In recent years, liberals have mastered the art of lying. A lefty blog writes a story, then two dozen other blogs pick-up. Next thing you know, the libs in the mainstream media are echoing the charges that started in the blogosphere without mentioning that they're false.
At that point, we're in a Catch-22 because liberals very seldom challenge lies about Republicans, no matter how obvious they may be, and when conservatives point out inaccuracies, it's treated as immaterial because we "must" be biased. Since the mainstream media works this way and is so heavily slanted to the left, it makes it very difficult for conservatives to get their side of the story out.
Then, a few months later, after the lies have been repeated ad nauseum, even conservatives who are uninformed may start to mistake the untrue charges for the truth. That's why these modern liberal myths, like the ones you are about to read, need to be countered with the truth.
George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: This is actually one of the most easily disproved myths because after looking at the same intelligence George Bush was given, many prominent Democrats said almost the exact things Bush did about Iraq's WMDs.
For example, here's Hillary Clinton,
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
Now here's John Edwards,
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
They weren't tricked by the Bush Administration and they weren't part of some cover-up designed to lie us into war. To the contrary, they looked at our intelligence reports and came to the same conclusions the Bush Administration did. That's why both of them voted for the war. If the Democrats were honest, they'd be willing to admit that Bush told the truth.
Al Gore would have won the election in 2000 if all the votes had been counted: The problem with this assertion is that all the votes were counted after the fact -- by mainstream media organizations that are hostile to the Bush Administration. What was their conclusion? That George Bush would have won had the unconstitutional full recount
The Miami Herald did a recount and here's the headline and the first paragraph from their article describing the results,
"REVIEW SHOWS BALLOTS SAY BUSH
Republican George W. Bush's victory in Florida, which gave him the White House, almost certainly would have endured even if a recount stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court had been allowed to go forward."
There was also a 2nd recount done by eight media groups. Here's what the New York Times, one of the participants, had to say about it. Again, I am quoting the headline and the first paragraph,
"Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward"
So, the reality is that even if the unconstitutional recount of the Florida ballots had gone forward, Bush still would have won the election.
George Bush's "16 Words" in the 2003 State of the Union were a lie: This was the statement which led to the Valerie Plame scandal. It was as follows:
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Later the White House said this assertion was "incorrect" and George Tenet added that those words shouldn't have been in the speech. From there, that egomaniacal jackass, Joseph Wilson, publicly made himself into the main character of a story he was only tangentially involved in and things snowballed from there.
However, the British Government did believe Saddam Hussein had "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," and moreover, a "separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said...that the US also had similar information from 'a number of intelligence reports.'"
After reading that, you can only conclude that the Bush Administration's mistake was not in lying, but in prematurely declaring that the "16 words" weren't correct.
Bush made 9/11 happen on purpose or let it happen on purpose: This loony conspiracy theory has been floating around for years despite the fact that,
"The 9/11 attacks, or at least parts of those attacks, have been investigated by the 9/11 commission, the CIA, FBI, FAA, FEMA, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Popular Mechanics, and countless mainstream newspapers -- among other sources."
Start considering the size of the conspiracy that we're talking about here, folks. Not only are we talking about the people who planned and executed the attacks, we're talking about the firemen, policemen, and medical workers who helped out in the aftermath. At least some of them must have been able to figure out what was going on. Then we're talking about all the people who investigated the attacks, who are from every background, religious sect, walk-of-life, and political party you can imagine. Yet, all of these people, tens of thousands of them, are supposed to be participating in a massive cover-up? Meanwhile, the Bush Administration can't even seem to keep the details of highly classified intelligence programs from being publicized in the New York Times. It's just not possible that a conspiracy of that magnitude could exist, which is why no rational and intelligent person buys into these wacky 9/11 conspiracy theories.
There is a consensus on man-made global warming: Because the global warming alarmists can't give a good answer to many of the most basic questions that people have, they've simply been claiming that almost every scientist believes they're right. The idea here is that people will think, "They may not be able to make a case for what they believe, but if all those scientists agree with them, they must be spot-on!"
However, while there is a consensus that the earth warmed a small amount over the last century, there is no consensus on whether mankind is responsible, whether the warming will continue, and whether the consequences will be serious if it does. In fact, more than 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition stating the following:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Maybe you agree with that or maybe you don't, but what should be beyond dispute at this point is that there is certainly no scientific consensus on global warming.