The Screaming Lunatic
Well, the bounce was instructive, as all things are when you read or write on any Conservative blog. The bouncer was Dr. Sanity, who remains, without prejudice, on my blogroll:
I'm sick of the big lies. I'm sick of responding to them. I have had it. I'm sick of seeing them over and over in my comment sections. So, this is fair warning. These falsehoods have been debunked for the treasonous bullshit they are. Yes, you are entitled to your opinions on WMD, Bush etc. However, if you want to express them, the proper forum is the Democratic Underground. There you can mingle with the other delusional folk who choose to believe in these lies. I don't want you here. If you engage in it here anymore, YOU WILL SIMPLY BE DELETED, THEN BANNED. I won't give this crap a forum anymore. Got it?
The sheer hysteria of this should be obvious. Here was my reply:
I had planned to reply to the reasonable criticisms above, and was busy assembling the evidence that supports my view. But, under the circumstances, it seems beside the point. I am perfectly well aware that I am a guest here, and it is clear that no such evidenced-buttressed reply would be welcomed by our hostess. Best Wishes to you all.A reply which, I hope, was not hysterical in the least. But I can expand a little on it here, where I am the host and not the guest. A guest, I have heard, "is a jewel on a cushion of hospitality", and were Dr. Sanity to comment here (No, I don't expect it.) I would certainly behave in that spirit and never call her "treasonous" or her opinions "bullshit". And, in truth, they are neither.
I take any opinion seriously, even when I criticize it sharply, as I often do for being flawed in logic, or unsupported by evidence. And I have never banned even the nastiest comment, among the very few comments I receive. For one of my major and consistent talking points is that my friends on the Conservative Blogosphere often cannot tell the difference between argument and insult. A nasty comment here is just further evidence of this point.
But since Dr. Sanity is not a guest here, I will speak my mind: She is a fool.
She is a fool because, like many, she only wishes have syncophants and cheerleaders surround her. The post in question, by the way, was about Bush's recent speech lashing out at his critics. He, or his handlers, also make sure that he is surrounded only by cheerleaders when he is on the road. I suspect that this is also because he is also inclined to degenerate into hysterical meaness when seriously and reasonably opposed. He is also a fool. But we knew that.
His handlers, however, are not fools. They have been busy wrestling with their own problems: investigations of their person, indictments of their staff, and so forth. So they have been a little slow on the uptake. Most Conservative bloggers feel that it's about time the President spoke as he has spoken. I'm not quite sure I can agree with that. But it is well past time for him to have answered the doubts and challenges of his opponents. This is why he is a fool. His motto, which I believe he has actually had the impudence to say on the record, is "I'm the President, so I can do what I want."
No, you can't, Mr. President. You have to answer to the people of the United States. And, as your recent poll numbers indicate, you haven't been answering to them very well lately. So it is about time you spoke.
I have stated on this blog that the President lied about his intentions to invade Iraq, saying that force was a last resort in public while sending "senior White House sources" to say the opposite in "deep background" briefings to Knight Ridder Washington Bureau, and frank talk to people like Sir Richard Dearlove, former "C" or head of Britain's MI-6. And I have presented the evidence here.
I stand by that statement until somebody presents evidence to the contrary. No one on Dr. Sanity's blog could do that, least of all Dr. Sanity herself.
I have also mentioned that I think it shameful and horrid that we went to war in Iraq, not because we had to, but merely because the President wanted to. Until now, I don't think the United States has ever done that. We came pretty close to this a couple of times in our history, most recently in the Reagan Administration, but we never quite got there. The President's father, to his everlasting credit, understood this principle, that you only make war due to real need, as well as any President alive, probably because he had actually been in combat and in grave peril.
The President's father is also that one holder of that office whom I would most like to spend an afternoon on his couch with, listening to him reminisce. A class guy, and a brave man in all ways, even to skydiving at 80, simply because he still can.
Since the President has now spoken, the real issue of his intentions and how they affected the way secret intelligence was presented to the world will finally get its long needed airing. I have my own opinions about it, based on what evidence I have diligently searched for and found.
But let the chips fall where they may. The President has been seen and called, so it's time to show the hands.
UPDATE: Dr. Sanity doesn't allow anyone but cheerleaders and syncophants to ping her, either.