Jimmah! Again!

Does anyone remember the days when former Presidents refused to criticize sitting Presidents? You should - because it was an American precedent stretching back to George Washington. However, it ended abruptly over the past year or so when Democratic former Presidents, whether out of a desire to get themselves into the papers or to support their estranged wife's Presidential aspirations, have begun to insult the administration at every possibility. There was a time when this was unthinkable - now it's common practice.

Jimmah says the administration is "immoral." Let's hear a few of Jimmah's talking points:

Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis.

Ah - indeed! Preemptive peace instead of preemptive war! Is that what John Kennedy did in Vietnam? No... Is that what Ronald Reagan did in Nicaragua and Grenada? Is that what Jimmah did in his own attempted invasion of Iran?

Another very serious departure from past policies is the separation of church and state, which I describe in the book. This has been a policy since the time of Thomas Jefferson and my own religious beliefs are compatible with this.

Translation - George W. Bush is a Christian. And he tells people. And he prays. Scary.

The other principle that I described in the book is basic justice. We've never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America.

The typical lefty lie - Republicans tax the poor, and give breaks to the rich! Although, I doubt that Jimmah would say that Bush is the first administration to do this - according to Jimmah and Democrats in general, this is how all conservatives work. After all - we're all rich, right?

I'm done after this one:

The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases -- as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world -- it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them -- which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern.

Did you get all that? Fundamentalists are the same everywhere - Christians and Muslims. Moral equivalency alert! Because, of course, Christian fundamentalists disagree with you and Muslim ones... kill you?

By the way, fundamentalists believe that those who disagree with them are inferior "sub-humans," and will therefore not negotiate with these people because negotiation will imply equality? And then Jimmah goes on to say that the Bush administration "refuses to talk" to someone who disagrees with them. Jimmah has just said that the Bush administration is just as dangerously fundamental as Islamic terrorists, and believes that if you are a liberal you are inferior and "sub-human." Is this man serious? Or sane?

Unfortunately, after Sept., there was an outburst in America of intense suffering and patriotism...

Darn that pesky patriotism. Maybe Jimmah should think that statement through a bit more...

As you possibly know, historically, our country has had the capability of self-correcting our own mistakes. This applied to slavery in 1865, it applied to legal racial segregation a hundred years later or so. It applied to the Joe McCarthy era when anti-communism was in a fearsome phase in the country like terrorism now.

McCarthy-ism = terrorism. Don't you see? This whole "terrorism" threat is just as important as opposing your friendly neighborhood Marxist.

Jimmah is fast approaching his intellectual expiration date. Not only has he made a mockery of the US worldwide, it's quite possible that his fantastically failed policies of the middle east resulted in the revolution of Iran and the continuing crisis there. Do you think that he will admit his monstrous mistake? The American people admitted theirs - in 1980.