Anti-Bush protestors act inappropriately
On Jan. 20, seven anti-war organizations were given unprecedented access to the parade route at President Bush's inauguration, even though these groups whined for days in the media about being kept "miles away" from the ceremony.
The demonstrators were generously allowed to gather along Pennsylvania Avenue as the president's motorcade passed by, mere yards away. How do they repay this favor?
The Bush-hating mob resorts to violence by throwing snowballs, fruit and other debris at the passing procession carrying President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. They also try to crash through the police barricades in an attempt to storm onto the street, causing security to use pepper spray and make dozens of arrests. Many critics of the Bush administration have complained about the $40 million price tag for this year's inauguration (we didn't hear such outcry about President Clinton's $42 million inauguration in 1997, by the way).
With these groups of anarchist thugs showing up to "peacefully protest" President Bush, in addition to like-minded al-Qaida types hoping to assassinate our commander-in-chief, I feel that the $40 million was well spent.
Christopher Noell
Mayodan
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
OK, so you state about the "bad" protesters, what about those who may have protested peacefully? Has anything been printed about any of those? Keep the "playing field" level.
As for the supposed $42 million for the 1997 inaguration, I believe that the overall economy was in MUCH better shape then as compared to now.
And when has there been an assination attempt on Bush? When has there been any supposed reports on assination discovery's?
Let's not make up news just to bolster the the stand for the extravagance that happened in the 2005 inaugration. Get real!
Posted on February 2, 2005 12:51 PM
Well spent, eh? $40 million... 40,000,000 DOLLARS! FORTY MILLION DOLLARS for pomp and circumstance for second-term inauguration, in the middle of a war and in the face of numerous human tragedies. I wonder how much it would've cost to swear him in in the Oval Office in front of a few witnesses and on live TV. This was nothing but a victory parade and a series of parties, all of which stole resources that could've been put to good use and served our fellow men and women rather than serving the well-fed ego of this administration.
Posted on February 2, 2005 1:33 PM
President Clinton spent far more on his 2nd term inauguration than did President Bush. I thought the Dems were soooo concerned about "helping" people..so why didn't Clinton take the $50 million or so (adjusted for inflation) and spend it on saving snail darters or buying shopping carts for the homeless?
Get over it, you lost. Quit acting like whiny little children. You remember the kid in your home room, or scout troop, or barracks that sniveled and griped and blamed everything on someone else? That's what you've become. And regular people love to hate you.
Posted on February 3, 2005 11:30 AM
Sources, JayCeeNC?
When I Google clinton second inauguration cost (4 words, not a phrase), I find two reputable sites (Washington Post and BBC News) and many opinion sites and mainstream sites with comments. The reputable sources state Clinton's second inauguration was less than Bush's. Only the opinion sites and comments state it was more.
Regardless, second inauguration costs should be minimal for all Presidents and the money saved should be used to help people.
Posted on February 3, 2005 1:11 PM
My source was various news media stories, who reported Clinton's costs as 25% above those of President Bush, adjusted for inflation. Do the math.
And why is it that do-gooders demand that others spend their PRIVATE money and contributions for "helping people?" President Bush's inauguration was funded with PRIVATE funds, not taxpayer dollars.(Source: CNN.com) The security costs were borne by DC, and per any large event in the Capital.
Spend your own money, or ask the Clinton's for some of the millions they made from their "books" which were ghost written for them.
Posted on February 3, 2005 3:55 PM
Whether the fund sources are private or public was not and is not part of my statement. "Various news media stories" is mighty vague. Please provide specific sources.
Posted on February 4, 2005 2:29 PM
It cost the first President George $0.00 to place his hand on a Bible and take the Presidential oath of office. How in the blazes does it cost more than $40 million for the new President George to do the exact same thing?
In a sane world, EVERYONE would be protesting this kind of waste. Bush didn't use a Guttenberg Bible by any chance, did he?
It's coming to look like it was substantially more than $40 million, BTW, after factoring in cost of security (huge draw of resources from already stretched military). Some authorities are putting it closer to $150 million. Here's something I compiled the morning of the inauguration that, though it doesn't figure for inflation (the Revolution would be $1.2 billion in today's dollars) it tends to make you wonder how we got this far away from the time when the President was intended to be a humble fellow citizen, not a far-removed would-be Caesar.
Posted on February 4, 2005 11:00 PM