Oh, just spit it out, Dana!
Far be it from me to criticze Dana Milbank, one of the few honest journalists covering Bush. Actually calling the people that cover Bush on a regular basis “journalists” is a bit of a stretch. I believe the “grouping term” is a flock of fellators, but I could be wrong. Anyway, Dana wrote a fairly nice piece on Bush’s….um…well the headline is :
For Bush, Facts Are Malleable
What made the article fun to read was Milbank’s aversion to the “L” word. Here is a somewhat comprehensive list of aversions:
And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong.
his rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy in recent weeks.
a president who won election underscoring Al Gore’s knack for distortions and exaggerations has been guilty of a few himself.
Some of Bush’s overstatements appear to be off-the-cuff mistakes.
The White House, while acknowledging that on one occasion the president was “imprecise,” said it stands by his words.
The president has also taken some liberties as he argues for his version of homeland security legislation.
The White House said that Bush “was imprecise on this” and that the source was U.S. intelligence, not the IAEA
In each of these charges, Bush omitted qualifiers that make the accusations seem less convincing.
Some of the disputed Bush assertions are matters of perspective
Other times, the president’s assertions simply outpace the facts.
Don’t they just make you want to yell “Oh for god’s sake…say it!”?