Slate’s Timothy Noah says, “Yes. There’s no reason for Bush-bashers to choose between the two.” His excellent article examines some of the many lies exaggerations involving recent issues facing W, including the lack of WMD in Iraq and the upcoming tax cut that supposedly “would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax” but definitely will not.
Although I’m tired of the whole debate over whether the U.S. should have intervened in Iraq, I’m glad to see that articles where the central issue is “Bush May Have Exaggerated, but Did He Lie?” are more prevalent lately, because it’s about damn time. But will it matter? The New York Times article actually tries to qualify W’s statements, asking “Can a false statement be a lie if the speaker is unaware it is a lie?” The Slate article asserts that “In Bush’s case, the answer is painfully obvious. It’s because Bush is a functionally not-bright man.” Well, duh, that’s not exactly a revelation, but he is supposed to be our president. He’s supposed to know these things and act in the citizens’ best interest, not dupe them and claim ignorance, saying that “he knows what he doesn’t know.” I can’t believe that this idiot got elected; let’s hope it doesn’t happen again…
