Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000163.php on line 106

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000163.php on line 106
May 14, 2003
Bush's Junk

I think the GAO made the right decision. I'm all about heckling when a politician does something cheesy and stupid, but spontaneous heckling when the public thinks they've gone over the line is the price of being a public figure. I don't think this president, or any other, should have to stop and evaluate their actions for the appearance of political gain. It pains me to say it, but politicians would cease to exist without making politically motivated gestures. I think it's fine if the national media and a few million private individuals mock the idiocy of something like the flyboy wannabe appearance of Bush's on the aircraft carrier.

Hey, with a little luck, the entire episode will become so infamous, and so tarnished, that Rove's undoubted hope of using footage for campaign ads will have to be ditched!

Why doesn’t the USofA media care, and care deeply, about this recent terrorist attack? Speculation ensues. (Hint: It's all about how many of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis and were not Iraqis.)

Okay, is it my anti-Bush bias speaking when I say that maybe this is the real reason why Bush came out in favor of the ban on semi-automatic weapons? The ban is set to expire because Tom DeLay, in his infinite idiocy (whoops! name-calling!) has announced there aren't enough vote to continue it. If he let it go to a vote, which he doesn't intend to do. Did Bush take a public stand, albeit a low-key one, in favor of continuing the ban on semi-automatics because he knew he wouldn’t be called on to actually stand up against the wealthy and powerful NRA?

Well, let's see.

President Bush, whose support of the assault weapons ban dates to his 2000 campaign, has drawn rebukes from NRA members and some GOP lawmakers. But several Republicans close to the White House said Bush has no plans to lobby lawmakers aggressively to extend the ban. That would allow him to officially oppose the NRA without completely turning against the powerful gun lobby by fighting to maintain a ban on semiautomatic weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have a winning theory here.
Past votes and an NRA survey of lawmakers before the 2002 elections suggest that a majority of House members oppose renewing the ban, GOP officials said. But several Republicans, who requested anonymity, said some pro-gun GOP leaders worry that if members are forced to into a roll call vote, they might switch under pressure from gun control advocates.
No, let's don't let it go to a vote. Let's not do anything silly by letting citizen advocacy groups get in the way of hefty campaign donations.

You want to be scared? Read the whole article. Read this:

In a letter to Bush, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) said: "It is now time for us to stand up against the unconstitutional gun-grabbing and help our nation in this time of great need by allowing law-abiding citizens to use the weapon of their choice."
This time of great need?

What "great need" exists in USof A cities at this moment that calls for an AK-47?

Posted by AnneZook at 01:40 PM