Should We Celebrate Death?

In a CNN article posted a mere three hours ago, it was revealed that President Bush did not find any joy or jubilation when he found out Osama bin Laden had been assassinated. In an interview conducted by documentarian Peter Schnall, Bush expressed his feelings on a range of topics, including that of the 9/11 attack conduced by Al Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden.

"Bush 'said to us certainly there was no sense of jubilation [and] certainly no sense of happiness,' Schnall stressed. 'If anything, he felt that finally there was a sense of closure.'" In addition, Bush discussed his memories of the September 11th deadly attacks, showing clear emotion throughout the interview. Schnall was deeply interested in the "overwhelming" amount of information that the president had to handle during those first few days after the attack. Schnall stated that "Bush 'spoke about the fact that he was journeying through the fog of war.'"

While the presidents decisions "'[have permanently changed our lives and the world today,'" I agree with his lack of happiness at the death of bin Laden. Many, many Americans would disagree with that statement, but I just don't think it's right to celebrate the death of someone (even if they caused the death of approximately 3,000 undeserving people). I disagreed with the celebrations outside the White House on that fateful May evening when they were happening, and after much deliberation, I still disagree with them. No matter how evil or cruel someone is, it's never okay to celebrate and party due to their passing. I can't say that bin Laden didn't deserve the assassination, I just find it rude to celebrate his death. So on this point, I agree with the 43rd president of the United States of America - I certainly did not feel any jubilation when I heard of Osama bin Laden's death.

President of The United States

The position of the president of the united states is one of immense power. It is the power to represent a nation of over 300 million people. The power to veto bills of legislature. The power to order troops. The power to be heard by every single person in the nation. So how did the colossal power end up in the hands of a moron such as George W. Bush? Is this blog going to be a Bush bash? a bit but more importantly it is about the effect of having such an idiot be president.

For me, my entire view of the presidency has been of Bush. Bush was elected in 2001. I was 9 when that happened. I had no idea of politics or Clinton when I was 9. So before Obama was elected last year, I had never been aware of another president. This means a huge amount. My personal respect for the position is much less than that of someone who has in their life had educated and intelligent people lead the nation.

More than just Bush's intellect (or lack of it), the hatred of him (especially in the bay area) really has a lasting effect I think. A lot of people disprove of Obama. However, a lot of people aprove of him as well. To me it is wierd to think that people whom I respect or agree with at times praise the president. It feels wierd when I agree with Obama because I am so used to hating the person who holds that office.

I hope my natural feelings towards the position change overtime but I do not know if they will. I think that Bush did to the generation of adolescents during his office as Nixon did to the adolescents during his presidency. Before Nixon, it was not uncommon to have complete faith in the president. However after his corruption, many people became more cautious and cynic about what comes out of the president. It is different though. While one can call Nixon a crook (despite any speeches he may have given denying it), no one can call him stupid or unintelligent. I think that while Nixon degraded the trust of the president, Bush degraded the respect of the president.

Repeating Past Mistakes

Watching the Republican National Convention this week, one could get a sense of high drama. Betrayal by the federal government. A need for change. John McCain, help us! Yet funnily, this party that is so gung-ho on change has had, well, only eight years to do it in. Yes, as some Republicans will argue, the last two years the Democrats had Congress, but they still had George Bush in the White House. Why didn't he propose any of this change we're all hearing about? What was his energy plan? His education plan? His plan for the economy? Why didn't he reform Washington, as John McCain now seeks to do?

 

The answer, sadly, bodes ill for our country if John McCain beats Barack Obama in the fall. You see, eight years ago, a western Republican ran for office as a Washingotn outsider, a reformer, a bipartisan player. And he turned out to be George W. Bush, who has been anything but the aforementioned descriptions. Instead, he and the GOP have dangerously led this country to war, ignored global warming, remained obstinate on creating a new energy policy, let the environment be trashed away, and allowed the current mortage meltdown to unfold. Meanwhile, Social Security remains unfixed, health care continues in its sorry state, and No Child Left Behind maintains its strangehold on public schools. And, John McCain is even more hawkish than the man that brought us the mess in Iraq. To think that such a similar GOP candidate is now practically tied in the polls with Sen. Obama and has decent chance of winning the presidency, is, well, frightening.