Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.
The Democrats continue to amaze me. Bush is either a nincompoop who has been surreptitiously controlled by various figures from behind the scenes; alternatively, he is an evil man who knows very well what he is doing and only pretends to be inept so as to hide his efficiency. But if the latter is true than Bush cannot be maligned for being an idiot. The hatred of Bush, something I have little understood, continues to manifest itself in ridiculous ways.
On the other hand, Camille Paglia is a liberal who nonetheless avoids falling into senseless contradiction at every step of the way.
Bush seems increasingly passive and hemmed in. We get sporadic declarations of stirring resolution, followed by long, vague periods of desultory indifference, as the dead and severely wounded are shipped undercover stateside. Bush's utter inability to project steady, consistent day-to-day leadership on Iraq certainly betrays his lack of control of this mission from the start.
I find baffling and off-putting the obsession of so many of my fellow Democrats with political strategist Karl Rove (a peripheral blob and dirty trickster), insofar as it takes focus off the real center of gravity in this administration -- Dick Cheney, who has cynically used the vice presidency to govern by proxy. For all its dislike of Cheney, the liberal press seems unable to lay a glove on him. He's like an enigma imploding into a black hole. But history will surely show that moral responsibility for the Iraq debacle belongs principally to Cheney.
Bush may be stupid, but those who do not even see that the whole system in which they take part may be a scam are far less intelligent than even he.
2 comments:
Pretty good read. First, I find your libertarian views reasonable, if debatable. And then you introduce me to a liberal who's views, though and again are arguable, are also within specs of sanity and fair debate. Good shot.
As for histories read, I almost wonder if the reason much of history is being rewritten by the left is because it was being ignored anyway. As well, those who truly do study history as a grouping of facts, dates, names, and places realize that the pattern has always indicated things that are uncomfortable at best, outright terrifying in their implications at worst.
Never look too closely at anything, the mirror should be set out of the house outright, unless you know God, understand you are flawed, and have the strength to live with it and go to Him humbly. I will add that this has been the most difficult part of Catholicism. It was far easier to not look, but dying is easier than living too.
I sometimes really wish I could communicate well, but this will have to do.
I almost wonder if the reason much of history is being rewritten by the left is because it was being ignored anyway.
Definitely possible. My take is this:
Reading history requires a lot of work; I don't happen to find it particularly difficult, but it does take a great deal of time. Moreover, one will inevitably be confronted with past humans who have foolishly followed some of the same thoughts people have today.
Reading history requires learning from the mistakes of the past. It is far easier to simply believe that the past has no bearing on us now. This allows us to be "free" to think whatever we wish.
I sometimes really wish I could communicate well, but this will have to do.
Keep practicing. You'll get better at it. Some of my earlier blog posts are written badly, embarrassingly so. But occasionally I now express myself almost eloquently.
Post a Comment