Truth-a-Thon 2005

Looks like the NY Times has decided not to be outdone by the WaPo, and today runs their own editorial accusing Bush of a lack of truthiness:

To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.

Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.

It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.
I see your “Neither assertion is wholly accurate” and raise you “None of it has been true.” It’s like a truth-off, all of a sudden. After five years of fighting over who was going to suck his knob and who was going to play with his balls, now these two cornerstones of the “liberal media” are playing a game of one-upmanship to expose Bush’s lies and unravel his defenses. A fun game, no doubt—and one that would be decidedly less engaging had they not spent the entirety of his presidency helping him spin his web of deceit in the first bloody place.

The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why.
Uh, you are the paper that employed Judith Miller, right?

Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.
Forgive me, Gray Lady; I know your interest, sudden though it may be, in trying to prevent Mr. Toad from careening off the cliff ought to be appreciated, but I’m just not ready to forgive you for helping him fuel up his jalopy to take us on this wild ride to begin with. The Bush-version of history began to be written when you decided not to question him or his decisions in the wake of 9/11. The rewriting of history to reflect the reality of that time has only just begun.

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus