Thursday, October 14, 2004

How to Tell Bush is Lying

"Every time the president is on the defensive for a dishonest statement, a mischaracterization, or a lousy policy decision, he adds to the sentence the words “of course.” - Brian Morton -
Baltimore City Paper Online
; October 13, 2004

Of course we’re after Saddam Hussein—I mean bin Laden. He’s isolated. Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to justice.” - Dubya Bush in the first debate

"Of course we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden." - Bush in the third debate

Way to go, Brian Morton. Readers should note that Morton made this call prior to the debate.

Bush Flubs the Third Debate

It's Christmas in October. Bush handed the Kerry campaign a perfect sound byte.
SCHIEFFER: Anything to add, Senator Kerry?

KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.

Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden? " He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned. "

We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.
Slate sums it up this way.
By denying that he had ever minimized the threat posed by Bin Laden, Bush handed Kerry, during the very first question, the victory in the post-debate spin. The Kerry campaign's critique of the president is that he has doesn't tell the truth, that he won't admit mistakes, and that he refuses to acknowledge reality. Bush's answer played into all three claims.
Read the debate transcript here.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

A More Sensitive War

Remember when the rightwingers mocked and ridiculed Kerry for declaring that he'd wage a more "sensitive" war on terror? From this New York Times editoral, it would seem that's exactly what the Bush administration had in mind in deciding on troop levels to insert into Iraq.
"The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis."
Interesting. No complaints from rightwingers about Bush's decision to wage a more sensitive war.