What kinds of criticisms of Shrub are actually allowed?

[Flaming Meaux]

Found this on a somewhat obscure blog. Thought I'd recycle the question here:

<i>"All this is designed to make the demonstrators to feel good but also to show Americans that even their closest ally despises the president and wants him defeated, humiliated, removed. Even if it means supporting the forces of terrorism in the Middle East. That's how inflamed and irrational this has become.</i> - Andrew Sullivan

I'm not even going to bother rebutting the assertion that disliking the President and protesting against him means supporting the forces of terrorism, because Andy's too suffocatingly cloistered to listen to, you know, reason.

So, my question for any President Parappa the Rapper fans out there, exactly what criticisms can anyone make of him without threatening the sanctity of this noble American experiment? Since we now know that there's only the One True Ring Way of fighting terrorism, and that anything else amounts to giving the terrorists the key to our nuclear arsenal, I'm just curious.

You apparently can't even investigate what the President was doing pre-September 11th (unless he's a Democrat, of course) to stop terrorism. Do we really need a democracy anymore?

------------------

So, your thoughts?

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

1. Traitor!

Tee hee, just joshing. No dissent is permitted. The Republicans know that the climate of fear created by 9-11 is a consistently powerful tool that they are willing to use any time they need to justify anything. They want 100% unconditional support for this administration and they know that tarring any dissenting with the "He supports terrorism" argument will work every time.