The Washington Post quotes the latest absurd straw man argument from President Bush, which he made during a speech in California yesterday:
"Time and time again, the Democrats want to have it both ways," he told donors here. "They talk tough on terror, but when the votes are counted, their softer side comes out."
He added: "If you don't think we should be listening in on the terrorist, then you ought to vote for the Democrats. If you want your government to continue listening in when al-Qaeda planners are making phone calls into the United States, then you vote Republican."
Bush's tough talk Tuesday came after he suggested at a Monday night fundraiser in Nevada that Democrats were content to sit back until terrorists strike again. "It sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is wait until we're attacked again," he said.
Unfortunately, even though this is a well-documented pattern (see here, here, here, here, here and here), the Post waited until almost the end of the story to explain in tepid language that Bush's characterizations were inaccurate:
Bush's language, though, characterizes Democratic positions through his own prism. Critics of the surveillance program have not argued against listening to terrorist phone calls but say the government should get warrants from a secret intelligence court. Likewise, many critics of the tribunal measure did not oppose interrogating prisoners generally, as Bush said, but specific provisions of the bill, such as denying the right of habeas corpus or giving the president freedom to authorize what they consider torture.
"[T]hrough his own prism?" Bush's assertions are flatly misleading, and the Post fails to note that it's flatly untrue that Democrats "think the best way to protect the American people is wait until we're attacked again." This country needs better journalists.
Comments