"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."Read the full story here.
There is one difference between Bush and Pilate, though: Pilate was openly conflicted about the meaning of truth. Bush doesn't have that problem... becaue he doesn't care about the truth.
Y'know, if a revolt ever happens - and completely against the grain of the Christ-like spirit that I struggle to keep in my heart - I must admit coming to relish all the more the opportunity to take headshots at Bushbots... if for no other reason that because if Romania in 1989 was any indication it'll cleanse out of the system enough of the idiots who give such fools too much responsibility for anyone's good.
By the way, you can't escape accountability via any earthly vote, Mister Bush.
Gotta wonder if in his diseased mind, getting re(?)-elected(?) absolves him from being accountable for ANYTHING, be it past or future. Someone of this bad a psychosis might believe that getting another term as President was God's cosmic nod of approval on him, that he must be anointed now and is doing the work of God. And that he thus can do no wrong.
I've heard a number of Bush supporters say they're going to relish seeing how anti-Bush people are going to be "suffering" through the next four years of his being President. I won't be suffering: for one thing, it's not worth worrying about, because I don't make this a personal thing. It's only a "thing" for me because as a historian I know what comes of this mindset if it's not countered... and I feel a moral obligation to counter it as best I can: I'll be too busy doing that to worry about what the Bushbots think of me.
And I'm seriously wondering if it will be just four years: given enough of an "emergency", Bush could remain President indefinitely... and he'd have enough worshippers on his side to feel justified in staying.
Those who believe they're unaccountable to man have the tendency to do things above and beyond the morality of man. Don't break out the ammo just yet folks, but do be wary that ya might need to use it in the near future: it's better to have something and not need it, than to be without it when in grave peril.
Oh yeah, "aim small, miss small".
7 comments:
The comparison of President Bush to Hitler that has been spreading through the "cultural mainstream" is not much more than a sign of the limited critical faculties of those who make it. There are a number of different reasons to criticize President Bush, none of which should compel a reasonable person to compare him to one of the most evil men in history. Comparing President Bush to Hitler is an example either of (1) sophomoric exaggeration, (2) pitiable ignorance, or (3) a malicious disregard for the truth. Luckily, most people still understand that no one but an extremist would make this comparison and no one but a fool would believe it. This is cartoonish agitprop. It shows that political discourse is growing cruder and coarser, like almost everything else in this country.
Goldberg: Bush/Hitler Comparison Adds Up to Holocaust Denial
Written by Jean Shaw
Monday, September 08, 2003
Jonah Goldberg, writing for Townhall.com, examines the left’s obsession with comparing President Bush to Hitler (and America to Nazi Germany), and concludes that it adds up to Holocaust denial.
We may be living in the worst period of Holocaust denial since the Nuremberg trials. I'm not referring to the twisted morons who insist that the Holocaust never happened the way the Monty Python guys insisted the parrot wasn't dead. I'm referring to the legions of Holocaust deniers in the Democratic Party, on the Web, on college campuses, in the mainstream press and, most acutely, in my e-mail box every morning, who reduce to the Holocaust to a triviality.
In America today - never mind Europe and the Middle East - ostensibly sophisticated and enlightened people see nothing particularly controversial about comparing George Bush to Adolph Hitler and the United States of America to Nazi Germany.
The examples are everywhere. Vanity Fair magazine asks if Richard Perle and Joseph Goebbels were ''separated at birth.'' Whole Web sites are dedicated to the most astoundingly stupid and superficial comparisons between George Bush and Hitler (they both liked dogs, for example).
At every event protesting war, Bush, America, this, that and the other thing, one can find pictures of various administration officials in SS garb or bearing Hitler mustaches. On the Web, leftwing forums like Democraticunderground.com overflow with insubstantial people bolstering their self-esteem by pretending to ''speak truth to power'' to the unfolding Nazification of America.
Putatively intellectual magazines, like the leftwing Nation and the New York Review of Books, feature articles that are more measured in tone and more nuanced in style than the hysteria one hears from C-Span callers or rabble-rousers at Howard Dean events, but the upshot is still the same.
James Traub, writing in The New York Times last June, detailed the trendiness of the Bush-Hitler comparison: ''That's grotesque; and the fact that is has achieved such currency among what the French call the bien pensant is vivid proof that in much of the left, 9/11 and its aftermath have increased the visceral loathing not of terrorism or of Islamist fundamentalism but of President George Bush.''
But no one seems willing to name this grotesquery plainly. It is, simply, Holocaust denial (not to mention slander against Bush and America).
If your son is murdered and I claim that it never happened, I am denying the existence of a crime. But if your son is murdered and I compare that tragedy to losing your car keys, that is a form of denial, too. And this is precisely what the ''Bush equals Hitler'' crowd is doing.
The Nazis murdered millions of men, women and children. Their victims weren't ''collateral damage'' in a war, and they were not executed after a long and fair trial. The Nazis sent their victims to gas chambers and ovens in boxcars. Nazi scientists injected dyes into the living eyes of small children to see if they could be made ''Aryan.'' They made soap out of people.
What on earth has George Bush done that deserves such comparisons? What could he possibly do?
If you're going to call the man a Nazi, show me the children with tattoos on their arms. Show me the stockpiles of emaciated corpses. Show me files cabinets full of memos detailing how Bush and Cheney plan on disposing of millions of dead American citizens killed with poisonous gas.
If you can't show me any of these things - and you can't - then stop calling the man a Nazi. Because when you say he's no different from Hitler, you are also saying that Hitler is no different from George Bush. And that means that Hitler's crimes were no worse than George Bush's ''crimes.'' And whatever you think of what George Bush has done or might do, if you think any of it is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust, you are in effect saying the Holocaust really wasn't that bad.
This isn't a partisan point. I would make the same argument if Al Gore were president. I loathed Bill Clinton as president, but I always took pains to chastise conservatives who compared him to Stalin or Hitler. As bad as Clinton's behavior was, only a man in leave of his senses would compare it to the systematized and bureaucratized mass-murder of millions of people. The same goes for Bush.
To what should be their enduring shame, leftists have a particular problem understanding this point. In their do-gooder arrogance, many on the left assume that anyone who stands in their way must not be merely wrong on the facts, but evil in their hearts. And, worse, they have a very difficult time differentiating between evils.
If you believe such nonsense, just get it over with and say the Holocaust never happened at all. Because at least that form of Holocaust denial admits that if it ''had happened,'' it would have been a really bad thing. Saying the Holocaust is no worse than tax cuts or some such doesn't even give the victims of Nazism that dignity.
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=4158
You're saying I'm a Holocaust denier?
LOL!!
That's the most ridiculous thing *anyone* ever leveled against me. It's not worth responding to. But if you like...
The book I'm reading right now is Oskar Schindler: The Untold Account of His Life, Wartime Activities, and the True Story Behind The List. It's author is a former professor of mine who sits on the advisory board for the National Holocaust Museum. He and a lot of other people can tell you how much I know about the Holocaust. I've met with more survivors of it than most people do in their lives.
That's the best I can offer you, because persuading someone that you're not a Holocaust denier is as easy as convincing that person that you don't believe that 18th-century Quakers colonized the Moon. It doesn't matter what the truth is: in the mind of the person leveling the charge, "truth" is going to be what he wants it to be, per his personal agenda.
So far as Bush goes, you can either believe he is what he wants us to believe he is, or you can look past that facade and toward the REAL man. Those that believe him, tend to follow him without question. Those that do question, have to wonder how we've come so far down as a nation that we let someone who *might* have a tenuous grasp of reality sit in the highest elected office in the land.
"You're saying I'm a Holocaust denier?"
No. I'm comparing you to a Holocaust denier.
Someone who compares Bush to Hitler is as deceiving, as ignorant, as sophmoric as a Holocaust denier is.
Someone who thinks Bush can do no wrong is as deceived, as ignorant, as selfish-minded as those who let the Holocaust happen were.
"Someone who thinks Bush can do no wrong is as deceived, as ignorant, as selfish-minded"
Very true. Complete agreement. And I never claimed that Bush can do no wrong.
Glad we're in agreement on that. I'm surprised with each passing day how many people *do* believe he can do no wrong, though. One person I read of today is pressing the case - quite seriously so - that Bush is the predecessor of the Jewish Messiah and thus the Second Coming of Christ. I thought he was joking but apparently not.
Heartening to know that you are not one of that lot, friend, for they are TRULY among the ignorant that are the real cause of the rot in this land.
Want to add this much to the discussion, even though it's something I've mentioned a zillion times already, but there's always someone I feel led to make it clear to...
I'm *not* a Democrat, or a Republican. At one time or another I've been registered as either one but about a year ago left the Republicans and have been unaffiliated ever since. It had come to the point that I could not, with any shred of conscience, be associated with one of the two major parties when *both* are (a) against every thing that the Founders designed in the Constitution, and (b) are so blatantly pro-socialist. Does that leave me "powerless" politically? Yeah, maybe... but where I'm trying to be so far as what God would have of me is a heckuva lot more important than that.
Bush is doing a lot of wrong, and I'm doing my best to warn people about that. Before him, it was Clinton... and I did a helluva lot to scream bloody murder against HIM. Last *real* President that America ever had - and possibly ever will - was Ronald Reagan. There hasn't been anyone with his vision or convictions since and on the downward slope that we seem to be on, I won't say that one as he *can't* be produced again, but if so it will NOT be from the comfort and privilege of an Ivy League upbringing. In fact... I would dare say that George W. Bush is the last gasp of the old entrenched elite: they're completely spent of any vitality, as his time in office has proven. All that's left is parroting old lines and waving tired banners.
And if one comes from the hinterlands to throw his kind out on their asses into the cold hard wastes of reality, well... can't say that I'm not looking forward to that.
Post a Comment