Why they hate President Bush so VENOMOUSLY
I have been absolutely enamored with the blind hatred of President George W Bush… it really is quite amazing, especially since it comes from people who are so quick to condemn judgment of anyone. My attitude is he is a politician who panders, jukes, and says things he doesnt mean to be powerful and liked by as many people as possible. I asked myself, “Is this guy really the anomaly the liberal left claims he is? Why do they hate this man so much?” And I found the website whywehatebush.com. Ok, great I’ll get my answers…
The first statement on their homepage at the very top says “Bush stands against everything that America stands for.” Really? Everything? You’d think by luck he might stand for SOMETHING that America stands for. I think one of the things you can say about Bush is he is VERY pro-American, and some people might have some good arguments why that might be bad if overdone. Then my eyes dart over to some numbers… ok, they have some actual stats that show President Bush really is evil…
FACT: BUSH OIL
1999 - $19 BARREL
2006 - $70 BARREL
Now, hold on a minute… if I recall, he didnt take office until early 2001… what do oil prices in 1999 have to do with him? I looked up the numbers, in 2000 the price was $28, 2001 it was $23… we’ll call it $25. Evidently, $19 sounded better to them. So does a $55 increase in a barrel of oil prove he’s evil? I suppose if he’s responsible for it and there are no other factors that contribute. I’d stipulate the President of the United States doesn’t have the slightest effect on oil prices other than with policies he approves, like if he allowed drilling in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico, prices would go down. So if Bush is credited with astronomical gas prices, is he also credited with all the electronics price decreases during his office? One might argue he has no effect on that stuff. I AGREE.
Below that there is a list of 11 things that explain why they hate Bush. #1 is vague, but #2 says,
“Bush and his cabal of henchmen lied to the American people about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and they continue to obfuscate the truth while their companies cash in, Iraqis suffer and American soldiers die.”
Aside from the He-Man-esque “henchmen” comment, this is just silly. I have heard this echoed for years as the quintissential crime committed by Bush, that he LIED about WMD. If he lied about it, EVERYONE ON EARTH lied about it. And I quote,
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
So it is clear and unarguable that hating Bush for the WMD issue is IRRATIONAL if it is only pointed at Bush. There is an ENDLESS list of quotes like this at freerepublic.com and elsewhere.
Now I realize that this website is not the best criticism to analyze, but it is representative of the layman. I will get to the slightly more intellectual comments soon… one more bullet from this site:
“The Bush Administration has manipulated the media to the point of undermining the Constitutional guarantees of a Free Press.”
Are you kidding me? Do people really believe the media SUPPORTS President Bush due to his control? It’s so patently absurd as to be laughable. And if there was a SHRED of truth to this statement, Bush would have been EASILY impeached and removed from office.
That brings up another point… Bush is the worst liar in history according to the liberal left. He does nothing but lie, lie, lie. Let’s look at this rationally… we all agree that there are a substantial number of Americans who hate George W Bush, and want him out of office, including a majority of congressmen. If they have all this evidence that he lied, why have they been unable to get rid of him?
Any idea what happened to the WMD’s when we got there? I don’t think they were all sent off to Syria and perhaps, it is possible to have them all destroyed, but any thoughts on what they had and also what made him priority #1 in the region? (Not including Afgahnistan for obvious reasons)
Report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit,”Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.” Despite this evidence, those with the derangement syndrome point out that they’re not REAL weapons of mass destruction. These people would have to find a working, ready-to-detonate bomb that says WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION on the side before they acknowledge this find.
As for Saddam, I don’t pretend that he was the #1 dictator that should be taken out. My argument is NOT that Bush is 100% right and should be supported. My argument is EVERYONE was wrong, so to direct anger solely at him makes no sense. Saddam had used the weapons before… “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” –Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998. Anyone who claims they were never there doesn’t know their history of Saddam Hussein. He used them on the Kurds, and there was no reason to believe he wouldn’t use them again unless his power was threatened. When I say EVERYONE agreed, I mean everyone, including Democrats. Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Dianne Feinstein all said it BEFORE 9/11. After that, the following list chimed in: Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Robery Byrd, John Kerry again, Hillary Clinton, Henry Waxman, Bob Graham, Joseph Lieberman, Harold Ford, Tom Lantos, Barbara Boxer, Wesley Clark, French President Jacques Chirac, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, and on and on.
Here are some more highlights. I can’t stress this point enough. Look at it this way, with all the evidence and rhetoric about Saddam, what would people be saying now if Bush HAD NOT gone into Iraq. They’d be talking about how reckless it is to allow Saddam to still be in power. Heads, he loses, tails, he loses.
“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” –Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998