The Big Lie

No lie is too brazen, no implication too absurd, when advancing the liberal media's anti-Bush agenda. Indeed, when denouncing the President's foreign policy, the New York Times morphs its long-standing motto to "all the libels fit to print":

1. Bipartisan=whatever liberals want. Last summer, Democrats (aided by a few Republicans) successfully filibustered to block confirmation of John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations. Installed via recess appointment, Bolton's been spectacular, and President Bush re-submitted the nomination, seeking confirmation before the current Senate session (and Bolton's appointment) expires at year's end. But last week's election and the impending Democrat Senate probably scotches the President's plan. So who's fault is that, according to Saturday's Times?:

   President Bush has pledged to be a bipartisan consensus builder now that Democrats are to control Congress, and since Wednesday he has made conciliatory gestures. The question now is whether Mr. Bush is ready to junk all of his make-nice pledges in order to keep John R. Bolton at the United Nations.

   Of course, the Times conveniently elides its avalanche of editorials and articles in 1997 urging President Clinton "to use his right to fill vacancies when Congress is in recess to name Bill Lann Lee to head Justice Department's civil rights division, nomination blocked by Senate Republicans."


2. Democrat nays=conservative war-mongering. The House yesterday considered H.R. 5602, which would have extended "normal" (i.e., non-discriminatory) trade relations with Vietnam. Though the roll call vote was 228-161, the bill fell short of the necessary 2/3rds majority and so was defeated. So who's fault is that, according to today's Times?:

   In an embarrassing legislative setback for the administration, the House of Representatives defeated a measure late Monday that the president had sought to normalize trade relations with Vietnam, four days before President Bush was scheduled to leave for his first visit to that country. . .
   
   It is not clear whether the preliminary defeat was spurred by anti-trade sentiment or lingering sentiment against Vietnam, which many conservatives still regard as an enemy three decades after the end of a war in which tens of thousands of Americans died.

   Can you say "assuming facts not in evidence"? John Miller at NRO's The Corner can: "I know a lot of conservatives who are critical of Vietnam's human-rights abuses and its command-and-control economy, but I don't know any who 'still regard it as an enemy.'" Under the Times' test, it's similarly unclear whether the bill failed because Pluto was de-planetized. What is clear, as the vote tally shows, is that two thirds of Republicans said "yea" while a majority of Democrats -- the protectionist party -- were "nays."

Blaming Bush worked this November. Yet that strategy's sell-by date is October 2008. Here's hoping the Times stays as clueless about red-state realities as it is about its own archives and The Congressional Record.

(via Timeswatch.Org)