Bush 9/11 Admission Gets Little Play

[kentuck]

We'll have to watch to see if the 69% number goes down to know whether or not people got the word??

======================================================================
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1982860

<snip>
For months leading up this year's war on Iraq, the Bush administration implied that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The argument was well-received by Americans, and might have been the single leading factor behind public support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. An oft-cited poll conducted by The Washington Post last month revealed that 69% of Americans continue to believe it likely that Hussein was personally involved in 9/11.

No real evidence to support this has emerged, however, leading some (including E&P, just last week) to declare that the media had failed in its duty to correct the public misperception.

So when President George Bush admitted on Wednesday, for the first time, that there was "no evidence that Hussein was involved with the September 11th" attacks, one would assume that would be big news and an opportunity for the press to make up for past failings.

...more

[Paschall]

1. Judging from how quickly it dropped off the DU boards...

...I felt this story wasn't getting enough airtime. So this morning I sent off the AP story about Shrub's Wednesday statement and the later story about the WH press conference on the subject to my "special" e-mail list (only known and suspected conservatives :evilgrin: )

It's still not too late to do the same, folks! The links are still there in Latest Breaking News.

[kentuck]

2. This is the story the right-wingers do not want anyone to talk about....

And they are mostly getting their wish.

[chiburb]

3. Made front page in the...

Chicago Tribune. Big splash for a Repuke paper, even gave it the headline..

[librechik]

4. They can't avoid the issue forever--this was a major talking point

that they no longer can use! The pundits have no fuel for their gasbags. The hurricane was a nice dodge, and then, conveniently, the weekend. But Monday morning there will still be no evidence of Saddam/9/11, WMDs, or Alqueda. The excrement will strike the velocitator. Eventually somebody's going to have to talk about the elephant in the room. And so on. There are military families who won't let it drop.

The suspense is delicious, isn't it? Especially when you know now that Shrub will be taking the fall.

HE'S A FRAUD!

[soup]

5. The wording made me wince

"the media had failed in its duty"
"an opportunity for the press to make up for past failings"

So it's the media's fault that the *bush maladministration LIED? or am I just reading this wrong?

Is the point the media has been covering for *jr, et al?

If they are making speeches, statements, whatever and the press is reporting what was said, how does this put the media at fault?

Or are we talking they should have done a little digging themselves and LIAR! should be the standard daily headline? (in which case, it does make sense and I need a break and a nap.)

[kentuck]

6. This is after the fact...

After Bush said that there was no evidence that Saddam was connected to 9/11, yes the press has a responsibility to report it to the people and if they don't read it on page 22 the first time and 69% of the people continue to believe the impications made by the Bush adminsitration, then they have the reponsibility to keep reporting it until more people are aware of the truth.

Whether or not you want to blame the media for reporting Bush's "lies" and/or covering them up, is another question. This is about reporting Bush's "truths"...ie, there was no evidence Saddam was connected to 9/11. There is a big difference.

[Old and In the Way]

7. More like enablers of the Republican Party.

Did they do their job in the 90s when groundless accusations were being made against Clinton? No
Did they do their job in 2000 reporting the Florida vote scandal? No.
Did they explain the consequences of the Bush taxcuts to the American middle class? No.
Did they demand a real investigation of 9/11? No.
Did they expose the fallacy of this administration's reasons to invade Iraq? No.

Do they share complicity in the damage done to America? Absolutely.

[soup]

10. I agree.

I probably just read it wrong. or didn't say what I was trying to say very well.

For some reason it struck me that the article was saying the problem was only with the media - Not the lies and liars themselves.

So, if everyone would now just kindly point their fingers at the media for perpetuating the lie, the liars could slide out the side door and (once again) avoid being called on it.

[gulliver]

8. The Bushies will repeat it until it gets through.

The Bushies can't afford to have 69% of the people believing Saddam was involved. Most of those duped people got their info from the Bushies. There is an avalanche of anger waiting for the Bushies on this, and they know they need to neutralize it. I don't think they can.

I wish the poll asked "Did you believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 because the president said so?"

[kentuck]

9. Good question, gulliver...

Also, I wait for the next poll that asks how many still think Saddam was behind 9/11? We can then ascertain how much impact the press reports had on this propaganda piece by the Administration and how successful their propaganda has been? We must hold them repsonsible until the truth gets to the people. If they can report on Kobe everyday, they can report an important story such as this.