I'm Not Just a Member of the BHC...

Marvin has a superbly written piece about the ease with which criticism of Bush is so easily brushed aside by his true believing supporters. It includes this bit which I just love:

What we have is an administration that doesn't want to be bothered by the facts. An administration that bombs the wrong country, ignores real threats because of a Captain Ahab-like obsession with guppy-sized despots, and establishes legislative priorities based on a moistened finger lifted to the flatulent wind blowing from its base. If it were anybody else, you'd be marching on Washington, but since it's THIS administration, that just makes the critics a bunch of BUSH HATERS.

What a wonderfully descriptive word-painting.

Like Marvin, I'm appalled and amazed that Bush criticism (when the press bothers to report it) is so easily dismissed by otherwise intelligent and patriotic people. I think the public's incredible capacity for self-delusion about Bush is aided by the decline in the quantity and quality of objective news sources and the concomitant rise in the availability of subjective information sources (including this humble blog).

However, Marvin and I part ways when it comes to membership in the Bush Hating Club. Marvin, I don't think, considers himself a Bush Hater. He has, on occasion, even mustered the strength to find some (small) common ground with team Bush.

I, on the otherhand, classify myself as an unadulterated Bush-Hater. I loathe the man. I believe his administration to be a danger to the continued well-being of my family and my country.

Bush, of course, is ably assisted by a supporting cast of characters in the Executive and Legislative branches. But I simply don't have the time or energy to follow every boneheaded move by these minor characters. Besides, I don't get to vote for Attorney General or National Security Advisor or Texas House District 22 races or Senate races in Kentucky or Oklahoma or any number of other races in other states. It's simply not worthwhile to diffuse my hatred across such a large population of potentially worthy recipients. Better, I think, to focus my loathing on the Bush administration in general and Bush himself in particular.

Despite having revealed my obvious bias (as if it wasn't abundantly clear already) I suspect I'll be spared from the well financed and centrally orchestrated Bush attack barrage. Goody for me. But to anyone who might be tempted to sic Marc Racicot or Ed Gillespie on me to ensure I get the requisite punishment for failing to worship Dear Leader I'll say this. My admitted deep and abiding hatred of Bush does not necessarily affect the veracity of my objectively verifiable accusations against him. The sneer and disgust in my voice when I call Bush a liar may make you less interested in hearing what I have to say. But it doesn't change the fact that Bush has made statements at odds with objective truth, on numerous occasions, on both trivial and important topics.

The same holds for the John DiIulios, Paul O'Neills, and Richard Clarkes of the world too. Though I doubt they share my disgust for Bush, their feelings toward him are, in some important ways, immaterial to their assessments of Bush's actions, capabilities, and decisions. Bush surrogates can disparage all they like. But even if these people are Bush Haters it doesn't change the facts.

Update: Tomorrow's Washington Post has this concurrence:

But by Friday, a Republican official said the campaign was bracing for a tidal wave of negative publicity from Clarke's book. The campaign's defense strategy was that although Clarke could not be roundly refuted on the facts, enough doubt about the issue could be raised by portraying him as reckless and partisan. [emphasis added]

Also, I wonder if this is an example of just another Bush Hater trying to join the club:

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said he believes the White House has to respond directly to Clarke's allegations rather than question his credibility. "This is a serious book written by a serious professional who's made serious charges, and the White House must respond to these charges," he said.