No there is a difference Richardm. I point to the corruption of the UN which many on the left claim to support and ask why this and the corruption of the French and Russians is not a cause for outrage when every base motive has been attributed to Bush and his administration with charges targeted at Halliburton and every other company that might have any contact with the Bushes. In the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, the left strongly opposed the Bush plans while looking to France, the UN and Germany for support. Many professed their solidarity with the views of these nations. That makes them fair game then for a bit of examination. If the US is being criticized because it is acting and doing so because it is all about oil, what if, in fact, someone like me can show that on the contrary, it was the nations who opposed the invasion that were far more likely to have their actions affected and influenced by “oil?”
Second, when I attack Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, I am attacking figures which have the support and admiration of many on the left. If I point out that their actions or the people that they support have even worse records than those of the governments that the Republicans and Bush have supported, does this not in fact somewhat counter the thrust of their claims? Is there not a method to challenging them on the very grounds that they claim to care most about?
Third, when women’s groups and gay groups and minority groups attack Bush for racism, sexism and for condemning war as most strongly affecting the innocent victims: women and children, should we not then look to see if this is actually the case? If in fact women and children and gays and minorities actually benefit from greater freedom and protection and that these newfound freedoms are accorded to them by more democratic governments with their greater respect for human rights and if in fact Bush and his team have been responsible for delivering those democratic governments or at the very least enabling them to emerge, then must we not ask tough questions of these groups to find out why they are supporting policies that run directly counter to the aims that they claim to support?
How does that compare with the total lack of support on the right for this ONE deranged individual? He does not speak for the right. No one on the right is identifying with his aims and no one here has said that they want to understand his “root causes.” Therefore, I for one chose to ignore this post as more MFGR nonsense, but now that these charges are being raised by more sensible people, well, at least by more people anyway, I have chosen to address them.
Surely, even you can see that there is a major difference there?