Posted by
JDComments on Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:01:13 PM
Eleanor Clift of Newsweek has courageously
announced the biggest Presidential lies of 2006 and after approaching the article with some trepidation of a major revelation I can announce that all I found was the usual Liberal distortion of facts and routine in the service of creating a mountain out of something too small to be a molehill.
Since I cannot in good conscience recommend you waste your time on reading her work, I will attempt to summarize the major points.
First, Clift indicts Bush for changing his position on the war from one in which we are winning to a more nuanced "we are not winning or losing". Talk about an "All the President's Men" moment! This is explosive stuff. Yes, I know the MSM castigated Bush for being obstinate, and is now accusing him of being a liar for modifying his position, but this is eye opening don't you think?
In the same vein, Clift points out that Bush, during the campaign, said that the Democrats would "cut and run" if elected. This is so major that Clift labels it a "big lie" and I can see why. Yes, everything I read indicates the Dems are indeed going to cut and run so it may be a little hard to see the falsity here, but by labeling it a "big lie" all doubt should be removed. After all. isn't that what the Nazi's used to do?
The next prevarication has to do with Rumsfeld, who Bush axed after showing support for him. I have to admit even within the context of this story it is hard to see the "lie" here because, for one reason, Bush hurt himself and the Republicans by not firing the SecDef earlier, so for what purpose would he be lying? It seems this was just a bad management call by the President, but Clift seems so sincere that you hate to point this out.
And the last major lie as far as I can tell is Rove disparaging the pre election polls, something I personally think should be a capital offense. Yes, he may have had internal data supporting his position, so technically he might have not have been lying, and he may just have based his views on the useless 2004 polls which anointed John Kerry President, but still he was wrong so he may have been lying. That logic is obviously good enough for Clift.
There are a few more items about missed stories which I was too nauseous to read by the time I got to them.
This is what passes for analysis in the MSM these days, a group of essentially business as usual remarks and actions which are chosen by the Liberal mind to be reality warped, resulting in them becoming high crimes and misdemeanors against the Republic. Someone is never wrong, they "lied". Someone cannot adjust their position as facts change, they "lied". Someone cannot take a subjective opinion, they "lied".
And what of the person who writes a story like this?