Reporting the truth, it's somewhere in here...

Let's see how this latest dispatch from the campaign trail starts:

MARLTON, N.J. — In his most blistering attack yet on his opponent's credentials on national security, President Bush on Monday unleashed a lengthy critique of Sen. John F. Kerry's position on Iraq and warned that the Democrat's policies would raise the danger of new terrorist attacks in the United States.

Wow, that sounds bad! Of course, near the end of article, the reports decided to bury the truth:

Bush also revived a long-standing Republican mantra this year, played out in speeches and television ads, that Kerry is weak on defense. He said Kerry had proposed in 1994, one year after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, to cut $6 billion in the intelligence budget. And he told supporters that Kerry tried, but failed, to cut intelligence funding again a year later.

He also ticked off the names of six weapons systems that he said Kerry voted against.

"Sen. Kerry has a record of trying to weaken American intelligence," the president said.

According to factcheck.org, a website operated by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, Kerry has been more of a supporter than an opponent of weapons systems that troops depend on. [Notice how there's no "But," at the beginning of this sentence?]

Moreover, factcheck.org said, Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, had proposed cutting or eliminating several of the weapons systems that the president now faults Kerry for opposing. [Cheney: Weak on defense!] Those proposals came after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

It is true that Kerry proposed cutting the intelligence budget by several billion dollars in 1994. But that amendment, defeated on a 75-20 Senate vote, was part of a larger effort on Capitol Hill to reduce the deficit and had the support of some Republicans.

So Bush lied. The facts they printed in this article, from a Cheney-endorsed website, I might add, prove that Bush lied. So why doesn't the article start with this sentence: "Today in New Jersey, Bush slandered Kerry while criticizing his stance on national security." Why do we have to hear this crap about a "blistering attack?" The man fucking lied! Why can't the media just come out and fucking say it?