For Me, But Not For Thee

A WorldNetDaily columnist isn't sure he would support Gore if he was president on Sept. 11.

By Terry Krepel
Posted 9/21/2001

ConWebWatch has tried to make the point that if Bill Clinton or Al Gore were president when the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks occurred, the ConWeb would 1) not give him the unquestioning fealty they are currently giving to President Bush, and 2) they would not be as intolerant of presidential criticism as they are now. Well, lo and behold, our theory gets proven correct.

WorldNetDaily columnist Hugh Hewitt spends his Sept. 18 column railing against "my colleagues in the commentary business who think it is their job to criticize the president of the United States in the aftermath of an attack on the nation," calling them "parasites of crisis" and demanding that they "please just shut the hell up." Hewitt's view on Bush, meanwhile, are just as unambiguous: "I am proud to be led by this man."

Then, Hewitt makes an extrordinarily small-minded -- yet honest -- statement:

If last November's vote had gone the other way, and vice president Gore had been the man to face this awful challenge, I pray that I would have supported him at this crucial juncture – in my columns and on my radio and television shows. (Italics mine.)

He "prays" he would support a President Gore? He would have to put some thought and consideration into the issue before offering his support? Please. Did he "pray" for the strength to support Bush on Sept. 11? Probably not. His statement makes it clear that he would act no different under a President Gore than those he criticizes for their current behavior. He wants to reserve that right for himself even as he bashes others for doing what he would do were the situation reversed.

Yet Hewitt continues his attack:

But here in our country, we have bred not one but a score of commentators so eager to hack at a president they oppose, that not a week – indeed not a day – is allowed to pass between the single largest loss of civilian life at the hands of an enemy and their first salvo at the commander in chief. This is a stunning stripping of the facade of professionalism from this crowd. At the crucial moment of their career, they chose partisanship over country.

Hewitt has not demonstrated himself to be any different. Hacking at a president to the extent the ConWeb did was perfectly fine when Clinton was in office (and Hewitt himself calls Gore "the stiff loser in the red tie"), but people like Hewitt (and places like NewsMax) seem to be interested only in squashing criticism of Bush under the guise of patriotism. That's disgusting.

Not to mention un-American. For a more enlightened view on this issue, we return to WorldNetDaily and writer Rebecca Hagelin, who defends the rights of such folks as Jerry Falwell, Bill Maher and WND's own Anthony LoBaido -- each of whom have come under fire for post-attack statements -- to express their opinions.

"Do I think Dr. Falwell and Bill Maher and Anthony LoBaido were tasteless and insensitive in their recent remarks? Absolutely!" she writes in a Sept. 21 column. "But do I question their loyalty to our Constitution and our country? Absolutely not!"

Hewitt has chosen "partisanship over country," but since he was so squarely in the Bush camp long before Sept. 11, partisanship and country have converged for him, and he doesn't have to face the consequences of this decision.

Supporting our country and doing what's necessary to combat terrorism is what's important right now -- no matter who is president. Too bad Hewitt hasn't figured that out.