I dislike virtually everything about Bush’s presidency. I’d use the word detest, but then I might be accused by apologists like Fred Barnes of harboring an irrational hatred of Bush. But is it really irrational to hate an arrogant and incompetent buffoon who has precipitated America’s precipitous national decline? In other words, is Bush hatred an entirely rational response the unfolding disaster that is the Bush administration?
Anger is an entirely appropriate response to persons who selfishly or thoughtlessly threatens or harms our interests. If someone stole and crashed your car you’d have every right to be livid with them. Likewise, the majority of Americans and Floridians who cast their ballots for the eminently competent Al Gore had every right to be infuriated by the legal shenanigans and sophistry that Bush used to steal the 2000 election.
The blatant dishonesty the Bush campaign used to circumvent the electorate made a mockery of the law. Katherine Harris certified Bush’s 536-vote margin of victory, but that number is about as credible as an Enron balance sheet certified by accounting firm Arthur Anderson.
Bush vs. Gore will probably age about as well as Norma Desmond (or Britney Spears for that matter). Justice John Paul Stevens was eloquent and prescient when he wrote in dissent that the American public and the rule of law would be the biggest losers from the majority’s improvident decision. Indeed, the legal machination employed to seize the election would turn out to be a prelude to the Constitutional and executive abuses that have characterized Bush’s dismal tenure.
All the Alice in Wonderland reasoning Bush honed during the Florida fiasco would be put to use to sell the Iraq War, Bush’s illegal wiretapping program, and the administration’s efforts to scuttle the Geneva Conventions. The false-choices, half-truths, bait-and-switches, and scare tactics that are Bush’s modus operandi have proven to be the political equivalent of steroids; they confer a temporary advantage, but ultimately they have weakened the body politic.
The aforementioned tactics, of course, are an affront to reason that Bush and his minions aimed at the lowest common denominator. The Iraq War was supposed to be a cakewalk that would pay for itself, but now forecasters see the cumulative costs of the Iraq catastrophe topping $3 trillion dollars. Bush didn’t raise taxes to pay for the war, of course. Rather, he pushed through the largest tax-cut in history while VP Dick Cheney insisted "deficits don’t matter." The VP is right, of course, as long as China and other foreign creditors are willing to lend Americans money so we can afford oil prices that are going through the stratosphere.
The Bush administration’s debt-fueled growth is the economic equivalent of taking steroids to bulk up; performance heats up over the short term, but the system rots from within over the long-term. The sinking dollar, the dismal housing market, and debt-soaked consumers are an axis-of-ills that are symptomatic of Bush’s snake oil prescription of paying for everything with tax cuts.
Bush’s credibility is more shot full of holes than even Dick Cheney’s hunting partner, Harry Whittington. Americans have every right to be furious with the mixture of arrogance and ineptitude Bush has displayed. To paraphrase Mark Twain, its not what you don’t know that gets you into trouble, it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so that leads to disaster.
Bush has ignored real threats (intelligence warnings prior to 9/11 and global warming, for instance) while overacting to imaginary threats (the hype over Saddam’s phantom WMD that led to an unnecessary war). He ignores evidence he doesn’t like and cherry picks evidence to suit his ideological preconceptions. He has circumvented rational decision-making procedures, relying heavily on his gut instincts, which is a deeply irrational way to govern.
Those of us who have pointed out Bush’s fallacious rhetoric and reasoning from the get go have had to endure insults from the legion of half-wits that were taken in by Bush’s hucksterism. It’s not those who disdain Bush that are being proven wrong, but those who aided, abetted, and enabled his disastrous administration.
neuroscott.blogspot.com
About the Author -- Scott D. O'Reilly is an independent writer with degrees in philosophy and psychology. His work has been published in The Humanist, Philosophy Now, Intervention Magazine, Think, and The Philosopher's Magazine. He is a contributor to the book The Great Thinkers A-Z (Continuum, 2004). You can find his regular political humor and analysis at his blog: neuroscott.blogspot.com
In 2003 I called into a talk radio show in Sarasota. The question was 'Are you embarrassed by President Bush?'
Under Bush's tenure, he took our rights and didnt use his veto pen until he got a Democratic congress. He took us to war under a lie. He destroyed the value of our dollar.
He isnt responsible for these things you say?? He is the commander in chief, you would think he could be a little more vocal about them.
Needless to say the show hung up on me.
Dubya is the worst president in US history to me. I hate the man and his traitorish administration.
by
Parke Nicholson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 10:36:44 AM
First, Clinton was at least a relatively successful president. The hypocritical right-wing nut cases that hounded him because of his personal foibles proved to be nothing but a menace . . . and I'm glad the public rejected their tactics.
Second, Bush may be a decent family guy, but he has been disaster as a president. Hey, hate is not a great emotion, but given the lies, deceptions, torture, sexual abuse, incompetence, etc, that have come out of this administration . . . anger is justified. The apologists for Bush always try and shift the blame away from Bush by blaming those who are enraged by his misrule. Hey, I deal largely in humor . . . and I believe Dubya deserves to be ridiculed until only his dog Barney takes him seriously.
As for lumping me in with Randall Terry, that's a stretch . . . even his own churchmembers describe Terry "as completely disqualified himself from any leadership position in the Christian community through his unwillingness to be held accountable for his theft, lies, deceptions, misrepresentations, perjury . . . and evasion of church discipline." That description would probably fit Bush better than me. Happy New Year though
by
neuroscott (43 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 13 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 11:48:00 AM
Bush is not an evil person. And I stand by the Randall Terry comparison.
Continue to sing Bill Clinton's praises all you want. Actually, I think he sometimes did fairly well. But there are certain things like the possibility of military secrets being sold to China, the Mark Rich pardon, lying under oath, etc. that sit well with me. I still don't hate Clinton. But some things do stick in my craw about him.
by
Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 489 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 12:21:03 PM
I never said Bush was evil. In fact, most of my comments refer to his presidency. Ok, I said Clinton was succesful . . . but I'm impartial enough to qualify that. I agree, the March Rich pardon was sleazy . . . as were a lot of other things. In my book Clinton gets a B-
As for continuing to lump me in with Randall Terry . . . that's far out. I'm not demonizing Bush . . . I'm lampooning him. There's a difference I hope you can appreciate.
by
neuroscott (43 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 13 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 12:31:33 PM
It is irrational NOT to hate GWB. He has bankrupted the US financially; he has schemed to subvert Social Security; he told deliberate lies to begin a war of naked aggression against Iraq --a war crime punishable by death under US Codes; he has obstructed every attempt to fully investigate the events of 911; he has lied about every aspect of the "War on Terror" --now exposed by Benazir Bhutto as a fraud; his administration has consistently dragged out obviously phony "tapes" of Bin Laden well past the date that Bhutto says Bin Laden was murdered; Bush has waged war ON Americans themselves, their civil liberties, the protections of Due Process of Law, and privacy itself. His minions in his administration have deliberately lied about First Amendment case law, Fourth Amendment Case law, and Fifth Amendment case law. Bush has lied about the creation of a gulag of CIA TORTURE CENTERS from GITMO to Eastern Europe. Waterboard IS torture!!!!!!! It was invented by the Spanish Inquisition. It was called "tortura del aqua".
BUSH NO LONGER HAS ANY CREDIBILITY!!!! HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED, REMOVED AND TRIED FOR WAR CRIMES!
To allow the country to continue down this road is absolutely irrational.
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 172 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 543 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 12:50:37 PM
I'm tired of liberals drinking the sour milk of human kindness. Hatred has always existed for a good survival reason. I have a habitual black hatred for a lot of things, including the Busheviks and the crooked two party system that put them in power.
There is an important difference between hatred and anger however. Bush and his chumbs feed on fear and anger because those two emotional states lead to demoralization. Black hatred however is serene. There are no events or cons that can touch it because it has no issues any more. It uses the weapons of open contempuous speech - so that there will (hopefully) never be the need for a gun or a knife.
by
John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1196 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 1:18:49 PM
Bush's arrogance based on unimaginable ignorance, his simple-minded world view and unprecedented ineptitude as the chief executive of the US political machine causes me significant alarm about the selection process that has evolved in our once great nation.
by
Michael McCoy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 2:20:45 PM
Is it rational to hate a sick person? Bush is mentally ill, and doesn't know it. I suppose one could dislike him for not being smart enough to realize that his thought processes are all haywire, but can you hate someone who doesn't know that what he's doing is wrong? He believes he is doing the right things, and that all of the rest of us are just stupid for not seeing it. Find a copy of the DSM-IV TR, and look on pg. 291, 301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder. It fits like a glove! Anyone who, as a child, blows up frogs by placing fireworks in their butts is not a well person. When hazing college freshmen is a persons favorite college pastime, that person is not well. When one is commander in chief of the military and responsible for the lives of thousands of young men and women, and when cautioned that occupying Iraq would cause those same young men and women to be attacked by radical Islamic soldiers and he says "Bring 'em on!", that person is sick. When one enjoys watching videos of detainees being tortured, again, sick. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are both suffering from a diease that if you or i had it, we wouldn't be allowed to hold any kind of govt. job, or purchase or own a gun, yet they have the two most powerful jobs in govt., and are in control of the largest, most sophisticated weapons on the planet!! They should be impeached and removed from office before they have a chance to figure out that the jig is up and use those weapons in another illegal war, or worse, against Americans! There is no 'cure' for this disorder, only management with drugs and therapy. Not really qualities I want in a president, how about you?
by
Rick Mason (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 2:21:12 PM
Hatred is bad for the soul! One cannot indulge in hate for very long and maintain one's sanity. That's is why, for my part, I substitute other more healthy emotions like disgust, loathing, abhorrence and revulsion for that slithering traitor and his cadre of fascist goose steppers.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1171 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 2:56:49 PM
The author gives too much credit to Bush. Just crediting him with any real thinking is giving him too much credit. Lets face it, he can't speak in a coherent manner unless he is reading and even that is done poorly. I don't hate him but I am thoroughly disgusted by his ignorance and willingness to be such a stupid puppet to feed his megalomania and his greed. I cannot listen to his voice or even look at his face without feeling I have encountered something slimy and disgusting and need to immediately bathe.
The ones I loathe are the Global Powerful Elite who have been slowly but surely destroying the world and the good people that inhabit it for their insatiable greed and drive to control everything for their benefit only and those who so willingly join them. They have become so transparent since the current set of puppets, thru election fraud, have been in Washington and placing puppets in every conceivable position of power that only those in a coma could deny what is being done by these arrogant and despicable self serving sickos in the U.S. just as they have done all over the globe.
by
Rae (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 218 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 3:09:03 PM
When Dr. Lawrence Peter wrote that a person raises to their level of incompetence, there should have been a caveat about how politics bypasses that and allows for an individual to be elected well above their level of incompetency, as indicated by the Clown Prince George. Bush has no concept of leadership, as when something doesn't go his way, he throws a tantrum, including that chest pounding episode where he declared loudly, "I am the president, I am the president!" This is a person who is not qualified to be president and to that end, I and many others call upon Congress to invoke the 25th amendment to remove this complete incompetent from the position of Commander in Chief. I do find him rather loathsome and detest everything for which he stands.
by
Dave Kisor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 135 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 3:21:47 PM
and you can throw any other word in there that gets ones blood boiling. It's all semantics and whatever word you want to give to the emotions I feel towards those that are destroying all that is beautiful, righteous and good can be applied here - including hate.
Hate is like everything else, if not taken to extreme has it's place in qualifying what reaction you'll have to those that emotion is directed towards. If I were to confront bush, I would know that I do hate the man, but I would keep that hate on the shelf to look at and remind me of why I hate him, I won't use it as a sword for it has a dull edge. But I would use the hate I feel to sharpen the sword.
Hate is a strong feeling and as such has the capacity to overtake all other emotions and intellect if allowed. But one can't just deny it doesn't exist, especially when dealing with murders. Is it irrational to "hate" murders? I don't believe it is, but it is irrational to allow that hate to overcome one to the degree that one would descend into becoming what one hates. I'm against capital punishment for the same reason. bush, no doubt will tell you he hates terrorists. But does that make it okay for him to torture an kill innocent people, in essence becoming what he hates? It's a case of uncontrolled hate.
Overall hate is negative emotion, and one must know and treat it as such, but that doesn't mean you can deny it when it rears it's ugly head. I hate SUV's, but I'm not going to go around pouring sugar in the gas tank of everyone I see, as much as I would like to. But that hated will spur me to ask why someone owns one and if my inquiry makes them feel uncomfortable, or in some cases get rid of it, then that hated was turned into a positive thing.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1421 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 3:48:06 PM
I don't want to get into the rationality debate. The facts are stronger.
First lets recognize that Bush has sizeable popular support, representing almost a hundred million people. He was elected twice, which is no small thing. Hating Bush could imply hating millions of his followers.
He does represent the agenda and aspirations of the Christian right, the evangelicals, the neo-con on politics and foreign policy, neo-liberal on economics. These are educated elitists. Could so many people of such caliber be wrong? Bush has implemented their agenda and today’s America is exactly the results they desire.
He is hugely supported by powerful corporations, and he rewards them by putting corporatists in high positions, and hiring thousands of fundamentalist capitalists in government. It can be argued that American big biz is the most powerful in the world. Surely, big biz can run the government a lot better? Indeed, the US government today is a lot smaller with much of its work subcontracted to the private sector and computer automation everywhere. Just like a corporation. What else can one expect with business types running things.
That Bush is a man on God's mission to rid of world of all evils (as he defines them), is well-recognized. That’s why he was elected! He makes no secret of his ideology of maintaining American hegemony, the superpower ready to teach the world a lesson, conduct preemptive military strike on nations and interests as he sees fit. And he has done exactly that. He keeps his promises. Many Republicans not only believe same, but admire Bush for his courage to 'kick ass' all over the world. The mantra is: America may not be loved, but it must be feared. One must not forget that’s how the Mongol created an empire, and remembered in the history books.
On the economic side he simply believe the USD is so powerful, so pervasive, it is untouchable. It buys everything in the world, and the US government can print any amount of it, giving America unlimited buying power just about for free. With such an attitude, it makes sense to cut tax, especially for the rich, and pay for wars with somebody's else USD savings. After all, what's trillion dollar debt when you don't really have to pay for it. Just inflate (or depreciate) the dollar and wipe out the debt! Which is exactly what Bush has done. To Bush, China is the stupid one buying all those ‘worthless’ Treasury bonds, which the US can print any amount of for free.
What about trade? Well, aren't America proud of Wal-Mart being the most admired and profitable corporation, simply by importing stuffs? Bush economic henchmen say: If the middle class don't like all those downsizing and outsourcing, then they should also hate the likes of Wal-Mart. But they love Wal-Mart and its goodies. So that's not his problem.
Finally lets talk about Iraq. Yes Bush invaded the country, for many reasons. The Christian crusade is dear to his heart but he can't say that in public. His business partners told him a destroyed Iraq would mean fabulous profit opportunities. His Pentagon generals don't mind doing a hit to revenge being hit on 9/11, and just love to show off the latest weapons. It is a good feeling to fire 3000 cruse missiles and drop 100,000 bombs and watch the killings. Bush knows it is important to use up excess inventory to keep the arms industry going. And true to his core ideology, de did hire and sent hundreds of experts to Iraq to ensure the country is wiped off the face of the old map, ready for big biz to come in. Is this not what a superpower supposed to do - invade, shock, destroy, kill, then rebuild? That's the American way in fine action.
So you see, Bush is not a one-man show. He does represent the minds and desires of great many people, who helped put him in office. He has worked hard for his country. His administration reflects a large segment of the population, one who believe America must be the brutal Roman empire in tough world.
The rest of the world has took notice. America is truly on its own henceforth. One cannot unscramble an egg. This is not a question of hate.
by
TomK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 3:51:08 PM
Our Constitutional government was instituted to benefit the society that it governs, not a minority of corporatists and plutocrats with a demonstrated ability to steal national elections. When in the eighteenth century the British government taxed their North American colonies to pay for an unpopular war (the French and Indian War) and to benefit their favored corporation, the British East India Company, real Americans decided that it represented an intolerable imposition on their loyalty to the Crown, and threw over that colonial government to replace it with what would soon evolve into our, until recently, vibrant constitutional republic.
The current regime maintains power and keeps the populace in check with fabricated threats of foreign violence against our citizens as it systematically undermines the Constitutional Republic. That is TREASON!
More and more of our citizens are awakening from the fear induced trance our government and corporate media have instigated, and when their number reaches a critical mass there will be hell unleashed. Right now, the traitors find themselves in a race to consolidate and institutionalize their power before one of the children points out that they have no clothes. The ultimate result is by no means certain.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1171 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 10:58:18 AM
It's easy to hate, harder to love. Dubya ? I could like the person similarly as Vlad Putin says he like Dubya. How is this possible ? Simple; the man, the person, is not the position or the projection.
by
Tony Forest (6 articles, 15 quicklinks, 151 diaries, 1343 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 7:06:17 PM
This has nothing to do with politics. Bush is a psychopathic personality on the same level as serial killers and stellar psychopaths such as Hitler and Stalin. Sick sociopaths like Bush can masquerade as "family guys", seem like bumbling fools, pretend to be "concerned" over the welfare of others, but underneath, they are in mortal terror of others, and would easily murder their own families and friends if they got in their way. Jeffrey Daumer was a prime example, very friendly and eloquent if you met him briefly, but underneath that a cold-blooded killer. Bush is an extremely dangerous person, he only supports destructive causes, and does everything he can to destroy constructive actions. He has no conscience whatsoever, he speaks in confusing generalities to detract from his crimes, and he announces and does not feel guilty about causing people's suffering and deaths, be it Iraqis or US troops or any of the tens of thousands massacred and tortured under his reign. In fact he publicly expresses glee when this happens. Talk all you want about this psychopath being a "tough" person. If you agree with wholesale destruction and murder you agree with Bush.
by
Vera Dawn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 8:03:52 PM
