[Dean's World] Aziz P: Bush derangement and patriotism

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Aziz P:
Bush derangement and patriotism
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1194188403.shtml


   For teh record, in my previous post I stated several beliefs which I
   intended, but failed, to clearly represent as mainstream attitudes on
   the left, but not necessarily exactly in tune with my own. Those
   positions, confined to a single paragraph, were largely irrelevant to
   my broader theme that there IS (to borrow Anthony Cordesman's phrase)
   a tenuous case for strategic patience in Iraq. I only brought them up
   to illustrate the pragmatic reality of why the modern mainstream left,
   which is poised to take total control of American politics for at
   least a decade, is now situated firmly against withdrawal. The debate
   about whether withdrawal is good or bad for America's national
   security s one we are not having on the left. We aren't having it on
   the right, either, because the position there is equally monolithic.
   The issue of withdrawal has become binary. And thats a feature of our
   new political landscape, which began with the election of president
   Clinton, was sustained throughout the Bush era, and will likely
   continue if we elect pretty much anyone other than Ron Paul or Barack
   Obama (for entirely different reasons).

   Am I blaming the Republicans for this? only as much as they deserve,
   but they dont get teh whole piece of blame pie, no.

   As I stated to Martin in comments on the last thread, my assumption of
   most people is that their opinions are teh result of their honest
   assessment of the facts. Someone can rationally believe something for
   a number of reasons and still be wrong, but that doesn't mean that
   their thought process is wrong. The belief that you are right for
   reasons of principle, and someone else is wrong for reasons of craven
   opportunism, is one that you find at teh fringes of discourse, and
   sadly has penetrated deeply into the center;

   I write the way I do to expose my thought process publicly. In so
   doing, I make myself vulnerable, and I do so gladly. I will bear the
   accusation of BDS and being an Americaphobe and being unpatriotic.
   Thats fine, you can react that way if you want. But it's you that is
   missing the point I tried to make, and thus you fail to see the real
   dilemma I face, and it's you who are so tightly bound by the
   left-right straightjacket, not me.

   And what follows below is some elucidation on those positions, not
   because I think I need to prove my patriotism to anyone, but because
   it's useful to me to explain my thinking on these issues just as its
   useful to me to explain my thinking on every other issue.

   And yes, my beliefs do trend in the same direction as the mainstream
   left. However, I believe any honest reading of what follows makes it
   clear that I am moderate and reasonable, and not committed to these
   positions as matter of dogma.

   1. the right wing attacks on Clinton were far worse than what preceded
   during the reagan/bush years. Part of this was because of the rise of
   talk radio. Yes there was partisan opposition but never at the
   grassroots, individual level. No mainstream liberal democrat believed
   that the rank and file conservatives - their neighbors - were
   inherently the problem, just the leadership. You simply cannot
   conflate the perfectly normal political enmity of rank and file
   Repubs/Dems against the political leadership of the opposing party
   during that era, wit the sustained campaign of vilification against
   liberals as a dirty word during the early 90s. And yes, once Clinton
   left office, the left adopted the same tactics in anger and
   frustration, and both sides continue to this day.

   - Clinton's famous [1]definition of "is" was perfectly correct. [2]He
   did not perjure himself. Even if he had perjured himself (ie had said
   that there never WAS a relationship), I am inclined to not consider it
   impeachable. Why? because he was brought to that trial for matters
   unrelated to his performance as Chief Executive of the United States.
   His infidelity was as irrelevant to his oath of office, and the only
   reason he was impeached was because the Republican Party was
   desperately seeking to bring him down. Clinton derangement syndrome
   was the sole reason he was impeached.

   - the smear campaign against Al Gore was horrific. He invented the
   Internet? Love Canal? It was grotesque. He was a good man who ran a
   decent campaign and was utterly crucified. But I do believe that the
   Republicans are infairly maligned for this. I mean, he was a
   legitimate target. I hold zero enmity for Bush or ROve or
   conservatives of whoever on this score. My ire is reserved soley for
   the punditsphere establishment on this, and thats a totally different
   thread. Suffice to say for now that I'm [3]with Bob Somerby on this
   one.

   - in 2000, Bush went to the federal courts first. Not Gore. Sorry but
   [4]thas' tha fac. Look it up if you don't believe me.

   - I lived in Houston from 98 to 2007. So when I say that in the ruup
   to war, people who were against Iraq were being labeled as objectively
   pro-terrorist, and traitors, its from personal experience. I am sure
   you have never personally called nayone those things but my experience
   contradicts yours, and since you presumably were for the war, how
   would you even know what those who were agianst teh war went through?
   I was there.

   - Kerry was smeared horribly during the campaign. I'm not opening that
   can of worms again any further though because frankly I am kind of
   glad he lost. In fact you might argue, that a President Kerry would
   have resulted in a far worse situation in Iraq. But again, way
   tangentially off field.

   That should just about cover it.

References

   1. http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/
   2. http://www.slate.com/id/1002007/
   3. http://www.dailyhowler.com/
   4. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884144.html