A right-wing commenter objects to my remark (here) on Melanie Phillips’s piece describing President Obama as a “fifth columnist.” I’ll make this quick.
Gee, I thought dissent was patriotic? I guess that doesn’t extend to commentators you disagree with.
Melanie Phillips has an absolute and unlimited right to print whatever she wants in her columns. I and others have an equal right to deplore her comments.
I remember when the Democrat governor of Kentucky Steve Beshear and the Democrat State Comptroller of New York joked about literally killing Pres. Bush. I trust your outrage was even greater in those instances, right?
I have always staunchly opposed the shrill Bush=Hitler wing of the left; this is well-known. (I also support “Democrat” politicians who insist that Bush was an inept president who authorized war crimes.)
Frankly, this post scares me. It seems to be a deliberate attempt to demonize those you who do not share your political views.
Phillips demonizes Obama and yet I’m supposedly the one engaging in demonization.
What Phillips did was to suggest Obama harbors actual ill will toward the United States and actual sympathy for Islamist extremists. If she means it, let her stand by it. But it’s not only an appalling insult and affront to the patriotism of hundreds of millions of Obama supporters; it is also red meat for wackos and would-be assassins, the reason Obama is driven around in a street-tank.
And yet it’s my post that scares this commenter.
More:
It also suggests Ms. Phillips is largely accurate in her analysis, since decline [sic] to engage with the substance of her arguments.
No, it is my respondent who declines to engage with the substance of Phillips’s arguments. Phillips holds that Obama is a fifth columnist for Islamism. So the question is whether the commenter believes this is “largely accurate.” If so, there’s nothing further to discuss and there’s certainly no substance to be engaged.
Comments are closed.