An email provides some balance to my link to Dana Milbank’s Washington Post article yesterday about president Bush’s sloppiness with facts:
Good dish . . . with the notable exception of touting Milbank’s article. Although he accuses the President of lying (6 times by my count), his evidence is less than compelling.
His main thrust, that knowingly false statements were proffered, center on three statements concerning RPVs, Iraqi nuclear capabilities, and union obstructionism over homeland security: “And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago.
Only an idiot would think an RPV had the range to hit the US mainland–obviously the President referred to US assets in the Persian Gulf region (or terrorist applications assuming other transport); Milbank later quotes the “no such” report by the IAEA–which states that Iraq was 6-24 months away from nukes at the start of the Gulf War (and Bush mangled less than Milbank did); and the union’s silly dispute over radiation detectors was in fact indicative of why the proposed department of homeland security could do without union.
Milbank’s statements are, if anything, more dubious than the President’s. Then he goes on to make some basic logical errors. In the first, he quotes the President’s assertions that a terrorist received medical attention in Iraq, then suggests there is no evidence the government knew about it (a point both unlikely and irrelevant). Then he quotes a statement that Iraq “could” provide terrorists with nukes, and claims it contradicts a CIA report suggesting they “wouldn’t.”
Finally, he closes with a basic error in arithmetic: “Other times, the president’s assertions simply outpace the facts. In New Hampshire earlier this month, he said his education legislation made “the biggest increase in education spending in a long, long time.” “In fact, the 15.8 percent increase in Department of Education discretionary spending for fiscal year 2002 (the figures the White House supplied when asked about Bush’s statement) was below the 18.5 percent increase under Clinton the previous year. . .”
In fact, a 15.8 % increase is “bigger” than a previous year’s 18.5 % increase (115.8 x 118.5 = 137.22; 137.22 – 118.5 = 18.72% ). Dana might wish to define an “increase” as a multiplicative factor, but dictionaries, math books, and common usage all refer to addition.
God knows this isn’t the most eloquent president we’ve ever had, and his tendency to mangle common English makes for some non-sequiturs. But as far as I can tell, the outright prevarication level has dropped precipitously since the last administration. Milbank’s selective quotes make it difficult to determine if there is any justice to his claims, but he has failed abysmally in his attempt to make a cogent case. And if this is the best available argument that Bush is a liar, he must be pretty darn truthful.
A worthwhile amendment, I think. I’m in Indiana today, talking to students. Hope to check in late in the afternoon.
The Dish 