Thursday, April 19, 2007


Liberals: Bashing, Blaming Bush

Performing a quick survey of several blogs, one easily sees that as with every other tragic event for the last 7 years, liberals have used the massacre at Virginia Tech to bash Bush and further act out the symptoms of BDS. Many accused Bush going to the VT convocation for a photo op.

Bag News Notes includes some pictures and in depth analysis.
What are those tell tale signs letting you know that, in the midst of a tragedy, the Photo Op White House is thinking (as much or) more about PR, and "undoing" Katrina, than about simple aid and comfort?
From the comments to this post:
1. Are they all really feeling the loss?
2. Good timing to profit from the personal tragedies at Virginia Tech. No time lost to get there.
3. Disgusting, can't shake the habit! All hype no sorrow. Doesn't he get it?
4. Yes there is still support for him. He came to share the grief, WOW. Cannot get why are they all looking at a deciderer's image on a sport's screen? Is it 1984?
6. Interesting selection of color to write on! Decision to write on the edge, above the red... yes the blood has not reached him.
What the hell was all that flag and salute stuff about when he arrived? Is it ever about anything but me, me, me? That was the last thing they needed down there.
Good lord, it's embarrassing. He is so shallow and so pathetic. How can people be taken in by it? He's so in love with himself, it's disgusting. .
I think it is very, very sad that the president of the United States has so alienated Americans like me that my first reaction to his gesture and words is cynicism.
It's sad that we feel more cynical about Bush being there than glad to have him there.
It's a bit late for this self-indulgent, hyper-partisan, sneering spoiled child to attempt to play National Healer at this stage of his term of office.
Not only is their level of cynicism disgusting, they blame Bush for that too.

Michael Shaw at HuffandPuffPost:
We have a photo-op White House that has always approached any event, first and foremost, in terms of its "backdrop" potential. We have an administration, lately reduced to a clown show, desperate for absolutely anything that can run off with the news cycle.
From the comments:
Last week the media wallowed in Imus.
This week they're wallowing in Virginia Tech.
Get over it and move on. .
I wonder if anyone was turned away for wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt? .
Dubya Gump humiliated himself after the speech by the Governor of Virginia. The Governor pretty much shot from the hip and spoke from the heart while Dubya Gump read his indifferent diatribe about being in the wrong place at the wrong time and how some merciful God would bring it all home to roost in some merciful grace. .
Actually I think it's a fairly good representation of Bush. A fuzzy image speaks of someone who is empty, uninformed and lives in denial. Out of focus is precisely who he is. .
And on it goes. I included the first comment although it was not a Bush bashing. The callousness surprised me.

From Andrew Foster Altschul at HuffAndPuffPost:

The Headline: “You're a Monster, Mr. President “
I'm sure we will hear from them eventually. But it may take a while, because, unlike President Bush, they've got some real and difficult human emotions to work through first. I am so sorry for them, and for everyone at Virginia Tech, for what has happened today, and for the fact that the president of their country is too self-absorbed to have really noticed.
From the comments:
He is a monster.

He has an empty head, speaks nonsense words and concepts and wants a blank check for war.
First, while callous and insensitive, this is not a new low for Bush. He *has* done much worse. If you've only just now realized that he is a sociopath, then you haven't been paying attention. .
Cut George some slack. He's bought and paid for by big business so of course he is going to protect weapons manufacturers from any public backlash. Where's Charlton when we need to see somebody who has really sold his soul to the corporate devil.
This post was about this:
"The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms," said Perino, in the first White House response, adding the utterly meaningless "but that all laws must be followed,"
Here are the FIRST words Perino said on President Bush’s behalf at that press conference,
“Good afternoon. I have several announcements and then we'll go to questions.

The President was made aware of the Virginia Tech shootings. He was horrified and his immediate reaction was one of deep concern for the families of the victims, the victims, themselves, the students, the professors and all the people of Virginia who have dealt with this shocking incident.”
The statement Altschul claims were the first words out of the president’s mouth were in the second paragraph of the response to the ninth question by the press. There’s nothing like using a tragedy for political purposes and then accusing someone else of doing the same. Of course, such liberal hypocrisy is common. didn’t hesitate to push their anti-gun agenda. But, let’s don’t use a tragedy for political purposes, oh no!

Here’s another great post with enlightening comments.
Bush Has No Sense of Propriety... or Shame
Below is a blog entry from the Philadelphia Inquirer today. It could not have been more timely, as far as I was concerned, particularly when I was forced to sit and listen to the empty homilies that Bush uttered at the Memorial Service this afternoon at Blacksburg. 'Forced' because I was stuck in traffic when NPR broadcast the insert of his words. I tried to turn down the volume, but the piece was longer than I thought and I caught bits of it, despite my best efforts.
Can anyone explain why he had to GO TO Blacksburg?
Apparently the rumors I’ve heard about liberals being addicted to NPR are true. My car radio has buttons which I can push to instantly change stations. Quite amazing, really.

Soime of the commenters get it,
That's what presidents do. They're figureheads. They go, offer comfort, say a few words, and so forth. If it was President Kerry you'd object?
Defending Duhbya on this one, even though I can't stand the sound of his voice: This is part of the President's job, for reasons I don't really understand, but still one of the duties of the office. The fact that Bill was good at it and Duhbya isn't is just one more thing that works that way.

But most join in the hatefest:
This has been going on for 6 years. I doubt anybody is shocked that he will use it for a political photo op.
And we can expect the same kind of followup from our President on the Gun Culture of Violence as we saw with his followup on Katrina. But at least he hasn't declared war on South Korea, so there's that. .
I assume that he could not make his 'moving' statement from Washington, and that his presence did not, as the blog notes it probably did, in any way intrude on the private grief of those who actually knew the victims. .
Now, now, people. I'm sure he hated doing it as much as you hated seeing him do it. .
Remember the flack Bush’s Dad caught because he didn’t visit hurricane victims in Florida? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It’s all about hating Bush, not doing what’s right.

There’s been lots of supposition that political correctness may have hindered the process of dealing with Cho effectively before this incident happened. And, of course, a liberal found a way to preach about political correctness. Again, at HuffAndPuffPost, Earl Ofari Hutchinson managed to write an entire column complaining about the use of the term “an Asian man” being used by the press to describe Cho before his identity was released.
The casual mention by some campus officials, students, and in some press reports, that in early reports identified the Virginia Tech shooter as an unnamed, "Asian man" could've easily planted the dangerous public seed that there was an Asian menace to the shootings.
But there was that dangling reference to Cho as "an Asian man." While the Korean president's response was a genuine and heartfelt expression of human sympathy for the dead, the same day a Korean Consular official at a meeting with this writer and other civil rights leaders in Los Angeles pointed to another worry the government had about Cho's killing spree. Korean officials feared that many Americans might see the murderous assault as something more than the act of a lone deranged, individual. This was not a totally false fear. Cho was South Korean, and though he lived in the U.S. since he was a boy, he was called "a resident alien." That could easily stir anti-Asian and anti-immigrant hatreds among some.
Another reason Korean officials worried is the prolonged history of vicious baiting and stereotyping of Asians. This type of casual typecasting is especially sensitive issue among Korean Americans. Memories are still fresh of the 1992 L.A. riots.
Hutchinson pulls in the Oklahoma City bombing and the early Mid Eastern connection reports to it, etc. With reactions like Mr. Hutchinson's, it's little wonder that many think political correctness contributed to this problem, it did.

What if the killer had been white of European ancestry? Would Hutchinson have complained about the killer being described as a "white male?" I doubt it. But many commonly stereotype white males as racist, violent, etc. Is it OK to add to that stereotype? Maybe we should restrict ourselves to referring to people as "hominoids" and avoid any reference to race, gender, color, hair, age, etc.

In the L.A. riots, the Koreans were targeted by another minority. The overwhelming population of the country supported the Koreans. Hutchinson claims the Korean president’s apology is heartfelt, as well as it might have been. But, Hutchinson gives a list of reasons it may not have been heartfelt but for social/political reasons instead. Of course, for George Bush it is just a photo op.

Cho was an extremely disturbed individual. The "causes" for this tragedy are complex and we will never fully understand why.

I must wonder where the hearts of these liberals are and whether they are truly capable of feeling genuine empathy. Or, is everything just an opportunity to attack someone or something you hate?

Comments: Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]