Have liberals created a double standard for Bush regarding terrorism? *SERIOUS QUESTION*?

Question

I am more moderate liberal and DO NOT SUPPORT BUSH.

I do however, need to point out hypocrisy when I see it.

When Bush brings up terrorism or the threat level is raised, we are told by liberals that Bush is doing this to scare us into being in fear. They blame Karl Rove sometimes.

But he is criticized for not taking the threat seriously.

If he talks about it 24/7 he is criticized. If he doesn't, he is attacked for not doing enough.

Its not fair.

I know about the Bush comment where he said "I just don't worry about him that much."

Of course this President wants to prevent attacks and keep America safe.

I support whoever the President is in that endevor Republican or Democrat.

We as liberal America, we can not have it both ways.

We can't attack the President for not talking about the threat, and at the same time attack him for when he does.

We can't have it both ways.

Thank you.

Answer 1

Your correct, the hypocrisy is maddening.

Answer 2

For me, it is more a matter of what he does than what he says. He tried to instill fear in so many people in order to get their support for the war, that now whenever he yells the sky is falling, nobody wants to hear it and does not take him seriously. This is part of the reason Homeland Securtiy doesn't raise the threat level very often anymore. Remember, when they first started using the threat-o-meter, it was changed almost every other day, up or down along the color scale. His administration has used scare tactics since 9/11 to get the populace to back his policies out of fear instead of rational thought and well planned implementation of intelligent policies. So, now when he has anything to say about national security, it is very hard to take him seriously. I believe nothing the man says.
I do not have any doubts he takes the threat seriously, and honestly, I can't recall offhand any liberal I have heard speak that thinks he does not. But, except for the Afghan War, I believe his policies, and the implementation of them, have taken us into a deep pit it will be next to impossible to extricate us from. It is my firm belief his administration took us into Iraq to gain a foothold in the Middle East for the oil and the strategic advantage it gives us there. We will not be leaving Iraq, no matter who is President, for a very long time.

Answer 3

President Bush says the release of a new video by al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is a vivid reminder of the dangers still facing the world.


Bush has ignored Bin Laden, the man behind 9/11, for years. He's said that he's not concerned about Bin Laden. And now Bush says that the fact that Bin Laden is still out there... is a reminder of the dangers we face.

How can Bush say that with a straight face, after all but completely ignoring Bin Laden for 6 years? 6 years AFTER the worst act of terrorism EVER on U.S. soil?

Bin Laden is out there because Bush hasn't made terrorism the priority. Bin Laden is out there because Bush sees terrorism as an opportunity.

THAT is having it both ways, sir.

.

Answer 4

You are presenting two different points of view. Remember, 'liberal' is a very broad term. Here's my take (for what it's worth):

When a Democrat talks about our policy on terrorism and the war in Iraq, he/she is sure to phrase things VERY carefully. They say things like 'We need to concentrate on terrorism.' because they can't say 'This war is a waste of time and money.' The Dem is trying to convey that the WAR has nothing to do with stopping terrorism. But...they fear the polls. When you talk to a non-politician about the war, you get a TOTALLY different rhetoric.

I think the point is that Bush claims that 9-11 was perpatrated by Bin Laden, and yet he hasn't apprehended this man. He has dumped hundreds of billions of dollars into Iraq and billions more into Homeland Security, and yet the 'bad guy' still roams free. This is, by any standard, an absurd situation. If a Jewish fella killed my family, I don't go bomb Isreal. I look for the man that killed my family. If Bush wants to declare 'War on Terror', great. More power to him. But let's go after the terrorists instead of the oil.

Answer 5

I really don't see this at all.

People like myself who criticized Bush for not taking terrorism seriously are referring to the Bush administration Jan 20 2001 -- Sep 11, 2001. Not thing hypocritical about that. I am not criticizing him now for not doing enough, I criticize him for doing the wrong things.

I really don't know what you are on about here I haven't heard anyone criticize Bush for "not talking about the threat" , I hear them talking about the multitude of things he has screwed up.

Answer 6

I'm a democrat and my idea of fighting terror would have been to stay the course in Afghanistan and create a network with other countries to weed out terrorists cells around the world. Fighting in Iraq is not keeping them over there. They are just springing up all over the place and training in Pakistan. They are being funded by poppies in Afghanistan. What exactly are we accomplishing? The terrorists in Iraq are just there to keep it all going until we go broke.

Answer 7

While I understand your view, I feel it's moot.

Nothing he does will satisfy someone blinded by hate. There are those who started tossing out the 'hate' when he won the first term, ramped it up before the second, and now that he is on the way out, the hate is drummed like a cadance that may overwhelm the candidates running presently.

Extremism is not attractive. Sometimes it isn't what you choose to support, but what you allow to fester...

Answer 8

Good question, I'm a libertarian, but await reasoned liberal response.


** there are double standards all through out politics, some of the thumbs down just on this question prove it.

Answer 9

It isnt just liberals but it is as you state. He cant win. Dont declare a war on an idea and you dont end up in this kind of predicament.

Answer 10

Lifelong conservative who wants to say THANK YOU.

Well stated and about damned time a liberal on Yahoo posted it - it doesn't mean much coming from one of us.

Answer 11

I think you've missed the point here.

When Bush talks about terrorism, he's not talking about the "real" terrorism, only making up lies to scare us.

We want him to STFU about his lies and fantasies and get down to the real business of fighting global terrorism, which has nothing to do with Iraq and very little to do with a military "war".

Real terrorism, of which Bush apparently knows nothing, or cares nothing, needs to be fought all over the world, and with police and intra-country intelligence forces, not tanks and planes. And it's also a cultural and diplomatic war. And a "hearts and minds" war.

So the point is, Bush is both clueless about the real danger and a filthy liar posing as a patriotic for political gain.

I don't think Bush gives a flyin' F for you, me or anybody in the world for that matter.