Wolf_ODonnell wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Quote:I have a question about this. What would you consider "a sizeable number of citizens? Do you think that the twenty or thirty people here on A2K who fall under your definition are enough to "damage the war effort?
No, that would not be enough. But the number of
Bush/America bashers doing it in America now is a sufficiently large number.
Bush/America bashers to me implies that you are equating the two or at least saying that they are similar.
When you say A/B, you are stating that they are the same or similar. A Jewish/Christian God would be the same God. Therefore a Bush/America Basher would be the same kind of basher.
Or am I, by explaining this, analysing it too much?
You will find this formulation running throughout these threads (and more broadly, through the modern rightwing universe).
It is an axiom in two-parts. The first part is as follows:
"Criticizing the US = America-hating"
"Criticizing the President = President-hating...unless he is a democrat, particularly if he is Clinton, in which case it becomes an honorable and patriotic duty"
Consistency is not merely unnecessary, it is a fairly significant impediment to this strain of thinking, and so is not a valid logical requirement in modern right American discourse.
Bush, they will insist, is a "War President" and thus his situtation is categorically different. In such a situation, we must 'temper our statements' so as not to give comfort to the enemy.
There is some sense in which this sounds right. It's a tough time for America, it's a tough time for the boys and girls and gays in uniform, so we ought to go easy on the picky criticisms.
What this fine portrait of honor leaves quite unmentioned is that the whole "War President" meme was, and is, an ad campaign. Bush has referred to himself with that moniker at speeches and rallies how many times? A hundred perhaps? White House staff and spokespersons how many more? Certainly hundreds. Consider then whether Churchill referred to himself in such a manner...even once.
What the portrait also leaves out is that this was a war that did not have to be started, but that it was launched upon
another ad campaign - which we now know for sure (unless we can't know what reflects poorly on our party loyalties or nationalism) was marked by deceit and fear-mongering.
Lying about a blowjob is impeachable. The above behavior (and values) are, in contrast, pretty much above criticism. Like outing a CIA operative. The bitch's husband..."he CRITICIZED us!"
Bush doesn't self-apply the War President appellation nearly so often any longer. Nor does his White House. They understand that associations with a product can change over time, given bad events (such as a pill promoted for healing nasty liver ailments but which turns out to kill, say, twenty thousand servicemen and women who took it).
They understand that Bush is now into the territory of Quagmire President. It's territory where the majority of US citizens do not trust him to be honest. He is, they begin to understand, a classic Washington scuzz.
