Bozell claimed media refused to give Bush "the benefit of the doubt" on Iraq's ties to terror
SUMMARY: L. Brent Bozell III claimed that "the media have been largely uninterested in investigating Saddam Hussein's reign of terror and his connection to terrorists" because of what Bozell described as their "refusal to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt." In fact, various media experts and major newspapers tell a very different story -- that the media failed to effectively question the administration's attempt to link Iraq to Al Qaeda in the run-up to the war, a link that has since been discredited by the September 11 Commission.
In his February 28 syndicated column, Media Research Center (MRC) president L. Brent Bozell III claimed that "the media have been largely uninterested in investigating Saddam Hussein's reign of terror and his connection to terrorists" because of what Bozell described as their "refusal to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt." In fact, various media experts and major newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post tell a very different story -- that the media failed to effectively question the administration's attempt to link Iraq to Al Qaeda in the run-up to the war, a link that has since been discredited by the September 11 Commission.
As Media Matters for America has noted, "Staff Statement 15" of the 9-11 Commission's report documented not only that Iraq did not collaborate with Al Qaeda in any of Al Qaeda's attacks against the United States, but also that Iraq did not provide Al Qaeda with training, funding, or any other assistance worthy of note.
Yet many media experts and major media outlets agree that critics who could have questioned the administration's claims of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link were underrepresented in the media during the run-up to and immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion, and in news reporting, the Bush administration's unfounded statements linking Iraq to Al Qaeda were not effectively challenged or investigated. As the Christian Science Monitor reported in a February 11, 2004, article, some media experts "say the US media was far too sycophantic in their coverage of the Bush administration's positions on Iraq."
Perhaps most significantly, both The New York Times and The Washington Post have acknowledged that they failed to question or investigate many of the administration's claims in the run-up to the war and ignored those who did. Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. has acknowledged that, in its coverage leading up to the invasion, the Post "didn't pay enough attention" to the "voices raising questions about the war." The Times editorial board has similarly conceded that the newspaper's coverage of the administration's claims was "not as rigorous as it should have been," and that many dubious claims were "insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged."
From Bozell's February 28 column, titled "TV Yawns at Saddam Tapes":
For the last few years, the media have been largely uninterested in investigating Saddam Hussein's reign of terror and his connection to terrorists. The lion's share of media attention has been focused on the errors, setbacks, and depredations of the American military and their commanders. They've been insistent in their refusal to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt about the Iraqi thug's connection to terrorism, and jump at the opportunity to denounce the administration, believing instead the words of Osama bin Laden.
...there was nothing to investigate! Oh...and if people won't give Bush the benefit of the doubt - well - you know the saying "fool me once, your fault..."
But perhaps you don't...nor probably the saying "you can fool some of the people all of the time..." Are you some of the people, Brent?
"... fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... you can't get fooled again." -- President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
The entire Iraq "war" was employed based on benefit of the doubt. That worked out real well.
When Hell-Bent Bozo III says: "The lion's share of media attention has been focused on the errors, setbacks, and depredations of the American military and their commanders. ", he shows signs of serious psychosis, since he must be totally incapable of dealing with reality.
Truth be told, the MSM has most often treated the military with kid gloves. I can guaran-damn-tee you that many, many very graphic and disturbing stories about the actions of our military have gone unreported. This always happens in combat and I really don't have a problem with this since much of this will eventually come out and savagery is a hard thing to turn off and on.
What I do have a problem with is that the Johnny-come-lately MSM is still not doing their job regarding Duhhbya and his administration's ineptitude, deceit and outright dishonesty regarding the justification for invading Iraq and the consequences of these actions.
When Hell-Bent Bozo III says: "The lion's share of media attention has been focused on the errors, setbacks, and depredations of the American military and their commanders. ", he shows signs of serious psychosis, since he must be totally incapable of dealing with reality.
His complaint in this instance is even more bizarre than Media Matters suggests. Hussein Kamel (Saddam's son-in-law) defected after the tapes in question were made, and revealed that Iraq had destroyed its weapons in the early 1990s. Until Kamel's defection, Iraq had hidden the existence of its previous bio-weapons program, and this, among other things, is what Kamel is talking about on the tapes. Kamel's comments about Iraq destroying the WMDs have been a matter of public record for four years now--they came to light just before the U.S. attack on Iraq (notably, both the Bush and Blair governments, then on the eave of launching their war, falsely denied that Kamel had said these things). Conservatives have been trying to use Kamel's comments on the tapes as "evidence" to bolster Bush's non-existent case for war, but doing so depends entirely upon misrepresenting them, and completely ignoring Kamel's subsequent revelations. And--the important part--the corporate press has largely ignored those same revelations in its reporting on the "Hussein tapes."
This is a Bush-friendly spin.
Bozell's real complaint, then, isn't that the press is offering anti-Bush spin, but that it isn't offering a spin that is pro-Bush enough. Here's a piece by FAIR documenting this, regarding the same ABC News reports upon which Bozell is remarking: [link to www.fair.org]
Don't fret, Mr. Bozell. I'm sure TV will stop yawning once they get those tapes showing all those horrible weapons of mass destruction. You know, the weapons and facilities that Bush said were "a grave threat" to the U.S.
Is George W. Bush. His entire presidency has floated on the premise that "he's doing the best he can, leave President Skippy alone!" Never has the bar been set so low for such a haughty, righteous a fool.
Be that as it may, the REAL issue here isn't us doubting Bush but the audacity of this coconut head to connect Saddam's "terrorist ways" as a rational for the Iraq War. Saddam plied his most atrocious behavior when he was A FRIEND OF THE UNITED STATES. Where was the call to war under Reagan/Bush 41? Where was that high ground that the Republicans seem to claim as their exclusive providence? It was AWOL, just like Bush 43.
Why these hacks are at it, why not bring up Joe Stalin's Great Purge massacres during the 1930's as rational to attack Russia, or Great Britain's murdering Indians (from India) during its imperialist period. Face facts: ALL governments have the blood of the innocent on their hands. Go down the list. EVERY country on the planet, in theory, deserves to be invaded and taught a lesson not to trample the meek, including the USA. That, however, doesn’t give the various nations of the world the right, including the USA. Or is that the purpose? Keep the blood on our hands fresh, never let it dry. That way all this wholesale killing won’t seem out of place or (gasp!) wrong.
What is Saddam "on trial" for RIGHT NOW? That's right, actions he took WITH REAGAN'S HELP, when REAGAN WAS PRESIDENT!
I read Bozell's whole piece (not fun, but a million times better than reading Coulter), and the funny thing is, in his first couple of paragraphs he disparages the the TV morning news shows for playing the latest Osama tape without (he claims) editoral comment.
Now Brent, I know that FOX News isn't your shop, but I thought "we report, you decide" was the gold standard of journalism for the right wing. What happened?
Innocent until Proven guilty used to mean something in this country. Bush and Co. claimed that Saddam was helping Bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks. Ok, show me some evidence and I will believe you. No evidence was shown. Next, Bush and Co. tried to twist the justifications for war in Iraq to: "they have WMD's and were preparing to use them against us". Ok, show me the evidence and I will believe you. No evidence was shown. The next version of revisionist history was "He gassed the Kurds and was an evil dictator, we are trying to liberate the country." Ok, I'll belive you here, but what of North Korea, Sudan, Liberia, and *gasp* Saudi Arabia? Why are we only focusing on Iraq? No evidence and this many errors? You get no benefit of any doubt. Its time for a trial all right. In the form of impeachment hearings for George W. Bush.
---We DID give the little cowboy the benefit of the doubt. Once again, he was wrong. Wrong about the lost lives, wrong about the costs, wrong about the WMD's, wrong about flowers and chocolates, wrong about terrorist threats. Truth is, there was nothing--NOTHING he was right about. Now he's running our country the same way he ran every business venture he ever undertook--Destined to fail. Wake me when it's over.
I can say I never gave this administration the benefit of the doubt, unfortunately, most people in this country did and they were saturated with propaganda for months which helped them along the way.
I wasn't fooled for a second, but we (meaning as a collective nation) gave the fool the Benefit of the Doubt. I shouted from the rooftops, but it seemed as though no one wanted to listen, they just wanted to get even--which I think is the reason Bush sent us to war in Iraq
I was the same way...all of my friends and family that I am close to didn't buy any of it either.
...is a pretty flimsy basis for going to war.
Talk about setting the bar for war low.
Show the proof of that Iraqi thug's connection to terrorism? We are all waiting for it. You mean the terrorism he inflicted on his own people or when he invaded Iran while the U.S. backed him and turned a blind eye or even approved of it? Yeah I agree that was horrible as was the U.S. government backing he received....love the shot of Rumsfeld shaking Saddams hand.
If we are honestly going to talk about the presence of terrorists in Iraq before we went in, we need to talk about the total pass Bush has been given for not allowing the DOD to follow up on their proposal to take Zarqawi out when he was hiding in the Kurdish controlled part of Iraq prior to out going in. Yes Al Quaida was there, just not in the part of Iraq that Saddam controlled.
[link to www.gwu.edu]
But the damn treasonous liberal media will never show it!
y'all are so right about BOZELL.