Yesterday John Kerry said it was "obvious" that the world is better off with Saddam in captivity, but added "That doesn't mean you should take your eye off the ball -- which was Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda -- and rush to war just to get rid of him."

OK. Everybody got that? Better off without Saddam, but maybe not the best time to spend 300 billion to get rid of him when Al Qaeda's on the loose. Got it? Not too tough if your IQ's over 70, right?

Today Bush responded. He said: "The world is better off with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell. And that stands in stark contrast to the statement my opponent made yesterday when he said that the world was better off with Saddam in power."

That's it. I officially give up. He's no longer just distorting Kerry's record, which is standard political practice. He's just blatantly lying, so confident that no one in the media will call him on it. I don't believe that he's that stupid. I mean, it's not like he took something out of context. He just made shit up! Kerry said the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, and Bush accused him of saying the exact opposite of that!

Kudos to ABC which, in a low-key fashion, played the quotes back-to-back to let you draw your own conclusions. Not exactly a hard-hitting expose' of a ridiculous statement, but it's a start. One of the biggest problems we face today is reporters who lazily report and repeat distortions from both sides -- when they could easily do 20 minutes of research and tell us which side is lying and when! There was a really excellent article in Columbia Journalism Review on this last month.

0 comments. Leave one!