A couple of days ago I countered the Democrats point that Clinton only lied about sex, but Bush lied about WMD by pointing out what Clinton done and said in 1998. Now Rush Limbaugh uses that argument:
All right, now, an interesting question here, folks. If the media today is lying in their reporting, what else is there to conclude? No, no, I'm serious. Some of you might think it's a very strong word. But if we have the record from 1998 on, that they reported identically what George Bush said in 2002 and 2003, how, then, can Bush be lying? The media would have to have been lying in 1998. Bill Clinton would have had to have been lying in 1998 for all those stories to have been written back then by the New York Times and the Washington Post. So there's lying somewhere. Either it occurred in '98 or it's occurring now. Now, if the media is lying today in reporting then, what is to say that everything they wrote in 1998 that Bob Kagan outlines in the Washington Post was also not a lie? The bottom line is we can't believe what they wrote in '98 if we don't believe what they write today. They were covering Clinton's rear end back then. Perhaps 1998 was all a lie. Perhaps they knew it was a lie. Perhaps they knew we weren't going to go to war so they didn't care. They knew they were just covering up for Bill Clinton and tried to divert everybody. My question, how can we believe what these people write, after Katrina, after falling in line with Dan Rather and Bill Burkett and the forged documents, and I'm sure I'm leaving out some recent examples here of things that have been totally untrue. How can we believe anything they say? But especially today when they're willing to ignore their own body of work and to pretend that this story never existed until Bush got to the White House. I don't know how you believe them, folks, I don't. I don't know how you put one ounce of trust in them.
So did the MSM help Clinton Lie about WMD in order to divert attention from his lies about sex?
