Did anyone notice the irony during President Bush's inaugural address on Thursday that as Bush talked about freedom, security personnel were dragging away peaceful protesters?Sad situation really. Apparently from recent international news stories and international opinion polls, most people in the world are worried about the threat to world peace from 4 more years of a Bush administration. Bush does have support of about 51% of the people in our country - a weak mandate for his radical agendas. I wonder how many of those 51% of voters now are starting to get nervous about Bush.
Does this mean that the president's words -- "when you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you" -- do not apply to those who oppose him?
President Bush used the word "freedom" 27 times in his speech and "liberty" 15 times. It's not a surprise that the words "war," "Iraq," "Iran" and "terror" were not used at all. Then again, the hallmark of the Bush administration has been high-minded rhetoric and sordid deeds.
I can't believe that I voted for Bush in 2000, but I suppose that everyone makes mistakes occasionally (I thought that he was a moderate republican, not a whacky right wing radical).
I was going to stop writing about politics, but seeing this excellent tell-it-like-it-is editorial linked on Google News motivated me to share it. Google News is excellent if you have an open mind for seeing some news articles from outside the corporate owned news media that no longer seems to even try to appear impartial (e.g., major networks had republican commentators bashing speakers at the democratic convention, but barely any equal time for democrats after speakers at the republican convention). Corporate America has tightened its death grip on the US major news media; you have to find small independently owned papers, etc., or read foreign news to get anything that approaches unbiased coverage.
Of course, "Bush's 51%" probably don't want to read impartial news. The word denial comes to mind.