Media’s cynical mea culpa
Apr 20, 2007 Medialites
Drudge links to this story on Editor & Publisher — “‘Devastating’ Moyers Probe of Press and Iraq Coming” in which the left-wing media’s heart bleeds with self-inflicted wounds over its “failure” in “cheerleading for the Administration” during the “run-up to the war”:
The war continues today, now in its fifth year, with the death toll for Americans and Iraqis rising again — yet Moyers points out, “the press has yet to come to terms with its role in enabling the Bush Administration to go to war on false pretenses.”
The story does not, however, name a single “false pretense” (which is not the same as an error). It is, rather, an exercise at attacking the Administration in the guise of self-criticism, as well as an affirmation of its belief that the institutions of the mainstream media, as a branch of government, failed to exercise their veto power over the decision to invade Iraq.
Look for more such mea culpas on the media’s decision to allow the appointment of Justice Roberts, its failure to take appropriate measures to prevent last summer’s Lebanon war, and its shameful role in last weekend’s devastating Nor’easter.
UPDATE: Same thoughts, more detail.
April 20th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
It is, rather, an exercise at attacking the Administration in the guise of self-criticism, as well as an affirmation of its belief that the institutions of the mainstream media, as a branch of government, failed to exercise their veto power over the decision to invade Iraq.
The media is not a branch of the government, but I believe that as an institution the free press has a special role in a free society — that of skepticism and providing viewpoints in opposition to that of the government. That role was not played out as vigorously as it could have been in the run-up to the war.
Regarding false presences, a lot of nonsense was paraded in front of the UN Security Council, faked documents were provided to the US public as evidence of a nuclear program, the vice president claimed that Iraq was in cahoots with the al Qaeda terrorist responsible for 9/11, and Rumsfeld claimed that he knew where the WMDs were in Iraq. Those were all falsehoods or terrible errors.
Even if these were all errors, we now know that the WMDs were agreed upon as the reason to invade because they were the most acceptable, and that the invasion was for other reasons (regime change and democratization being two other reasons). That certainly qualifies as false pretenses in my books.
April 20th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Quote:
“Regarding false presences, a lot of nonsense was paraded in front of the UN Security Council, faked documents were provided to the US public as evidence of a nuclear program, the vice president claimed that Iraq was in cahoots with the al Qaeda terrorist responsible for 9/11, and Rumsfeld claimed that he knew where the WMDs were in Iraq. Those were all falsehoods or terrible errors.
Even if these were all errors, we now know that the WMDs were agreed upon as the reason to invade because they were the most acceptable, and that the invasion was for other reasons (regime change and democratization being two other reasons). That certainly qualifies as false pretenses in my books.” endquote
Fine, except these are all demonstrably false, and have been shown as flase for quite some time. If anything false was given out, it came from the mouth of Joe Wilson, who was acting as a tool for anti-administration forces within the CIA. His wife valerie was the chief enabler.
WMD’s? The United Nations was convinced during the Clinton Administration that Iraq possesed them, and that Saddam was trying to enhance those he had and develop new ones. That’s why President Clinton signed an executive order naming regime change in Iraq as a primary goal of his administrations foreign policy.
Al Qaida and Iraq? Absolutely known to eachother and rendering assistance when and where possible. Translated documents ccaptured in Iraq show numerous meetings between Iraq Intel officers and Al Qaida operatives, and it’s quite possible, as the dots are beginning to show, that it was Iraq Air Force personell who helped to train the 9/11 pilots.
My friend, you need to take off your blinders and wash the Kos from your brain cells. Iraq WAS a part of those forces trying to destroy us, now, not so much. It is only one operational theater in the GWOT, but it’s NOT a seperate war. The United States, as part of a coalition, invaded and took down the Baathist regime that terrozed the Iraqi people, and they are now on the pathway to self determination. Hiowever, what is happening there is a PART of a larger war, not a seperate war, and there were NO lies told to involve us.
The only lies that keep getting posted are the ones spun by the fifth column of the MSM, abetted by ANSWER, the Sheehanistas, and the other Moveon anti-American types.
If you want to hear real lies, just listen to ANSWER, or George Soro’s folks.
Respects,
April 20th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Al Qaida and Iraq? Absolutely known to eachother and rendering assistance when and where possible. Translated documents ccaptured in Iraq show numerous meetings between Iraq Intel officers and Al Qaida operatives, and it’s quite possible, as the dots are beginning to show, that it was Iraq Air Force personell who helped to train the 9/11 pilots.
I’m afraid this assertion is going to require some backup with a reference or a cite.
The United States, as part of a coalition, invaded and took down the Baathist regime that terrozed the Iraqi people, and they are now on the pathway to self determination.
Boy, that takes me back. Very few supporters of the invasion are still this gung-ho on it.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:25 am
D+, which part? Captain’s Quarters has published a healthy number of posts the past few years relating to translated documents. It is not self-evident that AQ and Iraqi intelligence had a working relationship.
Mind you, that’s a very different statement than Iraqi intelligence helped or was in any way involved with 9/11.
As for the crack about being “gung-ho,’ what’s that got do with anything? I suppose you felt the need to say something in order to maintain your position, but lacked any valid argument.
Your original post is ludicrous. “Faked,” “falsified,” blah, blah. Aside from a single document (once thought to be valid) relating to African yellowcake (IIRC) I know of no definitive fakes. Can you cite even one? Not one you think was falsified, nor one the MSM says was fake, but objectively and inarguably counterfeit?
What you (and many others) fail to realize is that intelligence gathering and analysis is a very murky, imprecise art. In fact, being wrong is far more common than being right. I give you the failed analysis about German reserves before WW1, Pearl Harbor, the Ardennes, Korea, the “bomber gap,” and Tet ‘68, just off the top of my head.
Add to that confusing mix one or more opponents who are actively trying to decieve you, and it’s practically a miracle anyone gets anything right. Saddam Hussein was, in fact, trying to maintain the appearance of having at least some of those programs active. Why? Because he was more worried about Iran and other local competitors than the United States, and he thought France could stop any active measures in the Security Council, just as China is doing for Sudan today.
April 21st, 2007 at 12:37 pm
The story does not, however, name a single “false pretense” (which is not the same as an error).
Haven’t seen the program; can’t say.
But the false pretenses are pretty well documented in many, many, many other places. I can’t believe you’re still defending Bush’s record on this.
You know how far down the field we are on this? This far: the only time Bush gets defended anymore is when yet another egregious boner is revealed.
In other words, you guys are reduced to constantly playing defense in your own red zone.
When was the last time your team’s offense had the ball?
April 21st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
It is … an affirmation of [the press'] belief that the institutions of the mainstream media, as a branch of government, failed to exercise their veto power over the decision to invade Iraq.
Well.
While it is true that the press is the only business that is mentioned (let alone protected) by the US Constitution. But other than that, the role of an independent press is to keep an eye on government — not be co-opted by it. When you have the latter, you have fascism.
April 21st, 2007 at 12:45 pm
The United Nations was convinced during the Clinton Administration that Iraq…
Enough. You know the spin machine is in overdrive when Clinton’s name is dragged into the discussion to justify some screw-up by Bush. Fact is, whatever Clinton (or the Russians, or the Israelis, or the French, or the Brits) knew about WMDs, it was Bush, and Bush alone, who started a war over it. Or, ahem, claimed that the war was about disarming Saddam of his WMD.
Look: it’s been said that each president gets a single sentence in the history books. I’ll go you one better and suggest that in this hyper-accelerated age, each president gets a couple of keywords, to wit:
Kennedy: assassinated
Johnson: Vietnam war
Nixon: resigned in disgrace
Ford: not elected
Carter: malaise
Reagan: great communicator
Bush 41: read my lips
Clinton: impeached
Bush 43: distorted intelligence
…I think that’s fair and charitable, don’t you?
April 21st, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Casey:
What you (and many others) fail to realize is that intelligence gathering and analysis is a very murky, imprecise art.
Please don’t lecture me on intelligence matters.
Instead of excusing Bush’s blunder, your contention is the single greatest argument for why the linchpin of Bush/Cheney’s foreign policy — preemptive war — is so dangerously full of crap.
April 21st, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Oh please,
Ara, or whatever sockpuppet you are today, give it a rest.
Do you plan on posting the same fired screeds until people blindly believe your lies? That’s what propaganda is all about, and obviously you’ve been paying attention to how it works, because you have the craft down pat.
1.) tell a big lie: “Bush Lied! People Died!
2.) repeat it endlessly, on every blig, and street corner. Presrve the Meme! Speak truth to power! Ad Nauseum
The fact is, you and the other Kos’ Kidz are so blinded by BDS that you cannot accept truth when it slaps you upside the head. You are so bonded to the party line that you no longer are capable of rational thought or reason.
April 21st, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Hi. Did I miss anything? (Maybe I missed some here, too?)
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:04 am
Gwedd:
Sorry about the multiple posts. I had a lot to say and I didn’t want my various points to get tuned out after the initial paragraph.
Thanks for you patience.
P.S. Care to respond to any of my points?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Mark my words: Those who oppose the war in Iraq and the larger war on terror will go down in history like Neville Chamberlain and his supporters in Britian prior to WW2.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
They will go down in history as those with a romantic view of the world disconnected from reality, who advocated policies and positions that put their fellow Americans at risk. Anyone who opposes the policies of George Bush should ask themselves: How many times has Al Quida (sic) attacked the USA since 9/11? Just like in Football, the prevent defense doesn’t work – if you are not moving foward, you are moving backward.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:53 am
YM:
Would you say we are safer now than we were on 9/12/2001?
April 24th, 2007 at 10:17 am
[...] Media’s cynical mea culpa [...]
April 24th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Ara, what’s the difference? YM’s opinion, and mine, and yours, are merely subjective guesses. Let me ask you: Is there a single expert or even wise guy who made an opinion public on September 12th saying, “This is the last attack on American soil we will see through 2007″?
April 24th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
I’m not even sure I know what you’re getting at.
I DO know that the single most frequently offered reason for continuing support of Bush’s “war on terror” is this: “So far, so good.”
Don’t you remember? From 2002-2004, the White House all but sent John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge out on alternating days to shinny up the Washington Monument and flip the numbers on the sign that said “995 days since the last terrorist attack.”
April 24th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
I will say this, though: Thank G-d no attack came in the first year or so after 9/11 because I seriously believe that would have been the end of US Constitution.