Honestly, nearly every post is aimed at undermining the President of the United States. Taking a stroll through some of his archives I discovered what Kent said about dissent and criticizing his fellow tough guy Republican, President Bush.
The bottom line, as I see it, is that in this time of international unrest, it is extremely important that every American supports President Bush. I don't care if you personally disagree with the man or his policies. The fact is, dissent at this time, while important, can (and should) be done privately. When you or anyone you know publicly rips Bush, it weakens us in the eyes of the international community. And, most importantly, in the eyes of our enemies.It's pretty clear Kent thinks all dissent should be done in private. When you publicly rip the president you weaken us as a country. The most important part, says Kent, is public ridicule aids the enemy.
That's a far cry from what Kent is doing today now that Bush is gone. His entire blog is devoted to publicly criticizing the President of the United States, something 8 months ago he would have called anti-American. In fact, he does just that...
There's plenty of time to debate the merits of policy, the opinion of war, the opinion of Administration policy. But not now. If you are a Bush critic, understand that you are being anti-American and that you are very much aiding and abetting our enemies around the world.For bringing this to his attention, Kent has now called me an enemy. I've committed the ultimate sin in the Republican Fantasy World. I called them on their hypocrisy, forced them to own up to it and asked them to reconcile it with how they behave today. Remember, we are not supposed to ever bring up the last 8 years of President Bush or how his supporters acted toward dissent. We are only supposed to focus on today. Everything else is ancient history.
Just for the record I'm not saying Kent can't criticize the president. He can do whatever he pleases, and I'm sure he will. All I'm saying is how can anyone say what they did about President Bush and not expect to be held to the same consistent standard now. It's truly a sickness that plagues the people trying to pull this off. There's no reason why we should let any of this slide by or go unnoticed.
Kent's latest reply has to be the most delusional reply ever written, even for the Republican Fantasy World. He says dissent against Obama is okay because it's about policy. But dissent against Bush was only about "hatred." Yes because invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 had nothing to do with policy. Own it Kent. All of Bush's policies were great. There was never a reason to disagree with him. People who did only did because of hatred. Own it.
Mikey in the comments section brings up a good point about the policy disagreements with Bush versus personal hatred. Like I said there, I'm a policy guy. I worked at a think tank for over two years where I analyzed policy. From there I went to the senate where I-- guess this-- wrote policy. I'm a policy guy through and through. My disagreements with Bush had nothing to do with personal hatred but nearly everything to do with policy disagreements. To write off all disagreement as "hatred" is juvenile and sadistically irresponsible. There's no reason to let people like Kent off the hook for their past and current comments regarding dissension and politics. Make them own it now or live with it forever.