Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Bush Truths

The main difference between the pro-Bush crowd and the anti-Bush crowd is not one of worship. Most people who voted for Bush and support him do not agree with him on every issue, so it is not a case of worship. Coincidentally, those who supported Clinton were often amused by how deftly he lied and got away with it - even Washington reporters often jested with each other about his mendacity. Clintonistas excused his lies, his adultery, his perjury, his suborning perjury, his renting of the Lincoln bedroom, and his vindictive headhunting because “character doesn’t matter” and if that’s not ‘worshiping,’ I don’t want to know what is.

The difference between the Bush supporters and Bush haters is two-fold: agenda and honesty. The folks who support Bush don’t fabricate fraudulent documents. Folks who believe in President Bush don’t lie. Terry McAuliffe said that “George Bush never served in our military in our country.” You don’t have to support the man, but that is a bald-faced lie. Bush learned to fly the F-102. He flew that plane on homeland security missions to intercept Soviet Tu-95 bombers. The F-102 was one of the most dangerous planes in our Air Force with a lifetime accident rate (LAR) of 13.69, while the average LAR falls somewhere around 4.94. The F-102 was almost obsolete when he flew, and 70 Air Force and Air National Guard pilots were killed in non-pilot-error accidents. The Bush haters say that serving in the ANG isn’t serving in the military. Or is it just when Bush served? ANG servicemen and women have served in overseas conflicts for decades. If that’s not serving, I don’t know what is.

The Bush haters resurrected the nearly 20-year old lie, fostered by none other than John Kerry, about the Bush family being tied to drug trafficking. In 1988, Bush Sr. put this to rest by challenging Kerry to ‘put up or shut up’ when he said, “it’s all been looked into, and I would challenge Senator Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, to show some evidence and stop leaking information that is not true.” Kerry didn’t rise to the challenge and the Boston Globe, his home paper, put the lie to death reporting that his “assertions are clouded by his inability to provide much documentary evidence of [Bush’s] involvement with the scheme.” Evem that didn’t stop Kerry and company from reviving the story two decades later and if that’s not lying, I don’t know what is.

George Soros said, “When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans.” By which, of course, he meant Hitler and the Nazis. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WVA), who was a....I mean, who knows first-hand about racism and nazism, compared Bush to Paul Joeseph Goebbels. Granma, the Cuban Communist Party newspaper ran “Bush Family Funded Adolf Hitler” as their May 13, 2003 headline. All the Bush haters gobbled it up and repeated it ad nauseum. Of course, the truth is that Prescott Bush took a seat on the board of Union Banking Corp, which happened to be owned by the German family Thyssen, who did provide support to the early Nazi party. Bush rose to his position AFTER Fritz Thyssen was arrested and sent to a Nazi prison camp for speaking out against Kristallnacht. Bush and Thyssen never met, much less spoke nor did Bush invest in Thyssen’s company. Then there was Silesian-American Corp., in which the Bush family had an interest. Critics use that to suggest that the Bushes made money from Auschwitz. Silesian-American was a Polish company and Auschwitz was in Poland. What the critics omit is that the year before the death camp was built, the Nazis nationalized the company, effectively stealing it from it’s owners and investors. I can only guess from his objecting to Bush’s comment, that Soros is either ‘with’ the terrorists, or at least on the fence about who’s side he is on - but that doesn’t seem to occur to the Bush haters. And one other thing, Soros and Byrd never turn to Teddy Kennedy (D-MA) and chastise him about his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. who was in fact a Nazi sympathizer! If that isn’t two-faced, I don’t know what is.

How about the “War For Oil” lie? On September 16, 2002, the United Nations received a letter from Saddam Hussein including that phrase. The next day, Tariq Aziz spoke to international anti-war activists in Baghdad saying, “America...wants to control the oil in Iraq.” The Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party,, Veterans for Peace, United For Peace And Justice, Global Exchange, Code Pink, and others immediately picked up the line. And just how are we fighting for oil? We didn’t take the oil fields of Kuwait or Iraq, though we could have if that were the idea. In fact, the same Bush haters have claimed we didn’t do enough to secure and defend the oil fields! So, they talk out of both sides of their mouths and then repeat the lies of America’s enemy while we’re at war, and still claim they support our troops. If that’s not siding with the enemy, I don’t know what is.

“Despite repeated warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, President Bush and his administration hyped and distorted the threat that Iraq posed,” has said. Where was when Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Al Gore, John Kerry, Sandy Berger, the governments of France, Russia, England, Germany, and the leadership of the United Nations all said the same things or worse? Where were they when the United States Congress passed and Bill Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998? Where is their criticism of the various reports to Congress that cite the threat of Hussein’s latent hibernating weapons programs? It was Duelfer’s opinion that Saddam was an “even greater threat than we imagined” and Scott Ritter’s original testimony of September 3, 1998, noted that “once effective inspection regimes have been terminated, Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of it’s former nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months.” If omitting all facts that disagree with a premise isn’t lying, I don’t know what is.

Fast-forward to today: hurricane Katrina is blamed on Bush for not stopping Global Warming, as if that psuedo-scientific scam began in January 2001; the magnitude of the catastrophe in New Orleans is Bush’s fault because he didn’t do enough to get the people to safety or provide enough aid, which begs the question of why those people didn’t heed the warnings they were given; Bush’s ‘war for oil’ has our National Guard in Iraq so there aren’t enough to provide aid to the stricken areas, as if 28,000 volunteers isn’t enough. The most egregious fib is that Bush engineered the event to further line the pockets of his big oil pals, which completely ignores the fact that the activists on the Left have opposed and stymied oil development, drilling, and the building of new refineries for more than 20 years! Take a lesson from California: when you don’t build power plants for decades, don’t be surprised when you run out of power - if that’s not a foolish energy policy, I don’t know what is.

The greatest lie is that these people are anti-Bush. The majority are actually simply anti-Republican/Conservative from a mindless adherence to the marching orders disseminated by the Left. However, the worst of the lot are anti-capitalists. Opposed to private ownership, they don’t believe in individual success, they’re the ones spouting the “it takes a village” mantra. This group never wants to be held accountable for the results of their actions, only their intentions. The anti-capitalists are committed to nationalizing the major industries and they’ve done such a great job with the education system and Social Security that I’m excited to place my livelihood and future in their hands, aren’t you?


Post a Comment

<< Home