Why not just come right out and say he lied?

June 6th, 2008 at 12:11pm Pat Cunningham

 

The New York Times, in an otherwise spot-on EDITORIAL today, beats around the bush (so to speak) on whether President Bush and his gang lied to the American people during the run-up to the war in Iraq.

In commenting on a Senate Intelligence Committee report issued Thursday, the Times says administration officials  ”knowingly twisted and hyped intelligence…ignored dissenting views and telegraphed what answers they were looking for…knew they were not giving a full and honest account of their justifications for going to war…took vague and dubious intelligence reports on Iraq’s weapons programs and made them sound like hard and incontrovertible fact…glossed over inconvenient facts.”

But, then, the Times offers this weasely and illogical conclusion: “We cannot say with certainty whether Mr. Bush lied about Iraq. But when the president withholds vital information from the public — or leads them to believe things that he knows are not true — to justify the invasion of another country, that is bad enough.”

Incredible! The editorialists at the Times seem strangely unable to understand that when the president leads Americans “to believe things he knows are not true,” he’s lying.

As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck….

POSTSCRIPT: Here’s another ANGLE on something I mentioned yesterday — namely that the Iraqis want us to get our troops out of their country. If we refuse to accede to the wishes of Iraq’s elected Parliament in this matter, then ours is an army of occupation.  That kind of thing doesn’t sit well with the Arab world.

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized