What Causes Irrational Hatred of George Bush? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

politicophile · 11-13-2005, 01:59 PM

I was prompted to start this thread by another discussion on the politics board in which multiple contributors bought into a serious comparison between George Bush and Hitler. The discussion prompted me to contemplate the irrationality of some, if not most, forms of Bush hatred I see both on this forum and in the real world. By coincidence, I then stumbled upon this article, which effectively expresses a lot of thoughts that I had not yet assembled cohesively.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Sanity

The number of things that Bush has been blamed for in this world since 9/11 (even acts of God like Tsunamis, hurricanes and other natural disasters) is the stuff of major comedy. You name the horrible event, and he is identified as the etiologic agent.

He is blamed when he does something (anything) and he is blamed when he does nothing. He is blamed for things that ocurred even before he was President, as well as everything that has happened since. He is blamed for things he says; and for things he doesn't say.

What makes Bush Hatred completely insane however, is the almost delusional degree of unremitting certitude of Bush's evil; while simultaneously believing that the TRUE perpetrators of evil in the world are somehow good and decent human beings with the world's intersts at heart.

This psychological defense mechanism is referred to as "displacement".

One way you can usually tell that an individual is using displacement is that the emotion being displaced (e.g., anger) is all out of proportion to the reality of the situation. The purpose of displacement is to avoid having to cope with the actual reality. Instead, by using displacement, an individual is able to still experience his or her anger, but it is directed at a less threatening target than the real cause. In this way, the individual does not have to be responsible for the consequences of his/her anger and feels more safe--even thought that is not the case.

This explains the remarkable and sometimes lunatic appeasement of Islamofascists by so many governments and around the world, while they trash the US and particularly Bush. It explains why there is more emphasis on protecting the "rights" of terrorists, rather than holding them accountable for their actions (thier actions, by the way are also Bush's fault, according to those in the throes of BDS). Our soldiers in Iraq are being killed because of Bush--not because of terrorist intent and behavior. Terrorist activity itself is blamed on Bush no matter where it occurs.

It isn't even a stretch of the imagination for some to blame 9/11 on Bush. This is the insane "logic" of most psychological defense mechanisms. They temporarily spare you from the painful reality around you and give you the illusion that you are still in control.

I suggest you follow this link to the full article, as Dr. Sanity's commentary is very insightful...

Nimetic · 11-13-2005, 02:45 PM

There are a lot of things....

For me... it seems to be

a) his accent
b) his use of words (crusade, axis of evil etc)
c) his general speed of delivery
d) his politics - which are "far to the right" of anything I'm used to
e) his frequent references to god (I'm an atheist)... particularly in
the context of conflict in an area in which god has been at the heart
of a lot of conflict

Please don't shoot me on this one. We're talking about things that provoke an irrational dislike ok. Not stuff that truly matters policy-wise.

For the record... I looked on Dr. Sanity's website a while back (Aug?). Some of her views seem fairly extreme.

In fact, while I am sure that she has some useful things to say - I would suggest that the site is going to be fairly difficult going to anybody who is not a highly vocal christian, enthusiastic Bush supporter, and white-skinned euro descendant.

....which sorta seems to defeat the purpose of writing a blog I would have thought.

filtherton · 11-13-2005, 02:59 PM

I'm just as interested in what causes the irrational excusing of every mistake he's ever made. I bet it has something to do with clinton.

sailor · 11-13-2005, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I'm just as interested in what causes the irrational excusing of every mistake he's ever made. I bet it has something to do with clinton.

Agreed. The problem is that politics have become so partisan that neither side can see anything other than their own view. To one side, Bush is the devil incarnate and can do no good, to the other, he is Jesus incarnate and can do no wrong.

maximusveritas · 11-13-2005, 03:04 PM

I'm not sure how Dr. Sanity's commentary could be considered insightful. The word that comes to mind for me is ridiculous.
Perhaps Dr. Sanity should also ask herself what causes the irrational hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton? What causes the irrational hatred of Michael Moore?
There are always going to be crazies who develop this intense hatred of people who believe differently than they do. It's nothing new and it has nothing to do with "displacement".

OTK · 11-13-2005, 03:17 PM

It is because regular hatred failed to get him out of office.

Rekna · 11-13-2005, 03:20 PM

I'm not sure how this can lead to any useful discussion when the title already makes the conclusion that all the hatred for Bush is irrational.

ratbastid · 11-13-2005, 03:28 PM

Very nice. Again, the right wing redefines the terms of discussion. Now being against Bush is irrational.

My hatred of George Bush is perfectly rational, thank you very much.

cyrnel · 11-13-2005, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I'm just as interested in what causes the irrational excusing of every mistake he's ever made. I bet it has something to do with clinton.

filth, isn't that something of an irrational, hateful remark? This could be interesting if we leave the junk at the door.

sailor, is that offhand, or do you really think everyone who doesn't hate Bush thinks he's an angel? I voted for the guy and have been disgusted as often as not. Unfortunately it was a turd sandwich or douchebag choice. We'll likely have another in a couple years.

I've had my moments with every prez for the last 25yrs but it's fairly boring, useless stuff. The guy does a few things I don't agree with and I start categorizing everything as bad. Could start with a decision I passionately disagree with, could be slow and progressive, could just be I'm tired of fighting. Whatever, once we stop looking rationally at effects and motives (on all sides, at all levels) we're just part of the pointless horse race.

My grandfather once told me hate really only hurts one person. I'm not so sure. I agree we've reached a level of partisanship that hurts everyone. Is it useful?

What have you done to improve the situation?

tecoyah · 11-13-2005, 03:30 PM

I seriously dislike Bush....although I dont usually hate him. My primary reasons have to do with my own perception of his honesty, and corruption by Industry. Though I would show such dislike for any corrupt politician, he is the President of the United States, and thus is the target of my dissatisfaction, Rational or Not. Added to this is the Utter embarasment I feel every freakin' Time he talks....I mean Every time. He comes off as the most ignorant individual in politics, and this man represents me in the eyes of the world.
In my opinion Bush has surrounded himself with a group of people that are dishonest and I simply cannot trust my government right now....this upsets me immensly. My ideology is virtually opposite what Bush stands for in many ways, and the Christianization of the White house, Blatantly, is also very disturbing. Mind you I have little issue with religious belief of any kind, but I do not want it legislated. As a final note, I sincerely believe the adminstration presented false/misleading information in order to garner support that led us into a war.

Other than that....I would have a beer with him....if he bought.

trickyy · 11-13-2005, 03:31 PM

bush is not hitler, the only nazis were the nazis.
no one can legitimately blame bush for natural disasters, so it is a waste of time to defend these supposed accusations.
however, as president, he should shoulder blame/responsibility because he is in charge.
as for terrorism, since it is mentioned in the article, the adminstration's policies are cetainly debatable. the insurgency in iraq is not in it's death throes, we have not borken it's back, and killing insurgents is not slowing the insurgency. sadly, a democratic middle east would be less US friendly than the exiting authoritarian regimes. and more specifically, the record of mistreatment of individuals in custody, and the reluctance to alter the established protocol, is winning neither hearts nor minds of foreigners and likely fueling the "islamofascist" movement.

i think it is equally irrational to broadly claim people hate bush. it's a conclusion to make if you want pseudo-political infotainment. raising issues with his policies is not the same as hating the man.

cyrnel · 11-13-2005, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I'm not sure how this can lead to any useful discussion when the title already makes the conclusion that all the hatred for Bush is irrational.

All hate is irrational. Human, but irrational.

Elphaba · 11-13-2005, 03:38 PM

I'm indifferent to the man, but I abhor many of the president's policies and the neocon ideology that directs him and his administration. Some here will brand me a "leftist" for that statement when in fact I am a moderate. If there is a hint of fiscal conservatism in this administration, I have yet to see it.

martinguerre · 11-13-2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyrnel

All hate is irrational. Human, but irrational.

If so, then reason isn't useful at deciding the value of something. There are things in this world that it's worth hating.

Rekna · 11-13-2005, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyrnel

All hate is irrational. Human, but irrational.

I disagree with this entirely. Hatred of things that are evil or produce evil are completly rational.

cyrnel · 11-13-2005, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

If so, then reason isn't useful at deciding the value of something. There are things in this world that it's worth hating.

How does hate help? What does it offer? I mean what does it offer to us as individuals, not to those at the mic/pulpit for whom it's a tool.

For me hate clouds perception, distracts from any honest analysis. At best it's the cart before the horse. It solves nothing for me. It's so often used by leaders to keep their flock in tow that I don't trust it. It means issues, baggage. Dump it. At least, that's what I try to do.

Rekna, I meant having emotions is rational. The emotions themselves are not. Is that closer? I'm happy to give into my humanity when the effects are positive, but hate is nothing but an evil we inflict on ourselves.

filtherton · 11-13-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyrnel

filth, isn't that something of an irrational, hateful remark? This could be interesting if we leave the junk at the door.

I don't see anything irrational or hateful. It was as honest a question as the one posed by the OP.

ubertuber · 11-13-2005, 05:47 PM

Actually, I thought the thread title left open the possibility of the existence of rational hatred. The question is, what causes IRrational hatred of George Bush. Taken that way, it would be worthy of exploration.

I have a rational dislike of George Bush. It is mostly founded on my feeling that his thinking and policies are unclear. I believe that there is no real, feasible plan for Iraq beyond "get through the next few months". I also think there is no real, feasible PLAN for Social Security beyond "make it more privatized". I don't think there is a real, feasible goal in our current foreign policy. For that matter, I don't think there is a clear goal for domestic policies. This seems to be an administration that is making policies based on reacting to stuff that happens.

I'd feel better if there was a clear goal that was being articulated or clear answers given when tough questions are asked. It seems like this administration is surrounded by some sort of all-pervading fuzz. It diffuses their answers, thinking, and policies. This is not the same thing as knee jerking and saying that our president is stupid, which I don't think he is.

martinguerre · 11-13-2005, 05:49 PM

cyrnel...

i'll copy rekna and say that the hatred of evil is one of the most rational acts a human being can engage in. i make distinction between hatred of act and actor, but i do know the line is awful thin...

but i'm unwilling to live in a world that is so imbued with systematic evil, and not condemn it, even to hate it. i hate the fact that while i'm writing this and thinking about getting a cheeseburger 'cause i missed dinner....that some kid has died from hunger. I hate the fact that as i man, i can walk to my car tonight and not worry about being sexually assualted. i hate the senselessness of the war in iraq, and how civilians are paying the price for Dubya's miscalculations.

hate can drive me to action, give me courage to stand up against the wrong, and keep me motivated despite failure. i got very angry about the lack of training and resources put behind suicide prevention at my undergrad institution...and got angrier still at the "we don't know what we're doing" response to a completed suicide right after the admin turned me down. you best believe me, there's annual mental health awareness programming done now, and the RA's get better training on how to refer residents to the resources of the college and community. It ain't perfect...but i watched a campus message board fill up with people's stories and joys and worries about mental illness in friends and themselves...

I knew that my anger had turned a problem into something good. I could put that emotion down, that as a tool it had served it's purpose.

docbungle · 11-13-2005, 06:07 PM

I think it has something to do with GW's irrational condescending manner when he is put on the spot and asked the important questions.

politicophile · 11-13-2005, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Very nice. Again, the right wing redefines the terms of discussion. Now being against Bush is irrational.

My hatred of George Bush is perfectly rational, thank you very much.

Ratbastid, the title of this post is "What Causes Irrational Hatred of George Bush?". This is certainly not meant to imply that one cannot rationally hate him. What I am interested in discussing is why there are people who hate Bush in ways that don't make any sense.

Examples of things one might rationally hate Bush for:
-destroying the environment
-effectively sentencing over 2,000 soldiers to die for a war that was based on totally false premises
-destroying the credibility of the United States in the international arena
-allowing the deficit to grow to unprecidented levels
-using Christianity as a tool to manipulate and mobilize Christian voters
-opposing women's right to an abortion
-curtailing fundamental civil liberties
-nominating underqualified and/or very conservative justices to the Supreme Court
-and the list goes on...

It is, however, irrational to use these policy blunders to compare Bush to Hitler, to argue that he has declared war on Islam, to say that he attacked Iraq and Afghanistan for the oil, and to say that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen because he thought it would be good for his approval ratings.

This second type of hatred is frighteningly widespread and I would like to know why there seems to be so much of it attached to George Bush.

host · 11-13-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

I was prompted to start this thread by another discussion on the politics board in which multiple contributors bought into a serious comparison between George Bush and Hitler. The discussion prompted me into contemplating the irrationality of some, of not most, forms of Bush hatred I see both on this forum and in the real world. By coincidence, I then stumbled upon this article, which effectively expresses a lot of thoughts that I had not yet assembled cohesively.

I suggest you follow this link to the full article, as Dr. Sanity's commentary is very insightful...

The common characteristic of links posted on this forum by members who consistently espouse POV's from the right of the mainstream American right, (where most of the rest us.... according to roachboy....live) is that they are nearly always on the fringe, as the site referenced in the thread starter, http://drsanity.blogspot.com/ is. In the rare instance when a link to a "news" site is posted, it is usually to foxnews.com or to washingtontimes.com .

Why are the places on the web where the "rest of us" find our news reports and commentary (AP articles are an example of consistently unbiased reports) almost never referenced by those who attempt to counter strong critics of Bush, for example?

According to Fox, a source you probably consider "fair and balanced" latest polls indicate that Bush is overwhelmingly disapproved of, in the categories of the job he is doing and in the ethics of his administration compared to past administrations, by <b>Independent</b> voters:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/poll_111005.pdf
His job approval number among republican voters has dropped from 80 percent, to 72 percent, and among all those polled, to a new low, 36 percent. Dr. Sanity's "article" would have been more persuausive four years and 54 polling percentage points ago, than it is now.

By the way politicophile, the discussion that you say prompted you to "start this thread", was intended to be a discussion of how to avoid being a "good German", taking the example of Ann Wright, a patriot who is setting an example of how to object to and resist the Bush administration and it's policies.
My intent was to discuss examples like these, and how they compare to our present circumstances and the choices that Ann Wright has had to make to be true to her convictions:

Quote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...572667,00.html
....Unknown to many members of the church, however, Ratzinger’s past includes brief membership of the Hitler Youth movement and wartime service with a German army anti- aircraft unit.

Although there is no suggestion that he was involved in any atrocities, his service may be contrasted by opponents with the attitude of John Paul II, who took part in anti-Nazi theatre performances in his native Poland and in 1986 became the first pope to visit Rome’s synagogue.

“John Paul was hugely appreciated for what he did for and with the Jewish people,” said Lord Janner, head of the Holocaust Education Trust, who is due to attend ceremonies today to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. .....

....He has since said that although he was opposed to the Nazi regime, any open resistance would have been futile — comments echoed this weekend by his elder brother Georg, a retired priest ordained along with the cardinal in 1951.

“Resistance was truly impossible,” Georg Ratzinger said. “Before we were conscripted, one of our teachers said we should fight and become heroic Nazis and another told us not to worry as only one soldier in a thousand was killed. But neither of us ever used a rifle against the enemy.”

Some locals in Traunstein, like Elizabeth Lohner, 84, whose brother-in-law was sent to Dachau as a conscientious objector, dismiss such suggestions. “It was possible to resist, and those people set an example for others,” she said. “The Ratzingers were young and had made a different choice.”

You elected to turn my discussion into a Bush vs. Hitler debate with this post, and then you moved on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

I'm a bit confused by the appeal to authority you are making, Host. Surely, you don't believe that the majority of Colonels or of State Department officials oppose the war? If your argument against the Bush administration rests on their inside knowledge and authority, it would only make sense for you to reverse your position, as Ann Wright is in the extreme minority in her views. I'm sure she is a wonderful person, but she is no more knowledgable or trustworthy than the next State Department employee. And if the authority of one is worth a Godwin's Law-violating post like this, isn't the authority of the hundreds who hold the opposite view just that much more convincing?

You also gracelessly dodged Toaster126's criticism of your OP, a criticism that I level against you as well. Your comparison of the death toll incurred so far in the war to democratize Iraq and the 12 million killed in Nazi death factories is... foolish, to make a tremendous understatement. I think it's time for you to do some soul searching: your criticisms of the Bush administration are becoming increasingly nonsensical and irrational, as is evidenced conclusively by your outlandish analogy between the American public and complacent Nazi citizens.

maximusveritas · 11-13-2005, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

It is, however, irrational to use these policy blunders to compare Bush to Hitler, to argue that he has declared war on Islam, to say that he attacked Iraq and Afghanistan for the oil, and to say that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen because he thought it would be good for his approval ratings.

While it's irrational to say that Bush=Hitler or some nonsense like that, I don't think it's irrational to simply make an honest comparison/contrast. I didn't see anyone in the thread you are referring to cross the line. I did, however, see some people irrationally reject any comparison to Hitler at all.
As far as your second example, Bush has referred to the War on Terror as a Crusade and has seemingly focused solely on Islamic terrorism. So while it may not be completely correct, it would not be irrational to say that Bush has declared war on Islam.
It's no more irrational to say that Bush attacked Iraq for oil than it is to say that he liberated Iraq in order to spread freedom and democracy.
Your last example is indeed irrational, but I haven't heard many people say that. There are the usual conspiracy nuts, but I wouldn't consider that widespread by any means. Just because a few people post something on a message board doesn't mean that the opinion is widespread among the general population.

pocon1 · 11-13-2005, 07:11 PM

nothing to say

pan6467 · 11-13-2005, 07:42 PM

I don't irrationally hate Bush, I despise his policies and the abuses of office, the lies, the corruption and the way he took 9/11 and instead of promoting world peace and keeping allies and new friends close, he chose to play "cowboy" and threaten and attack other leaders that did not want to do as he told them.

His "you're either with us or against us" speech will go down as one of the world's most divisive. He took every other countries goodwill and peace overtones and used them to benefit his own interests, not the country's.

As an individual, I do not know Bush to judge him, nor is that my job. History and his God will.

HOWEVER, as a citizen, it is my RIGHT and DUTY to judge the man's policies and whether or not I believe he is helping America move forward or hurting America and regressing our society. My judgement is the latter.

It is unpatriotic, unAmerican and IMHO more filled with hate and anger to believe those that dislike his policies and speak out against him do so just because they simply disagree with you.

We have freedom of speech, freedom to question the government and it's policies, freedom to say "we don't like this", freedom to compare past leaders to present...... with those freedoms comes the duty to use them and to make those judgements so that in the end we do not lose them.

To me the people who blindly have followed (or followed but knew that Bush was and is abusing his powers) and then dismissed any discussions that point out opposing views as "irrational hatred" is admitting there is something there but not wanting to truly debate and defend rationally because they can't.

And in the end the American people are starting to see for themselves and the polls are dropping for Bush like a lead balloon. And yet again, instead of looking at what the vast majority see and trying to figure out how to correct what has gone wrong, the Administration and Bush supporters take to the name calling, anti-patriotism, anti-troop, anti-God, anti-everything attack mode, hoping that works instead of having to legitimately answer to the people, and explain the lies, coverups, leaks and contempt for the right to speak out and question and hold leaders accountable.

Marvelous Marv · 11-13-2005, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I'm just as interested in what causes the irrational excusing of every mistake he's ever made. I bet it has something to do with clinton.

By George, you're right:

Quote:

Democrats should remind themselves that Bush and Cheney were not the first to make such claims about Iraq. "The U.S. intelligence community's belief toward the end of the Clinton administration [was] that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program and was close to acquiring nuclear weapons," Kenneth M. Pollack, who served on President Clinton's National Security Council, wrote in the January/February issue of The Atlantic Monthly. That was also the view of some European intelligence services, all of which also thought that Saddam probably had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

It was Clinton who warned on February 17, 1998, that, unless restrained by force, Saddam "will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." It was Clinton who made "regime change" official U.S. policy and who called Iraq "a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed." It was Al Gore who asserted in September 2002, "We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

One of many links

The actual article requires a subscription, so I didn't post that link.

Marvelous Marv · 11-13-2005, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Very nice. Again, the right wing redefines the terms of discussion. Now being against Bush is irrational.

I take it from this remark that you will chastise anyone who uses the term, "Radical right?"

The left wing has certainly defined all conservatives as "radicals."

pan6467 · 11-13-2005, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

I take it from this remark that you will chastise anyone who uses the term, "Radical right?"

The left wing has certainly defined all conservatives as "radicals."

I don't label all conservatives as radicals nor do I believe they are. Just as not everyone on the Left is radical.

Those who blindly follow Bush and turn legitimate questions and debates into pissing contests, attacks on patriotism and personal attacks, those are radicals.

There are many Conservatives that debate their views on here and most of the time show the respect I show them that I find interesting, well read and just have come to a differing philosophy and viewpoint as me. I respect their opinions and when they honestly can show me how they can get from point "A" to point "B" and expect me to do so with the same respect, I find it quite a learning experience for both of us, as we have shared and shown each other respect, dignity and understanding.

Then there are those that twist, attack and show no respect, those are the radicals.

Those that fill posts with twists, turns, refuse to answer how they get from point to point, refuses to see where the opposition has come to their opinion and views, and in the end shows no respect, garners no respect from me.

pan6467 · 11-13-2005, 08:32 PM

It never ceases to amaze me how some on the Right who supposed despise everything Clinton stood for will use him as defense for Bush's WMD excuse for the war.

2 wrongs do not make it right. Yet, I assume that the way the keep using Clinton and Gore and others it justifies Bush's lieing and thus justifies the war with the never ending changing of reasons for going.

iblade · 11-14-2005, 12:05 AM

The fact that he did not have a passport before becoming president, because he never left the United States. I don't understand how people can elect someone like that, someone who has so little knowledge of the world around him.

djtestudo · 11-14-2005, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

It never ceases to amaze me how some on the Right who supposed despise everything Clinton stood for will use him as defense for Bush's WMD excuse for the war.

2 wrongs do not make it right. Yet, I assume that the way the keep using Clinton and Gore and others it justifies Bush's lieing and thus justifies the war with the never ending changing of reasons for going.

Clinton, as much of an idiot as he was for doing/saying what he did, was still the president and as such it can be assumed that he was privy to the same quality of intellegence as the present administration. Therefore, if he is coming out and saying that there are WMDs in Iraq, then that shows that Bush didn't "lie", like the accusations say.

Just like many on the right post quotes from Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and others who are now coming after Bush for starting a war "under false pretenses". If they saw the intellegence and believed it, how can they go after the president for it?

sailor · 11-14-2005, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyrnel

sailor, is that offhand, or do you really think everyone who doesn't hate Bush thinks he's an angel? I voted for the guy and have been disgusted as often as not. Unfortunately it was a turd sandwich or douchebag choice. We'll likely have another in a couple years.

A bit of both. I know there are a lot of voters out there who voted for him because they saw him as the lesser of two evils, or that really dont like him even though they voted for him, etc. Unfortunately though, it seems as though, at least where I'm from (NC), there seems to be a good bit of the "shut up you damn liberal, its unamerican to question Bush," or the "shut up, you're just complaining, he didn't do anything wrong."

So yeah, a bit of both. I know what I said wasn't an absolute, and there are millions of people in the US just like you. But at the same time, I've experienced a lot of the "with us or against us," with both sides taking a blind eye to any errors their politicians might have commited. Maybe I'm just surrounded by idiots who can't see anything other than black and white

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Those who blindly follow Bush and turn legitimate questions and debates into pissing contests, attacks on patriotism and personal attacks, those are radicals.

That seems to sum up the reactions I see most of the time. From both sides--though admittedly I tend to see it more from the right.

Willravel · 11-14-2005, 10:34 AM

I don't hate Bush. I see him as more pityful because of his dishonesty and lack of honor. His position requires a unique amount of loyalty to the citizens of the US, a seemingly unlimited amount of patience, a superb intelect, and the ability to do the right thing (legally and morally) even if no one is looking. He has demenstrated either a serious lack of honesty and integtiry (probable), or a serious lack of intelect (not as liklely, but just as bad), and people have died because of it. He is responsible for the armed forces and the entire executive branch, not to mention he is to answer for the legislation and judicial ruling of his party members. Each of those has ahd serious failings durring his terms. I am dissapointed in Bush, and I hope to stop either his dishonesty or his ignorance.

host · 11-14-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Clinton, as much of an idiot as he was for doing/saying what he did, was still the president and as such it can be assumed that he was privy to the same quality of intellegence as the present administration. Therefore, if he is coming out and saying that there are WMDs in Iraq, then that shows that Bush didn't "lie", like the accusations say.

Just like many on the right post quotes from Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and others who are now coming after Bush for starting a war "under false pretenses". If they saw the intellegence and believed it, how can they go after the president for it?

Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, refuted some of your points, just three weeks after Bush took office in 2002. Powell and Rice made statments in 2001 that were identical to what Tenet said:

Quote:

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
07 February 2001

Text: CIA's Tenet on Worldwide Threat 2001
.............IRAQ

Mr. Chairman, in Iraq Saddam Hussein has grown more confident in his ability to hold on to his power. He maintains a tight handle on internal unrest, despite the erosion of his overall military capabilities. Saddam's confidence has been buoyed by his success in quieting the Shia insurgency in the south, which last year had reached a level unprecedented since the domestic uprising in 1991. Through brutal suppression, Saddam's multilayered security apparatus has continued to enforce his authority and cultivate a domestic image of invincibility.

High oil prices and Saddam's use of the oil-for-food program have helped him manage domestic pressure. The program has helped meet the basic food and medicine needs of the population. High oil prices buttressed by substantial illicit oil revenues have helped Saddam ensure the loyalty of the regime's security apparatus operating and the few thousand politically important tribal and family groups loyal.

There are still constraints on Saddam's power. His economic infrastructure is in long-term decline, and his ability to project power outside Iraq's borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and enforcement of the No-Fly Zones. His military is roughly half the size it was during the Gulf War and remains under a tight arms embargo. He has trouble efficiently moving forces and supplies-a direct result of sanctions. These difficulties were demonstrated most recently by his deployment of troops to western Iraq last fall, which were hindered by a shortage of spare parts and transport capability........

Quote:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...s/2001/933.htm
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

(lower paragraph of second Powell quote on the page)
.............but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.................

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html

...........KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that..............

The article linked here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/in...er=rssuserland

and other links displayed in my post earlier today, persuasively indicate that congress did not have access to the comprehensive, and contradictory intelligence information that the Bush administration had access to before congress had to make the decision to vote for authorization for a possible war in Iraq..... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...05&postcount=3

It does take time to examine these details. The alternative is to listen to Bush's Nov. 11 speech or Ken Mehlman's statements on Russert's "Meet the Press", yesterday. Bush and Mehlman are both "on message" concerning the intelligence information that congress was privy to....the problem is that what those two are saying is not backed up by news reporting, including the WaPo reporting on Nov. 11:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111101832.html
Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A01

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate...........

Marvelous Marv · 11-14-2005, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Clinton, as much of an idiot as he was for doing/saying what he did, was still the president and as such it can be assumed that he was privy to the same quality of intellegence as the present administration. Therefore, if he is coming out and saying that there are WMDs in Iraq, then that shows that Bush didn't "lie", like the accusations say.

Just like many on the right post quotes from Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and others who are now coming after Bush for starting a war "under false pretenses". If they saw the intellegence and believed it, how can they go after the president for it?

That's the point of my post, which some tried to ignore. However, it's finally leaking out via the national media, so it's possible this disinformation campaign by Teddy, Hillary, Bill, and their friends will die out soon.

Lebell · 11-15-2005, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

I did, however, see some people irrationally reject any comparison to Hitler at all.

*wave*

I don't consider my own rejection to be irrational at all.

In fact, I just addressed your concern.

raveneye · 11-15-2005, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Clinton, as much of an idiot as he was for doing/saying what he did, was still the president and as such it can be assumed that he was privy to the same quality of intellegence as the present administration.

Sure, but what's the point here? Are you saying that if Clinton believed the same thing that Bush believed, then Bush was right in believing it? If so, then your premise is false, because Clinton did not believe that the intelligence warranted a full-scale invasion and occupation of the country. He certainly did not believe there was any actionable connection between Saddam and AQ.

SO if Clinton's views are being cited as evidence for the quality of the intelligence, then we are led to the opposite conclusion: the intelligence did not warrant what the U.S. is currently doing in Iraq.

It is of course easy to make a dishonest case for going to war without falsifying any intelligence: you can do it by cherry-picking those bits of intelligence that support your case, refusing to declassify those that don't support your case, or declassifying them at the last minute, and redacting caveats and disclaimers from those you do declassify. The commissions were not empowered to evaluate the use of any of these obfuscating methods.

There certainly is evidence that Bush did do some of this. For instance, the NIE report that "Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner" was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote. If the report had concluded the opposite, I'm sure it would have been cleared months before.

Poppinjay · 11-15-2005, 06:09 AM

Irrational dislikes: Bush's use of fourth grade nicknames, ie: "Brownie", "Turd Blossom", "Fredo", "Big Country", "Big Time".

Rational dislikes: His fourth grade competency, ie: handing out important positions to poilitical donors and hacks, his ridiculous shenanigans in Iraq, his abandonment of statesment like Colin Powell when his own fuckups come to light, his boosting of a dizzy headed cheerleader for the supreme court.

Rational dislikes of his followers: Their penchant for screaming "umme finish! umme finish!" whenever they have to defend another stupid action committed by their deer leeder, almost always followed by, "Clinton said the same thing!" or "Clinton got a blowjob!"

politicophile · 11-15-2005, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Sure, but what's the point here? Are you saying that if Clinton believed the same thing that Bush believed, then Bush was right in believing it? If so, then your premise is false, because Clinton did not believe that the intelligence warranted a full-scale invasion and occupation of the country. He certainly did not believe there was any actionable connection between Saddam and AQ.

SO if Clinton's views are being cited as evidence for the quality of the intelligence, then we are led to the opposite conclusion: the intelligence did not warrant what the U.S. is currently doing in Iraq.

It is of course easy to make a dishonest case for going to war without falsifying any intelligence: you can do it by cherry-picking those bits of intelligence that support your case, refusing to declassify those that don't support your case, or declassifying them at the last minute, and redacting caveats and disclaimers from those you do declassify. The commissions were not empowered to evaluate the use of any of these obfuscating methods.

There certainly is evidence that Bush did do some of this. For instance, the NIE report that "Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner" was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote. If the report had concluded the opposite, I'm sure it would have been cleared months before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs

Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

Offensive Strike

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

Link

The liberal historical revisionists would have you believe that George Bush and his cronies came up with the idea of invading Iraq before 9/11. Well, that's true... in a way. The appeal to Clinton is not intended to be a statement about the quality of the intelligence for invading Iraq.

What this story does prove, however, is that those who hate Bush for fabricating the justification for the Iraq war are... hating Bush for irrational reasons. Hence, this thread.

powerclown · 11-15-2005, 08:20 AM

John McCain, on Face the Nation last sunday:

Quote:

SCHIEFFER: President Bush accused his critics of rewriting history last week.
Sen. McCAIN: Yeah.

SCHIEFFER: And in--he said in doing so, the criticisms they were making of his war policy was endangering our troops in Iraq. Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the Iraq policy?

Sen. McCAIN: No, I think it's a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people. I sat on the Robb-Silverman Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them--I said, `Did--were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?' Every one of them said no.

Jay Rockefeller being interviewed by Chris Wallace of Fox News, sunday:

Quote:

WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, the President says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the President ever did. Let's watch. SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."
WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The – I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. Now, the intelligence that they had and the intelligence that we had were probably different. We didn't get the Presidential Daily Briefs. We got only a finished product, a finished product, a consensual view of the intelligence community, which does not allow for agencies like in the case of the aluminum tubes, the Department of Energy said these aren't thick enough to handle nuclear power. They left that out and went ahead with they have aluminum tubes and they're going to develop nuclear power.

WALLACE: Senator, you're quite right. You didn't get the Presidential Daily Brief or the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief. You got the National Intelligence Estimate. But the Silberman Commission, a Presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced than the intelligence you saw, and yet you, not the President, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. ...

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

WALLACE: You're not?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect. We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then if that failed, authorized him to use force to enforce the sanctions. We did not send 150,000 troops or 135,000 troops. It was his decision made probably two days after 9/11 that he was going to invade Iraq. That we did not have a part of, and, yes, we had bad intelligence, and when we learned about it, I went down to the floor and said I would never have voted for this thing.

Old and busted: BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED
New and accurate: CONGRESS LIED, PEOPLE DIED

*Irrational hatred of Bush (aka Bush Derangement Syndrome) can lead to a denial of reality, blurry thought, and acute constipated political slogans.

11-13-2005, 03:30 PM	#10 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I seriously dislike Bush....although I dont usually hate him. My primary reasons have to do with my own perception of his honesty, and corruption by Industry. Though I would show such dislike for any corrupt politician, he is the President of the United States, and thus is the target of my dissatisfaction, Rational or Not. Added to this is the Utter embarasment I feel every freakin' Time he talks....I mean Every time. He comes off as the most ignorant individual in politics, and this man represents me in the eyes of the world. In my opinion Bush has surrounded himself with a group of people that are dishonest and I simply cannot trust my government right now....this upsets me immensly. My ideology is virtually opposite what Bush stands for in many ways, and the Christianization of the White house, Blatantly, is also very disturbing. Mind you I have little issue with religious belief of any kind, but I do not want it legislated. As a final note, I sincerely believe the adminstration presented false/misleading information in order to garner support that led us into a war. Other than that....I would have a beer with him....if he bought. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

11-13-2005, 05:47 PM	#18 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Actually, I thought the thread title left open the possibility of the existence of rational hatred. The question is, what causes IRrational hatred of George Bush. Taken that way, it would be worthy of exploration. I have a rational dislike of George Bush. It is mostly founded on my feeling that his thinking and policies are unclear. I believe that there is no real, feasible plan for Iraq beyond "get through the next few months". I also think there is no real, feasible PLAN for Social Security beyond "make it more privatized". I don't think there is a real, feasible goal in our current foreign policy. For that matter, I don't think there is a clear goal for domestic policies. This seems to be an administration that is making policies based on reacting to stuff that happens. I'd feel better if there was a clear goal that was being articulated or clear answers given when tough questions are asked. It seems like this administration is surrounded by some sort of all-pervading fuzz. It diffuses their answers, thinking, and policies. This is not the same thing as knee jerking and saying that our president is stupid, which I don't think he is. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

11-13-2005, 05:49 PM	#19 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	cyrnel... i'll copy rekna and say that the hatred of evil is one of the most rational acts a human being can engage in. i make distinction between hatred of act and actor, but i do know the line is awful thin... but i'm unwilling to live in a world that is so imbued with systematic evil, and not condemn it, even to hate it. i hate the fact that while i'm writing this and thinking about getting a cheeseburger 'cause i missed dinner....that some kid has died from hunger. I hate the fact that as i man, i can walk to my car tonight and not worry about being sexually assualted. i hate the senselessness of the war in iraq, and how civilians are paying the price for Dubya's miscalculations. hate can drive me to action, give me courage to stand up against the wrong, and keep me motivated despite failure. i got very angry about the lack of training and resources put behind suicide prevention at my undergrad institution...and got angrier still at the "we don't know what we're doing" response to a completed suicide right after the admin turned me down. you best believe me, there's annual mental health awareness programming done now, and the RA's get better training on how to refer residents to the resources of the college and community. It ain't perfect...but i watched a campus message board fill up with people's stories and joys and worries about mental illness in friends and themselves... I knew that my anger had turned a problem into something good. I could put that emotion down, that as a tool it had served it's purpose. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

11-13-2005, 06:07 PM	#20 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	I think it has something to do with GW's irrational condescending manner when he is put on the spot and asked the important questions. __________________ Bad Luck City

11-13-2005, 07:11 PM	#24 (permalink)
pocon1 Banned	nothing to say Last edited by pocon1; 07-06-2008 at 09:50 PM..

11-13-2005, 02:45 PM	#2 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	There are a lot of things.... For me... it seems to be a) his accent b) his use of words (crusade, axis of evil etc) c) his general speed of delivery d) his politics - which are "far to the right" of anything I'm used to e) his frequent references to god (I'm an atheist)... particularly in the context of conflict in an area in which god has been at the heart of a lot of conflict Please don't shoot me on this one. We're talking about things that provoke an irrational dislike ok. Not stuff that truly matters policy-wise. For the record... I looked on Dr. Sanity's website a while back (Aug?). Some of her views seem fairly extreme. In fact, while I am sure that she has some useful things to say - I would suggest that the site is going to be fairly difficult going to anybody who is not a highly vocal christian, enthusiastic Bush supporter, and white-skinned euro descendant. ....which sorta seems to defeat the purpose of writing a blog I would have thought.

11-13-2005, 02:59 PM	#3 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I'm just as interested in what causes the irrational excusing of every mistake he's ever made. I bet it has something to do with clinton.

11-13-2005, 03:04 PM	#5 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	I'm not sure how Dr. Sanity's commentary could be considered insightful. The word that comes to mind for me is ridiculous. Perhaps Dr. Sanity should also ask herself what causes the irrational hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton? What causes the irrational hatred of Michael Moore? There are always going to be crazies who develop this intense hatred of people who believe differently than they do. It's nothing new and it has nothing to do with "displacement".

11-13-2005, 03:17 PM	#6 (permalink)
OTK Upright Location: Ohio	It is because regular hatred failed to get him out of office.

11-13-2005, 03:20 PM	#7 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I'm not sure how this can lead to any useful discussion when the title already makes the conclusion that all the hatred for Bush is irrational.

11-13-2005, 03:28 PM	#8 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Very nice. Again, the right wing redefines the terms of discussion. Now being against Bush is irrational. My hatred of George Bush is perfectly rational, thank you very much.

11-13-2005, 03:31 PM	#11 (permalink)
trickyy ►	bush is not hitler, the only nazis were the nazis. no one can legitimately blame bush for natural disasters, so it is a waste of time to defend these supposed accusations. however, as president, he should shoulder blame/responsibility because he is in charge. as for terrorism, since it is mentioned in the article, the adminstration's policies are cetainly debatable. the insurgency in iraq is not in it's death throes, we have not borken it's back, and killing insurgents is not slowing the insurgency. sadly, a democratic middle east would be less US friendly than the exiting authoritarian regimes. and more specifically, the record of mistreatment of individuals in custody, and the reluctance to alter the established protocol, is winning neither hearts nor minds of foreigners and likely fueling the "islamofascist" movement. i think it is equally irrational to broadly claim people hate bush. it's a conclusion to make if you want pseudo-political infotainment. raising issues with his policies is not the same as hating the man.

11-13-2005, 03:38 PM	#13 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I'm indifferent to the man, but I abhor many of the president's policies and the neocon ideology that directs him and his administration. Some here will brand me a "leftist" for that statement when in fact I am a moderate. If there is a hint of fiscal conservatism in this administration, I have yet to see it.

11-13-2005, 07:42 PM	#25 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I don't irrationally hate Bush, I despise his policies and the abuses of office, the lies, the corruption and the way he took 9/11 and instead of promoting world peace and keeping allies and new friends close, he chose to play "cowboy" and threaten and attack other leaders that did not want to do as he told them. His "you're either with us or against us" speech will go down as one of the world's most divisive. He took every other countries goodwill and peace overtones and used them to benefit his own interests, not the country's. As an individual, I do not know Bush to judge him, nor is that my job. History and his God will. HOWEVER, as a citizen, it is my RIGHT and DUTY to judge the man's policies and whether or not I believe he is helping America move forward or hurting America and regressing our society. My judgement is the latter. It is unpatriotic, unAmerican and IMHO more filled with hate and anger to believe those that dislike his policies and speak out against him do so just because they simply disagree with you. We have freedom of speech, freedom to question the government and it's policies, freedom to say "we don't like this", freedom to compare past leaders to present...... with those freedoms comes the duty to use them and to make those judgements so that in the end we do not lose them. To me the people who blindly have followed (or followed but knew that Bush was and is abusing his powers) and then dismissed any discussions that point out opposing views as "irrational hatred" is admitting there is something there but not wanting to truly debate and defend rationally because they can't. And in the end the American people are starting to see for themselves and the polls are dropping for Bush like a lead balloon. And yet again, instead of looking at what the vast majority see and trying to figure out how to correct what has gone wrong, the Administration and Bush supporters take to the name calling, anti-patriotism, anti-troop, anti-God, anti-everything attack mode, hoping that works instead of having to legitimately answer to the people, and explain the lies, coverups, leaks and contempt for the right to speak out and question and hold leaders accountable. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

11-13-2005, 08:32 PM	#29 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	It never ceases to amaze me how some on the Right who supposed despise everything Clinton stood for will use him as defense for Bush's WMD excuse for the war. 2 wrongs do not make it right. Yet, I assume that the way the keep using Clinton and Gore and others it justifies Bush's lieing and thus justifies the war with the never ending changing of reasons for going. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

11-14-2005, 12:05 AM	#30 (permalink)
iblade Crazy Location: Kyoto	The fact that he did not have a passport before becoming president, because he never left the United States. I don't understand how people can elect someone like that, someone who has so little knowledge of the world around him.

11-14-2005, 10:34 AM	#33 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I don't hate Bush. I see him as more pityful because of his dishonesty and lack of honor. His position requires a unique amount of loyalty to the citizens of the US, a seemingly unlimited amount of patience, a superb intelect, and the ability to do the right thing (legally and morally) even if no one is looking. He has demenstrated either a serious lack of honesty and integtiry (probable), or a serious lack of intelect (not as liklely, but just as bad), and people have died because of it. He is responsible for the armed forces and the entire executive branch, not to mention he is to answer for the legislation and judicial ruling of his party members. Each of those has ahd serious failings durring his terms. I am dissapointed in Bush, and I hope to stop either his dishonesty or his ignorance.

11-15-2005, 06:09 AM	#38 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Irrational dislikes: Bush's use of fourth grade nicknames, ie: "Brownie", "Turd Blossom", "Fredo", "Big Country", "Big Time". Rational dislikes: His fourth grade competency, ie: handing out important positions to poilitical donors and hacks, his ridiculous shenanigans in Iraq, his abandonment of statesment like Colin Powell when his own fuckups come to light, his boosting of a dizzy headed cheerleader for the supreme court. Rational dislikes of his followers: Their penchant for screaming "umme finish! umme finish!" whenever they have to defend another stupid action committed by their deer leeder, almost always followed by, "Clinton said the same thing!" or "Clinton got a blowjob!" __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet