The Sanity Of Bush Hatred

[ProSense]

From Republican Andrew Sullivan:

The Sanity Of Bush Hatred

14 Nov 2007 11:33 am

On the day I found out that even Bridge players had been driven up the wall by this president, I read my friend Peter Berkowitz's lament that outrage at the current executive is ruining our capacity to think straight. It may be, but that doesn't mean the anger is not justified. There is a combination of recklessness and arrogance in the current White House, and a contempt for the traditional norms of democratic behavior, that understandably puts people over the edge. Perhaps on any single incident, you could give them a pass. But when you look at the entire picture, I don't think "insane" is in any way a fair way to describe Bush's opponents.

Take the knife-edge post-election drama and the politicization of the war in Iraq. Yes, Gore bears a lot of responsibility for the former. But what does it say about a president's respect for the country that he interprets an historic loss in the popular vote as a mandate as validating as 49 states? Or that in wartime, he would simply refuse to bring in the opposing party and the Congress to devise better laws of warfare for Jihadist terror? Or that he would violate basic American values in authorizing torture, upending Geneva, and destroying America's moral standing - and keep on insisting that he has every right to do so, and refusing to acknowledge the authority of the Congress in these matters by reneging on the torture ban with a signing statement effectively voiding it?

Peter writes:

And lord knows the Bush administration has blundered in its handling of legal issues that have arisen in the war on terror. But from the common progressive denunciations you would never know that the Bush administration has rejected torture as illegal. And you could easily overlook that in our system of government the executive branch, which has principal responsibility for defending the nation, is in wartime bound to overreach--especially when it confronts on a daily basis intelligence reports that describe terrifying threats--but that when checked by the Supreme Court the Bush administration has, in accordance with the system, promptly complied with the law.

That's it? Peter's defense is that the administration reinvented the meaning of a word to justify its use of illegal interrogation techniques. That's a defense? We are now supposed to be grateful that, at least, the administration pretends it doesn't torture, and hasn't pulled a Musharraf and rebelled against the Supreme Court? What next? Are we going to infer that the lack of martial law shows how hysterical Bush-hatred has become?

Hatred is a strong word and a clouding emotion. But sustained outrage isn't. One can forgive any president for mistakes - even catastrophic mistakes, as in the intelligence for and execution of the Iraq war. But to have trashed the constitution's balance, violated core values of due process and decency, polluted our intelligence in ways that deeply undermine national security, and deliberately divided a country for partisan advantage in wartime - these are not mere mistakes. And anger is not an irrational, let alone, insane response.

Sullivan is wrong, the Iraq war was not a mistake, but he's right about the rest.

WSJ: Americans who oppose Bush are insane and lucky to have him because he's not the worst despot in the world!

Snark about the outrage sparked by the bridge players' criticism of Bush, puts the WSJ op-ed into perspective:

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Bridge Too Far

I always thought that people who play Bridge, a needlessly complicated card game, were harmless enough, though they certainly could be making better use of their time. But I had no idea that that the world of competitive Bridge was a hotbed of anti-American feeling. Last month at the world Bridge championships in Shanghai a team of women representing the United States did something shocking when they went up to the dais to receive the Venice Cup, the award for the best women's team. One of their members held up a hand-lettered sign that said "We Did Not Vote for Bush." This act, which has led some bridge players to accuse the women of "treason" and "sedition," has brought back memories of other Americans who have dared to criticize this country abroad, such as Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks in 2003 and Tommie Smith and John Carlos, who gave a black power salute after winning medals in the 200 meter race at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City. The team's nonplaying captain Gail Greenberg claims, "There was a lot of anti-Bush feeling, questioning of our Iraq policy and about torture," at the tournament and calls her team's action "a moment of levity," but there is nothing funny about treason.

"This isn't a free-speech issue," explains Jan Martel, president of the United States Bridge Federation, commenting on what the organization refers to as the "Shanghai Incident." "There isn't any question that private organizations can control the speech of people who represent them." A statement released by the USBF reiterates, "This situation is not about free speech; it is about determining whether the USBF has a responsibility to its membership to impose sanctions on those who have acted contrary to the best interests of the organization and its members."

The United States Bridge Federation has an excellent opportunity to show the world what America stands for by punishing these women. Some people have the wrong idea about what the Bill of Rights really means. In America you have freedom of expression as long as a private organization doesn't own your expression. Peaceful protests are fine as long as they don't embarrass organizations that depend on corporate sponsorship and take place on American soil behind police barricades where they can be videotaped for future use in any trials that might arise.

In Pakistan we can already see the tragic results that can occur when some people misunderstand what America stands for. Americans don't think that just anyone deserves the right to free speech and democracy. These are rights that have to be earned after years of being under the thumbs of U.S.-supported dictators. Once the people of these countries have demonstrated that they are not going to vote for Communists or Jihadists, then we allow them to have democracy on a trial basis, with the understanding that the CIA might have to start a coup and put another dictator in place if things get out of hand.

The United States Bridge Federation has threatened to suspend these women for a year, which would send a powerful message to places like Pakistan that freedom of speech is not a recipe for anarchy. Not surprisingly, the French also seem to have the wrong idea of what freedom means to Americans. The French team sent an email in support of the women, which said, "By trying to address these issues in a nonviolent, nonthreatening and lighthearted manner, you were doing only what women of the world have always tried to do when opposing the folly of men who have lost their perspective of reality." Leave it to the French to turn it into a sex thing. Of course, this is not the first time the French have misunderstood American ideals. When they gave us the Statue of Liberty with that terrible poem that begins "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…," a lot of people took those words much too literally, leading to the immigration problem that still haunts us today.

more

[ProSense]

1. Speaking of insane:

Insane Republican:

This is the sort of ad your crazy xenophobic, jingoistic uncle would air if he were running for President. Instead, it's Rep. Tom Tancredo's.