It Was Just a Month Ago That Republicans Were Calling This Appeasement

President Bush has decided to quit with the saber rattling and open diplomatic talks with Iran. This despite his whole party having gone critical a month ago when Barrack Obama suggested the same thing. This is a smart decision on the President's part, and he will doubtless be praised by the same angry, empty-headed hacks who condemned Obama.

Below, perhaps the greatest moment in the history of knee-jerk conservative outrage, as squeaky loudmouth Kevin James can't even explain what it is he's outraged about. But boy, is he outraged! He expresses his outrage by repeating the talking points again and again, with no idea what they actually mean.

Comments

[Mrs. A]

The one time in my life I've enjoyed watching Chris Matthews.

[Pursuit]

While it is not my job, nor am I able to keep track of every "conservative" out there (just as I would assume you won't vouch for every liberal out there), I believe the conservative objection was primarily O'Bama's suggestion that he would meet personally with Iran's lunatic leader. This, of course, was a naive and foolish idea, for which O'Bama was rightfully ridiculed. Like so much of the Great One's policies, he has since "adjusted" his views.

[Scott]

Except, not really. We're sending minor functionaries to repeat the same message that we've been transmitting since Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, caved like a wet grocery store sack and was replaced by St. Ronnie - straighten up and fly right.

Only a liberal could equate this to the presumptive messianic President of the United States unilaterally meeting with that crazy schoolteacher. But only a liberal would take the Guardian at face value, too. And only a liberal would post this as unmooted fact. I always wonder if you believe your own crap.

Digression: Who are those people in the little box? Do you find them helpful to you in some way? Besides repetitive Big Lie blog-fodder, I mean. It must suck balls to to have to seine the satellite for such muck. Do you do it anyway as part of your job, or is it a hobby?

[Squidley]

"...[Bush] will doubtless be praised by the same angry, empty-headed hacks who condemned Obama."

That is a sadly accurate assessment of the majority of "conservatives": their only job is to defend Republicans, regardless of how liberal they are. I believe there are two main factors to this.

One is the incredible influence the president has on the nation. W is a profoundly unreflective man, one who makes a decision and nearly never reconsiders it. (The word reconsider implies there was some thought in the first place; I'm not sure even that much mental effort was exerted). The non-intellectual nature of the man has descended upon society, and instead of dialogue and reasoned debate, we have passionate invective and smearing.

The other is the nature of the opposition. Liberals routinely make the most outrageous attacks on all Republicans, but especially W. In our time, the concept of "loyal opposition" is about as relevant as an ear trumpet. This is due in no small part to liberals' mistaken sense of moral superiority: since they know their position is the moral one, then any other position must be immoral. Gone is the notion that one's opposition may have their own reasoned, rational ideas. As a result, the marketplace of ideas has as much selection as a Soviet supermarket.

So yes, the BushBots are dogmatic in their defense of that indefensible man, but it's not entirely their fault: the left shares the blame.