Interesting analysis of 2004, IWR, media complicity

[MH1]

I found this from the flamebait thread that was posted earlier (which was finally locked btw). So, even troll posts can be good for something!

It's from March 30 so if it was posted earlier, my apologies.

http://www.pressthenews.com/dmilbank_ltr.html

The following is an email sent March 30 to reporter Dana Milbank and Ombudsman Deborah Howell of the Washington Post. It addresses the WMD intelligence issue in the few months prior to military engagement with Iraq, the two presidential candidates respective positions during that time, and the media's coverage of the issue.

Despite rigorous disagreement with Ms. Howell's own assessment of how to best achieve "balance," to her credit she did respond "This is a very thoughtful letter and I will share it where it counts..." What, will become of that remains to be seen.

Dear Mr. Milbank:

Your still timely article, "Seldom-Discussed Elephant Moves Into Public's View," from last year, noted that a group -- you called them "wingnuts" -- offered a $1,000 reward to any reporter who got the President to answer a specific question about the Downing Street memo.

As you note, the President (who didn't really answer the question) responded; "My conversations with the Prime Minister was, how can we do this peacefully."

But what did the "this" refer to? Disarmament -- the stated purpose of the war? Or the removal of Hussein -- the implied purpose during the election campaign?

Much of the media didn't seem to have a problem with the Administration's ambiguity on this. Why?

The main question raised above has still not been examined: Whatever the "this," was that the President referred to as our goal, what was the plan to achieve it, in the President's words, "peacefully"?

Also, why did that plan fail?

These questions were all also largely ignored by the media. Why?

Because the administration intended all along to go into Iraq, and so <"needed"?> to be unclear about it? If that is the answer, what does this have to do with the role of the media, and the issues raised above?

Especially given that; a) this was potentially the most important policy choice of the administration; b) it was the defining issue of the election, and, most importantly, c) the Administration ran its campaign for reelection based upon the theme of trust, candor, and forthrightness (as the President himself put it almost every day, "at least you know that I mean what I say") -- and upon the theme that their opponent, in marked contrast, did not.

Why is this still extremely relevant today? It is not because of the Bush campaign's characterizations of both Bush and Kerry during that same election, but the media's role regarding these characterizations, relative to the facts, and the reasons why.

In 'October of '02, in a speech from Cincinnati, Ohio, the President told the nation that if the resolution was approved, we would use military action, "only if it proves necessary," and, that "approving this resolution does not mean that military action is either imminent or unavoidable." That view had changed by March of '03, when the administration not only began military action, but then ran a campaign accusing their opponent of flip flopping on the issue by disagreeing with the timing and planning of it.

Much of the media also went along with this characterization, as well. But how was this possible? If military action was not imminent and unavoidable in October of '02, when we thought Iraq had WMD's and we expected the backing and authority of the United Nations, how was it nevertheless so imminent and unavoidable in March of '03 that Kerry was a "flip flopper" to still have believed the same thing?

(snip)

It's really long, and a little hard to follow at times, but there's a lot of good info in it.

Thought you all might find it interesting.

[ProSense]

1. Priceless!

Bush in Oct. '02: "approving this resolution does not mean that military action is either imminent or unavoidable."

Bush launches military action in Mar. '03 (changed his view in Mar. '03). The accusations of Kerry being a flip-flopper are born.

Yet, Kerry held the view that Bush asserted in Oct. '02 and maintained that same view in Mar. '03. In fact, Kerry reiterated this view in his Jan. '03 speech.

[sandnsea]

2. Compare to Scheer piece

Which is also pretty good, except, when you try to consider how to get the media to report facts. Scheer says "The journalists are no longer committed to a thoughtful examination", which is true enough, but then, just moments later, says this:

"When Kerry was asked by Bush, "Knowing what you know now, would you have gone into Iraq?" he should have said, "No."

How could he have ever thought this. How can he still think it. This wasn't the question Bush had been pushing, I don't think that it's the question asked. Yet Scheer himself repeats it. I can't understand why. Even the writer of the letter you posted has to add that 'terrible campaign' qualifier. It's as if nobody can say anything about a Democrat without getting in at least one good bash, as if without it they would have no credibility at all.

Scheer interview
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/35568

[MH1]

3. Thanks for the link

Alternet has annoyed me so much recently that I don't frequent the site anymore (what's up with giving screenspace to Joe Klein?) but I enjoyed reading this interview. I agree with you about what Scheer said there - but the whole answer around that is better:

I do. I think the problem here was the failure of the democrats. When Kerry was asked by Bush, "Knowing what you know now, would you have gone into Iraq?" he should have said, "No." He should have said, "You lied to Congress, you lied to the American people, it's unconscionable." He would have won the election, but Kerry was not comfortable in his own skin. Here's the boy-scout war hero who seemed to be faking it, and yet in real life, this guy performed every time. And there's George W., who has been faking it his whole life and somehow came across as more genuine.

Scheer fails to acknowledge any culpability of his own, although it is stroncly implied in the way he ignores the reality behind the Iraq question. But I wonder if in this case, it's a matter of "the truth is still getting its pants on." Perhaps this incident should be beat to death a little more, so the truth gets a little more attention.

As much as I think the troll post yesterday should have been locked immediately on principle, that Tay got there first with the real story actually made it perhaps a good thing. The troll got shouted down and the post created some visibility to what really happened, which I guess a lot of people still aren't clear on.

[fedupinBushcountry]

4. Since when

did Bush ever ask Kerry this question?

When Kerry was asked by Bush, "Knowing what you know now, would you have gone into Iraq?"

I know he was asked once in N.M. on a moutaintop where he could not here the whole question and it was on the IWR vote not the war, as he explained he would of wanted the authority if needed. John Kerry would of not abused that resolution.

Am I missing something, or is this going to continue to be spun?

[MH1]

6. Good point.

I assumed it was a reference to the Grand Canyon incident (which is AZ not NM, unless you are referring to a different incident).

I assumed Scheer was using shorthand because after all, the reporters at the GC (and most of the rest of the time) were asking questions spoon fed them by Rove and Co.

[fedupinBushcountry]

7. You are correct

it was the Grand Canyon. This is what drives me nuts and Scheer who I do like is totally pushing on a point on a question never asked by Bush. :argh:

[Dr Ron]

8. Misquoted

This comes from the Grand Canyon question. It's basically as you say--that Kerry wanted the authority and would not have misused it. The press (not Bush) asked about the IWR vote (which is not the same as going into Iraq) asking for a yes or no answer.

Kerry answered he would vote the same, to paraphrase, saying he believed the President should have the authority. What is often missed in replaying this is that Kerry also said that he would have used the authority differently. In other statements around the time he had also been talking about using the authority differently and made it clear that he meant using the authority to press for a diplomatic solution rather than going to war.

If Kerry was really listened to, his Grand Canyon statement was a reiteration of his opposition to go to war. Unfortunately by being brief (in response to the request for a yes or no question), by his answer often being misquoted, and by this being based upon the IWR vote, it was easy to twist this as saying Kerry would have gone to war.

[ProSense]

9. Exactly!

The "yes" is about the vote, which was never a vote to go to war, period.

[karynnj]

10. I agree totally with this,

but in fairness Scheer has a point - rather than directly answer the question Kerry could have answered as Scheer says here. What he said was not outside the range of things Kerry was saying at that time. I don't think either answer would have altered the result in 2004. But, Scheer by saying "go to war" vs "vote for the resolution" is distorting things and making Kerry's comment an aberration.

This is a problem for Kerry - to set the record straight he would need to revisit this and it is clearly one of his few weak moments. I suspect the reason it is brought up so often now, when it wasn't in 2004 is to define him in a way to diminish his 2008 chances.

[Dr Ron]

14. Kerry might have answered better

Kerry's answer was fine in terms of substance, but left himself open for misquotation. Reportedly Teresa gave him hell for this.

I don't think Kerry fully understood at the time the degree to which people confused his vote for the IWR as support for going to war. He should have answered more along the lines that he would not have gone to war, just as he warned against going to war at the time of the IWR vote and several other times prior to the war.

Of course it is easier to say afterwards how it might have been answered. It is harder to come up with the best answer on the spot. It makes it even harder when what ever you say will be twisted. In this case, the Republicans who pushed for this question to be asked realized that they could twist things as long as they could continue the confusion that the vote for the IWR meant support for going to war.

[sandnsea]

18. What Bush said in 2002

That's the campaign's fault. I wish I knew who was responsible for allowing Bush to get away with framing that as a vote for war. His quotes from 2002 should have been on the air every single day until people understood what happened. And Kerry should have been saying "I would have let the inspections continue" every single day too.

At the same time though, he also had to convince people he could execute this war successfully, because we're already in it. Very hard to do when half the Democrats wanted the troops pulled out immediately. The confusing war message wasn't entirely his fault.

On the other hand, this is another area where lessons of Vietnam could have been useful, and he got more bad advice when he was told to shut up about Vietnam.

[karynnj]

22. He should listen to Teresa

I absolutely agree that Kerry did hold on to the vote vs war while the media was trying to conflate them. The problem was that he needed to answer the question he wanted vs he one he got - and as you said say that he was against going to war.

[ProSense]

15. The problem is

there has been a lot of distortion about what Congress believed. Every member of Congress was misled to believe that Saddam had WMD.


Senator Feingold on October 11, 2002:

Mr. President, I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree post-9/11, we face, as the President has said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism and we must be very patient and very vigilant and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices. And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.

And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.

I also believe and agree as important and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this threat to our country. We retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including, of course, self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself -- and I am skeptical that that is exactly what we're dealing with here -- then we can, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.

So, Mr. President, these are all areas where I agree with the Administration.

Snip...

In my judgment, the issue that presents the greatest potential threat to U.S. national security, Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, has not been addressed in any comprehensive way by the Administration to date. Of course, I know that we don't need to know all the details, and we don't have to be given all the details, and we shouldn't be given all the details. But we've got to be given some kind of a reasonable explanation. Before we vote on this resolution, we need a credible plan for securing <W.M.D>. sites and not allowing materials of concern to slip away during some chaotic course of action. I know that's a tall order, but, Mr. President, it's a necessary demand.

As I said, I agree with the Administration when it asserts that returning to the same restricted weapons inspection regime of the recent past is not a credible policy for addressing the <W.M.D>. problem in Iraq. But, Mr. President, there is nothing credible about the we'll-figure-that-out-later approach that we've heard to date. What if actors competing for power in a post-Hussein world have access to <W.M.D>.? What if there is chaos in the wake of the regime's fall that provides new opportunities for nonstate actors, including terrorist organizations, to bid on the sinister items tucked away in Iraq?

Some would say those who do not unquestionly support the Administration are failing to provide for our national security. But, Mr. President, I'm sure of this. These issues are critical to that security, and I have yet to get any answers.

Mr. President, we need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Senator Kerry on October 9, 2002:

So the issue is not over the question of whether or not the threat is real, or whether or not people agree there is a threat. It is over what means we will take, and when, in order to try to eliminate it.

The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime.

Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.

As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?

Snip…

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq , and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq . It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq . None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

Snip…

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has.

I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this. But it does not change the bottom line of what we are voting for.

The administration, unwisely, in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach. But, perhaps as a nod to the sponsors, it did agree to a determination requirement on the status of its efforts at the United Nations. That is now embodied in the White House text.

Snip…

America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements.

Because of my concerns, and because of the need to understand, with clarity, what this resolution meant, I traveled to New York a week ago. I met with members of the Security Council and came away with a conviction that they will indeed move to enforce, that they understand the need to enforce, if Saddam Hussein does not fulfill his obligation to disarm.

And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement.

I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond.

If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

Snip…

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize ``yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

Snip...

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Snip...

That is why I believe so strongly before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people must understand completely its urgency. They need to know we put our country in the position of ultimate strength and that we have no options, short of war, to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate.

Page: S10173
Page: S10174

And look at at how the votes played out on this list of amendments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1017359&mesg_id=1017359

[sandnsea]

19. And the entire Congress should have been outraged

Instead, the ones who "voted against the war" decided to frame it to their own benefit as being smarter than the rest. Despite their own comments about believing Saddam had WMD based on what Bush was feeding them. If all the Democrats had just stood behind the outrage of being lied to, it would have helped Kerry immensely. They didn't, and still don't, want to do that. When they pretend they didn't believe the intelligence, that's when I get really mad and yes, call them liars. They all believed the intelligence, some just decided to vote no and I think some of them did it for knee-jerk partisan politics as much as anything. It's what the opposition party is supposed to do. And Democrats in particular are supposed to vote against war.

[ProSense]

23. Well said! n/t

[sandnsea]

11. Here

Bush had been pressing on the IWR vote. The question got asked through the media. This is the result. *sigh*

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5660374/

[fedupinBushcountry]

13. The sad thing is

the corporate media pushed Bush's rhetoric. I blame much on the corporate media for the results of the election, and the falsified poll numbers. The corporate media has done a horrible job to the American people in the last 6 years. I still say its the media stupid. (not you sandsea)

[sandnsea]

17. I agree

I just find it ironic that Robert Scheer talks about how horrible the media is, but doesn't see himself as part of the media problem when he turns around and does the same kind of lazy reporting he's criticizing. The media absolutely could have turned the entire 2004 election on its head.

Still, we have to go with the media we have, so to speak. If they're not going to change, we better learn how to play the game.

[ProSense]

5. I agree.

I thought the same thing about the troll thread. It turned into an opportunity to bat down the disinformation and misinformation.

From the quote in your post:

And there's George W., who has been faking it his whole life and somehow came across as more genuine.

To who? This is the group the media and everyone else seem to overlook. Did Scheer think Bush genuine?

For example look at response to the convention speeches:

Rating Kerry's and Bush's Convention Speeches

Gallup's convention polling this year finds few differences in the public's overall ratings of Kerry's and Bush's acceptance speeches at their respective parties' conventions. A slight majority of Americans, 52%, rated Kerry's speech at the Democratic convention as excellent (25%) or good (27%), while just about half of all Americans rated Bush's speech at the Republican convention as excellent (22%) or good (27%). About one in five adults nationwide rated both speeches as "just okay," and fewer than 1 in 10 said the speeches were "poor" or "terrible."

Again, partisan viewpoints make a big difference in ratings of the acceptance speeches. Eighty-one percent of Democrats rated Kerry's acceptance speech as excellent or good, compared with 52% of independents and 22% of Republicans. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans rated Bush's speech positively, while 42% of independents and 24% of Democrats shared that point of view.

How Did the Conventions Affect Americans' Vote Choice?

When Americans were asked if the conventions made them more likely or less likely to vote for the candidates, Gallup found that Kerry fared slightly better than Bush. After the Democratic convention, 44% of Americans said they were more likely to vote for Kerry, while 30% said they were less likely and 18% voluntarily responded that it didn't make much difference. Polling after the GOP convention found 41% of Americans saying they were more likely to vote for Bush, 38% saying they were less likely, and 18% saying it made no difference.

Following the Democratic convention, 76% of Democrats said they were more likely to vote for Kerry as a result of that convention, compared with 45% of independents and just 11% of Republicans who felt that way. After the Republican convention, the results were essentially the reverse. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans said they were more likely to vote for Bush as a result of the convention, compared with 33% of independents and 8% of Democrats.

http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=10021&VERSION=p

This is interesting to me because it's independent (not counting responder bias) of the candidates, it's about rating a speech and the impact of the speech. A lot of Americans drank the kool-aid and this maybe due to their own ignorance or the media's distortion of the facts. How anyone could still think Bush genuine in mid 2004 is beyond me.

[karynnj]

16. Also, did Bush appear genuine because the media continually said he was.

When you have people like Elizabeth Brumiller in the NYT having front page articles that regularly praised Bush for being a man of the people and someone you would love to have a beer or some bar-b-que with, what do you expect? I single out the NYT, because those of us who said the times was biased in favor of Bush sounded like lunatics, because the NYT endorsed Kerry and it's "liberal". My own husband wouldn't believe me till he watched a few CSPAN rallies and then read the coverage.

The NYT coverage of Bush Inaugeral Address suggests the answer - they didn't want the policy that they (through Judy Miller) helped push changed. The question is will they ever have the guts to intellectually comprehend that they were wrong and admit what they did. At this point, the media seems to think it's only Democratic politicians who need to humble themselves and apologize.

[sandnsea]

20. Look at DU

People who KNOW that none of the media can really be trusted, still allow themselves to be manipulated by the media on a regular basis. How many times a day does somebody post what the media says a Democrat said, instead of taking 5 minutes to go get the words from the horse's mouth.

How many times can a person post "Are the Democrats finding their balls" before they recognize they've posted that 20 times in the last 6 months, themselves. At what point does the disconnect set in for them. When can they look at their own words and say "gee, I guess Democrats have had balls for quite a while now, considering I've posted it 20 times". Hard to say, because the media (and some of our own) keep telling them the Democrats need balls, and a plan.

Barney Frank was great last night on Maher, he fought back on that nonsense and it was great to see.

[fedupinBushcountry]

21. Exactly

Ewww I missed Maher last night, will definitely catch it.

You are exactly right, they complain on a daily basis about the media and then turn around and believe everything they say. :crazy:

[ProSense]

24. Excellent points

Karyn and Sandnsea. A complicit media and gullible public certainly (has) created a tough environment in which to push the facts.

[jenndar]

25. Did anybody see the episode of Washington Journal

where the guest said the NYT was pretty much responsible for the war in Iraq?

I wish I could remember who said that, because it was a really important point.

[ProSense]

26. No, but I wish I had.

I routinely and frequently (a few times daily) checked the NYT during that period to try to follow the story. I couldn't understand why they were so adamant about the existence of WMD. I got so frustrated with the NYT reporting on the run up to the war, I kept wondering if they knew something more.

I'll never forget the apology they issued for their prewar coverage:


The Times and Iraq
From The Editors
New York Times
Wednesday 26 May 2004
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/9/4621


THE PUBLIC EDITOR
Weapons of Mass Destruction? Or Mass Distraction?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: May 30, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/weekinreview/30bott.html?ex=1401249600&en=2121bfd69cfd52e7&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND


I'm still wondering why they did it.

[jenndar]

27. To exert their influence in Washington?

I don't know, but it's really chilling when you look back on it, isn't it?

Whoever was saying all this pointed out that it's where Congress was getting its info on WMDs. He postulated, if I remember correctly, that the reporters wanted something to write about :(

[sandnsea]

12. We had this problem last year though

When this incident happened, half the people on DU at the time jumped to the same conclusion and no amount of explanation changed their mind. Not only did they come to this conclusion, they just went on and on and on with it. I had a couple people in my town do the same thing and you just couldn't convince the idiots of the truth, or at least to just shut up. I had one guy stand up in Rassmann's Q&A here in Sept, and ask why there was no Swift Boat response. He asks the guy who went all over the news to respond, why there was no response. :crazy:

So I agree it's good to keep pounding away on the truth like TayTay did. But it's also good to just call it flame bait. And maybe even to ask ourselves why the reality of "this guy performed every time" still isn't the way the public views John Kerry. Because he's still performing and it still isn't sinking in, not even to Democrats.