McGovern thinks Bush deserves a Deep Throat
Back in 1972 I bet my bus driver that McGovern would win. I lost a 1972 dime. I had an excuse, though ... I was six years old. It would take me another twenty-five years--and two Democrat presidents--to learn the difference between a carpetbagging blowhard and a man of action. Another stipulation, my bus driver told me, was that I had to shut my mouth about Nixon. Sadly, that applied only to the loser of the bet, not the loser of the election ...
So now, thanks to the ever-vigilant ear of the mainstream media, we must suffer the opinion of a half-rate legislator whose claim to fame is that once-upon-a-time the Democrats couldn't find anyone less repulsive to put up for president. McGovern thinks our government would be improved by having more traitors in high places. Actually, that's been the Democrats' driving philosophy for more than half a century.
To be frank, I'd forgotten McGovern was still among the living. It galls me that I have to give him some respect for his service in WWII. And that's as much as I'll give, as he's devoted far more time and effort to being a U.N. bureaucrat.
Let's also take note that here we have another example of a Bush opponent needlessly invoking religion. I've heard the administration come up with various rationales for dethroning Saddam, but divine direction hasn't been one of them.
Pass me an airsick bag. And gimme my dime back.
So now, thanks to the ever-vigilant ear of the mainstream media, we must suffer the opinion of a half-rate legislator whose claim to fame is that once-upon-a-time the Democrats couldn't find anyone less repulsive to put up for president. McGovern thinks our government would be improved by having more traitors in high places. Actually, that's been the Democrats' driving philosophy for more than half a century.
"This war in Iraq, in my opinion is worse than anything Nixon did. I think Nixon deserved to be expelled from office in view of the cover-up that he carried on and the laws that he violated ... But we have an administration in power now that led us to a war that is internationally illegal; it's a war that we are fighting with a country that has no threat to us that has nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks." McGovern said Nixon was undoubtedly 'tricky,' but said of Bush: "This man claims to be Christian, following the will of God, and then he misleads the whole nation on a totally fraudulent enterprise in Iraq that we should have never been attached to."
To be frank, I'd forgotten McGovern was still among the living. It galls me that I have to give him some respect for his service in WWII. And that's as much as I'll give, as he's devoted far more time and effort to being a U.N. bureaucrat.
Let's also take note that here we have another example of a Bush opponent needlessly invoking religion. I've heard the administration come up with various rationales for dethroning Saddam, but divine direction hasn't been one of them.
Pass me an airsick bag. And gimme my dime back.
posted by tompain at 12:59 AM
2 Comments:
It does not matter whether Bush has stated religious reasons for attacking Iraq. He upholds himself as "answering to a father greater than his biological father (George Bush Sr.)". Well then he should be held acountable in terms of answering to that father as identified by the Christian religion he upholds himself to, as other religions have other fathers (a.k.a. if he were a Buddhist, "father" would mean somethng else".
If a christain were a member of the KKK and then went out killing African-Americans, you would certainly be justified in incorporating his support of chritianity in opposing his actions.
Come on Tom Paine, your support of Bush seems to have no boundaries. And BTW, I happen to have supported the war. However, once again, Bush's tapping into religion is dangerous and should be held against him.
Malcolm
Malcolm
Let me start with your last point. My support for Bush does indeed have boundaries, and faith-based initiatives are one area that lies well outside those boundaries. I find the mixing of church and state reprehensible and dangerous, and I would stand with the Democrats on this issue, except that here they seem to be siding with Bush. In January of 2005, Hillary Clinton said in a public speech noted in the media, “There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles.” Oh, well ... even when I disagree with Bush, I’m still opposed to the Democrats.
I am an anti-theist, and should I live to see the day that all religions fade into the ignominy and obscurity they deserve, I would not shed a tear.
That said, many people derive their morality from religious philosophy. I don’t like it, but that is their right. George Bush is one of them. So are Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, according to their own words. Apparently, so is George McGovern, since he doesn’t seem to be objecting to Bush’s religiosity. Rather, he appears to feel that Bush isn’t religious enough. For McGovern, the problem is not that Bush is a Christian, it’s that he is not a good Christian. And to me, that looks like more inconsistency (or hypocrisy) from the Left.
tompain
Post a Comment
<< Home