Read the Paragraph Below
“Rumsfeld should resign because the Bush administration is losing the war on the home front. As bad as things are in Baghdad, America won’t be defeated there militarily. But it may be forced into a hasty and chaotic retreat by mounting domestic opposition to its policy. Much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration’s arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap.”
Uh, let me get this straight, Rumsfeld should be fired because he couldn’t undo the effects of a biased media’s distorted reporting on Iraq?
WaPo columnist David Ignatius says exactly that.
Memo to WaPo: You helped manufacture the credibility gap with this little “Ah-ha, Gotcha” gem.
In which the first three paragraphs were more spin than explanation and gave the impression Bush was lying, when in fact he was just repeating what the CIA told him.
And though, “the Post did not say that Bush knew what he was saying was false. But ABC News did during a report on “Good Morning America,”
ABC news later acknowledged their error. Or should we call it a lie?
So, Rumsfeld should go, not because we are losing militarily in Iraq, but because the MSM has turned him into a pinata through their biased reporting?
And because of that biased reporting has turned the public aginst the war, the U.S. may be forced into a hasty retreat?
And somehow this is Rumsfeld’s fault?
Mr. Ignatius, I don’t think anyone in the legacy media should be talking about a credibility gap.