10/26/2004 07:43:01 AM|||Nathan Moore|||

The mantra of the angry left, that has been repeated ad nauseam, is that President Bush lied about there being WMD's in Iraq. How he lied without knowing he was lying is something they don't address. They fall back to conspiracy mode when confronted with this logical inconsistency- of course he knew there weren't any WMD's there - he's just trying to get the oil.

Loony left aside, we have an object lesson in what lying is, and isn't. Yesterday it was widely reported, by the New York Times, AP, and others that 380 tons of high grade conventional explosives went missing in Iraq under Bush's watch. The New York Times went so far as to scream a headline, making sure that no one missed yet another Bush blunder in the pacification of Iraq.

Then something happened.

A story broke last night by NBC determined that the explosives were missing before the United States military entered Iraq. The news came out well in advance of any publishing deadlines for today. Not to get off on a tangent about institutional bias at the Times (guess what headline was conspicuously missing from the morning edition), a case can be made, with angry left logic, that the Times lied. It said there was 380 tons of explosives, but there really was not. They misled with that headline, making Bush look incompetent. He wasn't incompetent. New information has come out, that the Times did not know about before. It clearly proves that the New York Times lied about stockpiles of weapons.

Isn't that just silly? Yet it is the same logic the other side uses when it claims that George W. Bush lied.

|||109879794656602580|||Try This