Home / The Left’s Irrational Hatred of GWB: Let’s Not Do the Same to Obama

The Left’s Irrational Hatred of GWB: Let’s Not Do the Same to Obama

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Once upon a time I had a fantasy.

I had this fantasy that once George W. Bush was no longer in office (God help us all when he is gone), the irrational left and their media sycophants would leave him alone. I will admit I have a rich fantasy life because it is obvious my dream of a cessation of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is never going to happen.

Not only are the practitioners of BDS not content to rest on their considerable laurels, they are now in the process of trying to ruin his legacy.

Are they also trying to ruin the rest of his life? It wouldn’t surprise me.

Is their hatred simply because GWB, in their prejudiced eyes, “stole” the election from Al Gore in 2000 or is it something deeper? Would they be doing the same thing if John McCain had somehow managed to get enough marauding conservatives to vote for him, thereby winning the election a few weeks ago?

Let’s not kid ourselves.

If John McCain had won, we would be seeing a modern day version of crucifixion as the same practitioners of BDS did everything they could to destroy Sarah Palin. Heaven knows they sure tried during the election.

What causes us to hate the political opposition? There is nothing wrong with disliking the opposition. I do it all the time. But when that dislike crosses the line to the point of hatred, who is the hater actually hurting?

There is a difference between honest opposition to someone and pathological hatred.

As a card-carrying Republican, I don’t mind admitting I had a good healthy dislike of Bill Clinton when he was in office. I wished him no harm, but wasn’t all that anxious to wish him well, either. The thing is, my dislike of Bill Clinton, primarily because he was a Democrat, never crossed the line. When he did something of which I approved, I was the first to admit it. I even admit to complaining about a thing or two George Bush has done. But I don’t ever remember my dislike of Bill Clinton crossing the line where I openly rooted for his downfall.

Let’s be honest here. Bill Clinton was his own worst enemy. He really did not need my help. We’re all our own worst enemies, given the opportunity just to be human. That’s why I don’t need to go around “hating” Barack Obama. That’s not in my job description.

Face it, I don’t see why any Republican needs to even bother hating Barack Obama. I think he is the most grossly incompetent person elected to office in many years. I don’t think he even has a grasp of what the President of the United States actually does aside from smiling, waving, evading the press, and looking important. But –- I don’t need to hate him. The man has a huge “Kick Me” sign on his rear. He doesn’t need my help. Unfortunately I think he is going to bring about his own fall from the grace of “hope and change.”

Does this mean I want something bad to happen to him? Aside from an indictment on the Rezko deal, no, I do not. I don’t want to see this man turned into a martyr and made more important, historically, than he actually deserves to be.

So why do so many liberals absolutely detest George W. Bush on a basis that is personal, malicious, and vindictive? In turn, by doing so, they have transferred their abject hatred of all things GWB to his supporters. Trust me, I’ve personally felt it.

Are we Republicans going to be that irrational when it comes to Barack Obama? I truly hope not. I hope that we can oppose his policies when they warrant opposition without resorting to personal vindictive hatred the way the liberal media and leading lights of the left did to Sarah Palin, who truly did not deserve their vitriol.

I wish I could say that all Republicans were pure and did not spew forth vitriol and hatred, but after the tasteless actions of certain pretenders to the chairmanship of the party, I think we all know that’s not quite true. Some of the nastiest political attacks I’ve seen have come from conservatives and were aimed at Republicans who did not meet their definition of “purity.”

We’re in the process of seeing the same hatred now aimed at The One (elect) himself from some of his most ardent supporters simply because he did something they do not like when it comes to Rick Warren. Right now I wish I did not have such a low opinion of the average Obama voter, but I do. Their treatment of the agent of Hope and Change because he is not bowing to their demands is simply proof that the ultra liberal mindset is as out of control as is the ultra conservative one.

Does the average person hate George W. Bush?

I’m not seeing it.

What is am seeing is that the “average” person is simply swallowing the poisoned pablum thrown at them by a mainstream media that truly detests George W. Bush enough to lie, distort, and literally destroy their credibility and reputation. Once you get past the lies and distortions, the animosity the Bush-haters have tried to foster just has no substance.

I go back to my original thoughts that those who hate sometimes end up destroying the object of their hatred, but they always end up destroying themselves. We’re starting to see the demise of the media as one major newspaper after another, all of whom have spewed venomous vitriol towards George W. Bush, begin to fail. Readership is down as one venue after another files for bankruptcy or reorganizes.

Maybe the American people aren’t as dumb as the liberal media thinks they are. If this is so, we’re watching the beginning of the end of the liberal media (I hope).

Once the American people realize they’ve been sold a false bill of goods when it comes to George W. Bush, his reputation and legacy will be secure as people realize how vilely they’ve treated this great man.

If this is the case, I don’t think Barack Obama is going to come out so well, considering this same media has pumped him up to the point where is basically a tin-plated god. How can he not disappoint with such an outrageous buildup? On the other hand, I am currently considering the possibility that the real reason the media promoted him so irrationally is so they could vacation in Hawaii after eight years at Crawford, Texas.

Also, if this is the case, the one other person who is going to emerge smelling like the hybrid tea rose that she truly is will be my choice for 2012 — Sarah Palin!

People aren’t stupid. Once they realize the mainstream media has lied about Barack Obama, they will realize that same media lied about George W. Bush, and about Sarah Palin.

It isn’t going to be pretty, but I’m going to enjoy every minute of it.

Powered by

About SJ Reidhead

  • Les Slater


    I appreciate much of your sentiment and even agree with some of it, but… Bush great?


  • Doug Hunter

    Bush is a symbol more than a man. He represents, fairly or unfairly, 9/11 and it’s two war aftermath, Katrina, and now the mortgage crisis. The country is looking forward to turning the page and putting those things along with George Bush in the past. The media may not have liked him in the end but that’s not what drove his unpopularity. Failing to curb government spending while cutting taxes, involving us in expensive and protracted wars, massive no bid contracts and handouts to megacorporations, sitting idly by while the mortgage crisis took down wall street alienated people on his own side… not the choice of words by a journalist who probably is ideologically opposed to him.

    Interestingly, since Obama’s win in the election I’ve noticed a distinct turn in the media showing the human side of Bush and not treating him as harshly.

    I’m just happy our next president isn’t a Kennedy, Clinton, or Bush.

  • Arch Conservative

    For the record it’s not only deranged leftists that will be happy to see Bush go.

    I will be more then happy to yell as he walks by…..”don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!”

    With time I have also come to aapreciate if not the chracter and motivations of Bill Clinton, the economic outcome of his self centered need to be loved by all. He was good for the economy in the 1990’s not because he was some economic genius but because he was lucky enough to be in the oval office while the private sector was going through the .com boom and he was smart enough not to fuck it up with government meddling.

    I can only judge Obama based on what we have seen from him so far and all of the evidence paints a picture of a man who will be closer than any other president in history to being a ………. it’s that dreaded S word. If he proves me wrong and does not attempt to subsidize every deadbeat and illegal in this nation and/or (more likely and) try to solve every problem, social economic or otherwise through federal government intervention then maybe I will judge him less harshly.

    Until that day he will always be empty suit arrogant good for nothing eight ball Barry to me.

  • Jet

    Kinda like the obsession that Arch has with Ted Kennedy. Depends on which side of the argument you’re on as to whether you’re ridiculous or “the voice of truth” doesn’t it.

    When everything is boiled down, the reason Bush II is reviled with one of the lowest approval rating of any president, is because when you boil away all the excuses for going into Iraq like an algebra equation, you come to the conclusion that he took us into Iraq to cover his father’s ass for not taking out Saddam when he had the chance back in the 80s.

    Rational Americans have come to realize that if we’d stayed in Afghanistan where our troops belonged in the first place rooting out Osama and destroying his billion-dollar poppy/heroin cash crops that still finance him to this day, we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place and GW would be on Mr. Rushmore…

    …but noooooooo

  • Cindy D

    I will admit I have a rich fantasy life…

    I noticed.

  • Raggedyman

    The liberal media knows that turmoil sells. They are the ones who feed the fires of hatred while standing back behind their cameras acting like all they are doing is reporting the news which we now know is complete BS. What they report, is their OPINION of the news. We have come full circle back to the days of yellow journalism and it makes me sick to my stomach. I’m tuning out.

  • “The liberal media feeds the fires of hatred”?

    Like, “Sarah Palin doesn’t know Africa’s a continent/what newspapers or magazines she reads/the job description of a Vice President (three times in four months)/spent $150K of Republican money on clothes”?

    Oh, WAIT a minute! ALL of that either came from the Republican party or from HER OWN MOUTH!

    Ah, but I’m a DUMMY! The media REPORTED it, so it MUST be part of that VAST left-wing media conspiracy….

    Tell you what, ‘raggedyman’, if you want to make me believe that the media’s greatly biased against the right, then show me what they’ve reported that is NOT TRUE.

    Back up your accusations with provable facts. Otherwise, go home.

  • “Like, “Sarah Palin doesn’t know Africa’s a continent/what newspapers or magazines she reads/the job description of a Vice President (three times in four months)/spent $150K of Republican money on clothes”?

    Oh, WAIT a minute! ALL of that either came from the Republican party or from HER OWN MOUTH!”

    Glenn, you should probably stop using absolutes in your comments. It turns them into factually incorrect quickly. The least I expect out of BC commenters is they’re able to beat up, if nothing else, their own straw men. Politico broke the Palin clothing bill story. And the Africa/continent anecdote is so highly implausible that I can’t believe the Fox News reporter would run with it.

    “Back up your accusations with provable facts. Otherwise, go home.”

    You first. (Also, I am home.)

  • Jet

    Apparently Raggedyman has never listened to Rush Limbaugh…

  • Jet

    You mean all that stuff about Palin turning against McCain after the election wasn’t true?

  • More telling than the few legit stories about Palin gaffes are the scores of bogus and unsubstantiated accusations against her which the media flogged after sending hundreds of reporters to Alaska just to dig up dirt on her from any disgruntled waitress or ex boyfriend they could find.

    That level of dirt digging isn’t normal in these situations. They didn’t send a flood of reporters the few miles from New York to Delaware to dig up dirt on Biden and they pointedly ignored negative stories about Obama until the blogosphere forced them to acknowledge their existence.


  • I remember when Nixon left office, in shame. Twenty years later, he turned out to be a “great statesman.”

    The man was the same, the times changed.

  • Time just allowed us to see Nixon more completely. In reality he was both a great statesman and a reprehensible scumbag. The two turn out not to be mutually exclusive.


  • Jet

    Dave, I’m ashamed of you, you didn’t quote Spock?
    “There’s an old Vulcan proverb that only Nixon could’ve gone to China.”

    In terms of Foreign relations, Nixons partnership with Henry Kissinger was probably the most powerful and effective of any administration in history.

  • Jet

    “The Right’s Irrational Hatred of Bill Clinton: Let’s Not Do the Same to GWB” History has a way of balancing things doesn’t it?

  • Baronius

    Glenn, the story about Palin not knowing that Africa is a continent is pretty standard stuff. It was clear that some McCain people would blame Palin for the loss, and some Palin people would blame McCain. So we probably shouldn’t count hearsay as fact, especially when the witness has an ulterior motive. I didn’t realize that the story originally came out of Fox News – Glenn, do you usually trust Fox News?

    The Couric interview was a mess, but if you watch that particular question, it tells an interesting story. Couric asked what Palin read. Palin clearly jumped past the question to its implication that frontier folk don’t read newspapers and magazines like the rest of us. So Palin answered that she reads them all, that Alaskans get all the major publications.

    The descriptions of the VP’s duties? I didn’t find them inappropriate. It’s a daffy job. “Running the Senate” is as good a concise definition as I’ve heard.

    As for the money spent on clothes, you and I both know that if Palin didn’t dress up fancily, the press would have been all over her for being a Walmart-dressed redneck. I respect a governor who doesn’t have a closet full of high-priced suits.

  • Baronius

    SJ, this is a great article. We can’t fall into the pettiness that the other side has exhibited over the last two terms. It’s going to be tough, though. The internet encourages temper-tantrum politics.

  • You probably should have asked for God to help us all while Bush was in office.

    “they are now in the process of trying to ruin his legacy.”

    Sounds like you have your own BDS (Bush Delusion Syndrome) because he has done a pretty good job contributing to it.

    Sorry, but you couldn’t get me past page 1, and I didn’t read all of that

  • “the Africa/continent anecdote is so highly implausible that I can’t believe the Fox News reporter would run with it.”

    likely because it came from Martin Eisenstadt, who identifies himself as “one of the foreign policy advisers on the McCain campaign who worked with Randy Scheunemann to help prep Sarah on her debate.”

  • Cindy D

    Bush’s legacy is that he is a criminal, megalomaniac, power-addicted, cowboy, who never grew up from the games he played as a child and desired to try them out on the planet.

    How can the left possibly be ruining that?

  • Tony

    I’m not sure how its not obvious why people hate Bush.

    He is personally responsible for thousands of deaths in war he LIED to get us into. Let me repeat; had he not lied, those people would be alive but now they are dead because of George W. Bush.

    As a Republican you should hate Bush far more than the left. He took your party and turned it into a joke. All the republican ideals — small government, less spending, free market policy — all fell by the wayside as this guy spent like a drunken sailor (as McCain said), massively expanded government and government spending, and took care of Iraqis before his own people.

    What kind of an America would spend billions on another country while American families are being booted into the streets?

    This is not a partisan issue because this idiot isn’t a Republican. He is simply the most atrocious President in history. A man who took the worst from the right and the worst from the left and create a government that violated the Constitution, pissed our money away, abandoned it’s people, and resulted in thousands of soldiers — like my friend who came home with his eyes shot out — to return their families maimed or dead — once again, based on his lies.

    I am not trying to say Obama will be great, or the Democrats are the answer (considering they are the morons in Congress who stood by while the body gave up its Constitutional right to declare war) but the only people who at this point don’t see what a disgrace this man was are Jesus freaks and neo-cons.

    The silent majority, Wall street, everyone in the center; they all abandoned this guy and the party and they will stay gone until the Republicans remember that they are the party of business, not of religion, war, and zealotry. Where is Nelson Rockefeller when you need him? Oh that’s right, rolling over in his grave.

  • Jet

    Now if you really want to see something revealing about this whole Africa continent thing, heres something about 5 years oldclick here and watch the first three minutes of this…

    and remember it’s years before anyone even heard of Palin!

  • Jet

    If you watch the whole clip they throw it in his face with hilarius results throughout the whole show

  • Tony

    And for the record, if the Obama presidency is anything even comparable to the Bush presidency we as Americans have a Constitutional duty to do a hell of a lot more than we did the past eight years. It’s time to stop letting history repeat itself.

  • Considering where most of you know I come from politically, that I heartily disagree with the entirety of SJ’s article is a given.

    I find it utterly amazing that both W and Laura Bush, Cheney and others are prancing about recounting supposed “high points” of the Bush years essentially by revising history to fit their agenda. They talk of the great successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, their work towards better national health care and their careful stewardship of our economy. They even have Laura talking about what a bang up job they did in the wake of Katrina! Gag!! Presumably there are people listening to all this crap smiling and nodding just as if what they are hearing is actually true.

    Why do people hate George Bush? It’s not irrational. He deserves it. He earned it. George Bush is a fool. I find it incredible that people like SJ, Baronius and Dave amongst others still believe that GW was even adequate, let alone “great.”

    I find it equally incredible that people have made up their minds so harshly against Obama who hasn’t even taken the oath yet. In that, such opinions are far more “irrational” than those of the most vociferous Bush haters. At least with Bush, there is a track record strewn with bodies, ruined lives and dashed hopes in his wake. Obama has yet to sit his buff little ass in the Oval Office chair.


  • SJ,

    Politics aside, I’m curious about the extent of your research and knowledge regarding Wyatt Earp. As it happens Earp’s cousin, Samuel Earp, a contemporary, was a physician and for a time the Indianapolis Police Surgeon back during the 1890s.

    Wyatt died, I believe in the late 1820s while Samuel died around 1935. I think both were born in or around Moline, IL.

    Samuel, it seems, was better educated and more civil, but perhaps no less colorful than his cousin.

    BTW, I attempted to go to your “Pink Flamingo” site, where I thought it would be more appropriate to discuss this, but for some reason I could not get it to load.


  • Baronius

    SJ, I just saw Hugh Hewitt’s latest column, a list of his New Year’s resolutions. The first is to be fair to the new president. From what I’ve seen online, there have been plenty of conservatives and/or Republicans wishing Obama the best. I’ve been kind of disappointed by some of the minor-leaguers on talk radio, trying to create stupid controversy.

    Surely Jet, Tony, Baritone, and Cindy agree with SJ that we have the opportunity to make political debate more civil in the Obama years?

  • Only today, a story broke out re: ex-Bush’s aids, which sums it up kind of nicely:

    WASHINGTON – Hurricane Katrina not only pulverized the Gulf Coast in 2005, it knocked the bully pulpit out from under President George W. Bush, according to two former advisers who spoke candidly about the political impact of the government’s poor handling of the natural disaster.
    “Katrina to me was the tipping point,” said Matthew Dowd, Bush’s pollster and chief strategist for the 2004 presidential campaign. “The president broke his bond with the public. Once that bond was broken, he no longer had the capacity to talk to the American public. State of the Union addresses? It didn’t matter. Legislative initiatives? It didn’t matter. P.R.? It didn’t matter. Travel? It didn’t matter.”
    Dan Bartlett, former White House communications director and later counselor to the president, said: “Politically, it was the final nail in the coffin.”

    For anyone to squander the kind of support this president had had right after 9/11 defies the imagination. Whatever his personal qualities, he was the worst communicator possible – perhaps one of the most important prerequisites for the job. No matter what would come out of Bush’s mouth, there had come a point when no one would listen anymore. End of story.

  • Baritone,

    I was against Obama at first (for sentimental reasons, I favored Hillary); Obama had come from nowhere, so to speak, and so quickly. It was too cultist for my taste. Since he had won, however, I feel I owe it – at least to the office of the presidency – to support him. Everyone deserves a honeymoon; it’s part of the American tradition.
    There be time for criticism later.

  • SJ,

    The qualifications for the office of the presidency are no longer so clear-cut or well-defined. You must be presentable; more importantly perhaps, you must be wise enough to surround yourself with wise people, preferably smarter than yourself. Thus far, Obama had demonstrated a certain kind of wisdom when it comes to his Cabinet and appointees – transcending my original opinion of him, and it’s all to the good. You should wish him well.

    George Dubya, however, I believe failed from the start. It was Rumsfeld’s and Paul Wolfowitz’ war, and essentially Dick Cheney’s presidency. Not much of a legacy, I would say. I’m sure we’ll all have a kinder opinion of him once he’s out of there. I’m not questioning his patriotism, of course, for I cannot see into another person’s heart. But the image of a cowboy running the greatest country on earth certainly did not sit well with some of our more sophisticated allies. It was time for a change and the electorate had spoken.

    To put it most mildly, perhaps, George Dubya was far from an effective figurehead. We need a sharper image.

  • Tony


    There is no oppurtunity to discuss the things George Bush has done in a civil manner.

    When a man lies to such an extent that the result is a war that destabalizes the world and results in the deaths of Americans, needlessly, there should be nothing civil about the discussion. Have we really become so flippant to war and the death of Americans that we have no passion left to question why they died and get angry if the reason isn’t good enough.

    We can civilly discuss tax policy, economics, domestic issues, ect. but when you’re talking about a war that is literally resulting in the destruction of families all over the country there needs to be more passion, not less. We as Americans — if we really support our troops — should fight vehemently to make sure they are never sent into harms way for false or inadequate reasons.

    Instead Bush used the patriotism of Americans against them, and railroaded people into believing his lies under threat of being termed un-American. It’s like this guy combined McCarthy, Hoover, and LBJ’s worst policies all into one. It wasn’t enough to just have a depression like Hoover, or to pesicute Americans like McCarthy, he had to have his Vietnam too.

  • Jet

    Like I say, if you want to lighten things up considerably, click the link in 22 and watch it all the way through…

  • It’s the politics of fear, Tony; or “patriotism is the defense of a scoundrel.”

    Apropos being civil, a line comes to mind from a movie “Havana” with Robert Redford and Lena Olin.
    When they talk about putting an end to Batista’s regime, Raul Julia, a pro-Castro activist, say something to the effect: “You cannot do it nicely.”

  • Baronius

    Tony, the evidence shows that Bush was mistaken about WMD’s, but there is no evidence that he was deliberately mistaken (i.e., lying). Saddam Hussein definitely had a weapons program; he repeatedly violated the terms of agreement for weapons inspections. If you agree to eliminate your weapons program, then obstruct UN inspectors, any consequences are on your head.

    The Baathist government invaded a neighbor – actually, two, and lobbed bombs at another couple of them. The UN approved military action against Iraq, and the US-led coalition acted on it. Iraq never fulfilled the terms of the cease-fire agreement. Therefore, the coalition had the right to continue waging war.

  • Jet

    what worries me is that Baronius actually believes that first paragraph.

    Bush was grasping desparately at straws for any excuse to attack Iraq to clear his father of blame for not taking out Saddam when he had the chance.

    this has been a recorded announcement.

  • I’m glad you said it, not I. I only wish we had a definitive proof to put this matter to rest once and for all!

  • Jordan Richardson

    Baronius, there is evidence that Bush lied about the WMDs. He lied about “drones” in 2002, stating “We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas” when there were no such drones.

    Bush also told TVP in Poland in 2005 the following: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”

    Then there’s the Downing Street memo, the use of the forged Niger uranium document (this led to the whole Valerie Plame mess, btw), the lie about the weapons being moved to Syria, the ignoring of every weapons inspector, the ignoring of the Atomic Energy Commission, the forcing of George Tenet to find connecting evidence, the decision of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to invade Iraq long before, blah blah blah…

    Honestly, people. Either Bush is lying or he’s mentally retarded and grossly incapable of being president. Regardless of the answer, would any sane, rational person really throw his or her support behind this man? I’d hope not.

  • Jordan Richardson

    If you agree to eliminate your weapons program, then obstruct UN inspectors, any consequences are on your head.

    Except if you’re Israel, of course. Then you’re golden…

    Therefore, the coalition had the right to continue waging war.

    Remind me again. Who was in that Mighty Coalition?

  • Jet

    I’m still worried about WHY Bush had immunity snuck into a bill passed by the GOP led congress a few years back about war crimes he hadn’t (or we haven’t found out about yet) committed yet.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Because the problem is deeper, larger, and more ridiculous than Bush (or any president) could ever be. When a tree is planted in rotten soil, it’s almost silly to expect good fruit.

  • Jordan Richardson

    By the way, interesting title for this piece. It’s not as though “the right” is having a love-in for Bush, either. How often was he mentioned during the run-up to the election by the GOP? Three…four times?

  • Baronius

    Jordan, I realize that my statements may look like “talking points” to you. But have you looked into any of the issues you raised in comment #37? Like the Downing Street memo: it shows that the Brits were concerned about Saddam using WMD’s against an invading force. It also shows that the Bush administration wasn’t committed to invading Iraq from Day One. Yes, it also shows that the British thought that the Americans were rushing, but that’s not proof of anything illegal. And that memo is about the strongest argument the anti-war people have.

  • “It also shows that the Bush administration wasn’t committed to invading Iraq from Day One.”

    Bush may not have been but members of the administration certainly were.

  • SJ,

    Obviously, I meant to type that Wyatt Earp died in the late 1920s. Sorry.


  • In watching the Sunday talking head shows it was interesting (but not surprising) to hear that Bush claimed that the only person with whom he discussed the decision to go to war in Iraq was Cheney. Asked why he did not confer with Rumsfeld or Powell or Tenet, Bush responded that he knew what was in their heads and in their hearts, therefore assuming that they were in accord with the decision.

    Meetings of Bush and his top aides were described as talk fests amongst all of them except Cheney who typically remained silent throughout. When the meetings broke up all would file out of the room excepting Cheney who would remain and then confer with Bush.

    Journalist Bob Woodward characterized this as policy making via a Cheney whisper in Bush’s ear – not a proper way to lead the country.


  • In fact, some were ready to go in 1998. Read the letter to Pres. Clinton for yourself.

    If you have some proof to offer that any changed their minds, we would all love to see it. It’s also okay to admit you got one wrong.

  • William Kristol, of the NYT and Weekly Standard fame, may be one of your heroes, right (no pun intended.) Yesterday used the term “the tribunes of the intolerant left” which, while codswallop, is off the mark.

    I appreciate your point of view and champion your ability to do so. (Not eactly intoerant.) BUT, you lost me when you wrote “my choice for 2012 — Sarah Palin!” and claimed that the media lied about Bush and your candidate.

    When you say,” People aren’t stupid,” you are in fact correct. The RNC picked Palin to make sure that McCain lost the election. They succeeded.

    Hate is not the issue. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove all deserve their place in history — in a penitentiary. As to Palin, perhaps she deserves some community service time for her attempted mutilation of our language.

  • Tony

    Honestly can we please stop talking about Saddam like he was Hitler or something. I’d love for someone to explain to me what he did that makes him so much more evil than Pinochet, The Shah, Musharraf, Suharto, and hey, even Saddam of t he go-go 80’s, when it was convenient to be his friend when he was fighting actual fundamentalists in Iran.

    And those are the dictators we put into power and/or supported. That doesn’t even begin to delve into the dictators we have no problem allowing to exist.

    Saddam had no weapons and even if he did what exactly was there to be achieved by using them? If he was an evil dictator bent on power, I think Saddam could understand that its hard to preside over your evil empire through nuclear winter.

    With Pakistan we don’t even have to guess. They’ve actually tested their nukes so we know they are there. And the probability of them dropping one on India is a lot high than Saddam deciding to bring about Armageddon. But you don’t see G.W. galloping in there to “liberate” those people. You know why? Because invading the country of a government that is a major threat and possesses nuclear capability is a good way to get them to test that capability on you.

  • Honestly can we please stop talking about Saddam like he was Hitler or something. I’d love for someone to explain to me what he did that makes him so much more evil than Pinochet, The Shah, Musharraf, Suharto, and hey, even Saddam of t he go-go 80’s, when it was convenient to be his friend when he was fighting actual fundamentalists in Iran.

    Tony, read a newspaper or a book sometime. Pinochet maybe killed a couple of thousand people. The Shah killed 3000, half what his successors killed in their first year in power. By one means or another Saddam was responsible for the death of well-over a million of his own people. By direct genocide and political murder the total was over 300,000. That takes him well out of the range of the others you mention.


  • Jet

    Tony, you missed the point Saddam was NOT GWs reason for going into Iraq; he was his excuse… because he couldn’t find either a plausable or reasonable reason.

  • Jet

    One phrase yellow cake uranium

  • Of which they found what, 3000 50 gallon barrels?


  • Jet

    …Though the Niger claim was removed from the speeches in 2002, Rice penned an op-ed on Jan. 23, 2003, claiming Iraq was actively trying “to get uranium from abroad.”

    Then, five days later, the allegation ended up in the President’s 2003 State of the Union Address when Bush said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” what became known as “The Sixteen Words.”

    Bush’s line about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions helped the President seal the case for war with Congress and the American public. But it had other unexpected consequences.

    After Bush’s invasion of Iraq in March 2003, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson began revealing that he had undertaken a fact-finding mission for the CIA to Niger in February 2002 and returned with the strong belief that the uranium-buying allegation was bogus, a conclusion shared by other U.S. officials who had examined the evidence.

    Wilson went public with his account on July 6, 2003, with an op-ed in the New York Times, accusing the Bush administration of “twisting” the intelligence to justify the war.

    Five days later, Rice blamed the CIA for failing to vet the Niger claims, and Tenet accepted responsibility, which many people interpreted as Tenet falling on his sword to protect the President

    Though Wilson’s article forced the White House to back track, it also touched off a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit Wilson, a drive that led Bush administration officials to disclose to selected reporters that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was a CIA officer.

    When right-wing columnist Robert Novak published that fact on July 14, 2003, Mrs. Wilson’s career as a covert CIA officer was effectively over

  • We still have forums?


  • Jet

    So irrelevant my comments vanish almost before their published… and yes we have forums, though you’d never know it by BC writer and editor participation.

    … and your comment proves that.

  • To be honest I visited the forums some when they were first launched and I didn’t see the point.

    What does a forum have to offer which isn’t available in a comment thread on a relevant article?


  • Jet

    Try the general section instead of the writer’s section. You can create topics of discussion with one sentence instead of writing an entire article.

  • Jet, here’s some good advice – don’t eat the yellow cake!

  • I’m surprised by your comment (#47),Tommy Mack. When I looked at your site yesterday, I thought you’re an arch-conservative (well thought-through positions, though). Was I wrong? What gives?

  • Baronius

    SJ, I have a question that’s been nagging me lately. What if this is as good as it gets? What if civil political conversation is an abberation?

    People often cite the cordiality of Tip O’Niell and Ronald Reagan. But do you remember the stuff they used to say about Reagan? Go back further, to the “cordiality” of Nixon, the 1960’s, race riots, McCarthy, internment camps, labor riots, anarchists…and that was just the past century. If I were better versed in history, I could probably take this back to our founding. So, while we should try to stay civil, we probably shouldn’t expect anyone else to.

  • Dave –

    Who was worse – Saddam, or Idi Amin? Perhaps Saddam was, but Idi Amin was certainly no less deserving of a terrible fate.

    But Idi Amin was bribed to leave the country and allowed to live quite comfortably in peace. Is that a gross miscarriage of justice? Of course…but then Uganda’s transition to the modern world did NOT cost them hundreds of thousands more lives, not to mention thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American dollars.

    Saddam offered to leave the country for a billion dollars…and Bush refused the offer.

    Sure, Saddam got what he so richly deserved…but which was the wiser, more pragmatic way for the nations of Iraq and America? To let him go for a billion dollars and let the genocidal maniac live in peace? Or to invade, thereby wrecking their economy and enabling ethnic and sectarian cleansing, and spending nearly a trillion dollars in the process?

  • bliffle

    “Bush Derangement Syndrome” is entirely an invention of the scribblers of the rightwing press.

    Maybe the same ones who invented “Obama the magic negro” which Saltsman sent out to Republicans recently.

    Obama magic

  • Cindy D


    I went to a forum recently. It said no longer taking registration. ???

    I couldn’t figure out how to post anything.

  • Cindy, if you are referring to the Blogcritics Forum, I had to turn registration off due to the huge amount of spammers from China and Russia that were trying to mess with the site.

  • Saddam offered to leave the country for a billion dollars…and Bush refused the offer.

    I’m sure that seemed expensive at the time – in loss of face if not so much in dollars. And while it looks a lot better in retrospect, Bush did not know then what we know now.

    Maybe the same ones who invented “Obama the magic negro” which Saltsman sent out to Republicans recently.

    I wrote about this concept almost a year ago when everyone was doing it in the MSM and on both the right and the left. It’s almost a cliche now.


  • bliffle

    “And while it looks a lot better in retrospect, Bush did not know then what we know now.”

    I think this is one of the most damning criticisms of Bush. No, he didn’t know, and he ignored what people DID know and he was utterly uninterested in knowing anything contrary to his predisposition.

    Ignorance is a weak excuse for anything. Willful ignorance is no excuse at all.

  • Cindy D

    Thanks Christopher.

  • Good piece, SJ. I didn’t like Bill Clinton either, but when he had his heart attack, I wished for a speedy recovery for him. I wish no harm on him; my opposition to him is political only.

    You’re right, though. Conservatives cannot do to Obama what the Left did/is still doing to Bush. We must keep our criticism of him on a strictly academic and rational level.

  • Brunelleschi

    “We must keep our criticism of him on a strictly academic and rational level…”


    Are you kidding? The noise from the right is anything but that! Turn on daytime talk radio.

    Just use the Brunelleschi rule and google for how much hatred the right dishes out on line compared to the left… See for yourself…

  • “When a man lies to such an extent that the result is a war that destabalizes the world and results in the deaths of Americans…”

    You just got to love these people who pretend that we wouldn’t have ever had to deal with Iraq. If Uday Hussein had taken over after his just-slightly-less psychopathic father, Iraq would have been a nightmare of a menace.

    I’m not saying the destabilization of Iraq after Saddam’s fall was a good thing and certainly the post-war planning was nil. But to pretend that we could have avoided Iraq altogether is pure flight of fancy.

  • Brunelleschi, at least the Right doesn’t completely trash-talk America when it engages in a war they don’t agree with like the Left is perfectly happy so to do.

  • Jet

    Hindsight is always 20-20

  • bliffle

    #71 — Mark Edward Manning

    “Brunelleschi, at least the Right doesn’t completely trash-talk America when it engages in a war they don’t agree with like the Left is perfectly happy so to do.”

    The Right seems to be content to constantly trash-talk the half of the USA that they see as liberal. It’s unending, unreasoning and quite unpleasant, even to one who cares not a whit about the fortunes of lefties.