Play On, Dear Brothers!
"All the world's a stage. And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances, and one man in his time plays many parts..." --William Shakespeare
This was the thought that came to mind upon seeing two recent political figures in prominent television appearances.
One was by Hugo Chavez at the UN, where he had the audacity and the cheek to call Bush "The devil." Sounds familiar to me somehow...hmmm. Oh, I know, wasn't it the left that jumped all over Bush for "demonizing" our enemies in the War on Terror? What could be worse than that? I know! "Devilizing" your enemies! If any one thinks that Chavez has the American peoples' best interest in mind, I'm sorry to inform you you've been duped by a (not so) master thespian. Still, Chavez was just playing his part.
The other appearnce was that of former Prez Bill Clinton, who became positively IRATE (something he would have never done on CNN or ABC, CBS or NBC) at the Fox News reporter when asked about his efforts to fight terrorism during his administration. What he accomplished or did not accomplish aside, his outburst was unbecoming, unwarranted (if he should be irate with anyone it should be ABC for the fictionalizing of the 9/11 events) and in my memory--unheard of. "What caused it?" I asked myself. There was only one answer. While I think he made a mistake in doing so, it became clear to me he could not be seen "cozying up" to "the enemy" that is (in his mind, I think) Fox News.
I must sigh. Over and over and over again.
For the truth eludes us at every turn.
Why? Ask Shakespeare.
This was the thought that came to mind upon seeing two recent political figures in prominent television appearances.
One was by Hugo Chavez at the UN, where he had the audacity and the cheek to call Bush "The devil." Sounds familiar to me somehow...hmmm. Oh, I know, wasn't it the left that jumped all over Bush for "demonizing" our enemies in the War on Terror? What could be worse than that? I know! "Devilizing" your enemies! If any one thinks that Chavez has the American peoples' best interest in mind, I'm sorry to inform you you've been duped by a (not so) master thespian. Still, Chavez was just playing his part.
The other appearnce was that of former Prez Bill Clinton, who became positively IRATE (something he would have never done on CNN or ABC, CBS or NBC) at the Fox News reporter when asked about his efforts to fight terrorism during his administration. What he accomplished or did not accomplish aside, his outburst was unbecoming, unwarranted (if he should be irate with anyone it should be ABC for the fictionalizing of the 9/11 events) and in my memory--unheard of. "What caused it?" I asked myself. There was only one answer. While I think he made a mistake in doing so, it became clear to me he could not be seen "cozying up" to "the enemy" that is (in his mind, I think) Fox News.
I must sigh. Over and over and over again.
For the truth eludes us at every turn.
Why? Ask Shakespeare.
4 Comments:
What??! The only reason Clinton got angry was to not be seen cozying up to FOX???? Did you see the show, or read the transcript? (available here)
I'm sorry my friend, but that is absurd. He was angry because he has been subjected to 5 years now of FOX news and Republicans unfair attacks against his presidency, specifically about whether he encouraged Bin Laden to attack us, when it was REPUBLICANS who wanted us to leave Somalia the day after black hawk down, it was BUSH who ignored terrorism from the start of his presidency, despite Clinton's advising otherwise, and it was BUSH who demoted Richard Clarke, who had worked since the Reagan admin on anti-terrorism.
He has every right to be upset by the ABC show that lied about his record, and every right to get worked up when asked about it.
Here's good blog entry on it: here
Sorry for the anger, but I too get worked up when the Republican spin machine is able to shroud the truth behind the outright lies and propaganda that they sell.
If you read all of what Clinton said, you'll understand why he is so angry about the double standard in the mainstream media concerning his plans for Al Quada vs Bush's lack of plans before 9/11.
I'm thoroughly confused by your reaction to Hugo's comments. You seem to imply that Bush and Chavez were somehow held to different standards by what was essentially the same comment.
As a fair-minded liberal, I would argue that if you're going to condemn one, you have to condemn the other. So it's ridiculous for Bush and his supporters to act outraged at Chavez' comments. Chavez was, after all, only following Bush's example.
Outside of this blog, I haven't heard anyone suggest that Chavez "has the American peoples' best interest in mind." Why would anyone say that? That's not even his job. He represents Venezuela, not the U.S.
Snark-
I've heard several prominent lefties making the news/talk rounds saying that Chavez was spot on. Sorry I didn't catch their names. One even said that Chavez was doing more for Americans than GWB. And if that's what they want to believe, fine. I just don't buy it. And as far as outrage at his comments is concerned, my point is that here is another pot calling the kettle black (I can't resist cliches when I address you, I don't know why). If it's bad for Bush to do it (and it is) then it's bad when Chavez or any other Marxist or leftist or extremist or whateverist does it. It really makes my blood boil when someone tries to claim the moral high ground but uses the exact same tactics as those they condemn.
One of my missions in this blog is to point out the hypocritcal nature inherent in politics and politicians. Frankly, I think they're (almost)all a notch below child molesters when it comes to scruples and morals. The good people who get into politics are either driven out by an instinct to preserve their high standards or are eventually corrupted to the same low standards as those around them. They see everyone else (insert your own corrupt act here) so they think "Well, if everyone else is doing it, why not me too?"
I see just as much crud comitted on the left as I do the right. That is one of the big reasons I cannot give my support to the left, though, as I said before, I am much closer to them ideologically than I am to the right. And since there are more than enough angry voices (Dan, etc)out there denouncing naughty righties, I feel its appropriate to point out the naughtiness of the left.
Plus I just like to argue.
Peace.
Dan-
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Peace.
Post a Comment
<< Home