Pravda: BUSH VS. HITLER, PART II

[kalian]

http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/98/387/11830_bush.html

"Are the critics acting with sincerity and integrity, or are they motivated by agendas that make their words biased at best and hypocritical at worst?"

A popular saying proclaims that there are three types of criticism. The first, and most welcome, is positive criticism, because it means that one's work has been praised and/or there is agreement with one's viewpoints. The second, and equally welcomed, is negative criticism, since it confirms that one's work has been noticed. The third, and worst, is no criticism at all, because it signifies that one's work is irrelevant or unworthy of being critiqued.

But before an individual becomes too elated by positive criticisms, or too deflated by negative ones, it must first be determined whether such criticisms are legitimate or illegitimate. The essential question to be asked is, "Are the critics acting with sincerity and integrity, or are they motivated by agendas that make their words biased at best and hypocritical at worst?" Positive critics, after all, might be making sycophantic observations simply to curry favor from the person or entity they are critiquing. By contrast, negative criticism might be spawned not by reasoned analysis, but by (to quote a line from the comedy show Monty Python's Flying Circus) "the automatic gainsaying of anything the other party has to say."

Therefore it is no surprise when dealing with criticisms that the greatest hypocrisies emanate from the world of politics and from those with political agendas. In fact the only consistency in this inane realm appears to be the motto, "It is wrong for them, but it is not wrong for us."

Perhaps there is no politician today who personifies this motto more than Tom Delay, a Republican Congressperson from Texas and Leader of the House of Representatives. In 1999, when former President Bill Clinton (a Democratic) endeavored to militarily intervene in Bosnia to quell the tide of ethnic cleansing, Delay sanctimoniously declared, "Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber."

Yet, after the corruptly appointed Bush dictatorship "casually bombed the sovereign nation" of Iraq, Delay suddenly proclaimed, "Well, I think it's not the time to be questioning this president on how he is carrying out the war." Apparently in Delay's warped sense of logic, ethnic cleansing was an ill-defined reason for military intervention, but outright lies about "weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)," Iraqi "connections" to Al-Qaeda, and/or Saddam Hussein's "involvement" in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, were sufficient grounds to wage an unjust war costing billions of tax dollars and destroying thousands of lives.


---------------------------------------------
Much more...and its a well written article. I like the way that the
author shows the "simplistic" approach that the "debunkers" have to
"prove" that Bush is not another Hitler...