Bush: It's unacceptable to think....
October 6th 2006 11:37
It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective. - George W Bush, Press Conference at the Rose Garden 15/09/06
Apparently, George Bush now believes he has the authority to dictate what is, or is not, acceptable to think about. It is a sad day for freedom when our leaders tell us what thoughts we are allowed to consider within the confines of our own mind.
In a land that allegedly promotes 'Freedom of Speech' as one of the most basic rights, surely it us completely unconstitutional just to limit the topics that people can discuss, but for authority to decide what it is "unacceptable to think" about is another huge step towards making its citizens the robotic and almost zombie-like inhabitants of Orwells '1984' or Huxley's 'Brave New World'. To hear this from the leader of a country that claims to be the bastion of freedom and democracy makes me shudder. I was under the impression that in a democracy the people are the ones with the power to decide what is acceptable from its leaders, not the other way round. Apparently, I was wrong.
It is worth noting that at no point in the speech does Emperor Bush states that there is not a comparison between the United States and the terrorists that is allegedly saving the world from, only that it is unacceptable to think about such a comparison. In my opinion, there is very little difference in the techniques used by the so-called extremists and the Bush administration to achieve their objectives. If the United States Army is not responsible for the killing of innocent people, what happened at Abu Ghraib? What about Guantanamo Bay? To go further back in history, didn't the United States drop two nuclear bombs on Japan at the end of World War II? Surely all of these scenarios involved the killing of innocent people. But we're not supposed to think about that.
Thomas Jefferson once said, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”
As Keith Olbermann asked in his brilliant report of this press conference "Would you call it "unacceptable" for Jefferson to think such things, or to write them?"
Relevant links
Olbermann review of press conference
Apparently, George Bush now believes he has the authority to dictate what is, or is not, acceptable to think about. It is a sad day for freedom when our leaders tell us what thoughts we are allowed to consider within the confines of our own mind.
In a land that allegedly promotes 'Freedom of Speech' as one of the most basic rights, surely it us completely unconstitutional just to limit the topics that people can discuss, but for authority to decide what it is "unacceptable to think" about is another huge step towards making its citizens the robotic and almost zombie-like inhabitants of Orwells '1984' or Huxley's 'Brave New World'. To hear this from the leader of a country that claims to be the bastion of freedom and democracy makes me shudder. I was under the impression that in a democracy the people are the ones with the power to decide what is acceptable from its leaders, not the other way round. Apparently, I was wrong.
It is worth noting that at no point in the speech does Emperor Bush states that there is not a comparison between the United States and the terrorists that is allegedly saving the world from, only that it is unacceptable to think about such a comparison. In my opinion, there is very little difference in the techniques used by the so-called extremists and the Bush administration to achieve their objectives. If the United States Army is not responsible for the killing of innocent people, what happened at Abu Ghraib? What about Guantanamo Bay? To go further back in history, didn't the United States drop two nuclear bombs on Japan at the end of World War II? Surely all of these scenarios involved the killing of innocent people. But we're not supposed to think about that.
Thomas Jefferson once said, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”
As Keith Olbermann asked in his brilliant report of this press conference "Would you call it "unacceptable" for Jefferson to think such things, or to write them?"
Relevant links
Olbermann review of press conference
| 116 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Gareth
Comment by drpepper
I think that the "its unacceptable to think.." line is seriously taken out of context. While i do not like the current administration, the president was simply stating his opinion on the matter.
While i do agree that a person in his position should be more careful when choosing his words, i think this was blown way out of proportion.
Comment by Anonymous
bush must be the worst ruler known ever!
The instability, destruction and future destroying plans that has happened since he took office is staggering.
He does seem to think he has total freedom to do as he wishes, like a true dictator.
What bothers me is we (the people
Bush and the other megalomanic elites are going to continue in their efforts unless we start talking more about these subjects and you Gareth are doing a top job in making people talk, its our only true offense against it, us and the whistle blowers are nothing if we're made out to be a crazy delusional minority due to the controlled media propaganda so forcefuly dispensed.
Comment by Gareth
Thanks for the comment. While I accept that this quote has been taken out of context, I still believe that to say that it is unacceptable to think in any context is not only ridiculous but shows a tendency towards totalitarian attitudes. Maybe it is just a matter of choosing words more carefully, but considering the fact that all Bush's speeches are prepared by people well schooled in NLP and other methods of using words to sell a particular point & the fact that Bush's words carry an enormous amount of influence and subsequently go towards the setting of international policies, I dont think this is an acceptable excuse.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
Phrases like "it is unacceptable to think ..." ; "you can't say ..."; "you can't believe" are often used to convey strong disagreement without necessarily also implying a desire to take away the right to think or express.
For example,
"You can't say 2 2 = 5! It's 4!"
"You can't believe that the sun revolves around the earth. Motion is relative to a frame of reference."
Unjust limits to freedom of expression do occur in the US but these comments by Bush are not an example.
If there is a significant moral difference between the Bush Administration and "Islamic Extremists" it is not a difference of opinion that it is right to "kill inocent women and children to achieve an objective." Both groups believe it is right. Bush knew innocent women and children would be killed by US munitions before he started the war in Iraq.
Comment by Gareth
Therefore, in my opinion, the quote was meant to be taken, at least subconciously in the way that Olbermann interpreted it. The full speech can be found at the link on the bottom of the post.
Comment by Anonymous
Everything about this article is stupid. As if the moron posting it can't figure out what's meant is: It's unreasonable to say that the actions of the US and those of radical Islam are analagous.
Even if the author can't make such a feeble leap in logic, let's go to the words themselves...What's wrong with the phrase, "It's unacceptable to think..."? The speaker simply meant, "It's unacceptable to me..." So what? Nowhere in the text could a reasonable person infer that Bush was somehow implying that thinking such "unacceptable" thoughts was illegal or prohibited.
Fools philosophy...what a joke.
Comment by Gareth
Thanks for the comment.
Comment by Chantal
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and Gareth has even taken yours into account, although you seem to be being disagreeable just for the sake of it.
I think you might be on to something, Gareth. A lot of work does go into what Bush says, it's like a well made film in that nothing is done by accident.
As if it wasnt clear by "Anonymous"s comments, some people have very small minds and are very easily influenced. I think it's a very real possibility those words were meant to infiltrate at least their minds. Even if it's not the case, it's a very interesting perspective!
Comment by Gareth
I agree that people should be more open minded. Maybe it was just a bad choice of words and maybe it was meant exactly as I interpreted it, I think its important to take all the available information and opinions and make up our own minds.
Comment by Chantal
Comment by JoJMeister
Comment by Gareth
Once again I agree with you completely.
Comment by Damo
Also on a side not you should delete the first comment from Anon as it now redundant and offensive.
Comment by Gareth
Thanks for commenting and taking the time to read this. Maybe you're right and I should pick a more capable opponent to criticize, after all, my 8 yr old son could prob beat Bush in a debate!
The only reason I havent deleted the above comment is that I regularly rant about how I disagree with censorship and thought it would be hypocritical of me to delete a comment purely because it is offensive towards me & points out my mistakes.
Comment by amy louise
Comment by Gareth
Thanks for the comment and the support, you're exactly right. Bush does know what he's saying and that why he said it.
To be honest I quite like it when people argue with me, it makes me think about my opinions and comment on any details I may have left out. Apart from that, the more comments i get the higher the rating, so the more people write to tell me that they disagree, the more popular my blogs become!
Comment by lilgrasshoppah
And why should we cut George Bush any slack? Because of his forthrightness and integrity? Because of how he treats all of his opponents fairly, and with dignity? What has George Bush done to deserve "slack"? All he does with slack is find new and entertaining ways to hang himself. He gets his people into wars they are unwilling, and unprepared, to fight. he offends friends and enemies alike with equal aplomb.
He is incompetent, childish, needlessly combative, and dictatorial.... in short, a simpleton.
The reason Olbermann keyed on that phrase is only because George Bush's behavior demands that a journalist has to. It's Olbermann's job to question the president. I find it interesting that George Bush says "it's unacceptable to think"... and, when Olbermann questions that, a chorus of simple-minded sychophants shriek, "Pipe down! Pipe down! You don'rtt understand! The president didn't mean it in the way you're implying!" Need I remind you that George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld have all publicly questioned the patriotism of citizens who question the administration. How else can anybody interpret the president when he says, "it's unacceptable to think...."?