As Paul Krugman notes, for the past few years to be anti-Bush was to be among America’s most rational.
Bear in mind that by the time the terror alert controversy arose in 2004, we had already seen two tax cuts sold on massively, easily documented false pretenses; a war launched with constant innuendo about a Saddam-Osama link that was clearly false, and with claims about WMDs that were clearly shaky from the beginning and had proved to be entirely without foundation. We’d also seen vast, well-documented dishonesty and politicization on environmental policy. Oh, and Abu Ghraib was already public knowledge.
Given all that, it made complete sense to distrust anything the Bush administration said. That wasn’t reflexive, it was rational.
This is part of a larger conversation relating to a recent post from The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder who made the laughable – though standard MSM – conclusion that even though we liberals were essentially right about the Bush administration’s criminality, we should have been ignored anyway.
Amen, I am so glad that things have changed under Obama. It was like Bush was leading us into a police state or something.
Difference is that Obama doesn’t have his base egging him on even farther down the path.
Marc Ambinder is a turd.
And the Atlantic has become a piece of shit lately due to him and McCardle.
The Atlantic will still get called “librul”
In 1952 I asked my mother whether she would vote for “Ike” Eisenhower. She said she wouldn’t, not because of Ike, but because Nixon was a crook.
In 2000 I refused to vote for Bush, because it was obvious that he was a crook AND a moron.
In 2003 my then 82-year old mom stood on corners holding a sign protesting the incipient invasion of Iraq.
My family has a history of prescience.