Why do people forgive Bush's lies?

Great Debates
1

All politicians do it. Lie, that is. At some point in their careers, they bend the truth to achieve their goals; there is rarely a way to do it straight. But when they get caught red-handed, they often face a strong backlash (witness: Nixon, Bush I, Clinton).

A strange exception arises. Bush II. For 4 years now, he has done pretty much nothing, other than lie to keep the public in a frenzy and lie again to exploit that to achieve his ends. Of course, approx. 47% of the country seems to realize this.

But what grounds do Bush-apologists stand on? I’m not looking for a flame war between liberals and conservatives, I’m truly fascinated by the phenomenon of the Bush Administration’s domination of will. For most people, having their leader being seen as so incredibly wrong and, well, ineffective at pretty much everything would lead them to choose a new leader… but instead, we get a stream of people who wave off the lies like they are of little consequence.

I don’t know how much of it is Karl Rove, or any of the other behind-the-scenes conservatives/neocons who enact the plan of action (Bush has proven as inept at everything except being a good candidate of the people, probably because he is as stupid as most of them).

Yes, I’m quite old enough to recall the days when we attacked Yugoslavia. Conservatives instantly jumped up and started tearing at the wallpaper. All kinds of absurd accusations were thrown around, from Clinton selling the US to the UN to the entire war being fake. After the war, I recall a lot of conservatives proudly pointing to pictures and saying, “see, that isn’t a mass grave, it is a shadow. Or something.” (Apparently, these are the same people who see a trailer and think “Oh my god, a biochemical lab!” I also remember Republicans supporting the Taliban. but that is getting ahead of myself). Everything under the sun Clinton did, starting roughly around Yugoslavia, was soundly thrashed as lies, and his grand finale was a doozy of a conservative get-out-into-the-streets-and-party. The President lied to us! Impeach him immediately! The President can’t be allowed to lie to us!

A scant 5 years after most of this was happening, the situation seems quite reversed. A Republican President did lie to get us into a stupid and costly war… yet the voices on the right are strangely silent suddenly.

Why are lies OK now? Is it just an entirely partisan thing? That is depressing. I expect some answers to be “well, uh, 9/11 changed everything”… which is bunk. 9/11 was not nearly as important as it has been made out to be, other than the Bush Administration’s manipulative lies to make it a grandstand and whip the public into a mindless frenzy willing to do anything for Freedom. Yellow journalism, alive and thriving.

So, why does Bush get to be a liar, and change his stance on issues, but any Democrat who does so much as scream gets an instant tongue thrashing?

2

I’m not sure I could explain why it works in the US to such a vastly greater extent than elsewhere - it’s something I frankly find rather mystifying, as are the “tu quoques” of US consevatives trying to equate enormous lies with “I didn’t have sex” ones which the rest of the industrialised democratic world simply find titillating (or, indeed, merely a marker of US prudishness).

3

How about we kick this party off with a list of indisputable cites proving that Dubya ‘lied’?

4

Being wrong isn’t the same thing as lying. Most people on the left and the right thought that Saddam had WMD’s. They may have been incorrect, but that doesn’t mean they were all lying.

As to your points about Dems getting trashed by some on the right: Well, that happens both ways. Right here on the SDMB you see many posters willing to attack GWBush for anything that he does. Partisanship is hardly restricted to the right.

5

I think I would agree with most of what you’re saying, but this being Great Debates, I’d rather you produced some cites.

For starters, I don’t know if it’s objectively true that Clinton’s lies were any more costly to him than Dubya’s are to him.

Clinton was also reelected, after all, and polls showed he could have won a third term if the Constitution had allowed it.

6

blink

Are you all that much in denial?

7

Howbout this:

Bolding mine. He said he knew they had WMD, and the entire war was predicated on their existence. Are you, like in the thread referencing US Army regulations, going to put on your dancing shoes and opine that Bush was talking only about the “dangerous weapons” found in the arsenal of every army in the world?

8

Since you asked for some cites, and me saying “um, the past 4 years” probably not encapsulating it enough for your blinded eyes, I did up a nice little google search

9

(Incidentally, I just love the way that White House page is entitled “Denial and Deception” - that’s supposed to be that of the Iraqis back then in 2002!).

10

I can’t speak for Brutus, but I agree the statement above was inaccurate.

Was it a lie, though?

If it was, then the myraid statements about weapons of mass destruction from Democrats are also lies, are they not?

11

Wanna see a neat trick, SentientMeat?

"America’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous president who has already used conventional weapons to kill thousands of people. This same president has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the Middle East.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, America is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, “The fundamental problem with America remains the nature of the regime, itself. George Bush is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.”

12

Where is the intent to deceive? As has been pointed out, there is a difference between ‘being wrong’ and ‘being a liar’.

Huh? No, he quite clearly meant NBC (nuke, bio, or chemical) weapons, but it appears there were no large stockpiles of WMD.

And Jake, that won’t do. Not hardly.

13

[quote]
If it was, then the myraid statements about weapons of mass destruction from Democrats are also lies, are they not?[/quote[I accept that they may well have been, but one argument we all remember from those halcyon days was that neither me, you, nor the Democrats (or even most Republicans) were privy to the very highest, most complete intelligence documents which were for White House eyes only. When Bush said he knew, we were told that he really really did whereas we only believed. That is far more “lie” than “mistake”, IMO.

14

They were fools for believing the Administration. They did take part in the big lie.

15

Hey, I’m not going to give cites that the sky is blue and the earth is round, either.

16

What about the previous administration? They were saying the same things.

17

The previous administration didn’t invade Iraq.

18

They did bomb it.

19

To the OP question, I think it’s simply human nature to hate being fooled - and to hate even more having to admit having been fooled. It can be much easier to keep insisting you were right to believe the bunkum you were told than to recognize that you’re gullible and that so many people know it.

It’s just about not losing face. Thousands of Americans died in Vietnam so members of our leadership wouldn’t have to admit screwing up. Over a thousand more are dead in Iraq so far for essentially the same reason. Rationality has nothing to do with it.
Brutus: The particular form of ignorance you bring up can be fought at many places, including:

http://www.bushlies.com
http://bushwatch.org/bushlies.htm
http://bush-lies.blogspot.com
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021125&s=alterman
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html

Just for starters. A fuller list of just *sites * with lists would choke the hamsters.

20

I am in a very kind and benevolent mood today, so I will just politely request better cites than that. Come on, you didn’t really expect those hack partisan cites to float, did you?