Tuesday, March 21, 2006


This is an e-mail I sent off this morning regarding this article in the Washington Post.


I just couldn't take it any more this morning.

"Manliness" didn't begin with the Bush White House, nor can it's root cause be traced back to any time in recorded history. It is and has always been, and a good thing for us it has. As you freely admit, it is men that rise to the top in political parties, and there is no way you could argue that it is not that way across all walks of life. Without this "manliness" you're so readily willing to tout as a negative aspect, our world would be markedly different, and not at all for the better.

Are there negative aspects to masculinity? Certainly, but by bringing up the Iraq war to try and emphasize that you've dropped the ball completely. Nobody is really arguing that in circumstances where a maniacal dictator is torturing his own citizens and thumbing his nose at the world, the right to take preemptive action exists. Even if you wanted to argue that point, and frankly, you would be a fool and an ass to do so, you need to broaden the scope of your attack and start with the politicians not in the President's party who gave him approval in the first place.

Secondly, I don't have a problem with an administration that doesn't want to take time away from managing the country to give you answers that are going to make you feel better. I trust that if there were sufficient evidence to censure or impeach this President, then his drooling and frothing at the mouth political opponents would have acted instantaneously, but thus far there is but one lonely voice officially raised. Yet you and others like you follow down that path of misinformation like sheep, sure that even though the Democrats have done nothing but throw vile accusations and grandstand, that somewhere in there lies some truth which backs up your own reactionary and paranoid point of view.

Finally, I want a leader as a President. If he wants to take some personal friends aside and confess to some introspection or self doubt, then that's fine. The day he gets up in front of the nation and waxes philosophic and shows some weakness, you and the other sharks are going to go into a feeding frenzy. You have NOTHING positive to say to or about the man, and if you had any credibility whatsoever you would admit that the moment he showed any weakness you would pounce. I wish you could see yourself and your complaints about the "swaggering dismissal of dissenting views as the carping of those not on the team" for the ridiculously humorous statements they are. You ARE NOT on the team, so why then do you think you are entitled to intimacy of such a level?

You may not like manliness, but from the first man that picked up a club to beat back a predator, to people like Edison and Einstein, all the way to more modern hero's such as Mandela and Billy Graham, it has primarily been men furthering the betterment of humanity. That's because, no matter how much you may not like it, it is the way God intended for it to be, it is the way it has always been, and it is the way it will always be. I freely admit that every one of these men and men like them typically had a woman of strength and character partnered with him (much Like Laura Bush, but nothing like Hillary Clinton).

For the record, I have significant problems with the President's fiscal irresponsibilities and his handling of our illegal immigration problems. I do not, however, have a problem with him trying to comport himself like a man.

No comments: