Must Read

Go read BOTW, immediately (I almost wrote the same damned thing this morning when I went to my first left website and read something that nearly gave me an aneurysm):

When someone says a politician is “dishonest,” it usually means one of two things. One is that he is corrupt–that he uses his office to enrich himself or otherwise breaks the law. An example is a recent president who committed perjury in a sexual-harassment lawsuit and as a consequence was impeached. (We won’t name the pol in question, believing as we do that it’s long past time to move on.)

The other meaning has to do with policy: A politician is dishonest if he breaks his promises. The first President Bush, for example, emphatically promised “no new taxes” and then went along with tax hikes anyway. One may argue it’s harsh to characterize this as dishonest–Bush may simply have changed his mind, or bowed to political reality–but his supporters certainly viewed it as a breach of faith, and he paid for it in 1992.

By both these standards, the current President Bush would have to be judged one of the more honest politicians of our time. He’s untouched by scandal, and he keeps his promises. He said he’d cut taxes, and he did. He vowed to liberate Iraq, and he did. But now an argument is developing on the Democratic left that somehow the policies themselves are corrupt–that because Bush doesn’t agree with liberal ideas, he is a liar.

Now go read anyone in my permalinks labeled as a liberal blogger (down to the right). Kinda funny, isn’t it.

“Bush lied about WMD in IRaq.”

Umm.. But I thought everyone agreed that Hussein had WMD. The argument was whether or not we should go to war over them, have more sanctions, and tougher inspections.

“Bush lied about the tax cut- poor people aren’t getting a cut.”

Umm. The bill BUSH wanted gave them the ‘cut.’ It was Voinovich, Lincoln, and Snowe who helped to nuke that part of the cut. Besides- ALL THE DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE VOTED AGAINST IT ANYWAY.

“Bush said the war was over in his ‘victory stunt’ on the carrier, but people are still dying in Iraq.”

Umm. Bush said that the main military operations were over (which is true- seen any shock and awe lately? Seen any tank battles? Me either- and it isn’t because all the embeds are gone). He stated that there was still much work to do reconstructing the area, that it would be dangerous. It is a victory in the sense that Hussein is no longer in power, but there is still a great deal of work to be done.

Bush lied to us about the aftermath of the War in Iraq- he said it would be easy and he did not prepare us for casualties.

He never said anything of the sort- besides, you were screaming for months that the war would be a quagmire but we would win, and that we would lose the peace and it would be a quagmire. It isn’t a quagmire, but how can you say you were unprepared- you were the one predicting dire consequences- now you aren’t prepared for your own predictions (and I don;t agree it ever has been or is now a quagmire). So which is it- did he lie to you, or did he not prepare you?

Bush said that Al Qaeda was no longer a threat, but now they are attacking all over the world.

Umm. Maureen Dowd said that. Bush said that the members of Al Qaeda who have been captured or killed are no longer a threat.

And on and on and on and on….

Taranto has the Democrat position nailed:

Anyone who disagrees with me is a liar.