Once again very good arguments to counter some pretty blatant hypocrisies. Another strong argument that Bush claimed to bolster his support for the strike and war against Iraq was the Hussein ties to terrorist, specifically Al Qaeda.This tied into the imminent threat claim. This claim has also been proven to be false and should be added to your letter in support of your argument against Mr. Rosenbaum. Although this is a recent article, it does pretty much sum up the claims that were made, despite Bush having and knowing to the contrary, that these claims could not be incontrovertibly supported by intelligence.
WaPO article 6/22. Walter Pincus "Report Cast Doubt on Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection"

One last comment, Rosenbaum claims "There is no evidence the president did not believe what he was saying" therefore he infers that Bush was not lying. If Bush wasn't lying then that means based upon all the (experts)intelligence he came to a completely different conclusion. Perhaps that means he is incompetent or derelict in his duty as the president? I mean these are the experts and he disregarded their claims. Why do we even bother having these agents if Bush already seems to know everything.

I don't think it's fair to say that Bush lied.

He certainly exagerrated. He certainly said things that weren't true. He certainly manipulated and used knowingly doctored evidence. He certainly misled us. He certainly lied. But I don't think it's fair to say that he lied.

You know?

Thanks for this excellent post. I emailed Mr. Rosenbaum the following:

Dear Mr. Rosenbaum,

I think you give George Bush way too much credit for veracity in your
article in this Sunday's paper. From all the evidence you provided it
seems perfectly clear that Bush DID lie--both in the spirit and the
technical sense of the word "lying." Yours is not the first column I
have seen in The New York Times which provides a virtual laundry list of
lies Mr. Bush told and then makes a half-baked justification for it, but
I must say I find it extremely curious about why you and others would
care to soft-pedal the reality you are writing about. Isn't having a
president tell the truth about the economy and foreign policy of some
value in a democracy?

Mr. Rosenbaum, you hold a powerful position. If you provide cover for
the government to lie--or even to stretch the truth until it snaps--then
you are not helping our country to reach its potential. You are hurting
your fellow citizens. Please remember that as you apply your
considerable talent and skills to your next article.

Sincerely,

and what about all those alleged (and untrue) allegations of "exaggeration" and "lying" - which were considered synonymous at the time - by Al Gore in the 2000 election campaign (about Love Canal, and Love Story, and inventing the internet, ad infinitum)?

just another press nose all cozy and snuggled up to the Bush butt

In the immortal words of George Costanza:

"Just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it."

Dear Mr. Rosenbaum,

I'm a drunk. There came a time when my near-wasted brain knew, knew as surely as the sun rose this morning, that soon I was going to be dead. I didn't want to die. Really? My new mentor asked. Don't lie, he replied.

I kept my mentor and stopped drinking. The next 84 months were unholy hell. I couldn't perceive Truth very well and was usually too ashamed to speak it consistently. Naturally such tapestries of dishonesty--just stitching the normal fabric of everyday life--twitched my brain with torment. If I couldn't be honest I was going to drink and die. They told me so many times I had to believe it, I didn't know why.

After a long time it finally occurred to me that my sobriety was dependent upon peace. If I couldn't be a good honest person then my brain judged me to be unworthy, with only the bottle left for such failure.

I can make myself believe anything. All drunks do--such is the only way to rationalize a slurred existence, the firm belief in the fantasy of daily, complete inebriation.

"There is no evidence the president did not believe what he was saying."

You'll never, ever find evidence for belief. You simply have to Trust the brain of Bush.

Nobody ever game a damn about my beliefs, fantasies, or rationalizations behind my dishonesty. Reality digested the results and hammered my ass--I did not tell the truth, and here are the results.

Did Bush tell the Truth? No.

Does it matter how or why this happened?

Not to the dead soldiers. Or the mutilated children. Or the ravaged landscape. Or the faith of our outraged, betrayed allies.

It matters to you, obviously. Instead of making sure this mistake never happened again, all you seem to write is that not saying the Truth is all right if you believed what you were saying.

Assuming Bush believed it, thousands died and continue to die. Is that the kind of country you want? Dishonesty that leads to death but that really is okay?

With an answer like that I'd be drunk in fifteen minutes. That's an unbearably awful state of reality.

It's good enough for you. Hope you never have a family member who's a drunk. You're a perfect enabler for their eventual death.

Our country and your family deserve manifestly more than that, Mr. Rosenbaum.

__xx__

Please keep this mail private. I'm not ashamed to be a drunk. It's just that if my name becomes public knowledge it will be obvious I'm feeding my ego with what a great recovery guru I've become, since I can tell everybody. I'll be drunk and dead within 2 years if that happens.

The entire press corps seems to have totally flushed down the memory hole Bush's repeated statements that the decision to go to war was not final and that war was his last option, when in fact numerous reports have pointed out that the decision was made and finalized by at the latest December 2002 and probably earlier, that summer.

This is the time frame of the famous W. quote, "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out."

How can knowing that you've already decided an issue, something Bush must have been aware of, and announcing to the world that your decision isn't final not be a lie? An overt, blatant, unapologetic lie about the decision to kill people ... yet the media has been required to ignore these statements for they would reveal the emperor's nudity.

Evan,

You nailed it.

Bush Lies, The Media does not Report

Bush says he has not made a decision on using force to disarm Iraq. March 6, 2003

"Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out." March 2002

And President Self Righteous Christian had said nasty word. SHAME!

I believe the basic problem is that the Jews have forgotten their social conscience and are suypporting any action that will ensure Israel's survival. This is what is hampering criticism by Democratic candidates against the WMD and the War in Iraq. They don't want to lose Jewish media support (the New York Times), Jewish campaign donations and the Jewish vote.

I am saying this as a Jew and believe me I feel really uncomfortable about this.

Advanced calculus, I've come to the same conclusion, it's the only reason my father, usually a just man, would support Iraq's attack

um--our attack on Iraq

At some point it is going to have to be in "the medias" interest (NY Times included) to start reporting fairly and honestly. They have to know that there is no future in demeaning the 4th measure of balance in our system; a free, open and honest press. (It's not called the press for nothing.)
The media whores will eventually be exposed for what they are, shameless enablers of a corrupt administration that exploits a duped an undereducated populace.

I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with Judaism one way or another. You'll get gentiles as well jews making the same arguments.

VAdem, perhaps it would be better to put it this way (and I say this with great sadness): those people who would normally be screaming for the head of a president who behaved in such a way but are instead keeping silent (or actively supporting the lies) tend to be those for whom support of Israel is paramount.

I call it the "Deanna Troi" defense, after the Star Trek: The Next Generation character who had the ability to tell, through empathic powers, if someone was lying. Since that ability needed to be worked around to drive any number of ST:TNG plots, she'd say something like "I detect no deception, but that might just mean he/she/believes what he/she/it is saying..."

I've been hearing that defense a lot from the conservabloggers and their comment threads, and I'm sick of it. One of the ways Bush was sold was his "managerial style," how he'd "get the best advisers," etc. etc.

If Bush's "managerial style" means he parrots whatever information his handlers feed him, then he's an incompetent fool.

And anyway -- if Bush's advisers misled him, heads should roll. That they haven't means Bush endorses their desception, at the very least.

One might ask Mr. Rosenbaum if the blatant lying by his former colleague is excusable because he believed it, despite the fact that it has hugely damaged the reputation of the Times?

To lie, I must know it's false. To say something I believe is true, even though it isn't true, is not a lie. Somehow that sounds a lot like questioning what "is" is.

sgc

If you're watching your blood pressure do not go over to the Daily Howler to see Bob Somerby's take on this.

The killer is the other byline in the nyt's today: KATHARINE Q. SEELYE.

I felt so creepy and dirty after reading Somerby I was genuinely sorry I did it. Sometimes I get the overwhelimg feeling I should leave all this filth, sycophancy and dishonesty behind. Surely it isn't good for me to be reading and reacting internally to this stuff on a daily basis.

I thought the NYT was one of those lying librul rags? What gives with the defense of the indefensible? Could it be that the media isn't librul at all?

NNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slightly off topic but not really.

An interesting poll currently being conducted on AOL:

Do you fear Iraq could become another Vietnam?

61% Yes, I see early warning signs
39% No, things are going as expected
Total votes: 173,537

How do you feel about the war since major combat ended?

45% More negative, there are too many casualties
37% I feel the same
18% More positive, great progress has been made
Total votes: 173,759

Perhaps there is some hope yet.