WaPo: Biden wasn't "lying." He just "described his stance inaccurately."

Earlier this week, we discussed Joe Biden’s crazy, over-the-top promises regarding the oil and gas industry during the last Democratic debate. He vowed that there would be “no new fracking” after he takes office. He doubled down from there saying that there would be “no ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period. Ends.” That’s a pretty definitive statement, wouldn’t you say?

Well, obviously somebody pulled Joe aside after the debate and let him know that he’d basically just given the election to Donald Trump. His aides quickly got to work walking the statement back and when reporters began asking about it, they were informed that Uncle Joe’s position was unchanged. He only opposed new fracking or drilling on public lands. So was he lying during the debate to make his platform look closer to where the far-left base lives? Not according to the Washington Post’s fact checker. He simply “described his position inaccurately.” (Free Beacon)

A Washington Post fact-checker ruled Thursday that Joe Biden hadn’t lied when he said he supported a fracking ban during Sunday’s Democratic presidential debate. Rather, Biden had simply “described his fracking stance inaccurately.”

The Post gave Biden “Zero Pinocchios” for saying during the most recent Democratic debate that he opposed fracking entirely. Instead, the paper pointed to the Biden campaign’s explanation that the candidate had “misspoken” and that “his position was the same as ever,” opposing fracking only on public lands.

Meanwhile, the Post criticized those who quoted Biden’s remarks verbatim.

You can read the WaPo’s “zero Pinocchio” verdict from Salvador Rizzo here. He accused Biden’s critics of “pouncing.” (That never gets old, does it?) Rizzo then went on to cite “clarifications” from Biden’s staff after the debate and coverage in other outlets including the Wall Street Journal saying that his position remained the same as how it’s listed on the campaign website. No new drilling permits on public lands or waters. As a result, there were no Pinocchios awarded because Biden simply “described his fracking stance inaccurately.”

Seeing the Washington Post rush in to save Joe Biden’s bacon probably won’t come as a surprise to many people. But when they’re this obvious about it, things start to get a bit uncomfortable. It’s always possible that someone might “misstate” somebody else’s position. But if you can’t convey your own position correctly, you’re either lying or you lack the mental faculties remember what you’ve been saying for the past year.

Further, this wasn’t a case of Biden mixing up his words once or forgetting which day it was or what state he was in. He was engaging Bernie Sanders in a debate on a specific topic and he reiterated his rebuttal multiple times. If he had only said “no fracking” once, you might be able to excuse him for leaving out the word “new.” Maybe. But Biden went much further than that. He said “no more drilling three times. As I pointed out above, he concluded by saying, “no ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period. Ends.”

That wasn’t a mistake or a misstatement. He was trying to make it look like he was just as aggressively anti-fracking as Sanders. And if his campaign immediately walked it back after the debate, then what he said to the audience that night was a pants on fire case of lying. And yet, the Washington Post is so desperate to make sure Trump doesn’t get a second term that they came riding in to the rescue.

What’s that tag line that the New York Times uses in all of their television advertising these days? The truth is out there. The truth is worth it. But not, apparently, at the Washington Post when it comes to holding Joe Biden accountable.