Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Liars of the left

Bill O'Reilly:

At this point we have four independent sources that say there was no lying by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The 9/11 commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler's British investigation and Vladimir Putin have all stated that the WMD intelligence was faulty but the politicians did nothing untoward.

So what should be done with the people who accused Bush and Blair of intentionally lying to bring war to the world? Have you heard any of them apologize for their slander? I haven't.

...

Every time I hear some extremist rant about presidential "lies," I get furious. These people put all of us in danger. Many far-left Web sites spew allegations that have no basis in fact. Unfortunately, these people now have sympathy in the mainstream press and can get their libel distributed. Let me give you an example from experience.

In my analysis of the attack on Sept. 11, I gave airtime to a young man who lost his father at the World Trade Center. This guy said on my TV program that Bush and his father were responsible for the 3,000 deaths and that his own father had "allegedly" been murdered by Al Qaeda. He went on to imply that America was the true terrorist nation.

The man had no evidence for this, and was dismissed by me in a not very gentle way. The guy was and is a disgrace. But not to the far left: To them, he's a hero. These people have used him as an example of someone persecuted by "conservatives."

It is dishonest and disheartening. The ultraleft fanatics will pretty much say and do anything to destroy those with whom they disagree. These people are hurting all Americans by obstructing the true terrorist danger we are facing today.

How the left hates

Jeff Jacoby:

A popular conceit of the left is that political hatred is a sickness of the right, one to which liberals are largely immune. "Just who are these Clinton haters," asked Time magazine in April 1994, "and why do they loathe Bill and Hillary with such passion?" It answered, in effect: That's just the way conservatives are. In its final paragraph, the article quoted historian Alan Brinkley: "Liberals tend to value tolerance highly, so there's a greater reluctance to destroy enemies than among the right."

That was a whopper even in 1994, a year when Republican leader Newt Gingrich was routinely vilified as a McCarthyite and a racist. Ten years later, with a storm of Bush hatred raging among liberal Democrats, the notion that the left is too high-minded to savage its opponents is about as plausible as the claim that the moon landings were staged in Hollywood.

The left's bitter fury toward Bush is more than just atmospherics. It is the big political story of the past two years. The visceral revulsion Bush provokes in so many Democrats fuels the passion that has had such a seismic effect on the presidential campaign. From last winter's Howard Dean bubble to the astonishing sums of money being donated to John Kerry, Bush hatred has profoundly shaped the 2004 election. It explains why Kerry is neck-and-neck in his race with George Bush. It may also be the reason he loses.

The Dem's Bush phobia is their irrational reaction to losing to someone they think is inferior to them. One of the central liberal conceits is that if someone is really smart, they are a liberal. Have you ever heard a libeal say of a conservative opponent, "He is really smart."?