Hating Bush is Just an Excuse
By Erik Rush (10/02/06)
In the past week...
During the Sept. 24, 2006, edition of “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace”, former President Bill Clinton made an unequivocal, lavish display of precisely the kind of narcissistic, autocratic elitist he is (and presumably was as President), and how caustic, condescending and high-handed he can be even toward people who like him. His brat-like snarling, uncalled-for defensiveness and unrestrained emotionalism was beneath a man who once held the highest office in the land – but then, we already know how much he respected that office while occupying it. It is for these reasons that I am actually delighted the story garnered an inordinate amount of press in the days following his performance.
…Hillary Rodham Clinton showed a few of her true colors as well – possibly to great detriment concerning her presidential aspirations. For one thing, following the widely-reported Bill Clinton conniption on Fox, she calmly stated that “her husband” (a term she obviously uses loosely) would have handled situations currently faced by the Bush administration far more effectively. Second, she voted against contentious terror detainee legislation (supported by most Americans) which finally passed after a hard-won congressional fight.
…Between the sentiments reflected in the Senate vote with respect to the aforementioned terror detainee legislation (65 to 34) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s insane comments following the President’s frank words on September 28 vis á vis the Democrat leadership’s partisan and dangerous obstructionism in our fight against terrorism, the Democrat leadership proved beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt that they have become America’s greatest – yes, greatest – liability.
“To listen to the president… shows that once again, that he is in denial,” Pelosi told the press. “He is out of touch with reality when it comes to what needs to be done to fight and complete the War on Terror.”
A bigger crock of psychobabble I’ve never heard. The most oft-raised question by Republicans and the few ethical journalists in America for the last two years has been: “What would the Democrats do instead?” Their lack of an answer is of course an answer in itself: Nothing.
It has become clear that Iran is supporting the insurgency in Iraq, materially and financially providing for terrorist groups throughout the globe, and a hair’s breadth from developing a nuclear arsenal. Alright - how about we carpet bomb Teheran into submission? Oh, no – but we can’t do that. Why? Because of political invertebrates like Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer, Kerry, Kennedy, et. al., ad nauseam. Think of the collateral damage! What would the Europeans say? How could I face Rob Reiner?
If we’d thought that way in 1945, we’d all be speaking German, as a popular talk radio host frequently points out. Of course, there wouldn’t be any Jews or people of color among us, no religious expression, no public dissent, handicapped persons would be euthanized and homosexuals would be shot upon detection.
In terms of America’s foreign policy, the Clinton administration picked up in 1993 where the Carter administration left off in 1980. Weak, internationalist theoreticians, they reason that they can intellectualize their way around anything – regardless of how far a situation has degenerated. Apropos the struggle against global Islamic fascism, they have sunk to a low unimaginable even in the 1960s: Expend every effort to tie the Bush administration’s hands, deny the threat (or blame it on the administration outright), subvert morale, project their own weaknesses onto Republicans and criticize strategies while offering no substantial contributions or alternatives themselves.
Personally, I am gratified that Bush has finally started to use more candid rhetoric – because it’s what Americans have needed to hear from him for quite some time. They are not getting it from the media, and they are being hammered daily with nothing but the most outlandish, surreal, Orwellian propaganda from the Democrat Party.
This is indeed “the challenge of our time,” as the President said on September 28th. The Democrats do represent the “cut and run” in Iraq and invertebrate foreign policy in general. With regard to our southern border issues – hypocrites on both sides of the aisle notwithstanding – the Democrats have always come down on the side of weak enforcement – and continue to do so, even if it means a lot of us will die horribly at some point in the near future. As with the terror detainee legislation and other efforts to ensure our (relative) safety, public opinion be damned.
A friend told me the other day: “I can see the scars we gave ourselves during the Vietnam era will be with us for a long time.” And how true; the standard-issue sidearm of far-Lefters has been the AIW Armaments (“America is Wrong”) semiautomatic propaganda pistol ever since.
If their dream of retaking all three branches of government should come to pass (the real objective of these lowbrow machinations) and Americans begin to live with weekly suicide bombings and kidnappings in our cities, their solutions will likely be exponential extremes of the policies they currently espouse: Namely, real compromises of First, Second and Fourth Amendment rights, and of course, a re-institution of escalating taxes.
Hating Bush is just an excuse, and it has been from the beginning. Put any other Republican man (or woman) with the same values who’d taken the same actions in the Oval Office and the Democratic leadership (along with their propaganda arm, the mainstream press) would be singing the same tune. The “America is Wrong” mantra is a ruse as well. The Pelosis in America presume they’ll be able to “handle” the current threats to America “somehow,” but they’ve no more idea of how to handle Iran today than Jimmy Carter did in 1979.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Erik Rush
