Now ABC News plays dumb about Iraq revisionism
December 04, 2008 3:53 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
As we've noted, the look-the-other way coverage has been rampant this week, as the media allow Bush and his former aides to make the wildly misleading claim that if they'd know Iraq had not WMD's--if the intel hadn't failed--than no, America wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Karl Rove says the administration would have worked to "contain" Saddam Hussein like in the 1990's.
In other words, if it hadn't been for the WMD's, the White House would've done exactly what peace activists suggested in 2002 and early 2003. But darn it, everybody thought Saddam had WMD's. The press' response to that fanciful re-telling of history? Pretty much crickets. ABC News, which didn't even include a single sentence noting that revisionist look at history is false, is just one example.
We suppose the kid gloves approach make sense. How else would you expect a lapdog press corps to deal with Bush's exit?
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Please, please, please be more aware of when to use 'than' or 'then.' In this post, and one earlier one, 'than' is used instead of correctly using 'then.' 'Than' is comparative - "brighter than the sun" - whereas 'then' is successive - "if point A then point B." In this posting, it should read "... if the intel hadn't failed--then no, America wouldn't ..."
Please be more careful about this. Using the incorrect word ruins the thrust of an otherwise salient posting.