Most people can remember how much flak George W. Bush took while in office. Only time will tell the true impact of everything he did while in office, but it should suffice to say that there were some mistakes made while he was at the helm.
The one thing that sticks out in my mind, however, is how many liberals called GWB a "war criminal," especially when word got out about Abu Ghraib. When the photos of American soldiers mistreating prisoners of war surfaced, there was a goodly number of liberals who called for the President's head. To me, the notion that GWB should have to answer for the actions of some dumbass soldiers always seemed ridiculous.
"It's not like he knew about it," I always said. "We both know that GWB didn't authorize torture in Abu Ghraib. So how is it his fault that some asshole soldiers went rogue and broke the law?" The response to my question--which in my mind was of the rhetorical nature given the simplicity of the concept--was almost always this:
"Ignorance is no excuse."
I get the sentiment, that the captain always goes down with his ship. It's supposed to be a matter of honorable leadership. But I know that the fools calling for GWB's head weren't looking at it that way, no matter how hard they insisted that to be the case. Here's how I know.
Should the captain go down with his ship when, say, some idiot sailor thinks it's a good idea to crack open the jet fuel pipes in the JP5 pump room and light a match? Should the captain willingly allow himself to die--sinking with his ship, as that scenario would no doubt scuttle even the sturdiest of warship--because someone was too stupid to follow the rules? No rational person would ever suggest that the captain should sacrifice his life on the account of some asshole who made a ridiculous mistake.
And no, the captain would not be tried for destruction of government property. So why did so many people insist that GWB be tried for something that A) He didn't do, and B) Had no knowledge of? Why was pleading ignorance not a viable enough excuse for him? It's because for liberals, honor and responsibility was never the true motivation. They had a vendetta against GWB, and they wanted to punish him for everything, regardless of whether or not it was his fault.
That's all well and good. I can relate to a good vendetta. But for the love of God: don't be such blatant, hypocritical assholes about it. I am referencing the big NSA debacle that has been unfolding, particularly the details surrounding America's purported spying of Angela Merkel and other allied world leaders. When the first headlines hit the newsmedias, what was the immediate response from the White House?
"The President didn't know."
Well I'm sorry Mr. President, but according to the very people who no-doubt voted for you and continue to support you to this day, the captain always goes down with his ship. So if GWB deserves to stand trial for what happened at Abu Ghraib, then President Obama should be held responsible for spying on our allies. More importantly, the President deserves to stand trial for the NSA's illicit intelligence collection against US citizens.
Democrats are no more pragmatic and logical than the Republicans. They care more about vendettas and ideological cheer leading than they care about silly things like honor, integrity, and accountability. Just like the most ardently die-hard conservative Republican, the Democrats only care about accountability when the opposition screws up. When they screw up, it's all okay because, you know, they were only trying to help people.
So to all of you foaming-at-the-mouth Democrats, please take this advice. Stop idolizing your political heroes, and come back to the realm of reality. We, as a nation, can accomplish so much more if you would only take an objective look at the world around you, and if you would stop pretending that your illogical ideas will solve any of our problems.