Reason Escapes Cohen As It Does All Liberals
Can Bush Save Bush?For dangerous fools like Cohen, there is no reason to fight for freedom. Had Mr. Cohen been around during the American Revolution, he would have been one of those Tories cowering in his basement writing hateful screeds about General Washington's incompetence to lead the troops. Cohen's lack of comprehension of the meaning of freedom, justice, morality, and the other principles for which the nation stands is typical of the Liberal mentality.
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, October 3, 2006; Page A17
Not too long after Franklin D. Roosevelt died, Republicans insisted on what was to become the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. It was meant to ensure that never again would a president serve more than two terms. Now is the time for yet another amendment. This one would ensure that no child of a president could become president. This would avert another George W. Bush.
The reasons for this amendment can be amply found in Bob Woodward's new book, "State of Denial." If ever a title was apt, this is the one. As if to prove that Woodward had it right, Bush reacted to the book's revelations about Don Rumsfeld -- intransigent, incompetent and intellectually intolerant -- by reaffirming his confidence in him. To Bush, and indeed to the rest of us as well, Rumsfeld has come to personify the conduct of the Iraq war. His leaving, especially his firing, would be an admission of the obvious: failure.
My proposed amendment comes to mind because from time to time Woodward would quote someone on why Bush ran for president in the first place and what determines his executive style: his father. He wanted to best his father but also even the score for him. This score was a twofold thing. George W. Bush wanted, in effect, to win the second term that George H.W. Bush had lost (to Bill Clinton), and he also wanted to finish the job his father had started with Saddam Hussein. If there is a better explanation for why Bush -- not necessarily the neocons around him -- so fervently wanted war, I cannot come up with it.
This descent into the fog of Freudian politics is, I know, just the sort of thing Washington eschews. Such musings lack position papers or paper trails -- paper of any kind, actually -- and rely instead on elastic language sometimes known as psychobabble. Yet those of us who are both fathers and sons know the truth of these matters. There is no more complicated relationship on the face of the earth. It is fraught with competition, a kind of canine sniffing that is suffused with both an edgy rivalry and an immense love that does not quit even with the grave. If I say that George W. Bush was out to both vanquish and redeem his father, many a man will know what I mean.
Mr. Cohen's lack of understanding as to what it means to be an American, aside from what he can personally gain, leads him to dive way over his head into the pseudo-science of Psychology to find an explanation for behavior (fighting terrorists, fighting murderous dictators whose impact and reach go well beyond their borders) that he is incapable of comprehending. In stead of doing what is right for the sake of doing right, Mr. Cohen has manufactured (I'm certain with the aid of other Liberal movers) some sort of filial competitive drive to account for what the rest of us see as defending the country.
Simplistic, unfounded, clever sounding "explanations" for conduct which Liberals consider inexplicable, has always been the Liberal's way of debating. When confronted with reason, Liberals alway resort to emotion. They always want the easy fix. That is why they so quickly fall into line behind policy suggestions like their current "cut and run" policy. They can be counted on to abandon all moral principles as soon as the going gets tough. Then finding themselves on the morally wrong side of the argument, they lash out just as Cohen has done.
Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/02/AR2006100200931.html









0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home