Laura Bush Defends Gala in Time of War and Disaster

Anne E. Kornblut, The New York Times, January 15, 2005

http://nytimes.com/2005/01/15/politics/15laura.html

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 - With less than a week to go until her husband's
second inauguration, Laura Bush on Friday defended the decision to hold
the $40 million celebration as planned despite a war abroad and the
tsunami disaster in the Indian Ocean.

Inaugurations, Mrs. Bush said, are "an important part of our history."

"They're a ceremony of our history; they're a ritual of our government,"
she said in a round-table interview with reporters in the White House
map room. "And I think it's really important to have the inauguration
every time. I think it's also good for Washington's economy, for people
to come in from around the country, for the hotels to be full, and the
restaurants to be full, and the caterers to be busy. I think that's
important."

She added: "I think there's a symbolic aspect of the inauguration that -
and because of that, the symbol of the inauguration, you never want to -
for any reason - cancel it or not have it."

As for the parties themselves, Mrs. Bush said she was "all ready."

"Not all the new clothes are in the house," she said, "but they've all
had their last fitting."

:puke:

first lady this land of ours has had in recent memory. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why. :grr:

because you read it in the MSM. You KNOW it's not true.

look GOOD!.

I take it the queen agrees with that as well.

Maybe she should just pound the sauce like her girls are. It would at least be more entertaining ...

"They're a ceremony of our history; they're a ritual of our government,"

I think we need a new "ritual." One for stolen presidencies. Should be a real bash--after all, your DH has stolen two in a row now.


Cher

greedy and selfish these pigs are.

Last time, they threw him in the limo because so many people were protesting. Are they going to let him walk this time?

It's completely outrageous that they are spending all of that money on a party when deployed troops don't have what they need to keep them alive. As for the clothes that have all had their last fittings, how much did those cost? I don't even want to know.

Also, since they don't plan to pay for security, I think that the DC cops should call in sick that day. Time for the blue flu!!! Cities are constantly complaining that they don't have enough money for Homeland Security as it is...Why should DC have to pay $12 million for this buttwipe's big day?

Her job is to be an air head. And isn't she doing a great job?

"And I think it's really important to have the inauguration
every time. "

Uh, no one's saying *inaugurations* are bad. I think Bush being inaugurated for this or any term sucks, but that doesn't mean inaugurations are bad. Expensive hoopla and celebration that needs sooooo much in contributions from sooooo many rich cronies, and soooo much in taxpayer money for security because...*something* could happen--is more than bad. It telegraphs insensitivity and callousness. It's gloating.

We'll make sure to show all the new clothes and fancy balls going on. Make sure to smile for the camera.

never did, never will.

I don't have a problem (other than I wish it were Kerry up there) with the Inauguration swearing in, but the 40 million dollars worth of bloated partying when we have troops dying at the rate of 100 a week is the tasteless exercise of a pompous ass.

Mz Pip
:dem:

I don't think she realizes that no one wants it to be cancelled completely, but that we want it to be more subdued and less extravagant. I don't have a problem with a smaller, quieter party, but think the $50MM one is a bit much during a time of war.

Anyone have an update on the potential hotel workers' strike?