Anti-Bush Press Eats Crow

Submitted by A.C. on 05/21/2004 at 23:54. ( )

I proudly present these findings to you cecil and steve . Enjoy your din-din .

The reported discovery of Sarin gas in Iraq has shaken the media establishment, which has been highlighting the failure to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as proof that President Bush lied to get us into the war. The legitimate issue has always been what happened to the WMD, not whether the U.S. lied about their existence. Rather than look for the weapons, the media would rather blame the Bush administrationůnot Saddamůfor their disappearance. The fact is that Bush, John Kerry, many in the media, and even the U.N. had agreed that Saddam had the weapons. It was his failure to account for them that was a major factor in the U.S. invasion.

The Sarin discovery was a setback to the anti-Bush press. But in a May 6 lecture on journalism žethics,Ó John S. Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, put an even larger foot in his mouth, not only attacking the rationale for the war but the people who believe it was justified. In an arrogant and self-righteous speech that ended up demonstrating his own ignorance of the facts, he denounced the rise of žpseudo journalismÓ and Fox News.

Carroll claimed there were several žmisconceptionsÓ about the conflict, including that žlinks had been proven between Iraq and al Qaeda.Ó Citing a study from last October, Carroll said false information about a proven Iraq-al Qaeda link had been accepted by an alarmingly high number of viewers of Fox News.

By contrast, he said, those who watched CNN and public broadcasting did not buy into the claim. He said other žmisconceptionsÓ were that žSaddam Hussein"s weapons of mass destruction had been foundÓ and that žworld opinion favored the idea of the U.S. invading Iraq.Ó

Carroll said, žAmong people who primarily watched Fox News, 80 percent believed one or more of those myths. That"s 25 percentage points higher than the figure for viewers of CNNůand 57 percentage points higher than that for people who got their news from public broadcasting.Ó

The lesson is that Fox News is misleading people. But CNN and public broadcasting are more reliable.

The trouble for Carroll is that his information is false, and the study he cited is itself misleading.

It was not Seymour Hersh but Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard who published a November 24, 2003, story that included excerpts from a classified Defense Department memo outlining an operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda from the early 1990s to 2003. Hayes reported that Under Secretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith sent the memo to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in October 2003.

There is no dispute that this memo exists. The only dispute is the reliability of the information cited in the memo. Carroll dealt with the memo by ignoring it.

Leaving this memo aside, CIA director George Tenet had sent an October 7, 2002, letter to Senator Bob Graham, providing evidence of the Iraq-al Qaeda connection. The press subsequently published the letter.

Tenet said, žWe have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that al-Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.Ó

Carroll"s source for his claim about public misunderstanding of an Iraq-al Qaeda link was a study issued by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, a project of the University of Maryland. It is dated October 2, 2003, a year after the contents of the Tenet letter were publicized.

Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu

Bush bad rotten egg

This response submitted by Jim Conley on 05/22/2004 at 03:14. ( )

I don`t believe you have the right to condemm Mr Carrol, can you
prove his statements are not correct, all Bush has done is got us
in one hell of a mess. How manny of our troops have died over their
way to damn manny. What did we gain by getting Sodonn, we gained
nothing, they should have dropped a gernade in the cave he was hidding
in! Some of you only hunt someone to cuss. Are you sure the war wasn`t
because of oil. They can`t find any bad weapons and I dont believe he
had any. Last time Bush ran for office they had too count the votes
manny times so he could win, but they didn`t let Clinton count all
his votes again. If Bush wants to fight over their why the hell don`t
we give him a gun and send him over there.


This response submitted by Robert B on 05/22/2004 at 07:17. ( )

Its the greatest diversity tax net has seen words from a true anti American. The terrorists also feel this way so you have company Jim.
I wouldnt call it good company but at least you wont be alone under the rock.

WMD were found

This response submitted by Hip-O Taxidermy on 05/22/2004 at 10:57. ( )

Saddam was the worst WMD over there.......

All I know Is

This response submitted by Tony Finazzo on 05/22/2004 at 11:42. ( )

I got more of my tax money back this year than ever before. I'm not rich, but I work hard for my money and Bush lets me keep more of it. I am not ashamed of the President and I can't say the same for some of the Liberal wackoes before and those to come. Be careful what you wish for you might get it! The economy is coming back. We can't abandon Iraq. It would end up worse than it is.


This response submitted by Steve on 05/22/2004 at 11:47. ( )

Cant you conservatives keep focus and stick to your story? first of all saddam is NOT a WMD. You cant keep changing your story, focus and definitions to make it fit bush's bad descision. The reason we were told that we went to war with iraq was becasue they were an imminent threat to us. Thats it! not to free the poor oppressed iraqi people,and when they said he had WMDs , they didnt mean that HE was a WMD, but that they had reconstituted their nuclear program. As for the shell with the sarin gas, it has been shown that the shell was over 20 years old and dated to the 1980's, when iraq was at war with iran. He had chemical weapons back then. We know this and the world knows this. The shell was not used as a chemical weapon,and whoever had it did not know what they had. It was not a new weapon, nor was it from a "reconstituted" chemical or nuclear program. Saddam's chemical, nuclear and biological weapons program is gone. It has been for a long time. This relic of a shell does not prove bush's lie.

Well Steve

This response submitted by DaveT on 05/22/2004 at 12:03. ( )

Riddle me this Batman, tell me of one WMD that did not require an idiot to "pull the trigger". The weapon itself is nothing, it is the man holding the "gun" that makes the difference.

Hitler did not have a "WMD" but how many innocent folks did he kill?

Right now, in the USA, do you have any idea how many nukes are in our arsenal, how many have they killed?

Get a clue


Get a clue?

This response submitted by Tony H. on 05/22/2004 at 16:19. ( )

How hysterical. Dave T. tells someone to "get a clue" and yet his statements of late have been incredibly laughable.

Hitler didn't have WMD? What planet are you from? You don't consider the world's largest army and WMD? More tanks than any nation in the world? More soldiers? Gas chambers? Unreal how you tend to slant history to fit your model.

And as for Carroll saying FOX is "pseudo-jourmalism", he's dead on. And every respected media professional knows it.


This response submitted by DaveT on 05/22/2004 at 19:00. ( )

And TonyH you don't consider sarin gas, VX, mustard gas, and the 4th largest army in the world a WMD? Let's not forget that Irag has it's mass graves as well. You can not have it both ways


No, I don't

This response submitted by Tony H. on 05/22/2004 at 19:23. ( )

Those chemicals aren't nice, I know that much. You know more about them than I do. But are they nuclear weapons, which is what Bush LIED TO US about?

And Iraq's army is/was a joke. France could have beaten them. OK, they could have battled to a stalemate but that's still pretty weak.

Again, I'm not saying Saddam shouldn't have gone. He should have. But you can't send people's sons/dads/brothers (and yes there are women too) off to die and LIE about the reason behind it. What was so wrong with the truth?

Funny, you all howled for Clinton's head because he lied about a BJ in the office. Bush lied about why he's sending troops to die. Incredible and sick.

How do you know anyone lied Tony?

This response submitted by DaveT on 05/22/2004 at 20:31. ( )

one liter of nerve gas in a subway would kill 1000s.

As far as President Bush lying... hogwash. Even the democrats before the war believe what intelligience they were receiving. Maybe the breakdown was due to President Carter when he crippled our intelligience. I for one still think the weapons are out there, probably in Syria or Iran if not already in the hands of terrorists. And when we get hit, I will blame the stupid democrats who forced President Bush to play patty cake with the UN for damn near 8 months.


Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu