wbwhite at MADBBS.COM
Wed Jul 2 12:06:32 MDT 2003
"Stephen A. Frye" wrote:
> It has nothing to do with Texas.
I am relieved but only a bit. You implied that Bush attacked Iraq out of
some quirky need arising from his psyche, and you used the trope that he was
"itching for a fight." Well, itches are physical and personal. To suggest
that Bush marshals the might, energy, power, and sacrifice of this nation to
satisfy some disordered personal urge, well, this is the kind of grist that
liberals tend to use to attack their enemies. Others may use it, too, but
liberals do it regularly and predictably.
> It is quite entertaining hat anyone who strays at all from the party line
> is accused of Liberalism. As is so common, that simply attaches a label
> and excuses dismissal instead of addressing the issue.
> I don't believe that George Bush entered office looking for a fight (though
> there may have been some residue due to daddy's experience), but September
> 11 sure fueled it.
> Why wouldn't it? If someone attacked your home and family wouldn't you be
> itching? I would.
"Itching" is hardly a proper characterization for being aroused to defend
either a family or a nation. Itching is best applied to Saturday night yahoos
who go out looking to hurt somebody to gratify some disordered impulse.
Responding in a measured, statesmanlike way to a tyrant who has flouted his
treaty obligations and hardly be called "itching for a fight." Much too
colloquial (in a slanted way).
> Free thinking is not a disease - though I am coming to believe it is
> regarded as so. I have never blindly bought into the party line just
> because it is the party line. Your won reasoning could be turned - Bush is
> a Conservative, therefore he is automatically correct. That logic strays
> just as far from the truth and also requires remedy.
> Like I said, I voted for Mr. Bush. The reason I voted for Mr. Bush is that
> I believed - and still do - that he is more qualified for the job than
> Gore. I do not believe that he is very good at it though. Better than
> Gore - by orders of magnitude. Good at the job - no. not very. Do I hate
> him? No. I don't hate many people (actually, none come to mind). But if
> I don't readily jump onto his band wagon, does that make me a
> liberal? Well - I guess that's an easy way out for some.
> Personally, I couldn't possibly care less what label anyone in Rush talk
> applies to me. In the grand scheme of things, this is pretty darned low on
> my list of priorities. I stray from the belief set of the Extreme Right
> quite a bit. I think they are wrong on a lot of issues - Mr. Bush's
> rationale for one. But I agree with the liberals even less. In fact, it's
> hard for me to come up with much about them with which I do agree. I have
> always believed that Conservatism holds a better edge on reality, but
> definitely not in every instance, and definitely not about every issue.
> My belief holds. I believe there were and are WMD in Iraq. I believe that
> it is good that Saddam is out of the picture. I believe he was an evil
> tyrant. I do not believe that WMD were the driving reason - as he and many
> here professed - behind Mr. Bush's invasion.
> Attach any label to that you wish if it gives you comfort.
I didn't call you a Liberal. But I did point out that some of your
'Bush" rhetoric was taking on the "flavor" and perhaps the intention of that
typically used by Liberals who have been using a variety of techniques to
degrade President Bush. On a related note, my brother, who considers himself
conservative, was against the Iraq war. The reasons he gave were typical of
those used by the Liberals who opposed the war. I pointed out to him that his
anti-war argument was indistinguishable from that of the Liberals, including
the Green Party. One of these silly arguments was that Bush is an oilman, who
is after another nation's oil. What to do with this sort of nonsense?
More information about the Rushtalk