The Economist on Bush

The Economist has apparently decided to pile on Bush in the same way as Democrats do judging from a "leader" in the July 7th issue. The piece is supposed to be an argument against Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence but The Economist uses the piece to point out all Bush's failings it can come up with, real or imagined.

The piece claims that Michael D. Brown, head of disaster relief during Katrina, was Bush's friend but doesn't explain how it knows that. It argues that Bush is Cheney's puppet, citing a series in the WaPo, but that series doesn't prove that. The Economist asserts that Bush sees himself and "his cronies" as being above the law, but offers no proof. The magazine claims that Bush permitted wiretapping of Americans without authorization and allowed torture at Abu Ghraib and in secret CIA prisons in "black holes like Uzbekistan." There is no proof that the NSA surveillance was illegal. Bush did not authorize torture at Abu Ghraib. There is proof that what happened at Abu Ghraib was not authorized. There is no proof of torture by the CIA under Bush.

The Economist's reputation for analytical expertise and objectivity is tarnished.