Bush is the master of the not-technically-a-lie kind of lie. He counts on the fact that judge-types know that correlation is not causation, but that the general voting public doesn't. He's always putting technically true facts next to each other in ways that are designed to imply their connectedness, and certain deeper meanings, without actually *claiming* those things in a strict sense. And he also is great at statements that are non-falsifiable, e.g. "Just because we haven't found WMD's *yet* doesn't mean they're not there!" But he almost never flat-out lies. Unfortunately, "chronically abusive misleader" is hard to prosecute, either in the courts or the press.
It's true, he (or the minds behind him) are much more politically apt in some ways than their opponents believe. However, on a number of separate occasions strong evidence has surfaced indicating significant suppression and manipulation of the evidence gathered on Iraq. That we are seeing any of that without a driving media frenzy over it makes me wonder how much more we would see with a zealot like Kenneth Starr going after them.
Isn't our media infamous for wanting to topple public figures? Can we get some of that about now?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Isn't our media infamous for wanting to topple public figures? Can we get some of that about now?