Politics: Bush lying... Surprise!!!

Here's an interesting article. Interesting b/c the title of the article is: Bush, Kerry Twisting Each Other's Words

But that's not what's really in there, b/c that sort of implies that there's something equal and balanced about the article. But nope. It's an article about Bush lying and some sort of sorry excuse for Kerry being caught on technicalities. The breakdown:

He stated flatly that Kerry had said earlier in the week "he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today." The line drew gasps of surprise from Bush's audience in a Racine, Wis., park. "I just strongly disagree," the president said.

But Kerry never said that. In a speech at New York University on Monday, he called Saddam "a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell." He added, "The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

First off, it's stupid of Bush to say that, b/c nobody but Bill O'Reilly or an idiot should believe that John Kerry, or anybody, really thinks that. It doesn't takea logic ph.d to point out the differences in what Kerry said versus what Bush said he said. Then:

Bush attacked Kerry for calling "our alliance 'the alliance of the coerced and the bribed.'"

"You can't build alliances if you criticize the efforts of those who are working side by side with you," the president said in Janesville, Wis.

Kerry did use the phrase to describe the U.S.-led coalition of nations in Iraq, in a March 2003 speech in California. He was referring to the administration's willingness to offer aid to other nations to gain support for its Iraq policies.

But Bush mischaracterized Kerry's criticism, which has not been aimed at the countries that have contributed a relatively small number of troops and resources, but at the administration for not gaining more participation from other nations.

So that's two. Bush is very good at twisting. #3:

Bush also suggested Kerry was undercutting an ally in a time of need, and thus unfit to be president, when he "questioned the credibility" of Iraqi interim leader Ayad Allawi.

"This great man came to our country to talk about how he's risking his life for a free Iraq, which helps America," the president said in Janesville. "And Senator Kerry held a press conference and questioned Prime Minister Allawi's credibility. You can't lead this country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility."

Bush repeated the attack later in the day and Vice President Dick Cheney echoed the message in Lafayette, La. "I must say I was appalled at the complete lack of respect Senator Kerry showed for this man of courage," Cheney said.

Kerry's point was that the optimistic assessments of postwar Iraq from both Bush and Allawi didn't match previous statements by the Iraqi leader, nor the reality on the ground, and were designed to put the "best face" on failed policies.

Whether Bush or Kerry is the best man to finish what's going on in Iraq, can't they simply admit that things aren't going well? And they aren't going well because Iraq is a near-impossible mission--install a pro-West democracy and stability in a land that hates the West, doesn't particularly love the idea of democracy, and is pretty damn hard to stabilize.

But here's the thing, here's Kerry's supposed 'lies' or twists or whatever:

[An] e-mail from campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill accused the president of having "no plan to get us out of Iraq" and thinking "the future of Iraq is brighter than the future of America."

Bush has a plan for Iraq — Kerry just disagrees that it is working. And the president wasn't comparing Iraq's future to that of the United States, only accurately reflecting one recent survey in Iraq and the latest trends in America that asked

<>So Bush has a plan? Really? I blogged about it just yesterday. Great plan, huh? So we're making them have elections and it's completely up to them. The election will only get to 3/4 or 4/5 of the country, but really it'll get to everybody. Some plan. "Bring 'em on" and back-door drafting doesn't seem like a very good approach. And, as Juan Cole points out:

the same poll found that more than 80 percent of Iraqis want an Islamic Republic with Islamic canon law or shariah as the law of the land. So if they are optimistic, it is because they think they can achieve such a goal over US objections. Again, this is not actually good news for Bush.

So, Bush might be, ya know, "accurate" because he doesn't tell the whole story to tell the part that makes his policies look as ineffective as they are.

So that's Kerry's twisting? What? Yup, those are equal offenses. I'm not sure if this article is a joke or what. The attempt to juxtapose these two examples of candidate spin just seems a little unbalanced.

Now, I'm not saying that Kerry isn't guilty of 'twisting' or 'flip-flopping' or whatever--I'm sure somebody else could have written this article and but a much more negative spin on Kerry. But simply concentrating on the examples in this one article, I don't get it. How do these headlines get used?