I count at least five different ways the New York Times discusses how Alberto Gonzales didn't tell the truth. They're running out of ways to call him a liar without just saying it. Word is that reporters are averse to using the word "liar" unless there is proof to show actual intent. Hmmm. How much more intent do they need? Rove and the Bush gang know the media won't call them on their lies. So they do it over and over and over:
An accumulating body of evidence is at odds with the statements of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales...
The conflicts between the documentary record and Mr. Gonzales’s version of events have contributed to an erosion of support for him in Congress...
The disparities are giving Democrats in Congress a rationale...
As attorney general, Mr. Gonzales has become a central figure, and increasingly, critics say, the emblem of ineptitude, in the swirl of contradictions, memory lapses and conflicting testimony that has defined the unfolding story behind the removal of the prosecutors.
Mr. Gonzales also said, more explicitly: “I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood.” This directly conflicts with documents released late Friday...One thing to keep in mind -- Alberto Gonzales, the liar, is also the nation's chief law enforcement official.
