London & the Left's Fixation on Bush

The Left are fixated on George W. Bush. They can't think of anything else, and since they have given up all other measures of morality there is nothing absolute against which to assess the "goodness" or "badness" of anything but by the effect it has on their nemesis. It seems that every world and domestic event is viewed only through the lens of political consequenses that the event will have on Bush and on Republicans. I find this amazing.

Like the obsessed, the Left have fixated on Bush and try as they might, they cannot resist bringing this topic into every conversation. Even when their obsession leads to bizarre behavior they cannot let it go.

In many respects this reminds me of the fringe of sanity from 30 years ago. If you substitute the phrase "international banks" or "the Illuminati" or even "the Learned Elders of Zion" for the word "Bush" in the Left's demagoguery you might see what I mean. Sure, in one conversation the topic might be somewhat relevant or even interesting - but when you see someone bring the same supposed "cause of evil" up over and over again in every conversation it gets a bit weird. And when someone's entire life revolves around the waxing and waning of that thing's fortune you know that there is something wrong.

Here is an example today dealing with the tragedy in London. The San Francisco Chronicle runs a headline "U.S. Politics: Bush likely to get increased support for Iraq war, at least for now" and, among other things laments (speaking of the tragic attacks on central London by terrorists):

The London terrorist bombings are likely to temporarily strengthen President Bush's hand politically at a critical juncture when public support for the war in Iraq has eroded, but the attacks raise difficult questions over whether that war has made the United States more or less vulnerable to terrorism, analysts said.
...
Something like this reminds people, 'OK, there really is something to worry about out there,' " said Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "At the same time, it didn't happen here."

But then the writer (Carolyn Lochead) goes on to say:

To some extent, the linkage of terror with the Iraq war becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, said Charles Kupchan, a National Security Administration official under President Bill Clinton.

"I think that in the public mind, the attacks will make it easier for Bush to reclaim a certain amount of public support for war in Iraq," Kupchan said. "His ability to link the Iraq war to al Qaeda has proved to be inconsistent with the facts," but "an attack on London will be seen as an attack on the West, requiring that the United States take the offense. And for many that will mean staying the course in Iraq."

Lomperis agreed. "I think what has sustained Bush is that folks out in Peoria essentially do believe in this linkage, and right or not, I think these kinds of attacks only reinforce that foundation to Bush's claim."

The issue to the Left always centers on Bush.


I think the best discussion begins with something raised by Powerline today, where they present a map of jihadist attacks compiled by The Sun, in London. The Sun's article outlines an abridged chronology of when and where Islamic terrorist atrocities have occurred. Their timeline begins with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, and includes incidents in Bali, Kenya, Istanbul, England, Spain and Pakistan.

Still, the noise from the Left centers on Bush, not on the global threat from Islamic terrorists.

By the way, my heart goes out to those whose lives were destroyed or disrupted by the London attacks. We must focus on the enemy in this conflict, not on the Illuminati, I mean not on international banks, er... I mean not on Bush.