I guess I've got war fatigue. I'm tired of calling Bush out on his lies.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone stills buys anything Bush says about al Qaeda and Iraq. Now, he's saying, “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.” We all know that's not only not true literally (since the ones who bombed us on 9/11 are all dead), but it's not true period. And, most of the people we are fighting in Iraq are not even people who self-identify as "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia," a group which did not exist before 9/11 and is comprised mainly of Iraqis who don't like Shia rule and don't like US occupation. They are not likely to come and get us here if we leave since they will still be trying to fight their Shia countrymen, and, if we're gone, there will no longer be an occupation to resist.

It's so obvious to me that Bush is repeatedly lying about this that I grow weary of reminding people of his idiocies. So, I was glad to see that the NY Times ran a pretty good fact-check piece today, on the front page no less, poking holes in his assertions. However, despite the fact that the article itself took a pretty strong independent position that Bush was off the wall, the headline writer couldn't help making it look like the whole thing was simply a "he said, she said" argument by adding the words "Critics Assert" to the rest of the headline -- "Bush Distorts Qaeda Link" -- which could have stood on its own.

I also note that the article was co-authored by Michael Gordon, of Judy Millerish fame. So, was this his mea culpa for having been the stenographer for the Bushies in Iraq by regurgitating their crap about everyone we fight being al Qaeda? Or, did the NY Times feel compelled to add a second author, Jim Rutenberg, to straighten Gordon out? I suppose we'll never know.