Who Is Lying?

I am a huge fan of David Limbaugh’s columns, but his latest is my all time favorite. I really, really wish I had written it. Please, if you only read one column this weekend, read this one.

If you are a supporter of the mission in Iraq, and interested in the truth, this one will have you saying “Amen.”

In fact, Democrats are the ones politicizing the war and who view it exclusively through a partisan prism. When they stop hyperventilating, they might consider that it is the commander in chief’s duty to rally popular support for the troops and their mission. Of course, the president’s task wouldn’t be nearly so urgent if Democrats hadn’t been undermining the war effort in Iraq almost since it began with a steady stream of disinformation, focusing on the false charge that he lied us into war.

They explain their sudden affinity for the truth — in contrast to their cynically dismissive attitude toward it during the Clinton years — as a matter of the singular importance of the war. While lying per se isn’t particularly wrong under their relativist standards — and lying about adulterous relations is even virtuous to protect one’s family — lying about war, at least by a Republican president, is so evil it pretty much drives them to the obnoxious Christian state of moral absolutism.

This distinction is interesting given their own pattern of deceit concerning all aspects of the war. Let’s review, shall we?

— They said Bush attacked Iraq “unilaterally,” when he built a coalition of over 30 nations, including Great Britain and tried hard to persuade the rest of Old Europe to join. To their discredit, they refused. A unilateralist wouldn’t have bothered.

— They deny Iraq is part of the war on terror, never mind that terrorists demonstrably disagree. Never mind that the Bush Doctrine clearly defines the enemy to include terrorist-sponsoring nations, like Saddam’s Iraq.

— They say Bush called Iraq an “imminent threat,” when he called it a “great and gathering threat.” The Bush Doctrine called for attacking threatening nations before they could become an imminent threat, when it would be too late. But some anti-war Democrats, like Jay Rockefeller, did call Iraq an “imminent threat.”

— They say Bush’s sole reason to attack Iraq was its WMD. In fact, David Horowitz notes there were 23 “whereas” clauses in the Iraq War resolution, only two of which mentioned WMD and 12 of which concerned Saddam’s violations of U.N. resolutions. That is just a taste of it. Read the whole thing.

This is cross-posted at Right Wing News where I am guest blogging today.

Basic Muslim Behaviors
They Never Cease To Shock

35 Comments

  1. Mark L September 1, 2006
  2. rsp September 1, 2006
  3. Mitchell September 1, 2006
  4. Hugh September 1, 2006
  5. Nell September 1, 2006
  6. smartguy September 1, 2006
  7. JannyMae September 1, 2006
  8. Hugh Grady September 1, 2006
  9. Red Fog September 1, 2006
  10. Hugh Grady September 1, 2006
  11. Lee September 1, 2006
  12. Hugh Grady September 1, 2006
  13. Eric September 1, 2006
  14. Hugh Grady September 1, 2006
  15. Rory September 1, 2006
  16. Rory September 1, 2006
  17. Red Fog September 1, 2006
  18. Rory September 1, 2006
  19. jhow66 September 1, 2006
  20. MikeSC September 2, 2006
  21. Hugh Grady September 2, 2006
  22. Andrew Burton September 2, 2006
  23. Walter E. Wallis September 2, 2006
  24. hward September 2, 2006
  25. Mark September 2, 2006
  26. MikeSC September 2, 2006
  27. SilverBubble September 2, 2006
  28. Herman September 2, 2006
  29. MikeSC September 2, 2006
  30. John Kline September 2, 2006
  31. idgit September 3, 2006
  32. MikeSC September 3, 2006
  33. 914 September 3, 2006
  34. MikeSC September 4, 2006