?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Grr arrgh political rant.

A Republican friend of mine (Hi westernactor!) recently pointed out Mark Levin's editorial of July 21 that basically uses the time-honoured "he did it first!" strategy to say that since Clinton lied about Iraq's nuclear weapons program (or lack thereof), nobody should have any problem with Bush also lying about it. (Of course, he doesn't admit that Bush lied. He actually says that Bush's statement was "qualified yet accurate," despite convincing evidence to the contrary.)

I have a problem with this. In my opinion, no president, no matter what their political leanings, should lie to the American people. It wasn't right when Clinton did it, and it's not right now that Bush is doing it. And yet many Republicans think that Bush has done nothing wrong.

Defenders of Bush are saying that these "16 little words" are really no big deal, and asking why people are getting so upset and latching onto them to "attack" the President. And yet, when Clinton uttered his 11 little words ("I did not have sexual relations with this woman, Miss Lewinsky"), the Republicans took it upon themselves to spend nearly $80 million investigating him.

Clinton's lies did not kill thousands of innocent people. They did not make a large portion of the world protest our actions. They did not fuel widespread hatred of our country and its government. Bush's lies, on the other hand, killed thousands upon thousands of civilians, drove millions of people worldwide to protest against the war, and gave people more reason to hate the U.S.

Ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein was a good thing, but it shouldn't have been accomplished this way, especially not if the actions were based on a foundation of lies and misdirection. If you're truly in the right, you don't need propaganda to convince people.

Comments

duchez
Jul. 25th, 2003 11:31 am (UTC)
hmm
I wasn't sure whether to comment or not. The fact that you began your post with "A Republican friend of mine" bothered me to no end. I have no problem with the content, and you make a point with multiple links fairly well. But what need was there to categorize the friend that way? You would never start a pro-democrat view with "A Democrat friend of mine...", would you? (And yes, plenty of people told me there was no point in getting worked up over this, but I couldn't get it off my mind)
rfreebern
Jul. 25th, 2003 12:16 pm (UTC)
Re: hmm
Well, the main thing I was discussing was the difference between the Democrat and Republican points of view on this issue. I would definitely mention that a person was a Democrat if I was discussing their political viewpoint. It's the same as mentioning a person's nationality when discussing cultural views, or what type of computer they use when discussing software, for instance. I think it just serves to help establish the playing field, and let people know a little bit about the people involved.

I'm sorry that it bothered you, though.

Latest Month

February 2011
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728     

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com