Gravitas (or lack thereof)

bush_smiling.jpgThis is why they put Cheney on the ticket, right? Anyway…
Lines spoken by George W. Bush during which he smiled, grinned, or laughed (I’ve exempted instances of “chuckling” and “guffawing” out of ideological fairness):
April 12, 2004, defending the contents of his August 2001 PDB:

“Had I known there was going to be an attack on America, I would have moved mountains to stop the attack. And had there been actionable intelligence, we would have moved on it.”

October 11, 2000, discussing his lack of support for a Texas hate crimes bill, during the second Presidential debate:

GOV. BUSH: No — well what the vice president must not understand is we’ve got hate Crimes bill in Texas. And secondly, the people that murdered Mr. Byrd got the ultimate punishment:
MR. LEHRER: But they were —
GOV. BUSH: — the death penalty.
MR. LEHRER: They were prosecuted under the murder laws, were they not?
GOV. BUSH: Well —
MR. LEHRER: In Texas
GOV. BUSH: — all — in this case, when you murder somebody, it’s hate, Jim. The crime is hate. And they got the ultimate punishment. I’m not exactly sure you enhance the penalty any more than the death penalty.

Wow, George, that’s some funny shit. Try and save some material for the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association Dinner next year!
There is going to be a “next year,” right?

3 replies on “Gravitas (or lack thereof)”

Well, the idea that we need special new laws to punish murderers who’ve already been executed IS kinda funny. I can see why Bush would chuckle at that. And the idea that he should’ve seen 9/11 coming and pre-empted it is comical as well. Everyone knows Clinton didn’t do better, Gore wouldn’t have done better, and Kerry won’t do better.
The president’s not the only one smirking at your naivete.

yes, it’s good to chuckle when there are no hate crimes laws to prosecute people for non-murder crimes such as harrassment or assault, which, while still prosecutable over existing harrassment and assault laws, don’t nearly do “justice” to the implied degree of hostility in, say, beating a black woman upside the face with a club because she’s non-white, as opposed to drunkenly getting in a fight with a friend over a chick at the bar, and beating his face. one is clearly different from the other, and judges and juries would recognize that, and they would need the sentencing laws put into place to allow for this.
(also, i love overcrowded prisons.)
and to wit, the idea that he saw it coming and/or could have pre-empted 9/11 isn’t the issue here, so much as his laughing about it. you don’t laugh about the start of a global war. you don’t laugh about “oh, maybe i could have stopped people from having to leap from 100-story buildings…”
that’s the point.
maybe, like the free republic, i’ll start being as blunt as possible.

It’s gratifying to see that I’m not the only one who finds your “points” so diffuse, weak & easily deflected.
You think you should be able to depend on people of good will (as well as jury members) to see the distinction you draw between the race-based assault & the bar fight. Funny; that’s how I feel regarding the distinction between indiscriminately blowing up innocent civilians in pizzarias and targeted military actions in which there are innocent civilian casualties. Yet I can’t depend on you to make that distinction.
As far as W’s lack of gravitas, smirking from the sidelines is ALL you do, and you seem to feel quite superior about it.
You are so lame, Mary-Margaret! But I love you, dude.

Comments are closed.