The media never lies... they just get their facts wrong.

If President Bush, when discussing the war in Iraq, relied on sources of information that were inaccurate, but no one knew at the time were inaccurate


Actually there is pretty considerable evidence that Bush knew some of the intel was bad. There's no evidence that the media knew what they were reporting was false.

Murray Waas, writing in the National Journal, breaks new information regarding the level of knowledge President Bush had prior to the Iraq war about the supposed Iraq/al Qaeda link:

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

The information, which was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the “President’s Daily Brief,” corresponds with the accounts of two former White House counterterrorism advisers:

“One week after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, White House counterterrorism director Paul Kurtz wrote in a memo to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that no ‘compelling case’ existed for Iraq’s involvement in the attacks and that links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government were weak.” [Washington Post, 7/23/04]

According to the 9/11 Commission report, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Richard Clarke’s office sent a memo to the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, at the President’s direction, concluding that “only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda…Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime.” [9-11 Commission Report, p.334]

This information did not prevent Bush and Cheney from presenting the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda as an undisputed fact.

BUSH: “And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror.” [10/14/02]

CHENEY: “There is also a grave danger that al Qaeda or other terrorists will join with outlaw regimes that have these weapons to attack their common enemy, the United States of America. That is why confronting the threat posed by Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror.” [12/2/02]

Despite the risk of being labeled “dishonest and reprehensible,” this appears to be strong evidence that Bush and Cheney misled us.


Link

It's pretty sad that you would use a tragic event like comparing the mining accident to the war as an arrow to shoot at the media.

Davad, he didn't use the tragedy of the mining accident, he used the fiasco of the "news" coverage. Keep your rhetoric straight! ;~D


You have to remember Singr, if the press lied, it's Prs. Bush's fault. If British, Russian, U.S. or UN intel was wrong, it's Prs. Bush's fault. If you stub your toe in a National Park, that's federal property, therefore, it's Prs. Bush's fault.

You guys are always complaining about how liberals and the media blame Bush for everything. It was singrdave who chose to bring Bush into this, no one else.

Davad, try using something other than a blog for your idiocy!  geez, why dont you use my blog?  it is as reputable!  And with more documentation!

What an Ignatz!

And Singr, they (the media) are asshats!  The only difference between them and pure evil is the pure part.

Davad, try using something other than a blog for your idiocy! geez, why dont you use my blog? it is as reputable! And with more documentation!

The blog is a summary of 6 articles...which are all linked within the blog.

Just as reputable? Surely you jest! This blog is written by accomplished writers, not a person like you who needs to call people names in most of your posts.

And then there's the fact that you make baseless claims in your articles and refuse to admit you're lying or made a mistake when showed evidence to the contrary.Link Because of things like that, you have no reputation or credibility in my book.

My point was not to "bring Bush into this" but to point out the hypocrisy of the media.

In their never-ending quest to report ANYTHING, the media will run with any story without corroboration.

And take no responsibility for their actions when their reportage turns out to be wrong. And happens to ruins lives.
If we held the MSM to the same high standards to which they hold political officials, well...

Case in point: what ever happened to Richard Jewell, anyway?

And then there's the fact that you make baseless claims in your articles and refuse to admit you're lying or made a mistake when showed evidence to the contrary.Link Because of things like that, you have no reputation or credibility in my book.

Well, since you just lied in your response to me, I can only feel that I have a lot more credibility than you.  And since your book is on the level of "Dick and Jane", I guess I will have to learn to live with that disappointment.

Well, since you just lied in your response to me, I can only feel that I have a lot more credibility than you. And since your book is on the level of "Dick and Jane", I guess I will have to learn to live with that disappointment.

Very typical...rhetoric instead of facts. I'm not surprised.

Davad:

ou guys are always complaining about how liberals and the media blame Bush for everything. It was singrdave who chose to bring Bush into this, no one else.

Nothing like taking the example and attempting to make it the point. ;~D

It's pretty sad that you would use a tragic event like comparing the mining accident to the war as an arrow to shoot at the media.

The comparison is valid, when viewed in the context of irresponsible reporting. With the media hounding the Bush Administration for willfully presenting inaccurate, uncorroborated information and then turn around and do something similar in the "everybody's alive!" announcement in the WV mining accident... and the Richard Jewell incident... and this incident... and that incident...

As I said before (trying desperately to drag this thread back on topic, kicking and screaming...), in their quest to fill airtime and get ratings, the MSM will report anything, even uncorroborated, inaccurate garbage and then absolve itself by ignoring it and hoping it goes away.

Or blaming someone else, like the mining company's spokespeople.

Yes, it's a tragedy and I am sad those people died. But I feel worse for the families who were given false hope by some irresponsible journalists.

Actually there is pretty considerable evidence that Bush knew some of the intel was bad.

Care to detail that "evidence," davad? Aside from the generally true statement that every President knows some intel is "bad."

Cheers,
Daiwa

Actually there is pretty considerable evidence that Bush knew some of the intel was bad.

Care to detail that "evidence," davad? Aside from the generally true statement that every President knows some intel is "bad."

So doesn't that makes the media more culpable in this situation? They didn't even research their "news" before blabbing it over the airwaves. And shouldn't the media hold itself to teh same, if not higher, standards than intelligence officials? At least we in the intel community try to authenticate the controversial stuff from more than one source before running off half-cocked. (That's right! We are fully cocked!)