Comments on: Michael Reynolds Calls Bush A Liar

By: TallDave

TallDave — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:55:37 +0000

Calling Bush a liar or incompetent generally just tends to prove one is either a liar oneself or incompetent oneself, or, in most cases, both.

These accusations are always based on the most tendentious of evidence, like the claim Shinseki was “fired” or that FEMA is responsible for failures by first responders and state officials.

He wanted to take down Saddam before he was ever sworn in as president.

So did Clinton. So did the entire U.S. gov’t; regime change was official policy before he took office. So either that statement is applicable to everyone, in which case its meaningless, or you’re lying, and either way the charges are rather incompetently levelled.

By: Brian in MA

Brian in MA — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:31:09 +0000

Also, Bush has bat wings and incediary breath, because clearly he is evil incarnate and wants war and kills puppies!

Please, can’t the “Bush lied” movement die already? Anybody who has studied the issue and actually remembers back to the Clinton Era(instead of bypassing everything historically from 1974 to 2000) will remember that various DEMOCRATS made statements that Saddam was harboring WMD.

But who needs historical knowledge when chanting “Bush lied, People died” is so much easier on the brain.

By: ford4x4

ford4x4 — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 16:58:14 +0000

I guess I hadn’t thought much about the statement. I was too busy laughing about the way he said it to Helen Thomas. The “with due respect” part was definitely a lie. There’s no respect between those two. Wasn’t she the first one to question Lincoln on his appointment
of Grant as the commander of all US armies?

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 00:56:51 +0000

Definitely. Hope you didn’t think I suggested you threw it around “liberally.”

By: Michael Reynolds

Michael Reynolds — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 00:29:43 +0000

I would just add that people who know my writing know I’ve been railing against the “he lied” attack line. I’ve always advocated the “he’s incompetent” attack. For the excellent reason that Mr. Bush’s “lies” are debatable, but his incompetence is incontravertible.

But this is a flat out lie. Of course he wanted a war. He wanted to take down Saddam before he was ever sworn in as president. He wanted this war, pushed for this war, fired anyone who got in the way of this war and rewarded everyone who sustained the cause of war. You can argue whether he lied on all sorts of issues, but this? This is a lie.