It's strange what the American media latches on to
In the broad scope of things, this whole stink about "the sixteen words" in Bush's speech seems rather strange to me. As far as I'm concerned, there's been a whole lot more out there for a long time already for which to take the Bush administration to task.
The Paul Wolfowitz "New American Century" gang was itching for a reason to go after Iraq from day one of the Bush Administration. They jumped with unseemly enthusiasm, within hours of the tragic events of 9/11, to make a connection between Iraq and the attacks, not based on intelligence data but merely on being eager to find (and exaggerate, perhaps even manufacture) any sellable excuse to do what they'd wanted to do all along anyway. Did the major press deem such a story too boring, too nit-picking or too intellectual for "today's top stories"?
Given the background, the use of questionable intelligence regarding Iraq and Nigerien* uranium shouldn't have been a shocking revelation, but a thoroughly predictable outcome. I'm not saying the specifics were predictable, but the pattern of cherry-picking intelligence data, and not being sufficiently critical of any report that gave the Bush administration what it wanted to hear, had been well established.
Were too many of our reporters too caught up in a flag-waving, chest-pounding, proud-to-be-an-American state of mind to notice or pay much attention to these things? Did they see what was happening, but cynically decided that such stories "woudln't sell"? Are our reporters only now deciding to end the post-attack, post-war honeymoon that Bush has been given for so long, and pummeling hard on the first they they see now that the gloves are perhaps coming off?
Have we needed to wait until an easy-to-digest story came along before the press was willing to hold the Bush administration to higher standards of accountability?
*Nigeria -> Nigerian, but Niger -> Nigerien. Had to look that up!
The Paul Wolfowitz "New American Century" gang was itching for a reason to go after Iraq from day one of the Bush Administration. They jumped with unseemly enthusiasm, within hours of the tragic events of 9/11, to make a connection between Iraq and the attacks, not based on intelligence data but merely on being eager to find (and exaggerate, perhaps even manufacture) any sellable excuse to do what they'd wanted to do all along anyway. Did the major press deem such a story too boring, too nit-picking or too intellectual for "today's top stories"?
Given the background, the use of questionable intelligence regarding Iraq and Nigerien* uranium shouldn't have been a shocking revelation, but a thoroughly predictable outcome. I'm not saying the specifics were predictable, but the pattern of cherry-picking intelligence data, and not being sufficiently critical of any report that gave the Bush administration what it wanted to hear, had been well established.
Were too many of our reporters too caught up in a flag-waving, chest-pounding, proud-to-be-an-American state of mind to notice or pay much attention to these things? Did they see what was happening, but cynically decided that such stories "woudln't sell"? Are our reporters only now deciding to end the post-attack, post-war honeymoon that Bush has been given for so long, and pummeling hard on the first they they see now that the gloves are perhaps coming off?
Have we needed to wait until an easy-to-digest story came along before the press was willing to hold the Bush administration to higher standards of accountability?
*Nigeria -> Nigerian, but Niger -> Nigerien. Had to look that up!
Comments
You heard of them? Office of Special Projects.
Newt, Donny and Dick have: "Hey, CIA, we can't go to war over this! Try again."
The media have latched onto this story because you can take a soundbyte from the State of the Union and directly refute it as based on bad info. It's an easy "gotcha!" for them. Whereas dissecting broad questions of policy and ethics doesn't make for an attention getting headline or a good TV clip. I'm sure if the media had their druthers they could combine all sorts of sensationalized stories into one stupedous headline, ie "Bush impeached over lies about killer sharks who kidnap Siamese Twins" or something like that. It's a short attention span culture and the mass media, while not wholly to blame of course, certainly play their part.
at least she didn't out them....
White House Press Corps Maven Helen Thomas was quite publicly cold-shouldered when she had the temerity to suggest Bush wasn't meeting expectations or measuring up mentally against past residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
There are also some who would argue that Bush has been getting softball treatment from the press since the Presidential campaign. The Texas Record, past job performance, criminal history... no digging. Enron and corporate criminal connections to various members of the administration... no follow up.
Remember, this President, after only six months on the job, took a month-long holiday (name another job where you get a month off after your "probation period"). Returning from his month away, he presided over the biggest intelligence and security failure in US history. Way to demonstrate responsible leadership by not leaving the wheelhouse.
And yet, few have had the stones to tell the Emperor he's naked.
Perhaps this is the straw that breaks the honeymoon. Overdue, IMO.
Office of Special Plans, PNAC, Wolfowitz, Rove. Too much "Shadow Government" to ignore.
1. We've known for months about the forged Niger documents. This was not a new revelation.
2. But the Bushies, out of the blue, "admitted" that it was wrong, several months after it was known. Then it got covered as if it was something new.
3. Then Tenet took the fall. Oh the irony - the Clinton appointee, Tenet and the CIA, the very group that had been skeptical of that intelligence but was over-ridden by somebody who put it in the State of the Union with the "British" equivocation - that they take the fall.
4. Then Bush comes out and says "we forgive Tenet for his mistake," and we've now gotten to the bottom of this matter of exaggerating on WMDs - it was a Clinton appointee
I don't think it's too sammi-jo of a conspiracy theory to say that Bush's political people saw a balloon inflating and decided to very publicly pop it.
this one has so many great elements, a lot of corners to peek around, a lot of shadows to chase.
timelines.
murder.
war.
hidden agendas.
clancyesque this one.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
General's wife: Complaints aid enemy in Iraq
at least she didn't out them....
Just love those posters.
Originally posted by BRussell
I think it's clear that this was set up by the Bush administration.
1. We've known for months about the forged Niger documents. This was not a new revelation.
2. But the Bushies, out of the blue, "admitted" that it was wrong, several months after it was known. Then it got covered as if it was something new.
3. Then Tenet took the fall. Oh the irony - the Clinton appointee, Tenet and the CIA, the very group that had been skeptical of that intelligence but was over-ridden by somebody who put it in the State of the Union with the "British" equivocation - that they take the fall.
4. Then Bush comes out and says "we forgive Tenet for his mistake," and we've now gotten to the bottom of this matter of exaggerating on WMDs - it was a Clinton appointee
I don't think it's too sammi-jo of a conspiracy theory to say that Bush's political people saw a balloon inflating and decided to very publicly pop it.
It's actually slightly more complicated than that. There was a series of leaks coming out of the CIA on the subject that lead to the admission. If you look at the actual transcripts of the press conferences, it was like pulling teeth as Ari tried to dance around the subject. As for Tenet, recent reports is that he's been launching a couter-offensive.
where's the honesty? where's the integrity? <--new bumper sticker.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
good for him. he has a powerful ally. the truth.
where's the honesty? where's the integrity? <--new bumper sticker.
A Liberal talking about Integrity! Oh, the humanity!
don't discount the DHS/Ari line of "criticism is unpatriotic" and "watch what you say" and "with us or with the terrorists". Certain hawks have been bullying/intimidating the press (deriving a twisted upside from 9/11) for some time.
White House Press Corps Maven Helen Thomas was quite publicly cold-shouldered when she had the temerity to suggest Bush wasn't meeting expectations or measuring up mentally against past residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
There are also some who would argue that Bush has been getting softball treatment from the press since the Presidential campaign. The Texas Record, past job performance, criminal history... no digging. Enron and corporate criminal connections to various members of the administration... no follow up.
Remember, this President, after only six months on the job, took a month-long holiday (name another job where you get a month off after your "probation period"). Returning from his month away, he presided over the biggest intelligence and security failure in US history. Way to demonstrate responsible leadership by not leaving the wheelhouse.
And yet, few have had the stones to tell the Emperor he's naked.
Perhaps this is the straw that breaks the honeymoon. Overdue, IMO.
Office of Special Plans, PNAC, Wolfowitz, Rove. Too much "Shadow Government" to ignore.
Good post.
You don't really think it costs $200 for a toilet seat, $300 for a hammer? Hehehe I can see it now: $200 for a toilet seat. $300 for a hammer. "National security": priceless.