Peter Berkowitz writes about Bush hatred, and so-called progressives stated pride in it:

Bush hatred is not a rational response to actual Bush perfidy. Rather, Bush hatred compels its progressive victims–who pride themselves on their sophistication and sensitivity to nuance–to reduce complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil. Like all hatred in politics, Bush hatred blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent.

Some people, based on posts like the previous one, have mindlessly called me a “Clinton hater.” Not just me, but anyone who points out that they are both corrupt liars. But there’s no passion in such a statement–it’s just a clinical factual description. If I state that Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson, or (for that matter) OJ Simpson are murderers, does it mean that I hate them? I don’t. I’m simply making a factual statement.

I’ve noted in the past that I’m often foolishly accused by people of being a Bush lover, simply because I’m not a Bush hater. And I’m also often accused of being a Clinton hater, simply because I (unlike, generally, the accusers) am not someone who loves him beyond all reason. From my perspective, I’m simply rationally evaluating both men based on the record. George W. Bush has many flaws, but doesn’t deserve the vituperation that is heaped on him. Bill Clinton isn’t evil, but he is a profoundly corrupt, narcissistic man.

I don’t hate the Clintons–I just don’t want them to regain political power. Of course, I’m just not that into hate, period, for the reasons that Berkowitz describes–it’s an emotion that clouds reason and judgment. I don’t even hate Osama bin Laden. I wish him dead, but not because I hate him. I simply, dispassionately think the world better off without him, and those like him.

But of course, the word “hate,” like “racist,” has lost most of its intellectual currency as a result of overuse and abuse by the left. So it’s all the more interesting that the same people take such pride in their admitted (and irrational) hatred of George Bush.

John Hawkins has an interview with one of the Slick Grope Vets For Truth, Kathleen Willey, who has a new book out. And who would have thought that there could be a potential new Clinton scandal from the nineties (of course, much of the public remains unaware of the old ones–something that the Slick Grope Vets may rectify if Hillary gets the nomination):

I finally was emotionally able to look at my husband’s autopsy report while writing the book and there were some things in there that got my attention. I’m not an expert and I don’t pretend to be, but I did take the autopsy report and show it to an expert, a criminology and forensic expert, and she saw some pretty compelling inconsistencies in that report and she suggested that I pursue it, that I get further opinions, which I am doing. I feel like I owe that to his memory, I owe that to my children, and for my own piece of mind. I want to know what happened. That’s what I talked about briefly in my book.

It had always been a given at the time that Ed Willey had committed suicide–I don’t recall anyone questioning it. But there’s ample reason to always question when associates of the Clintons supposedly “commit suicide” or meet some other untimely end. They seem to have a lot more such associates than most people.

John Hawkins has an interview with one of the Slick Grope Vets For Truth, Kathleen Willey, who has a new book out. And who would have thought that there could be a potential new Clinton scandal from the nineties (of course, much of the public remains unaware of the old ones–something that the Slick Grope Vets may rectify if Hillary gets the nomination):

I finally was emotionally able to look at my husband’s autopsy report while writing the book and there were some things in there that got my attention. I’m not an expert and I don’t pretend to be, but I did take the autopsy report and show it to an expert, a criminology and forensic expert, and she saw some pretty compelling inconsistencies in that report and she suggested that I pursue it, that I get further opinions, which I am doing. I feel like I owe that to his memory, I owe that to my children, and for my own piece of mind. I want to know what happened. That’s what I talked about briefly in my book.

It had always been a given at the time that Ed Willey had committed suicide–I don’t recall anyone questioning it. But there’s ample reason to always question when associates of the Clintons supposedly “commit suicide” or meet some other untimely end. They seem to have a lot more such associates than most people.

John Hawkins has an interview with one of the Slick Grope Vets For Truth, Kathleen Willey, who has a new book out. And who would have thought that there could be a potential new Clinton scandal from the nineties (of course, much of the public remains unaware of the old ones–something that the Slick Grope Vets may rectify if Hillary gets the nomination):

I finally was emotionally able to look at my husband’s autopsy report while writing the book and there were some things in there that got my attention. I’m not an expert and I don’t pretend to be, but I did take the autopsy report and show it to an expert, a criminology and forensic expert, and she saw some pretty compelling inconsistencies in that report and she suggested that I pursue it, that I get further opinions, which I am doing. I feel like I owe that to his memory, I owe that to my children, and for my own piece of mind. I want to know what happened. That’s what I talked about briefly in my book.

It had always been a given at the time that Ed Willey had committed suicide–I don’t recall anyone questioning it. But there’s ample reason to always question when associates of the Clintons supposedly “commit suicide” or meet some other untimely end. They seem to have a lot more such associates than most people.

For gems like this:

It is interesting that the movie [Transformers] made 403492 grillion dollars, whereas the Cruise / Redford / Streep oration about War Being Bad averaged thirty-seven cents per theater. As many have noted elsewhere at great length, anti-war movies are unpopular. The theories vary: the public is tired of the war, the movies are lousy, the public doesn