o is President Bush a liar?Posted on 06/29/2004 11:37:20 PM PDT by conservative in nyc
OP-ED COLUMNIST
o is President Bush a liar?
Plenty of Americans think so. Bookshops are filled with titles about Mr. Bush like "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," "Big Lies," "Thieves in High Places" and "The Lies of George W. Bush."
A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil — a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. That view is at the heart of Michael Moore's scathing new documentary, "Farenheit 9/11."
In the 1990's, nothing made conservatives look more petty and simple-minded than their demonization of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were even accused of spending their spare time killing Vince Foster and others. Mr. Clinton, in other words, left the right wing addled. Now Mr. Bush is doing the same to the left. For example, Mr. Moore hints that the real reason Mr. Bush invaded Afghanistan was to give his cronies a chance to profit by building an oil pipeline there.
"I'm just raising what I think is a legitimate question," Mr. Moore told me, a touch defensively, adding, "I'm just posing a question."
Right. And right-wing nuts were "just posing a question" about whether Mr. Clinton was a serial killer.
I'm against the "liar" label for two reasons. First, it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding.
Lefties have been asking me whether Mr. Bush has already captured Osama bin Laden, and whether Mr. Bush will plant W.M.D. in Iraq. Those are the questions of a conspiracy theorist, for even if officials wanted to pull such stunts, they would be daunted by the fear of leaks.
Bob Woodward's latest book underscores that Mr. Bush actually believed that Saddam did have W.M.D. After one briefing, Mr. Bush turned to George Tenet and protested, "I've been told all this intelligence about having W.M.D., and this is the best we've got?" The same book also reports that Mr. Bush told Mr. Tenet several times, "Make sure no one stretches to make our case."
In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies. Indeed, there's some evidence that Mr. Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies — witness his meticulous descriptions of the periods in which he did not use illegal drugs.
True, Mr. Bush boasted that he doesn't normally read newspaper articles, when his wife said he does. And Mr. Bush wrongly claimed that he was watching on television on the morning of 9/11 as the first airplane hit the World Trade Center. But considering the odd things the president often says ("I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"), Mr. Bush always has available a prima facie defense of confusion.
Mr. Bush's central problem is not that he was lying about Iraq, but that he was overzealous and self-deluded. He surrounded himself with like-minded ideologues, and they all told one another that Saddam was a mortal threat to us. They deceived themselves along with the public — a more common problem in government than flat-out lying.
Some Democrats, like Mr. Clinton and Senator Joseph Lieberman, have pushed back against the impulse to demonize Mr. Bush. I salute them, for there are so many legitimate criticisms we can (and should) make about this president that we don't need to get into kindergarten epithets.
But the rush to sling mud is gaining momentum, and "Farenheit 9/11" marks the polarization of yet another form of media. One medium after another has found it profitable to turn from information to entertainment, from nuance to table-thumping.
Talk radio pioneered this strategy, then cable television. Political books have lately become as subtle as professional wrestling, and the Internet is adding to the polarization. Now, with the economic success of "Farenheit 9/11," look for more documentaries that shriek rather than explain.
It wasn't surprising when the right foamed at the mouth during the Clinton years, for conservatives have always been quick to detect evil empires. But liberals love subtlety and describe the world in a palette of grays — yet many have now dropped all nuance about this president.
Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots. How sad that many liberals now seem intent on making the same mistakes.
Liberals are unhinged cause they can't understand why nothing they throw on Bush seems to stick. Another "Teflon President?" They'll be chewing the carpet by the time November arrives. Their rage and anger will be their downfall.
The only lie bush has told?
"Islam is peace."
And of course we really don't hear that said much anymore.
At the time, I think he was HOPING it was the truth.
So in that aspect, it was not a lie, but a hope that turned out to be false hope... at least for the time.
Of course, the Iraq victory is going a long way towards pacifying a portion of the islamikazi planet.
Did I miss something in the run up to the war? Because when it started I had the distinct impression the intent was "regime change" (remember that phrase?).
And that they ultimate goal was to establish a democracy that would serve as a base for democratic revolution region wide.
I mean, yes, at that time of the invasion, that's what I believed our goals were.
There's been some serious bumps on the way, but overall, the outlook still seems good to me.
This whole thing about a Saddam-Al Qaeda link, and massive WMD supplies ready to go, I remember those as minor "And oh yeah, here's a side benefit" kind of thing. Am I just remembering wrong?
Or have things been somehow redefined by people who want this to seem like a disaster and a mistake? And if so, why has this been allowed to happen?
I think you have it exactly right. At least that exactly how I remember it. But the liberal press is in full throes re-writing history, so we may wind up as marginalized nut-cases who can't accept reality by the time this is over.
I'm not afraid of death, but I am afraid of murder....
I thought we weren't allowed to post entire NYT articles due to a copyright settlement. Or was that just the WP and LA Times?
If the author wants to clean up the discourse about Bush, perhaps he should have a talk with a few of his co-workers at the New York Times.
"Political books have lately become as subtle as professional wrestling, and the Internet is adding to the polarization. Now, with the economic success of "Farenheit 9/11," look for more documentaries that shriek rather than explain."
The left has also realized that if Kerry or another democrat is elected, the gloves are off. Past presidents slamming their successors in the media, "documentaries" about the sitting president, books and tapes galore will hit the shelves.
All decorum and civil discourse is gone forever and the left
killed it. Turn about is coming.
I think you have it exactly right. At least that exactly how I remember it. But the liberal press is in full throes re-writing history, so we may wind up as marginalized nut-cases who can't accept reality by the time this is over.
While the libs may be trying to do that, it will not work. And that is because fewer and fewer people belief that they are receiving honest reporting from the press. Press campaigns to demonize conservatives are not something one should worry about. They worked in the past before the conservative media came into being, and before the internet came into full bloom. They will not work any longer: writers now know that they can be Fisked.
I know why Kristof is writing this article.
The left has infected the larger liberal mass with the virus of paranoid conspiracy theory. Kristof knows that if Democrats are seen to be in thrall of a tiny, extremist minority, they will get hammered in November. So this column is cautionary in nature, and a message to other Democrats to restrain themselves from craziness.
Shortly after 9-11, the Lefties and the ANSWER crowd began circulating the UNOCAL Grand Unification Pipeline Theory of the War. David Corn, as liberal a writer as they came, debunked this nonsense. I speculated at the time that Corn was writing this as a warning to other liberals not to buy into the high craziness of the Hate Bush crowd. He failed, as Michael Moore has demonstrated.
Moore is actually doing us a good service. He is affirming the virtues of the Left's fanaticism. His film reinforces the feelings among Democratic activists that it is okay to hate George Bush, his family, his kids, and his dog Barney.
In so many words, it is okay to call Bush Hitler because Bush is Hitler.
This will not play well in the larger electorate. Fanaticism and hate never play well in America: we don't speak German here. The nation as a whole is far less divided than the extremists on both sides suspect. It's the elites and the activists who are angry at each other. Kristof has seen this and is trying to get his side from going over the edge. He will fail, as his side has lost its balance, and is not centered.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Reconstructions after wars are always messy--and never accomplished in a single day. But we are not losing thousands of men a week, we are losing hundreds in a year. In return we've liberated 50 million people from tyranny in Afghanistan and Iraq, cleansed what might have been breeding grounds for terrorism in the future, and changed the political dynamics in the Middle East forever. Not a bad piece of work.
"But the rush to sling mud is gaining momentum, and "Farenheit 9/11" marks the polarization of yet another form of media. One medium after another has found it profitable to turn from information to entertainment, from nuance to table-thumping."
I think Christoff meant that "One media after another has found it profitable to turn Socialist values like outright lying and propaganda into capitalist gains.
Read Christopher Ruddy's book and tell me with a straight face that Vince Foster wasn't murdered and the WH didn't engage in an elaborate, efficient and immediate coverup of something concerning Vince Foster. That's mighty strange if they didn't do it.
Photograph a liberal today. Feed their paranoia, push them over the edge.
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.