Posted on 12/31/2004 4:57:59 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
I have always been a huge fan of the novels of John LeCarre especially the George Smiley ones. I've also been in awe of Sir Alec Guinness's performance in the BBC productions of the various novels. The performances were so good that LeCarre himself was quoted as saying that he could no longer write about George Smiley because after the productions were released "Smiley no longer belongs to me, he belongs to Alec".
And yes, I'm aware of the leftists slant of both LeCarre (who seemed to go off the deep end during the 2003 war) and also of the BBC.
But having said all that I was watching last night the conclusion of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy when the character who is supposed to represent Kim Philby, who is called Bill Haydon in the book, is asked by Smiley why he did it.
Bill laughs somewhat maniacly at this question and says "why, why, why?". He speaks of his hatred for the "western way of life" which is not well explained but presumably has to do with the general angst that those types have regarding corporations, profits, greed, consumerism etc. etc. In other words the same stupid half baked thoughts we hear from people like Al Gore, Howard Dean and the average college professor.
Then Bill's (the Philby character) expression changes and becomes inward looking and somewhat cold and detached. And he says "I do hate the Americans so". And he looked for all the world like a modern Bush hater (at least to me) although the movie was made at least twenty years ago and the events were based on history that is now at least 40 years old and had roots in the 1930's.
My point is very simply this. We commonly think of Bush hatred and the angst on the left has having primarily poltical consequeneces - it affects the political debate and affects what we can accomplish to some extent in the area of policy, ideas, etc. etc. To what extent have we reflected on the degree to which the vile Bush haters would be willing to sell out their country as Philby did and justify it to themselves based on their paranoid and unfounded hatred of our president?
In short might we be in the process of spawing a whole new generation of Philby's? I personally wouldn't doubt it. When you see the expression on the Bill Haydon character at the end of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy you see something that is old but also new - it looks so much like what you see and hear these days.
any commments on the substance of my post?
Thoughts?
This time though, we know their names and faces. Where they claim to work, and claim to live. We know the Quislings this time and will be watching them, waiting for them to try to make the final Kim move.
When you address the issue of Bush-hating these days, you almost have to define what it is you mean by, 'Bush hating'.
The true Bush hater is a leftist, a person who thinks Bush's every move is centered around his family's accumunlation of wealth from oil. From there they branch out into stolen elections and blame for just about all the world's maladys. The homeless are his fault, even though they existed under Clinton. The poor are Bush's fault, even though there were poor under Clinton. The terrorists are his fault, even thought they've been at it for decades. And so it goes.
There is another segment of people, who take Bush to task on policy matters who are also considered by some to be Bush haters. If their arguements are sound, I consider these folks not to be Bush haters, but more United States lovers.
The first group is doubtedly doing exactly what you have postulated. They aid the enemy in a variety of ways. They announce military moves before hand. They damn the U.S. for responding to terrorism. They through their efforts actually advance the hopes and dreams of those who would do us in.
The second group will not submit themselves to being used by this president or any other entity, when it comes to the sovereignty and viability of the United States. However, some of their detractors have proven more than willing to front for some of the worst socialist organizations known to man.
Both the left, and the misguided fools of the right, have shown that they are more than willing to prove your worst fears true.
If we hate Clinton, can we worry about Bush haters I dont get it
If don't know the difference, then your statement sounds right on to me.
Personally, I'm more worried about the Bush haters on the far right, than I am the Bush haters on the left, who never supported him in the first place.
I guess I dont please feel free to enlighten me
There was not the violent kind of hatred for Clinton that the left has for Bush. The right was more contemptuous toward Clinton than wishing his death. The other difference is the worldwide hatred of Bush that makes the Clinton comparison invalid. GW has a minimum of a billion people that would love to see him dead. No, this hatred for Bush is something quite new when it comes to American politics.
Frankly, I'm not surprised. Books are largely liberal, with the exception of Regnery Publishing putting out pure conservatism. It makes sense that games follow that same liberal, American-hating philosophy.
That the "civilized" society in other parts of the globe hate Bush(America)(whatever), and for that matter the entire turd world hates us too, is as irrelevant as the UN.
If the hatred of America that has spread through the ranks of the uninformed here in the States eventually reaches critical mass, these haters, for the lack of a better word, will become violent, and find out just how fast their elimination will come by the hands(and arms)of those that love this same America and have held onto their guns.(And I hope this goes down before I get too old and my health fails!)
Yes, this hatred of Bush is dangerous.
Philby was recruited in the 30's at Cambridge, and wasn't suspected until the early 50's and finally outted for sure in 1963. These moles burrow deep underground and oftentimes resurface in impossibly high positions of authority and power.
Joe, I would suggest that you read up on Clinton. Read the books that are supposed to be favorable to him. Even they generally slip and reveal things that are ghastly about the man.
Then read those which are supposed to be anti-Clinton. I encourage you to take some of what they say with a grain of salt. Even so, there will be things in those books that should shock you and cause a general unease about the man.
I have followed his deeds and history for 13 years now. I have seldom seen a more despicable man hold office, any office.
Bush has his foibles. He was probably a frat boy gone wild in his youth. He had a drinking problem. He has admitted as much and repented. I believe his repentence was honest and he lives a better life today because of it.
That simply cannot be said about Bill Clinton on any level. When he is taken to task, it is always played off on people just hating him. It isn't.
The Lewinsky thing wasn't just a sly affair. It was despicable for him to use a young woman like that, and to defile the Oval Office in that manner. Decades of N.O.W. teachings regarding executives and their subordinates, was thrown out the window.
If a guy can't be faithful to his wife and children, can he be trusted to be faithful to his nation? Well judge for yourself. Did he or didn't he place unqualified people in positions where they could secret information out of our nation? Did they do so? The answers are yes.
Time is too short to go into the whole of the matters now, but suffice it to say, Bush may have his shortcomings, but Clinton doesn't have an honest bone in his body. It's sad, but true. And that's the least of it.
Wow, I'd give my eyeteeth to see that series again. They're featured in a catalog put out by PBS occasionally, and I'll bet they're on a list at their website. It was mesmerizing, unforgettable. As to the substance of your post, hmmm. The Elitist Liberal Cambridge/brainwashed types. Sure, they'd do it in a heartbeat. Fanatics are always dangerous. As for hatred of Bush being the factor that might push them over the edge toward treason, I don't think so. He's gone in four years, and they know that. Basically, they hate middle America, Godfearing, churchgoing flyover country. They're sitting around, sulking, trying to come up with a way to take back the country. But I don't think they'd sell us out to Islamofascists, who want a theocracy. They're diametrically opposed, being secular humanists/hedonists. John Kerry is their poster boy, well, he was. He wanted UN/European dominance over the US. That's what they want and they'll do anything, including treason to achieve this aim. Clinton and pals didn't even blink before handing over military/tech. secrets to the Chinese for $$$$.
I appreciate your comments and analysis of Bush hatred. With all due respect, I've always had a slightly different take. I think Bush is hated not because he is "bad" (oil, family, etc) but because he is "good". In short, Bush has always proclaimed his Christian faith. His faith has informed his positions on abortion, the mideast, and not doubt countless other topics. I think this drives the left absolutely bat sh*t. They respond to Christians as cockroaches or vampires resond to light. I think this is the true source of at least much of the Bush hatred.
I think that's a very important point. Even at his worst, I never wished physical harm to come to him. I wished that the Senate of the United States would have removed him for cause, for which there were mountains of supportive and documented reasons.
Most excellent analysis and reply.
Take Michael Moore, as a representative example. What do you suppose it would take him to sell out his country?
Not much, huh? If he hasn't already, that is. A bigger check? A bigger title? A bigger mansion? Some playmates? In any event, it wouldn't take much. He's for sale...and the flag has no meaning to him.
Now, consider that there are literally thousands of Michael Moores. With different talents (or none). At every level of our society.
Every one of them a potential Bill Hayden, lacking only a master, a moment of "courage" and an offer. They already have their motive...
I've met and known people who hated Bush, and Folks who hated Clinton.
The differance, is in the levels of hatred and how its directed. Republican hatred of Clinton was directed at getting republicans elected.
Democratic hatred of Bush was violent attacks and vandalism.
The conservative hatred of Clinton was never on the level of wishing him dead, attacking people for liking clinton or speaking positivly of him, or needing therapy for clinton winning relection, or becoming physicaly ill by having clinton as president.
Go to any left wing board, and you'll see a violent pattern of behavior, everything from wishing military personal to die, because they are in war and voted for Bush, to refusing to donate to charities, so that things can go really bad for people, and get them to hate Bush more.
This hatred is pathological and fanatical, its being expressed in very disturbing, almost psychotic behavior and making people delusional.
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.