Bush could never lie as well as Democrats

[Admin]

In My Opinion by Trevor Bothwell

For two years now George W. Bush’s detractors have accused the president of politicizing the War on Terror. Liberals claim Bush has told “lie after lie after lie after lie” to the American people to drum up support for a war “made up in Texas” solely, it seems, to help his reelection chances.

Contrary to the rhetoric of many of the president’s critics -- which has reached outlandish proportions -- not only is it absurd to believe President Bush would sacrifice American lives for selfish political gain, but you’d have to be a nitwit to think a president could sail to reelection more easily in a time of war than one of peace.

Which is why the prevailing opinion and actions among leading congressional Democrats is so disconcerting.

For starters, that Ted Kennedy actually has the nerve to show his face in public -- let alone pound a podium in the Senate while attacking the character of President Bush -- should give pause to anyone concerned with the direction the Democrat Party has headed today. Do the words “Mary Jo Kopechne” mean anything?

And Sen. John Kerry, whose constant flip-flopping on political issues would be comedic if not so potentially serious, is defended by supporters for his “nuance” and commended for being “at ease with complexity.” Apparently it takes a complex mind never to have to worry about being held to consistency by your constituents.

Even Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, who has acquired a reputation over the years for supporting the military, seems to have become addicted to the art of abandoning principle if it means gaining approval from the nation’s top liberal Democrats.

Steny Hoyer -- who supported the Clinton administration in seeking regime change in Iraq; who was one of the few Democrats to vote in 2002 for the use of force to oust Saddam Hussein; and who has voted to provide funding to support our Iraq policies -- has now cut and run from his previous positions of support now that the going has gotten tough in Iraq.

According to The Enterprise, a local newspaper in southern Maryland, Steny Hoyer sharply criticized President Bush’s postwar handling of Iraq at a recent luncheon. Rep. Hoyer reaffirmed his vote for the $87 billion package to fund our troops and Iraqi reconstruction, but he nevertheless accused Mr. Bush of making the case for war by lying about the existence of WMDs in Iraq as well as telling Americans that Iraq posed an “imminent threat” to our security.

It practically defies common sense to have to continually refute fabrications by Democrats, as they seemingly insist upon closing their eyes and covering their ears to avoid acknowledging the facts before them. But once again, it apparently bears mentioning that intelligence agencies in the United States, Israel, and Great Britain -- not to mention the U.N., France, and Russia -- all maintained that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD prior to the war. And despite what Steny Hoyer claims, President Bush explicitly stated in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq indeed did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. Quite the opposite, in urging the American people to appreciate the gravity of terrorism, he asked, “Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?”

There are really only two possible explanations for the rhetorical shenanigans on the left today: Either Democrats are not intelligent enough to consult the White House website for presidential transcripts or State Department records documenting Saddam’s weapons programs; or they readily insist upon misleading the public. And as much as it pains me to admit it, I’d have to say even they’re smart enough to figure out how to do a Google search.

It’s obviously now politically expedient in an election year for resentful Democrats to accuse the Commander-in-Chief of lies, but it should not go unnoticed that our nation’s most prominent liberals conveniently engage in deception themselves to do so.

John Kerry has made it clear that his only consistency is his inconsistency. And it now appears that Steny Hoyer has chosen to place presidential politics above military morale and national defense, adopting Kerry’s position on Iraq and reversing once-honorable decisions to deal forcefully and responsibly with America’s enemies.

As a nation mourns the passing of arguably the greatest president of the 20th century, it would behoove us to appreciate the significance of Ronald Reagan’s determination to stare down the Soviets, ensuring that today we would not have to face a threat of tyranny too many of us were at the time content to accept.

Today we face a different, more dangerous threat. Today we again require leaders who will rise to the task of defending our nation and, like President Reagan, reject the conventional wisdom of placing political pragmatism above American idealism. But today’s Democrat Party possesses few such leaders, led by career politicians like Kerry, Kennedy and Hoyer, who are motivated more by partisan venom than by honesty and integrity.

In My Opinion Archives
Trevor Bothwell is editor of The Right Report, and he is also press secretary for Brad Jewitt’s (R-Md.) 2004 campaign for U.S. Congress. Trevor can be contacted at bothwell@therightreport.com.

[dems4me (Premo)]

[/b][/quote]
John Kerry has made it clear that his only consistency is his inconsistency



:

[soul4sale]

[quote]Originally posted by Admin
Contrary to the rhetoric of many of the president’s critics -- which has reached outlandish proportions -- not only is it absurd to believe President Bush would sacrifice American lives for selfish political gain, but you’d have to be a nitwit to think a president could sail to reelection more easily in a time of war than one of peace.

*cough*Lincoln*cough*

For starters, that Ted Kennedy actually has the nerve to show his face in public -- *snip* Do the words “Mary Jo Kopechne” mean anything?

When is the GOP going to quit humping Chappaquiddick as a reason to hate T.K. and just start hating him because he's a fat, obnoxious drunk?

Even Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, who has acquired a reputation over the years for supporting the military, seems to have become addicted to the art of abandoning principle if it means gaining approval from the nation’s top liberal Democrats.

That's cuz he got whipped.

It practically defies common sense to have to continually refute fabrications by Democrats, as they seemingly insist upon closing their eyes and covering their ears to avoid acknowledging the facts before them.

....Huh? Oh, I was waiting for the list of facts.

Either Democrats are not intelligent enough to consult the White House website for presidential transcripts or State Department records documenting Saddam’s weapons programs

Why bother, if they were proven wrong before the war?

As a nation mourns the passing of arguably the greatest president of the 20th century

I got over Roosevelt a long time ago, thanks.

Today we face a different, more dangerous threat.

Than nuclear annihilation? Do tell!

Today we again require leaders who will rise to the task of defending our nation and, like President Reagan, reject the conventional wisdom of placing political pragmatism above American idealism.

Two words: Iran-Contra. Hey!, you brought up the old crap first!

[vraiblonde]

When is the GOP going to quit humping Chappaquiddick as a reason to hate T.K. and just start hating him because he's a fat, obnoxious drunk?

When the people of Massachusetts quit stuffing him back into office and put him in a jail cell where he belongs. Those New England liberals do like their drunks and killers, don't they?

[jlabsher]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
When the people of Massachusetts quit stuffing him back into office and put him in a jail cell where he belongs. Those New England liberals do like their drunks and killers, don't they?

Well Bush married one!

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by jlabsher
Well Bush married one!

One what?

[Sharon (Premo)]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
One what?

I think he's lamely comparing ChappaTeddy's accident to the one Laura's had when she was 17.

[rraley]

Oh man, there is alot to refute here.

First of all, I supported the War in Iraq - I saw it as one that all liberals should jump on board (it was very consistent with our ideology of helping to protect oppressed peoples around the world; isolationist tendencies have been historically displayed by the Republican Party). President Clinton, one of my favorite political leaders (insert your negative, Clinton-hate line here), saw Iraq as a serious threat and maintained that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I agree that Hussein should have been removed from power (especially with recent revelations from the Russian government that Hussein was planning terrorist actions on American soil) and I am glad everyday that he is no longer in power in one of the most unstable regions of the world. Just as President Bush stated, "good riddance." Much of the anti-war rhetoric coming from prominent Democrats is over the top, but alot of the rhetoric coming from Tom DeLay, etc. during the Bosnian War was the same and rhetoric from partisan Republicans is over the top often as well (e.g. Secretary of Education Rod Paige calling teachers' unions "terrorist organizations").

Now, while I agree with the objectives of President Bush's Iraq War, I fully disagree with his way of executing the war and the way that he made his case for war. I do not disagree with Bush's methods just because I am a Democrat; I disagree with them because I see them as ineffective and detrimental to our mission in Iraq. A thousand coalition soldiers have been killed in Iraq and thousands more have been wounded. Some estimates show that over ten thousand Iraqis have been killed since the war started. Attacks are over thirty a day; this after Hussein was captured and the war declared over. The murder rate in Baghdad is 600 a month. Unemployment is 23%. Prisoner abuse in Abu Grahib. President Bush's methods have produced these statistics - hardly glowing examples of efficiency in the war's and the reconstruction's execution. There needs to be a redefinition of our policies in Iraq, but we must maintain the course towards stability and security in the nation.

I will not say that this whole Iraq thing was cooked up in Texas as Senator Kennedy; that was false and over the top. I will not say that this war was built on lies and deception as Senator Byrd has stated. I will say that President Bush exaggerated and stretched in order to attract support for this war. Not only did he claim that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that they could be mobilized in under forty-five minutes to attack the United States (that was an unverified claim, but it was still in his talking points on the war). He stated that Iraq wanted Nigerian uranium for nuclear weapons when the CIA had completely backed down from that intelligence months before the State of the Union Address. And Vice President Dick Cheney said that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were closer than anyone could imagine. That claim was immediately questionable prior to the war and the 9/11 commission, composed of five Democrats and five Republicans, just released its findings saying that there was "no credible evidence" of such a link. President Bush's response to this bipartisan committee, "no, there was." There was some stretching and why should Democrats not mention that?

And about the flip-flopping: it is a weak argument and only has traction with the base of committed Republicans. I listened to President Bush's speech in Reno from yesterday and some of his cited flip-flops are just wrong (like saying that Kerry opposes the Iraq War now; that is absolute bull hockey).