SI
SI
Advertise on SI

 Politics | Impeach George W. Bush


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Bill who wrote (29171)10/26/2004 10:32:24 PM
From: jlallen   of 93284
 
Excellent likeness....

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (29158)10/26/2004 11:00:07 PM
From: Edscharp   of 93284
 
Sidney,

This article was written for you.

townhall.com 

The Bush-haters
Daniel J. Flynn (archive)


October 25, 2004 | Print | Send

“I think what Bush is doing currently is becoming a fascist dictator,” protestor Melissa Orr explained at one of the myriad left-wing demonstrations during President Bush’s four years in office. “Don’t trust the man. He is not the good and true leader that everyone thinks he is. He has his own personal agenda for the elites, and so did Hitler.”

Other demonstrators read from the same sheet of music: “I think Bush is the new Hitler,” “I see Bush exactly as a Hitler,” and “[Bush] is almost like a Hitler.”

If there’s one thing that short-circuits the mental wiring of leftists, it is the name George W. Bush. Denouncing the President in the most extreme manner possible, the Bush-haters, as their name suggests, emote rather than think. Interviewing several hundred of them during the Bush Presidency, I have been continually struck by how their fervor overrides commonsense.

Bush hating is equally a reaction against the president’s personality as it is a reaction to his policies. Bush’s Christianity, his inherited wealth, his blueblood pedigree, and his brief career as an oilman combine to make him a villain straight out of central casting. For a leftist, what’s not to hate? Add to this the president seeing black-and-white where the Left gets lost in shades of gray, Bush’s occasional cockiness, and his rejection of phony intellectualism and you have a formula for a leftist boogeyman.

It’s this boogeyman, rather than the actual man sitting in the Oval Office, that so invigorates the president’s enemies on the political fringe.

“Knew in advance? [Bush] funded them. He created al Qaeda. He has been a longtime business associate of bin Laden,” claimed one bullhorn-toting marcher from Rhode Island. “Who was responsible for 9/11?” asked a veteran protestor on the streets of Manhattan. “American imperialism and George Bush in particular. The Bush family and the bin Laden family have long, long economic ties. They’re co-investors in the Carlyle Group.” One masked activist professed earlier this year, “Afghanistan was because of the pipeline to the Caspian Sea, the oil. Actually, the Carlyle Group—George Bush, Sr.—was meeting with the Taliban several times before 9/11 happened.”

So what happens if this stupid, oil-hungry, latter-day Hitler gets reelected? “I’m moving to England,” Pennsylvanian Jennifer Huseman explained outside the gates of the White House. “If Bush gets reelected I’m not coming back into the country until he is gone.” An Ohio World War II veteran admitted at the same demonstration, “I’ve already told my wife that I plan on moving to Canada.”

Less intellectual than moron, the Bush-haters nevertheless conform to the main idea put forth in my book Intellectual Morons: ideology tends to blind people to reality. Comparing Bush to Hitler, imagining that the President had advance knowledge of 9/11, and contending that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fought to enlarge the bank accounts of leading administration figures, the Bush-haters rail against a caricature of Bush rather than reality.

Many of these activists, parroting the conspiracy theories of the likes of Michael Moore and Gore Vidal, treat politics as a religion. They may not believe in a God, but they do have a devil: George W. Bush. Convinced of the righteousness of their crusade, anti-Bush fanatics will say just about anything—no matter how preposterous—in attempts to discredit the object of their hate. The Bush-haters take their more bizarre beliefs on faith, so logic, facts, and reason fail to dissuade them from championing inaccuracies.

George W. Bush didn’t get to pick his enemies. Had he gotten the opportunity to do so, he couldn’t have done a better job of selecting opponents, who, by juxtaposition, make him appear in such a favorable light. Calling the president a Nazi or claiming he is in cahoots with bin Laden doesn’t win over any sensible person. It repulses.

Ironically, the same zealotry that will inspire millions to cast votes against the incumbent next week has already driven greater numbers, disturbed by the immoderation of the Bush-haters, into the arms of the president. Like policy, passion has unintended consequences.

The Bush-haters aim to make the president look bad. They succeed in doing that to themselves. With enemies like these, who needs friends?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: jlallen who wrote (29169)10/26/2004 11:05:59 PM
From: Lazarus_Long   of 93284
 
Could he buy one on Ebay? :-)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: jlallen who wrote (29162)10/26/2004 11:51:35 PM
From: Sidney Reilly   of 93284
 
Nice try to what? it doesn't matter when the explosives went missing. The NWO always supplies both sides of a war. Conflict and instability is what they need so they make sure they have it.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Skywatcher who wrote (29168)10/27/2004 9:39:42 AM
From: Ron   of 93284
 
Republican plan to disrupt Florida voting:
news.bbc.co.uk 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Ron who wrote (29177)10/27/2004 11:26:19 AM
From: jlallen   of 93284
 
Yes...its based on the demolib plan which has been previously announced.......

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: jttmab who wrote (29138)10/28/2004 2:16:18 PM
From: Lazarus_Long   of 93284
 
What you know of the matter under discussion wouldn't cover the head of a small pin.

And you prove it constantly.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (29179)10/28/2004 2:59:37 PM
From: jttmab   of 93284
 
What you know of the matter under discussion wouldn't cover the head of a small pin.

Fortunately, it's substantially more than you know.

jttmab

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (29179)10/28/2004 4:07:18 PM
From: jttmab   of 93284
 
Economist Magazine Endorses Kerry

IAN PHILLIPS

Associated Press

LONDON - The Economist magazine endorsed John Kerry's candidacy for the White House on Thursday, citing what it called the "sheer incompetence" of post-war Iraq planning, and the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, which it said would "haunt America for years to come."

The conservative magazine, which backed the Iraq war, said it was supporting Kerry "with a heavy heart," but that the errors of the Bush administration couldn't be ignored. "Our confidence in him has been shattered," it said in a scathing editorial posted on its Web site.

The Economist last endorsed a Democrat in 1992, when Bill Clinton ran for the presidency. In 2000, it supported Bush.

"This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men," it said. "George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job ... and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago."

"With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd. ... It is far from an easy call, especially against the backdrop of a turbulent, dangerous world. But, on balance, our instinct is toward change rather than continuity: Mr. Kerry, not Mr. Bush."

The jailing of political prisoners at Guantanamo - and the contravention of the Geneva conventions - was the administration's biggest error, it said, and "evidence of America's hypocrisy."

"The biggest mistake was one that will haunt America for years to come. It lay in dealing with prisoners-of-war by sending hundreds of them to the American base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, putting them in a legal limbo, outside the Geneva conventions and outside America's own legal system."

That was "disturbing for those who sympathize with it (the Bush administration)" and "cause-affirming for those who hate it," it added.

Success in Iraq, it said, was now in jeopardy, as was America's reputation in the Islamic world.

It said mistakes in post-war Iraq were the result of "sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking" and also cited the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, "which strengthened the suspicion that the mistreatment or even torture of prisoners was being condoned."

Regarding Kerry, the magazine said it was concerned at what it called his "oscillation" on key issues but lauded him for being a fiscal conservative and for not being over-influenced by "the religious right."

It predicted that he would be a "more tolerant, less divisive figure on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research."

The Economist sells some 450,000 copies in the United States, accounting for 45 percent of its worldwide readership.

sanluisobispo.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: jttmab who wrote (29180)10/28/2004 4:42:11 PM
From: TigerPaw   of 93284
 
One of the semiconductor companies once had a display of a pin with the works of shakespear engraved on the head. You could only see it through a microscope.

TP

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.