Left I on the News

...and that the corporate media has yet to notice. On July 14, 2003, George Bush made, for the first time, this preposterous (and utterly false) assertion:

"We gave him [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

This flagrant lie passed almost completely unnoticed by the corporate media, with only the Washington Post noticing, and they making the almost equally preposterous statement that Bush's statement "appeared to contradict the events leading up to war." Yeah, it "appeared" so, alright.

Well, since he wasn't criticized by the media (or, need I add, by the Democrats either) for this flagrant lie, he was back at it again in January, 2004:

"He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in."

And, lo and behold, equal amounts of criticism from the press and the Democrats, i.e., none. And so, if two times is a charm, three times is really a charm, so a few days ago, quoting Ronald Reagan for the second time in a day, "There you go again":

"And when he defied, when he refused to allow the inspectors in, when he made a statement by his actions that he didn't really care what the international community said, that I decided to make sure words meant something."

Of course the rest of this interview was equally preposterous, so there was plenty to criticize. Even in that statement, the idea that it was Iraq which "didn't really care what the international community said," rather than the U.S. which ignored the lack of an authorizing U.N. vote and invaded Iraq anyway, would be humorous were it not so tragic. Or this, which followed:

"And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power."

Which "reasonable request" was that, exactly? That he "reasonably" offered, two days before invading Iraq, that "Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing."

Or this:

"And so I acted based upon our own security interests. And -- but it also fit into this notion of -- and remember, Zarqawi, there was some terrorist connections -- not with the 9/11 attacks, but terrorist connections; Abu Nadal; he had been using -- he'd been funding families of suicide bombers. In other words, as far as we were concerned, he had weapons of mass destruction which could have been used in a deadly way."

From the "in other words," I conclude that Bush thinks that suicide bombers are "weapons of mass destruction," or, more literally, that having money to fund families of suicide bombers is a weapon of mass destruction.

But back to the amazing, invisible lie - Saddam Hussein did not let the inspectors in. Has anyone in the corporate media taken notice of this lie, which now spans six years (2003 through 2008)? Not as far as I can tell.