Comments on: Post-9/11 “Partisan Mode”

By: Mr Fiddlehead

Mr Fiddlehead — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:54:01 +0000

I gave the arsewipe the benefit of the doubt until I saw him in his photo op with the bullhorn and the firefighters. That was only only few hours that I gave the lying son of a bitch (ed. truer words were never spoken) the benefit of the doubt.

By: Lanoire

Lanoire — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 02:06:10 +0000

Andy-boy didn’t just “support the President and give him the benefit of the doubt.” He said anyone who refused to do so was a fifth-columnist. Fucking jackass.

By: David Thomas

David Thomas — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:51:42 +0000

“I don’t know anyone who didn’t to give George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt after 9/11. Anyone.”

To be fair, you don’t know me…

That said, I felt I should respond. I did not give Bush the benefit of the doubt after 9/11. As I watched the towers fall, my gut reaction was one of fear not of terrorists and bombs but of how this tragedy was going to be exploited. It smacked too much of the fire in the Reichstag. That said, mine was not a partisan response. I felt just as much disgust and fear at the kowtowing, cowardly Democrats as I did at the blustering, cowardly Republicans. Whether or not the Bush administration had caused 9/11, they certainly used it like they had, with Congress along for the ride. We can never give the government “the benefit of the doubt.” It will always be abused.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:17:08 +0000

I was wrong when i hoped, against all evidence, tat hhe president was not the incarnation of evil on earth. after 9-11. My bad.

By: mrbones

mrbones — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:35:57 +0000

Andy suggests that to disagree with the prez shortly after Sept. 11 was partisan. This was a common refrain among conservatives.

My question: Why isn’t knee-jerk acquiescence ev’ry bit as partisan, ev’ry bit as dangerous?

By: Lieutenant Breakfast

Lieutenant Breakfast — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:10:17 +0000

well articulated, Greg, but one missing ingredient in your criticism is this truism:

the Oval Office brings out the worst in its
occupants

By: Royko

Royko — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:32:24 +0000

Virtually everyone supported the president after 9/11, and virtually everyone supported the Afghanistan campaign. But the first serious rumblings about the Iraq War weren’t made until Spring of ‘02, and the administration didn’t officially start to push for war until September of ‘02. And obviously, we didn’t invade until March of ‘03. There was a whole year to thoughtfully and logically consider the merits and risks of invading Iraq in a level-headed manner. But rather than consider the facts, Sullivan and his ilk were having too much fun deriding Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors who were in Iraq getting nothing but bad leads from U.S. intelligence.

How full of shit is Sullivan? The “did not immediately go into partison mode” Sullivan wrote that the “decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead – and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column” four days after members of Congress from both parties sang “God Bless America” on the steps of the Capitol in a show of unity, at a time when the president had both support and deference from both parties.

Someone squandered that goodwill, and it sure as hell wasn’t us.