For years, conservative rhetoric has focused on what they call “Bush [tag]hatred[/tag].” Far-right blogs routinely talk about “Bush derangement syndrome,” which, as they see it, is when routine political enmity becomes all-encompassing rage. Ken Mehlman, in particular, seems to revel in the notion of an “angry left.”
I’ve never found this meme particularly compelling, but I’ve just assumed the right doesn’t have much else to say these days. Nevertheless, the complaints about the “livid left” seem a little odd when one considers the rabid, unhinged supporters of the president. This op-ed, for example, was written by [tag]Paul Burgess[/tag], the former director of foreign-policy speechwriting at the Bush White House. (via Digby)
Friends, neighbors, and countrymen of the Left: I hate your lying guts.
When I was speechwriting at the White House, one rule was enforced without exception. The president would not be given drafts that lowered him or The Office by responding to the articulations of hatred that drove so many of his critics.
This rule was especially relevant to remarks that concerned the central topic of our times, Iraq. Having left the White House more than a year ago, I conclude that the immunizing effect of that rule must have expired, because I now find that I am infected with a hatred for the very quarter that inspired the rule — the deranged, lying left.
The poor guy proceeds to spend the next 600 or so words highlighting his sputtering contempt for, well, just about everyone who doesn’t think exactly as he does. He hates some liberal celebrities (Danny Glover), far-left academics (Ward Churchill), liberal corporate execs (Ted Turner), Democratic party leaders (Howard Dean), and apparently anyone who’ll vote for a candidate with a “D” after his or her name. Burgess refers to some of his liberal targets as “among the most loathsome people America has ever vomited up.”
Reading all of this, one isn’t sure whether to rebut the substance of Burgess’ spurious claims or refer him to some kind of anger-management clinic.
Burgess seems particularly “animated” about the war in Iraq.
I hate the Democrats who, in support of this strategy, spout lie after lie: that the president knew in advance there were no WMD in Iraq; that he lied to Congress to gain its support for military action; that he pushed for the democratization of Iraq only after the failure to find WMD; that he was a unilateralist and that the coalition was a fraud; that he shunned diplomacy in favor of war.
These lies, contradicted by reports, commissions, speeches, and public records, are too preposterous to mock, but too pervasive to rebut, especially when ignored by abetting media.
Oddly enough, the claims Burgess labels “lies” are all quite accurate. He dismisses them unworthy of his time to even respond to, but as far as I can tell, none of these “lies” are even controversial — they’re demonstrable truths.
Keep in mind, this isn’t just some shock-jock on a right-wing radio show; this guy was, up until fairly recently, a special assistant to the president of the United States, helping shape our foreign policy. How terribly reassuring.
I think also it’s worth remembering that leading conservative voices have sadly gone over the cliff — before the elections have even taken place. One has to assume that if Dems actually do well a week from tomorrow, this kind of rhetoric will not only become commonplace, it may actually appear tame.
Just two weeks ago, Peggy Noonan lambasted the left because, she insisted, we lack “an element of grace — of civic grace, democratic grace, the kind that assumes disagreements are part of the fabric, but we can make the fabric hold together.” One wonders if perhaps Noonan realizes that one of her former colleagues on the Bush team no only “hates [liberals’] guts,” but is willing to brag about it, in print.
“Civic grace,” indeed.