Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

There is so much contempt in these slogans for our military, and for decades of U.S. policy under many Presidents, not just G.W. Bush and his cabinet.
These slogans are so rife with unfounded bitter communist/class-warfare/anti-capitalist cynicism of U.S. motives, that it is absolutely impossible for you to pan this off --in any stretch of the imagination-- as some kind of respectful disobedience that is somehow productive in guiding the nation in a more positive direction.
.
It's not.
.
Stop lying, to yourselves, and to the nation.



As I mentioned in my last post, the protesters from last week were holding up large signs asking to bring the troops home. I honestly didn't see any anti-Bush signs. Many of the antiwar signs you see around here simply say "Peace" or "Bring the troops home". Now the anti-Bush signs from the link I provided may not have been respectful of the President but that doesn't make them anti-American. If that was the case, there were many anti-American Republicans during Clinton's two terms.



Republicans didn't engage in the same kind of vicious namecalling that Democrats are, raising false allegations as facts to slander a sitting president.

Clinton was a proven perjuror, adulterer, and draft-evader.
Clinton was disbarred as a lawyer, for his proven illegal actions.
Clinton was impeached (although because Democrats put party loyalty above justice, Clinton was given a slap on the wrist, instead of real justice, and was "censured" legally, with no punishment)

I believe I already answered your allegation that Republicans supposedly do the same thing as Democrats, on page 8 of the "Do liberals HATE the President?" topic:

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
.
Y'know, maybe it's because I'm a Republican, but it just seems to me that the absolute worst of Republican rhetoric doesn't even approach the level of venom and distortion spewed almost daily from the Democrat side.
.
Some examples I've consistently given include how Democrats and liberal reporters constantly project the illusion that Bush "ruined" the economy and started the recession that we're hopefully finally emerging from now.
When the truth is that the recession began under Cinton, AN ENTIRE YEAR before Bush took office. That "Bush caused it" is a blantant lie on the part of Democrats.
.
To say nothing of the fact that we were beginning to emerge from the recession when 9-11 occurred, an event which almost instantly obliterated one-sixth of the annual U.S. economy, plunging us back into recession.
And the deficit spending that Bush is vilified by Democrats for is almost entirely due to homeland security spending. Which would have occurred no matter who was President.
.
And the consistent bitter charicatures of Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Quayle and G.W. Bush (again as I've pointed out before) portraying them as idiots and incompetents, while simultaneously portraying their Democrat counterparts (Carter, Mondale, Ferraro, Dukakis, Clinton and Gore) as brilliant geniuses and visionaries.
So this isn't something new and exclusive to G.W. Bush. This is a consistent malicious portrayal of any Republican who dares to be elected.
.
And even when incredible things happened in the world under these past Republicans, like the collapse of Soviet-bloc Eastern Europe and collapse of the Soviet Union itself, these monumental events are portrayed as "dumb luck", despite it being clear that Reagan's plan to negotiate from a position of strength worked, and the Russians negotiated peace because they couldn't compete militarily, and were compelled to negotiate.
.
Democrats may not like the Republican attack on Dukakis during the 1988 presidential election, using Willie Horton as a poster-boy for Dukakis. But it is not distortion of the facts by Republicans, it is absolute fact that Dukakis enacted the policy that allowed convicted murderer Willie Horton out on a weekend furlough, which enabled Horton to murder another person.
And it was emblematic of Dukakis' misguided liberal sympathies on a wide range of issues, from crime and punishment, to foreign policy, to military spending.
.
G-man's point throughout this topic is that Democrat/liberal hatred of Bush is bitter and maliciously misrepresentative of the facts, and I see nothing here to dispute that.
.
The best counterpoint I've heard is the half-hearted "Well, Republicans do it to Democrats too..."
.
Well, as I've said repeatedly, Republican rhetoric is almost always backlash against deliberate misrepresentation by Democrats, and even then it rarely matches the venom of what Democrats have said. So from that perspective, Republicans DON'T "do it too".
.
Howard Dean's allegations that Bush knew in advance of 9-11 is the bitterest and most infuriating thing I've heard from Democrats in the recent past. Alleged without a shred of evidence, no less. If that's not unpatriotic and pointlessly divisive (exactly what Republicans have called Dean's remarks), then I don't know what else could possibly be considered unpatriotic.
.
And equally unpatriotic and malicious, the photomanipulations of Bush and his cabinet into Nazis wearing swastika armbands. And the TIME magazine cover above, distorted to show U.S. soldiers as nazis. Again, from baseless suggestion that there is a similarity between Bush and Nazis, without a shred of proof.
.
So yes, liberals hate the President, and no, they haven't got a shred of evidence to back it up. And because liberals hate Bush, they believe every half-baked allegation against Bush, no matter how preposterous.
.
I've yet to see any evidence that Iraq is about "blood for oil". It will be at least a decade before the U.S. sees a dime of profit from Iraq, if we ever see any profit at all from the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq. When you consider the cost of the war, the cost of reconstruction, and the forgiven debt Iraq owed the U.S., it will be a long time before we can even hope to break even, let alone a "blood for oil" brand of profit, as liberals have baselessly alleged.
.
I've yet to see that Halliburton was picked for any other reason than its extensive past experience in reconstruction of other nations. Despite what liberals bitterly allege.
.
I've yet to see that Saddam Hussein was anything but evil, or any evidence that Saddam had NOT been consistently pursuing WMD's, and the fact that they have not been found means absolutely nothing. The WMD's are no doubt buried in the desert somewhere, just like fighter jets that have already been found buried in the sand dunes of Iraq. Despite liberals' bitter allegations that there was no evidence, and that there was no provocation for the U.S. to invade.
There definitely was a WMD program, that even Hilary Clinton, John Kerry and many other key Democrats acknowledged, until March 2003, when it became ruthlessly convenient to exploit that WMD's were not immediately found, despite the overwhelming evidence that Saddam had a massive WMD program, according to U.N. findings, according to the intelligence of every nation that investigated Iraq, and also according to high-level Iraqi military defectors, beginning in 1995.
.
The U.N. records, sourced from Saddam Hussein's own military inventory records, clearly show that there are thousands of missing WMD's, documented but unaccounted for. The liberal-bashing of Bush's invasion of Iraq defies logic, and relies on misrepresentative technicalites to make it appear that Bush made war with Iraq for motives of selfishness and greed, rather than the true situation, that it was in the long term interests of the U.S., Iraq, the entire Middle East, and the entire world.
.
Liberals distort that France, Germany and Russia had motives and political ties to Iraq (violating U.N. sanctions, which is what caused 12 years of sanctions not to bring about Saddam's collapse, as would have occurred if these three nations had not broken sanctions). Liberals distort that, if not for France and Germany, a security council vote would have supported invasion of Iraq.
And liberals distort that EVEN WITHOUT a U.N. vote, about 50 nations supported the invasion of Iraq. Probably a lot more nations would have joined that "coalition of the willing" if not for France and Germany's obstructionism.
And liberals distort that even though there was not a new U.N. vote to support invasion of Iraq in early 2003, there were ten U.N. resolutions over the previous 12 years, noting the danger Iraq posed, and calling for Iraq to disarm, or face "serious consequences" (implying U.N. authorized military action to enforce disarmament). The most recent U.N. resolution prior to invasion was in September 2002, just six months prior to the March 2003 invasion. But we are to assume, based on liberal distortion of the facts, that the threat Iraq posed for 12 years, that inspired 10 resolutions calling for Iraq's disarmament, just suddenly evaporated and that Iraq suddenly ceased to be a threat just prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
.
Liberals talk about legality of the Iraq invasion, but what about the illegality of Saddam's extermination of an estimated 1 million of Iraq's surviving 25 million people, whose mass graves are being unearthed all over Iraq?
.
Liberals bemoan the lack of solid evidence of a Saddam/Al Qaida connection, but that link can now be proven, (the New York Post article that first reported that has been posted repeatedly on these boards, and bitter Bush-hating liberals continue to ignore it).
But even if a Saddam/Al Qaida link weren't proveable, the globally publicized fact that Saddam gave 15,000 dollar checks to the families of every suicide bomber in Palestine, in very public ceremonies, in this and other ways demonstrating that Saddam was a major supporter of Palestinian terrorism, and that pushing Saddam out is a major blow against Palestinian terror, is another fact that anti-Bush liberals choose to ignore and gloss over, amid their Bush-bashing.
.
On so many issues, liberals make a legalistic case for "illegality" while ignoring the evil of what we are fighting, and the necessity of fighting it.
.
We should have invaded Iraq in 1995, when high-level Iraqi military officers first revealed Saddam was definitely violating the 1991 U.N. peace provisions, and was pursuing a large and secret WMD program.
.
We should have invaded in 1998, when Hussein threw out U.N. weapons inspectors.
.
We should have invaded North Korea (as Sen. John McCain has said) in 1994, instead of promising North Korea close to a billion dollars a year in cheap feul for 10 years, with no verification required from them, that allowed North Korea to take Clinton's nuclear blackmail payments, while simultaneously violating the agreement and continuing to develop nuclear weapons.
While Bush is vilified by liberals for not dealing with North Korea now, liberals distortedly ignore that it was Clinton who made the agreement with no nuclear verification required that made the present North Korean nukes possible, and that Clinton had 8 years to take care of the problem that Bush inherited.
.
On and on, all the situations where liberals bemoan legalistic technicalities, while ignoring and outright lying about the greater truth of these events.
.
Because they hate Bush.
.
And God forbid they should acknowledge Clinton's responsibility for North Korea's nukes, Clinton's responsibility for Saddam's ability to stay in power and commit genocide and build WMD's (which Bush Sr. also shares blame for), Clinton's responsibility for the economic recession that G.W. Bush inherited, and the many lost opportunities by Clinton to militarily deal with the building threat of Al Qaida.
.
Liberal hatred for Bush makes them blindly hate Bush, and blindly oppose what is best for our nation, and the world.
Liberals would rather hate Bush, and blame Bush for everything, utilizing distortion and wild conspiracies, than acknowledge there are real and proven threats to our country, and work to resolve them.
.
Hating Bush has become a one-stop scapegoat for liberals, whether Bush is to blame or not. And it seems to me that liberals are eager to believe the worst about Bush, no matter how unproven and wild the accusation.

And I wish I could modify that evaluation to say "some liberals" or "most liberals". But it really seems to me that Bush-hating is the practice of ALL liberals. Whether in conversation with liberals I meet person, or with liberals on these boards, or liberal pundits in the media, I don't see liberals ever say at any point: "Well geez, this particular accusation against Bush is unfair..."
.
There is no balance among liberals, Bush-hating seems universal among liberals. So in this particular case, based on observation, I'd have to say "ALL liberals".



I believe that's equally true for liberals hating America.

Liberals have a clear contempt for our military, a tradition that goes back almost 40 years.

And in light of that, it's just amazing to me that the liberal media has been able to paint the illusion that liberals actually give a flying crap about our troops.
"Caring about our troops" is just a political football for liberals, for attacking Bush.

And again, all the people who were endorsing military action under Clinton, that were also unilateral military actions, at least initially, because the rest of the world did nothing until the U.S. led the way, (Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, Democrats in the Congress and Senate, etc.) are reversing their standard in bashing Bush for taking similar action in Iraq and Afghanistan.