Jackson Free Press

Here is the must-read New York Times Magazine profile of George W. Bush that is garnering so much attention. It starts with this quote from Reagan policy adviser Bruce Bartlett and goes from there:

'Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .

Previous Comments

ID

85784

Comment

That piece is downright scary, unless you're a bloodthirsty theocrat waiting to be welcomed into the fold. The USA has been spared the bloody sectarian wars experienced by Europe over the centuries. It appears we may be, uhm, maturing toward our own battles within. The Dobsons, Keyes, Buchanans and Bauers keep hammering a "Us good Christians vs. them bad, evil secularists" message, despite the careful wording of our founding document, the Constitution. Dominionists (those who seek a theocratic state) obfuscate by trying to use pre-American documents such as the Mayflower Compact as "proof" of a Christian base. Folks, the squatter in the Whitewash House is a Dominionist, and it is alarming to see Kerry playing to the evangelical crowd. We are a secular republic, clearly stated in our Constitution. Not just the 1st Amendment: see the final clause of Article Six. "There shall be no religious test required". That is very plain, simple and direct. Attend the church/mosque/synagogue/circle you choose. Or, don't attend at all. You have that freedom codified. And, your leaders are not required to have any faith nor refer to it to hold office.

Author

corrosiongone

Date

2004-10-19T16:19:34-06:00

ID

85785

Comment

It is scary, and the scariest part is that the story doesn't contain too many surprises. Did you see that the RNC and the White House are waging war on the New York Times as a result of the piece. Salon today: During the closing weeks of the 2000 presidential campaign, at a campaign rally, George W. Bush spotted a veteran political reporter and turned to Dick Cheney, standing next to him on the platform, to remark, "There's Adam Clymer, major league asshole from the New York Times." "Oh yeah, big time," replied Cheney. Unbeknownst to them, their locker-room exchange was caught by an open microphone. Four years later, nobody connected with the Bush-Cheney campaign appears even slightly concerned about being caught denigrating the Times; they're more than happy to do it on the record, as the White House has all but declared open warfare on the nation's leading newspaper. The latest volley came over the weekend when Republican campaign officials accused the Times Sunday magazine of fabricating a provocative quote from Bush in which he bragged -- behind closed doors and speaking to wealthy supporters -- that he would announce plans for "privatizing of Social Security" early next year, after his reelection. When Democrats jumped on the remark, dubbing it the "January surprise," Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie dismissed the Times' work as "Kitty Kelley journalism," insisting Bush never uttered the phrase attributed to him. But the Times stands by the 8,300-word story by Ron Suskind, author of "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill," a revealing account of the former secretary of the treasury published earlier this year. [...] The controversial quote from Suskind's story came near the end of the lengthy feature article, "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush," which examines the extraordinary degree to which Bush and his senior aides rely on their "faith" and their "gut" to make key policy decisions, and how those who raise questions based on facts or "reality" are cut out of the inner circle. According to Suskind, Bush recently told a closed meeting of major contributors, "I'm going to come out strong after my swearing in with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security." Suskind reported that the statements were relayed to him by sources present at the event. [...]

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-19T19:30:55-06:00

ID

85786

Comment

[more]On one level the Times seems an odd choice for the White House's wrath. During the 2000 campaign, despite Bush's "asshole" remark, the paper's coverage of the candidate was considered to be among the most generous of any of the major dailies, particularly the work of beat reporter Frank Bruni, who traveled extensively with the Bush campaign. In his book about that time, "Ambling Into History," published in 2002, Bruni wrote that while watching the first debate from the audience, he thought Bush had done so poorly that he was sure he had lost the election. Yet Bruni never mentioned his sinking feeling to readers during his generally upbeat coverage of the Bush campaign. The Times was also very reserved in its coverage of the exposure during the final weekend of the campaign of Bush's old drunken-driving arrest. During the period leading to the Iraq war, the Times was instrumental in the administration's political choreography of its case that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, in particular that he was producing nuclear weapons. But this year, the newspaper felt compelled to essentially apologize for what amounted to its participation in an elaborate disinformation campaign.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-19T19:31:28-06:00

ID

85787

Comment

Wow, Bush told Pat Robertson before the war that there would be no casualties in Iraq! Sounds like he bought the neo-cons' (and Chalabi's) "shock and awe" scam hook, line and sinker! CNN today: The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition said Tuesday he told President George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, "We're not going to have any casualties." Pat Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, said he had that conversation with the president in Nashville, Tennessee, before the March 2003 invasion U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He described Bush in the meeting as "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life." "You remember Mark Twain said, 'He looks like a contented Christian with four aces.' I mean he was just sitting there like, 'I'm on top of the world,' " Robertson said on the CNN show, "Paula Zahn Now." "And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' " Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." The White House had no comment on Robertson's remarks.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-20T14:12:11-06:00

ID

85788

Comment

Very interesting interview with Ron Suskind (who wrote the Bush profile) today in Salon: Do you think there's a coordinated attempt to knock journalists down so that what they have to say is taken less seriously? There is a varied, national, forceful, coordinated campaign to do that, to try to create doubt about the long-held and long-respected work of the mainstream media. Absolutely. So that Americans believe that what we do and say, what the mainstream media offer, is not of value, is not honest, is not factually accurate. And [that we are] not in any way connected to strong traditions of American public dialogue, that we've been co-opted, that we're not objective, and that essentially we are carrying forward an agenda. I fiercely disagree with that. I talk to more Republicans now than Democrats [for my stories]. This is not simply the effort of a single party [of people criticizing Bush]. It's the effort of a group within a single party. There are many, many conservatives and libertarians and Republicans who believe ardently in the value of public dialogue based on fact. Paul O'Neill is one of them. There are lots of Republicans who are troubled by this tactical force, this kill-or-be-killed desire to essentially undermine public debate based on fact. Do you think the attack on the press is a way to eliminate a national point of reference on facts? Absolutely! That's the whole idea, to somehow sweep away the community of honest brokers in America -- both Republicans and Democrats and members of the mainstream press -- sweep them away so we'll be left with a culture and public dialogue based on assertion rather than authenticity, on claim rather than fact. Because when you arrive at that place, then all you have to rely on is perception. And perception as the handmaiden of forceful executed power is the great combination that we're seeing now in the American polity.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-20T14:48:37-06:00

ID

85789

Comment

Andrew Sullivan responds to Robertson's revelations about Bush: The problem with this president is not that he doesn't have the will to win. It's that he seems to suffer from an inability to see reality. Any president who believed that there would be no casualties in the Iraq liberation is unqualified to be commander-in-chief. The same goes for a president who believes there will be casualties and tells a loyal supporter that there won't be. The only way this isn't damning about Bush is if Robertson is lying. But why would he? Sullivan blog

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-20T18:52:32-06:00

ID

85790

Comment

Guys, I'm truly terrified. What if these guys have control over the voting process? Many of the new machines don't give you a paper receipt? How can we be sure of the integrity of the process? I'm not as religious as my grandma, but she thinks Bush is the Antichrist.

Author

Steph

Date

2004-10-25T15:07:27-06:00

ID

85791

Comment

AFP news today: US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) expressed regret over using the word "crusade" to describe the "war on terror" he launched after the September 11 attacks by Al-Qaeda. "I said it once and probably shouldn't have used that word," Bush said in an interview with ABC television aired Tuesday. Shortly after the 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and outside Washington, Bush had said: "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." The president's use of the word "crusade" sparked a visceral reaction around the world, as it recalls the fierce, bloody battles between Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages. Uh, but he said it more than once, and after the outrage the first one sparked. See NYT magazine at top of this thread.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-26T16:53:02-06:00

ID

85792

Comment

If you haven't read this story above, yet, you might want to. Today, according to AP: The re-election triumph gave the president a new term to pursue the war in Iraq and a conservative, tax-cutting agenda at home - and probably the chance to name one or more justices to an aging Supreme Court. [...] Vice President Dick Cheney told the Republican victory rally that the results of Tuesday's elections translated into a mandate for the president's policies. Bush sketched only the barest outline of a second term agenda, talking of reforming an "outdated tax code," overhauling Social Security and upholding the "deepest values of family and faith." ____ Recall that in this NYT Mag story above, Suskinds quote Bush as saying to a closed meeting of major contributors, "I'm going to come out strong after my swearing in with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security." The administration vehemently denied that he said this. ____ Also, AP: "I will need your support and I will work to earn it," the president said in an appeal to the 55 million Americans who voted for his Democratic rival. "We are entering a season of hope," he said. Didn't Bush say something similar four years ago? ____ And AP on Kerry: Yet Kerry's public remarks contained an element of challenge to the Republican president. "America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion," he said. "I hope President Bush will advance those values in the coming years." Me, too.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T15:49:49-06:00

ID

85793

Comment

More AP: The president outlined the short but ambitious goals that will define his next four years in office - fighting the war on terrorism, pressing for stable democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, simplifying the tax code, allowing younger workers to invest some of their Social Security withholdings in the stock market, raising accountability standards in public schools and upholding "our deepest values and family and faith." No jobs?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T16:02:12-06:00

ID

85794

Comment

Scott Rosenberg in Salon's War Room: Bush's speech: Conciliation or "mandate"? President Bush and his running mate took a victory lap in front of their supporters gathered at Washington's Reagan Center, an hour after Sen. John Kerry made his concession speech from Boston's Faneuil Hall. Bush -- thanking, among many others, the man he referred to as "the architect, Karl Rove" -- spoke in broad, vague language about the war on terror: "With good allies at our side, we will fight this war on terror with every resource of our power, so our children can live in freedom and in peace." But, aside from general references to reforming the tax code and "strengthening the Social Security for the next generation," Bush didn't talk issues; he instead invoked a litany of virtues, as if closing a feedback loop with those voters who yesterday told pollsters he was a "strong leader." But for the 49 percent of the electorate that nearly turned him out of office, Bush made only the most perfunctory gesture of conciliation: "To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it." If he follows through on that with the same fervor that he worked to live up to his self-styled "uniter, not a divider" label, it's going to be a bitter four years. A taste of that future came in Vice President Dick Cheney's introduction to Bush, which -- after crowing over Republican gains in Congress -- boldly claimed last night's nail-bitingly close results as a "mandate." Here we go again.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T18:24:23-06:00