I was astonished to hear a Democratic operative on one of the weekend talk shows claim that George W. Bush is receiving the same treatment by the left as was afforded Bill Clinton by the right.
Anyone who doubts the power of the propagandist to delude the masses need only look back a couple of years to come away convinced. There was plenty of disgust registered by the conservative right over the presidency of Bill Clinton, but that disgust wasn’t born exclusively out of partisan politics.
I knew plenty of Democrats who were fed up explaining to their kids what “perjury” or “sexual harassment” or “oral sex” was. Lots more who added the nightly news to the restricted “adult content” parental-control features of their TV sets.
I could go down the list, beginning with Jennifer Flowers, or starting in the middle with any one of a dozen scandals. Or we could just focus on the flurry of questionable 11th-hour pardons. Or the crooked Wall Street executives who operated with impunity until Clinton left office. Or the trashing of the White House during the final hours. Or the thefts from the Oval Office that the Clintons were forced to return after the General Accounting Office complained. Or the damage done to Air Force One by the departing ex-president and his entourage.
One can call being disgusted with that kind of behavior “partisan,” but it seems to me a more accurate description would be “civilized.”
But the systematic efforts by the left to paint George Bush with the Clinton brush falters in the absence of similar behavior by the current president.
Lacking that, the attackers have focused on Bush’s policies. Like the allegedly “calamitous” tax cuts that did exactly what Bush said they would do – revitalize a struggling economy. Forecasters predict next year will be the best year for the economy since Ronald Reagan proved “trickle-down” economics in 1983.
Or the “disastrous and high-handed” policy of Iraqi “regime change.” Does anyone else remember that Iraqi “regime change” became official U.S. policy – when Bill Clinton enunciated it in 1998?
How can it be that the same administration that made Saddam’s removal U.S. policy can credibly criticize the next administration for implementing it? When the world heard of the capture of Saddam Hussein, there were no huzzahs of joy emanating from America’s Far Left. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., told a radio audience that Saddam’s capture was staged to gain political points for the Bush re-election effort. McDermott was a staunch Clintonite. So, too, was Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In 1998, Albright traveled around the Middle East to drum up support for Saddam’s ouster.
When Clinton authorized Operation Desert Fox, a sustained bombing campaign against Saddam Hussein, there were the same questions of “Why now?” coming from the right. Of course, at that time, Clinton was facing impeachment for perjury, so the question had a bit more relevance then than it did following the murder of 3,000-plus Americans on Sept. 11.
This is what Madeleine Albright said of those critics on Dec. 16, 1998:
I’ll tell you what upset me particularly is that somehow the rules that have existed for many years about criticizing the president when he’s abroad seem to have been broken. I found that very unseemly and unbecoming to members of Congress.
To point out these inconsistencies is to run the risk of being labeled a “blind partisan.” To question the provable lies being spread by the left is to be labeled a “partisan defender of George Bush.”
The left claims to support the troops on the battlefield, while simultaneously telling them they are risking their lives – not to defend America, but to support the corrupt policies of George Bush and his oil cronies. Pointing out the dichotomy inherent to that line of thinking wins one a “partisan” label.
Indeed, pointing out – even now – that the Clintons remain under investigation for a myriad of offenses, including the pardons of Marc Rich, among others, makes one a “Clinton-basher.”
Pointing out the absence of scandals since Bush took office makes one “blind” – as if there is no difference between the two administrations beyond that of party affiliation. Bush was blamed for the recession that began before he even took office. Howard Dean has suggested several times that Bush had advance warning of 9-11 – but kept it quiet so he could start a war.
Although the other eight candidates are looking for anything they can find to derail Dean’s surge forward, not one of them wanted to be seen as defending Bush against the incredible charge that Bush was complicit in more than 3,000 murders. Pardon me, but is there any supporting evidence?
A quick browse through the world’s headlines shows the incredible depth and breadth of hatred for George W. Bush, but no amount of semantic manipulation of the supporting stories can list one credible reason to explain it, apart from the partisan (and patently untrue) charge that he somehow “stole” the election from Al Gore.
Bush was elected by exactly the same Electoral College process as John F. Kennedy. Kennedy also received fewer popular votes than his challenger. And there is evidence that the 1960 election was rigged. But Nixon didn’t want to put America through the trauma that the losers of Election 2000 cheerfully inflicted on this generation.
It has nothing to do with partisanship. It has everything to do with patriotism. Why does the world hate America?
Pick up copy of the New York Times. Watch ABC News for a week. Listen to the partisan critics of the current administration.
Soon, you will hate us, too.
