Why Isn't Bush Defending Himself?

Article by Bill Kristol.

The topic I've found quite baffling for some time now.

And the administration paid a price for its virtual silence on Iraq during the spring and much of the summer. Now the administration seems to understand not just that they have to do everything they can to win in Iraq--but also that they must make, and remake, the case for the war. Do they also realize that they have to aggressively--not to say indignantly--confront the "Bush lied" charge now emanating from leaders in the Democratic party?

Last Tuesday, Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate and asserted that the Bush administration had "manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions." This is a serious charge; if it were true, it might well be an indictable offense. But it is, in reality, a slander. Shouldn't the president defend his honor?

The president should aggressively respond to Reid and his ilk. Reid spews forth half truths and out-right slander repeatedly and no one does anything to reply. I see no reason to play nice with hacks like Reid. He has been shown to be wrong repeatedly, but the press doesn't care to point out the lies he puts forth as truths. Or was the Silberman-Robb Commission lying?