Calling Bush a Liar (important!)

The New York Times ^ | June 30, 2004 | Nicholas Kristof

[Dems_R_Losers]

So 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.

--snip--

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.

[Dems_R_Losers]

Pretty important commentary from one of the leading liberal commentators. Perhaps the Bush-bashing has finally "jumped the shark"??

[jmstein7]

BUMP!

[thoughtomator]

Hey I still believe that Hillary had quite a number of people killed to cover her (and Slick's) tracks. Do I qualify as a "right-wing" nut?

[ThePythonicCow]

This was posted earlier, at Calling Bush a Liar - Post #1162817.

[TigersEye]

... of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were even accused of spending their spare time killing Vince Foster and others.

Read Christopher Ruddy's book and tell me with a straight face that they didn't. If not then they engaged in a pretty elaborate, efficient and immediate coverup for some other reason. That's pretty weird.

[IamConservative]

Without explicitely writing the words, he is saying the lefts wild accusations are petty.

I agree with respect to all politicians. Why has the rhetoric become so inflamed? My belief is they do it more to get attention than to make a point. In and of itself, that tells you what personality types run for office. The "me" crowd..

[Rennes Templar]

"Mr. Bush got us into a mess..."

GW is changing the course of civilization in the middle east. To small minded dims, this is a mess.

[sarasota]

The Democrats are looking for hate in all the wrong places.

[sarasota]

That's the part I just can't believe. Bush will be lauded as a man who changed the face of the Middle East. And the Dems just don't see it. Pity them.

[Badeye]

"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 think the "highwater mark" for the Democrats using these tactics has been acheieved. From this point onward, anything along these lines gets ignored by the voters, who do have the ability to tune both sides out.

And I think its obvious the Democrats are now in the same predicament Republicans found themselves in 1998.

[Nasty McPhilthy]

"Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness"

Say What? I don't know about the "self-righteousness" crap, but I sure don't have a problem with the "moral clarity" of his actions.

[Mr. Buzzcut]

When your CIA director tells you that finding WMD is a "slam dunk", how are you a liar (or even "self-delusional") to act on that?

Funny people, these libs.

[Unam Sanctam]

Good for Kristoff for criticizing the Left wing nutjobs!

[marty60]

Ofcourse. They liked the "order" of the soviet Empire, or the "order" of the brutal dictator Saddamn. the evil Dums like ORDER, and the current crop of evil dums would have loved Hitler, Autocrats are their favorite species. To hell with the people that die at their hands.

[Tacis]

Any statement by a scumbag liberal that says, "Bush Is A Liar," must be viewed with a paranthetical addition, "Bush Is A Liar, Too."

These crapweasels have defended, vigorously defended, the most filthy and corrupt lying criminal we've ever known, Bill Clinton. As the record runs, it becomes obvious that he was far worse than even the Special Prosecutor charged.

Human nature makes it impossible for them to say, "I was wrong." They can't remove their own stain, thay can do nothing about Willie's continuing filth and corruption (see his book) and that leaves only trying to make some one else look worse.

They will try to turn everything Bush says into a lie ("Good morning!"; there is a storm in Kansas; "Bush lies about weather!"). The one the missed from day one is "compassionate conservative." The obstructionists dems (Dashole, et al) could point at almost anything Bush has done and claim that it isn't what a "compassionate conservative" would do.

[Blood of Tyrants]

[Bush] surrounded himself with like-minded ideologues,

Like clintoon, and algore, and Kerry, and Madeline Albright, and dozens of other lefties who were saying that Saddam had WMD's and was trying to get nukes? THOSE like-minded ieeologues?

[Uncle Miltie]

"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."

And if Saddam had given AQ some of those Sarin Gas shells, and AQ had lit them off in New York, they would be calling for Bush's impeachment for failure to protect the country from an imminent threat.

[Uncle Miltie]

"But liberals love subtlety and describe the world in a palette of grays"

Classically deluded B.S.

If you are not liberal, you, your ideas, your offspring, and anything you have ever touched are EVIL. That ain't nuanced.

[catpuppy]

Perhaps the Bush-bashing has finally "jumped the shark"??

Not really. This piece is as ugly as any in that it bashes Mr. Bush while claiming to detest bashing. The author has absolutely nothing good to write about the President. While he writes that he is against the "liar" label for two reasons ... neither of those reasons includes the fact that Mr. Bush did not lie.

... he was overzealous and self-deluded. He surrounded himself with like-minded ideologues ... they deceived themselves along with the public... Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots.

This article is from the New York Times. Has 9/11 been so long ago as to fade from its memory? I personally overdosed on seeing my fellow Americans slaughtered by Islamic fanatics. "Moral clarity" and "self-righteousness" had nothing to do with the rage of this nation. Those characteristics are better used when discussing the "zealots" who call themselves the New York Times.