bush baloney bashed
Eric Alterman notes a peculiarity of the so-called "liberal media:" a reluctance--if not outright refusal--to acknowledge that it, and by extension the American public, are being lied to on a routine basis by the current administration.
In the one significant effort by a national daily to deal with Bush's consistent pattern of mendacity, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank could not bring himself (or was not allowed) to utter the crucial words. Instead, readers were treated to such complicated linguistic circumlocutions as: Bush's statements represented "embroidering key assertions" and were clearly "dubious, if not wrong." The President's "rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy," he has "taken some liberties," "omitted qualifiers" and "simply outpace[d] the facts." But "Bush lied"? Never.
...Reporters and editors who "protect" their readers and viewers from the truth about Bush's lies are doing the nation -- and ultimately George W. Bush -- no favors. Take a look at the names at that long black wall on the Mall. Consider the tragic legacy of LBJ's failed presidency. Ask yourself just who is being served when the media allow Bush to lie, repeatedly, with impunity, in order to take the nation into war.
(via Blog Left)
Update: Here's Beyond Corprorate's excellent take on Alterman's article, via Body and Soul.
Update 2: Spinsanity notes that Bush's
misstatements lies have hardly been limited to Iraq. And he accurately notes why it matters: "This dissembling is a betrayal of Bush's promise to restore honor and dignity to the White House. With so much at stake domestically and abroad, it's time to hold the president and his administration to a higher standard of truth." A higher standard, I might add, that Bush himslef promised as a centerpiece of his 2000 campaign.
Update 3: The Agitator has moved from the "undecided" to "anti" column, in part due to the "shady way the Bush administration has waged its public relations campaign." (via The Sideshow)