Sunday, October 09, 2005

The Liberal Mantra... Bush Lied

I invite everyone to click on Bryan Alexander's "Right Thinking" in the Links on the right of this page and read his "Get a Life!" post. In Bryan's article he asks why liberal groups continue in their efforts to destroy this president. Good reading as usual from Bryan.

I contend that liberals continue this attack because it feels good. They believe it will help them politically... but they do it because it feels good. Its endless and exhausting negative rhetoric alienates the voters they wish to court... but it feels good. It hurts the war effort and encourages our enemies... but it feels good.

This recipe for losing at the polls, this sacrifice at the "Blame America First" altar, this acrid well... this bitter fount... this self-defeating spiteful psalm will not be silenced... because it feels good.


Posted by at

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Liberals don't criticize Bush to "feel good" any more than police go after criminals to feel good. I feel a necessity to express my point of view, because such a huge portion of the country doesn't seem to be thinking logically or fairly. For example, any intelligent person could figure out that the cylinders Collin Powell talked about weren't indicative of WMD. Likewise, any scientist could have told the administration that there is no such thing as "liters of Anthrax". This is but one narrow example of how the Bush administration was not duped by poor intelligence, but rather suffers from it.

10/09/2005 11:48 PM
Malott said...

I appreciate your comments. From them I assume you've studied a bit more than I about the science and terminology surrounding WMD.

But the poor intelligence was virtually universal before the Iraq war began, and to place blame and accusations of lying at the feet of one man or one country is unfair.

One question still troubles me. Why did Sadam Hussein balk at inspections with the United States military at his doorstep? Surely he had other options than losing his country and his power.

10/10/2005 5:44 AM
Bryan Alexander said...

I've noticed that anonymous hasn't attempted to answer your question. Maybe he/she has no answer.

10/12/2005 7:24 PM
Anonymous said...

I didn't answer the question because I don't see its relevance. As to the poor intelligence being "virtually universal", I think it was only universal among the people who were pushing for war with Iraq. As I said before, the intelligence was there. The Bush administration wasn't asking questions to find out information. They were asking for proof for a pre-supposed idea and rejecting evidence to the contrary. This tendency of the Bush administration has been pointed out by many and seems blatantly obvious to me.

10/13/2005 6:18 PM
Malott said...

It doesn't seem obvious to me. If what you say is true then i would have to believe that the Democrat Senators that voted in favor of going to war had the same underlying dark motive.

I think you and I must get our information from very different sources.

But I appreciate your thoughtful comments even if we disagree.

10/13/2005 8:24 PM
Anonymous said...

I don't think the Bush administration had a "dark motive". They probably sincerely believed that the war was for the better good and would be relatively quick and painless. I am a democrat, but certainly would never defend what the democrats have done during the past five years, because it hasn't been much. I'm guessing the democrats that voted to authorize war if inspections failed did so out of public pressure. This is no excuse, but the Bush administration is an awesome marketing machine. Even if you believe Bush was not predetermined to go to war (which I do), it is unquestionable that Bush has a tendency to place politics above objective or scientific thought in many instances, particularly evident in his hundreds of appointments to the EPA, FDA, FEMA, and other lesser known agencies. If he did look objectively at the situation in Iraq and listen to all the evidence and viewpoints, it would have been uncharacteristic.

10/14/2005 1:19 AM
Malott said...

Well I have to disagree with you when you say that GW places politics above objective and scientific thought. The fact that he takes on tough issues and ignores the incessant polls suggests to me that he is a rare politician who leads by doing what he believes to be right... not what is politically expedient. You may not like what he does, but I don't think his actions are based on what is best for the his poll numbers.

10/14/2005 5:27 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)