Skip to comments.Response To An Angry Bush-Basher
Posted on 06/30/2004 12:20:01 PM PDT by SJackson
Recently someone sent me an e-mail containing the usual diatribes against the Bush administration. And, as usual, I couldn`t help myself; I had to offer a response. The individual who wrote the anti-Bush diatribe offered a few choice remarks as follows (name excluded to protect the guilty):
"Don`t you know," said the lady, "that George Liar Bush and almost all his cabinet members are egotistic, selfish, liars, and disinterested in peace and justice? Additionally that they don`t care about human rights and our planet! The truth about all the lies will hopefully be coming out gradually as we approach November. We have already seen one liar resign, George Tenet, CIA Director. Dummy Rums will most likely be next. Then Powell and Con-artist
Rice. Afterwards, Ashie. They will be followed by Dick "Holliburton" Channey [sic] and finally George King Liar Bush ... Who was the CEO of Holliburton [sic] from 1995 to 2000? . . . make the connection of Bush`s order to invade and destroy Iraq so that Holliburton [sic] could be given the right to RECONSTRUCT/REBUILD it without following the legal bidding procedure. Then look into the relationship of Conartist Rice to CITGO. Finally, find out what relationship exists between the rulers of Saudi-Arabia (The Binladen Dynasty) and the Bushes. You`ll freak out and reconsider voting for George LIAR Bush . . . vote for Kerry."
Appalled at this kind of thinking, though no longer surprised to find it in my in-box, I tried to offer a measured albeit somewhat educational response:
Apparently the plethora of anti-Bush books spawned in recent months (testimony to the power of capitalism!) has convinced you that this is all about lies, conspiracies, etc. Of course, the fact that Vice President Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, before signing on to run for the nation`s second top job, is no big secret; nor is it any reason to imagine a conspiracy.
Halliburton had what is sometimes called a requirements contract with the U.S. government before the Iraq action. This kind of contract (which is won by open bid, by the way, in advance of actual need) allows the government to call on a company to perform services, based on previously agreed upon costs, during those times when going through the usual 4-6 months` bidding process would be too cumbersome and time-consuming to meet a critical need.
Of course, it stood to reason that we needed to begin addressing Iraqi infrastructure issues pronto after the quick war, rather than delay for lengthy bidding and re-bidding (since initial bid processes often collapse over technicalities). Imagine how angry you`d be today if the Bush administration had delayed addressing critical Iraqi infrastructure needs in order to go through such a lengthy, attenuated process. I`ll bet you`d have been the first to accuse the White House of incompetence because of unseemly bureaucratic delays!
Like many who are desperate to restore Democratic control in Washington, you will latch onto anything and everything to buttress your case. Needless to say, the fact that Cheney once ran Halliburton is no reason to claim that the Iraqi action was undertaken to serve Halliburton. But you imagine that such a link exists merely because of the man`s resume.
Although there`s no basis for such claims, this is typical of the current extreme anti-Bush/anti-Republican partisanship. The fact that this level of rhetoric is countenanced, even encouraged, by Democratic party leaders and officials because it serves their ends is all the more troubling. It`s hurting the political discourse in this country and creates an atmosphere of irrationality verging on paranoia. But I guess that is not something that concerns you if youve even noticed. That`s too bad, especially since such flames of anger and hatred, once fanned, can be hard to extinguish.
Besides misinterpreting facts like Cheney`s history with Halliburton, people like you seem unable to distinguish between lies and errors of fact. You say Bush "lied," but what do we really know about these alleged lies? We know that Bush and a whole host of others, both inside and outside his administration and inside and outside this country, appear to have gotten certain facts wrong. Getting facts wrong is not necessarily lying. But you either cannot see the difference or deliberately attempt to blur that distinction. I`m not sure which is worse for you, though inflammatory allegations of "lies," while they may be emotionally satisfying for some, only add to the fire now being fanned that threatens to consume our political house.
Some people think the best way to make their case is by name calling, as you have done above. But that is not how to make any kind of rational argument. "Dummy Rums" (he`s anything but dumb, by the way), "Con-artist Rice," "George King Liar Bush," are all just examples of this irrational and despicable tendency.
What about your claim regarding the Bush family and the Saudis? (I note you confuse the Saudi ruling family with the bin Laden clan, but I won`t go into that one here.) No one denies that George Bush Sr. had a relationship with the Saudis. Why shouldn`t he? He is and was a businessman and investor. Nevertheless, neither of the Bushes whove served as president have ever been shown to have cut the Saudis any special slack where the interests of this country were at stake. The most obvious example is that after 9/11 George W. Bush correctly went after Saudi money streams and put pressure on the Saudi leadership to start rolling up Al Qaeda networks in their own country.
Of course, this is a complex world. We need a stable Saudi Arabia and we need the continued accessibility of Mideast oil, so it`s in our interest to work with an oil-rich country like Saudi Arabia. Is that a bad thing? Well, it`s a fact of our economic life, however much we might wish to hide behind our two oceans or find less problematic energy sources.
Take the oil away and it`s virtually guaranteed that the U.S. would encounter some very hard times. The consequent damage to national prosperity would hurt all of us, especially those who are part of the usual Democratic constituency. I can just imagine your response if Bush`s policies were to cause the Saudis to become radicalized or result in de-stabilizing their state.
The same people who today allude to nefarious "conspiracies" between Bush and the Saudis or Bush and the bin Ladens would be the first to start screaming about how Bush doesn`t know how to get along with our critical friends in the Mideast (just as they now decry his lack of success in pleasing "friends" like France and Germany). Or they`d be shouting from the rooftops, or other venue of protest, that this only proved Bush was a bully and an imperialist.
I must confess: I am mystified at this deep-seated antipathy for Bush. I suppose it`s because of what he represents: conservative government instead of government by the liberal intelligentsia. Somehow, his occupancy of the White House has become a cultural cause celebre for the partisan left, a virtual war of those who hold liberal views (not always bad, in themselves, by the way) against those who hold more conservative ones. I guess the liberals who dominate the two coasts and the national media fear the religious right and see the current conservative dominance at the federal level as the ascendance of such religious thinking in the body politic.
Certainly Bush has made it clear that he holds religious beliefs. But what`s wrong with religious people winning elections and running things at times? They have as much right to be politically involved as anyone else and certainly as much as those whose "religion" is an unabashed secular liberalism that finds traditional religious beliefs somehow frightening and abhorrent.
Our country was built to withstand the winds of democratic change. What`s got me worried, though, is whether, in this critical time of national testing, it will be able to withstand the windbags of anger and innuendo.
Stuart W. Mirsky, who formerly served as an assistant commissioner in a New York City mayoral agency, is the author of a historical novel about the Vikings in North America and is now at work on a new book, set in ancient Israel in the time of the Prophets. He writes regularly for a number of newspapers in his spare time.
< g >
(I won't be holding my breath.)
IIRC, the current Halliburton contract was awarded in 1998....by the Clinton administration.
I wouldn't have spent my time on this fool. I would have sent her an email telling her that she's a confirmed idiot and put her email on my spam blocker.
These people are too stupid to remember their names...how are they going to manage to even find someplace to vote!
What was that saying about pearls and swine?
I call it willfull ignorance, and its a lost cause.
And didn't Al Gore commend Halliburton for their work in Bosnia?
Actually Hillary answered on her behalf, she called him a F******Jew B******!
I have never heard a single complaint from the left about the no-bid contract Halliburton was given by the Clinton admin for work in Kosovo and Bosnia.
When I get a real foaming-at-the-mouther like one of these guys, I have given up on trying to get them to vote for the President. Instead I try to convince them that Jean Francois Kerry is a sell-out, and they should vote for the only real anti-war, anti-corporate-greed candidate, Ralph Nader...
Haliburton is losing money and has had at least 30 emplyees killed in Iraq. Yeah, this has been a real cakewalk to profitability for them.
Then you wouldn't have gotten a column out of it :>)
He makes an excellent case, but he might just as well try explaining cellular respiration to a three-toed sloth.
I consider those types little different than brainwashed Hitler youth who were weaned on a ideology of hate. I seldom respond to them anymore either, and just write them off as having human excrement for brains...
Isn't George Tenet a Democrat, appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton?
I have to confess to responding to them:
"Wackadoo, wackadoo, wackadoo"
I don't know who he votes for, but yes, he was appointed by Clinton.
It needs to be pointed out more that LBJ's wife 'lady bird' was, at one time, listed as a first tier holder of Halliburton stock, presumably her kids are now.
Amazing how this never gets pointed out by the mediocre media (NOT)
The problem with arguing or debating with bush haters is they don't care about facts or logic. It's all unfounded and baseless emotion. They don't want to hear the facts. Nor do they wish to do there homeowrk. They get their argument points from people like Pighead Michael Moore and Al Franken. I gave up on trying many years ago.
Halliburton: The Bush/Iraq Scandal that Wasnt
A very dignified response (main article).
Historians of the future will be amazed at the outbreak of irrationality from Leftists and the Media regarding the Bush Presidency. It's a no-brainer that creating a democratic Iraq was the right thing to do, as a start in cleaning up the Middle Ages/East.
Someone this gullible will always be a Demoncrat.
As opposed to a happy-go-lucky Bush Basher?
What a great response to this person. I hope that some of it actually sinks in. Unfortunately, I think the great Democratic Icon of Texas - Ann Richards, gave some sage advice for this situation. "Never try to teach a pig how to sing . . .It wastes your time and just annoys the pig."
Whooooeee! If we could find a factoid site on the web concerning that, I could shut up a bunch of libs on other forums!
Go to the head of the class!
I have a better idea. Let's get this guy's e-mail address and get our OWN reponse from him...
I applaud your response. But it's more fun to take these people on face-to-face.
That was a great, and patient, response. However, I would guess that the lib perp quit reading after the first paragraph or two because she didn't understand or hated your opinion. Ya gotta love the tolerance shown by these wacko's!