Are the Labels, Liberal and Conservative, As Being Used by Political Pundits, Accurate in Defining the Those People?
 

Food for thought comments and question: It is common for political pundits to use the term, Liberal, for those who were against the invasion of Iraq, and those who find fault in the conduct of President President George W. Bush.

And to call as conservatives those who supported the war against Iraq, and who support the many actions and policies of President George W. Bush.

Would it be accurate to say, then, that the facts show that during the past five years a liberal is a person who:

• Exerted themselves to discover the overwhelming amount of facts and evidence showing that every statement made by President Bush and his shills seeking support to wage war against the Iraqi people were lies.
   
• Does not believe that a U.S. politicians has the right to start a war against another country to change the form of government (especially after having secretly funded and armed that country in the 1980s).
   
• Believes in the protections of the laws and Constitution of the United States, in international law, and that a White House politician does not have the legal or moral authority to openly violate the laws and inflict great harm upon innocent people (such as kidnapping people in foreign countries and flying them to other countries to be tortured, as in the rendition program; or to incarcerate year after year people who had never been charged with anything or had a trial)..
   
• Knew that an invasion would destabilize the Middle East and result in catastrophic consequences, including the brutal deaths and dismemberment of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, children and babies.
   
• The facts show the above to be basically accurate.

Would it be safe to say that the facts show that a person called a conservatives has:

• Supported the invasion of Iraq.
   
• Supported the decision to start a war against the Iraqi people despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, including eve babies, have been killed, dismembers, maimed.
   
• Still supported the invasion despite the carnage, the growth of hatred against Americans that the world had never before seen.
   
• Supported the torture of detainees, many of whom were innocent of any wrongdoing; and support the spying on Americans; and support the destruction of age-old human rights protections.
   
• Continued to show blind loyalty to the politicians that have brought such great harm upon the country and millions of people.
   
• That Christians, many of whom are pathetically ignorant of conditions in government, and despite their alleged Christian values, support all of the above brought about by the leaders they voted into office.
  
• Continue to hold that the consequences of their actions in supporting their message-from-God president and starting the war upon the Iraqi people, are justified. The following are a minute sampling of the hundreds of thousands of victims they made possible:

---

Polls and reports seem to indicate that so-called liberals are more focused on facts rather than blind belief or loyalty to a political party of other self-interests, while so-called conservatives support the leader who claims he gets his directions from the so-called "God."

It is recognized that some "conservatives" continue to support the politicians in the White House because of a loathing for some of the "liberal" social engineering. While this is understandable in light of the deviation from the past, is this any justification for supporting the present conservative, Christian, message-from-God, politician in the White House?

---

Or is there some other accurate more accurate description of so-called liberals and conservatives.