Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Dissent of the Day

In response to my Valkyrie post, Anonymous said:

So the terrorist attack on our soil in '01 was all Bush's fault? And the worst economic melt down in 30 years (get your facts straight) is all Bush's fault? The failed policies of the Clinton administration that led to the housing crisis and the fact that Bush just took office when terrorists exposed our vulnerabilities due to Clinton's weaknesses...those things mean nothing for you? Do you realize that in your irresponsible comments you just condoned a murder plot against our president? I thought you had more respect for our system of government and the office of the president than to say something like that. This is why we have elections and term limits (in case you want to talk about disputed elections, at least term limits serve to limit the damage one bad president can do). Instead of having to devise a plot to other throw our govt, and instead of having to hatch a complicated scheme to murder our commander-in-chief, we simply get to elect a new one.

Bush apologists are big on not pinning 9/11 on him. But "he has kept us safe for the last 7 years". You can't have both. 1) 9 months is 20% of his term. At what point in a term is a president responsible for securing the country? 40% in? 50%? 2) Are you aware that he gets a daily security briefing? So, that means that in the 9 months between his inauguration and the attack he had gotten about 300 of these things, including one titled "Bin laden determined to strike in US"! So, yes. I blame him.

As far as condoning a murder plot, let me be clear: I don't put Bush's crimes on par with Hitler's, and I don't support or condone anyone trying to take him out. What I was speaking to was the spirit that the Germans in the movie possessed to do the right thing. The "right thing" in this case is not assassination. I believe that prosecution is the appropriate action for Bush and his guys. I believe he has done tremendous, tremendous harm to our country. I don't think he meant to. I think in his head, he was doing what was right. And that makes him the most dangerous type of dangerous person in my book. The well intended one...


Chad E Burns said...

I think Anonymous was being the over-reactive, over-simplified typical
ideological conservative. You know they don't like nuance or
relativity. Any rational person reading your post understood exactly
what you meant. Ironic the love of over-simplification and
over-reaction and lack of relative nuance is perhaps Bush and the
conservatives greatest flaw and what led them to lead us into Iraq,
not respond correctly to Katrina, and abandon the country in favor of
corporations and enhancing the economic crisis.
Also-as a defense for the "Clinton" line of argument: the Clinton
deregulation of finances and housing were decried then and now by
liberals. Just because Clinton was a Democrat doesn't mean everything
he did was right, nor liberal, nor celebrated by the progressive or
even democratic base-We're not the close-minded, knee-jerk
ultra-conservative base of the Republican party with their fanatacism
with Bush. Clinto made mistakes-no lie-but while the conservatives had
the country focused on his proclivity with chubby interns-his biggest
mistakes were 1-over-caution with progressive issues and 2-cozying up
to conservative financial ideals. Therefore even Clinton's financial
mistakes are largely attributed to the Conservative ideology. Plus, as
bad as Clinton's decisions to end some of the financial
deregulation-his actions PALE in comparison to Bush's inane allegiance
to conservative ideology regardless of actual information. This
inflexibility coupled with the cronyism is what made the economy not
just turn down but melt down.

Jeremy G. said...

The ironic mind and the literal mind will never get along. It is impossible.