I find it ironic that somebody actually can write about how true this situation is.
By Suntimes Columnist Richard Roeper
After I gave thumbs-up to Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" on "Ebert & Roeper," some conservatives demanded I come clean. "Admit it, you hate Bush!" said one e-mailer after another.
After I wrote a couple of columns about Ronald Reagan in which I failed to advocate placing Reagan's visage on Mount Rushmore, the dime or the $20 dollar bill, I heard from conservatives who maintained this was just another example of my anti-Republican bias.
After I marveled at Ann Coulter's bottomless reserve of hatred for liberals, I once again heard from outraged conservatives.
"Coulter doesn't hate liberals any more than you hate President Bush!" said one caller.
Do I hate the president? Not the kind of "Hate Lite" discussed in yesterday's column about the minor everyday inconveniences -- but a pure, evil hatred, like the loathing we harbor for the likes of Hitler and serial killers.
Answer: not even close.
Heck, there have even been times when I've admired the man, e.g., when he stood amid the rubble of Ground Zero, megaphone in hand, and rallied the firefighters, police and rescue workers.
More often, I've been angry at Bush's arrogance and incompetence, and I've despised his policies -- but I don't hate the man.
I have to admit, though, that it's hilarious to see so many conservatives displaying such sensitivity over this issue. Again and again, I hear from Republicans who are shocked, saddened and sickened by the level of vitriol against their beloved President Bush. Why, they've never seen anything like it. How can people be so irrationally emotional, so personal, so vicious in their hatred of a sitting president?
Right. Because the anti-Clinton movement never turned hateful.
How soon they forget
Talk about your institutional amnesia. It is absolutely astonishing that some of the same people who spent more than eight years beating up on Bill (and Hillary, and Chelsea, and Buddy the dog), are now so offended by attacks against their guy that sometimes land below the belt.
Folks, do you not see the hypocrisy at work here?
This makes about as much sense as a bully taking a kid's lunch money for eight years -- only to complain when the kid finally lands a counterpunch during freshman year in high school. "Ow! You're mean!"
Understand, I'm not denying the existence of more than a few liberals who truly hate President Bush. Whether it's an idiot singer saying Bush should have died instead of Reagan; photoshopped images of Bush and Cheney as Nazis; Web sites filled with personal insults; or conspiracy theorists accusing the Bush family of participating in a ludicrously diverse litany of crimes up to and including the assassination of JFK, there's some nasty, unfair, off-the-wall stuff out there. Even if you abhor everything about the Bush presidency, this is not the way for decent human beings to campaign against his re-election.
But in volume and variety of rumor-mongering, the Bush-haters aren't even in the same league with the Clinton-haters. I'd say that for every anti-Bushite who's ticked because we didn't find weapons of mass destruction, there were a dozen anti-Clintonites who spent a good chunk of the 1990s screaming, "IT'S NOT ABOUT SEX, IT'S ABOUT LYING UNDER OATH!"
And for every Bush-basher who whispers about the president's "unstable" behavior in the White House, there were a dozen Clinton-haters going around saying it was a "known fact" that the president was a rapist.
And a cokehead.
And a murderer.
Don't hate the prez, hate the policies
The Clinton-haters were consumed by an obsessive hatred that had them believing (and advancing) every insane rumor imaginable. If we were to believe every unfounded story swirling about, Hillary Clinton was a communist lesbian married to a drug-running serial rapist, and when Bill and Hill weren't working to bump off anyone who might expose their criminal doings, they were conspiring to destroy organized religion and/or each other.
And that's why Vince Foster was murdered. Or something.
Indeed, some of the Bush-bashing is out of hand -- but anyone who claims it's worse than the anti-Clinton garbage is either in denial or is 8 years old.
Because if you're old enough and honest enough to remember the 1990s, you have to admit the Clinton-haters far outnumbered and out-hated the Bush-haters.
To borrow an old Republican catchphrase: In your heart, you know I'm right.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
[ edited by logansdad on Jun 17, 2004 08:48 AM ]
posted on June 17, 2004 09:19:57 AM new
logansdad, calling someone a "Bush hater", "Bush basher" is just another transparent worn-out republican party line. When party faithful can't defend Bush's failed leadership. These same people start throwing around labels like Bush basher, Bush hater, Liberal, Elitist and more. Some of these labelers even label themselves by calling themselves "DITTO HEADS."
posted on June 17, 2004 10:35:05 AM new
I think it's an excellent column and makes an excellent point- what has come to be called the politics of personal destruction has gone way beyond partisan politics, now we expect the OTHER guy to be a Saint.
Clinton obviously had a big libido but it's a big jump to Rapist. Bush can be secretive but it's a stretch to take that to murder conspiracies.
ALL of the major political figures have some skeletons in their closets- but as much as I believe the voters have a right to know about the past actions of the candidates it can and has gone too far.
I blame my party, the GOP, more than the Dems for turning this way first but the Dems have certainly responded in spades.
When Rush Limbaugh first came on the air I was a big fan. After a while though I became disgusted with his dogmatic approach to everything. If it was Democratic, it was bad, if it was GOP, it was good.
T'aint true- both parties have jackasses, both parties have good people and even the jackasses may occasionally do something good.
The worst part of it is the noise it creates- we all have to now consider the source to weigh our opinions- I dont trust the mainstream media much assuming most of them put a liberal spin on most things and I trust the conservative sources even less.
It just makes our lives that much more complicated.
posted on June 17, 2004 11:57:32 AM new
bob - I agree with much of what you've said. But this election cycle has been nastier than most others I recall. Even during the Vietnam War.
We've had too many democrats publically calling this President a liar during a time when we're engaged in a war.
To me that boarders near treason.
If they felt what he did [Iraq] was so very, very wrong, then they have the option of voting to impeaching him. THEY voted to give him that power...THEY need to take responsibility for their part in allowing that to happen....and not cop out that they didn't have access to the same intelligence Bush had when the decision was made to invade. Because they did...and they too thought saddam had womds. But now it's election time...and they'll do anything to get back in the WH, even IF it's destructive to our nation.
All this screaming by Dean, Gore, Kennedy - with their blood vessels popping out...is such unprofessional, unstatesmanlike behavior and it's all for political gain.
This Bush hatred, imo, has gone far beyond and above normal political discourse into being detrimental to our nations security and the security of our overseas troops.
posted on June 17, 2004 12:05:56 PM new
Nah, my cockroach is better than your cockroach. Remember it defiles a living piece of God to kill and eat anything. Boycott eating! All animals and plants are created equal!
____________
You know...the best way to defeat a liberal is to let them speak.
Yes I do not like Bush (as a president). I don't think that was difficult to figure out.
By the way I do like your "tag line".
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
posted on June 17, 2004 02:35:11 PM new
Thanks! I am running for HALL MONITOR but do not have an opponent yet. And this is a non Partisan race!! LOL! (yeah! )
Calling the President a liar or anything else is not NEAR TREASON, it's our ABSOLUTE right and some say, DUTY. If all it took to avoid criticism, harsh or otherwise, during campaign season was to be an incumbent with the country at war we would be having wars every 4 years.
Impeachment is not a possibility besides the lack of votes - there is no impeachable offense. Lying, whether he did or not, is part of being a politician regardless of your political affiliation.
Screaming- Dean screamed once- look what it cost him!! LOLOL!! Gore whines more than he screams; Teddy has been screaming for years about EVERYTHING,ignore it.
N.B.>> Everything ALL politicians do is for political gain.
The Bush hatred hasn't risen yet to the levels of Clinton hatred at it's max but it's getting there. So far at least noone has accused him (or Laura) of having people killed. If he's re-elected it will rise to a fever pitch for the duration of his tenure. Again, the politics of personal destruction continue to grow to the detriment of the nation. What right thinking person from outside the political arena is going to subject themselves and their families to the kind of character assasination that is becoming commonplace?As a result we lose the services of many good men and women who in years past might have come from academia, the business world or private life to serve us all. think of the Harrimans, Baruchs, Rockefellers, none of whom had to serve but did . We still get some, but fewer each year - now we get 2nd stringers looking to cash in on political office.
I don't buy the security issue - somehow Bush being above criticism makes us strong? FDR was soundly criticised thruout his tenure including thru a MUCH bigger war and he and the nation survived. I am not willing to muzzle freedom of speech even a little bit for specious reasons.
BTW-"boarder" is someone who moves in with you, usually for money; "border" is a line of demarcation used to KEEP people from moving in with you.
posted on June 18, 2004 12:41:31 PM new
From a previous post: "We've had too many democrats publically calling this President a liar during a time when we're engaged in a war.
To me that boarders near treason"
OK, we call him a liar whenever he lies which is frequently. And, no, I'm not going to search the web and cut and paste all the lies....there just isn't enough room. Anyone with an open mind who has been paying attention the last few years has heard them all.
And, calling a liar a liar does not BORDER on treason, doesn't come close.
"Outing" a CIA agent doesn't BORDER on treason either....it IS treason.
[ edited by crowfarm on Jun 18, 2004 12:43 PM ]
posted on June 18, 2004 06:19:00 PM new
KD - You're a married woman...you can't be going around asking people to marry you.
-------------
On the freedom of speech issue. I do believe in FOS...I guess what I'm trying to convey is that these behaviors give aid and comfort to our enemies. They see our division and gain encouragement from it....and it's my opinion that further puts our fighting troops in danger.
I guess I should say it would be my WISH that they'd shut up....hold back on these public statements and verbalize their disagreements in PRIVATE with one another....not broadcast it so the enemy sees our division.
Saddam is a good example....he made a pubic statement that the war protestors sided with him against their own country. Did they? Some did for sure...others just didn't want our nation to go to war. But saddam formed that opinion from listening to those in the US who opposed going to war with him . He was just a little to sure of himself and the support he thought he had. He was surprised by this Presidents actions.
But those actions and the words coming from democratic leaders ARE seen as support by our enemies....whether anyone wants to admit that or not. And as our elected leaders they are fully aware of what harm they do....they just don't care. Anything to get elected.
I am really hopeful there are no democrats that wish us to loose this war in Iraq, although sometimes it does appear to me that's what the lefties would like to see....only to make this President look bad.
I wish we were as united as a people as we were during WWII. Then....everyone did see the threat in Europe and from Japan. Now it's like no one believes these murdering thugs really want to destroy our nation. I hope it doesn't take another 9-11 before all realize this threat is really out there.
posted on June 18, 2004 06:50:53 PM newI guess I should say it would be my WISH that they'd shut up....hold back on these public statements and verbalize their disagreements in PRIVATE with one another....not broadcast it so the enemy sees our division.
Only in PRIVATE you say? Disagreement with leaders or the way government is doing things should not be said in public or broadcast on TV, newspapers or the internet? That way others don't find out that things aren't so rosy and start to talk too. Hmmmm...... isn't that a WISH for censorship?
Wouldn't it be more beneficial for the enemy to see a nation of nodding sheep being led to slaughter? Just a thought.
posted on June 18, 2004 06:52:12 PM new
Linda, where's your proof for this statement...""Saddam is a good example....he made a pubic statement that the war protestors sided with him against their own country. Did they? Some did for sure""
No, I don't mean Saddam's PUBIC statement but the statement "Some did for sure"..... how do YOU know war protesters sided with Saddam...I protested the war and have talked to dozens of others who protested and not one sided with Saddam.
No, you don't have to answer this one either because I'll never believe you actually sat down and talked face to face with some one who was against the war.
posted on June 19, 2004 08:56:49 AM new
Oh I see you want all other points of view to be silenced that are in opposition to this administration policy.
STOP THE WAR
BUSH SUCKS
#*!@ FASCISTS
CHENEY IS A CALCULATING LIAR
posted on June 19, 2004 10:11:25 AM new
No - This is how dave always reacts when someone he disagrees with states an opposing opinion. Nothing new there - it's a pattern with him. It's a total lack of self control - accompanied with insults and and an inability to be civil why disagreeing.
Re-elect President Bush!!
posted on June 19, 2004 11:42:17 AM new
That is correct. Anytime someone attempts to silence the views of those who oppose this unjust, arrogant, futile war I will react thusly.
You have some nerve to equate opposing this administrations policies with aiding and abetting.
If you had one original thought it would die of loneliness in the vast expanse of your cranium.
The Iraqi war that has so divided Americans is also causing a rift in the family of President George W. Bush.
The President’s father, George H.W. Bush – 41st President of the United States – disagrees with his son’s decisions in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which is why the former President has not commented in public on the war.
“The President and I discuss the war privately,” the elder Bush said in an interview earlier this year. “That is the way it will remain.”
But sources close to the Bush family say the elder Bush thinks his son has mishandled the war in Iraq.
“They disagree on the war,” says a family confidante. “Former President Bush believes the U.S. should have sought more support before invading Iraq and feels his son did not work hard enough to secure the support of allies.”
Former President Bush built an unprecedented coalition of allies, including countries in the Middle East, for Desert Storm, the Gulf War that ended Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. He also enjoyed support from the United Nations. But his son invaded Iraq without UN support or the support of any prominent Middle Eastern nations.
Sources also say the elder Bush, who once headed the Central Intelligence Agency, faults his son for pressuring the CIA to provide hastily-prepared and faulty intelligence to support plans to invade Iraq.
Rumors of a rift between father and son have circulated in Washington for months and White House watchers noted, with interest, the lack of public support from the elder Bush for his son’s military action against Iraq.
“George H.W. Bush is a pro,” says Darlene Atkins, a former campaign worker for the elder Bush. “He makes sure the facts are on his side before he moves. It concerns him that his son did not exercise what he feels was appropriate caution before launching the war with Iraq.”
Bush’s father has told Republican leaders that he fears Iraq will cost his son a second term in the White House, calling the war “his read-my-lips donnybrook,” a reference to the elder Bush’s flip-flop on tax increases that many feel led to his defeat in the 1992 elections.
In addition, the former President has told his son that he “messed up big time” in trying to tie Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks against the United States. The elder Bush points out that a State Department assessment released after the September 11 attacks lists 45 countries (including the United States) where al-Qaeda operated and notes that Iraq was not one of those countries.
John McLaughlin, Deputy Director of the CIA, told Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz Iraq was not on the list. A spokesman for the Deputy Secretary confirmed McLaughlin’s briefing of Wolfowitz.
“The problem President Bush has when it comes to CIA intelligence is that his daddy knows a lot more about what goes on at Langley than he does,” says a former intelligence officer. “He also knows how the White House can drive the outcome of intel assessments.”
Former Congressman Lee Hamilton agrees.
"My concern in these situations, always, is that the intelligence that you get is driven by the policy, rather than the policy being driven by the intelligence," says Hamilton, who is now with the Woodrow Wilson Institute, a Washington think tank. "This is not a problem unique to George Bush. It's every president I've known, and I've worked with seven or eight of them All, at some time or another, used intelligence to support their political objectives.”
"Information is power, and the temptation to use information to achieve the results you want is almost overwhelming," Hamilton adds. "The whole intelligence community knows exactly what the president wants [regarding Iraq], and most are in their jobs because of the president – certainly the people at the top – and they will do everything they can to support the policy.”
This misuse of intelligence is at the heart of differences between Bush, the President, and Bush the father and former President.
As public support for the war wanes, political strategists have urged the former President to come out publicly for his son’s war but their arguments have fallen on defiant ears.
“It’s easy to see where President Bush got his stubborn streak,” sighs one White House political operative.
posted on June 19, 2004 01:02:35 PM new
I believe this is why the majority of American's don't trust the democratic party with National security issues.
Past history proves that the war protesters provided 'aid and comfort' to our enemies...and the communist leaders have said so themselves. Just read the Vietnam leaders own statements to hear how they saw the support from the left helping them in that war. They didn't need to beat us with weapons they did it convincing enough people we needed to get out.
Just as the left is doing by all the criticising of our war efforts against terror now. With all these dems popping their blood vessels about how wrong everything we're doing in Iraq is. Our enemies DO see it as support for their cause. saddam said so himself. Look to the statements of NK and see how they're support a kerry presidency, etc.
-----------
Today, many American veterans and their families deem Kerry's past public excoriation of U.S. troops as unforgivable acts bordering on treason. As a result, veterans have formed several groups opposing Kerry's presidential ambitionspp.
The root cause of their anti-Kerry sentiment is summarized by the publication U.S. Veteran Dispatch, which notes that Kerry's aforementioned testimony "occurred while some of his fellow Vietnam veterans were known by the world to be enduring terrible suffering as prisoners of war in North Vietnamese prisons."
Indeed, Senator John McCain has stated that his North Vietnamese captors had used reports of Kerry-led protests to taunt him and his fellow prisoners. Retired General George S. Patton III angrily charged that Kerry's actions were giving "aid and comfort to the enemy."
[taken from Frontline magazine]
-------------
Many in our country see the ultra-left - including kerry - as taking actions that are detrimental to our war efforts.
)
