David Corn's U-Turn with New Book? : "The lies of George W. Bush"

posted by ewing2001 on Monday June 16, @01:14PM

Confusion about David Corn. Once a strong supporter of the 911-"Incompetence Theory", he was just cited in the latest Nationalreview:

Bush's statements about weapons of mass destruction were "one of the administration's Big Lies of the war on Iraq"

Meanwhile it appears, that due to an announcement of the Library Journal, Corn will release a book in December, called "The lies of George W. Bush"

The Cover is already in the database of Amazon. Hoax or not?

The National Review sums up the latest critics on Bush, which include Corn:

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york060303.asp

From the June 16, 2003, issue of National Review.

The Truth About Bush's Lies

"...There's an idea gaining momentum among Democrats and pundits on the left: George W. Bush is a bigger liar than Bill Clinton ever was. Writers like Paul Krugman of the New York Times, E. J. Dionne and Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, and Harold Meyerson of The American Prospect have all suggested that Bush has a serious problem with the truth, while others, like The Nation's Eric Alterman, have said flatly, "President Bush is a liar."

Advertisement

The Post's Richard Cohen invoked Mary McCarthy's famous jab at Lillian Hellman — "Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'" — before concluding: "The same cannot yet be said about George W. Bush and his administration, but it has not been around as long as Hellman was and is not nearly as creative."

On the web, Bushwatch.com maintains a special "Bush Lies" section, while another site, Dailyhowler.com, keeps up a running commentary on the president's alleged untruths. And this fall, sometime comedian Al Franken will no doubt be pushing the idea in his book, "Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them- A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right". In short, accusing the president of lying is a growth industry on the left.

What seems particularly galling to liberal writers is the notion that Bush is getting away with his lies even as his predecessor was flayed for lesser offenses. "If a Democrat, say, Bill Clinton, engaged in Bush-scale dishonesty, the press would be all over him," Drake Bennett and Heidi Pauken wrote in a recent issue of The American Prospect. "Unless the voters and the press start paying attention, all the president's lies will have little political consequence; except to certify that we have become something less than a democracy."

..."Does it matter that we were misled into war?" asked the New York Times's Paul Krugman. Bush's statements about weapons of mass destruction were "one of the administration's Big Lies of the war on Iraq," wrote The Nation's David Corn. And Democratic senator Robert Byrd has issued almost daily allegations that Bush lied about Iraq.

Such accusations are risky; after all, the search for Iraqi weapons is ongoing, and any day might bring a significant discovery, or evidence that weapons have been destroyed. Still, for the sake of argument, assume there is no discovery. Does that mean Bush was lying?..."

<  911 Victims demand to watch new Pentagon-Crash simulation | Iraqgate -Sen. Levin: "CIA withheld crucial information"  >