LTTE on Rich Lowry hypocrisy on Clinton Era

[yurbud]

I don't approve of Hillary's attacks on Obama, but coming from a conservative shill, this is like Jeffrey Dahmer accusing someone of being a bad vegetarian.

Throughout the 1990s, their attacks were directed at people who were vulnerable by virtue of their status as allegedly self-interested women accusing Bill of misconduct, or as conservative politicians hated by the press, or as special prosecutors whose work was distasteful to the public. They all turn out to have been easier targets than Obama, a winsome African-American liberal.

The Clinton targets of the 1990s could be portrayed as aggressors. Obama’s offense is opposing Hillary for the nomination, making the flailing attacks against him seem the product of an outraged sense of entitlement. Hitting Obama for a kindergarten essay is pathetic; knocking him by suggesting he once might have dealt drugs is pathetic and slimy.

The unbecoming broadsides against Obama can only remind people of what they disliked about the decade to which Hillary promises a glorious return. Along with the peace and prosperity that Hillary wants the public to associate with the 1990s came a “politics of personal destruction” (on both sides) that curdled into her husband’s impeachment. All of that was the direct antecedent of the hate-filled and tiresome Bush wars. Hillary can’t help being connected with the worst as well as the best of the 1990s, since she is married to them.

{snip}

George W. Bush’s presidency was made more psychologically complex by the fact that his father, George H. W. Bush, was one of his predecessors. Imagine if W. had had to try to run the government together with H. W. “Oedipal city,” as his dad might have put it. A Hillary administration promises all that fraught emotional tension and more.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWNjMDE4Yzg3MmNmMWJhNzhkNjk0Yjc1ZWFjOTY2YWM=">FULL TEXT

I sent the following letter to the Portland Oregonian, which runs the syndicated Rich Lowry column:

Rich Lowry wrings his hands over "Clintonism" which he characterizes as unprecedented personal attacks on critics. So what does he think of the current president spreading rumors in the 2000 race that John McCain had an illegitimate black child and became a Manchurian candidate when he was a POW in Vietnam? Bush & his surrogates similarly smeared John Kerry's Vietnam service with the Swift Boat Veterans.

Bush has been even more vicious to actual critics like Joe Wilson, who pointed out that Bush & Cheney knew the Niger letter about Saddam buying uranium was a forgery. They responded by outing his wife as an undercover CIA agent, ending her career and putting the lives her colleagues and contacts at risk.

Others who might jam up the Bush agenda with inconvenient facts met with similar threats and retaliation, from Gen. Shinseki who dared to tell Congress that it would take several times more troops to occupy Iraq than we sent, to the actuary who was told he'd be fired if he didn't shut up about the true cost of Bush's Medicare drug benefit to deceive members of his own party into voting for it.

The rest of us have been branded as unAmerican, terrorist sympathizing traitors and told to "watch what we say" if we dared to criticize or even question Bush & Cheney's War on Terror and unrelated war of aggression in Iraq.

Likewise, Lowry frets over having two Clintons in the White House by asking us to imagine how horrible it might have been if Papa Bush had joined Baby Bush in running the country. By now, I doubt that anyone in either party thinks Bush Sr's supervision of the Crawford Caligula would have been a bad thing.

Lowry is not stupid since he can write a coherent column. It is more likely he is a liar who hopes the rest of us are so stupid we can't remember what happened last week let alone the last seven years.

Yurbud

[CatWoman]

1. i wish i could give this more than one rec

:)

[yurbud]

2. thanks!

[CatWoman]

3. Let's give you another

:kick: