Reader mailbag – “Do you hate everything Bush does?”

Spread the love

A G.I. posted a comment on the blog from overseas, and for the benefit of our Stars & Stripes readers, I thought I’d answer it here, point by point.

Staff sergeant (name witheld) said…
Please don’t mind me for being rather blunt, but do you hate EVERYTHING Bush does and try to twist it in a way to look bad?

Can you point out anything Candorville has presented as fact that wasn’t true? Can you point out any specific incident of Candorville “twisting” something to make Bush look bad? When I comment on the Bush administration, I remind readers of the President’s actions and promises. If he looks bad, it’s not because of any twisting, its because his actions and unkept promises have not been good for the country.

Also, sometimes when your strips come out, the topic becomes old.

I accept blame for many things in life, but the nation’s short attention span is not one of them. I remind people of what they’d rather forget, sometimes. That’s why nearly a year later, Candorville still brings up Hurricane Katrina, and four years later Candorville continues to bring up the lies that led to the Iraq occupation. Our leaders would rather we forget. I’m not going to help them accomplish that goal. You should resent it when you’re told that events don’t matter because they’re “old news.” That’s an intellectually lazy way to conduct a debate.

They don’t go to that extent with spying such as the NSA guy writting on his notepad what Lemont says.

First of all, that’s satire. Satire always exaggerates – everyone knows not to take satire literally. Secondly, how do we know that? A year ago, nobody thought they would go to the extent of wiretapping thousands of Americans, or of data-mining 200 million Americans. We have no reason to trust that they aren’t violating the Fourth Amendment in other ways.

Have you ever thought what good the Pat. Act did? They caught bribes at the border, child abuse, lies, porn, and others.

And absolutely none of that has anything to do with terrorism. Placing an armed FBI agent in every American home would also produce positive results, but those results are not worth weakening our Bill of Rights protections. The Patriot Act allows the President to disregard the Bill of Rights — the Bill of Rights, incidentally, along wih the rest of the Constitution, is what you (or at least your commanding officers and the Commander in Chief) are sworn to defend.

You also don’t give repubs a fair chaance of sspeech, such as the Rep black guy sitting next to Lemont saying he’s glad the USA Pat. Act is there because he might be a terrorist.

What’s unfair about that? Again, it’s satire. The man at the busstop represents Americans, such as yourself, who don’t mind trading their hard-won civil liberties for a little more imaginary security.

Most importantly, shouldn’t you only fear the Act if you’ve done something bad?

If our system were perfect, you would have a point. But no system is perfect, especially when it’s being run by an administration with a history of breaking laws, locking up people who haven’t committed any crimes, and violating the Constitution. They’re trying to use the Patriot Act to go after reporters who expose government crimes, such as the leaking of an undercover CIA officer’s name and the repeated violation of the Geneva Conventions. That is un-American.

The Stars & Stripes (I live overseas in the Army) is a cross of Rep. Dem. Independent, unlike the very liberal papers back home. It points out both pros & cons. on AFN we get Fox News, unlike the heavy heavy VERY heavy liberal CNN or CBS channels you watch or the New York Times and even 75% AP.

None of what you mentioned as “heavy heavy VERY heavy liberal” media is the least bit Liberal. They all supported the war, they all give room to people like Ann Coulter while denying it to people such as Greg Palast.

I myself am an independent but I don’t see you give Repubs a fair shot at things. Hey, Over here there are naturalized US citizens from Mexico, Costa Rica, etc. who disagree with liberals at immigration (there are some who agree, however). I would like to point out that S&S got some liberal workers so now I get your Strip (started in Oct 02, 2005) along with other unfair stuff.

My job isn’t to be “fair and balanced,” my job is to tell the truth as I see it. If the Republicans in Congress start looking out for the average American and the President starts fulfilling his promises and stops violating the Constitution, I’d be more than happy to talk about that. In the meantime, I’m going to cover it when people do things they’re not supposed to do, whether they’re politicians, thugs, bosses, whatever. Pointing out wrongdoing and injustice is the purpose of social and political satire.

You also downgrade those in the Army, even to those enlisted before the war started. You said we’re hopeless in a number of strips and we’re doing the wrong thing. Well guess again. Zarqawi was killed, a dictator was overthrown, women have hope and we’ve even stopped some more hijackings. People die in war, and that’s just that. They didn’t die in vain (at least those who supported the war) and I’ll be wrong if we lose. Bush’s popularity has risen, why not include that in a future strip? Even Demos gave him a break (some)!

I haven’t “downgraded” anyone in the Army. Can you point out a single Candorville strip that ridiculed enlisted men and women, or even officers or generals? Candorville has never lampooned anyone other than the civilian leadership. Even in the case of Abu Ghraib, Candorville made it clear that those who set the torture policies were to blame, not the troops who carried them out. The troops deserve better, more honest leadership than the Bush administration is providing. You deserve to have leaders who don’t order you to invade and occupy a country that didn’t attack us and had nothing to do with 9-11. You deserve leaders who don’t order you to torture prisoners, and who don’t create conditions that lead to an insurgency, which in turn leads to a few soldiers predictably snapping and committing atrocities like the Haditha massacre. The responsibility for all this lies at the feet of the people who ignored generals who asked for more troops, who ignored all the doubts about the intelligence and who presented that intelligence as iron clad – a lie that led directly to the current war. Dont’ let anyone tell you that criticism of the President is anywhere in the same ballpark as criticism of the troops. There’s nothing but support for the troops in this country, and increasingly condemnation for the civilian leaders who led the troops into this quagmire.

About Zarqawi, Bush could have had Zarqawi killed in 2003 in Northern Iraq. He didn’t, because that would have robbed him of a reason to invade Iraq. All the deaths, beheadings and chaos Zarqawi started wouldn’t have happened. And had Bush not decided to invade and occupy Iraq, Zarqawi never would have had the opportunity to wreak havoc. You’re asking me to praise the President for cleaning up a mess he created.

So all I’ve said, would you please take it to mind?

PS, this isn’t personal, but I just wanted to know: Do you approve of the ACLU (or at least some things). And also, I’m not against all liberals, in fact, you shouldn’t be too conservative that you don’t help! And last but not least: what do you think of independents?

Sincerely,
An American Soldier.

I think most self-described “independents” are closeted Republicans. That’s why they spend most of their time defending conservatism and Republicans, and complaining about “liberals” and the “liberal Media.” And yes, I approve of the ACLU, who do nothing but defend the Bill of Rights in court. They defend anyone, Left or Right. All Americans who value their civil liberties should approve of the ACLU.

Even Rush Limbaugh probably does, these days.

Visit Candorville!
admin:

View Comments (31)

  • i believe that all the hype on wire tapping is blown way out of porportion. i want u to keep in mind that EVERY wartime has had listening in to peoples lives to find fugitives. Even Abraham Lincoln had listening in on peoples telegraph messages to catch confederate spies, funders, etc. And for anotherthing listening in is not that bad (unless u r a terrorist). My wife called her father the other day to wish him a happy birthday, would the government care? no. If i had called Osoma bin Laden's cell phone than of course they would be on to me. just thought id give u a republican view of the issue.

  • I'll think about what you said. Thanks for answering my comments. Sorry if I sounded offensive. P.S. I still read candorville every day since it is a rare funny comic nowadays.

  • None of this is personal to me, I just don't pussyfoot around issues when I think people are dead wrong. "First of all you do say reverend wilfred is a liberal. You did not say his opinions on these but since he is a liberal I assume he is pro-choice and is for gay marriage."I'm not sure why you assume that. Liberalism is about a hell of a lot more than abortion and gay marriage. Liberalism is, first and foremost, about believing there's a social contract. When you study the Enlightenment in college, you'll be studying liberalism. Reverend Wilfred may or may not be pro-choice, and he may or may not be in favor of equal marriage, but it's not wise to make assumptions based on limited information, such as the label "liberal" or "conservative.""First I used the term good christian because there are many who claim to be christians but are not true believers."That still comes down to you saying a "good Christian" is a Christian who agrees with you. After all, just what constitutes a "true believer" is entirely subjective."I'm not saying that there won't be liberals in heaven but they certainly don't follow Jesus' example very well."That's an odd statement. Do you have any examples to back it up?"As for homosexulaity being a sin did you actually read lleveticus 18:22? Homosexuality is listed with other more apparent sexual sins. Perhaps you should read the bible more."Perhaps you should tell me why it matters whether or not a sin is sexual (isn't a sin a sin?), and perhaps you should answer my question about why you condemn sexual sins, but (and I'm only assuming here, of course) you don't condemn people who wear polyester clothes, people who work on Saturdays, or people who eat lobster -- all of which are also sins, according to the Bible.

  • I wish to respond to your commentary. First of all I wish to thank you for responing at all and wish to ask you to not take it personally, I just disagree with you. First of all you do say reverend wilfred is a liberal. You did not say his opinions on these but since he is a liberal I assume he is pro-choice and is for gay marriage. First I used the term good christian because there are many who claim to be christians but are not true believers. Adolf Hitler himself is a prime example. I'm not saying that there won't be liberals in heaven but they certainly don't follow Jesus' example very well. As for homosexulaity being a sin did you actually read lleveticus 18:22? Homosexuality is listed with other more apparent sexual sins. Perhaps you should read the bible more. Also Jesus doesnt say homosexuality is wrong but he does say the bible is god-inspired and holy (which means it lacks lies and imperfection). If you think Jesus is the only important part to the bible than think again. There is a reason the bible isn't just four books. I appreciate you clearing up your reasoning for calling us hypocrites. I have been confused for a long time about that. Once again thanks for hearing me out.p.s. I am not a staff seargent but a high schooler from chicago. Most of my ideas are not from my parents (who are moderates) but from my middle schooling which was a lutheran school.

  • "I think the way Darrin Bell down grades the christians by using the character "reverend wilfred" is downright wrong."Hello, Staff Sarge. Why are you posting as "anonymous"?Let me tell you somthing. I have never met a true god-fearing minister who was a die hard complete liberal.And what makes you think Reverend Wilfred is? I've never shown him saying anything about the issues you raise."For one thing a good christian knows abortion is murder."I assume "a good Christian" means a Christian who agrees with you."For another thing homosexuality is clearly portrayed as sin in the bible (see leveticus 18:22)."Not by Jesus, and as a "good Christian," I would think that would mean something to you.By the way, the Bible also lists as sins the following: Eating shellfish (like lobster), wearing clothes made from more than one kind of fiber (better check your shorts), and working on Saturday. How come I never see anyone with a Bible and a picket sign protesting the polyester trousers at Target?That's why people like you are labeled hypocrites. You pick and choose which so-called sins to condemn, and which to ignore.

  • I think the way Darrin Bell down grades the christians by using the character "reverend wilfred" is downright wrong. Bell portrays him as a hypocritical man who just likes Bush because he was bribed and in true nature was liberal. Let me tell you somthing. I have never met a true god-fearing minister who was a die hard complete liberal. For one thing a good christian knows abortion is murder. For another thing homosexuality is clearly portrayed as sin in the bible (see leveticus 18:22). We christians are know portrayed as hypocrites and crazy just because we stand up for what is right. If Bell can't find something really wrong with us then he shouldn't put his ridiculus accusations in his comics. Thanks for hearing me out.

  • Hey, YOU were the one who originally said some of these people hadn't voted in 2 presidential elections, not I. That is actually a minimum of 9 years.I did? Where did I say this, and in what context?And, I do find it rather interesting that you chose to take my remark about "Disenfranchising the poor and people of color" out of the full context-- I proposed a solution.The full context was irrelevant. My comment was about a lack of civility, and I posted the relevant part ("foaming"). Adding a solution afterward doesn't alter that. I'm glad to hear you weren't trying to offend.And, you seem to believe that because I follow conservative ideals that I am not honest. Where did I say that? I said I doubt you would take such complaints seriously. I base that on your "foaming" comment and your prior dismissal of voting irregularities as inevitable, rather than seeing them as election theft. That's not the same as being dishonest.

Related Post
  1. Get the NEW Candorville Book: Goodnight Grandpa