Rep. Stark's Self-Criticism

For those of you unversed in Cold War lingo, a self-criticism is something the Commies did, particularly the Chi-Coms. When someone got on the wrong side of Chairman Mao, he made them publicly confess their errors and admit to bourgeois or capitalist-road tendencies. It tied in to the idea of re-education camps where you got over your heresies through menial labor.
Rep. Stark of California isn't about to be sent to a collective farm, but that aside, the ordeal he underwent today doesn't seem much different from something someone might suffer during the Cultural Revolution. You can read the article, but let's put Stark's offending comment on the record here. This is what he said that got him into trouble:

"You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to
spend it, to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old
enough for you to send to Iraq, to get their heads blown off, for the
president's amusement."

Aren't Republicans the most thin-skinned people on Planet Earth? They can't stand the thought of their leader's good name getting besmirched. They seem to take it personally that anyone might suggest that George W. Bush has a character defect. But aren't they hypocrites, too? The ad hominem argument is their favorite debating tool. Their first reflex is to ascribe opposition to Republican or conservative policies to character flaws. Yet they instantly demand apologies, recanting, self-criticism if anyone questions their character or that of their president.

But leave Republican hypocrisy aside. The main points for tonight are that Rep. Stark has nothing to apologize for and that the House of Representatives has disgraced itself by even debating a resolution to rebuke him for what he said. The enduring fact is that George W. Bush has earned the hatred of the American people, and that any rhetoric short of advocating his murder is more than justified by his decisions and policies. Democrats must share the disgrace with Republicans to the extent that any of them, from Nancy Pelosi on down, said anything, any single word critical of Rep. Stark. At this late date, if you hear a Republican whine and pout and bluster and demand apologies from someone for insulting Bush, the only appropriate response is the one that Mr. Cheney taught us.

Having said all this, I hasten to add that I dispute the accuracy of Rep. Stark's remarks. I don't think that Bush literally chortles over casualty reports. I suspect that he keeps the troops in Iraq not so much for his amusement, nor even mainly for strategic reasons, but to test his own will against that of "the terrorists." Part of the neocon mythos is that terrorists are emboldened when, once bloodied, Americans cut and run. My hunch is that Bush believes he can break the terrorists' will by refusing to cut and run, by showing them that, no matter how many other Americans they kill, he will not withdraw. You may decide that this is worse than keeping soldiers there to die for his amusement, but don't expect me to apologize.