Rejoinder to Boyle

"And I suspect many leftists would have probably been
happier had Chavez added chapter and verse evidence
for his assertions, though I suspect time limits
precluded that."

I should note, since Pat failed to clarify, that these
words are not mine, but from Michael Albert; I was
not endorsing them per se, but merely illustrating the varying
opinions on this. I should also note that the line
about time not permitting all of the evidence of
Bush’s folly was a joke regarding the excessive quantity of
evidence that would support the notion that Bush has
brought horror to much of this world.

(Such as lying in order to bring a country to war,
manipulating intelligence, paying off journalists in
and the US, wiretapping Americans illegally, and
institutionalizing torture. These links are to
mainstream news outlets. I could go on, if only
time would permit.)

Hatred of Bush is an interesting concept. I do not
know Bush – perhaps he would be amusing to have a beer
with -- but do I hate his policies? The answer is
an unapologetic yes.

So let us debate if Bush's policies are deserving of
scorn, or even of hate. And is Chavez's rhetoric -- as
cartoonish as it may be -- any more extreme than
Bush’s? (Who told Matt Lauer last week that terrorists
want to "kill your family." If one opposes Chavez’s
extreme rhetoric, I can only assume you would then
oppose the attempted coup on him, which US intelligence
officials said was backed by the US. Considering the fact
that Chavez was democratically elected, this action is far
more extreme than words could ever be.

No comments: