Posted on 10/31/2006 5:26:37 AM PST by WestTexasWend
Do you still remember the old liberal claim that Bush invaded Iraq for oil? For some reason they don't make it anymore. May we ask why?
Can it be, because no oil has been stolen? As everyone had the chance to see, America made no attempt to tap into Iraq's oil after toppling Saddam, not even to defray the costs of liberation.
This presented liberals with a conundrum. Wanting to believe only the worst about the president, they had to invent another dark reason for the invasion. So they made him into a Hitlerite who revels in conquest and destruction.
That anyone could think this of a dully elected president of the United States is startling. That anyone could think this of George W. Bush is astonishing. Unfailingly gracious and affable, there is nothing in his bearing or actions – past or present – that would warrant such a conclusion.
Only the blind could not see that whatever other faults George Bush may posses, blood-lust is not among them. In fact, so placid is he that many on his side have despaired over his unwillingness to even mildly admonish those who so unfairly attack him.
Is this how Hitler behaved? What in Bush's demeanor bears any resemblance to the murderous despot he is so often compared with?
So blinded are liberals by their anger that they overlook the most obvious possibility: George Bush went into Iraq, because he viewed the regime of a sworn America-hater a threat to our security.
Rather than accepting the most plausible explanation, they assign the most outlandish motives to the president's actions. Notwithstanding the fact that their 'blood for oil' charge has turned out groundless, they persist in their gratuitous attacks with renewed vigor. Instead of offering an apology – which would be the decent and appropriate gesture under the circumstances – they concoct new allegations which are even more far-fetched.
Disgraceful as this may be, this kind of mendacity is nothing new to those on the left. Some two decades ago, they sought to demonize another upright man. Casting Ronald Reagan as a war monger and religious fanatic, they implied he could not wait to unleash a nuclear Armageddon. Such was their impudence that they even confronted him on this in a nationally televised presidential debate.
In the end all their efforts came to nothing, because the American people quickly recognized that Ronald Reagan was one of the nicest men to ever hold the presidency. And he was also one of the most clear-sighted.
Like George Bush, Ronald Reagan was keenly aware of evil's insidiousness. Knowing that communism had murdered nearly 100 million people, he resolved to destroy it before it could wreak even more havoc and pain.
Reagan would not pander to the most inhuman regime in history like Jimmy Carter had done before him. Above all, he would not follow his predecessor's example of unilateral concessions to show 'good will' to those who only took such gestures as evidence of weakness. Like George Bush, Ronald Reagan called evil for what it was and set out to rid the world of it.
But liberals saw matters differently. Like with today's jihadists, they thought of the Soviet communists as idealists with legitimate grievances against the United States. While urging restraint and understanding, they somehow managed to overlook the stack of corpses and injustice on which they had built their power. Like Bush now, it was Reagan then whom they saw as the real threat and danger.
This startling inability to distinguish between good and evil is the price adherents of liberalism pay for stubbornly clinging to their misguided ideology. Sad as it is they have only themselves to blame, for a willful devotion to a lie-ridden worldview cannot but maim man's moral sensibility.
It is because of this that in their eyes a decent man like George Bush looms Hitler-like while the murderous fanatics from whom he tries to protect us they see as freedom fighters.
History has shown just how wrong liberals were about Ronald Reagan. It will also show how wrong they are about George W. Bush.
Clearly the people in question never heard of "Occam's Razor"
Hate blinds all reason.
I've heard of it -- but don't know what it is. Enlighten me.
A philosophical principle traditionally attributed to William of Ockham (1285-1349) applied in areas of philosophy and science. Literally, the principle states that "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity." Simply put, " All things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best one. "
Did they make it into a movie yet?
-ccm
The last thing I would say about how George W. Bush was elected in 2000 is that it was dull.
Liberals have no other recourse but to attack individuals, instead of ideology and policies.
Their altruism created an underclass, and gave it permanency. The success of recent welfare reform is a real thorn in their eye. Their penchant for appeasement in foreign policy gave us 9-11. Ouch again.
Name a touted liberal triumph and I'll show you a practical disaster.
Character assasination is a TACTIC, and in the case of the liberal left, it's the only way they can fight.
Yeah, I wondered why the copy editor, at least, did not know the difference between "dully" and "duly".......
I would say watching Algore in 2000 was pretty dull, but the aftermath of the election wasn't at all dull.
WOW! This liberal rag is not known for ever supporting Bush for anything.
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.