>>I criticized Bush for sending GI's into Iraq.
>>Lots of people called me unpatriotic.
>>That's OK, but it's another thing to imply that I wanted innocent civilians and US GI's to die so that I could be proven right.

I'm presuming you mean the second Bush, but no matter: yours is not a formulaic unspecific smear; you identified a specific action "sending troops to Iraq" that you thought unwise. You were able to explain how you reached that conclusion, correct? And if presented with compelling evidence, you would have been open to changing your mind?

If so: those avoiding reasoned debate by declaring you "unpatriotic" are the forerunners of the likes of Schumer today. Because whether it turns out well or badly, reasoned challenge underpins not just democracy (since few other political models will tolerate it) but all real science and is a major plank for human improvement.

If you want to compare your reasoned challenge to current antics, please tell me precisely what Schumer and now Cuomo is saying should occur that is not. Bearing in mind that at least one candidate says the southern border should be opened up regardless of virus risk- is that what Schumer means? We don't know, because his smears are willfully imprecise and can only be judged reasonable if things turn out badly.

Unfortunately this is the way of the world today, including from millennials who like to lecture their elders about science, but then panic or even riot when told this week that their Uni dormitories are closing for safety. "If everything doesn't go my way, I attack" seems to be the current civic model and the example is set from the top, which doesn't just mean Trump.