Well, maybe not. Hate for me is a strong word and a strong emotion. There have only been 4 people in my life that I can honestly say I hated (don't ask), and the hating was personal, not political and all happened before I turned 25 and wised up about people. But this guy is starting to make it personal because I think of my country as a loved one and Bush + cronies are screwing with my country in a way I can't overlook. I am certainly trending towards hate... or maybe just utter detestation or complete repugnance... it's certainly some emotion I've never felt towards a politician before. Which makes it more intense because I resent this guy creating the atmosphere that would make it possible. We're in debt up to our eyeballs, standing in a vat of lies, living under a fiscal policy that would make the Robber Barons blush, and losing hundreds in a ridiculous war with no end in sight. This is not an American President, but a President for some Americans. And the scary thing is, I know it's going to get worse as we head into the election... The only consolation is that many people I know who would normally be a bit blase about politics and be in the center/right on the spectrum are starting to express some of the same thoughts and experience the same reactions. By the way, Here's Molly on the same topic... _____________ Call Me a Bush-Hater Among the more amusing cluckings from the right lately is their appalled discovery that quite a few Americans actually think George W. Bush is a terrible President. Robert Novak is quoted as saying in all his forty-four years of covering politics, he has never seen anything like the detestation of Bush. Charles Krauthammer managed to write an entire essay on the topic of "Bush-haters" in Time magazine as though he had never before come across a similiar phenomenon. Oh, I stretch memory way back, so far back, all the way back to--our last President. Almost lost in the mists of time though it is, I not only remember eight years of relentless attacks from Clinton-haters, I also notice they haven't let up yet. Clinton-haters accused the man of murder, rape, drug-running, sexual harassment, financial chicanery, and official misconduct. And they accuse his wife of even worse. For eight long years, this country was a zoo of Clinton-haters. Any idiot with a big mouth and a conspiracy theory could get a hearing on radio talk shows and "Christian" broadcasts and nutty Internet sites. People with transparent motives, people paid by tabloid magazines, people with known mental problems, ancient Clinton enemies with notoriously racist pasts--all were given hearings, credence, and air time. Sliming Clinton was a sure road to fame and fortune on the right, and many an ambitious young rightwing hit man like David Brock, who has since made full confession, took that golden opportunity. And these folks didn't stop with verbal and printed attacks. From the day Clinton was elected to office, he was the subject of the politics of personal destruction. They went after him with a multimillion dollar smear campaign funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, the rightwing billionaire. They went after him with lawsuits funded by rightwing legal foundations (Paula Jones), they got special counsels appointed to investigate every nitpicking nothing that ever happened (Filegate, Travelgate), and they never let go of that hardy perennial Whitewater. After all this time and all those millions of dollars wasted, no one has ever proved that the Clintons did a single thing wrong. Bill Clinton lied about a pathetic, squalid affair that was none of anyone else's business anyway, and for that they impeached the man and dragged this country through more than a year of the most tawdry, ridiculous, unnecessary pain. The day President Clinton tried to take out Osama bin Laden with a missile strike, every rightwinger in America said it was a case of "wag the dog." He was supposedly trying to divert our attention from the much more breathtakingly important and serious matter of Monica Lewinsky, and who did he think he was to make us focus on some piffle like bin Laden? "The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from," mused the ineffable Mr. Krauthammer. Gosh, what a puzzle that is. How could anyone not be just crazy about George W. Bush? "Whence the anger?" asks Krauthammer. "It begins of course with the 'stolen' election of 2000 and the perception of Bush's illegitimacy." I'd say so myself, yes, I would. I was in Florida during that chilling post-election fight, and am fully persuaded to this good day that Al Gore actually won Florida, not to mention getting 550,000 more votes than Bush overall. But I also remember thinking, as the scene became eerier and eerier, "Jeez, maybe we should just let them have this one, because Republican wing-nuts are so crazy, their bitterness would poison Gore's whole Presidency." The night Gore conceded the race in one of the most graceful and honorable speeches I have ever heard, I was in a ballroom full of Republican Party flacks who booed and jeered through every word of it. One thing I acknowledge about the right is that they're much better haters than liberals are. Your basic liberal--milk of human kindness flowing through every vein, and heart bleeding over everyone from the milk-shy Hottentot to the glandular obese--is pretty much a strikeout on the hatred front. Maybe further out on the left you can hit some good righteous anger, but liberals, and I am one, are generally real wusses. Guys like Rush Limbaugh figured that out a long time ago--attack a liberal and the first thing he says is, "You may have a point there." To tell the truth, I'm kind of proud of us for holding the grudge this long. Normally, we'd remind ourselves that we have to be good sports, it's for the good of the country, we must unite behind the only President we've got, as Lyndon used to remind us. If there are still some of us out here sulking, "Yeah, but they stole that election," well, good. I don't think we should forget that. But, onward. So George Dubya becomes President, having run as a "compassionate conservative," and what do we get? Hell's own conservative and dick for compassion. His entire first eight months was tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, and he lied and said the tax cuts would help average Americans. Again and again, the "average" tax cut would be $1,000. That means you get $100, and the millionaire gets $92,000, and that's how they "averaged" it out. Then came 9/11, and we all rallied. Ready to give blood, get out of our cars and ride bicycles, whatever. Shop, said the President. And more tax cuts for the rich. By now, we're starting to notice Bush's bait-and-switch. Make a deal with Ted Kennedy to improve education and then fail to put money into it. Promise $15 billion in new money to combat AIDS in Africa (wow!) but it turns out to be a cheap con, almost no new money. Bush comes to praise a job training effort, then cuts the money. Bush says AmeriCorps is great, then cuts the money. Gee, what could we possibly have against this guy? We go along with the war in Afghanistan, and we still don't have bin Laden. Then suddenly, in the greatest bait-and-switch of all time, Osama bin doesn't matter at all, and we have to go after Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11. But he does have horrible weapons of mass destruction, and our President "without doubt," without question, knows all about them, even unto the amounts--tons of sarin, pounds of anthrax. So we take out Saddam Hussein, and there are no weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the Iraqis are not overjoyed to see us. By now, quite a few people who aren't even liberal are starting to say, "Wha the hey?" We got no Osama, we got no Saddam, we got no weapons of mass destruction, the road map to peace in the Middle East is blown to hell, we're stuck in this country for $87 billion just for one year and no one knows how long we'll be there. And still poor Mr. Krauthammer is hard-put to conceive how anyone could conclude that George W. Bush is a poor excuse for a President. Chuck, honey, it ain't just the 2.6 million jobs we've lost: People are losing their pensions, their health insurance, the cost of health insurance is doubling, tripling in price, the Administration wants to cut off their overtime, and Bush was so too little, too late with extending unemployment compensation that one million Americans were left high and dry. And you wonder why we think he's a lousy President? Sure, all that is just what's happening in people's lives, but what we need is the Big Picture. Well, the Big Picture is that after September 11, we had the sympathy of every nation on Earth. They all signed up, all our old allies volunteered, everybody was with us, and Bush just booted all of that away. Sneering, jeering, bad manners, hideous diplomacy, threats, demands, arrogance, bluster. "In Afghanistan, Bush rode a popular tide; Iraq, however, was a singular act of Presidential will," says Krauthammer. You bet your ass it was. We attacked a country that had done nothing to us, had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and turns out not to have weapons of mass destruction. It is not necessary to hate George W. Bush to think he's a bad President. Grownups can do that, you know. You can decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred. Poor Bush is in way over his head, and the country is in bad shape because of his stupid economic policies. If that makes me a Bush-hater, then sign me up.
I am not a Bush Hater. Like I said in an earlier thread, I think it would be fun to sit down with Dubya and drink a beer and talk about baseball. It takes alot for me to flat-out hate a person, and usually I have to meet them first before I hate them. I have only truly hated about 3 people in my entire life. I do, however, despise some, if not most, of this administration's policies. Some of them are truly asinine.
one thing that has become so evident to me...the political game is a hypocritical one...back in 98, this could have been written by some conservative columnist directed at Clinton...there's zero consistency from either side.
I agree with a lot of that except for the wag the dog thing. I do believe Clinton timed those attacks in a manner to divert attention. Plus, he did bomb an aspirin factory after all.
I don't hate Bush at all. Not in the least bit. I'm sure he's a great guy once you get to know him, and he's fun to hang with. But I *DESPISE* his politics. It is, however, easy to confuse politics with the person. I disagree with a lot of posters here, but that doesn't mean I don't like them.
I do believe Clinton timed those attacks in a manner to divert attention. I don't think he set the time for the Al Qaeda meeting. If the CIA tells you Osama Bin Laden is going to be at so-and-so location at so-and-so time, you don't really have a lot of flexibility in timing the attack.
So you're saying that in 8 years in office, the only intelligence we had of an Al-Qaeda meeting just happened to be while Clinton was dealing with the Lewinsky scandal? From what I recall we could have had Bin Laden at various times throughout his tenure in office either from the Sudanese or the Saudis.
That Sudan thing is total malarky. People like Sean Hannitty like to bring it up without doing any real research. If he did, he'd know that one of his collegues at Fox is the guy who actually offered that deal. He wasn't even a rep of the Sudanese govt or anything. He just made contact and claimed to be a middle man. Of course, when the administration contacted the Sudanese govt, they said they never heard of the guy and that no such offer existed.
How great would it be to see Molly and Anne Coulter square-off?.... I firmly place myself in the Bush-hater category and wear that title as a badge of pride--Sure I think he is an okay guy and would most likely enjoy going to a football game with him and drink some beers....That is the differesnce between many "Bush-Haters" and "Clinton-Haters"--it's qualitative, we despise his policies and the fact that he has misled if not out and out lied. Why should we(liberals or yellow-dog Democracts) be the good sports and shut our mouths?!
So you're saying that in 8 years in office, the only intelligence we had of an Al-Qaeda meeting just happened to be while Clinton was dealing with the Lewinsky scandal? No, I'm saying that it was likely the first time we knew where OBL was after we really started taking Al Qaeda seriously, given that it happened 3 months after OBL declared jihad on the US and less than 2 weeks after the African embassy bombings. You have a meeting of senior AQ leadership, you try to take it out. In hindsight, we should have done more than cruise missiles, though.
I doubt it was the first time since they began looking probably as early as 1993 after the first WTC attack. If I recall they presented phone taps at that trial from Bin Laden, they were obviously keeping very close tabs on him.
Are you kidding? I guess I would call myself a "Clinton-Hater", but hey...if I had the chance to party with the guy, it would be on. ON
N, I'm serious--and cheers to partying with Willie--we need to get some better trim though, no Monica knock-offs!!
Thanks for posting Molly's column, rimrocker. I totally agree with her. Thank goodness there are still Texans like her around. Sometimes, I wonder.