Help me rebut my lib uncle's scathing Bush thrashing (how would you respond?)

My uncle and I have it out regularly and he sent me this note last night. I have ideas on what to say to him but wonder if anyone has ideas on what to write back.

"Paul- The Shrub you so blindly follow is a mean-spirited greedy idiot, and you can't blame mainstream media sources for finally recognizing his lack of clothing. ..."

He was not elected by a majority, he was anointed by a fiercely right wing supreme court majority, most of whom owe their positions to the Shrub man's father and party, undermining the court's legitimacy and that of the Shrub's administration. He has kept the country in fear since 9/11 and sought to campaign as a WAR president, because most war presidents have an easier time passing legislation and getting reelected. He even created a war for that purpose. Remember, it was leaked before the mid-term election, by a White House source, that the sudden irrational run up to the war with Iraq was a matter of "marketing". On the way to Iraq he undid decades' of diplomacy and alienated all of our traditional allies and others whose support we might have expected, except for those he bought or frightened into being "willing". Now, as the biggest gunslinger on the block, we as a country can expect to be the target of every oppressed political animal in the world with weapons and imagination. Oh yeah, we've also lost our position (as if we ever really held or deserved it) as the beacon of hope and freedom for the world. We are undeniably a world bully now, and there is no realistic chance of a meaningful international consensus on any issue while the Shrub Man speaks for us.

You might be thinking of saying "well, Sadam was bad and his demise and capture are good things." (Shrub Man borrows from Martha Stewart, if you didn't notice.) The same thing could have, and I think would have, happened had Shrub Man not announced to the world that he was going to do it with or without international support. Indeed, for many years even Arab countries wanted to get rid of him but we( R's and D's) helped put Sadam in power and protected him.

And just think, so far at least five times as many people have died in the Shrub's dirty little war as died in 9/11. ( Hell, the tobacco industry kills as many people as died in 9/11, EVERY 2 1/2 DAYS). People continue dying every day in the war while Shrub Man hunkers down in the safest and most luxurious places on earth, bellowing "BRING IT ON !".

As for the different views on whether Shrub Man's tax policies add up, I certainly don't know whose math is right. I know the Washington Times is not considered by most people to be objective or main stream; it is decidedly right wing. (Wasn't it started up to punish the Washington Post for exposing Watergate?) I'm no fan of Newsweek either; with very few exceptions it repeats whatever the powers-that-be want it to. However, wasn't Newsweek reporting on the total federal income tax bills while the W. Times only mentions the effect of isolated provisions? If so, both of their math calculations could be correct, but the W Times is comparing apples to oranges. A more meaningful analysis would include the necessary increases in state, local and sales taxes. The fact is Shrub Man has not only made the tax structure more regressive, his wildly irresponsible spending and tax cutting for the rich have greatly increased the tax burden for future generations, and put the economy in peril for the foreseeable future.

Paul, what I think is going on is that the mainstream media and a lot of the country have been giving Shrub Man "WAR president" status since 9/11, along with the benefit of every doubt, since that is what happens when a president is responding to an emergency. Shrub Man, and his shrubbers, took full advantage of this status to advance their political agenda (check out wages, health care, education, the environment, individual rights, or anything else they could sell out) without the normal scrutiny radical changes would normally be subject to, and are running the country into the dirt. Shrub Man killed his golden goose by trying to crassly campaign as a "WAR president", and he's been called on it. He can't fool most of the people all of the time. Now, finally, the normal scrutiny is returning, eyes are opening, the emperor is nekkid, and he is only starting to get the attention he deserves. Open your eyes and get used to it. Julian is right and you seem so be looking for some sand to put your head in.

I think there may be other explanations for your reduced tax bill, if you would be candid about it. I know my tax bill is down, but that's because as a lawyer representing poor and working people who've had their civil rights violated under a regime that favors only rich and corporate interests, my income is down. I give Shrub Man full credit.

I'll take them all on, one by one: "He was not elected by a majority,"

Most Presidents are elected by a plurality of the vote (less than 50%) as witnessed by Bush getting more of the popular vote in 2000 than Clinton did in both terms in the 90s.

In fact, since you brought up mandate, Bush has a bigger mandate (from the people at the ballot box) then Clinton ever did, but the larger question is why did the DNC loose so badly in 2000 *and* *again* in 2002 ? (of course his liberal leaders won't want him to see this reality)

"he was anointed by a fiercely right wing supreme court majority,"

The cold reality is that Gore didn't have a good case, and the USSC saw that as the rest of the country did. Gore and the rest of the DNC did a huge disservice to their country when they protested the statewide recount and went on to contest a certified election when they had a very weak legal case. They did a great disservice to the tradition of clean and fair elections both in Florida, and across the USA.

BTW, Where is David Bois these days? David Bois, the Clinton shill who spent more of the governments time and money going after Microsoft than they did after AQ ? David Bois who brought the weakest cases in recent memory before the USSC and lost so bad? Is he negotiating a new shoe contract? No. Because he's a looser, and the case he brought was a looser, but the DNC was so blind with their lust for power, they couldn't see the obvious.

"most of whom owe their positions to the Shrub man's father and party, undermining the court's legitimacy and that of the Shrub's administration."

His name if George W. Bush, brother of Jeb Bush, 43rd President of these United States of America, and his father is George H. Bush, husband of Barbara Bush, the 41st President of these United States, both of whom have served this country well and deserve to be addressed by their names.

"He has kept the country in fear since 9/11 and sought to campaign as a WAR president, because most war presidents have an easier time passing legislation and getting reelected. He even created a war for that purpose. Remember, it was leaked before the midterm election, by a White House source, that the sudden irrational run up to the war with Iraq was a matter of "marketing". On the way to Iraq he undid decades' of diplomacy and alienated all of our traditional allies and others whose support we might have expected, except for those he bought or frightened into being "willing". "

On your first point, AQ and their affiliates, have done the job of keeping us in fear of my people being killed where they live since they openly declared war on the United States in the 90s. Their actions since 9/11 don't need to be translated by the POTUS or anybody else. Their actions speak volumes, they want to kill you and I right here and right now where you and I both live:

2002 Reporter Daniel Pearl, kidnapped and murdered
2002 Philippines American missionary, Filipino nurse killed
2002 July 4, El Al attack Los Angeles LAX, several murdered
2002 Bali bombing - 200 dead, 300 injured
2002 Yemen, French Oil Tanker attacked
2002 Marines attacked / murdered in Kuwait
2002 Russian Theater attacked, 100+ dead
2002 Nigerian riots against Miss World Pageant, 200 dead, dozens injured
2002 Mombasa Hotel Attacked, 12 dead, dozens injured
2002 Israeli Boeing 757 attacked by missiles, fortunately no one injured
2002 August Hotel bombing in Jakarta, Indonesia. 12 dead, dozens injured.
2003 Russian concert bombing
2003 Philippines airport and market bombing
2003 Foiled SAM plot in the USA
2003 UN Baghdad HQ Bombing
2003 Ticrit Mosque Bombing
2003 Neveh Shalom Synagogue Bombing in Istanbul, Turkey November 15, 2003
2004 Moscow subway bombing 39 people and wounding as more than 120
"Russia doesn't conduct negotiations with terrorists -- it destroys them," Putin said.
2004 Madrid - 3/11, 10 bombs, 200 Innocent dead, 1500 injured.

"Now, as the biggest gunslinger on the block, "

I'm happy that you recognize that the USA is the world last remaining super power in the world today with a responsibility to lead. This is an important point.

"we as a country can expect to be the target of every oppressed political animal in the world with weapons and imagination. "

Terrorism is a breach of civil rights. Why do you defend this breach of civil right? Who on earth lead you to th masochistic delusion that 3000 dead should be an excusable daily event and serve to inform our foreign policy?

"Oh yeah, we've also lost our position (as if we ever really held or deserved it) as the beacon of hope and freedom for the world. We are undeniably a world bully now"
Terrorism is a breach of civil rights that is recognized by more countries on this planet than any other. I consider defending that right, and many others, to be a noble cause and just because you consider "terrorism an acceptable form of political speech" doesn't give you the right to provide a political safe haven for more killing.

Don't be a masochist.

" and there is no realistic chance of a meaningful international consensus on any issue while the Shrub Man speaks for us. "

Why is it that todays liberal thinks the word "unilateral" is a french translation for "without france"? The fact is the United States needs to continue to earn allies both in Europe, as we've done with he UK and others, and in the middle east, by keeping our promise to Kuwait, and continuing to provide stability to the region, and besides going to war without the french is like going hunting without an accordian player. :) Bush was honest and upfront from the beining of his response to the act of war that was 9/11 and kept his word that he would stick by the allies who stuck by us. The cold reality that your liberal leaders don't want you to see is that Bush has done more to keep and earn allies in this century than any other president in my lifetime.

" You might be thinking of saying "well, Sadam was bad and his demise and capture are good things." (Shrub Man borrows from Martha Stewart, if you didn't notice.) The same thing could have, and I think would have, happened had Shrub Man not announced to the world that he was going to do it with or without international support. "
Bush *did* say that he was going to do it with or without international support. He said it over and over. He told the truth, and stuck to his word and finally followed through on the Clinton eara policy of regime change in the country.

Let's stop pussie footing around here and cut to the chase.

You think Bush overreacted to 9/11. This is pretty much the some total of the rest of your soon-to-be-an-8th-graders-term-paper rant

Overreacting would have been, on the afternoon of September 11th, 2001, when George W. Bush was in the bunker in the Midwest somewhere, launching a missile attack against Meca, Medina, Kabul and Baghdad. That would have been fully justified, given the act of war against our country that was 9/11. Did Bush overreact in that moment and reach for the button ? No. He kept a clear head and a calm heart under unbelievable pressure and has defeated 2 of our declared enemies in the course of 18 months.

That wouldn't have arrested or killed 2/3 of AQ. That wouldn't have driven the Taliban from Afghanistan, and it wouldn't have defeated the worlds worst socialist dictator. Bush has done all that and what's more, he's done it with a casualty rate of less than 1%. He doesn't have a single credible military detractor.

When I'm living in a time when a President is willing to risk so much and deliver victory after victory the least you and I could do is vote for the man who had done more to earn all our votes than any other American alive today.

Paulsy,
I've read thru the responses to date, and they mostly suggest walking away from an unwinnable argument with an intractable idiot. I (mostly) agree.

I recently took a job that placed me with a "partner". This guy turns out to be a similar character to how you describe your uncle. It was imperative for me to homogenize myself into the organization, and I couldn't do that if I alienated the very person who was supposed to be my "mentor" (of sorts). So I feigned an indifference to things political - expressing no opinion to his slams of President Bush and the Bush administration. I bit my tongue when he would spew the latest DNC talking point, of call him, "shrub".
But I'm established in my job now, and don't need him any longer (never did, but you get my point ;'}
SO I thought long and hard on how I would "come out" with him. I knew I couldn't stand to keep the pretense much longer, not as the election loomed. Finally I got an epiphany!
"Charlie", I said, after one of his tirades, "I just have to thank you. I never gave politics much thought until I met you. You gave me so much to think about, and I did think. And study. And learn about current events. And I just wanted to let you know that, based on everything I've studied and learned, I know now that President Bush is THE very thing that this country needs right now, and not only am I going to vote for him, but I've volunteered with the RNC to help in the election".
You'd a thought I had cut him with a knife. That was two weeks ago. He still walks around with a hurt puppy look, and generally avoids me. I'm still the same person that I was six months ago - just one who now has asserted himself. It isn't possible to think that I may have "created an enemy", because he defined the environment, not me. I recognized him as the adversary that he has proven to be.
It is possible that he will now actively work to sabotage me. I'll cross that bridge when (and if) it occurs.
Good luck to you if you choose to try to continue engagement with this man.
Familial relations aside, I wouldn't take any crap from him.

"I'd like some ammo for future reference."

Ok, let's start with his assertion that Bush was elected by the Supreme Court (in essence - I'm just cutting to the chase). Remind him that an independent panel of newspapers (mostly left) conducted their own recount of the Florida votes in 2001 and concluded, without a doubt, that there was no way that Gore won the election. Applying every possible scenario they could conjure, this independent panel of newspapers determined beyond a doubt that Bush won the election fairly in Florida - NOT Gore; and the SCOTUS did not "anoint" him.

Taxes - ask him where taxes come from. When he works for a client, he gets paid a fee. Because of the income taxes in this country, the government automatically confiscates a portion of that fee in taxes. That is his money they took; he worked for it, they didn't. In other scenarios, this is called stealing. In the US, it's called income taxes. When Bush cut taxes for the "richest 1%", he allowed more people to keep more of their own money. The "richest 1%" line is a demonstrable lie, btw. The Dems portray it that way to incite class warfare. In Demspeak, the "richest 1%" includes anyone who has a job and pays taxes - those are the folks who got a tax cut. Those who don't pay any tax (now almost 50% of the working population) got a "tax credit" (wealth redistribution) so they wouldn't feel bad about being left out of a tax cut they don't deserve. Ask your uncle what he did with his tax cut. If he feels that strongly about it, he should continue paying at the higher rate to prevent the government from going broke. IOW, tell him to put his money where his mouth is. I'm betting that he joined every other taxpayer and kept his tax cut and spent it on something that HE wanted to buy, rather than letting the government spend it for him.

Try that for starters.

Sheesh. FR has become a dour and joyless place for some people lately. This seems like just the sort of red meat we used to have a lot of fun with here. A few suggestions:

First, let's assume you like your uncle, so let's keep things light-hearted. Confusing the personal and the political is a legacy from the Communists. Let's not emulate them.

In that spirit, you have to compliment your uncle on his penultimate line: "I'm yellow dog with a full bladder who's found his Shrub." That's pretty good stuff. Have to give him credit there.

And then you kick him around a bit like the mangy ol' yellow dog he is.

He was not elected by a majority,

Ok. So you want to change the Constitition, Article 2, section 1. Start a petition, and let me know how that goes for you.

he was anointed by a fiercely right wing supreme court majority,

Riiiiight. So fiercely right wing that they'll get around to overturning Roe vs. Wade any day now. Which justice tipped the balance so far to the right for you? Ruth Bader Ginsberg? David Souter? There are only three justices that most conservatives give a damn about. Which other ones are so lacking in leftist favor these days? You have to practically view Chairman Mao as a centrist to view the Supreme Court as "fiercely right wing."

most of whom owe their positions to the Shrub man's father and party, undermining the court's legitimacy and that of the Shrub's administration.

Well let's count how many parties have appointed Supreme Court justices. By my count, it's two. By some weird coincidence, both of those parties had a stake in the election. So we could either have had a majority appointed by the president's party, or the other guy's party. Forgive me if I don't join you in your fevered paranoia over this one. If you think the court is only "legtimate" when the majority of justices were appointed by the opposition party, you have a lot larger beef with the legitimacy of the government than getting rid of the current president can resolve.

He has kept the country in fear since 9/11 and sought to campaign as a WAR president, because most war presidents have an easier time passing legislation and getting reelected. He even created a war for that purpose.

Look, braniac. Someone out there flew airplanes into American buildings. Most of us considered that an act of war. Feel free to contend that we should have phoned that one in to the Hague to let them deal with it if you want. The rest of us think war was declared by the other side. We'll just have to agree to disagree there.

Remember, it was leaked before the mid-term election, by a White House source, that the sudden irrational run up to the war with Iraq was a matter of "marketing"

Try getting your "leaks" from somewhere other than La Monde. There was nothing sudden or irrational about going to war with Iraq. And about this "marketing" thing....

On the way to Iraq he undid decades' of diplomacy and alienated all of our traditional allies and others whose support we might have expected, except for those he bought or frightened into being "willing".

So the war was "marketed," but not well enough in your opinion? Is this "marketing" supposed be global or domestic or what? You seem confused. You want us to line up behind keeping France and Russia happy while crazy Arabs attack us willy nilly. I think your priorities are a little out of whack.

And of course, you once again decend into the fever swamps of paranoia. Those who oppose us are "traditional allies" we must not offend. Those who join us are frightened or bribed. My question: what is the purpose of allies who won't ally themselves with us? In your opinion our "allies" either refuse or have to be intimidated or bribed. Those don't sound like allies to me. Maybe those "decades of diplomacy" weren't so skillful after all.

Oh yeah, we've also lost our position (as if we ever really held or deserved it) as the beacon of hope and freedom for the world.

Parse that thought for me. We've lost a position we may have not ever held, and if we did we didn't deserve? Get back to me when you decide whether anything happened here, and if so whether it was a good thing.

We are undeniably a world bully now, and there is no realistic chance of a meaningful international consensus on any issue while the Shrub Man speaks for us.

I'm don't value the consensus of Syria, Iran, and China very highly when we're acting in our national interest. I'd rather be right than loved by those sort of nations. Again, we'll just agree to disagree.

Sheesh... just a mound of gold in the first paragraph alone. I don't have the time to do the rest justice. But hopefully someone will.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.