Nick Kristoff calls out the new mainstream left in The New York Times:
A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil - a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. That view is at the heart of Michael Moore's scathing new documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11."As a conservative who never bought into the hype of the Travelgate, Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky affair (until the President lied to a Grand Jury), and other nutball conspiracies I do find the table turning ironic. Many liberals have become what they profess to detest - a vast left wing conspiracy.In the 1990's, nothing made conservatives look more petty and simple-minded than their demonization of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were even accused of spending their spare time killing Vince Foster and others. Mr. Clinton, in other words, left the right wing addled. Now Mr. Bush is doing the same to the left. For example, Mr. Moore hints that the real reason Mr. Bush invaded Afghanistan was to give his cronies a chance to profit by building an oil pipeline there.
"I'm just raising what I think is a legitimate question," Mr. Moore told me, a touch defensively, adding, "I'm just posing a question."
Right. And right-wing nuts were "just posing a question" about whether Mr. Clinton was a serial killer.
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Politics
Comments (5)
don't give 'em a conspiracy... (Below threshold)1. Posted by curtis | June 30, 2004 11:13 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
don't give 'em a conspiracy of their own! that's one of the best things we have! :)
1. Posted by curtis | June 30, 2004 11:13 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 30, 2004 11:13
2. Posted by David Scott Anderson | June 30, 2004 11:21 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Kevin, I agree in principle with what you are saying here. The Afghanistan thing is just STUPID. In general I dont believe in conspiracies. I do believe in stupidity and arrogance, and in the case of Iraq, I feel there were huge doses of both on the part of the administration. I also have serious questions about Haliburton, not as a conspiracy, but simply from the point of view of favoritism.
2. Posted by David Scott Anderson | June 30, 2004 11:21 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 30, 2004 11:21
3. Posted by Joe Grossberg | June 30, 2004 11:32 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I'm glad you pointed out these parallels.
A lot of right-wingers were so overcome with hatred for Clinton that they would even jump to the defense of child-raping cultists (Waco) and white supremacists (Ruby Ridge) in their zeal to bash the Administration.
Many liberals show a similar lack of sensibility when they don't mind siding with enemy combatants (Gitmo) and dictators (Iraq) if it affords them the opportunity to bash GWB.
And the same goes for the knee-jerk defensiveness of many presidential supporters. If it was so compelling to release the information about that shady little land deal of Whitewater, then you bet your ass we should know the extend of the administration's ties with Enron and the companies awarded contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. Posted by Joe Grossberg | June 30, 2004 11:32 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 30, 2004 11:32
4. Posted by Someguy | June 30, 2004 6:33 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
David said:
-In general I dont believe in conspiracies.-
I can only wonder if he reads his own blog.
4. Posted by Someguy | June 30, 2004 6:33 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 30, 2004 18:33
5. Posted by David Anderson | June 30, 2004 6:37 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I guess you do Someguy. LOL! My idea of a conspiracy is shaddowy figures who dont sign their post with valid emails and troll by for a snipe every now and then. I love it.
5. Posted by David Anderson | June 30, 2004 6:37 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 30, 2004 18:37