Calpundit has an interesting post about the discussion of "Bush-hatred" that seems to abound these days, in particular conservative spokepersons, who - while acknowledging that it was largely "hatred" that drove many of the attacks on Clinton during (and after) his terms in office - seem to think that liberals should dial it down a notch when it comes to the current White House resident. He says, much better than I could put it:
Now, I happen to agree that white hot anger can eventually become counterproductive, but I want to know why these guys all think that it's liberals who should back down, rather than the conservatives who are the original rage-meisters and continue to shout from the rooftops to this day. Shouldn't they be the ones to hold out an olive branch first?
First, I'm going to take the liberty of susbtituting "hate" with "anger;" first because I don't want to promote hatred of anyone, and second because the way I see it the former implies a certain degree of unreasoned passion, while the latter can at least sometimes be justified. In that sense, I think liberal anger at the Bush and his administration is justifiable on any number of different issues, ranging from the economy to the war on Iraq.
If anything I'm heartened that a number of Americans are waking up and speaking out on the likelihood that we have been dragged into a war that should have never been - and which appears to be as difficult to extract ourselves from as the proverbial "tar baby" that Bre'r Rabbit tussled with - thanks to a presidency that should never have been either. (Though that's a different topic for a different post.) What's more, it now appears that Americans might have been deliberately mislead - by manipulation or interpretation of intellegence data - into supporting a war based on suspicions that were not and have not been proven true.
If you ask me, more people should be angry at what has been done in their names, angry that their sons and daughters are dying in an uneccesary war while the president goads "Bring 'em on, and angrier than has been shown thus far, angry that this administration has done nothing real to protect us from terrorist threats (like protecting the power grid, protecting sensitive nuclear site, or inspecting every cargo container that comes into the country) while rolling back our civil liberties and pretending that it's for our own good, angry that we face yet another deficit as well as a foriegn occupation that is sure to cost hundreds of billions more than it already has. People should be angrier than they have shown thus far, because that anger is justified. Not only should it take them to the streets to demonstrate, but it should take them into the voting both next November.
Recent Comments