NBC's O'Donnell uncritically reported misleading Bush statement that "I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America"
SUMMARY: NBC News' Kelly O'Donnell uncritically reported President Bush's misleading response to an audience question at the City Club of Cleveland on March 20 where Bush was giving a speech. O'Donnell aired Bush's statement -- "I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America" -- but failed to note that Bush was answering a question he had not been asked. The audience member to whom Bush was responding never accused Bush of "say[ing] that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America."
On the March 20 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News and the March 21 broadcast of NBC's Today, NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell uncritically reported President Bush's misleading response to an audience question at the City Club of Cleveland on March 20 where Bush was giving a speech. O'Donnell aired a clip of Bush addressing an audience member's question about his administration's assertion of a link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, with the statement: "I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America." However, O'Donnell failed to note that the audience member to whom Bush was responding never actually accused Bush of "say[ing] that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America." In doing so, O'Donnell repeated a common media practice, frequently documented by Media Matters for America, of simply reporting responses by Bush administration officials to mythical arguments that the officials attribute to administration critics, but that critics did not actually make.
Moreover, O'Donnell failed to inform viewers that Bush and members of his administration made repeated references to alleged links between Saddam and Al Qaeda terrorists, including claiming that Saddam sponsored terrorists.
During her reports, O'Donnell included footage of the questioner, who asked about the Bush administration's "claim that Iraq was sponsoring terrorists who had attacked us on 9-11," which "turned out to be false," and aired a portion of Bush's reply, in which he stated: "I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America." But at no point did O'Donnell note that Bush did not answer the audience member's question, and simply reported his answer as though it were responsive. The audience member did not accuse Bush of saying, as Bush rephrased the question, "Saddam Hussein ordered the [9-11] attacks on America," yet O'Donnell reported Bush's response as though that had been the audience member's question.
From the March 20 exchange at the City Club of Cleveland:
QUESTION: Mr. President, at the beginning of your talk today you mentioned that you understand why Americans have had their confidence shaken by the events in Iraq. And I'd like to ask you about events that occurred three years ago that might also explain why confidence has been shaken. Before we went to war in Iraq, we said there were three main reasons for going to war in Iraq: weapons of mass destruction, the claim that Iraq was sponsoring terrorists who had attacked us on 9-11, and that Iraq had purchased nuclear materials from Niger. All three of those turned out to be false. My question is: How do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their leaders and to be sure that the information they are getting now is correct?
BUSH: That's a great question. First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say -- that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of terror -- by the way, not declared a state sponsor of terror by me, but declared by other administrations. We also did say that [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. And so the state sponsor of terror was a declaration by a previous administration. But I don't want to be argumentative, but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America.
The audience member did allege that the Bush administration made "the claim that Iraq was sponsoring terrorists who had attacked us on 9-11," a charge Bush simply did not address. And as O'Donnell should have noted, the audience member was correct: Bush and members of his administration did accuse Saddam of sponsoring Al Qaeda terrorists.
In an October 7, 2002, speech, Bush stated:
BUSH: We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some Al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior Al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Additionally, in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, Bush stated:
BUSH: Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
And in a February 6, 2003, statement, Bush asserted:
BUSH: Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with Al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.
Similarly, in a December 2, 2002, speech, Vice President Dick Cheney stated:
CHENEY: Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror. He is pressing forward with weapons of mass destruction -- weapons he's already used in his war against Iran and against his own people. His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.
And then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his February 5, 2003, address to the United Nations Security Council -- in which he outlined a case for war against Iraq -- cited a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder." Citing a suspected terrorist network headed by Jordanian-born Zarqawi, Powell went on to state:
POWELL: Al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months.
Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible. Last year, an Al Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was, quote, "good,'' that Baghdad could be transited quickly.
The weblog Low on the Hog has compiled a list of the Bush administration's attempts to link Saddam to Al Qaeda here, including instances in which the administration claimed Saddam sponsored Al Qaeda.
In its final report, the 9-11 Commission found, among other things, that Iraq was not involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, nor did it have any "collaborative relationship" with Al Qaeda, as the Bush administration had repeatedly asserted and implied.
From the March 20 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News:
O'DONNELL: But others sharply challenged Mr. Bush on issues, including the mounting cost of the conflict, the president's warrantless spy program, and the rationale for war.
[begin video clip]
QUESTION: Weapons of mass destruction, the claim that Iraq was sponsoring terrorists who had attacked us on 9-11 and that Iraq had purchased nuclear materials from Niger. All three of those turned out to be false.
BUSH: I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America.
[end video clip]
O'DONNELL: And the president tried to turn those questions about events more than three years ago into issues that resonate today. He did acknowledge that the U.S. credibility on intelligence matters must be restored in order to deal with present-day threats whether in Iraq or Iran.
From the March 21 broadcast of NBC's Today:
O'DONNELL: But the audience had other issues in mind, asking nearly a dozen unscreened questions. That set up a rarely seen and respectful confrontation between citizen and president. Here on the war's cost.
[begin video clip]
QUESTION: How do you expect a generation of young people such as ourselves to afford college at a time like this when we're paying for a war in Iraq?
BUSH: My point to you is economic growth enables us to do more than one thing. And that's what we will continue to do.
[end video clip]
O'DONNELL: On prewar intelligence and U.S. credibility.
[begin video clip]
QUESTION: Weapons of mass destruction, the claim that Iraq was sponsoring terrorists who had attacked us on 9-11.
BUSH: I don't want to be argumentative, but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America.
[end video clip]
O'DONNELL: On the threat of Iran, the president stressed diplomacy but delivered a warning.
BUSH [clip]: I'll make it clear again that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel.
"You have to catapult propagando for the truth to sink in"
When people want the thruth, lie lie again! I now understand why, in his discussion with sen. Kerry, pres. Bush used an electronic device that possibly instructed him what to answer. Will the audience that did not comply with the provided questions be labaled as extreme left-wingers or traitors?
What evidence do you have of this?
The evidence that that square lump on Bush's back was a radio device is stronger than Bush's evidence of WMD in Iraq: something was there. If it wasn't a radio device what was it? What logical (repeat logical) explanation other than a radio device is there?
It is amazing that he can get away with this. He was very careful to imply the connection without actually stating it. The Daily Show had a great montage of the Pres. implying the connection. Also, Bush never has to say anything that Rove hasn't scripted. So his minions do the talking for him.
The conference was a joke. There is an RNC/Rovian talking point that the war is going great, but the press is not reporting it. It was throughout his answers with his jousting with reporters. It was all over the conservative radio and tv shows. Rather than talk about the issues, we get a diatribe of how well this is working out for the President's ratings and how much of a bitch Helen Thomas is. This is a concerted effort to change the focus and not deal with the issues.
The most amazing thing that he said though was that the Iraq War would be decided by future Presidents. What happened to a quick war like they promised?
Absolutely correct - however, it's quite amazing to me how many lies they have been directly caught telling. It would take me days to make a complete list. There is 1 really good thing that has come out of the Bush presidency - there are more stupid quotes and butchered words to bring a laugh - if it weren't all so tragic, it would be hilarious.
Another of Mr. Bush's questionable lines of defense was his oft-repeated reference to the UN Security Council having also thought that Saddam had WMDs -- which, as we all recall, Mr. Bush claimed posed an imminent threat to the US. And why might the Security Council have thought that, Mr. President? Maybe something to do with Colin Powell's faulty, inaccurate, but very dramatic presentation at the UN? Does the president really expect us to take seriously these kinds of remarks?
And then there is Mr. Bush's claim that he is sure -- absolutely certain -- that our invasion of Iraq has made us safer. Doesn't that beg a few questions? Wasn't he just as certain that Saddam had WMDs? Didn't the war in Iraq likely lead directly to the proliferation of nuclear technology, and maybe even nuclear weapons, from Pakistan? And wont the enormous cost of this war weaken the US, if it hasn't already?
I just do not think most of the public is buying this stuff anymore. But I did notice that no one appeared to be enjoying the president's little jokes and humorous asides more than Ms. O'Donnell did.
The question asked of GWB about US Forces in Iraq was the following:
QUESTION: Will there come a day -- and I'm not asking you when; I'm not asking for a timetable -- will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
NO MORE American forces in Iraq, well that is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon considering we still have forces in Europe from a war fought 60 years ago. There is no chance of a total troop removal in the next three years. It was a bad question, the question should have been about the violence levels or the casualties or something like that.
You stated:
NO MORE American forces in Iraq, well that is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon considering we still have forces in Europe from a war fought 60 years ago.
Our forces are still in Europe after 60 years as you say, but there can be no comparison between world War II and the current fiasco in Iraq. Are we within a year of winning the war in Iraq? America's involvement during World War II lasted four years. Are the American people behind the current war? Americans supported our going to war in 1941. Young men from all walks of life volunteered to go to Europe and to the South Pacific to fight against Germany and Japan. Where is the support for the war in Iraq? On car bumpers? Enlistments are down and some of our troops are on their second or third tours in our two current war zones.
A better comparison would be between The Iraq War and The War in Vietnam. America pulled out of Vietnam more than thirty years ago. We tried to fight an insurgency without the support of our population and with no clear plan for winning. The only thing different today is that we have an all volunteer military. There doesn't seem to be a lot of vocal opposition to the War in Iraq as yet, but if they were to reinstate the draft, the streets would fill with demonstrators.
The time has come to ask the question that you stated should not have been asked. When will this all end?
Okay, I happen to think that Bush answered the question fairly, that we will still be there after his administration has concluded even if the violence stopped tomorrow. That's just my opinion. I don't think the question has much relevence to what the situation is currently, that's all.
"Okay, I happen to think that Bush answered the question fairly"
-----
Well, the question was, "What time is it?" Bush's answer was, "I have a very nice watch." Not even close to answering the question asked.
First Bush has said, early on, that we had no interest in permanent military bases in Iraq. A lie we were building 14 of them last I heard. Second the people in those European countries were glad to have us there as they are our allies. Remeber NATO? There is no such thing as a Middle East Treaty Organization, and the poll sponsered by the British dept of defense showed that more than 80% of Iraqis were strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops. Those are quite relevant differences between the Iraqi situation and the European situation. Therefore it was a good question
However, I think it gives the Pres. too much credit. His best quality is not nuance. So I don't know if he meant what you say he meant. As for the troops in Europe and Japan. They have not been there because of WWII. We stayed there because of the Cold War and have since developed a military complex that prevents us from leaving. Ultimately, the talking heads said we would be there 6 months, not 6+ years. The left was yelling at the tops of their lungs that we would be there for a long, long time. But alas, no one listened and berated the left for saying so. Ask yourself, if the American Public was told from the outset that we would be there that long, would they have supported the invasion?
As a tv host pointed out last night, why did Bush have to be so "careful" in his words? definitely an unscripted response. As demonstrated by so many examples of his previous scripts, he linked Saddam and 9-11 over and over again.
"I'll make it clear again that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel."
I thought it had been debunked that Israel is technically not a U.S. ALLY.
It would be interesting to see MMFA create a list of "responses by Bush administration officials to mythical arguments", a.k.a. "straw men."
However, to view all of those we've seen from the fertile mind of Duhhbya, Cheney and the rest of the Rovian/RNC gang, MMFA would need to display them in a 3-column format.
fertile Rich in material needed to sustain plant growth.
Well, I guess it is not for nothing that we have Mr. Bush's nickname for Mr. Rove, turd blossom. There does not appear to be a single clear and honest thinker at the highest levels of this White House. (I think Mr. Bush needs a vacation -- or, at the very least, lots more regularly scheduled downtime.)
O'DONNELL: "That set up a rarely seen and respectful confrontation between citizen and president"
Which resulted in evasive answers. And it was hardly what I'd call a "confrontation". But in the view of a timid, enabling, non-inquisitive media, it was.
then why did he order an " awe and shock " invasion of Iraq ? If I was a real commander-in-chief I would definitely go where the threat is...................the real threat and explode things surreptiously. Using doublespeak don't cut it when american soldiers are sent to possibly die . I am glad reporters have command of the english language to the point where doublespeak rolls off their tongues as easily as plain english.
...a man faces charges of converting from Islam to Christianity. If convicted, he could be executed. But in another example of U.S. democratic freedom in progress, he will at least have the benefit of a trial.
Meanwhile, back in the U.S., King George XXXXIII shows how clever he is by noting it wasn't his fault is the public believed that Iraq was tied to 9/11. Never mind he didn't try to correct that misperception prior to the invasion.
CD
I do believe though that it would be XLIII
what is the difference between Kelly O'Donnell and Noraqn O'Donnel. I think they are getting mixed up ?
I challenge everyone out there, to watch Democracy NOW! news on LINK-TV (Dish 9410 & 9415) or DirecTV (375) for a week, and compare it to MSM corporate news. You will never watch any other news except Democracy NOW!
No commercials, no corporate money, no pundits, and no politicians...just uncensored/unfiltered news. Anchor Amy Goodman puts all other anchors to shame. It's not even a contest.
Also fair.org is good.
Going on line and reading even things like the Huffington Post will set you back, because they take their cues from the MSM. You're better informed by sticking to Democracy Now.
And Amy Goodman is not a bimbo, like O'Donnell. Why work yourself up watching bimbo's like O'Donnell? You don't have to!
MMFA quotes Bush's infamous Cincinatti speech (7 Oct., 2002):
"We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some Al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior Al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."
The suggestion is of a long-time partnership between Iraq and al Qaida, and that alleged partnership was, in fact, one of the centerpieces of Bush's case for war. "High-level contacts that go back a decade" certainly sounds quite sinister, until one scratches the surface and discovers that these amount to a few scattered meetings that occured in the early 1990s, then two or three others in 1998. The (correct) judgment of the intelligence community was that no operational partnership ever emerged from these contacts, nor was one ever likely to emerge. Paul Pillar, then National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia, summed up the administration's use of this outlandish allegation:
"...the greatest discrepancy between the administration's public statements and the intelligence community's judgments concerned... the relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. The enormous attention devoted to this subject did not reflect any judgment by intelligence officials that there was or was likely to be anything like the 'alliance' the administration said existed. The reason the connection got so much attention was that the administration wanted to hitch the Iraq expedition to the 'war on terror' and the threat the American public feared most, thereby capitalizing on the country's militant post-9/11 mood... The intelligence community never offered any analysis that supported the notion of an alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda." (Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006 issue)
Pillar describes how the war-hawks in the administration were unceasing in their efforts to undermine the professional intelligence communities' judgment on this matter (the article makes for an interesting read).
The "very senior Al Qaeda leader" mentioned by Bush was Abu Musab Zarqawi, who, at the time, was neither a "very senior Al Qaeda leader," an al Qaida leader of ANY kind, or even a part of al Qaida. He was, in fact, running a rival terrorist group, and the administration knew it at the time.
Notice the absolute tone of this ridiculous remark: "We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." This piece of "intelligence" came from a captured al Qaida leader, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Bush, in Oct. 2002, was presenting this as gospel; note that he isn't calling it an allegation--he's flat-out saying it happened. Here, however, is what the intelligence community had concluded about Ibn al-Shaykh, a full seven months BEFORE Bush's speech: "[It is] likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest... Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control." (That assessment comes from a Defense Intelligence Agency document from Feb. 2002, made public a few months ago by Sen. Carl Levin).
And so on
"but failed to note that Bush was answering a question he had not been asked."
Or in the case of Helen Thomas last night when she asked what was the real reason Iraq was invaded, because he wanted to invade since coming into office, Bush answered by bringing up 9/11 and Afghanistan.
Or to see how much most of the media has ingested GOP talking points watch this interview by Wolf Blitzer of Helen Thomas at [link to www.crooksandliars.com]
It is truly amazing.
What amazes me is that Bush effectively admitted that his handlers had coached him in subtly linking Saddam with 9/11 without coming out and saying it. He was told how to take it as close to saying it as possible while allowing for plausible deniability. This is a damaging admission by the normally scripted president.
You nailed it Scott - he might as well have said: "I was holding my finger right next to your face, but I was very careful never to touch you. Technically, you can't tell mom I was touching you."
This jackass is so lacking in common sense that he is actually BRAGGING as to how he was careful not to be caught lying.
Bush: Total withdrawal "will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq," he said.
[link to www.cnn.com]
Apart from his lies:
Bush said he saw a threat in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein had the choice to disarm or face the consequences. "And then I was confronted with a choice," Bush said. "And I made my choice, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power."
It seems that people have forgotten that many people from his administration had signed a document asking prs. Clinton to attack Saddam. I have the opinion that they total plan was totally ready a few weeks after the election. 9-11 was a sorrow blow and that had to be faced first. After that it was further used to sell the pre-planned war against Saddam, thus creating opportunities to train terrorists (I have heard of a report stating that not to long ago. I will see what I can find).
Yes and if the press was doing its job, the headlines today would have been: "Bush Plans on Passing the Buck on Iraq"
That the person who got up to ask the question framed the question with that misstatement of fact in it.
When people exaggerate or distort the facts, then people like Bush take advantage of it.
It would have been much better had she simply asked said "Before we went to war in Iraq, we said there were TWO main reasons for going to war in Iraq: weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq had purchased nuclear materials from Niger. All of those turned out to be false."
I wish people would learn this lesson.
Bush's reply, "I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America" let us see his hand. I cansee it now - (meeting with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and Bush) Cheney says the Bush "We can make all types of links we want. It can even sound like Hussein was directly involved. Tell the American people there are Al Qaeda and Iraq links, let them assume it's Hussein. BUT George be careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America." Bush replies, "OK Dick anything you say."
someone show me one direct quote from the President stating that Saddam ordered the 9/11 attacks. if you can't, then shut the h**l up.
"Saddam ordered the 9/11 attacks, as far as you know." - GWB
"I am in the pockets of big business. Especially oil." - GWB
"Jesus loves me. Everybody else thinks I'm an assh*le." - GWB
"I'll show daddy, no matter what the cost." -- GWB
"I been drinking again." - GWB
It's called a straw man, genius. Nobody indicated that he said that "Saddam ordered 9/11". The question was about linkage that this Adminstration surely tried to present, falsely.
Are the audiences for the last two Bush appearances pre-screened, as every audience for everything public done by W. have been? Journalists have hinted that they weren't, but they still smack of orchestration to me. Thanks.
This could be a media ploy or just plain sloppy journalism. It has come to my attention that the high standards of journalism that were a part of the daily practice of men like Walter Cronkite has been replaced by sloppy media journalists who are neither good at formulating good questions or at reporting situations accurately. Kelly O'Donnell seems to be one of these typical ill prepared but pretty face journalists who doesn't know how to report or write a report accurately. It's part of the sorry state of journalism.
Of course the other alternative is that she is very good at what she does but what she does is spin and manipulate information to subtly present a partisan point of view.
However, does anyone think journalists who work for GE would ever be a part of that?
Keep up the work Media Matters. Sooner or later, journalists are going to realize that they are being scrutinized which should, over time, begin to raise the standards of the fourth estate. Hopefully.
George Bush has learned that the best thing to do is just keep lying, because the press can't follow up every responce with "Sir, aren't you lying, like right now?" without sounding combative.
However, I think everyone on this board agrees that Iraq is a bad war that was entered into for the wrong reasons, that all kind of intelligent people told us was going to end up as a fiasco three years ago. Since there is pretty full blooded agreement on thist, the question I'm interested in knowing the answer to at this point is now what? We shouldn't be there, but we are, so what do you all think we should do now other than point out that GW is a very very bad man who caused this mess, since identifying the cause of the fire doesn't actually put the fire out.