A question for the audience
Oct. 9th, 2003 01:13 amWhat lie do you think George W. Bush would have to tell before his core constituency--the 40% or so of Americans who seem convinced that the Republicans are good guys doing their best in a difficult world and the Democrats are demons from the nether pits of hell--would realize he's a shameless and constant liar?
Okay, here's a harder question: What lie would he have to tell before CBS, NBC, or ABC referred to it as a "lie"?
Update: I forgot to mention the proximate cause of this post. Here's a nice summary of David Kay's interim report on Iraq weapons of mass destruction.
Read honestly, it indicates that Iraq's chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons and weapons programs were all basically destroyed in 1991, and the UN sanctions put in place after that kept them from coming back. This isn't a hidden meaning of the report; it's clear throughout it.
Woody Bush has said, in exactly as many words, that in his report, Kay was saying that "Saddam Hussein was a threat, a serious danger."
This is pissing on America's face and telling it that it's a light spring shower. What does it fucking take?
Okay, here's a harder question: What lie would he have to tell before CBS, NBC, or ABC referred to it as a "lie"?
Update: I forgot to mention the proximate cause of this post. Here's a nice summary of David Kay's interim report on Iraq weapons of mass destruction.
Read honestly, it indicates that Iraq's chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons and weapons programs were all basically destroyed in 1991, and the UN sanctions put in place after that kept them from coming back. This isn't a hidden meaning of the report; it's clear throughout it.
Woody Bush has said, in exactly as many words, that in his report, Kay was saying that "Saddam Hussein was a threat, a serious danger."
This is pissing on America's face and telling it that it's a light spring shower. What does it fucking take?