The President Who Does Not Feel???

sleuth

Livin' Like Thanksgivin'
Anyone with more time and patience than I do want to draft up a response for this? From my email (I can't believe someone had the nerve to send this to me. :lol:)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Subject: FW: This is a piece written by novelist E.L. Doctorow.
September 9, 2004, "The Easthampton Star"
________________________________________________________

I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our twenty one year olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for
it. You see him joking TN s and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life.... they come to his desk as a political liability which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq. How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that rather than controlling terrorism his war in Iraq has licensed it.

So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice. He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to. Yet this president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing -to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends. A war will do that as well as anything.

You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes
inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the President who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead, he does not feel for the thirty five million of us who live in poverty, he does not feel for the forty percent who cannot afford health insurance, he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the
working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills --- it is amazing for how many people in this country this President does not feel. But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest one percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we bTN hat America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war. The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, TN

Finally, the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail: How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.

E.L. Doctorow
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
During the debate, didn't Bush say something about a woman whose husband was killed in Iraq, saying it was "hard work to love her as best I can"?
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Tonio said:
During the debate, didn't Bush say something about a woman whose husband was killed in Iraq, saying it was "hard work to love her as best I can"?
More distortions?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Funny .... but if you remove the reference to Iraq and Eisenhower, and tell someone it was written about Lincoln - or McKinley - or Wilson - or Roosevelt - or Truman - or Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon - or Clinton - and you know, SOMEONE probably said the same things.

And it's all stupid. Because not one shred of it is objective. An entire article devoted to how a man doesn't *feel* and doesn't *care*. How do they know all this? Every bit of it is sheer conjecture on the part of a person who clearly doesn't like the guy. It reads like a teenager who hates the head cheerleader or the football captain - not punctuated by anecdotes or facts, but unsubstantiated opinion. I might as well write it about anyone.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Tonio said:
During the debate, didn't Bush say something about a woman whose husband was killed in Iraq, saying it was "hard work to love her as best I can"?

Context is important.

"You know, I think about Missy Johnson. She's a fantastic lady I met in Charlotte, North Carolina. She and her son Bryan, they came to see me. Her husband PJ got killed. He'd been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq. You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way. "

This *IS* a man who feels the burden of the deaths in Iraq.

I think the man who wrote that article is projecting.
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
You're right about context, SamSpade. It helps make what Bush said much more reasonable. Still, I wouldn't have said "try to love her" if I were Bush, because it might be seen as inappropriate. I might have said "try to comfort her."
 

T.Rally

New Member
The last sentence from the Barnes and Noble bio sums up Mr Doctorow. He is just another in a long list of people who have confused fame for wisdom.

"Few writers have succeeded as E. L. Doctorow has at creating stories (largely based in 1930s New York) that evoke both warm, personal memory and a grander national portrait. Doctorow doesn't always promise historical veracity, but he captures our imagination of the past flawlessly."
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Tonio said:
You're right about context, SamSpade. It helps make what Bush said much more reasonable. Still, I wouldn't have said "try to love her" if I were Bush, because it might be seen as inappropriate. I might have said "try to comfort her."
He was not being PC. He is a Christian. I, as a Christian, express love for those in need whether it is spiritual, emotional, or physical. I believe he was expressing the same kind of love. It is called Agape love or unconditional, fatherly love.
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
I didn't know you meant it platonically. Ignore the three dozen red roses I sent you. Just pretend they were for Sharon.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Tonio said:
I don't understand what political correctness or incorrectness has to do with it.
Read worried about how it was perceived as appropriate/inappropriate by the PC police.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
My response...

Dear EL,

I'd venture a guess that President Bush personally knows a number of people who have passed away. At his age, it's pretty safe to say he knows people who have died of accidents, old age, disease and probably suicide. He probably knew people who died in Viet Nam. He knows his wife who, tragically, knows what it is to have killed an innocent person in a horrible accident.

To put it interms you likely won't understand, given your vulgar line of attack; he's human, just like you and I, and shares what we all share in terms of pain, confusion and dealing with that most final of human events; death.

Now, if you are claiming he doesn't know what it is like to shoot another human being in the back, to kill another, while they are running away, well, you got me there.

As far as Ike goes, Ike was carrying out the policy of his President, his commander in chief; persuit of unconditional surrender of Americas enemy. This policy was not one of survival, it was one, the correct one, of choice.

Ike did not send American boys to die on the beaches of Atlantic City. In fact, Ike was sending our young men to kill an enemy, on foreign shores, who'd never set one foot on America soil, an enemy who'd never killed an American citizen at their place of work or near their home. Dwight D. Eisenhower was charged with destroying an enemy who's gravest direct offense against us was the act of declaring war on us. Yes, Adolph Hitler was a homicidal maniac.

Today, George Bush has sent US military personel into harms way in Afghanistan and Iraq. Osama Bin Laden declared war on us long ago, 1997 I believe, and attacked US life and property numerous times over a 10 year period culminating in 9/11. Osama had done far more to us than Germany ever did.

We have been at war with Iraq longer, since 1991, with a formal cease fire in effect as the civilized world allowed another madman the opportunity to become...un mad. Our 12 year rush to war has resulted in us finally enforcing that which peace and rule of law demanded. Germany violated no similar world mandates or resolutions.

Like Al Queda, Germany had a natural accomplice as well. Two in fact. Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. Italy, a person like you could argue, was even more an enemy of choice than Germany. Japan at least killed 2,000 service personel and visited millions of dollars worth of damage on the US.

Like Al Queda and Saddam Hussein, Japan and Germany, and Italy for that matter, made pretty obvious bedfellows though at the time of Pearl Harbor Japan and Germany had not collaborated on one single act of violence towards the US. Not one.

One of Nazi Germanys last, dying acts of desperation was to ship their nuclear weapons research and a supply of processed uranium to...Japan.

Seems pretty obvious, what with the common enemy and all, that they'd try that. I'd submit that if Germany and Imperial Japan, two massively different cultures, could see their way clear to assist one another, then it really should not be to hard for anyone to see Al Queda and Saddams Iraq sharing.

The rest of your prose descends into a hate filled supposition of what another man does and does not feel. Sorry, I'll leave you in your own cess.

The cost of ridding the world of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and the cost of the ascension of the only thing worse than either, the USSR, was 40 million souls. Men, women and children. Our own butchers bill was 400,000 service personel dead. Would you like to suggest that FDR and Ike attended to each family? Care to suggest they cared less about each death because they did not tend to each family?

Had a man of George W. Bushs courage and moral clarity existed in 1939 and had that person held our awesome military power in his hands, World War II may well have ended with our losses at Pearl Harbor and a stern expulsion of Germany from Poland. It probably would have cost some military personel everything they had as well.

And there's the rub; what is the value of a soldiers life against the life of those he fights for?

Throughout World War II we had a military draft because, Japan or no, Germany or no, the number of lives needed to be consumed by war to defeat our enemies were not going to be volunteered. Bob Doles generation were no cowards. Nor were they stupid. The need of going to war in the Pacific and in Europe was not readily evident. There were plenty of people then who do as you now rightly do, question or government.

Enter purpose. We destroyed Nazi Germany, with the great help of the Sov's and we destroyed Imperial Japan so that the rest of the world may live in peace under rule of law.

Not very many people, in 1939, would have supported an invasion of Germany or Japan in response to Germany's invasion of Poland and Japans invasion of China. What had they done to us?

As you've no doubt failed to pick up on the clue bus as of yet, our losses in troops killed and wounded to date in Afghanistan and Iraq are spent to serve the larger purpose of the security of the United States of America first and the to the benefit of the entire world secondly.

The only threat to the honor of our collective sacrifice for greater good is, after questioning our government, ignoring the answer. This is the right war. At the right time. For the right reasons.

The difference in your reverential treatment of Ike and company and our challenges of today is the body count.

Let me know when enough have died to satisfy your criticisms.


Kiss My Ass,

Larry Gude
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Please do...

Would you like me to send it to the idiot who sent me the above, Mr. Gude?

...with hugs 'n kisses.

It galls me to no end that we, as a nation, with all we ALL know about Iraq, the Iraq War Resolution, world history, current history, regional history, the corruption of France and the UN in favor of Hussein, terror history and on and on AND ON AND ON, that there would be, simply based on the facts, one single second of our public life wasted disagreeing over Iraq.

IT IS A GREAT THING FOR ALL DECENT PEOPLE THAT HE IS DEPOSED.

IT IS A GREAT THING TO EXPEND SOME OF WHAT WE TREASURE, LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY, TO TRY AND FOSTER REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT AND RULE OF LAW IN A RAPED PLACE LIKE IRAQ.

After the ham handed attempts by George H W, WE OWE IT TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE!!!

WE ARE DOING A RIGHT AND GOOD THING!!!!!!!!

Terrrorists and other assorted bullies, tyrants, sycophants and check kiters, because of there inherent weakness to wage either political or war campaigns rely, RELY, on disturbed public opinion in order to win.

Libs could have defused the issue long, long ago and said 'let's get the job over with so we can get back to focusing on America' and they'd have an instant, probably winning message.

As it is, can anyone concieve of just how virtually impossible it would be for a President Kerry to lead? Lead where? Why?
 
Top