|
Owner59 -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/2/2007 9:39:35 AM)
|
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29026
" The Times went on to claim that around the time of the invasion, "Clinton did not precisely declare that he opposed the war," though he "has said several times since the war began that he would not have attacked Iraq in the manner that President Bush had done"
Clinton added: "So that's why I thought Bush did the right thing to go back. When you're the president, and your country has just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for."
Remarks like these should be referenced when a political figure attempts to dramatically recast his record. But establishment media go out of their way to avoid questioning powerful politicians, especially presidents: "You can't say the president is lying," as New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller once proclaimed (Extra!, 1-2/05).
I would have to say that Clinton is attempting to revise history.It`s not good,because there are people who will now argue the revision,and will forget what really happened.
What`s driving this story,IMO,is a desire to share and shift blame,for the worst foreign policy blunder since Viet Nam.
This person, speaking about meetings she didn`t attend,is the interested party here.
Note:When Clinton lied,no one died.
The papers of record have given George W. Bush license to eliminate well-known events from the recent history of Iraq, claiming of Saddam Hussein (7/14/03): "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." As FAIR pointed out (7/18/03), in fact, after a Security Council resolution was passed demanding that Iraq allow inspectors in, they were given complete access to the country; their well-publicized search for the non-existent WMDs was ongoing until four months before Bush's claim. The Washington Post (7/15/03), describing Bush's remarkable statement, could only say that his assertion "appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring."
Bush has repeatedly made the same claim (1/27/04, 3/21/06, 5/24/07, 11/7/07; see Consortium News, 11/9/07), with little or no note taken by the news outlets that chronicle his every move. "Historians will wonder someday how a free press permitted the world's most important official to say such things without contradiction," Salon's Joe Conason reported (3/31/06).
When politicians are allowed to get away with making such bold misstatements, it can only serve to embolden others to do the same, since there would seem to be no downside to lying. Indeed, at a Republican candidates' debate in June, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney offered his own version of the weapons inspector lie, to little media note (FAIR Action Alert, 6/8/07). Perhaps the press was just treating him as they would if he actually were president.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Question: Where is the outrage by the super-patriots, over Bush lying?
Note(repeat):When Clinton lied,no one died.
I know that`s old and worn out,but it refreshes every time a GI dies.
ACTION:
Ask the Washington Post and New York Times why their reports on Clinton's misstatement did not more forcefully challenge his record on the Iraq War.
CONTACT:
Washington Post Ombudsman
Deborah Howell
New York Times Public Editor
Clark Hoyt
[Mod Note: email addresses and telephone numbers removed]
|
|
|
|
