Tit for Tat

I'm fascinated by this column by Peter Berkowitz in Opinion Journal: The Insanity of Bush Hatred.

Bush hatred, however, is distinguished by the pride intellectuals have taken in their hatred, openly endorsing it as a virtue and enthusiastically proclaiming that their hatred is not only a rational response to the president and his administration but a mark of good moral hygiene.
...Recognizing the common heritage that provides the ground for so many of the disagreements between right and left today will encourage both sides, if not to cherish their opponents, at least to discipline their passions and make them an ally of their reason.

I certainly can't dispute any call for more reasonable public discourse, but....this column could have been written 10 years ago discussing 'Clinton hatred'. I don't see much difference. Or is the difference that this time, it's the 'intellectuals' who hate what is going on? (And let's not forget these bridge players.)

And, this time it's really a reaction to what has been done in our name, to our country and its reputation. And things like this (yeah, it's Cheney, not Bush, but they seem to be interchangable). Clinton hatred seemed to be a personal thing.

Andrew Sullivan responds, in The Sanity Of Bush Hatred:

Hatred is a strong word and a clouding emotion. But sustained outrage isn't. One can forgive any president for mistakes - even catastrophic mistakes, as in the intelligence for and execution of the Iraq war. But to have trashed the constitution's balance, violated core values of due process and decency, polluted our intelligence in ways that deeply undermine national security, and deliberately divided a country for partisan advantage in wartime - these are not mere mistakes. And anger is not an irrational, let alone, insane response.

And Bob Cesca, at Huffington Post: American Patriotism Crushed By Republican SUVs.