are you sitting down?
The Washington Post has discovered that statements made by George W. Bush have proved to be somewhat less than truthful ("Presidential Tradition Of Embroidering Key Assertions Continues"). I suppose that a liberally biased press might have said something like
George W. Bush lies repeatedly to achieve his political aims.
Personally, I was amased at the positively gentle tone the story took, and I couldn't help but wonder at the way Bush received the benefit of the doubt in this story. But what it all boils down to is, however much I might agree that it's be a Good Thing if Saddam were deposed, I simply find it impossible to trust this administration, and developing events (*cough*Korea*cough*) certainly don't increase my confidence.
Update: Via Body and Soul, P.L.A. points out that the WaPo's articles list of “distortions and exaggerations” is far from complete. Leading the list is the L4m3 "trifecta" lie Bush kept bandying about when his promised
have cake and eat it too tax cut and budget surplus plan didn't quite work out. He also points out the obvious:
What are we to make of such a pattern? What standard should we apply in assessing the Bush administration’s reluctance to tell the simple truth? You may recall that in 2000, the Bush campaign, its allies and the press felt that Al Gore had a problem with the truth. Perhaps, then, it would be fair to apply to the current administration the same standards that the press and the Republicans applied to Al Gore during the campaign.
Yes, he has examples aplenty. I might also mention that I, for one, remember Bush pledging on the 2000 campaign trail to be some shining example of Presidential responsibility. I'd have thought it fair to assume that Bush meant his office would be scrupulously honest, but I can't say I'm disappointed, having never believed it for a moment.