Much of the US media seems to be really desperate to smear Bush in any way possible, and they've created a comedy of errors along the way. First you had the imminent threat scandal, where Bush has supposedly said that Iraq posed an imminent threat, and the media hounded him after the invasion of Iraq took place, saying that evidence showed there was no imminent threat and thus Bush lied. The problem with this, however, is that Bush very specifically, in a State of the Union address, said that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat and must be stopped before they do. Of course the media attacked that response, sayign that he had made America belive that Iraq was an imminent threat by implying it, if not stating it. The problem there.... The media skewed Bush's words in the first place, and if anyone is to blame for polls showing that the public thought Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat, it's the media.

Now we have the newest Bush lied scandal, about the connections between Saddam and Al Queda and 9/11. Bush and his administration have long stated that there are connections between the terrorist group and Saddam's despotic government. The 9/11 Blame Game Commission's report said that there were no connections between Saddam and 9/11, but there were connections between Saddam and Al Queda. The media, of course, jumped on this, saying that the Comission proves that Bush lied and that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. The problem here is that Bush never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, just with Al Queda. If the public thought otherwise, it was because the media had twisted Bush's words to meet their own fantasies.

The media twists peoples' words, and then berates thos people for saying things they never said in the first place. And the New York Times wonders why people don't trust them anymore....