As we all know, the media has a chronic inability to call Bush out when he makes a bold-faced lie. They always seem to dance around it. This statement is "technically incorrect," that one is "somewhat misleading," and, of course, "some Democrats disagree" with the president's claims that clouds are made of cotton candy and the oceans are filled with nothing more than cold, crisp Budweiser beer.But his April 2004 statement that all wiretaps on terrorists were done with warrants, well, that's a flat-out lie. Even by the president's current pathetic defense of the illegal wiretapping program, that's a flat-out lie. So what are the odds the media will describe it as a flat-out lie?
Crooks and Liars has the video. If the Democrats had any sense, they'd talk about this lie nonstop and get this clip running every thirty minutes on the cable news outlets.
Update: I see from C&L that Dan Froomkin is making the same point. Good for him.
Update 2.0: And now I see from Atrios that Eric Alterman is on this too, with an excellent column for the Nation. Must be something in the water.
Update the Third: Sorry to keep adding onto this, but the links keep on coming. I just found an even better video clip at PageOneQ. It has more of the C&L piece, including a prelude where Bush shrugs and says he doesn't understand the law and the audience actually applauds him for his ignorance. Unreal. It also has a press conference where Bush insists he has all the power in the world but, no, he's not a dictator (and shuts up a reporter to say so). Finally, it has a terrific response to it all by Russ Feingold. Worth another look, trust me.
8 comments:
You know, I've read the transcript of that particular lie numerous times, but seeing the video really brings it home. It's like he went out of his way to lie. Usually he slimes around and says stuff like "British intelligence says . . .", but this is pretty much head-on lying.
It's great that Olberman is highlighting it; if only there was a way we could get the rest of the librul media to watch this a few times.
This all reminds me of a great Homer Simpson line, when he catches Bart changing his report card grades:
"An 'A'? You don't think much of me, do you boy. An 'F' turns into a 'B' so easy."
It's great that Olberman is highlighting it; if only there was a way we could get the rest of the librul media to watch this a few times.
Olbermann is just on fire lately. The show runs at 8pm and 12pm EST on weeknights, so there's no excuse for missing it. (No, StudioDave, not even your precious collection of antique dolls.)
And Froomkin mau-mau'ed in 5...4...3...
And Froomkin mau-mau'ed in 5...4...3...
It's actually already begun. Some WaPo folks got their panties in a wad because Froomkin's blog was called "White House Briefing" and they thought it misled readers into assuming he was the WaPo's official White House reporter.
The fact that he has a fucking spine should've dispelled that notion, but the WaPo is so sensitive these days.
The one thing about it is that the term "wiretapping" has a specific definition. It involves literally tapping into phone wires to eavesdrop or planting a bug in, or near a phone.
True, but if you look at the longer clip -- the PageOneQ clip in Update the Third -- you'll see that Bush uses the term "wiretapping" to refer to listening in on cell phones. He's clearly grouping all monitoring of telephone conversations under that term.
If push were to come to the shove of sworn testimony, who in their right mind would believe Bush could or would have used language so precisely anyway?
Yeah, I can just see Bush trying that road: "well, it depends on what your definition of 'misunderestimated' is."
Pumpkinhead showed the clip on "Meet the Press" this morning and grilled Specter about it. Nice to see it getting more airtime.
Post a Comment