"Attacking" President Bush

Joseph Sobran column ^ | 11-27-03 | Sobran, Joseph

[Theodore R.]

Attacking” President Bush

November 27, 2003

“Some are attacking the president for attacking the terrorists,” says a new Republican TV ad for President Bush.

In its verbal sloppiness, this message is fully worthy of the president himself. Of course nobody is “attacking” him in the same sense that he is “attacking the terrorists,” with real bullets and bombs. Various people are criticizing him, some with measured language, some with verbal abuse, but all of them are well within the limits of the “freedom” and “democracy” he says he wants to promote around the world.

So why does he allow and encourage his subordinates to imply that his political opponents are on the side of the terrorists?

Nobody knows what Bush means by freedom and democracy, which he seems to equate with each other. In his mouth these terms sound like mere slogans, with no precise significance. He uses them the way Madison Avenue uses advertising jingles, to excite stock responses.

It must be said that his speeches sometimes contain thoughtful reflections, but these are hardly typical of him. It’s as if his speechwriters are doing their conscientious best to supply philosophical justifications for his policies, almost in spite of him. Like most politicians, the man himself is most comfortable with cliché.

Time magazine notes that Americans tend to feel strongly about George W. Bush. There are “those who regard Bush as the very ideal of American presidential leadership and those who regard him as an embarrassing and dangerous usurper.”

Both reactions show a lack of proportion. Bush isn’t a monster, just a mediocrity. If he didn’t just happen to be the most powerful man on earth, nobody would bother deflating him. But his elevation to the presidency has elicited the most preposterous flattery. One columnist hails him as “a statesman of vision and remarkable courage ... a born-again idealist ... a strategic pioneer ... our most decisive president since Harry Truman,” et cetera.

Funny that nobody noticed all these rare qualities when Bush was stumbling and fumbling his way through the 2000 primaries. He didn’t even outshine his humdrum Republican opponents; in fact it was John McCain who impressed people then (don’t ask me why).

But power has its magic. As King Lear says, “Thou hast seen a farmer’s dog bark at a beggar? And the creature run from the cur? There thou might’st behold the great image of authority: a dog’s obeyed in office.” Hamlet likewise remarks, “My uncle is king of Denmark, and those that would make mouths at him while my father lived give twenty, forty, fifty, a hundred ducats apiece for his picture in little.”

Henry Kissinger put it wittily: “The nice thing about being a celebrity is that when you bore people, they think it’s their fault.” And the president of the United States is ex officio the world’s greatest celebrity, even if he’s Jerry Ford.

Jerry Ford! We’d nearly forgotten him! And he’s still alive, even though he was literally attacked twice, both times by women! One of the would-be assassins was Squeaky Fromme, former member of the Charles Manson gang, but I can’t recall the other one’s name.

Jerry Ford! Now there was a real live wire! Nobody ever pretended that he was anything but a dull man. The only time he ever created the least excitement was when he beaned someone with a golf ball. You marveled that anyone would feel strongly enough about him, one way or the other, to shoot at him.

Ford was Bush’s mental peer, but since he didn’t have an army of neoconservative pundits likening him to Newton and Spinoza, it was never necessary to cut him down to size. If you’d put a whoopee cushion on his chair, you’d probably have to explain the joke to him.

Ford was, and is, an unanswerable refutation of the notion that only an extraordinary man, for good or evil, can achieve the presidency; either a man of heroically worthy qualities or a villain “by merit rais’d to that bad eminence.”

Maybe we should resign ourselves to the unflattering truth: our political system isn’t hospitable to men of stature. If a Thomas Jefferson should seek public office today, he wouldn’t get far. Our system would weed him out early.

Joseph Sobran

[pgkdan]

So let me get this straight. It's OK to verbally abuse the President...because that's what freedom is all about but it's wrong for the President's supporters to defend him. That's what Sobran's saying, isn't it?

[gaspar]

Sobran is a fifty-seven year old writer going on ninety.

[Balding_Eagle]

"in fact it was John McCain who impressed people then."

Sobran is confusing the press with 'the people', a common error. We knew the difference between the two.

[07055]

So why does he allow and encourage his subordinates to imply that his political opponents are on the side of the terrorists?

Gee, what do you think? Could it be becauce they *are*?

[metalboy]

Hey, “Some are attacking the president for attacking the terrorists” is putting it nicely. If it was me I`d say that and my tagline as well. These scum mutts are solely on the side of the terrorists for no other reason then their own sick selfish desire to have a demon-rat President, no if ands or buts about it! This is the reason and only reason. Treason isn`t even the word, enemies of the US is more apt. You put me in charge of this RNC commercial and I would rip these bastard mutts a hole the size of the one that was put in the WTC. Show the first WTC bombing that was led by a guy who came into this country with and Iraqi passport, show people falling out the windows of the second WTC attack, and then put "Some are protesting the President for following his oath of office after this country was attacked. Why aren`t they protesting those who attacked us?"

[Thom Pain]

Is Sobran this big of an idiot, or is it just me?? Sheesh. And he gets paid for this?

[Theodore R.]

Sobran is saying that if Clinton were conducting the Iraq war the way that Bush is now, many conservatives would be criticizing him -- yet these conservatives strongly support the policies being carried out by the Bush administration.

In other words, Sobran is saying that the Dean people would not be criticizing the war if a Democrat president were conducting it, and the Republicans would not be supporting the war so strongly if a Democrat were in the White House.

As the theologian Martin Luther said, "it makes a difference whose ox is being gored."

[Let's Roll]

The phrase "aid and comfort" means nothing to these people.

[sd-joe]

>> "if Clinton were conducting the Iraq war the way that Bush is now" <<

That, right there, is absurd on its face. Clinton demonstrated over and over again how he handled foreign threats. He would be totally incapable of conducting the war in the way Bush is.

[Theodore R.]

"if Clinton

The line said "IF"!

[sd-joe]

Yes, and "if" horses could fly, we would have a more serious pollution problem.

[ImpBill]

Finally one who figured out what Sobran was saying. /;-)

Being the gorger or the gorgee is relative and in the pasage of time can and does change.

[cousair]

Sobran is a typical pundit who uses his words to deframe anyone he sees as a threat. President Bush is a threat to the Democrat Party because he uses their agenda(or lack of one) against them.. and Sobran understands this. The big telling word as someone else said is the word IF in association with Clinton. Clinton IF this and Clinton IF that....we all know what Clinton said and did, and it isn't even in the same league with this President Bush, (or I might add, President Bush's dog, Barney!!)

[88keys]

"Sobran is saying that if Clinton were conducting the Iraq war the way that Bush is now, many conservatives would be criticizing him -- "

I must have missed that part? What I do see Sobran saying is, Bush is mediocre, Ford was an "empty suit", and various other "opinions" of his, none of which are really borne out by reality, but they don't have to be, since they're just opinions. Sobran seems quite a bitter, disgruntled and mean-spirited fellow, though, I must say, and I would classify this piece as an "attack", though obviously with no real guns...

[q_an_a]

don't you wonder what happened to sobran and norquist? two men with great ideas suddenly look like aliens invaded their bodies. what they are doing in the past three years is so different from their early work. go figure.

[ex-snook]

What goes around comes around. President Bush will be called anti-anti-Terrorist if he persists in not invading Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc. I heard super neo-con Frank Gaffney allude to some Bush connections with the Saudis. The neo-con/coms want to keep the bit in Bush's mouth to keep him 'with the program'.

[Cultural Jihad]

Makes for a great tagline.

[Jim Scott]

Just the usual elist's disdain for a man that they perceive as intellectually far beneath them, and so, unworthy of the office of president.

Meanwhile, the economy rebounds and President Bush co-ops the Democrats biggest issues, leaving them with only 'Iraq' to campaign against while he pursues the war as if they didn't even exist, which drives them crazy. It's obvious that Sobran has joined the anti-Bush crowd - for all the wrong reasons. Policy difference are one thing but the clear elitist snobbery and condescension Sobran exhibits toward Bush in this piece is palpable - and rather sad but thankfully, about as effective as all the other anti-Bush hit pieces that are published every day in the mainstream media. Sobran becomes just another parrot, regurgitating the "Bush is dumb" mantra and mumbling about 'the neo-cons', to no real effect.

[jagrmeister]

Liberals want patriotism without earning it. Sorry- if you irresponsibly mischaracterize the American administration's motives for combatting terrorism as racist, facist, or profit-driven, you will rightfully have your patriotism questioned. I don't accept the plaintiff "Don't question my patriotism".