Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Do Democrats Call George Bush a Liar?-They endanger the country by personalizing the Iraq issue
Wall St Journal ^ | February 20, 2004 | DANIEL HENNINGER

Posted on 02/20/2004 6:04:02 AM PST by SJackson

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:51:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

In the increasingly out-of-body experience that has become politics and the news about politics in America, it is getting harder than ever to separate fact from fiction. This matters, because the facts could kill us.

In the past week, stories about what President Bush knew about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have been appearing almost literally alongside stories of the efforts by many nations to produce or acquire a nuclear bomb.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; bushlied; homelandinsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last
To: RoonDog
It was only when the administration began charging it with harboring WMD and Al Qaeda, both falsehoods, that people began to believe we needed to take out Saddam.

Sorry, but neither of those were falsehoods. The links to Al Qaeda are well established, as are the WMD programs and capabilities. Just because we have not yet come up with actual weapons, it doesn't in any way mean they don't exist or the threat wasn't real.

41 posted on 02/20/2004 7:03:18 AM PST by Coop ("Hero" is the last four-letter word I'd use to describe John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RoonDog
"progressive" sounds all very well, but you have to make sure you are progressing in the right direction. If you are on the wrong road, you may appear to be "progressing" but you are actually getting further from your goal.

To take one example, how do you propose to improve welfare? The welfare-to-work program (which conservatives proposed and "progressives" screamed at - it was 'cruel') has done exactly what you propose - get people "back on track".

And if you can give some examples of how current policies actually let someone who has encountered some bad luck "fall through the cracks," I sure would like to see them.

And I wish you would take a look at the long list of quotes from "progressives" in post no. 23 and explain why Bush is the only one lying when he says the same thing.

42 posted on 02/20/2004 7:06:18 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . sed, ut scis, quis homines huiusmodi intellegere potest?. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PBRSTREETGANG
Are those trolls too dumb to know that their signup date instantly outs them?
43 posted on 02/20/2004 7:10:35 AM PST by altura (Perfect kids are scary. I'm not scared.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: an amused spectator; RoonDog; OXENinFLA
The remnants of Saddam's power base is clinging to the hope that Bush will be defeated by Kerry, and Kerry's words are giving them a reason to get up in the morning, and work on their daily IEDs.

At yesterdays press conference with Paul Bremer, the first question asked had to do with just that subject.

Q (Through interpreter.) (Name and affiliation inaudible.) Mr. Bremer, good evening. My question is, what is the American strategy, the case of winning or losing by President Bush toward Iraq? Will the American strategy change if President George Bush loses the election? Thank you.

MR. BREMER: I try to make it a habit not to answer hypothetical questions. But in this case, I don't expect President Bush to lose the election, nor do I expect there to be any change in the American policy. The American people understand the importance of what we have done here, liberating 25 million people from a vicious tyranny, fighting the global war on terrorism and bringing democracy and pluralism to this country. We will continue on that until we succeed.


Source

The video should be available at C-SPAN.

45 posted on 02/20/2004 7:10:42 AM PST by StriperSniper (Manuel Miranda - Whistleblower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: wayoverontheright; RoonDog
" The difference is that conservatives think America was great before, why change things."

When men have come to the edge of a precipice, it is the
lover of life who has the spirit to leap backwards, and
only the pessimist who continues to believe in progress.
G.K. Chesterton




46 posted on 02/20/2004 7:13:57 AM PST by TNMountainMan (Errabundi Saepe, Semper Certi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: StriperSniper
Bremer was good in this presser.


47 posted on 02/20/2004 7:16:59 AM PST by OXENinFLA ("John Kerry is married to a 67 yr old ATM machine" ----- C-span Caller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MrB
I remember a time not so long ago when freepers did not hesitate to call Bill Clinton much worse and during wartime!
48 posted on 02/20/2004 7:18:26 AM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: RoonDog
There are no well-established links with Al Qaeda.

Yes, there are. We have some threads around here outlining them in detail. If nobody directs you to them, please remind me later. The problem is the critics want 100%, burying-a-reasonable-doubt proof. That doesn't often occur in life, and it's an extremely rare occurrence in the intel world, where one is trying to assess current and future intent and capabilities of an adversary that is usually doing its best to hide such information.

As for the WMDs, the talk in the run up to war about weapons with Cheney even stating, "We know where they are."

So? Intel is perishable. They probably did know where the weapons were, IMHO. And if they did, after the public announcement of such a thing to convince the critics, what do you think the regime might have done? Move them, perhaps? If I post that "today is Friday," yet you don't read my post until tomorrow, does that make my assessment incorrect? Of course not. The difference is I have a time stamp by my post, but the coalition doesn't (at least yet) have the weapons with a log of when/where they were stored.

And please remember, these same critics of the Administration were publicly berating them for not doing more before 9/11 - when we had MUCH less intel regarding that threat. In the post 9/11 world, this Administration was not willing to give the proven-ad-nauseam murderer and liar (Hussein) the benefit of the doubt. Had they not taken action, IMHO they would have been negligent in their duties.

50 posted on 02/20/2004 7:23:13 AM PST by Coop ("Hero" is the last four-letter word I'd use to describe John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RoonDog
The discussions before the war were not about WMD capabilities (any country with a fertilizer factory or a hospital has those capabilities) but about actual weapons. Point taken that weapons have as yet not been found but when mentioned with such certainty, in quantity and location, prior to the war, I can't help but feel we have been bamboozled.

It is well-established that WMDs were talked about as a certainty by the UN AND the previous administration.

51 posted on 02/20/2004 7:24:09 AM PST by an amused spectator (articulating AAS' thoughts on FR since 1997)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator

To: RoonDog
If Saddam can hide MIGs in the sand, he was capable of hiding WMD's.

Iraqi fighter jets found buried under sand

Photos

53 posted on 02/20/2004 7:26:03 AM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RoonDog
RoonDog

About the WMD ... what should and will be the Democrat response be if the stockpiles of WMDs are found in Iraq, Syria, etc? ... Even though it would be politically bad for them ... do you think Kerry, Daschle, and the rest of the mainstream Dem leadership will just stop talking about it ... or finally admit that they themselves were never deceived about the issue ???
54 posted on 02/20/2004 7:27:33 AM PST by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RoonDog
Ooops...whenever I hear someone utter the word "progressive" in an optimistic way I think "here is a person lagging behind the times" because the way of the future is less government, not more.

Progressives' glory days are over. Now it's the conservatives who have the intellectuals and ideas to move us forward.

55 posted on 02/20/2004 7:28:15 AM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RoonDog
We're too strong and too rich a nation to have 35 million of our people living in poverty.

1) Keep in mind America's definition of poverty often means the people only have a VCR and not a DVD player (exaggerated for effect). Most in our blessed nation have no idea about true poverty.
2) Most conservatives have very kind hearts. But many of us feel there should be less government involvement and more work by private institutions like churches. That's where I personally hear many of the success stories. I think liberals and conservatives can often reach agreement that the government rarely does something as efficiently as the private sector.

I have very strong problems with someone like Kerry who states now that he was misled when, at the time, he didn't do his job as a Senator and ask the tough questions.

I sincerely appreciate your recognition of this hypocrisy.

56 posted on 02/20/2004 7:28:49 AM PST by Coop ("Hero" is the last four-letter word I'd use to describe John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: RoonDog
"Depends on what is behind me and how far the fall is...or whether I have a chute. ;-)"

Welcome to FR. We enjoy discussing things with a liberal with a sense of humor and a willingness to look at actual facts.

57 posted on 02/20/2004 7:32:30 AM PST by TNMountainMan (I'm still a liberal. It's those people who aren't liberals. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Good point about the definition of poverty. America will always have poorer people; but our poorer live like kings compared to some peoples of the world.

Also, good point about private institutions. I find they tend to provide money AND more personal care whereas the government's churns out the paychecks with less personal care and little or no accountability.

58 posted on 02/20/2004 7:34:51 AM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

Comment #59 Removed by Moderator

Comment #60 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson