It's not surprising when a conservative pundit or Republic pol reminds the forgetful public that George Bush didn't "lie" about Iraq when he urged action on the basis of intelligence that proved later to be inaccurate but was the best available at the time.
It's noteworthy when the note is sounded by the editor of the left-wing New Republic on the pages of the LA Times.
Such an observation is timely inasmuch as it is now utterly clear that the Democrats' primary campaign strategy for the upcoming election is to run against the George Bush who (a) lied about Iraq; (b) leaked Valerie Plame's undercover identity; (c) caused global warming; (d) wrecked the economy; (e) antagonized the entire world; and (f) still stands atop the Republican ticket.
Dare we say it? Those seem closer to lies, defined as deliberate statements of untruth aimed at deception, than Bush's alleged sins.
1 comment:
I humbly suggest an addition to the SWNID fiction club:
The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner
by the indomitable Scotsman, James Hogg.
Also, the ever overlooked Lewisian classics
Till We Have Faces and The Great Divorce.
Finally, in keeping with the SWNIDish admiration of the work of Dostoevsky, a nonfiction title which quite well illumines the great Russian's imaginative and theological critique of Post Enlightenment philosophy:
Dostoevsky: The Scandal of Reason
by Maria Nemcová Banerjee
Post a Comment