Bush eats a kitten, gets boost in polls

Glenn Greenwald has pointed out how the media silently covers Bush's tracks by changing their own stories to hide evidence of Bush's bald-faced lying:

At some point, the Post changed what was the accurate reporting -- that Bush expressly acknowledged that he "misled" reporters because he had "indicated that he had made the decision to replace Rumsfeld before the elections" -- by claiming in the new version that he merely "contemplated" Rumsfeld's exit before the election. Worse, the Post deleted entirely the accurate statement that the President "appeared to acknowledge having misled reporters."

I don't see why he's incredulous. Bush has been protected like a princess by the press from day one. This is certainly not his first blatant lie, and the media has ignored most of those as well.


Hell, Bush could eat a baby kitten live on TV and the networks would censor it from all subsequent broadcasts, deny that it was a big deal, and then accuse anyone who made a stink about it of suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. No doubt some neo-cons would manage to smear the kitten's good name by implying that she was a terrorist sympathizer. Democrats in Congress would be conspicuously silent and once the networks had completed their Orwellian re-writing of history no one would be able to prove that there even was a kitten.

Now, let's all just assume that the photo above is just a really good Photoshop job.