Add-on here to an ANSWER to the hatred-for-Shrub standard wingnut response.

[UTUSN]

So I sent the local radio talkshow wingnut the link to Sy HERSH's "harsh words for (Shrub)", and his response was to DISMISS all such criticism of Shrub as being NOTHING MORE THAN our hatred-for-Shrub. It's been this way all along since Campaign 2000: We are motivated ONLY by hatred-for-Shrub. Nothing we say, no criticism, no evidence means anything, it's all just hatred-for-Shrub. Below the "UNQUOTE" is my response to his points. I haven't sent it yet and will appreciate any additions or honing.

*******QUOTE*******

1. Hatred for Bush surpasses even that for the Kennedys or Nixon, and that’s saying a lot.

2. Is Hersh’s criticism that Bush has too expansive a view of the Presidency and its powers? IS that it alone? What I’m waiting to hear from someone in the Democratic Party and on the Left is a discussion of Bush’s belief that jihadism is THE threat, that we are, in fact, at war, at least the jihadists with us, and they mean to conquer or contain us BUT, BUT they object to his way of dealing with it? I don’t know where these guys/you guys on the diagnosis of the threat or if you think there is one.

You’ll recall that some didn’t consider the Russians or Communism, to be a threat to us.

========== the link that started it: ============

http://media.www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/...

Journalist Sy Hersh has harsh words for Bush

"The fact of the matter is we have a government that will do what it wants to do for the next two years," he said. "The worst is yet to come. It's sort of like we're essentially powerless (and) just play it out."

... "It may come down to the president making an order that the military will object to," Hersh said. "It would be devastating, but it may come down to it. My fear is that he will do what he wants."

... "He's a total radical, probably the most radical president we've ever had in terms of his definition of the power of the presidency," he said. "There's nothing more dangerous than a radical who doesn't have information, doesn't learn from information and doesn't learn from the past."

This radicalism, he said, has dangerous implications. "This is a guy who wants to leave office with the Iranian books clean," he said of Bush.

"None of this means it's going to happen," he told the hushed audience. "It could be better under (current Secretary of Defense Robert) Gates, but we'll have to wait and see."

********UNQUOTE*******



My tentative response:

It's time this "hatred-for-Shrub" thing be put to rest. It has been the standard wingnut response, method of dismissing, any and all criticism of him. The (apparently few) of us who knew of his reactionary, robber baron record in a Weak Governor system state knew there was something phony about him when he campaigned on religion, bi-partisanism, and success, whereas his actual acts and deeds and history were of cut-throat partisanship, making his religion to be a mockery, and failure in everything he ever attempted. Is pointing all this out just "hatred"? I was repulsed by the prospect of such a person taking power over me, but I'll give you THIS, that no amount of my repulsion was up to the measure of what a disaster he has proved to be.


Hatred for Bush surpasses even that for the Kennedys or Nixon -- Uh, no. Or, rather, I can speak to MY hatred for NIXON, which is unsurpassed. I can't really speak to your wingnuts' hatred for the KENNEDYs because you dudes tend to keep some things in code, doncherknow. I remember the John Birch Society-type stuff, but back then extreme wingnuttism used to be dismissed as being "fringe" and limited to "kooks". NIXON appeared to me to be the ultimate tyrant because he had a long history of PERSONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT (in the negative sense), of ACTUAL career damage done to Dems and Libs trending towards REAL damage to our government and our liberties, which, added to his instinct for SURVIVAL and (negative) SUCCESS, made him a TERRIFYING potential threat at ANY stage of his life and career. Shrub just SKIPPED the personal-accomplishment part, and was just the irritating drunk Lordling and royal asshole. Where NIXON was terrifying, Shrub was mostly ANNOYING. (Not just that anymore, however.)

too expansive a view of the Presidency and its powers -- Uh, no, not JUST that. Although to those of us for whom a prime Dem ideal is civil liberties, that is a big concern, and given the tack towards undermining democracy of the Shrub regime, this IS now a huge concern. But a major flaw in Shrub is that he does not "work smart" (and this is NOT an I.Q. reference). He didn't Keep it Simple, Stupid. He didn't focus on the REAL culprits. He jumped at the chance to wreak revenge and even personal vendettas. And he squandered blood and treasure and our moral authority.

Bush’s belief that jihadism is THE threat -- Uh, no. The problem with Shrub is that he himself is not a CONVINCING MESSENGER of this or any message. His personal and petty make-up makes him damaged goods and compromises whatever "sincerity" in whatever his agenda. Terrorism has always been with us and always will. Each generation has to discover it anew for itself. In terms of us in the U.S., our history is littered with the terrorism we ourselves have carried out.

BUT they object to his way of dealing with it? -- Uh, yes. What would make you legitimately posit that "his way" is somehow ABOVE CRITICISM? It's got to be that you must believe he's on some HOLY MISSION, CRUSADE, WORK-OF-GOD. All I see in "his way" is to STRIKE OUT, then run around, chasing after the UNINTENDED fires. He has never ever presented the American people with an expansive VISION, STRATEGY, or even with EXPECTATIONS. All he does is attempt to DICTATE, but even this (as with ALL his enterprises) he compromises with his Personality Disorder shoulder-shaking-giggling. His very demeanor is not worthy of a national leader, certainly not OURS. As David RUBENSTEIN, co-founder of the Carlyle Group, said, "So you know if you said to me, name 25 million people who would maybe be President of the United States, he wouldn't have been in that category."

some didn’t consider the Russians or Communism, to be a threat to us -- Ah, so you choose to end with the usual gratuitous slap at us being TRAITORS, eh. I regard you 29%-er supporters of Shrubs to be concrete threats to democracy.

[MikeNearMcChord]

1. In the bad old days when I was a fan of RW talk

(I am a recovering addict;-) ) The virtriol for Bill Clinton was amazing, hell if Clinton look at a the constitution funny, you would think the Stars and Stripes would be replaced by a hammer and sickle and George Washington was going to be transformed into Che Guevara by listening to these guys. As matter of fact when Clinton was impeached, and his numbers were high in spite of it, this would drive the ranters into a tizzy. Clinton never trashed the country, the military, the Constitution within a million miles like this president is doing.

[UTUSN]

2. Excellent points. n/t

[PDJane]

3. Personal opinion:

Put the hatred-for-Shrub thing in the landfill. Bush Jr. is too weak to inspire hatred. Cheney, now, is a different story.

It is a personal opinion that history will treat Nixon better than anyone in this administration will be treated. His foreign policy didn’t have the neocon stamp, and he was a much more intelligent and accomplished man. Shrub and company will be seen as folks who succeeded in turning back the clock to the bad old days.

The current president is accreting powers he was never entitled to; he is a fascist, and his pandering to the private sector is just more of the same. He’s a pimp for corporate interests.

Bush doesn’t really believe that Jihadism is a threat. The war on terror is bogus. It’s a way to spend money on the military and to take away civil rights. Oh, yeah, and just incidentally, to keep the dollar propped up by controlling the oil.

Yeah, I object to his way of dealing with it. His way of “dealing with it” is to tell the whole world it’s our way, or we’ll bomb you out of existence. Most of the 655,000 dead Iraqis in this war (and counting, at the rate of about 100 per day) were civilians, an outrageous number of them women and children.

The Russians weren’t a threat to us. Communism wasn’t a threat to us. Communism had enough of a hard time keeping their own states in line.

The biggest threats to America have always been the ones from within, and remain so….including those who lack either the energy or the wit to educate themselves about the rest of the world.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I would say

something on the order that we don't hate Bush, but we love the Constitution, the one our military is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. By his very actions, Bush is showing that he is not following the Constitution-signing statements, wiretaps without warrants, lying to Congress in the SOTU speech of 2003--will you join me in preserving the Constitution or have you decided that Bush is above the charter of our country? If the latter, I cannot help but wonder who is the traitor, and who is the patriot.