Distortion--Stronger than Truth?

The liberal media will wack Republicans no matter what. First they criticized President Bush for being too aggressive in response to radical Islamic terrorism. This week, based on testimony from a bunch of partisan ex-Clinton staffers, they're arguing the Administration was slow and weak. Of course, the press ignores prior inconsistent statements by those same witnesses.

Apparently, this long-standing liberal bias isn't sufficient. So today, the press decided to lie.

Consider, for example, MSNBC's summary of the 9/11 panel's conclusions:

The report revealed that in a previously undisclosed secret diplomatic mission, Saudi Arabia won a commitment from the Taliban to expel bin Laden in 1998. But a clash between the Taliban's leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, and Saudi officials scuttled the arrangement, and Bush did not follow up.

This was 1998. How, exactly, could Bush "follow-up"--when he was governor of Texas?

Here's another fish story, apparently swallowed whole by the New York Daily News:

One event that panel members found galling was why there was no retaliation by either administration for the bombing of the destroyer Cole in early 2001.

The USS Cole was attacked in October 2000--during the Clinton Administration. Clinton never responded to the Cole or embassy bombings. And after the election, liberals and the press insist "Bush lied!"--i.e., exaggerated the terrorism threat. It's irrelevant whether Republican policy is "A" or "not A"--the media's outraged either way.

I'm jealous of reporters and editors. They spew nonsense, publish lies and contradict themselves by the hour--without apparent consequences. Their lefty audience rarely acquaint themselves with facts--if it's in the "major media," it must be true.

Remember that the next time you watch Rather, Brokaw or Jennings. Or read the NY Times, San Francisco Chronicle or Washington Post. (via Instapundit.)