Someone wants to nominate Bush for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Excuse me while I vomit.
Their reasoning: terrorism dropped 44% between 2001 and 2002, to the lowest level since 1969.
Uh huh. They’re also probably forgetting that the U.S.A. is not the only country on this planet (which I find a lot of Bush lovers forget) and they probably don’t read a lot of international news to know that OTHER COUNTRIES SUFFER TERRORIST ACTS TOO. Why don’t you ask someone in the Kashmir region of India about their life in 2002, especially after Jerry Falwell’s remarks caused the deaths of a number of people there? Oh yes… there’s also the Abu Sayyaf rebels in the Phillipines who kidnapped the Burnhams. We’re not even starting to get into what has happened in Africa and Latin America in 2002 — all of which the U.S. did *NOTHING* about.
I’m sure this person and their minions also neglected to read the commentary on Carter getting the prize: Carter’s awarding of the prize was the Nobel people thumbing their nose at Bush. Clinton (whose morals shall not come into play in this entry) did more for peace than Bush did. He helped broker the peace deal between Israel and PLO in 1993 and he did quite a bit for the cause in Northern Ireland. Bush declared war on a 3rd World country in violation of the U.N. charter to look for weapons of mass destruction that *STILL* haven’t been found. And people want to give him a frickin’ prize????
Terrorism dropped in the U.S. between 2001 and 2002 — well… DUH! ANY year other than 1941 and 1995 was more safe for the U.S. I mean, you have a major terrorist attack on American soil — you think the government *isn’t* going to be more vigilant from then on???
*retreats off to read some Barbara Kingsolver and work on a Canadian citizenship application*
Oh yes…
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
– Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
(Thanks Brian. Now get off the computer and do something else!)
“Clinton (whose morals shall not come into play in this entry) did more for peace…helped broker the peace deal between Israel and PLO in 1993”
Oh my goodness gracious. Would that be the same deal that Arafat thumbed his nose at and broke at various intervals later on, leading up to the current intifadah, and now being used as an excuse to have Abu Abbas freed?
During Clinton’s tenure, we had the World Trade Center bombing, the Somalia fiasco, the Oklahoma City bombing, The bombings on military HQ in Saudi, the Khobar Tower bombings, the US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and finally the USS Cole attack. Clinton’s terms in office doesn’t seem very peaceful to me. :-O
I never said we had total peace during his terms, did I?
However, Bush hasn’t helped to broker any peace deals. Carter has done that both as president and after.
True, but my impression is that to nominate Bush for the peace prize is tantamount to an insult. I would never accept any prize that was handed down to Arafat of all people. My goodness.
It does take two to tango though, and methinks Carter hammered out “peace” deals because he was more than willing to appease (read: cave in) for God knows why. Chamberlain thought he brought peace when he brokered a peace deal with Hitler, and well we know how that turned out. 😀
The last two comments were deleted because of a misunderstanding that arose.
For the record, everyone is allowed to post here as long as they remain civil. There was nothing in Mac’s comments that indicated that he wasn’t being civil, so Mac, come on back if ya want.
I felt sick in my stomach too when I saw Jake suggested Bush get nominated for a Nobel Peace prize….My goodness…I don’t even know how to respond to such a crazy idea…
Jen,
Is this for real? I almost choked when I read this here.
shalom, Jan
If he gets that, I would say in years after, winning a Noble Peace Prize will be the opposite of an honour…
I love it!! I am posted on another far left site! Well thank you.
I feel tht for the PResident to get this prize would make sense yes. but for Carter to get it and then give it to Bush.. makes me sick as well.
Carter who is miserable and still trying to carve out a legacy, definately makes the nobel peace prize worth nothing.
IT is like saying thanks but who cares.
So yes PResident Bush deserves something far great than something Carter got.
So, yes President Bush! Good Job, sorry I can not offer anything else, but my vote!
well iraq isn’t a third world country. and it *could* be argued that when all is said and done far fewer people will have died in that war than would die under hussein’s rule over the course of a decade or less.
i mention this not because i think bush should win a nobel peace prize (i think it would take a lot more than what they say he has done…plus it’s a GREAT point that they are only looking that the US when to me it seems that the peace prize should look at the world), i say this to point out that world peace isn’t as easy as signing a deal. the person who noted chamberlain’s fumbled peace attempt had a good point. to me, the true test of anyone’s effect on world peace would be what happened after the treaty was signed or the “war for freedom” was fought. if bush is able to start a rebuilding that leads to a freer iraq where people aren’t gassed or murdered for simple opinions, then i’d say that is doing more to foster peace than signing a failed agreement. if the peace agreements work at least for awhile, or clearly lead the way for sustained peace, then of course they are a reason to consider that someone has done much for peace.
however, not that this is between bush and clinton, clinton’s wars *did* kill many many many people, likely many more than his failed peace treaties saved. i say this simply because these two have been the ones mostly compared here.
I’m a far left blog???? That’s news to me. I consider myself middle of the road and unafraid to question my government instead of being slobberingly affirming of it regardless of how treasonable its actions are or how much its policies hurt its people.
Carter still trying to carve out a legacy for himself… well… he has done much work with Habitat for Humanity, brokered peace stuff during his term, and works on peace issues in general. He stood up to the Southern Baptist Convention for their stand on women’s issues and he teaches Bible school every Sunday without fail. Even without the Peace Prize, he has a legacy that will stand up to the test of time.
Bush: ransacked 3rd world country, cut of funding for women’s healthcare to thousands of women in the 3rd world, lost two of our strongest allies, is a warmonger extraordinare — yeah… that’s really a legacy I’d want. Seriously, he has done nothing of value other than strip people of civil rights in his quest against terror. His reaction to 9/11 was on par with Clinton’s reaction to Oklahoma City — any president would have responded that way and any president’s approval ratings would have soared. Yes, he’s a Christian president. So was Clinton and Carter and Bush Sr. and Ford and JFK and about 75% of our presidents in the past. This is supposed to make him special because????
Jake, are you really that deluded??? Geez…
Bush: ransacked 3rd world countries:
Correction, wiped the Taliban, liberating Afghanistan. Wiped the Baathist regime, liberating Iraq. Ask the Kurds if they think Bush is in the habit of ransacking third world countries.
“cut of funding for women’s healthcare to thousands of women in the 3rd world”
Correction, wouldn’t that be gutting ABORTION funds? I don’t see what’s so wrong knowing my tax dollars are not being used to fund the murder of unborn babies.
“lost two of our strongest allies.”
Our strongest allies have always been Britain and Australia for the most part. I know you can’t be referring to France at least. With allies like that, I prefer enemies. 😀
AHHHHHHHH, I thought my last comment didnt go through. My apologies, please delete the last one. :-O
Well… since you asked nicely. 🙂
*deletes duplicate comment*
France actually *was* one of our allies and has been more so than Britain. They helped us in all of our wars and we’ve helped them out.
In his quest to gut abortion funds, Bush cut funding to groups that work with women’s health. Some of the money *MIGHT* have gone to abortion, but it also would have gone to things like pre-natal care, midwives, sex education (read: AIDS prevention, condom use, contraception), healthcare for women… These are things that we have on a barely adequate basis in this country; but don’t even fathom in other countries.
As far as ransacking countries, we did nothing to protect the National Museum of Iraq which had some pretty priceless antiquities. Bush wants better understanding of American history for us — well… what about Iraqi history pre-Hussein???? There have been people in that part of the world for thousands of years and their history deserves some understanding regardless of whether it meshes with our religion. The National Library lost many copies of the Qur’an that dated back to the early days of Islam. That’s tantamount to losing all of our earliest Biblical manuscripts.
well jen, i certainly wouldn’t call you a far left blogger. also, i think it’s good that you question the government. 🙂
but we *DID* try to protect the iraqis and all that. we urged them to move some of the priceless artifacts to safer locations. also, iraq’s a pretty big country, and i do believe that, without a police force, our military had their hands so full with more immediate problems that they just couldn’t protect the museum without harming the people more. it’s sad, but i definitely wouldn’t say that we did nothing to protect the national museum. also (thankfully) much of the stolen artifacts are coming back i’m happy to hear.
really, it’s completely ridiculous to cut that funding just because “our tax dollars shouldn’t be used to fund things we disagree with.” we can’t start that crap on those kinds of issues. that leads to a slippery slope where people get to mark their beliefs on every issue and we divide the money and…blah!! we can’t make everyone happy!! even if it is used to fund some abortions – which i’m personally opposed to – i think that we need to weigh out the choices. if we don’t give people preventive reproductive care, how are we ever going to reduce the number of abortions and aids cases??? people (including bush) need to look at the bigger picture.
i don’t understand though when you call bush more of a warmonger than clinton. since they’ve both had two wars that i can think of, i’d say they are pretty even.
personally, carter is my favorite ex president. his work with habitat makes me happy. a lot better than just going around whoring himself out and doing nothing for society.
Thanks Jen,
Regarding the museum, it’s finally coming out that the artifacts were not stolen after all. It was reported that over 170,000 artifacts were stolen. Now they’re saying only 25 artifacts may be unaccounted for (NY Times). I think they overblew the “scandal” just a wee bit.
To be honest I think you’re far too quick to condemn Bush, a lot of what you base your assessment of him on come from reports that later end up being discredited when the facts come out. You just seem determined to hate the guy no matter what though. :-O
clinton had the serbian one and he bombed iraq for kicking the weapons inspectors out. (he also warned iraq first and he had un support.) bush technically bombed iraq randomly with no provocation, he then had the one in afgahnistan (which was really only because we thought osama was there), and he had this one. the reason i call bush a bigger warmonger is that one of his campaign things was fighting with saddam — i mean… he’s wanted this war since he declared candidacy in 1999!!! as if the international community was going to stop him!
mac: i hadn’t seen the ny times report. (i’ve been gone all day and haven’t gotten to the ny times yet on my surfing agenda.) that’s just the museum though — they said nothing about the library.
as for hating bush, i do give him credit when credit is due him. i despise him; but i try to have a decent reason for it. and believe me, i can be MUCH more virulent. i’ve toned down my anti-bush rhetoric in recent months. and just so people know that i’m an equal opportunity critic, i would have had PLENTY to say about slick willie during his impeachment trial and when the news broke out about monica lewinsky if i’d been blogging at that time.
well…i can see randomly because they hadn’t done anything new recently. however, the weapons inspections weren’t working and there was no freedom for the people in sight. but again, it can be argued that it was random since MANY nations are in those conditions, so i can definitely understand that. 🙂
of course, since i have such little faith in high-ranking officials from either party, i’m inclined to think that they all do EVERYTHING for selfish reasons (even if i argue on their side…that’s just for argument fun). i think i’m getting a bit too cynical: i’ve given up on the president (or any in the near future, or our governor, or anyone else that high up) doing things for altruistic reasons, and instead, i just hope that something good just accidentally comes out of their selfish plans.
*sighs* it makes me sad really.
i’m getting disillusioned as well. there are *soooooo* many politicians that i think would actually be good as president (gary locke for the democrats and bob taft for the republicans) but none of them are in the running.
i know that i’ll probably end up voting for whatever democrat gets the nomination because i don’t want 4 more years of bush; but i’m not going to do it joyfully.
scary thought: jeb bush might run in 2008. God willing, he won’t get the nomination.
deluded?? Middle of the road is deluded. You are so blinded by your “middle of the road” stance. Your arguements could all be defeated so easily, and proven silly. But I do appreciate your efforts, I am not going to go into it now. I do not see how anyone who says they are a Christian can support a 100% abortion advocater. How can a Christian support partial birth abortion? By voting democratic some times you are. Most of the time you are supporting killing babies, not always partial birth, but none the less baby killing. So to say you are goign to vote democratic is unbelievably sick. I am out.
[The management put Jake’s comments in a paragraph because they were a bunch of one-liners that could be easily put in paragraph form. We do not always do this; but the comments section is getting long and there is a need to conserve space.]
Jake, you’re criticizing me for potentially voting on a ticket that *MIGHT* support partial birth abortion while you support a man who wielded the death penalty with utter mirth (c.f. Bush laughing hysterically at the press conference after executing Karla Faye Tucker in 1999)? Umm… yeah. Life is either *ALL* sacred or it’s not. Be consistent.
I also do not vote solely Democrat because the DNC and RNC are different depending on where you are in the country. I actually voted probably 85% Republican in the 2002 election because the Republican candidates in Ohio were more where I was at. I vote for people, not parties. Incidentally, most “pro-choice” candidates would not wholeheartedly recommend abortion in all cases, but instead only in cases where it *might* be an option to consider. (Most ones I’ve talked to would say they support its inclusion in the options of 5-10% of the cases in which people choose it.) There are also pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats. Party labels are not necessarily one-size-fits-all.
You also really do not understand my point if you’re calling me a leftist. Most of the Republicans I know think Bush is an idiot and will not vote for him in the 2004 election. I also knew a lot of Democrats who hated Clinton and didn’t vote for him. There are quite a few of us who know that issues aren’t black and white and would prefer to vote for people who are where we stand rather than people who simply represent the party.
People aren’t black and white. We’re dust creatures, ergo we are varying shades of gray. I’m pretty sure you have a brain. Do the world a favor and use it to think critically instead of making assumptions.
And Jake, my comment section isn’t your personal sounding board. Either put your comments in a paragraph like everyone else or respond to my comments on your own site and link back to me.
Jake, you talk about misrepresentation. Yet, you:
-call this a leftist blog
-act like I agree with you in the first comment I left
-assume that I must buy wholeheartedly into everything the Democrats stand for
Ummm… yeah. At least *I* didn’t make assumptions and I used your actual words.