Can someonr tell me why the press didn't thump away at Bush and explain to me why there isn't more outrage about Bush's outright lies, the latest being the Rumsfeld resignation. Consider his support for Tony Snow, his surprise trip to Iraq, his statements equating Democrats with terrorists...the list goes on and on.
He can't tell the difference between "withholding information" and lying. He doesn't see anything wrong with saying the indefensible in a campaign speech. I don't expect the president to tell me everything. But what he/she does tell, I expect to be the truth. And I expect the president to campaign - I don't expect grade school taunting. His defense amounts to "sticks and stones will break my bones...but words don't mean anything." He's offensive to me - not as a Democrat, but as a human being and someone who takes the power of words very seriously.
And I can't stand reading his assertion that Rumsfeld's resignation was such a major decision that it wouldn't have been appropriate so near Election Day. I've worked on presidential campaigns. The fact is, such major decisions are made all the time - primarily to INFLUENCE the outcomes of elections. Are they being manipulative - or do they think we're really all as stupid as they are?
No comments:
Post a Comment