Which lies matter most to the American public? (Whiny Lib Alert)

Boston Globe ^ | 6/17/2003 | Joan Vennochi

[Fedupwithit]

THERE ARE NO good lies. But public outrage over some lies can be puzzling given the tolerance for others.

Former first lady and now US Senator Hillary Clinton writes that she did not believe that Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky until he admitted it to her about eight months after the story was first reported. In a recent CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll, 56 percent of the respondents said she was not telling the truth. Since the book was released, conservative talk radio hosts are trying to whip up the public into a frenzy of contempt. It is not hurting sales and may be helping them. After a week on bookshelves, the publishers say Clinton's book has made back its advance.

[Fedupwithit]

Joan Vennochi whines more than most of them over at El Globo (Howie Carr's nickname for the Globe). She and the rest of her ilk (sans Jacoby) are humorous to read, showing their true colors by figuratively stamping their feet and pouting in the OP/ED page every chance they get.

[Alberta's Child]

She raises legitimate points about the absence of WMDs in Iraq, but nobody on the left can raise them with any credibility anyway.

If President Bush really wanted to get the Boston Globe on his side, he would have announced that the U.S. went to war against Iraq to cover up a homosexual relationship he had with Saddam Hussein.

[Drew68]

If it turns out to be a lie, why is that not cause for outrage?

Libs are so upset that Americans are not outraged over the lack of WMDs. They are pulling their hair out over this. Molly Ivins, Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman and others have all written columns asking "Where is the outrage?"

It doesn't occur to them that many Americans do not doubt the existence of WMDs. That we haven't found them yet means squat. We know they are there somewhere.

Furthermore, (And this really pisses off libs) Americans wanted to go to war in Iraq! We want a sizeable military presence in the Middle East. Americans want to be able to crush the spectre of future terrorism under the bootheel of US military force.

Libs also forget about 9/11 and they absolutely refuse to comprehend the fact that to the average American, Arabs are a mortal threat and need to be contained.

[Puppage]

To date, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq

Hey, Joanie.....why don't you ask the Kurds if Saddam has WMD's? Oh, that's right..HE GASSED THEM TO DEATH!

At the very least there's no more MASS GRAVES being dug to accommodate those poor souls under Saddam's evil reign.

[MWS]

I tend to agree with Rush on this. These people are making a huge mistake - instead of claiming that the WMDs never existed in the first place, they ought to be asking where they went and question our inability to find them, under the assumption that they do indeed exist.

Fortunately, these people are so obsessed with dragging the president's name through the dirt that this will never occur to them... in fact, it is a bit too late for them to switch strategies.

As I've said before, their worst enemy is their overabundance of stupidity.

[Puppage]

If it turns out to be a lie, why is that not cause for outrage?

Because Bill Klinton showed us that it was okay to lie with impunity, THAT'S why.

[ClearCase_guy]

they ought to be asking where they went and question our inability to find them

That's their Plan B. They will switch to it some day soon. People like John Kerry and Al Hunt will write op-ed pieces saying "Look, we KNOW Iraq had huge stockpiles of WMD. Yet we cannot find them. If a Democrat were in the White House, we would spare no expense, use any amount of military resources to find those WMD! When it comes to foreign policy, Bush can't get the job done. Vote Democrat, and get serious about threats agaisnt the US."

[q_an_a]

This kind of story helps Bush. Americans love helping people and they know we helped the people of Iraq, the mass graves are enough for the independent, the republican and blue nose democrats. Liberals would not care what we do and these stories help us with the goal of 60 seats in the senate.

[MWS]

You are probably right, actually. They will most likely switch to that strategy after the primaries, at a time when they need to appeal to the mainstream. It is easy to forget that at the current moment they are mostly concerned with appealing to their radical base, which does not accept that WMDs exist.

[gcruse]

to the average American, Arabs are a mortal threat

First it was the terrorists,
Then it was the Muslims,
Now it is all Arabs.

              Seig heil, brother.

[Drew68]

Seig heil, brother.

I said "Average American."

Tell me, do you think that Joe Everyman --the dude who packs his lunch for work, has any love in his heart for these people?

Joe Everyman does not differentiate between Terrorist, Muslim and Arab. If his name is Mohommed, Joe Everyman probably wouldn't give a care in the world what happens to him.

Like it or not, this is the truth. And this helps explain why there is little outrage over what was done in Iraq.

US soldiers could pull a "My Lai" over there and Americans would care more about who's winning on "American Idol."

Honestly, am I wrong?

[snooker]

Boston Globe ... A New York Times Comapny.

'nuf said.

[gcruse]

Honestly, am I wrong?

I do not believe 'average Americans' see Arabs
as a mortal threat.  I think you are projecting.

[Drew68]

I think you are projecting.

OK, I'll concede a little hyperbole on my part. I guess what I was saying is that many Americans don't really care about the welfare of Arabs (the vast majority of whom are Muslims).

Arab suffering does not cause the average American much concern at all. Thier culture is viewed as alien and barbaric and any degradation visited to them is seen, right or wrong, as payback.