Big News Orgs Help Bush Whitewash History Of Iraq War
This really isn't complicated. President Bush was not being "blunt" or showing "candor" when he told ABC News in an interview published yesterday that his biggest regret was the failure of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War.
Rather, he was whitewashing away his own role in the fisaco by promoting the demonstrable falsehood that there was no available evidence or information that argued against war and that he was merely fooled into invading Iraq solely by the bad intel.
The big news orgs seem eager to help Bush do this. Not a single one of their reports on the interview that we can find bothered to tell readers that there was plenty of good intel -- ignored by the Bush administration -- saying that Saddam wasn't the threat Bush was claiming he was. Nor did any of them bother mentioning that the weapons inspectors in Iraq were saying the same thing -- something that also went ignored.
These facts are absolutely central to understanding Bush's efforts to falsify history in yesterday's interview. Yet they went unmentioned in reports by Reuters, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, CNN, and The New York Times.
Worse, at least one news org pretended that Bush was making some kind of admission or concession here. WaPo hailed Bush's "candor" and said he was being "unusually blunt."
Let's go over this very slowly. For Bush to blame the failure of intel for his decision to invade is not a concession at all, and it is not an admission of failure on his part. Rather, it is the opposite of these things. It is an evasion of responsibility for what happened.
Yet the big news orgs seem unable -- or unwilling -- to grasp this simple dynamic or give readers the info they need to understand it, and for some reason are perfectly willing to enable Bush's falsification of history.
I can't figure this one out. Are they really that dumb? They think we forgot how it happened? They think they can persuade us, again, that it was like Bush and they say it was, not like it really was?
Haven't the media learned anything these last 8 years? Dayum.
December 2, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
it's hard to know whether it's sheer stupidity or just laziness, or maybe an effort to tell the story in a way that absolves the big news orgs from their own failings in the run up to the war...
December 2, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I think, Greg - the media are the unindicted co-conspirators on the run up to the war. They know they spent years just printing whatever Cheney's office sent them as fact.
But I wonder if the media does have any sense of guilt, or if they are all still just playing the media game - create a reality and then defend it to the death?
December 2, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Part of it is the traditional tendency to yield soft corner for the exiting President and we're in the season of pardons come to think of it.
But it's not going to work. DOW dropped 600 points while Mr.Lame Duck was making psuedo confessions for the series of intended accidents.
December 2, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's much deeper than that. I think it's because the media is terrified of telling the truth when faced with presidential misconduct on a scale this monumental. They are afraid that the rabble will demand that heads roll if they ever show how utterly venal and corrupt our goverment is. And the Washington media makes a very good living off of the status quo.
Why tell the truth when comforting narratives about good men trusting their subordinates too much, and the overall rightness and goodness of American intentions, keep the masses blissfully unaware and keep people like Fred Hiatt in positions of influence and substantial reward?
The major media, the Post and the Times included, are nothing but propaganda outlets for global capital and the military-industrial complex. To pretend otherwise is to give them the benefit of doubt that they don't deserve.
December 2, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this, probably all of it (and posted my own thoughts on this line down the page). But there's a larger question about our generation.
Previous generations of Americans laid everything they had on the line to advance and protect this country. But in our generation, it's too much to be bothered by speaking truth to power.
And, as I note below, speaking truth to power is not the road to advancement and material wealth in the news ecosystem. That "power" includes the reporters' own bosses, who have business before those holding official power.
What we need are whistle blowers inside the news industry to come forth. (But then who would report that!?)
December 2, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good! I would also add that it was the fear of admitting just how criminal the Bush administration is that caused "impeachment is off the table". Congress couldn't start an investigation of Bush without being forced to admit just how bad our government has become, with a lot of the Democrats right up there with Bush in sheer corruption.
Now, don't we all feel so much better not knowing?
December 2, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
My only hope is that "alternative media" pick up the slack and find a way to get heard. I heard an interezsting piece on On the Media (NPR) a couple of weeks ago about a group that had been founded as a non-profit dedicated to investigative journalism.
Otherwise, the dominance of corporate media (and, again, I'm including the NYT and WaPo in this group) will always control just how much information the masses are allowed to receive, and these media giants are (IMO) irredeemably compromised.
December 2, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you've hit upon it. The old paradigm that the traditional media are the objective "4th estate", ever vigilant of the rights of the people, is all but over. Some exceptions come to mind, but the old "liberal" Murrow-esque watchdogs have been replaced by complicit corporatists.
Don't anyone hold your breath awaiting those waterbearers in the runup to war to point out Bush's self-interest in this deal.
December 2, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"series of intended accidents"
I like that!
Should be the title for the Bush/Cheney post-mortem yet to be written.
December 2, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe it's because the news organizations are run by huge right-wing corporations that are supportive of the republican agenda, like fox entertainment. They want to white wash the travesty to help republicans in the future to help their bottom line. And it is claimed that the news media is "liberal"? Totally laughable.
Time to break up the thought control organizations and foment competition. That's the only way that we will ever get back to a free press that holds the republicans accountable. Now they just repeat talking points by republicans. I am sure they won't do that for obama. Pathetic.
By the way, another excellent post Gregg. You are on fire.
December 2, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
During Watergate the MSM were all over the story. But then Congress wasn't spineless and incorporated into the criminality in question during Watergate. Hard to know what accounts altogether for the negligence.
Certainly Bush's criminality not only drastically eclipsed Nixon's, but was more egregious as abuse of power when considered within the broader context of abuse of power - the very fact of his illegitimate presence in the White House was a consequence of the Supreme Court's abuse of power, in the first instance. An illegimate figure, grossly unsuited by character and competence, is installed in the White House and then, predictably, proceeds to "govern" corruptly.
The government failed us on a monumental scale, and the media dithered.
December 2, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, they think we are that dumb. They're hoping we forget how the Administration perverted or ignored evidence that Saddam was not a threat to us -- certainly not a remotely "imminent" one. Let's not forget that last night Bush couldn't answer the one pointed question that Gibson asked: whether, in light of the fact that the intel was "bad," Bush now wished he hadn't invaded Iraq. Bush's response? He couldn't give himself a "do-over," so he couldn't answer the question.
If he can't answer the question, why does he regret that the intel was inaccurate?
Isn't this just another way of saying that he would've invaded Iraq no matter what, and that what he "regrets" is that he didn't have the cover of WMD to justify his actions?
December 2, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could never figure out how they thought we would not find out there were no WMD. How did they plan to get away with their 2 years of lying propaganda paving the way to invade Iraq? Is it stupidity, the arrogance of power, or maybe the plan was to cover up the lies with more lies. That's what Bush is attempting to do now. It will not work because the evidence against them is well known.
Bastards!
December 2, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
They thought that by the time the lies about the wmd's came out, that Iraq would be going swimmingly and there would be a vibrant representative government that was a super ally of the US in the middle east and they would give us unlimited access to their oil wealth. I want to know what they were smoking with what they came up with this. It must be good stuff and they should share their secret. Unbelievable.
December 2, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have an interesting piece of both individual and organizational psychology here.
At the personal level, G. Bush (Shrub) does not get his personal information from reading. He gets it from those individuals he personally trusts, and the key trusted individual in the White House is Dick Cheney. Cheney has arranged things so that before Bush announces a decision Cheney is the last person left alone to discuss the decision with Bush. [See the book "Angler".]
Cheney is the one who totally distrusts the CIA and the Intelligence community. Since he is also the last person who is left alone with Bush before Bush makes his decision, it is no surprise that Bush was convinced that the Intel given him by the Intelligence community was bad. Cheney did not and as far as I can tell still does not believe this is wrong. But he worked hard to make it the truth. Remember, Cheney is the guy who went to the CIA to determine what they reported before Colin Powell gave his speech to the United Nations.
Cheney and Rumsfeld gave Douglas Feith the brief to create a new Intelligence analysis organization in the DoD policy department the job of taking raw Intelligence and stove-piping it to the Office of the Vice President. This kept it away from the Intelligence community while handing it off to Dick Cheney. The result is that the only information given to Cheney, and ultimately to Bush, was the information that was acceptable to Dick Cheney's biases.
How could the "bubble-boy" Bush know he was being fed bad information? He doesn't get contrary information by reading, so all the information he gets comes from individuals he trusts who give it to him verbally. And he trusts Cheney. Cheney is the second most powerful individual in the Federal government, and Cheney is the last person left alone with Bush before Bush makes any significant decision. after that, no one else in the White House dares disagree with Cheney.
So why doesn’t Bush realize he is being lied to? Remember, Bush does not like conflict among his advisers. Who dares tell Bush that Cheney is wrong? Cheney is the second most powerful person in the White House, and Bush, the first most powerful, is unaware of what is happening around him because he doesn't read and doesn't like to deal with disagreement. This is the key to understanding the decisions out of the White House.
Bush simply doesn't know what has really been happening. Nor does he want to know anything that demonstrates his own weaknesses. He'll avoid any evidence that suggests his personal failures, and certainly never will speak of such things. Instead he'll hide behind his belief that God placed him in the job of President for reasons no mortal can understand. Can you imagine a better excuse for refusing to self-analyze your personal failures and correct them?
That leaves the question of why the media thinks that the Intel was bad. The media reporters are focusing on Bush as a real decider who actually evaluated both the information he gets and how competent it is. They believe in the hierarchy of organizational charts. They are avoiding looking at the dysfunctional decision-making process that goes on in the White House. What they have missed is that the actual decisions were made by Dick Cheney who does not believe the information he was given by the Intelligence community, and they do not understand that Bush has no way of knowing that what Cheney told him was badly wrong. .
This media attitude that Bush made the critical decisions represents the traditional economic theory that organizations are nothing more than the decisions made by the individual at the top of the organization. The media has enough trouble explaining policy to the public. How to they explain the dysfunctional decision-making of the President? Hell, they don't understand it themselves, and even if they did, the right-wing Wurlitzer would be all over them if they tried to explain.
Much of economic theory is based on this fallacy that organizations are just individuals making decisions. But organizations do not actually act as individuals; no matter how often people claim organizations are individuals. Organizations are designed with departments who specialize in specific subjects to collect information, delete what is not important, and pass what is left to the top decision-makers. The result is that the decision maker is a captive of the organization giving him information. If he is unaware of this limitation, he has no way of understanding what is really happening.
This fact is much too complex for most political reporters to understand, deal with or report on. There really is no significant market for such information, and a great deal of opposition to trying to report it. As far as the media reporters are concerned, Bush is President. Of course Bush makes the decisions and of course he both understands and can explain why the decisions were made. Who could question such a clear truth?
Sorry. It ain't that simple. The reporters don't understand and wouldn't know how to report it if they did. Bush is really is so simple that he is unaware of the garbage information that is being fed him. He was chosen as candidate for President in large part BECAUSE he is that simple. Unfortunately the decision process in the White House is far from that simple.
This is much too complicated for the political reporters to deal with, let alone report.
The result is the whitewash of history that the media is pushing.
December 2, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This goes along with the corporate media's enabling of the "Great Reagan Presidency" . They see it as their duty to embellish ex-GOP presidents as virtuous and possessing of high character, whatever the actual facts are.
December 2, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let us not forget Richard Nixon and how the media worked to resurrect his legacy. All you ever heard about Dick at the end was China. Not Watergate.
I don't know - are the media just suckers for presidents?
December 2, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't know - are the media just suckers for presidents?"
Maybe it isn't that simple. I vividly remember after Watergate, right after, the major network reporters were sort of glowing about how Democracy had worked so well and we had triumphed over this threat to freely elected government by dint of Constitutionally created safeguards and legislators who had stepped up and done good work. They were clearly trying to create stability in advance of any potential chaos.
Edwin Newman was the only one I saw speak up and say this was a near catastrophe that would not have been undone if it were not for some tenacious reporting and a fluke -- the White House taping system. He was quite sanguine about how it was more accident that Watergate had unraveled, not a preordained triumph by any stretch. No trumpet fanfares from him.
It was extremely unsettling to listen to and even more unsettling to believe he was right.
Maybe the media has some DNA-generated need to be part cheerleader and keep up people's confidence that government can work instead of letting people get a good glimpse of how vulnerable it really is. If they did let on, everyone might throw up their hands and just opt out or, a common reaction in the face of threats of any kind, demand more authoritarian controls and wind up doing even more damage to the Constitution.
I realize that should not be the media's job, but when the presidency is no longer able to galvanize the public for some necessary but perhaps unpleasant action/truth/event, who can lead at the national level? Clearly Obama is partially fulfilling that role right now, but he cannot legally, and it would be unwise politically for all sorts of reasons, do too much. So, does the media flow into that vacuum intentionally or instinctively?
Whether they should or not is another question altogether.
December 2, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that is a very keen insight into the attitude of our media. I have often thought that they take their constitutional role seriously, but that they have it wrong.
It's not their job to keep the country together but I think you are right - they think it is.
December 2, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the media are just suckers for presidents, which is why Bill Clinton was so protected from the gratuitous smears about his sex life.....not! Let's not get too generous here. The news media loves all Republicans, but by and large they despise all Democrats. This is, as said by others, because more $$$$ can be made by the corporations and their wealthy owners and executives if Republicans are running things. Big $$$ trumps all else.
December 2, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
It'll be interesting to see in the future whether respected presidential historians (e.g. Doris K. Goodwin) set the record straight.
December 2, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eventually some historian will, IndyEllen. We may all be dead by then...
;)
December 2, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe they will. Forget the news media. The long lens of history will not be fooled by this stuff. Dubya will go down as one of the worst, if not THE worst Presidents in US history. He's been a screwup his entire life and the last eight years have been nothing more than a continuation of that.
December 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Where does the fantasy of the "The long lens of history" sit as the well-funded lens of the American Enterprise Institute rides through the publication media?
Historians write what pays, just like everyone else. There's not that big a market for honest historians.
December 3, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think documented history always tends to treat past presidents very generously. I'm ill equipped to challenge her accounts, but I'm yet to find Dorris Goodwin asses a President in badlight.
December 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
History isn't written by Doris Goodwin. There have been plenty of books published telling the real story, and they've sold very well. The truth is out there. The MSM are cowards and "Bush screwed up" isn't really a story anymore. They have zero incentive NOT to give him a pass.
Besides, to publicize the truth now leads to the question "Why didn't you publish this stuff before?", and they certainly don't want to answer that question. They've been in bed with Bush from the beginning and they're not eager to expose their complicity now.
December 2, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I mentioned Goodwin in response to the reference from IndyEllen and not to suggest she represents the spectra of historians.
It's fair to say most presidents are seen in a generous light down the memory lane. Partly because a default greatness is associated to the Presidency and the times they lived in.
(Look for Bush to be inundated with eulogies for his post 9/11 "leadership"). I'm not contesting the availability of a more accurate account in the market, but Reagan predominantly gets high marks from most historical accounts. However, the people who lived in his times may differ.
Bush will have some more sympathy, especially from the right, once he leaves office. He might still be judged as a below average President, but that will fail to fully explain his failures.
December 2, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter MSM: "Next stop, Tehran!"
December 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's important to make the truth known. The right lied about Vietnam and was able to do it again in Iraq.
History matters.
Thanks for this post, Greg.
December 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
They were much worse this time. During Vietnam, the war press on the ground in SE Asia was righteous - that''s how the public turned against the war. And the Repugs learned from that to control the media and that's how we got embeds.
I knew when they announced it would be that way that we wouldn't get an honest report from Iraq until we had people who weren't embedded. You embed reporters with a military unit and their loyalty begins to go to the unit, not the reader. The right was damn smart about the press this time. They did control them and still do - to judge by these stories.
December 2, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you hit the nail on it's head. I think while media sold us the Iraq war, the public has been remarkably unconcerned or uncurious all along.
December 2, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I blame the first Gulf War for that. Bush I got us in and out so quick that the whole fucking war was a television event.
I think people got complacent and thought Bush II would do the same thing. I think people did not think about it very much at the start. I honestly do.
December 2, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The public had been unconcerned because such a large percentage of them do not have to fight this war. Institute a draft and see how long they remain "unconcerned."
December 2, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a brief "Hello" and glad you heeded the call to come back! (as did I)
Carry on!
December 2, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
{{{{mwaah!}}}}}
December 2, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now, let's just wait to see how the news media treats Obama. I'll bet it's not nearly as kindly...
December 2, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you've already got Time and WaPo as on the record that they were too nice to Mr Obama and too mean to that poor old Mr McCain.
December 2, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You stumble through imperialism with the press you have, not with the press you wish you had.
December 2, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
+1
December 2, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan Rather on Sept. 17, 2001, on "The Late Show":
December 2, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well look at the date. Everyone was a super-patriot after 9-11 and that statement was made less than a week afterward.
December 2, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't a superpatriot on that date or on any other and neither were a fair number of people I know. For a journalist to say that is inexcusable.
December 2, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. I remember being horrified by Rather's bush-worship. Not just as a former reporter, but as someone who still thought that the majority of Americans saw through Smirky's cowardly, jingoistic bombast.
I mean, wasn't it obvious with that first shot of Smirky shitting his pants in that Florida classroom that we were doomed?
December 2, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not what I saw Bush doing in that classroom when told. He had the expression of one who already knew what was happening and reacted as one who had advance knowledge of exactly how far this would go.
Cheney was perfectly positioned also. Estimated profits from this event and invading Iraq...$13 trillion. Estimated costs from this event and invading Iraq...$1 trillion. Now, can we get back to "My Pet Goat" as we ponder just how much a trillion dollars really is, (not to mention the power that came with it all).
I've watched that video over and over of Bush in the classroom and it is apparent that he knew already what was happening.
December 2, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems like some reporters will do any amount of ass kissing to be on a first name basis with the "elite" in our country.
December 2, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well put, Greg. It is a mystery how this keeps disinformation keeps getting reported as news. I have two theories:
A) Journalist mindwash. Every month or so major journalists have their memories scrubbed of facts that might be inconvenient to the powerful. So, for example, they can forget the millions of people calling "Bullshit" (on WMD in Iraq claims) on the net, in the printed press and on the streets.
B) The news media is owned and run by intelligent, powerful and deeply conservative people who do influence the news coverage and know what is at stake. Reporters and editors working for these people understand this simple fact of life in the new ecosystem.
To thrive a reporter, regardless of their personal ideology, must make happy the wealthy owners, publishers and executives.
OK, I have more theories than that, but this is just my morning bagel break!
December 2, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
d'oh! I meant "news ecosystem."
December 2, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to give the press a pass, but I'm not entirely convinced that they realize they've been had. I think many of them actually still believe Bush when he says that he had "faulty intelligence." With very few exceptions, these are ignorant, gullible people who think their job is to suck up to power. It seems absurd to believe that collectively they could be that stupid, but consider the fact that Sarah Palin is still drawing big crowds. People believe what they want to believe, whatever makes them feel good. The facts occasionally get in the way, but if the facts can be ignored they most certainly will be.
My biggest question is whether Bush believes, or has somehow convinced himself, that he received faulty intelligence. Denial is a river in Egypt.
December 2, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stove-piping.
Cherry-picking.
Fabricated Niger yellowcake documents.
John Bolton.
Ahmed Chalabi.
Judith Miller
Partisan, compliant "news" organizations.
Failure.
December 2, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aluminum Tubes !
If you had been following the 'Aluminum Tubes' story before 2001 you knew the tubes had already been shown to be for uses other than centrifuges.
The minute the administration re-fired up this story you knew they were lying.
The complicity of the press in this was sickening.
December 2, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Big news orgs help Bush whitewash history of Iraq War"
Does anyone really expect these "news" organizations to remind the public about how they themselves also fell down on the job? By giving Bush a pass, they also give themselves a pass, pitiful creatures that they are.
December 2, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two points:
Bush was a "Texas oil man" who found no oil. This was known to the people of Texas and the United States who voted for him.
The media is composed of many people who have an intelligence level and curiousity level equal to the outgoing President.
December 2, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
O for the love of pete = how can the Elitist wing of the Left keep up this damn refrain of "Americans are stupid" after last November?
Give it a rest. Please. It's bullshit.
December 2, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two points:
First: pointing out the failure of a majority of Texas voters and the minority of the American electorate who voted for Bush to not recognize him as a failure does not constitute saying "Americans are stupid."
Second, someone with two homes who samples the opinion of her "salt of the earth" handy men has no business labeling anyone an elitist.
December 2, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's far from bullshit. Americans, on average, are idiots.
It took the worst president in American history to shake a bare majority of Americans out of their shallow patriotic, anti-welfare and anti-tax stupor long enough to vote for a decidedly centrist candidate who will still favor the interests of the elites over their own.
And, if you read Michael Massing's report in the New York Review of Books, Obama may have won simply because Republicans were uninpsired and stayed home.
The majority of Americans still want to vote against their economic interests so they can stick it blacks and pointy-headed liberals. If that's not stupid, well, I sure wouldn't call it smart.
December 2, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
So is it going to take us eight years to 'get smart' every time a Bush clone resides in the oval office?
Have you ever watched Leno and his Jaywalking segment?
I'm afraid those pesky facts refute your argument.
Sure Obama won the election. However, if Americans were as smart as you claim it would have been by a landslide that would have made the entire electoral map a bright shade of blue. As it happens 53% are smart and the remainder are still stupid. And if we were really smart there wouldn't be a single member of the house or senate left occupying the same seat they held on November 3rd. Let's face facts. Congress has failed us at least as badly as Bush.
December 5, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq intel was not the only issue which Gibson and mainstream media allowed Bush to whitewash. He also claimed that the collapse of housing was due to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac policies and Congressional refusal to appoint a regulator for them. This is an outright republican party lie. Neither Freddie nor Fannie are responsible for subprime mortgages. Rather these mortgages were the creatures of the banks that Paulson is now bailing out. Clearly Gibson and others writing about the interview demonstrate the laziness and arrogance of many mainstream media types and their lack of preparation when asking questions. But there is a much deeper problem here, namely the systematic distortion of communication about the power interests in policy making. The aim is to make the policy decisions appears as if they were technical decisions made in accordance with the logic of a system and its information output, rather than a matter for public discourse and popular control. So very much in keeping with the notion of managed democracy, the "press" becomes a government organ with the job of dissipating or diverting public attention and anger.
December 2, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Roger that, Roger. Now throw in a bit of Beltway Echo-Chamber effect, and you get what we've got.
December 2, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course media is complicit with the President in this case - media and power feed off from each other.
We keep expecting the national media to be these ethical philosophers, exploring some mythical Platonic notion of absolute truth. Then, when they seem to operate like a business with its own agenda, we act all disappointed.
As someone in the business of getting media attention for marketing purposes, it finally dawned on me that Big Media and Big Power are inextricable. Media decides and enforces which ideas are serious. Big Power (corporate or gov't) grants Media "access" to Very Serious Senior Associates who give their stories some veneer of credibility. They are NOT adversaries - or at least no more than your average married couple.
The Iraq War is a watershed moment for both Media and Power in the sense that they both have been caught peddling crap information - ABSURDLY incorrect data. So the Washington Post, ABC, Time, NYT et al. are going down with the ship, passing off one more distortion on their way out of relevance.
Read Jeff Jarvis' piece on the future of Big Media over at HuffPost. That industry has no more relevance than the outgoing president.
December 2, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now why I am not surprised that the US media is playing pawn in the Bush propaganda machine
December 2, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It really doesn't bother me that the newspapers or other media whitewashes the truth...
I didn't vote them into power and can stop receiving their paper any time I want.
What DOES bother me, though, is that those folks we have honored to represent this nation at the highest levels are ALSO whitewashing our constitution and protecting their own by NOT prosecuting those who are destroying our nation from the top down.
They were once known as lawmakers... I now call them traitors!
December 2, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, don't mean to belabor the point, but one of the biggest stories of the last thirty years is the passive and active collusion of the big "news" organizations with the politics of the extreme right. Someone needs to write a book on it. He that lieth down with dogs, shall rise up with fleas. NYT, you've got fleas, which is why I don't subscribe. It's not that I expect my news sources to be partisan-left. What I want are the facts, in depth, without the spin. Most of you reading here probably aren't old enough to remember how news used to be.
December 2, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone did write a book about it. Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media?"
Dead-on analysis, and the latest edition includes the Iraq clusterfuck.
December 2, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I wish to hell that the Elitists and whoever else is convinced Americans are stupid would figure this out - if we're so goddamned stupid, then how is it that we figured out on our own that the war in Iraq is a crock of shit? We didn't get any help from the media, but to judge by polling, we've been onto this administration for at least the last 3 years. And I believe Americans started waking up long before that.
How do you account for that? The media never really helped the country see the truth, so if voters are so goddamned stupid, why is it that we have repudiated the entire conservative movement? In two elections, now - '06 and '08.
"Americans are stupid" is a stupid damn thing to say inasmuch as the evidence is so overwhelmingly against it - like the overwhelming number of Americans who disapprove of Bush.
December 2, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's much fairer to say that the public has inertia. A political science professor of mine said that because life in America is pretty good, things have to get pretty messed up before people get riled. But once riled, the people become energized and take action.
In the case of Iraq, compared to Viet Nam, because there was no draft, the cost of the war took awhile to register with Americans. Once it did, people started seeing the need to through the bums out.
Big media is complicit because they curry favor with power to preserve access, and because each election cycle is a huge cash cow. How much did Obama and McCain raise combined? And how much of that was spent on MSM advertising? Until we can re-establish some requirement for media to provide political coverage in the public interest, as it had to in the Watergate years, we will not see a more probative press.
December 2, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks - I agree.
Plus 9-11 is an added factor and that can't be denied. Americans were scared and mad and ready to rumble.
That's how they did it and the media helped and I do not believe one damn word the government has told us about what really happened on 9-11.
December 2, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course that was supposed to be "throw" - Note to self: *must preview comment - must preview comment - must preview comment*
December 2, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
To realise and explicate any truth having to do with the War on Afghanistan and the War on Iraq is way, way beyond the US. We invaded gratuitously, and then tortured the Iraqis until they were provoked into the almost certainly suicidal response of challenging the US war machine. We took the flower of our armed forces and turned them into thugs.
Amnesia is the only proper response to that. And if you don't need amnesia, you weren't involved deeply enough in the effort to protect our country from Iraq's WMD and Saddam. So what do you know?
December 2, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
I want to go off on a rant here that I have gone off on for over 5 years. I mean this very profoundly and I'm completely serious about it - this is why you do not send the military into wars of aggression that have no real 'moral' causus belli or justification.
The military turns regular Americans into killers and the only way that someone can become that and not have a complete moral breakdown is by sending them to kill people that we at least have a real beef with. And only if the public is behind the effort. Then our sons and daughters are like our soldiers in WWII - they did what they had to do because they believed completely in what they were fighting for.
You send our military to these wars with no reason and no real public support, the only way they can do the job is by killing their morality, their consciences. This is why far more atrocities occur in a war of aggression - people have put their consciences to sleep in order to do the job. They know it isn't right. They know we aren't really behind the effort. It is the most devastating breech of faith this country can be guilty of - to turn our sons and daughters into murderers.
December 2, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why the "big news orgs" are headed for the dustbin. Just like Detroit, which stubbornly refused to acknowledge automotive reality for years (that others were making better cars), they are putting themselves out of business by failing to note that there are other, more honest and informative sources of news to be had today.
December 2, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Nor did any of them bother mentioning that the weapons inspectors in Iraq were saying the same thing..."
Um.... Bush said, again, that Hussein "wouldn't let the inspectors in." He has repeated that lie over and over again, and has never been challenged, not even when he said it in front of the U.N. Secretary General. Those very same inspectors that we told to leave Iraq so we could commence the bombing.
I don't understand what's so hard about saying "Mr. President, with all due respect, that is a complete and utter fabrication." Or at least adding a footnote to the article.
December 2, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd just like to point out that Kirsten was on top of this a few days ago. She deserves some credit. And besides... she also pretty hawt! ;^}
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/kirstenmyw/2008/11/never-too-soon-to-rewrite-hist.php#comment-3302335
December 2, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Kirsten was on top of this a few days ago. She deserves some credit. And besides... she also pretty hawt!"
Plus, she knows how to make the g*dd***ed blockquote function work!
December 2, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg's post and the many excellent comments are all on point and the answer to the question implicitly posed by Greg has many facets. To sum up, here are the main points:
1. It is not that the people are stupid, it is that the average journalist (and the TPM folks are well above average) is not very smart or knowledgeable. I remeber talking to a St. Louis Post Dispatch (at one time a good paper) political reporter who had his history of presidential elections all garbled. In short many reporters majored in journalism, not history or political science, so they do not have a good grounding in history or government, and they run from one story to the next without time to research the background. Thus, we should not expect a lot from daily media journalists. And then there are the Judith Miller's, which is another story entirely.
2. I agree there is a tendency to have a glow around a departing president, no matter how bad his administration was. Why kick a man when he is down, etc? So you have someone like Charlie Gibson, who probably basically a pretty boy with a nice voice who doesn't know all that much, trying to be kind to Bush in his last few days in office. (He may not even be aware there were inspectors in Iraq up to a few weeks before we invaded, all reporting they could not find any WMD.) Plus, who knows what limits the White House put on questions he could ask.
3. Next there is the tendency of "beat" reporters, and I include in that anyone who covers politics and government on a daily or almost daily basis, to not bite the hands that feed them. Although being tough on Bush might be seen as low risk because he is leaving office, other leaders take notice and think, I better be careful about letting that reporter too close.
4. I don't know enough to subscribe to the conspiracy theory about the owners of the news organizations. With all the above going on, they probably do not have to give much guidance to reporters to get the results they want. Exception: Fox.
5. Here is the good part: Forget the MSM. The daily drivel of the MSM is written in the wind, as it is intended to be. Write a headline that gets someone to buy today's paper or push a story that gets someone to switch to your channel. Then do the same thing tomorrow. The real story will be told by investigative reporters, online sources, such as TPM, and historian/journalists over time. The truth will out!
December 2, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for a well-articulated summary. Treating the MSM as if they're a homogeneous bunch will naturally lead to errors.
Interesting that this thread is among the least "news"worthy of the day, yet has generated some of the most insightful and worth-reading comments :-)
December 2, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
jthdane concludes, "the real story will be told by investigative reporters ..."
Which reporters? Investigative journalism is labor-intensive and expensive. Cash-strapped media, especially newspapers, are cutting staff -- and that is one of the first areas to suffer.
Stars like Seymour Hersh will still thrive, but most investigative reporters need a regular (MSM) paycheck.
So increasingly, "the first draft of history" is a cursory parroting of the official story.
And with primary data -- such as White House emails -- vanishing in to the ether, future historians will have a tough slog.
You're right about muckraking websites like TPM. They do excellent work, but can hardly compensate for the entire MSM falling down on the job -- and on their public duty and trust.
December 2, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg's post and the many excellent comments are all on point and the answer to the question implicitly posed by Greg has many facets. To sum up, here are the main points:
1. It is not that the people are stupid, it is that the average journalist (and the TPM folks are well above average) is not very smart or knowledgeable. I remeber talking to a St. Louis Post Dispatch (at one time a good paper) political reporter who had his history of presidential elections all garbled. In short many reporters majored in journalism, not history or political science, so they do not have a good grounding in history or government, and they run from one story to the next without time to research the background. Thus, we should not expect a lot from daily media journalists. And then there are the Judith Miller's, which is another story entirely.
2. I agree there is a tendency to have a glow around a departing president, no matter how bad his administration was. Why kick a man when he is down, etc? So you have someone like Charlie Gibson, who probably basically a pretty boy with a nice voice who doesn't know all that much, trying to be kind to Bush in his last few days in office. (He may not even be aware there were inspectors in Iraq up to a few weeks before we invaded, all reporting they could not find any WMD.) Plus, who knows what limits the White House put on questions he could ask.
3. Next there is the tendency of "beat" reporters, and I include in that anyone who covers politics and government on a daily or almost daily basis, to not bite the hands that feed them. Although being tough on Bush might be seen as low risk because he is leaving office, other leaders take notice and think, I better be careful about letting that reporter too close.
4. I don't know enough to subscribe to the conspiracy theory about the owners of the news organizations. With all the above going on, they probably do not have to give much guidance to reporters to get the results they want. Exception: Fox.
5. Here is the good part: Forget the MSM. The daily drivel of the MSM is written in the wind, as it is intended to be. Write a headline that gets someone to buy today's paper or push a story that gets someone to switch to your channel. Then do the same thing tomorrow. The real story will be told by investigative reporters, online sources, such as TPM, and historian/journalists over time. The truth will out!
December 2, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second that Tena. I knew the claims a crock when I first heard them.
Why haven't these intrepid reporters looked into the fact that while claiming that 9/11 was reason for the Iraq invasion, the invasion itself was being plan at the first national security meeting Jan 30,2001? This comes from comments made by former cabinet member John Snow.
Do journalists have any idea what their profession is?
December 2, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you know, it's totally schizophrenic that on page one the media ran glowing patriotic propaganda, and ran the truth buried in stories from page 6 onward. The invasion was fucking discussed by Bush before he ever ran for president.
He wanted to be a war president and said so. And that was in the media. It just wasn't front and center at any time. All the shit was there - it was just buried here and there. But it was there! It was in the New York Review of Books and in Frank Rich's columns and in little stories that looked like filler. I swear the media was under such pressure that they were sneaking shit into print.
December 2, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
the trade off to the media's refusal to point out the malevolence of candidate bush, president not elect bush, mandate bush, and still president bush is that the guy is a total joke to 3/4 of the country and the lamest lame duck of all time. but the talking heads always have an excuse when it comes to referring to him as the unelected warmongerer that he is/was.
December 2, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh... time has a way of breeding distortion...
-- Cris
My site: Obama Wallpaper Archive
December 2, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I'd say it's exactly right that one of the biggest regrets about the Bush presidency should be the colossal failure of intelligence. I just mean it a bit differently.
December 2, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may be a bit o/t, but viewing the events from a slightly different perspective, may we not speculate re:failed attempts to manufacture evidence of wmd where there were none?
We have, of course, the newly verified forgery of a memo tying Saddam to Al Q.
Might we not profitably inquire as to who in the security apparat cooperated with the attempts at disinformation that we know must have been forthcoming.
per contra, which heroes put a monkey wrench in those plans?
December 2, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad to see this article Greg, and it needed to be pointed out. I was livid yesterday with the AP's reporting on this issue; they made Bush seem totally innocent of any wrongdoing and they were the choir. It is disgusting. As I read the AP article about Bush saying so many of them believed there were WMD, all I thought of was his press dinner making fun of looking under tables and such for them. He is truly a horrible human being.
On a side note, I often hear, "but Laura is lovely", no, she is not. Any one who could spend her life along side this drunken, egotistical whack job has to be either drugged or a very good actress at showing only one side of a very ugly other.
December 2, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"it's totally schizophrenic that on page one the media ran glowing patriotic propaganda, and ran the truth buried in stories from page 6 onward. The invasion was fucking discussed by Bush before he ever ran for president... that was in the media. It just wasn't front and center at any time. All the shit was there - it was just buried here and there. But it was there!" HusseinTenaX
"Everyone was a super-patriot after 9-11" HusseinTenaX
"Americans are stupid" is a stupid damn thing to say inasmuch as the evidence is so overwhelmingly against it." HusseinTenaX
"You send our military to these wars with no reason and no real public support, the only way they can do the job is by killing their morality, their consciences.... They know it isn't right. They know we aren't really behind the effort. It is the most devastating breech of faith this country can be guilty of - to turn our sons and daughters into murderers." HusseinTenaX
"O for the love of pete = how can the Elitist wing of the Left keep up this damn refrain..."
HusseinTenaX
"Give it a rest. Please. It's bullshit." HusseinTenaX
"I do not believe one damn word the government has told us about what really happened on 9-11."
HusseingTenaX
"O for the love of pete = how can the Elitist wing of the Left keep up this damn refrain of "Americans are stupid"....Give it a rest. Please. It's bullshit." Ibid
December 2, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
Please understand that when it comes time to write the history of the war in Iraq, historians will look at ALL news accounts over the years about the war, not just the stories to which you refer that ran yesterday. And when they do look back, they will see lots of stories in the Times and the Post, and AP and Reuters and CNN referencing all the conflicting intelligence at the time, and what weapons inspector were saying way back in 2002-03, contemporaneous to all the lead up to the war. And all that conflicting info will be right there in the morgues and files of those same organizations you now say are whitewashing this.
So, please, understand how history is written, or give it a break.
December 2, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to offend, but you'e being somewhat Pollyanish in your take on how history is written. Maybe some recent history is written as you suggest, but most real historians will tell you that there is no objective historical perspective. Instead, all history is written from a subjective point of view which may or may not be guided by an agenda which may be political, socialogical, cultural, or some other word ending in "-al" in its slanting. Take, for example, the way American history is (or isn't) taught in grammar and high schools in the U.S. It's basically a whitewash of the exploitation of the land and its indigenous peoples which portrays the White Man as the Tamers of the Wilderness. Peruse the excellent critique of American history, Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong for a few minutes and you'll see that history isn't necessarily written, but rather manufactured to some very exacting standards. What "the Times and the Post, and AP and Reuters and CNN" print is less than half the story, and whether the rest of the story ever sees the light of day is a very uncertain proposition. I'll take whatever Greg has to offer for as long as he can offer it if only to keep from being hypnotised into a malleable stupification by the corporate media.
December 2, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say:
Take, for example, the way American history is (or isn't) taught in grammar and high schools in the U.S. It's basically a whitewash of the exploitation of the land and its indigenous peoples which portrays the White Man as the Tamers of the Wilderness.
Where you been? No it's not! In fact, even you know there was a whitewash of history. How do you know that? Because historians have been stating it since the 1950s! And starting back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that's what grammar and high schools have been teaching, that White settler exploited the land and the indigenous people. Yet, for some reason, people like to hold onto the notion that that is not being taught. But it is, and it has been for a long time.
People like to bash the "big media." Especially TPM, which is now part of the big media. I find Bush the most despicable and incompetent president of 50 plus years. But this notion that the "big media" screws all these things up all the time is a bit "pollyannish" and amateur, frankly. It's a marketing ploy for TPM, and people bite. That's all.
December 2, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading history.
More precisely, a few historians in the 50's and 60's started offering more critical historical rewrites. The problem was, and still is today that text book publishers didn't exactly throw out the whitewashed versions and pump out new texts. Why? $$$ and political agenda (theirs and others'). Loewen wrote his first critique back in dim and distant 1995! The historical renaissance you claim started in the 1950's hadn't yet caught fire. Loewen just published a revised 2008 version of his critique. I haven't read it yet, but the fact that it exists gives me reason to suspect that the whitewashed bill of lies is still alive and kicking. The counter view may have been taught to you, but my 15 year old daughter still comes to me for reality checks because the whitewashed pablum has a pretty strong cultural residue.
The corporate media are still on the leash of those who pay their bills, and he who pays the bills calls the shots -- just ask Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie, and all those other fine historians. If you want to lump TPM in with the rest of the media as a means of attenuating their influence, be my guest: equivocation is a time honored fallacy. Nonetheless, I highly recommend you avoid a strict diet of corporate media when fulfilling your history daily requirement.
BTW, your Google mileage may vary as time goes on. I used to bookmark my favorite searches until I realized that internet (re)sources appear and disappear without notice. I also realize that the internet is not without external influence or free in any sense of the word. That's why I keep my library card current.
December 2, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I'm trying to say is this:
Go to washingtonpost.com. Go to archives. Type in "yellowcake" uranium. Get 1,300 hits! The story is there. The Washington Post reported it, ever single solitary angle of it. TPM likes to pretend otherwise, cause it's good red meat for the crowd.
That's all.
December 2, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure you're correct. But you have to analyze the coverage in a little more depth. for example, most of the yellowcake stories were published, if memory serves, well after we were already stuck deep in the Iraq quagmire. Furthermore, even if the stories were published before the war, the media as a whole did not make an effort to highlight the fact that we were being lied to during the runup. In fact I (and many, many others) would argue that they downplayed the uncertainty (to be charitable) surrounding Bush's prewar claims.
Context matters. You cannot be arguing that the truth or falsity of Bush's claims re Iraq's WMDs got a thorough, fair hearing before the war began.
December 2, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you are correct brewmn61.
Once it was clear we were headed to war with Iraq, maybe jan. or feb of 2003?, then yes, the media bit on everything the administration said. That was bad, obviously. They blew it. Not that a more diligent and courageous media could have changed the course of history, but they blew it as regards Iraq and WMDs, etc.!
But that doesn't mean a news organization can report every single story with every piece of context!
Yesterday, the major media in their straight news sections reported Bush's relections on his presidency. Those stories didn't contain the contradictions -- and they shouldn't have.
The followup stories, the columnists, etc. provide the context. I don't want slants in straight news reporting. That's what Fox does.
I want exactly what Bush said, word for word.
The context will follow. It always does.
December 2, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Until we can re-establish some requirement for media to provide political coverage in the public interest, as it had to in the Watergate years..."
FatherOKC
"I think that is a very keen insight into the attitude of our media. I have often thought that they take their constitutional role seriously, but that they have it wrong." HusseinTenaX
When the media is either given a "constitutional role" or has any "requirement to provide political coverage" as defined by anyone, then we are in serious ass trouble.
December 2, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ricky said, "When the media is either given a "constitutional role" or has any "requirement to provide political coverage" as defined by anyone, then we are in serious ass trouble."
So what do you think the Fairness Doctrine as applied to FCC licensees and dismantled by the Reagan administration constituted? It may not have been perfect, but it at least required licensees to pretend to granting equal time to opposing views.
December 2, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hadn't heard this before, but FAS passes along a report that "the White House website reveals unacknowledged modifications to White House press releases and suggests an unwholesome willingness to distort the public record..."
December 2, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush and team firstly fabricated the evidence for WMDs in Iraq and then proceeded to invade based on these lies. Most "sane" people--pundits, the NYTimes (Judy Miller), Colin Powell, senators, (H. Clinton)went along with this hogwash.
Sadly, we live a military/oligarchy complex--MOC.
December 2, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
82 comments are too many to read to see if this has already been said...
Why was the reporter who interviewed Bush so soft on him in the first place? Are superficial answers simply all we can get?
There is a terrible trend of softball questions in these interviews with Leading Figures. And look at the ruckus raised in some quarters when Couric put Palin on the spot.
December 2, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I am glad that this website caters to open minded objectivity. No sheeple here.
Does anyone here know if other spy agencies in any other countries said Iraq had WMD's?
Luckily "The Lord Jesus Christ" was elected president. We now have nothing to worry about. We will be overwhelmed by the bounty of milk and honey we are about to receive.
December 2, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why the surprise?
If the major media outlets had been interested in the truth they'd have reported the lies when Bush was telling them in the first place. Our European allies seemed to know it was all busllshit. Our 9/11 hearings seemed to have concluded that U.S. intellligence was at least ambiguous.
When are people going to get it in their heads that virtually everything that has gone on is about power and money and nothing else mattered and still doesn't. Not this country, not American lives...nothing. Does anyone really think our banks actually screwed up to the tune of $7 trillion. Not on your life.
December 2, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to thepeoplechoose:
I don't think our banks screwed up to the tune of $7 trillion. I think that our Senators and Representatives sold us down the river for low income votes. In 1999 they changed the game to allow people without the ability to pay to get loans thru Fanny and Freddie. The home values went down and now they are under water. I know most here only want to blame Bush (who is an idiot) but your doing this country a diservice by placing your head firmly up the arse of the congressional leaders who in reality created this problem. I only ask before you comment on my statement that you do some research.
P.S. To the writer of this article. Maybe you should jump on the current hot topic. The economy and how this mess really started but I understand if objectivity gets in the way of a good fairy tale.
December 2, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Briar,
If you examine my various postings I have been very critical of our congress and their failure to equitably represent the majority of the citizens of this country. See my latest in this regard:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/thepeoplechoose/2008/12/doesnt-the-constitution-say-so.php
December 5, 2008 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pure propaganda so extreme it's pathetic. We have information and intel that Bush knew there were no WMD, information that he tried on several occasions to falsify or even "make up" reports to justify our invasion.
The MSM are so willing, just as they were to promote war with Iraq, to push the Bush government propaganda. Proving once again that they have learned nothing and cannot be trusted as un-compromised news reporting organizations.
They once again assume the public is stupid and will believe anything put out there by our "media darlings". Just pathetic and unforgivable.
Wonder how much the Bushies had to pay or offer to build sympathy for the president by promoting such blatant lies when Bush should be on trial for mass murder and countless violations of our constitution. Shameless hypocrisy.
December 2, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to bjobotts:
"Pure propaganda so extreme it's pathetic. We have information and intel that Bush knew there were no WMD, information that he tried on several occasions to falsify or even "make up" reports to justify our invasion."
Could you please publish links to this information?
December 2, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not all newspapers glossed over Bush's rewriting of history:
The Guardian, UKI am disappointed that McClatchy didn't highlight Bush's lies. They just ignored the story, period.
December 2, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should record the links as I come across them but a recent one is from the main Iraq intel agent under Sadam being requested to sign off for $5mil on a document dated before our invasion completely made up by the Bush administration's NSA (I believe Feith and others) saying there were WMDs that got intercepted. This intel agent has been relocated and paid off and is being kept away from journalist.
There is also the Google and the archives of the Nation and Huffington Posts and many others since this information has been out there for quite awhile now that I thought it was pretty much common knowledge...to the point I was shocked that Gibson let Bush get away with that line of crap. But here is a good place to start to see the debunked lies on the matter by the Bush regime:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/WMDlies.html tis link will also give you plenty of other links. Hope it helps.
December 2, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Briar....here's another good piece from salon .com on Ron Suskind's charges about Bush's Iraq corruption:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/08/08/suskind/index.html...it's a recent expose.
December 2, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reminds me of when we were kids. You'd call your sister stupid and when your mother made you apologize to her, you'd say "I'm sorry you're stupid."
December 2, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if what you are saying is true, which I'm not sure it is, maybe it is because EVERY SINGLE MAJOR DEMOCRAT, including the Clintons, agreed with Bush at the time. It is you people and your ilk that forget the past!
December 2, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, if EVERY SINGLE MAJOR DEMOCRAT says something is true, then by golly it must be true. Because, after all, the truth is determined by the number and status of the people who believe it. That's why the earth was flat until, oh, about four centuries ago, and having leeches attached to your butt made you very healthy, yessir.
December 2, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is by far the most interesting political blog on the web! Enough to revive a somewhat wilted magnolia. Greg, HusseinTenaX, brewmn61, Agathena... Love it!
December 2, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great thread! Sorry I was so busy today and missed it in real time!
December 2, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I'm waiting for is GW Bush's plans for his "Presidential Library to memorialize his 8 years of leadership. Perhaps it will suffice to display the book that he was reading to the youngster in Georgia on 9/11.
To the question of WMD or not. Know that the Herald Tribune had an article about an aide to Saddham Hussein calling Paul Wolfowitz to say that there was none, and that Saddham was finally prepared to open all of Iraq to the inspectors on the condition that he be permitted to flee to a neutral country. Wolfowitz returned the call to say that Bush got the message and understood and that his words to Saddham were "see him in Bagdad."
December 3, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush #43 Presidential Library - A memorial to propaganda.
What else could it be? They can't tell the truth.
December 5, 2008 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink