« They Never Cease To Shock | Main | Basic Muslim Behaviors »

Who Is Lying?

I am a huge fan of David Limbaugh's columns, but his latest is my all time favorite. I really, really wish I had written it. Please, if you only read one column this weekend, read this one.

If you are a supporter of the mission in Iraq, and interested in the truth, this one will have you saying "Amen."

In fact, Democrats are the ones politicizing the war and who view it exclusively through a partisan prism. When they stop hyperventilating, they might consider that it is the commander in chief's duty to rally popular support for the troops and their mission. Of course, the president's task wouldn't be nearly so urgent if Democrats hadn't been undermining the war effort in Iraq almost since it began with a steady stream of disinformation, focusing on the false charge that he lied us into war.

They explain their sudden affinity for the truth -- in contrast to their cynically dismissive attitude toward it during the Clinton years -- as a matter of the singular importance of the war. While lying per se isn't particularly wrong under their relativist standards -- and lying about adulterous relations is even virtuous to protect one's family -- lying about war, at least by a Republican president, is so evil it pretty much drives them to the obnoxious Christian state of moral absolutism.

This distinction is interesting given their own pattern of deceit concerning all aspects of the war. Let's review, shall we?

-- They said Bush attacked Iraq "unilaterally," when he built a coalition of over 30 nations, including Great Britain and tried hard to persuade the rest of Old Europe to join. To their discredit, they refused. A unilateralist wouldn't have bothered.

-- They deny Iraq is part of the war on terror, never mind that terrorists demonstrably disagree. Never mind that the Bush Doctrine clearly defines the enemy to include terrorist-sponsoring nations, like Saddam's Iraq.
...
-- They say Bush called Iraq an "imminent threat," when he called it a "great and gathering threat." The Bush Doctrine called for attacking threatening nations before they could become an imminent threat, when it would be too late. But some anti-war Democrats, like Jay Rockefeller, did call Iraq an "imminent threat."

-- They say Bush's sole reason to attack Iraq was its WMD. In fact, David Horowitz notes there were 23 "whereas" clauses in the Iraq War resolution, only two of which mentioned WMD and 12 of which concerned Saddam's violations of U.N. resolutions.

That is just a taste of it. Read the whole thing.

This is cross-posted at Right Wing News where I am guest blogging today.


Comments (35)

Limbaugh is right, but so w... (Below threshold)
Mark L:

Limbaugh is right, but so what?

Facts have never stopped leftists, and never will stand between leftists and their agenda.

Too be fair to the democrat... (Below threshold)
rsp:

Too be fair to the democrats, when they claim Bush acted "unilaterally", it's not really a lie.

They simply dont know what "unilaterally" means.

Or, what "lie" means.... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Or, what "lie" means.

Democrats politicizing the ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Democrats politicizing the war....

So, Rumsfeld's speech comparing war critics to appeasers is not politicizing the war? His view is not through a partisan prism? Disagreement is undermining?

Clinton lied, yes. Did anyone die because of the lie? I know, I know....moral relativism. Well it that's what it is i own it.

It's pretty clear to most citizens (say 60% or more) that Iraq is not a legitimate part of the war on terrorism. It has become a breeding ground and a recruting tool for terrorism as a result of the disaster caused by Bush et al.

To deny that the Republican establishment talked about an imminent threat is laughable. One wonders what delusion Mr Limbaugh is under in that regard. Whether Bush himself used those exact words or not is irrelevant. remeber the mushroom cloud statement by Rice e.g?

You can argue till you're blue in the face that Mr Bush wanted to enforce UN Resolutions as a reason to invade. That's an absurdity. He did it because he had to...it was, as they say, politically expedient to do so. Many, including Cheyney argued invading without the UN's approval. It was, ina way, a mwthod to "appease" dissent.

Why is that the right will never accept the mistakes made by Mr Bush - particularly regarding Iraq? There is rarely a critical analysis of his actions. Instead what we get is that it is the MSM's fault, or the left's persecution, or that the public doesn't understand, or that dissent and disagreement equals appeasement or hatred. That ship isn't going to sail anymore. The public isn't buying it because it no longer is willing to hear excuse after excuse, changed stories, new goals, new bench markks for success and absolutley no acceptance of responsibility for anything gone wrong. It's tired of hearing people who honestly dissent called coward and appeasers and America haters. Do you really think some 30 y.o. suburban mom with a couple of kids who thinks Iraq is wrong hates America? Or is an appeaser? If you do I actually feel sorry for you.

Try not turning this into a name calling, hate spewing discussion. I won't. I believe in what I am saying. I believe many many others do too.

They know about acting, tho... (Below threshold)
Nell:

They know about acting, though.

Ok Hugh, you believe what y... (Below threshold)
smartguy:

Ok Hugh, you believe what you are saying. Most people believe what they themselves say. That does not make it true or false though. It just makes you sincere.

Hillary was also sincere when she said that we needed to go to Iraq and eliminate the imminent threat of Saddam with nukes. Kerry was sincere when he said it, and Howard Dean was sincere when he said it. I assume most of the left was sincere when they echoed that position.

Problem now is, even though they all had access to the same intelligence that Bush did, and they came to the same conclusion as to what our action should be, it is only "BUSH lied, people died".

That is where the sincerity ends, and it's at least one reason why most of America does not take the Democratic party seriously anymore. Personally, I don't think there is much, if any, difference between the two parties at all anyway (I am a Libertarian), but the Democrats these days are way beyond laughable.

The ironic thing is, WMDs WERE found in Iraq. What an inconvenient truth.

Yes, I read this excellent ... (Below threshold)
JannyMae:

Yes, I read this excellent this column this morning. Unfortunately, the anti-war folks are oblivious to these truths, as evidenced by Hugh's clueless commentary.

Although it's probably an exercise in futility, I'll address his comments (Hugh's in italics):


Democrats politicizing the war....

So, Rumsfeld's speech comparing war critics to appeasers is not politicizing the war? His view is not through a partisan prism? Disagreement is undermining?

Hugh, there seems to be a double standard. It seems as if, "dissent," from liberals regarding the war is supposed to be beyond criticism. Why is it that you are allowed to, "dissent," but when Rumsfeld makes his case, he's out of line?? Double standard, Hugh?

Clinton lied, yes. Did anyone die because of the lie? I know, I know....moral relativism. Well it that's what it is i own it.

...Non-sequitur

It's pretty clear to most citizens (say 60% or more) that Iraq is not a legitimate part of the war on terrorism. It has become a breeding ground and a recruting tool for terrorism as a result of the disaster caused by Bush et al.

Sorry, Hugh, reality does not support your statements that Iraq has caused more terrorism. Reality indicates that we have ELIMINATED many terrorist threats.

To deny that the Republican establishment talked about an imminent threat is laughable. One wonders what delusion Mr Limbaugh is under in that regard. Whether Bush himself used those exact words or not is irrelevant. remeber the mushroom cloud statement by Rice e.g?

Sorry, Hugh. Bush's actual statements in the run-up to the war belie your allegations. Limbaugh is dead right, and you are dead wrong.


You can argue till you're blue in the face that Mr Bush wanted to enforce UN Resolutions as a reason to invade. That's an absurdity. He did it because he had to...it was, as they say, politically expedient to do so. Many, including Cheyney argued invading without the UN's approval. It was, ina way, a mwthod to "appease" dissent.

Incoherence, Hugh. Just what are you trying to insist, here? Politically expedient? That couldn't be further from the truth, Hugh, especially if you are claiming that Bush knew there would be so few WMD found. Bush committing potential political suicide, is, "expedient?"


Why is that the right will never accept the mistakes made by Mr Bush - particularly regarding Iraq?

Iraq was not a mistake, Hugh.

There is rarely a critical analysis of his actions.

This couldn't be more false. What blogs do you read? I see Bush criticized CONSTANTLY for not being aggressive enough in the war on Iraq, which belies your purported POLL result. Not all people who disapprove of Bush's handling of the Iraq war believe it was, 'wrong.'

Instead what we get is that it is the MSM's fault, or the left's persecution, or that the public doesn't understand, or that dissent and disagreement equals appeasement or hatred. That ship isn't going to sail anymore. The public isn't buying it because it no longer is willing to hear excuse after excuse, changed stories, new goals, new bench markks for success and absolutley no acceptance of responsibility for anything gone wrong.

Now, you are again professing to know how, "the public," thinks. Your analysis is totally without merit. Everything you accuse your political opponents of claiming is true. The MSM has done a terrible job of reporting on the war. If you do not see that, you must truly be blind to the truth. They do report almost exclusively the negatives. Not everything has gone right in Iraq, but not everything has gone wrong...not by a longshot. You and your ilk manage to ignore the progress being made, and focus on hysterical rantings about impending civil war. Do you really think the public is buying that hysteria, when so many in the public have military friends and family, who decry the MSM coverage of the war?


It's tired of hearing people who honestly dissent called coward and appeasers and America haters. Do you really think some 30 y.o. suburban mom with a couple of kids who thinks Iraq is wrong hates America? Or is an appeaser? If you do I actually feel sorry for you.

Again, Hugh, you seem to be of the notion that you have a right to, "dissent," without any rebuttal by those who disagree with your dissent. I'm afraid that I see cowards and appeasers every day, who are engaging in the same type of, 'dissent,' you're talking about. Personally, I believe that most of these people are just plain ignorant. I feel sorry for them, and for you, Hugh.

Try not turning this into a name calling, hate spewing discussion. I won't. I believe in what I am saying. I believe many many others do too.

Yes, I believe in what I'm saying, as well. I also believe that I am looking at things realistically, and that you are not.

Smartguy:Thanks fo... (Below threshold)
Hugh Grady:

Smartguy:

Thanks for the response. Time and history will determine whether we were misled. If I am wrong, I can admit that though I don't think I will have to.

As for your assertion about Democrats not being taken seriously, I think, with all due respect, you have that backwards:

"The number of Americans calling themselves Republican has fallen to its lowest level in more than two-and-a-half years. Just 31.9% of American adults now say they're affiliated with the GOP. That's down from 37.2% in October 2004 and 34.5% at the beginning of 2006. These results come from Rasmussen Reports tracking surveys of 15,000 voters per month and have a margin of sampling error smaller than a percentage point.


The number of Democrats has grown slightly, from 36.1% at the beginning of the year to 37.3% now."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/partisantrends20060901

@ HughIn a few yea... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

@ Hugh

In a few years Bush will be gone and Saddam's head will be on a mantel at the ranch with a wide-eyed expression and Cindy Sheehan's property will be on the market at a deep discount.

It's the dems' vitriol toward Bush that leaves me wondering what they expect to happen after he's actually gone from office? Peace and love with Islam? Is that possible with flowers in a rifle butt? Was it ever?

It really boils down to this: You're a DOVE and I'm a HAWK. Now, pull my wallet outta that garbage bag. It says 'Bad Ass Motherf*cker' on it. And tell Honey Bunny to just stay cool.

JannyMae:Thanks fo... (Below threshold)
Hugh Grady:

JannyMae:

Thanks for your response. I, of course, think I am looking at it realistically and that you are not.

That being said. I don't believe you have no right to dissent. Of course you do. That was not my point. My point was that to call dissenter's appeasers or America haters is wrong and repugnant. You may think I'm ignorant, that's your choice. I don't think you're "ignorant." I think we each see things through different glasses so to speak. You have your biases and you beliefs and I have mine. Why can't we peacefully express them?

My "public thinks" point comes from recent and trending polling about the war. If you have other polls I'd like to see them. If you don't believe polls, that's ok.

By the way why do so many righties have to use the word "ilk" like it's a pejorative or something? It's like we didn't take a bath and you're repelled by that. It looks like one of htose words you all picked up from Rush Limbaugh or Hannity.

Well said, and well done, H... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Well said, and well done, Hugh.

Red Fog:As usual y... (Below threshold)
Hugh Grady:

Red Fog:

As usual you add nothing. Lets consider this my response to you for eternity so I never have to typre a response to you again

Hugh can you provide a link... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Hugh can you provide a link to the exact quotes in which Rumsfeld called ALL dissenters appeasers or America haters?

If you could read without f... (Below threshold)
Hugh Grady:

If you could read without fuming you'd see I never said that about Rumsfeld. Sheesh...why do you want to play the game of GOT YA?


But here's a little taste.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14570794/

I LOVE RUMMY! HE MAKES M... (Below threshold)
Rory:

I LOVE RUMMY! HE MAKES MY DAY/WEEK/YEAR!

plus he knows his Clausewitz.....that's always hot!

Hubba...

Big deal if he did cal you ... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Big deal if he did cal you "names".....

Defend YOUR I-D-E-A-S.

What the hell are they by the way?

@ HughGo hug Lee w... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

@ Hugh

Go hug Lee while we win this war almighty arbiter of (start the echo) What "the public" thinks. At best, you're a preachy sound bite whore. I say read, go to school, punch the wall, son.

Well since the liberals on ... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Well since the liberals on the thread are slow on the uptake.

What are your ideas to fight terrorism?

We can surmise from past performance a bit can't we? That would be logical wouldn't it?

What was the Liberal Leadership response to American Army members being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu? What did it "cost" the terrorists?

What was the Liberal Leadership response to the USS Cole? What did that "cost" the terrorists?

What was the Liberal response to the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? One "supposed" pharmaceutical factory and the poor guy working the night shift. {do you think the terrorists cared about him-they kill more Muslims than any other "force".}

What was the Liberal response to the Khobar Towers-which had the finger prints of Al-Quada all over it?

The Liberal "response" was to treat the military as disposable and not full citizens. The Liberal response was to empathize with the terrorists and to "explain/excuse to the American public that perhaps the military were "legitimate" targets.

At least Rummy let's the military fight back instead of being huge sitting targets.

Who would want to hug "puck... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Who would want to hug "pucker puss"(lee lee)? EEEE-UUUU

That being said. I don't... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

That being said. I don't believe you have no right to dissent. Of course you do. That was not my point. My point was that to call dissenter's appeasers or America haters is wrong and repugnant.

You mean, like the "peace" activists support killing Bush and call troops "baby-killers"?

But is that the kind of dissent you approve of?

Again, freedom of speech can be quite a bitch. Means that I have the same right to condemn you as you have to condemn people you disagree with.

We see an enemy that has attacked us, consistently, for 27 years now. We see one side who wants to deal with it and the other side who does not seem to think that this is really a problem.
-=Mike

Rory:Your usual sc... (Below threshold)
Hugh Grady:

Rory:

Your usual screed has nothing to do with the discussion. The usual tactic- change the subject when you have nothing to add.

Mike:

The last time I checked, the Constitution allows anyone to dissent. I think that's something your "ilk" frequently forgets. That being said, because folks have the right to say what they wish doesn't mean it can't be repugnant and disgusting. Calling Bush and soldires baby killers is disgusting just as calling those who disagree appeasers or America haters.

I don't remember "condemning" anyone. You have the right to be wrong.

Your last comment was so silly it rquires no response.

Hugh,While I thoroug... (Below threshold)
Andrew Burton:

Hugh,
While I thoroughly disagree with you point of view, I think the tone of your comments is to be applauded - especially given the nature of the dialogue between our sides these days. Who said "Honorable men can disagree?"
FYI, I don't call myself a Republican either. But that's the way I've been voting.
Andy

Everyone of age knows that ... (Below threshold)
Walter E. Wallis:

Everyone of age knows that the United States cannot be defeated militarily. Any defeat has to be internal.
Warriors know that the concept of a "plan" for warfare will function only until the enemy perceives your plan and adapts.
The concept of negotiating with someone who is sworn to kill you no matter what, is pathetically absurd, an attempt to bring the world back to the comfort of the teddy bear and blanky.
The real world is a messy place and it ain't gonna get any better, so the grownups need to survive for the sake of the children, of all ages.
Islam wants us dead. I don't. No compromise.

Hugh Grady says:"The... (Below threshold)
hward:

Hugh Grady says:
"The number of Americans calling themselves Republican has fallen to its lowest level in more than two-and-a-half years."

This appears to be a variation of "argumentum ad populum" and it is an example of false logic. Even if everyone leaves the Republican Party it doesn't prove the point of the debate. I will be deducting 15 point from the blue team.

Smart guy get 15 points off also for bring this up.

Everyone, please think about enrolling in a college level class in Argument and Debate, it is extremely important to the future of the United States of America. The ease with which Americans can voice and read differing opinions these days is not as intellectually stimulating as we might hope.

Mind you, I am not taking sides, I am trying to educate. I you have a little time let me explain the flaw in the argument. This may get a little wordy but I have a room addition to finish and I don’t have time to rewrite and condense my thoughts.

The argumentum ad populum fallacy is the “50 million Frenchman can’t be wrong” kind of argument. The idea that anything popularly believed to be true must be true is a hard one to kill. To keep it simple, if everyone in the country thinks George Bush is a liar, that does not make him a liar. A liar is someone who knowingly presents as fact something they know to be false. In this particular case, since it is impossible to know what any person is thinking, proving that the President lied is probably impossible, and that whole argument is thus a waste of time.

David Lindbaugh, on the other hand, is not writing about what the Democrats are thinking, he is writing about what they are saying. The Democrats who say that “we went into Iraq unilaterally” were lying unless they didn’t know that 30 countries were on our side (1 country is “unilateral”).

Sorry for the long post but I am only trying to help. If I remember correctly, the definition of argument is high emotion, low logic with little chance to persuade. Debate is the opposite, low emotion, lots of logic and facts, and a good change to persuade.

I just read that Hezbollah is recruiting people in Venezuela for their global jihad. We don't seem to have very much time to figure out what the proper response to 9/11 should be. We cannot afford to waste time shouting losing arguments at each other. We need to figure out what we are going to do and get I done. A good plan implemented in time is better than a perfect plan implemented too late.

My experience on this subject: I was a standout on my high school debate team. I took classes in college and was asked by my teacher on more than one occasion to judge debates. If you haven’t already done so, please take a class, as debate is one of those things that is difficult to learn on your own. Thanks for reading this, now go do the right thing.

Hugh,Once again I ... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Hugh,

Once again I absolutely have to disagree with your statements, although I won't say I don't understand where you are coming from.

Democrats politicizing the war....

You know I read an interesting history article recently talking about the 1942 elections. The republicans desperately wanted to punish FDR for his liberal policies, but as a group jumped on the "war wagon" and supported the war effort completely. Both as a party and as individuals they proved that to them the safety of the US citizen was more important that winning poltical points. The Democrats have been openly willing to use any negative events to attack the Republicans. It is purely political, and hurts this nation, no matter how "pure" their motives are.


So, Rumsfeld's speech comparing war critics to appeasers is not politicizing the war? His view is not through a partisan prism? Disagreement is undermining?

His view does have some politics in it, but its also a view of history. He's comparing 2 groups, one historical, one current, both who acted in a way he feels counter productive. In truth I'm not sure how much of what he's saying is political. THe only politican he quotes was an isolationist Republican. His arguement also hasn't been assailed by those who are attacking his words. Its almost as if the "war critics" actually agree with him, but don't want to admit it for political reasons. That's probably more damning evidence than his own words.

Clinton lied, yes. Did anyone die because of the lie? I know, I know....moral relativism. Well it that's what it is i own it.

Politicans lie, that's their job. And moral relativism is a weak argument in any case. Most conservatives aren't so much upset about the charges that Bush lied as the open hypocracy shown by the Democrats when they refuse to admit their own lies or the damage caused by them.

It's pretty clear to most citizens (say 60% or more) that Iraq is not a legitimate part of the war on terrorism. It has become a breeding ground and a recruting tool for terrorism as a result of the disaster caused by Bush et al.

I'd love to see this poll. The only thing I've heard and would agree with is that about 60% of the population isn't happy with how the war in Iraq is going. Although I know many of that 60% is disgusted that the US military is being asked to fight with one hand tied behind its collective back.

To deny that the Republican establishment talked about an imminent threat is laughable. One wonders what delusion Mr Limbaugh is under in that regard. Whether Bush himself used those exact words or not is irrelevant. remeber the mushroom cloud statement by Rice e.g?

There was talk of an imminent threat. The problem is that the 2 sides look at it differently. Back in Nov 2001, most experts expected the US to get hit again within 3-5 years. Most said the odds of follow up attacks was effectively 100% as AQ would have to follow up to keep its prestige up. And there was no question that Saddam was supporting terrorism, although I agree he wasn't directly involved in 9/11. (I'd argue that he was aware that such an act was planned, but he wasn't involved in the execution.)

You can argue till you're blue in the face that Mr Bush wanted to enforce UN Resolutions as a reason to invade. That's an absurdity. He did it because he had to...it was, as they say, politically expedient to do so.

bush didn't have to attack Iraq. He could have stayed in Afghanistan like most liberals rant about today. He honestly felt that taking out Iraq was important, and as commander-in-chief, he probably gets to see intelligence you and I have never viewed. Also he has advisors who know more about this subject than I ever will. I trust that he made the best decision he could based on the facts available to him. The fact that he let politics affect the actual planning of the invasion is what disappoints me.

Many, including Cheyney argued invading without the UN's approval. It was, ina way, a mwthod to "appease" dissent.

I don't think Bush wanted to "appease" dissent. He has never appeared to care much about dissenters. Instead he was looking for a way to unify the Western culture against a force he sees as barbaric and destablizing. Unfortunately with the way the UN is raised up as some kind of icon, the only way to accomplish that was to go through the UN. Remember he did not go alone, more than 30 nations did send support, so others did feel that removing Saddam from Iraq was necessary. It couldn't have just been Cheney et al leaning on Bush.

Why is that the right will never accept the mistakes made by Mr Bush - particularly regarding Iraq? There is rarely a critical analysis of his actions.

Rarely? what blogs do you read? I hear the following often.
Too few men
Politics limiting amount of force used
Failure to seal Iran/Iraq border
Didn't come down hard on Al-sadr
didn't work with religious leaders soon enough.
Rebuilding too slow
Iraq army not training fast enough
Iraq army training too fast
Failure to use heavy weapons as deterent
Using Navy Seals in basic missions.

There are a lot more. the conservatives don't like how the war is being handled, but they accept the reason for it.


Instead what we get is that it is the MSM's fault, or the left's persecution, or that the public doesn't understand,

The MSM doesn't report honestly, The left openly calls for any mistake by a marine to be labeled a war crime which has resulted in terrorist using children as human shields and the public for the most part doesn't have the full story so how can it understand?

or that dissent and disagreement equals appeasement or hatred.

Honest dissent is one thing. If you tell me that you think our going to Iraq was the wrong choice, I'll accept that. When you start screaming that the US absolutely must exit Iraq in 3-6 months, I'm going to see that as a call for the US to admit defeat and say that you are wrong. I'm simply dissenting from your dissent. There is no law or right that says I have to listen to your complaints and not say that they are foolish, ignorant and wrong.

The public isn't buying it because it no longer is willing to hear excuse after excuse, changed stories, new goals, new bench markks for success and absolutley no acceptance of responsibility for anything gone wrong.

Actually the public is so confused it doesnt' appear to know who to blame. And both sides have played the goal changing game, so that's a knife that cuts both ways.

It's tired of hearing people who honestly dissent called coward and appeasers and America haters. Do you really think some 30 y.o. suburban mom with a couple of kids who thinks Iraq is wrong hates America? Or is an appeaser? If you do I actually feel sorry for you.

Honest dissent rarely gets someone called a coward or an appeaser. however when someone like Cindy Sheehan goes to Venezula and then in a press conference tells everyone how great Chavez is, that is appeasement. Churchill did have it right when he said that the appeasers are making a deal with a crocodile with the assumption that because of their actions the crocodile will eat them last.

Try not turning this into a name calling, hate spewing discussion. I won't. I believe in what I am saying. I believe many many others do too.

You can believe what you will. I will believe you are wrong, which is my right. We started from different assumptions and reached different conclusions. As long as you continue to consider all sides, we can talk.

The last time I checked,... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

The last time I checked, the Constitution allows anyone to dissent. I think that's something your "ilk" frequently forgets.

Hardly. Responding to the criticisms IS purely American.

As Mark pointed out, when we have far leftists praising the President of Iran as more "reasonable" than Bush or praising Chavez and calling Bush a terrorist, then those people are appeasers. There is no nice way to say it. It is a textbook definition of appeasement and to pretend it is not is to deny reality.

The Right has few problems criticizing Bush for a wealth of things. The Left, though, seems incapable of supporting him in ANYTHING.

That being said, because folks have the right to say what they wish doesn't mean it can't be repugnant and disgusting. Calling Bush and soldires baby killers is disgusting just as calling those who disagree appeasers or America haters.

Seeing as how Bush and the troops are not baby killers (when babies die, it's because the sub-humans use them as shields) and there ARE leftists, undeniably, who are appeasers and who hate America, then no, your argument isn't valid.

And to cut it off at the pass, I refer to the terrorists as sub-human because their actions have forfeited their humanity. Act as a sub-human and you are, therefore, a sub-human. Tim McVeigh was every inch a sub-human as the thugs in the ME are.

Your last comment was so silly it rquires no response.

My last comment is, sadly, correct. I'll openly state that, based on their words and actions, the DNC doesn't think this is a big issue --- certainly not as big as, say, the Plame investigation.
-=Mike

I wonder when people will w... (Below threshold)

I wonder when people will wake up and realize that wars are political.

Perhaps the Left would prefer the Executive Office never to speak of the war again. Cancel any and all press conferences, stifle information sent to the press in general, and keep on plugging along. Oh, wait, they'd scream until their heads exploded if that happened.

Of course, all they really want is for Bush to say "I was wrong, I'm guilty of war crimes, I lied, I resign my position, arrest me." I'm not expecting honesty from any of them.

"WHO IS LYING?" asks Lorie ... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"WHO IS LYING?" asks Lorie Byrd.

Why David Limbaugh, of course!

David Limbaugh: "-- They say Bush called Iraq an "imminent threat," when he called it a "great and gathering threat."

Mr. Limbaugh knows you conservatives love to be lied to, and is happy to oblige.

"Is [Saddam Hussein] an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?" Bush spokesperson Dan Bartlett responded:

"Well, of course he is." (January 26, 2003)

David Limbaugh: "-- They... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

David Limbaugh: "-- They say Bush called Iraq an "imminent threat," when he called it a "great and gathering threat."

This is a "lie" in what way?

An imminent threat implies "Missiles are locked and loaded and ready to launch"

"Great and gathering threat" implies "They are trying to arm as quickly as they possibly can. If they do that, we'll likely have problems."

If you fail to notice the difference, then it is an intentional oversight on your part.

Mr. Limbaugh knows you conservatives love to be lied to, and is happy to oblige.

This is where a link indicating Bush called in "imminent" would go if you had a point to make.

But since such a link does not exist, you do not supply one.

Saddam was clearly a threat to US "interests". He subsidized Palestinian bombers who attacked Israel, which is very much an American interest.

Note that "in that part of the world" clause in the question?
-=Mike

Lets all stop fooling ourse... (Below threshold)
John Kline:

Lets all stop fooling ourselves!!! and smell the stench of bushes LIES. The LIES that have cause the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. Lets also realize, the amount of anti-americian hate that bush has created. Sadly someday we will pay dearly for bushes LIES

John Kline:The LIE... (Below threshold)
idgit:

John Kline:

The LIES to which you are referring are, I'm sure, from Hizbollah, right? Or, maybe the friendly Iranian "president"? Or, perhaps from your buddy Mr. Assad? Or, maybe even Mr. Olbermann? Heh.

Oh! Wait! You meant our president's lies? Well, sorry to say the only fooling being done her is by yourself, to yourself. (BTW, it's not "bushes" but "Bush's," but grammer be damned.)

Lets all stop fooling ou... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Lets all stop fooling ourselves!!! and smell the stench of bushes LIES. The LIES that have cause the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. Lets also realize, the amount of anti-americian hate that bush has created. Sadly someday we will pay dearly for bushes LIES

Yes, anti-America hate began with Bush. Before him, people LOVED us more than words.
-=Mike

"Lets all stop fooling o... (Below threshold)
914:

"Lets all stop fooling ourselves!!!And smell the stench of Bushes Lies. The lies that have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people.
Lets also realize,The amount of anti american hate that Bush has created. Sadly someday we will pay for bushes LIES"


Does this mean You wont be voting for Bush in "08"?

<a href="http://www.bizz... (Below threshold)
Pork, no matter how much st... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Pork, no matter how much stuff is found, it's going to get the "That's not REALLY WMD" label and ignored.
-=Mike
...Shocked at how the left defined WMD down to being JUST nuclear weaponry in the last few years...




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy