News Please no Bush-bashing, America bashing

[SOS2008]

I have to say that I am offended by the amount of blatant anti-American sentiments and bashing going on here...

We have one more battle over Supreme Court nomination(s), and then I believe it will all calm down in the near future. In the meantime, I see my rough & tough reputation in GD has paid off nicely. Note to self - order more chocolates.

I've never seen you bring up a single fact in your posts. Wonder why...

What? I'm beginning to suspect you play the devil's advocate for entertainment.

 

[Evo]

I think it's a good stipulation that we could all agree on that we should not bash each other and that we should provide factual evidence to support our positions. That seems reasonable enough to me.

You are such a dreamer. Wouldn't it be nice though?

 

[Art]

I've never seen you bring up a single fact in your posts. Wonder why...

In that case you mustn't have read any of my posts then... Not only do I supply facts but I also supply the sources as well. You'll find them if you click on the underlined parts, but you knew that... er didn't you??

 

[Pengwuino]

In that case you mustn't have read any of my posts then... Not only do I supply facts but I also supply the sources as well. You'll find them if you click on the underlined parts, but you knew that... er didn't you??

after checking about 1/2 of your posts, i notice that most of the basic information (for example, how many african nations are and their aid or something) is sourced but some of the mroe oturageous claims are unsourced (The US disrupted the European continent and economy after WW2 for example and the US stealing the European example of democracy and calling it its own)

 

[SOS2008]

Newsweek... the whole bs about the elections "being stolen"... "Bush ordered 9/11"... etc etc. Evidence? suuuure. And the threads I've seen were closed because a mod flat out said in the thread at the end "This is bull****. Closed". It was various... "Special relativity is wrong" which provided nothing factual... or other generally well accepted theories that were being called false by people with no proof. Now unless I am not allowed ot repeat what a mod said *cough* fascism *cough*, then I think you are wrong in your assumption. And I believe stupid was probably the wrong word but it was something close to that seeing as there acting as if they have no idea why someone would request no bashing. Anyone here for a few weeks can already tell that a lot of American this or American that threads degenerate into mudslinging about Bush... same thing happens with every other forum I've been around. Its a great request and anyone whos been here a while and participated in some of those threads should have realized what the request implied.

Proof would be quoting exactly what was said, and better yet, then providing "evidence" (e.g., a quote from source with link) to the contrary. There was a thread that asked for positive things Bush has achieved, but there wasn't much good to say. If his performance was better, there wouldn't be so much criticism on PF or as you say on other forums, and job approval is low in the polls as well.

The threads I've seen closed are usually of a religious nature, or racial, and so far IMO the threads should have been closed (uh-hem, this coming from a liberal). Aside from this observation, I believe members show a fair amount of respect toward one another in PF -- certainly on the spectrum of things.

 

[SOS2008]

after checking about 1/2 of your posts, i notice that most of the basic information (for example, how many african nations are and their aid or something) is sourced but some of the mroe oturageous claims are unsourced (The US ruining the European continent after WW2 for example)

Okay, then how about you check your posts and report likewise. Personally, I don't feel you should continue making the accusations you make until you yourself live up to the same standards you claim everyone else fails to meet. Hmm, maybe we should do a poll...

 

[Pengwuino]

Proof would be quoting exactly what was said, and better yet, then providing "evidence" (e.g., a quote from source with link) to the contrary. There was a thread that asked for positive things Bush has achieved, but there wasn't much good to say. If his performance was better, there wouldn't be so much criticism on PF or as you say on other forums, and job approval is low in the polls as well.

The threads I've seen closed are usually of a religious nature, or racial, and so far IMO the threads should have been closed (uh-hem, this coming from a liberal). Aside from this observation, I believe members show a fair amount of respect toward one another in PF -- certainly on the spectrum of things.

Well with all the posts and threads I've wandered around in, god knows if i could find them... ill have to keep a record next time this thread happens. And the threads i see closed are the scientific ones mianly by russ or selfadject i think... probably russ... I've only actually noticed 1 religious thread closed and since it was in like... general discussion it deserved it... also, i have never even seen a racial thread so i will just assume it deserved it. But yah, i see threads closed for lack of fact so it seems like requesting facts in a general discussion seems approrpriate when its not as much an implied requirement as it is in say, theory developemnt or general physics or what not.

Seems like we're making a mountain out of a molehill out of htis or something.

 

[Pengwuino]

Okay, then how about you check your posts and report likewise. Personally, I don't feel you should continue making the accusations you make until you yourself live up to the same standards you claim everyone else fails to meet. Hmm, maybe we should do a poll...

Look at my post count... how in gods name lol... but no your right, although i was asked to do so, it probably wouldn't have been right to try to continue such a childish argument (no matter how many other people tried to force it on me... ahem ... wheres that damn wink face...)

 

[Loren Booda]

When did anti-American sentiment of late escalate? It seems to have spread more like gossip than informed opinion.

 

[vanesch]

I have to say that I am offended by the amount of blatant anti-American sentiments and bashing going on here (in the politics forum).

Have you read the original article ? It was full of nonsense! The main claim was that European intellectuals are 1) anti-american and 2) anti-democratic ; given the fact that Amirica is the best there can possibly be (on all grounds), and they don't like it, this must be due to them being green with envy.

Saying that this is nonsense is anti-American ?

 

[Pengwuino]

When did anti-American sentiment of late escalate? It seems to have spread more like gossip than informed opinion.

I think its because of people who make threads like this https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=78354

 

[loseyourname]

Have you read the original article ? It was full of nonsense! The main claim was that European intellectuals are 1) anti-american and 2) anti-democratic ; given the fact that Amirica is the best there can possibly be (on all grounds), and they don't like it, this must be due to them being green with envy.

Saying that this is nonsense is anti-American ?

Evo wasn't commenting on this article. There is plenty of anti-American sentiment on this forum, and it isn't coming from European intellectuals. It seems to come largely from Canadian teenagers and the like (ahem - Smurf). Saying that this is nonsense is probably a little reactive - I don't agree with the guy, but there is some truth to what he is saying. I don't think you can deny outright that what he is talking about takes place. Then again, a British America-phile criticizing continental intelligensia is not exactly something to be taken without a huge grain of salt.

That said, come on Patrick. You should know that that isn't what Evo was talking about. There are plenty of legitimate complaints about the US, its executive branch, and its foreign policy. There are also plenty of people simply rooting for the US and everything associated with it to fail. Let none of us be so wedded to a certain perspective that we deny either of these blatantly obvious facts.

 

[vanesch]

I don't think the author of this piece is referring to you when he talks about 'anti-Americanism.' There are plenty of people out there, say Paul Krugman, Dan Rather, or Jacques Chirac, who seem openly joyful when a US action or policy fails. There are people here at my school that hope Iraq never becomes a peaceful democratic nation just to prove Bush wrong. Disagreement is one thing, but rooting for failure and chaos is a bad thing and I think it's justified to refer to it as 'anti-American.'

Why do you call such a thing "anti-American" ? Taking Chirac for an example (the one I know best), although indeed, he had great difficulties putting up a serious and sad face when there was bad news coming out of Iraq, given the personal fight that Bush and him had over the issue, that's not really surprising. But I wouldn't call Chirac in general an anti-American. He does not systematically dispise everything that comes from over the atlantic. He didn't ask for a ban on cheeseburgers, for instance :-) It seems that when somebody criticizes ONE SINGLE ASPECT of something that SOME AMERICANS did or said, they have to suffer the stamp of "anti-american".

Concerning Iraq, the most dangerous thing that could happen, indeed, is that it turned out NOW into a peaceful democratic nation. If it did so, immediately after the military intervention, that would have been a good thing (and then Bush was right and all those no-cryers were wrong). If it is a mess for a few more years to come, then Bush was wrong, and all those no-cryers were right. If it happens now, then that is by chance, and Bush might interpret that (wrongly) as a success on his list, so that he might be tempted to do it again. The reason I say that it is not his success is that he doesn't control the situation over there, so whatever happens is out of his control. So that next time, he cannot guarantee that things will go this or that way.

 

[Pengwuino]

So vanesch, if its a failure, its his fault, but if its a success, its not?

And when exactly did a time table become a requirement? Sounds like your making a political discussion for the moment and not thinking about the goals for a country. If they achieve a democracy today, tomorrow, or in 2 years, its a success. Democracy wasnt exactly "right around the corner" before the invasion.

 

[loseyourname]

Why do you call such a thing "anti-American" ? Taking Chirac for an example (the one I know best), although indeed, he had great difficulties putting up a serious and sad face when there was bad news coming out of Iraq, given the personal fight that Bush and him had over the issue, that's not really surprising. But I wouldn't call Chirac in general an anti-American. He does not systematically dispise everything that comes from over the atlantic. He didn't ask for a ban on cheeseburgers, for instance :-) It seems that when somebody criticizes ONE SINGLE ASPECT of something that SOME AMERICANS did or said, they have to suffer the stamp of "anti-american".

Is rooting for and being openly happy about a nation's failure a criticism of one single aspect of something that some Americans did or said? This isn't about a French intellectual opining about the futility of nation-building. That's fine. I don't care. It's when people root for failure that I am bothered and it happens on both sides. Many of the posters here that lean to the right seemed positively joyous when France's role in the oil-for-food scandal was hinted at. I'm sure that had to bother you, as the whole freedom fries thing obviously does (perhaps you've heard of frankfurters and sauerkraut being called hot dogs and liberty cabbage during WWI).

Concerning Iraq, the most dangerous thing that could happen, indeed, is that it turned out NOW into a peaceful democratic nation. If it did so, immediately after the military intervention, that would have been a good thing (and then Bush was right and all those no-cryers were wrong). If it is a mess for a few more years to come, then Bush was wrong, and all those no-cryers were right. If it happens now, then that is by chance, and Bush might interpret that (wrongly) as a success on his list, so that he might be tempted to do it again. The reason I say that it is not his success is that he doesn't control the situation over there, so whatever happens is out of his control. So that next time, he cannot guarantee that things will go this or that way.

I suppose this is an easy way of justifying a desire to see a budding nation fail, and the hope's of a people crushed yet again. Come on. If Iraq becomes a peaceful, successful democracy, it might be the best thing to happen to the middle east since the Tigris and Euphrates began to flow (okay, I'm being hyperbolous, but still). If the plan succeeds, will you really continue to say Bush did the wrong thing just because it could have turned out terribly and nearly did? Taking a risk always entails the possibility of terrible failure, but that hardly means one should never take a risk. History ultimately judges us on how things turn out. Churchill was a rotten, amoral schemer, but history judges him as a great man because he got results. Grant was a drunk and Sherman a psychopathic maniac, but they are two of America's most revered generals because they won. Can you think of anyone that has ever waged a successful military campaign, ousted a dictator and installed a peaceful democracy and was judged negatively? Success is fickle that way and doesn't always depend upon the actions of the agents involved. There are plenty of factors involved that are outside of Bush's control, and perhaps a success in Iraq will inflate Bush's ego to the point where his hubris finally proves his downfall, a la Napoleon. Perhaps it will not. Either way, I just can't agree that a success in Iraq is bad for anybody but the insurgents and perhaps those who caught fifteen more minutes of fame by insisting that it would fail. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

 

[Art]

after checking about 1/2 of your posts, i notice that most of the basic information (for example, how many african nations are and their aid or something) is sourced but some of the mroe oturageous claims are unsourced (The US disrupted the European continent and economy after WW2 for example and the US stealing the European example of democracy and calling it its own)

I take that as a begrudging retraction by you. That's good. But please refrain from inventing fictitious quotes from me. That's bad. i.e. If you think the "The US disrupted the European continent and economy after WW2 and the US stole" (whatever that means) "european democracy and called it it's own" then please publish these ideas under your own name as I certainly never used those simplistic expressions. BTW on the thread you refer to discussing third world debt, facts relating to "aid or something" would seem, to me at least, to be pretty germane to the topic,

 

[Art]

I suppose that's your interpretation of the first post, but I'm questioning that interpretation, in the spirit of 'open discussion.'

I'm going to again juxtapose the statement made by sid and your interpretation of it:

sid: Please no Bush-bashing, America bashing, etc, etc. And if you want to make arguments, please support them with FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Art: The attitude being, I'm right and anybody who disagrees is misguided, a fool, a liar or even a racist if not American and traitor if they are.

How, Art? Presumably sid thinks he is right, and presumably we all think so, but he never said that anyone who disagrees is a misguided lying fool and a traitor. He never made any evaluative statement whatsoever about anyone who might disagree with him.

Perhaps your problem lies in a belief that sid has, in the past, posted bashing and propositions not supported by factual evidence. I can't recall anything at all that he's posted so I cannot comment on that. Perhaps that is correct and perhaps he is being a hypocrite, but even a hypocrite can be right. I think it's a good stipulation that we could all agree on that we should not bash each other and that we should provide factual evidence to support our positions. That seems reasonable enough to me.

Loseyourname, why do you keep interpreting and explaining other people's mails and motivations for them. I mean you're welcome to but IMHO debate with the original authors is much more meaningful than discussions through intermediaries where we can only guess at what is in the original author's mind. In response to this particular point you have raised, my mail was a response to your post not Sids and I spoke about some rightwing contributors having an attitude of intolerance which I felt the conditions listed by Sid exemplified; a statement which I will now substantiate. I have no idea how many of the recent threads you have followed but if you check back you will find that those of us who have posted mails critical of the US administration or indeed rightwing policies generally have been called fools, liars or propogators of lies and even racist. Check out this quote from earlier in this thread

...isnt it somewhat natural to demand factual information and not anti-bush lies perpetuated throughout the left? . And dont act stupid when you say "Whats the correlation between Bush bashing and anti-americanism?"

.or these excerpts from an earlier thread re innocent people on death row

...And you have also verified my own assumption. You are bringing in race when it has no business in the discussion. That is horribly racist of you

...

...Finally, to maybe make yourself seem less ignorant...

...
the highlighting is mine

So perhaps now you see why some of us may appear to be oversensitive to what you see as ostensibly reasonable requests.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

All in all, your post came across as intellectual in security. You seem to have very little understanding of even American culture. Or well, let me pose it in a different and ironic manner. Oddly enough, the people who are the cause of most of the problems in the US (Especially the reference to "popular" music and Hollywood) are the ones on the left who absolutely adore Europe and make it almost a second job to bash America and put Europe on a pedastal. Makes you think eh...

Not really. It was a question of moral guidance, not political leaning. And it is your own unsubstantiated opinion. You seem, unfortunately, to have completely missed the fact that my post was a critique of an article, not of a nation.
"Oddly enough, the people who are the cause of most of the problems in the US (Especially the reference to "popular" music and Hollywood) are the ones on the left..."
Ah...

 

[vanesch]

So vanesch, if its a failure, its his fault, but if its a success, its not?

Yes, that's right. If it were his success, it should have happened immediately after "liberation". What happens now is not positively influenced by the invasion. But maybe the Iraqi people are very courageous, and maybe they DO solve their problems DESPITE the invasion.

And when exactly did a time table become a requirement?

What was it: between 6 weeks and 6 months ?
Promised results without a timetable ? Hey, if we nuke the world, it will get much better, but don't ask me when ?

Sounds like your making a political discussion for the moment and not thinking about the goals for a country. If they achieve a democracy today, tomorrow, or in 2 years, its a success. Democracy wasnt exactly "right around the corner" before the invasion.

How do you know ? How do you know what could have happened during 5 years of intense international effort without going to a full scale war ? There is a Japanese saying: "even the biggest catastrophe produces something good, 5 years later".

 

[Andy]

whoa, sorry ART wasn't meant to offend you i just thought i would use a stupid american stereotype to show just how stupid this thread is.

 

[Art]

I have to say that I am offended by the amount of blatant anti-American sentiments and bashing going on here (in the politics forum). I am about as middle of the road as you can get politically, but I am really getting tired of it. Show me a country that is perfect, that has no corruption, no politicians with an agenda, that hasn't used whatever power they have (if they have any) for their own benefit. I don't think we're perfect, no country is.

I was born in the US, but I am a dual national and most of my family lives in Europe (talk about corruption). I live in the US, and although I don't agree with every decision the US government makes, I will speak out against that decision, not trash the entire country and it's people.

edit: and to be safe I should mention that this is no way no how, in any way, shape or form, directed at SOS (fears SOS will pour something nasty into my harddrive)

There is a lot of anti-American government sentiment about at this time but it should not offend you on a personal level as the criticisms are directed at the US administration or at the arguments presented by those who support it and vice versa, not the American people. If you have read the article quoted at the beginning of this thread you will see the whole point of the essay is to pour scorn on the people of europe with special emphasis on the French. Understandably - (jk Vanesch)
America's foreign policy is a 'hot' albeit controversial topic and so many threads are devoted to various aspects of it. A thread devoted to say the Fine Fail vs Fine Gael political party divide in Ireland would undoubtedly attract less controversy but also I'm afraid little or no interest.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

It does seem sometimes as if every thread that makes an evaluation of America - either positive or negative - degenerates into Bush-bashing. Whether or not the Bush-bashing is factually accurate, this can be frustrating as Bush is not necessarily the topic of the thread. It should be noted that anti-Americanism does not necessarily mean anti-Bushism.

Mmmm. I don't know. Yes, there are types of anti-Americanism, most of them pure racism, that have nothing to do with Bush. But this article is occassioned by the heightened anti-American atmosphere in Europe at present. This has almost everything to do with hatred of Bush, the Bush administration and its actions. This, though, is applying the term anti-Americanism rather thin. Unfortunately people who despise the Bush administration have a tendency to extend this to the American people regardless of political persuasion. Likewise, many Americans who are pro-Bush tend to name-call anyone with a serious argument against Bush as anti-American. No reasonable argument can occur between these people. Judging by the deterioration of such arguments to racism and name-calling suggests that they are in the majority.

I have to say that I am offended by the amount of blatant anti-American sentiments and bashing going on here (in the politics forum). I am about as middle of the road as you can get politically, but I am really getting tired of it. Show me a country that is perfect, that has no corruption, no politicians with an agenda, that hasn't used whatever power they have (if they have any) for their own benefit. I don't think we're perfect, no country is.

I'm not sure how justified this post is, at least given the posts preceding it. I don't see any more anti-Americanism than anti-Europeanism. In fact, I think Pengwuino is weighing it in favour of the latter. This has, as per usual, fallen more down to pro-Bushism and anti-Bushism. There has been plenty more European-bashing in the EU threads, unfortunately mostly misguided. I wouldn't mind starting a proper critical thread of Europe, but most people either don't seem to care or just post xenophobic remarks.

So vanesch, if its a failure, its his fault, but if its a success, its not?

Simply put, yes. Him and the rest of the coalition. If you punch someone in the rib and it breaks, that's your fault. If the break never properly heals, that's your fault. If it does heal good as new, that is not your success.

 

[vanesch]

Is rooting for and being openly happy about a nation's failure

Ah, come on, the failure of the war in Iraq is not a "nation's failure" (well, Iraq's maybe). Somebody brought up the story about a beehive. Now, imagine that there are mad dogs running around the house, and they've bitten already one child. There's also a bee hive at the back of the garden. So you decide to go and kick with your boots in the bee hive because you have "evidence that the bees are buddies with the mad dogs and are planning a massive attack on your children". You ask your neighbour to help you to kick with your boots in the bee hive, and he tells you not only that he will not do so, but that he thinks that that is a bad idea because everybody will now get bees on his hand ; moreover he tells you the story about the dogs being friends with the bees, he doesn't believe it ; he'd rather go with you after the dogs and let the bees alone. You tell him he's a stinking bastard, you will not talk to him again, and you go out kicking in the beehive. Don't you think that, after you've been stung all over (and the mad dogs too, so they get even nastier) that the neighbour would watch you through the window and have a good laugh with your face ?

a criticism of one single aspect of something that some Americans did or said?

Yes, the single aspect was the war in Iraq and the "some Americans" was the Bush administration (or at least a part of it). I don't think the French in general, or many french intellectuals in particular, nor Chirac, IN GENERAL, are happy when nasty things happen to the US. They were NOT HAPPY with 9/11. This would be the case if they were anti-american.

I'm sure that had to bother you, as the whole freedom fries thing obviously does (perhaps you've heard of frankfurters and sauerkraut being called hot dogs and liberty cabbage during WWI).

Yes, but you were AT WAR WITH THE GERMANS. As far as I know, you're not AT WAR with France !

I suppose this is an easy way of justifying a desire to see a budding nation fail, and the hope's of a people crushed yet again. Come on. If Iraq becomes a peaceful, successful democracy, it might be the best thing to happen to the middle east since the Tigris and Euphrates began to flow (okay, I'm being hyperbolous, but still).

I agree of course. But the danger is that Dubya finds such a "success" stimulating.

If the plan succeeds, will you really continue to say Bush did the wrong thing just because it could have turned out terribly and nearly did? Taking a risk always entails the possibility of terrible failure, but that hardly means one should never take a risk.

The plan ALREADY failed. But that's not recognized yet by Bush, and that's the danger. He's not in control of the situation there, so what happens is not his plan. You can take a risk for the right reasons and if it turns out wrong, too bad. If you take a risk for the wrong reasons, and it turns out right, then you've been lucky. If you take a risk for the wrong reasons, and it turns out wrong, you're a bastard. I consider Bush to be in the last case. If things worked out immediately, he'd be in the second case.

Either way, I just can't agree that a success in Iraq is bad for anybody but the insurgents and perhaps those who caught fifteen more minutes of fame by insisting that it would fail. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

As long as the "success" doesn't give Bush the idea to start the same adventure all over somewhere else, I'd say that I agree with you. It would also have been great if it had been an immediate success: then there would have been a direct cause-effect relation (and I would have eaten my hat, but it would have been a good thing).

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Art]

As long as the "success" doesn't give Bush the idea to start the same adventure all over somewhere else, I'd say that I agree with you. It would also have been great if it had been an immediate success: then there would have been a direct cause-effect relation (and I would have eaten my hat, but it would have been a good thing).

cheers,
Patrick.

I think Bush will be so relieved if he can extricate himself from this one he wouldn't consider another such mission in his wildest nightmares. I'd say that privately he must be very unhappy with the hawks in and around his government who persuaded him to embark on this disastrous misadventure

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

[sigh] If the worst comes to the worst, pretend the Devil made him do it.

 

[Evo]

Have you read the original article ? It was full of nonsense! The main claim was that European intellectuals are 1) anti-american and 2) anti-democratic ; given the fact that Amirica is the best there can possibly be (on all grounds), and they don't like it, this must be due to them being green with envy.

Saying that this is nonsense is anti-American ?

I wasn't commenting on the article, I was talking about what goes on here in this forum.

 

[Evo]

There is a lot of anti-American government sentiment about at this time but it should not offend you on a personal level as the criticisms are directed at the US administration or at the arguments presented by those who support it and vice versa, not the American people. If you have read the article quoted at the beginning of this thread you will see the whole point of the essay is to pour scorn on the people of europe with special emphasis on the French. Understandably - (jk Vanesch)

My dual nationality is US/French. I'm tired of French bashing as well.

People shoud speak out against the specific topics and back them up with facts, but few do, most just have the attitude the US did this, the US is evil. Opinions are fine as long as they don't cross the line into wholesale insults. I would like members here to read loseyourname's advice and try to have a fact based discussion without the bashing.

I also see that a few apologies are due Sid Galt from several members for misinterpreting what he said and bashing him directly.

 

[Art]

My dual nationality is US/French. I'm tired of French bashing as well.

People shoud speak out against the specific topics and back them up with facts, but few do, most just have the attitude the US did this, the US is evil. Opinions are fine as long as they don't cross the line into wholesale insults. I would like members here to read loseyourname's advice and try to have a fact based discussion without the bashing.

I also see that a few apologies are due Sid Galt from several members for misinterpreting what he said and bashing him directly.

Once again those who are accused of this anti-Americanism have backed up their comments re rightwing abuse with specific examples. Can you please now do the same
Actually never mind this isn't really going anywhere...

 

[russ_watters]

I have little time (away on business) and little interest in contributing to this flame-america-fest, but I need to agree with this:

Is rooting for and being openly happy about a nation's failure a criticism of one single aspect of something that some Americans did or said? This isn't about a French intellectual opining about the futility of nation-building. That's fine. I don't care. It's when people root for failure that I am bothered and it happens on both sides. Many of the posters here that lean to the right seemed positively joyous when France's role in the oil-for-food scandal was hinted at.

There are a great many people in this forum and in the world rooting for America to fail. Beyond simply disagreeing with us or believing we are wrong, they want us to be wrong. Along the same lines (read the "Leaving the Left" article) there are a number of people on the left who are rooting for Bush to fail and their dislike for Bush is causing them to root against the very things that democrats are supposed to support. The line between anti-Bush and anti-American is one that is impossible for someone on the left to tow - and its part of the reason Kerry lost the election. It isn't just Kerry though - few politicians are really able to adequately deal with the idea that the failure of their opponent is good for them.

This is the primary reason the left is in crisis and the EU (more specifically, France and the "coalition of the unwilling" as one essay called it) are being marginalized. You don't gain fans and win political battles by being against things, you win favor by being for things.

Now - a mea culpa: I'm anti-French. I'll admit it. Heck, I'm almost proud of it. I've been to Paris and Montreal and my experiences have shaped that opinion. France's "coalition of the unwilling" attitude has also shaped it.

So does this make me a "pot" for the anti-Bush/American's kettle? No. My dislike for the French and the liberal pseudo-intellectual crowd is different from their dislike for Bush/the US. Why? Because I don't let my disdain for the left affect my opinions on specific issues. For example, I strongly disliked Clinton, but that didn't affect my opinion that our participation in the Yugoslavia attack (a fairly close parallel of the Iraq situation - except of course that Yugoslavia never was and never would be a threat to the US) was a good thing even though we did it without UN support (again, like Iraq). I still cheer for the right thing even when its the wrong guy doing it. Those on the left who are rooting for the US/Bush to fail need to learn to separate their feelings from their positions on the issues.

 

[russ_watters]

My dual nationality is US/French. I'm tired of French bashing as well.

Quick clarification - do you mean dual citizenship?