Washington Post catches Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld in

Published 8/31/06

The Bushies made claims. The Post asked them to back it up. The administration said, “Um, we can’t.”

Maybe they consider that “spin.” But we all know it’s simply a lie.

Via Crooks and Liars, and again, thanks to Gnomic.

Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President Cheney this week said critics “claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone.” And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that “many have still not learned history’s lessons” and “believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased.”

Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. (Emphasis added.)

The Fray

2 responses (add yours)

Marty says:

I can’t back up what President Bush said but I have certainly heard many critics of the war say things exactly like what Cheney suggested.

It is also clear that many people have not learned the lessons that Rumsfeld cites.

How do you interpret the word “critics” to mean major Democrats?

September 8th, 2006 at 12:27 PM

Fatal says:

Isn’t this making an apples to oranges comparison to try to prove your (or is it only the Washington Post’s) point?

Bush said “Democrats”
Cheney said “critics”
Rumsfeld said “many”

Your/The Washington Post’s point, (in bold even)
“. . .the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who . . .”

So to make that point, one must believe:

Democrats = major Democrats (I think all of the registered Democrats out there might actually be pleased to be considered “major” Democrats, but if all Democrats are “major” Democrats, who are the minor Democrats needed for the purposes of distinguishing between the major and minor Democrats?)
critics = major Democrats (if “major Democrats” were the only ones criticizing the administration’s Iraq policies, who are all those people out there demonstrating against those policies? Are they all “major Democrats”?)
many = major Democrats - well I think you see where this is going and its just plain sillyville.

Maybe I don’t understand, is this what is meant by a little journalistic license?

September 8th, 2006 at 2:24 PM