About the liberal media’s “Bush lied!” chants after the release of the 9-11 Commission’s interim report, he writes:
One of the most reprehensible things about the past year’s campaign against President Bush is that his accusers have repeatedly lied in calling him a liar — and they’ve marshaled nonexistent evidence to support their fraudulent claims.
One of the principal complaints against President Bush’s prosecution of the War on Terror is that he distorted the facts to tie Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks against the United States in order to strengthen his case for attacking Iraq….
They, including the New York Times, accused the administration of misrepresenting something it never said. You’ve got to have a representation before you can have a misrepresentation.
But now the Times has belatedly admitted that the Bush administration never claimed there was a specific connection between Saddam and 9/11 attacks, “only that there were ties, however murky, between Iraq and Al Qaeda.”
Don’t just brush over this as if it’s a minor detail. The Times just confessed that neither Bush nor his team ever said Saddam was tied to 9/11. The Times even provided statements from various administration officials claiming there were connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but never positing a 9/11 conspiracy. This is a major, painful admission by the Times.
Hatred has a way of blinding people to the truth, resulting in unsubstantiated claims and a rush to judgment. George Bush is detested by liberal journalists so much that they lay in wait like tigers watching prey, ready to pounce. The leader of the free world can’t catch a break.
When the 9-11 Commission issued its interim report, I chose not to blog about the liberal media’s distortion of it because I wanted to wait for the truth to come out. Indeed it has. Now the Old Gray Lady herself has had to admit, in a roundabout way, to adding a little fiction to the facts.
