Some of you will note that in the past few months if you post a comment, it may not appear right away. We have recently reset our spam filter and a number of comments end up in our “Moderation Queue.” I tend to approve most of the comments unless they’re clearly spam or ad hominem attacks.
As I was reviewing comments to my piece, “The Wholly Unserious and Very Superficial Democrats,” I was struck by how few of our critics took the time to defend the left-of-center legislators I was critiquing. Most merely launched into rants against President Bush, calling him the “worst President ever” or other such invective. Most insisted, as did the Democrats that his strategy was nothing new. This despite the fact that even some on the left acknowledge the shift in the strategy the president’s proposed surge represents.
I’ve explored this issue before — as have other bloggers and columnists. But, it is striking how quickly the Administration’s critics are to respond to the president’s proposals not with ideas, but with invective.
I wonder sometimes what it is about this man that so gets their goat. Is it that they believe he has never suffered in his life of apparent privilege? I’m not sure what it is about this man, but the phenomenon of Bush-hatred remains, alas, a defining aspect of our nation’s political discourse in these troubled times. And shows a whole segment of the population, particularly its “chattering classes,” unwilling to show any respect for the President of the United States.
Dan, I have heard some lefties claim indeed that Bush “has never suffered in his life of apparent privilege” – but that is essentially tautological, i.e., just another way of putting Bush down. In additiona, it’s a double standard if you look at Ted Kennedy, or any of the Democrat Party’s many privileged zillionaires and trust fund babies.
We’ve also heard lefties try to criticize Bush’s National Guard service record. Leaving aside the egregious falsity of many of their claims, again they simply “blank out” their own amazing double standard. For 6 years, Bush manned a type of fighter that was particularly known for killing its pilots in training. That is way more than Bill Clinton. Or Hillary Clinton. Or Barack Obama.
When a group of people is deeply invested in criticisms that are essentially empty, as in this case, one must look for other explanations.
I think one or more of these factors are at work:
(1) A way for dumb people, or at least intellectually dishonest and sloppy people, to feel good about themselves. “Look at me – I’m knocking the President of the United States. I’m smarter than the President!”
(2) A way to avoid facing the depth, gravity and ugliness of the Islamo-fascist threat. “There’s no millenia-old threat to us out there. La, la, la, la, la. Any problems America encounters are its own fault and can be made to disappear as easy as changing Presidents. Which means: it’s all Bush’s fault, so hate Bush!”
(3) Culture wars. Bush is pro-military values; anti-abortion; unashamedly Christian; intelligent but in no way “clever” or intellectual; a man who freed himself from alcohol dependence by applying principles of morality to his life; and a man who just doesn’t buy the Global Warming hysteria. On all of those points, Bush is the opposite of the stereotypical baby-boomer, 1960s / hippie, “Me generation” left-winger. In other words, to those people, Bush is a kind of Anti-Christ.
I plead guilty to being a Bush critic. I don’t hate the man one iota and I greatly respect the office in which we employ him.
One of my main concerns with the course our country has taken is a general sense of a loss of control. Our borders, foreign and domestic lobbies, war, trade agreements that are unfair to American businesses — a general lack of concern for American interests. (And I mean our interests in the long run, not short-term, election-cycle interests that for example benefit American farmers and retail price points, but ultimately create a huge illegal immigration problem.)
I agree with GPW that the Democrats and their nattering nabobs have given us no real alternative to the current administration. Their attacks are hysteria, the kind of gleeful screeching one might hear while gathered ’round a pot of boiling tourists. However, I don’t hear much from the GOP and I sincerely hope that our prospective candidates for the nomination begin to offer a different, pro-American direction. (Go, Rudy!)
I’m not a Bush Republican. I’m a Reagan/Ford/Coolidge/TR/Lincoln Republican. Because of all that’s happened, I think Bush is a very important President, but that doesn’t mean I think he’s a good one.
In other words: You’re a responsible critic.
Incidentally, I agree with a lot of what you said – although I don’t think Reagan supported protectionism, and one of my own criticisms of Bush is in trade matters, he has been too willing to cave in to protectionism.
I consider myself a liberal and never voted for Bush. Yet I have always found the criticism to be nothing but nasty and useless. Those that criticize maturely and with reason like the guy above, allows me to be able to agree with him. For I feel that if I criticize the Pres. I’ll be lumped in with the Koskids crowd. Don’t they have a hobby? I just pray that the Reps and conservatives keep the higher ground when a Dem becomes Pres. I was VERY impressed with how y’all reacted when you lost the house and senate. My group inded would have cried “conspiracy”. I remember the whining from 2004 like it was last week.
#2-3: Cal, I second your emotion. Hobbit, there is a reason why I enjoy your posts, and it’s because you nailed it in your explanation above. You are (unfortunately) one of the few voices of reason on this side of the aisle.
Regards,
Peter H.
Of course, the title of your post, “The Wholly Unserious…,” doesn’t have an iota of invective in it, right?
#6, invective means angry and abusive language intended to ridicule and insult, not to persuade. To call people unserious and superficial, when they are such, supporting this charge with a long, calm, and rational argument containing no word of abuse, and with quotations from the unserious people themselves, is not invective. It is strong disagreement.
Hey, all — thanks. I’m honored to post my thoughts amongst yours and I appreciate your feedback.
Calarato, thank you. One minor point of clarification: I’m not in favor of protectionism if what you and I agree to be the generally accepted definition is an engagement in unfair economic or political policies designed to favor some interests while crowding out their competitors (or something like that — I didn’t look it up). I am, however, in favor of an open, free, and fair market that is as level a playing field as can be achieved between often disparate economies and economic interests and products. So, I am in favor of protecting American businesses from being preyed upon by predatory foreign interests such as cartels or foreign state industries operating under a fraudulent aegis of private ownership, from being systematically kept out of foreign markets while our market is wide open to theirs, or tariffs and/or value-added taxes and fees that make our products less competitive in all markets. Not protection from competition, but protection from illegal practices defined by our laws that hinder a free market. (I also tend not to favor international organizations such as the W.T.O. — sovereignty is a big issue with me. Are we selling our soul in the effort to sell one more potato[e]?)
Peter, thank you. I enjoy your posts, too — pithy and full of reason and you’re a master of the cutting riposte. Yeah, the aisle is a wide one, but I find myself in good company here. What distinguishes us from lower political life-forms is our ability to constructively criticize ourselves, realizing that the idea is what is important, not the person. Anyway, I’m honored you like what I type and I’ll try to keep you satisfied!
Rachel, if you’re referring to me, thank you and your honesty and openness is refreshing. I try to operate under the assumption that most conservatives and liberals want what’s best and to some degree even agree what the best is. We generally disagree, however, on how to achieve what is best, even to the point that we cannot agree on how to measure results. What I find most alarming is our seeming inability to tell our government to buzz off (and I’m being delicate). I wish more of us had your attitude. Will the new media further isolate and insulate our politics, or will it facilitate a greater openness such as you have demonstrated?
I know and like many liberals. I have even dated some, male and female. However, I try to keep the conversation apolitical and irreligious, hoping that at some point, we won’t be uttering words. I wouldn’t make a good congressman.
Dan, I don’t think the slurs and slams and invectives from the BushHatred crowd are any different than what many conservatives do to disparage TeddyK, LurchKerry, Lyin’Biden or Leakin’Leahy… and I don’t think any of this is much different from the name-calling festivals that GeoWashington, Thom-mount-my-horse-and-run-Jefferson, AlexThePureHamilton, JohnAdams or Col-Veep-Emperor-God AaronBurr had to endure in their time. It isn’t. I think you’re not reading enough political history.
Read some of the writings of James T Callender or BenjFranklin or study WRHearst or early Pulitzer efforts to effect American presidential candidates… it’s frighteningly current.
People –whether it’s journalists like WallyCronkite or man-on-the-street types– have used bombast, invective, flaming effigees and hurled insults faster than a BarryBondsBuffet can be drained at a WFW event. It happens in dusty ol’gay England. It happens it civilized France. In Italy, it brings down the govt every 15 months.
I don’t think criticizing the critics of Bush is… well, critical. Cheap shots will always abound wherever individual opinions are considered as equal.
I know that GeoBush 43 is going through nothing unusual in the history of the American Presidency… the cheap seats in the Congress will always breed an audience for invective. The press either creates it or eats it up. And voters love negative campaigning NO matter what they tell the pollsters in a moment of civic sobriety.
#6 – No Jonathan, I don’t think it does. That title makes the point – same as Dan’s current title and accurately – that the Democrats have only offered invective – not workable and effective IDEAS for, say, achieving American victory in Iraq or elsewhere in the War on Terror.
#8 cont – As for critics on this blog (Dan’s present target): People… It’s not their invective… it’s their lack of an alternative to invective. Their inability to answer valid criticisms, discuss substantively, etc.
To follow up on Matt’s point, can you imagine if blogging was more prevalent when Clinton was in office? Yow!
The access everyone now has to quickly and anonymously spout out emotional sometimes unreasoned views creates an environment that breeds incivility and vitriol. There are simply no social consequences for incivility and in fact it can bring you fame (Ann Coulter & Keith Olbermann)
Further, after 9-11 I was a staunch Bush supporter, he had me and most of the country. Then, he took that support for granted and did little to maintain the good will given to him by the country and the whole world. When I think about “what could have been” I get a tad annoyed and perhaps a little bitter. Thus my bile rises.
There are so many reasons. I need to take time to compile my thoughts. To start, please give your impressions of this window into W’s “Christian” heart:
From Wikipedia entry on Karla Faye Tucker:
In 1999, during the 2000 Republican Presidential primary race, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson interviewed Bush for Talk Magazine (September 1999, p. 106). Excerpt from this interview is quoted below:
“In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. “Did you meet with any of them?” I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. “No, I didn’t meet with any of them,” he snaps, as though I’ve just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. “I didn’t meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, ‘What would you say to Governor Bush?'” “What was her answer?” I wonder. “‘Please,'” Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, “‘don’t kill me.'” I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.”
Bush denied that he had intended to make light of the issue.
As usual, Matt makes a lot of sense. One of the comforts I have derived from taking up US history as my summertime reading these past five years is seeing how unchanged so much of our political life is.
But I do think there is a difference now: we are living in a world where news media envelop us in a 24/7 bubble. The flow is constant and well nigh inescapeable and it is far from being either benign or unbiased. I recommend the always stimulating Robert Kaplan, whose article “Media and Medievalism” in Policy Review Jan 05 describes the media as a globally roving lynchmob. And W has certainly been their victim of choice.
“globally roving lynchmob”
That’s a very apt description. I think the media is now so dependent upon coverage of the sordid antics of actors, singers, models, athletes, heiresses, etc., that they now view politicians as just another species of celebrity. As if Congress were just a boring version of “Big Brother” with somewhat less swearing and nudity. The way political campaigns are run nowadays is reminiscent of “American Idol,” too.
#13 – Michael, as a Texan who (a) saw the damage KF Tucker did in her murder spree and (b) someone who followed her case closely, I can tell you that you were as caught up in her “victim act” as she had hoped.
This woman was a cold-blooded killer who lured men in for sex, killed them with a hatchet (thus her moniker “The Hatchet Lady”), robbed them and did it over and over and over again until she got caught.
Her “conversion” in prison was nothing more than a political/PR ploy to try to rally folks to her cause. And it worked – the numbskulls at Amnesty International and “celebs” like Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover came to her defense.
So she pled with then-Gov. Bush to order a reprieve. I wonder how many of her victims pleaded with her not to kill them.
I also wonder if she and her supporters knew of how many families in Texas were living without a loved one that she had taken from them.
Personally, I’m glad she “found Christ” in prison. That means that she went to Him quicker after the needle found the vein in Hunstville.
Regards,
Peter H.
#8 – Thanks, HHobbit!
Regards,
Peter H.
#16: I’m not surprised you missed Michael’s entire point. Bush’s depraved joking attitude about the taking of a human life is at issue, not Tucker. The taking of a human life by the State ought to be the most solemn and soberly considered matter. But it was just a joke to Gov. Bush. Just like the failure to find WMD was a big joke. And the swaggering “bring it on” which even today continues to reap the whirlwind. But as Senator Boxer aptly noted, no one in this Adminstration “pays the price” least of all Bush and his Paris Hilton wannabe offspring.
#18
The taking of a human life by the State ought to be the most solemn and soberly considered matter.
You’re right. The day she assumed room temperature should be designated, at the minimum, a state holiday. Everybody should take the day off and soberly consider the matter.
I lived in Houston back then. Tucker WAS a joke. Funny, isn’t it, how that’s all solemn, sobering and all that BS, but burning down the Branch Davidians was a BBQ Reno style.
least of all Bush and his Paris Hilton wannabe offspring.
Say, where’s Chelsea? Oh yeah. Busy making $100,000+ right out of college. Too much money to get sand in her vagina. Last I checked, we had a volunteer military. Or is it mandatory for people liberal douchebags hate?
Well said Ian. Peter, I don’t know whether Tucker’s self-declared conversion was heartfelt or a PR stunt and neither do you; neither one of us is a mindreader. But Bush’s mocking callousness in an unguarded moment is telling.
The original post says that “even some on the left acknowledge the shift in the strategy the president’s proposed surge represents.” Who are you talking about? Let’s be honest- if by “some” you mean Joe Lieberman, say “even Joe Lieberman acknowledges…”
Implying that people are critical of the policy because they are Bush-haters, unpatriotic, or want us to lose in Iraq IS invective. There’s a near consensus that Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution. And everyone concedes that the policy’s success relies largely on Maliki, whose intentions are dubious at best. Throwing 20,000 more American soldiers into the mix doesn’t change these realities. It does reinforce the widely-held Iraqi suspicions that we have colonial rather than virtuous intentions.
In terms of an alternative, most Democrats believe that the Baker-Hamilton findings provide a better chance for success.
“6 – No Jonathan, I don’t think it does. That title makes the point – same as Dan’s current title and accurately – that the Democrats have only offered invective – not workable and effective IDEAS for, say, achieving American victory in Iraq or elsewhere in the War on Terror.”
LOL. It’s not invective to call the Democrats “superficial.” Why? Because you believe they are. But if I called George Bush “unintelligent” is would be invective because you don’t believe him to be so.
This whole business about invective and the breakdown in civil discourse as a problem with progressives is a joke here. Just review a few of the comments by Matt or the professor.
The truth is that discourse has become glib and personal on both sides. And if you want evidence of it on your side, besides reading this blog, listen to Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush and friends. Libs are godless traitors, according to these paragons of polite discourse, but it’s okay to call them that because it’s true, right?
#18 & 20 – I don’t for one second believe that “Bush’s mocking callousness” is anything but media-inflated hype. One only needs to look at Clinton’s behavior at Ron Brown’s funeral to see a true psychopath caught in the act of switching from laughter to tears.
Also michael = “It does reinforce the widely-held Iraqi suspicions that we have colonial rather than virtuous intentions.” I suppose you have interviewed Iraqis that have told you this, no? If not, I would advise you to lay off the generalities unless you can back them up with facts.
And ian, YOU missed the entire point. Then-Gov. Bush was merely following “the will of the people” in not rescinding Karla Faye Tucker’s execution. His “mocking” was nothing more that presenting the pro-criminal position as espoused by Amnesty International and the Hollyweird left as being out of touch with everyday Texans. If anything, outside agitators “mock” the values of everyday Americans, and it is they who owe us the apology.
Regards,
Peter H.
#22- Peter, here’s the evidence you requested and a possible reason why 60% of Iraqis supports attacks on our troups and a majority want us to leave within the year. What facts support your positions?
An 8/17/06 US News & World Report article on University of Michigan study reports:
“There was more bad news for U.S. officials, who have worked hard to convince Iraqis that American intentions in Iraq are noble. The most recent survey, done in April this year, found almost no Iraqis who felt the United States had invaded to liberate their country from tyranny and build a democracy. Asked for “the three main reasons for the U.S. invasion of Iraq,” fully 76 percent cited “to control Iraqi oil.” That was followed by “to build military bases” (41 percent) and “to help Israel” (32 percent). Fewer than 2 percent chose “to bring democracy to Iraq” as their first choice.”
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060817/17iraq.htm?s_cid=rss:site1
#23 – Michael, here are my facts. For starters, your data is six months old and a lot has been accomplished in Iraq since then – including the execution of Saddam and his co-horts, the arrest of al-Sadr’s chief deputy and the discovery of al-Qaeda hideouts in Iraq. If you want to poo-poo that fact, please bear in mind that we had DAILY tracking polls leading up to the 2006 elections. So yes, this information is staler than Madonna’s underwear.
Secondly, the “survey” commissioned by UM was done entirely inside the Green Belt where journalists “cover” the war but are not embedded with the troops. The veracity of this survey is quite frankly suspect. There is no mention of sampling population, questions asked, margin of error or poisson process. In other words, who was asked what questions?
Third, here is the blog from an actual embedded blogger in Fallujah who has a more recent (read: factual) perspective of the Iraqis, especially those who are training with the Iraqi army:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/hAjUllAfCaRT.cgi/2925
Money quote from “Mohammad” (who did not want to be identified for fear of retribution): “I think we need the Americans. If they go out right now it’s gonna be a disaster. And believe me, even if they get out of Fallujah, Washington itself will be a target.”
Match, set, game.
Regards,
Peter H.
Sorry, my bad. Wrong URL. Here’s the correct one:
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002926.php
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter,
If anything, the situation has deteriorated in the last year. While Saddam’s death might have thrilled the Shia and made you feel great, it’s fueling Sunni outrage and has intensified sectarian tensions.
Your claim that the study was done by journalists in the Green Zone is a lie. It was conducted national-wide by the Institute for Social Research, one of the world’s oldest survey research organizations. And don’t mock the courage of the journalists working in Iraq; 93 journalist have been murdered there (as well as 37 of their staff). It’s insulting to their memories and their families.
Sorry, your single blog report and “money quote” isn’t convincing next to a nation-wide study.I don’t doubt the report from the enbed blogger, but I didn’t say everyone wants us to leave within the year. Only 70% do.
And the talking point that we must fight them there or they’ll follow us back here is propaganda meant to frighten pussies like. I agree we should stay in Al Ambar and kill all the al Qaeda there. But Americans shouldn’t be dying in Baghdad’s Shia-Sunni sectarian war.
You’re apparently happy deluding yourself, discounting real facts to fit your preconceptions and ideology–knock yourself out. Fortunately, you’re part of a shrinking group, and saner minds will soon prevail.
Reminds me of Stephen Colbert at the WH Correspondents’ dinner:
“Now I know there’s some polls out there that say this man has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don’t pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in ‘reality.’ And ‘reality’ has a well known liberal bias.”
“Pay no attention to people who say the glass is half empty…Because 32 percent means it’s 1/3 full. But I wouldn’t drink it. The last third is usually backwash.”
For another discouraging poll, see http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=brme
“And don’t mock the courage of the journalists working in Iraq; 93 journalist have been murdered there (as well as 37 of their staff). It’s insulting to their memories and their families.”
Oh, so journalists have more courage than American soldiers? If it weren’t for the soldiers in the first place, journalists wouldn’t be free to publish whatever dreck they feel like to the likes of al-AP and al-Reuters.
Nice try.
Regards,
Peter H.
#28 – In fact – I hereby openly mock and spit upon the so-called “courage” of all journalists in Iraq who sit safely in Baghdad’s “Green zone”, or whatever it is, and rely on local stringers – often terrorist sympathizers, or paid by terrorists – for so-called “reporting”.
Now, if we’re talking about reporters who get outside the Green Zone and do, you know, real reporting – first-hand stuff – as embeds, or whatever – OK, they have tremendous courage, which I praise and honor.
But – Problem for michael is: now we’re talking about people like… oh, I dunno… Michelle Malkin… Bill Roggio… Michael Yon… Milbloggers (i.e., actual field soldiers who report via blogs)… etc.
It is clear that many Democrats and ‘anti-war’ people want America to lose in Iraq. Yet the one calling himself Michael claims it is ‘invective’ to say this. His incoherent and contradictory comments certainly lead one to think either he does want us to lose or has never given any serious thought to the issue. He says we should be following the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, not noticing that one of its recommendations was a surge to pacify Baghdad. He says we need a political and not a military solution, which is meaningless dreck, and then says we should send more troops into Anbar and not Baghdad, which is a military solution. He offers no evidence for his claim that 60% (later it becomes 70%) of Iraqis want us to lose. That would mean they want the Saddamist regime or an Islamicist regime established, and the same polls he links to show that majorities in all ethnic groups reject both options. If most would like US troops to withdraw within two years, so what? The US troops want that too. But they intend to win before they withdraw. Micheal points to the sectarian violence as evidence that the situation has deteriorated, and at the same time says we should ignore the sectarian violence because it does not concern us. No sense can be made of this. He is a perfect example of the superficial and unserious hatemongers condemned in the original post.
Bush deserves all invective…remember, this is a man who lied to the American public to pursue his war. There were no weapons of mass destruction, we weren’t greeted with flowers and we failed to provide security for the Iraqi people. No one but Bush is to blame for these atrocities. He led us into an illegal and immoral war that’s costing thousand of American lives and billions in dollars. History will judge this fraud for what he is.
Peter and Doyne,
After reading the fair and balanced reporting of Michelle Malkin et al., benefited from your comprehensive understanding of Iraq’s past and present, and your argumentative prowess, I would like to apoligize for my former posts and thank you for helping me see the truth.
Fully joining your side, I would like to alert you to other, as you note, “superficial and unserious hatemongers.” They are actually doubting the wisdom for deploying 21,500 additional troups! Of course we all know where their true sympathies lie.
Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, former chief of the Central Command
Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded troops in the first Gulf War
Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, former director of the National Security Agency
Gen. Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the Army
Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, former Secretary of the Navy
Senator Dick Lugar, Republican of Indiana, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, served in the Navy
“Too little and too late,” is the way Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command, described the effort to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The additional troops are intended to help pacify Baghdad and a restive province, but General Hoar said American leaders had failed to understand the political forces at work in the country. “The solution is political, not military,” he said.
“A fool’s errand,” was the judgment of Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded troops in the first Gulf War. He said other countries had concluded that the effort in Iraq was not succeeding, noting that “our allies are leaving us and will be gone by summer.”
Describing the situation in Iraq as “desperate but not terminal,” he said Iraqis had to try to make political deals domestically and negotiate for stability with neighboring nations, particularly Syria and Iran.
The American effort in Iraq has gone badly because the United States did not understand the consequences of deposing Saddam Hussein, said Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency. He said the principal beneficiary of the war was Iran and Al Qaeda, not the United States.
In statements and in questioning, senators were skeptical about the increased commitment of troops and the likely outcome of the deployment. Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, noted that he had raised questions about the effort in Iraq as long ago as 2003, and said, “Today, I don’t have an understanding about how it will work militarily.”
Senator Warner’s proposed resolution against sending more troups: “The Senate disagrees with the ‘plan’ to augment our forces by 21,500, and urges the President instead to consider all options and alternatives for achieving the strategic goals with reduced force levels than proposed.”
Peter and Doyne, these disgraceful traitors certainly hate America, want us to lose in Iraq, and are terrorist sympathizers. It’s our patriotic duty to call on President Bush to declare these “men” (the name Lugar sounds French to me) enemy combatants; revoke their Constitutional rights; and immediately render them to Guantanamo, Syria, or Egypt for “coercive,” “aggressive” “interrogation.”
Who else with me? Before you answer that question, remember that if you’re against me, you’re clearly with the terrorists.
Patriotically yours,
Michael
Why’s he throwing all these names at us? None of them seem to agree with him. and nobody said all critics of Bush are superficial and unserious, only that people like him are.
Doyne, I tend to nod off when michael is off his meds. As Otter said of Blutarsky in “Animal House” regarding his diatribe: “Forget it; he’s rolling.”
Regards,
Peter H.
This is quite entertaining.
First Ian:
I’m not surprised you missed Michael’s entire point. Bush’s depraved joking attitude about the taking of a human life is at issue, not Tucker.
Then Michael:
Well said Ian. Peter, I don’t know whether Tucker’s self-declared conversion was heartfelt or a PR stunt and neither do you; neither one of us is a mindreader. But Bush’s mocking callousness in an unguarded moment is telling.
Both of these people are arguing that Bush should be pilloried for refusing to stay the execution of a cold-blooded killer who murdered innocent individuals and was convicted by a jury, given the full right of appeal, and ultimately lost all of them.
And yet, when it comes to removing a regime that systematically terrorizes, imprisons, tortures, and murders millions of its citizens, including some for the mere crime of being the infant child of a political dissident, they consider it “unnecessary and unjustified”.
As that shows, Michael, you and your fellow leftists don’t care one whit about human life, not when you’re whining about the death penalty for a convicted brutal murderer one minute and defending a despot who killed the innocent with impunity in the next.
And furthermore, Michael, notice something about all those sources you cite; they are FORMER generals.
Which means they are no longer active, nor do they have access to the volument of information that the actual, active commanders do, or that the President does.
Furthermore, the irony is that, if it were up to leftist Democrats, McCaffrey, for one, would not have led troops in the first Gulf War because there wouldn’t have been one; leftists Boxer, Kerry, and Kennedy, to name several, all voted against military action against Saddam Hussein even when he had invaded one country and was threatening numerous others. Why McCaffrey wants to suck up to them now, I have no idea, but I would wager it has something to do with the fact that failure to spout the network’s line gets one fired as an analyst.
Alright, I’m over this excerise in irony.
And I’m over trading selective talking points. Everyone wants this horror of a war to end soon and well. But supporting a path because it’s proposed by your “side” isn’t gonna get us anywhere. It may be fun to spar politically on domestic issues. But it’s not when the deaths of our fellow citizens and those abroad become an abstraction; war too easily ends up as a game when viewed from a secure distance with no “skin in the game.” Over there, it’s ugly and sad. And the brutality of war changes the people who fight it for the rest of their lives.
I wish we had a media that would show reality on the ground and inform us with sober clarity. We don’t. I just saw this Channel 4 piece from the UK. Why don’t we see pieces like this in our so-called liberal media? If we did, it’d at least be harder to give our government a free pass for failing to take better care of soldiers when they return.
Please check it out:
http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/player.jsp?showId=4300
And also check out Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America’s website (www.IAVA.org) where I found the link.
But it’s not when the deaths of our fellow citizens and those abroad become an abstraction; war too easily ends up as a game when viewed from a secure distance with no “skin in the game.” Over there, it’s ugly and sad. And the brutality of war changes the people who fight it for the rest of their lives.
As was shown by the willingness of leftists like yourself, Michael, to leave the Iraqis to be terrorized, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered by the millions under Saddam — because you had “no skin in the game”.