Comments: Spinning Iraq
Abu Ghraib got knocked off the front pages after 37(?) straight days only to allow room to highlight other Bush "failures." I am continually astounded (silly me) at the blatent editorializing within the news pieces.
Posted by Jane at June 17, 2004 02:33 PM
No doubt The NY Times is spinning the results of the 9/11 Commission to fit its own liberal agenda. Setting that aside, however, I think it's fair to say that the Bush Adminstration gave stronger indications of a significant or collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda than it seems was actually the case. Did Al-Qaeda and Saddam communicate and send out feelers to each other? Yes. Did it result in a collaborative relationship targeting the U.S.? No. One can argue that it may well have come to that, if we hadn't gone in. One can argue that the Bush Administration thought that there was a substantial relationship. But I think the consensus is that inquiries were made, without any strong bond forming between the two parties. The Bush Administration may have made a well-intentioned and reasonable assessment given the facts at their disposal - but it doesn't mean that their assessment was necessarily 100% accurate. The Bush Administration isn't alway faultless. :)
Posted by Gabrielle at June 18, 2004 05:03 PM
Thank you for your comments. I would never argue that the Bush administration is faultless- it spends far too much money on social programs.
President Bush did not say links to al Qaeda were singular or primary factors in his decision to liberate Iraq. Having said as much, notice that the Times uses, "the number of al Qaeda operatives known to have been in Iraq in recent years," as a metric for its, "scorecard on Mr. Bush's justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein." The Times suggested metric is relevant, but not exclusively so. The presence of a high level al Qaeda operative indicates the presence of at least a handful of low level operatives. Because al Qaeda is structured around isolated cells we can infer that more than one member of al Qaeda has been in Iraq with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The Times doesn't make inferences that help President Bush. In fact it often doesn't report relevant information that is helpful to the President. For example, this article neglected to mention that WMDs have been found in Iraq, and it neglected to mention that the President's opinions about Iraqi WMDs were shared by so many lefists before he acted to liberate Iraq. Credit to Rumcrook's Tavern (http://rumcrook.blogspot.com/) for calling attention to Junkyard Blog's quotations (http://junkyardblog.transfinitum.net/archives/week_2004_05_30.html#003173) of Democrats who once warned of Iraqi WMDs and called for action against Saddam Hussein- none of which are ever printed in the Times.
Posted by Publius at June 19, 2004 09:11 PM
Bush fought back on this one with a great line. "The reason I keep insisting there were links between Iraq and Al Queda is because there were links between Iraq and Al Queda." The public thinks things in Iraq are gettting better (as do I) and the economy is now chugging. ABC,NBC, CBS and the NYT do not have enough clout even going on all anti-Bush cylinders to spin their way out of this. Win or lose on democracy, Iraq has a chance now. More than they have had in 50 years.
Posted by john vecchione at June 20, 2004 09:53 PM
Every once in a while Bush sounds eloquent. Isn't it interesting how optimism and pessimism about the prospects for Iraqi freedom and democracy correlate to party loyalty? Isn't it sad that some Americans (dare I label them Democrats) seem anxious for failure, or at least difficulty, in Iraq in order to gain votes?
Posted by Publius at June 21, 2004 11:55 AM
Researching Bush's claims I discovered a great deal of interesting information. I think everyone will be interested, but because there is so much, I am providing a link to it. It's at www.estoll.com/bush
Posted by Corey at July 16, 2004 02:57 AM
A nice bit of writing Corey. Worth reading.
Posted by Publius at July 17, 2004 04:15 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)