The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Where's the Love?

8.8.08 @ 12:01AM

LEGACY MATTERS
Re: Mark Goldblatt's Bush Hatred: The Sequel:

Irony of ironies: Yet again, Northeastern liberals are Copperheads who recklessly demand expeditious defeat.

This war, however, Southerners fight to free former slaves, in Iraq.
-- David Govett
Davis, California

Mark Goldblatt wrote an excellent piece detailing some of the avowed reasons for the hatred of President Bush by liberal critics. His responses to those same complaints, while a bit superficial, were still accurate. He is one of the few writers who seem to get it, with respect to the justification for the invasion of Iraq; Saddam had continually violated the terms of the cease fire that suspended the 1991 Gulf War. No other justification was needed.

The one thing that Mr. Goldblatt does not address is the underlying cause of the hatred of President Bush. That is simply fear. Bush inherited global terrorist attacks upon the U.S. He inherited Iraq. And he inherited North Korea. And in all three instances, he acted. And, more importantly, he acted in a Presidential manner. This terrifies liberals. The mere thought that they might actually have to stand in the open and defend themselves is horrifying to them. The thought that someone, particularly an avowed enemy, might not like them and say bad things about them to their face is terrifying. Psychologists would call this a classic example of extremely low self esteem. They simply believe that if you ignore it, it will go away. And if it won't go away, they develop elaborate, and often contradictory, reasons why they should do nothing. The thought that they should defend themselves and sustain a bloody nose is terrifying.

President Bush is what they are not; a man of principle with a streak of basic honesty who is willing to put himself on the line [al a Gary Cooper in High Noon] to fulfill his obligations to protect and defend this nation. He is today what he was when he was elected to office in 2000; a fiscal conservative who is also a social liberal who governs as a governmental moderate. This should not send liberals into the twilight zone in and of itself, except that he is a constant reminder to them of their own shortcomings and cowardice. This can not be tolerated. Hence the savage personal attacks upon this President. Attacks that are never aimed at those who are, in fact, the true and avowed enemies of our nation.

When the world was smirking at the U.S. after our retreat from and subsequent abandonment of South Vietnam the liberals were content. The U.S. had been rendered harmless. When Jimmy Carter was unable to stem the resultant tide of Communist expansion and consolidation and failed miserably to effectively deal with the crisis in Iran, the liberals praised him. After all he continued to prove that the U.S. was no threat to anyone. When Ronald Reagan effectively dealt with the Iran hostage crisis simply by being elected, they were appalled. When he then began to verbally and economically attack communism in general and the Soviet Union in particular, his demonization began in earnest. George Bush, 41, was subjected to the same liberal attacks as Reagan and for much the same reasons. Bill Clinton was the liberal dream; a likable hick who couldn't keep his pants on around women or jog past a McDonalds. His Presidential military forays were against people who could not possibly be a threat to the U.S. and could be justified, in the liberal mind, as "helping the less fortunate." And, of course, the U.S would not be acting unilaterally. Our troops would be working for someone else [the UN, NATO, etc.]. His idea of handling the problem of North Korean nuclear development was to give them everything that they asked for, then to ignore them. Terrorist attacks? Send the FBI to the scene to collect bomb fragments, then ignore them. George Bush, 43, was everything that Bill Clinton was not. And for that, he has been castigated by the liberal media and liberal politicians since before his election.

For George W. Bush, the Presidency has not been a popularity contest or a means to line his pockets, but a duty to be performed. And though I regularly disagree with many of his policies, I admire him for his devotion to duty. He should rank as one of our greatest Presidents. It will depend, of course, on who writes the history books.
-- Michael Tobias

Anyone who understands liberal ideology knows why George W. Bush's liberation of Iraq makes them insane: the president actually "walked the walk" instead of just "talking the talk." What "talk" is that? The reams of published quotes by leading Democrats as to the necessity of removing Saddam Hussein from power.

Liberals have always worshipped symbolism over substance. Anyone challenging the bankruptcy of that concept will always get hammered. More so if they are successful--which is why Democrats have shamelessly tried to undermine anything that resembles success in Iraq.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

Iraq as the first liberal democracy in the Muslim world -- the notion ignores Turkey.

Error of fact, or opinion?
-- Steven Bassion

Here is the truth regarding Bush hatred. The world has changed. Modern communications are bringing out into the light practices that are as old as sin and are normally called "Black OPs."

Also the world today is more of a village, people meet and know people from other countries and find many of them to be nice people.

Just because something was acceptable behavior in the past doesn't mean it remains acceptable practice today.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Education, Trade, Health Care, John McCain, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Books, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, NATO, North Korea, Communism, Energy, Alaska, Oil, Unions