I am answering this in more than one part, first on the "spin" factor.
--- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The article is certainly slanted against the > Admin's > > position, but many of the points/questions are > valid. > > But their is no way of proving that Bush was wrong > at the time he made those > statements (taken out of context as they are). Nor of proving that they were true when he made them. A truly cynical view would be that he was 'fed' selected data and so in fact did believe his statements. Here is the radio address text; all quoted lines in this post are from this text unless stated otherwise: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html "The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing. The regime is guilty of beginning two wars. It has a horrible history of striking without warning. In defiance of pledges to the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. Saddam Hussein has used these weapons of death against innocent Iraqi people, and we have every reason to believe he will use them again." First sentence: Opinion, not backed by hard evidence. Second & third: True. Fourth: True in the past, but not yet proven for 2003; according to article JDG posted, an Iraqi officer (not proven a trustworthy source either, as he's also failed to provide hard evidence) claims that SH's WMD programs were toothless by the mid-to-late '90's, but that he had and was seeking intelligence/ability to rebuild those programs once UN sanctions were lifted. Fifth: First part true, second is opinion based on the assumption that he does in fact have WMDs and systems to deliver them...against whom? Implication: against Americans, on American soil. This is manipulative, not informative. > We resumed, and ended the war, not becouse we knew > they had WMDs, but becouse > they had broken the agreements they made to ensure a > sesation of hostilities. Yet UN inspectors, back for the first time in years, were 'making progress' (albeit only under the threat of the military might poised around Iraq) when they were forced out by the US. See sentence below re: 'future of...America in...[Saddam's] hands.' > It was always about this. In adition to this was the > threat that if they were > not following one set of agreements, and they had > the means to produce WMD, > then the risk was too high. Even if we were not > going to keep our word about > 91, we had to do something becouse the threat, (the > worse case scinario based > on intelegence and probabilities and facts) was to > greate not to. I await the results of current inquiries. "Iraq has longstanding ties to terrorist groups, which are capable of and willing to deliver weapons of mass death. And Iraq is ruled by perhaps the world's most brutal dictator who has already committed genocide with chemical weapons, ordered the torture of children, and instituted the systematic rape of the wives and daughters of his political opponents. "We cannot leave the future of peace and the security of America in the hands of this cruel and dangerous man. This dictator must be disarmed. And all the United Nations resolutions against his brutality and support for terrorism must be enforced." First sentence: True WRT the first part, but to Hamas and others (IIRC), not to al-Qaida. I think that someone posted a link stating that in at least one poll, ~70% of Americans thought that Saddam had definitively been linked to al-Qaida and 9-11 (ref: previously posted article(s) about Rumsfeld's post 9-11 statements WRT Iraq and al-Qaida). I'm guessing that in the second part, he is referring to suicide bombers etc, by saying "weapons of mass death" instead of "weapons of mass destruction" -- but I also suspect that many, many people who heard this 'registered' "WMD" instead. Very carefully and cleverly crafted wording. Second sentence: True (although he was nevertheless good enough to be an ally of sorts in the '80's...). Third: What the he**!?! The future of America in Saddam's hands?!? This is nonsense. Fourth: True (or it should have been). Fifth: Essentially true, although with an emotional spin that I don't think is in the UN resolutions. > Was thier a "spin" to sell the war? Of course their > was. That's how things > work in the US. Every product you buy, (even sci-fi > books) are marketed as > best as possible. Some of these products are good > products, some are not, but > they are all "sold" with a "spin". It was exagerated > however by the media. > Who's fault is that, Bush? Wolfowitz? Powel? They > are at fault for the > American mode of consensus? You want to blame them > for the manner that ideas are expressed in the US? In matters of state, by Administration members themselves, ABSOLUTELY! They weren't selling books, or songs, or widgets. They were addressing the American people about armed conflict. > Of course the left never "sells" or "spins" do they? > And the libritarians are > not imune. Who the hell is Ann Rand after all? I would like to point out that I recognized and *called* on the slant-factor in this article, so obviously I realize that "the left" (which I am not, frex 'packing' as I do when necessary) has a spin. (It may have been before you re-upped, but I clearly have no love for Ann Rand either.) Everyone slants things in their favor. It doesn't make the practice honest, correct or admirable. > All this where are the WMDs talk is just another > spin, I prefer to deal with > the facts and make a decision based on that. Those > were provided -along with the spin-. No, they weren't. Inplications, innuendo, re-direction, partial truths -- but not the *relevant* facts. I expect "spin" on most if not all political matters, but in matters of armed conflict, in which men, women and children will die, we (the people) require and deserve to make our decisions based upon as much of the 'truth' as it is possible to know. (I am *not* advocating public dissemination of sensitive intelligence which will compromise the military's ability to fight.) > WMD was an additional spin that the media focused on > becouse it was the one > that would sell the most comercials. Sure it was a > Bush spin, but it was also > a major concern, given that they were not following > other parts of the > agreement, and the intelegence was pointing to a > program, -their was a > program- even if they were not producing large > enough quantities, their was a program. I await the results of the searches currently underway in Iraq. > The media is where all the hype was. I remember ex > generals on FOX, and > interviews with working officials who stated over > and over and over and over > again that WMD was not the main reason, Husain as > not the main target. At one > point Powel said specificaly that we may not find > WMDs, and that was long > before the first troops moved in. No, all the hype was _not_ just in the media. "American security, the safety of our friends, and the values of our country lead us to confront this gathering threat. By supporting the resolution now before them, members of Congress will send a clear message to Saddam: His only choice is to fully comply with the demands of the world. And the time for that choice is limited. Supporting this resolution will also show the resolve of the United States, and will help spur the United Nations to act." First sentence: American security is placed *first.* And Saddam's regime is a "gathering threat" to it -- how if not by WMD or other terrorist acts? Rest of paragraph: True as far as it goes. > On many channels every other word was, WMD, WMD. If > you were watching left > leaning media, then you got the story from the > perspective the left wanted > you to have. You don't think they didn't have > stratagy meetings on post war > programming? You think they didn't focus on the most > benificial message based on their political leanings? > > And some just fall right into their stratagy. Step > back, wake up. <raised eyebrow> Right back at ya'! ;) > Yes Bush spun the WMD thing. > Yes the left exagerated it. > No it wasn't the main reason for the war. > No you were not lied to (on this point) by your > President. I await the outcome of the Congressional investigations re: intelligence failures vs. slanting. Debbi who will get to the other parts, but frankly since they've been mostly hashed before, will not spend much time re-hashing them again __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
