Tackling Five Modern Myths Created by Liberals

I recently wrote in my online simulation about an article that said there were 5 modern myths created by liberals and went about "debunking" them. I looked at what that author wrote, and came across looking at it a different way, and figured I should post that info here as well.

Let me know what you think?

The original article: Tackling 5 Modern Myths Created By Liberals

Just some points I would like to raise:

On Bush lying about WMD's: You are correct in saying that prominent Democrats also pushed for war. I agree. They should not have. But just because someone on my team says something in agreeance with someone on the other team, does not make it OK for the other team to do it. I don't like saying that they lied about WMD's. It's nice for a bumper sticker but not for formulative and intelligent discussion. Mislead? Maybe. Lied, not likely. Mostly they are guilty of being overly optimistic. They put forth all the good reasons for why we should go to war, and quelched all the bad things. Now that means the Bush Administration does not have faith in the American public. Perhaps for good reason. But when you give all the pros and none of the cons about something as serious as war, you can't be surprised when a lot of people agree with you, given they don't know the whole story. Do I think we should have gone to war? No. But we're there, so no reason to re-hash dubious dealings of the Bush Administration, it won't get us out any faster.

On Al Gore in 2000: I've read that as well that most of the MSM outlets concluded that Bush would have won any recount in Florida during the 2000 election. I have no problem with that. Makes him legitimate. Great. What I do have a problem with is the repercussions: the Federal Supreme Court saying the State cannot count its votes? This was unprecedented and they knew it; they even put an asterisk saying well this applies this one time and can never be used in the future. By doing so, they started off the Bush Years by being irrelevant and an obvious rubber stamp for the Administration's positions when brought to court. That is unfortunate. I also find it highly illogical for so-called small government Republicans turning to the Federal government for help in an obvious states' rights issue. Had the Court not stopped the recount, it would have gone forward. But, had it gone forward, the House, per the Constitution, would have voted for who they believed should be President. He would have won anyways. Fine. But the way they went about it was wrong, and I must say ill-advised. I also have a big issue with the un-counted votes, specifically those struck from the voter rolls incorrectly. You can recount all the already counted votes already, but they would never be included, so yes Bush would have won.

On the famed "16 words": I believe they believe it was truth. It was incorrect and made the correct assertion later they were wrong. Or the closest Bush can come to admitting being wrong and say the assertion was incorrect. There is a difference between knowingly lying and saying something that is wrong, but not knowing it is wrong. That is ignorance. To be honest, I'm not sure if it's worse to be a liar or to be ignorant, but it is blatantly obvious that Bush and his Administration were extremely ignorant in their findings leading up to the occupation of Iraq (war has yet to be declared). It is possible they lied in some things, or someone inside the White House lied to those that didn't know any better, and those folks in turn were ignorant in repeating these lies unknowing they were lies. That is laziness, but the Administration has often been intellectually lazy, that is not a point hard to argue.

9/11 was George Bush's fault: There is plenty of fault held by Bush and Clinton and all those leading up to 9/11. I don't know if there was a conspiracy (outside that of the 9/11 hijackers) and I suspect we won't know for sure until at least 50+ years have passed and when it's finally OK to come out of the closet we'll finally know the truth. It's sad but likely this is the case, as is with most things done in the name of national security. 'Nuff said.

Global warming consensus: In science there are little topics that are in consensus with all scientists 100%. In science there is allowed to be doubt. There is not a 100% consensus on global warming; no one said there was. There is a vast majority of scientists, particularly those that specialize in this area of expertise, and they believe it is a serious thing to be concerned about.

So, in conclusion, as a liberal (well, kinda), I've disagreed with these myths that you have brought about. All of them. I don't like going to extremes, and all the statements I've commented above are extremes. We do not live in a black and white world. It is very grey out there. That said, there are those in politics who like writing bumper sticker slogans and riling up their base. It's their job. The right does it. The left does it. Republicans. Democrats. All do it! It's how politics work. To call them myths is denying there are some issues with what has been brought up. But rather than simply discuss why they may have some validity and where they do not, the writer of this article has taken the exact opposite position of the myths he is denying. Both the myths and the exact opposite stance are incorrect.

And that folks, is having an intelligent discussion.

Any comments?