David Limbaugh disagrees with Peggy Noonan’s attack on Bush

Ben (not Ben W.) writes:

In his article, “I disagree with Peggy Noonan,” David Limbaugh says,

As for Bush’s self-proclaimed idealism, I believe he is merely referring to his optimism concerning the human yearning for freedom. And he is defending his actions as principled, not boastfully or as an indictment of his opponents—but in response to attacks that he’s ignoring the polls.

Contrary to Peggy’s contention, I believe that as compared to the fair-weather public, President Bush is demonstrating commendable realism on the war and exceptional courage to pursue the long-term best interests of this nation, despite the bipartisan abuse he continues to endure.

That the United States has, during these times, an unflappable leader with a healthy blend of idealism, realism, principle and character is a cause not for gritting our teeth, but thanksgiving.

Have you ever heard more BS then this? At least Noonan after what she just saw with Bush and immigration is beginning to question this man’s leadership. Limbaugh snaps right back into place as a loyal follower and Bush acolyte.

LA replies:

While I disagree with Limbaugh’s overall drift, I must grant him a couple of points which I admit did not occur to me when I read Noonan’s column.

Limbaugh writes:

Bush Derangement Syndrome is not something that “used to” exist. It is alive and well—and apparently growing. While Peggy says that no one thinks anymore that those afflicted with the syndrome are unhinged, I do, as do many others, and I deeply lament Peggy giving cover to the vicious, indefensible assaults against Bush from the left since 2000.

I must say that Limbaugh is correct that Noonan could be read as dropping any criticisms of Bush Derangement Syndrome. There is a difference between irrational disagreement with Bush and rational disagreement, and Noonan’s comments could be seen as erasing that distinction.

Second, Limbaugh writes:

Likewise, I deeply lament that she cites approvingly the e-mailer for the perception that Bush doesn’t tell the truth. Of all the unconscionable lies the left has disseminated, this one is among the worst, and I can’t believe Peggy is lending her name to it, even if by implication. If some conservatives have gritted their teeth, it hasn’t been over the Iraq war (except for the faint of heart), but mostly immigration and spending. And it’s certainly not that they have bought into the Goebbelsesque propaganda that “Bush lied, people died.”

This case is less strong than the first, but Limbaugh is correct that Noonan’s endorsing the statement from a Repubulican lady that “I don’t believe a word that comes out of [Bush’s] mouth” could be seen as support for the “Bush lied, people died” propaganda.

Mark S. writes:

The question of Bush’s veracity is really a liberal diversion. For one thing, many political lies are too complex to analyze. For another, lying is a behavior which everyone denounces in general but approves in particular cases. So a discussion about lying inevitably degenerates to one about motivation. Motives are the great province of liberals, but conservatives should recall that “by their fruits ye shall know them.”

Conservatives needn’t let liberals decoy them into the Stygian swamp which guards the question of motives. Bush may be judged on his actions. For example, Bush has done his level best to erase the borders of this country. Why? Who cares? His partisans say he’s a generous man (albeit with other folks’ money). His detractors say he is a greedy man. I say his policy is wrong no matter why he pursues it, and I can argue the case without proving or even discussing whether Bush has lied. Ditto for every other policy question of interest.

If conservatives hare off after motivation now, they will implicitly strengthen the leftists who wish to divert all policy discussion down that road to nowhere.

LA replies:

The argument that people should not make a particular argument because it’s a distraction is itself a distraction.

In contemporary debate, there are always people who say that people should not talk about what they want to talk about at any given moment. They say, “What you’re talking about is not the real issue, here’s the real issue.” That’s just annoying. People are going to talk about what they want to talk about. If someone else has an argument to make, he should make it, not go around telling other people that their argument is a distraction.

Peggy Noonan said something that David Limbaugh thought went too far in seeming to justify the leftist propaganda that EVERYTHING Bush says, including the existence of WMDs before the war, is a lie. He was in effect appealing for more careful speech, for a less sweeping comment from her. It was a reasonable point, worth making. No harm was done, the left wasn’t empowered.

As for Mark’s point about actions vs. motivations, I agree with Mark that Bush’s motivations for opening the border are of secondary importance compared to the fact that he wants to open the border. At the same time, it is naturally an interesting matter for people to speculate about, and we’ve done a good deal of that at this site.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 17, 2007 08:48 AM | Send