"Bush Never Lied To Us About Iraq"

Whenever flustered in a discussion about the Iraq War, the cornered liberal will often erupt with a primal scream of "Bush Lied!!!!"

As if proving the theory behind "Newspeak" in the novel 1984, the left-wing penchant for reducing arguments to two or three word epithets reflects the reduction in thought behind those epithets.

But Ii digress. Sort of.

Prominent Democrats and their apologists have claimed ad nauseum that they -- and by extension the nation -- were deliberately mislead into war by the Bush Administration. It doesn't matter that it is a false and self-serving assertion. In the precincts of the Left, it has taken on the quality of dogma.

So it was refreshing to read a voice of the Center-Left stating as much in a Los Angeles Times op-ed earlier this week.

Referring to Governor George Romney's switch from saying in 1965 that U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War was "morally right and necessary" too claiming two years later that he'd been brainwashed in to supporting the war, The New Republic's James Kirchik writes:

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

I encourage readers to peruse Kirchik's entire article, and remember it next time some senior Democrat or other war critic whines, "I was mislead!"

Comments

MrWhipple said:

Does cherry-picking evidence to support a pre-determined decision count as "lying"?

Does listening only to advisors who support the decision to go to war count as "lying"?

Does ruining the careers and reputations of people who don't support the decision to go to war count as "lying"?

It's clear from the testimonies of numerous insiders that Bush was looking for a justification to invade Iraq even before 9/11, and that after 9/11 Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Addington desperately wanted to pin the attacks on Saddam Hussein.

As a conservative Republican I find your apologies for the Bush trainwreck rather sad, Jubal. The GOP should have stuck with their principles and gotten rid of that phoney conservative, but instead they sold their souls in the name of party unity. Now we're $9 trillion in debt, fighting a pointless and illegal war, living in a neo-police state, and setting ourselves up for thrashing come November.

"A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

June 22, 2008 7:22 AM

A Real Conservative said:

Mr. Whipple;

You are no conservative! You are not even fit to be called a phony conservative, because you are not even fit to have the conservative name associated with you. Check your facts and more importantly, GET A LIFE!

June 22, 2008 9:27 PM

JWargo said:

Seems like the Republicans just don't get that their problems are much bigger than Bush. When he exits, they won't be able to rebound without getting rid of all the other horrible leaders who have been around since the beginning of the mess and done nothing to fix the problems.

So... the democrats problems of unity (created in the last few months) are nothing compared to the republicans long standing issues within the party.

Check out this article--- Bye Bye Boehner
http://www.greenfaucet.com/hanlons-pub/bye-bye-boehner-part-ii
to see why they need a major overhaul

June 27, 2008 12:59 PM