"Bush squirms as policies denounced at King funeral"

[suffragette]

British press ( or at least the reporter for this article) gets the point of what happened today.

President George Bush led a crowd of 10,000 mourners at yesterday's funeral for Coretta Scott King, one of the icons of the civil rights movement, only to squirm in his seat as one speaker after another invoked Mrs King's spirit to lambast his administration on everything from the Iraq war to the response to last year's Hurricane Katrina.

The lavish occasion, bringing together civil rights veterans, three former presidents, more than a dozen senators, musicians and poets at a megachurch in the suburbs of Atlanta, was both a tribute to the woman who carried on the campaigning legacy of her assassinated husband, Martin Luther King Jr, for almost 40 years and also an opportunity to invoke some of the Kings' passionately outspoken rhetoric.

More here: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article343997.ece


Ah, if only our press would report the truth as clearly.

[Inland]

1. And the five minute standing ovation for Clinton.

Poppy got a friendly reception. W. got icicles.

[suffragette]

2. Yes and I loved that and enjoyed the way the article pointed it out.

Wish it had said something about President Carter, though.

[PSPS]

3. "President George Bush led a crowd..."

That's the first line in the story. And, while it may conform to bush's only job qualification -- cheerleader -- it's really another lie.

Bush originally had no intention of going, and attended begrudgingly only because he was forced. It would have been more accurate if it said, "President George Bush joined a crowd."

[suffragette]

4. Agree with that

But do go see the rest of the article. I think it was used to point out the contrast with the ending which is

"Far better received than President Bush was Bill Clinton, who won an enthusiastic ovation as he described how Mrs King might easily have given up the civil rights struggle after her husband's assassination in 1968. Instead, he said, she asked herself "What am I going to do with the rest of my life?"

[Arkansas Granny]

5. And squirm he did. In the few minutes of clips that I was able

to watch, he was all over the seat of his chair. Not the decorum you would expect from someone who holds such a high office. More like someone who desperately wanted to be someplace, anyplace, else.

[suffragette]

6. That's why I think that headline was spot on.

He looked like a child who was bored or needed to go to the restroom.
Add that to all the faces he made and I've seen 5 year old children behave better.

[Arkansas Granny]

11. Maybe if Condi had been sitting next to him he could have

passed her a note to request a potty break.

[suffragette]

13. And I'm sure "squirmy wormy" would have if he could have

if only to bail out.

[hwmnbn]

7. I posted on another thread.......

about how he was slouching like a bored teenager. Hanging off to the side of his chair. He looked ridiculous and disrespectful.

[MO_Dem]

9. Yes, Granny!

I kept thinking if he squirmed and slouched any more, he was gonna end up rolling around on the floor. You sure could tell that he never had "any raising"!

[Arkansas Granny]

12. His lack of raising definitely shows when he has to sit with

the grownups.

[hvn_nbr_2]

8. Brit press: "Bush squirms". Murkin press: "Evil Dems politicize funeral."

Never fails.

[suffragette]

10. That's the contrast that got to me.

The difference is stark.

[Bozita]

14. Bullseye! -- "Evil Dems hide behind pulpit and attack Our President"

Apologies to Mr. Benchley.

[Arkansas Granny]

15. It's that damned liberal media again. If our media were truly

liberal, Bush would not be President today.

[MatrixEscape]

16. Like I care about such a silly phrase ...

All I know, despite the now trite and usual notes about how incompetent and even infantile Bu$h is, he has more power in his hands, (puppet that he is or not) than any President in history.

He does not show any intent or activity that shows he stands firmly by his the oath he gave to protect and uphold the Constitution.

It seems now that the joke is on all of us. We can smirk back at the chimp and point out the Bushisms all we want to, but that does not change a thing.

He has everything he needs to put us all under his horrible, God-forsaken, dictator thumb for decades to come -- a hyper-Orwellian legacy we will leave to our children and maybe even their's. He, and his wretched, shrewd-as-a-fox cabal of power brokers have taken over our Government in collusion with the corporate gestalt and the media they own. We are getting nowhere fast and still managing to think we are making any difference at all in a losing battle. How is that for a new level of mind-washing?

So, when the puppet pulls his final strings and makes real his early, expressed hopes, of dictatorship, who will be laughing the hardest? If you were so small and venial, like this life-long loser and child of privileged, couldn't you see what a supreme triumph that would be? Don't you think the tyrant in office is looking for what will stroke his pathetic ego the most and don't you think his puppet masters know that?

Give me liberty or give me death. That is the real solution at this stage. If you can't see that, then your Emperor will laugh with gusto and pride as you cry and bleed under the weight of his unbridled, Fascist triumph over this great nation.

Are the stakes not high enough yet to see that what is at risk is greater than your desire to ignore and resist the onus and requirements being placed upon by way of a clear challenged and a certain threat?

[suffragette]

17. Excuse me?

My main point in posting this has been to show the difference in the way our press has been treating these events with the way that others have.

The headline from the article is eyecatching and it depicted both his behavior and the well deserved lambasting he received. This is somehow wrong?

The article goes on to clearly state how speakers used the "opportunity to invoke some of the Kings' passionately outspoken rhetoric." This points to the validity of what the speakers said, rather than attacking them for speaking out on these important issues as the American press is doing. I applaud the reporter for doing this and wish our reporters would do likewise.

And which speakers does the article cite most strongly: Reverend Lowery and President Clinton, even noting that President Clinton was "better received than President Bush." For people who didn't watch the funeral, this at least gives them an accurate idea of important points made during it, again without the sneer of some of our reporters.


I absolutely agree with your core points about what Bush has wrought, but I don't understand your issue with my post.

[MatrixEscape]

18. You are excused!

I did not have any issue with the post. It should be clear, I had a response to the underlying import and issues of pointing that out.

Bush squirming is like Hitler farting. Did that prevent the war? Makes no real difference to me at this stage, but thanks for noting his managed face of discomfort.

I mean how many odd moments of the Big Dubya have been pointed out for over five years now. It is getting mainstream and trite and even, overtly ineffectual. But then, you need a way to channel the inevitable dissonance.

Friends?