's unacceptable to think that a man of your education and intellectual prowess could say something so ridiculous.There is something even worse than not thinking: lying. The subject line of this thread is a lie.
bgwowk 20 Sep 2006
It's unacceptable to think.
Is that the thought I expressed? Is that a fair representation of the thought I expressed? Would it be fair to write a whole editorial about how I believe thinking is unacceptable?
Mind 20 Sep 2006
jaydfox 20 Sep 2006
[tung]
Just razzin' you.
bgwowk 20 Sep 2006
Now *that* is something worth discussing, because that is what Bush actually said (or, more accurately, implied). He did not say that people shouldn't think. It's very misleading to claim that he did.When it becomes unacceptable to critique our own moral fiber and whether we can retain the moral high ground given the actions of this administration, we've lost one of our greatest freedoms.
bgwowk 20 Sep 2006
Then instead of secularists editorializing against an alleged exhortation to not think, would religionists editorialize against an alleged exhortation to not believe?It's unacceptable to believe there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists, who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.
rahein 20 Sep 2006
I did not say anything about thinking in general. Which I am sure even Bush supports, even if he does not do much of his own.
The problem I have is with the Chief Executive of the state saying that it is wrong to think a specific thought. The Chief Executive is in charge of executing the laws of the state. Him saying that it is wrong to think a specific thought, no matter what that thought is, is tantamount to saying it is ILLEAGAL to think that.
This is getting dangerously close to THOUGHT-CRIME! For someone to be punished in our constitutional democracy they have to have DONE something wrong. Thinking a specific thought is not necessary nor sufficient to be charge, held, or prosecuted by the state. This comment is not specifically about his remarks in the citied article, but to how this government is moving in general. Please refer to my example about the tunnel plotters.
We are moving into unprecedented interpretations of the law right now. Government surveillance of all its citizens means that everyone is suspect in a crime. Right now that crime may be ‘aiding terrorists’, but a future administration could build on that to include all crime. Remember that all the power you give the current president, all later presidents will have. Even if they are worse then Bush.
bgwowk 20 Sep 2006
maestro949 21 Sep 2006
Freudian slip.
That would imply some hidden intellect elsewhere in his brain.
RighteousReason 21 Sep 2006
Thought-Crime is on the verge of becoming real in this country.
(editted out the most vulgar rant you can possibly imagine, because the admin pussies cry and cry about these kind of things)
Edited by hankconn, 21 September 2006 - 03:21 AM.
RighteousReason 21 Sep 2006
Weakness = death.
jaydfox 21 Sep 2006
And indiscriminate cruelty and lack of honor and lack of justice = loss of moral high ground = loss of support of borderline nations among allies and moderates among enemies = deathWeakness = death.
21 Sep 2006
If you want to continue to post here, and this goes for the free speech fora as well, pay attention to our policy on ad hominem attacks. This is a formal warning.(editted out the most vulgar rant you can possibly imagine, because the admin pussies cry and cry about these kind of things)
jaydfox 21 Sep 2006
RighteousReason 21 Sep 2006
Take a look at World War Two... we would be living in the dark ages right now if not for fire bombing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Tokyo and elsewhere, and dropping multiple nuclear bombs on civilian targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.indiscriminate cruelty
It sucks, bad. Sometimes you have throw out a little baby with the bathwater.
Can you imagine if Americans had the same reaction (and the same weak, weak leadership) of today, back in World War Two?
RighteousReason 21 Sep 2006
Ah, you make reference to the other "We're F***ed" front.Hank, you're a singularitarian.
If I'm wrong about how screwed we are when AGI hits, well, shit, laugh at me afterwards. But until then, I've got good reason to believe "We're F***ed"
jaydfox 21 Sep 2006
And at any rate, we honored the Geneva Conventions in WWII. For the most part, we did our best to maintain the moral high ground. The current situation with the treatment of "enemy combatants" reeks. If I as an American am appalled by it, just imagine what fodder it is for those seeking to turn the moderates, the undecideds, against us. Every time a report comes out about the torture of suspected terrorists and terrorist supporters, tens, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of moderates and undecideds decide we are getting what we deserve, and we lose their financial and political support. In the nations of our allies, we lose sympathy and cooperation. In the nations of our enemies, we only fortify their resolve to beat us, or at the least to impede the war on terrorism.
And for what? Have we gained enough from our policies to justify it? I haven't seen a compelling case made that the ROI is even close to being worth it.
RighteousReason 21 Sep 2006
(1) Border security and our nation's intelligence program (ESPECIALLY wiretaps, etc) are pivotal.
(2) Conservatives at least half-assedly support these.
(3) Liberals are far more worried about global warming and other tertiary crap, and are so concerned about optimizing their political attacks that they end up opposing defending themselves at all.
21 Sep 2006
They could have made their point just as easily by dropping a bomb on an uninhabitable or military-only target as a proof of concept. The use of nuclear weapons against a civilian population was a war crime that the United States has yet to be held accountable for. More than 200,000 people, mostly civilians, perished on account of the two nuclear bombs that exploded in the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.Take a look at World War Two... we would be living in the dark ages right now if not for fire bombing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Tokyo and elsewhere, and dropping multiple nuclear bombs on civilian targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It sucks, bad. Sometimes you have throw out a little baby with the bathwater.
Can you imagine if Americans had the same reaction (and the same weak, weak leadership) of today, back in World War Two?
RighteousReason 21 Sep 2006
http://www.freedomag...wmd_quotes.html
The lies and hypocrisy are astounding.