Monday, January 12, 2004
Well, people read the Monday paper, too.
The O'Neill story finally shows up on the front page of the Times online this morning. Presumably, with the Sunday issue out of the way, they felt it was ok to link to the story. Here's the headline:
Bush Sought to Oust Hussein From Start, Ex-Official Says
This one is a Times story (not just the Reuters one) by Richard W. Stevenson. Of course we're paranoid, but we can't help noticing that Stevenson split the "money quote"--putting the more benign, "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go"--which no one would argue with--in the second paragraph, and dropping the more disturbing quote that it was "all about finding a way to do it,"--which a lot of people might find alarming--down into the middle of the next paragraph.
Of course, we may not be paranoid at all, for Stevenson entirely omits the most disturbing and potentially damaging quote of all: here is the whole sentence from O'Neill, from the 60 Minutes transcript:
Bush: Find me a Way to Topple Saddam, Ex-Official Says
Another small point: Stevenson repeats the reminder (from the wire stories) that the policy of "regime change" in Iraq started with Clinton:
Anything non-factual about that last paragraph? Don't think so. In fact, it's not only factual, it's utterly relevant, and serves to further illuminate the very point of O'Neill's charge--which is supposedly the point of the article. But for some reason Stevenson and the Times don't bother.
Bush Sought to Oust Hussein From Start, Ex-Official Says
This one is a Times story (not just the Reuters one) by Richard W. Stevenson. Of course we're paranoid, but we can't help noticing that Stevenson split the "money quote"--putting the more benign, "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go"--which no one would argue with--in the second paragraph, and dropping the more disturbing quote that it was "all about finding a way to do it,"--which a lot of people might find alarming--down into the middle of the next paragraph.
Of course, we may not be paranoid at all, for Stevenson entirely omits the most disturbing and potentially damaging quote of all: here is the whole sentence from O'Neill, from the 60 Minutes transcript:
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying Go find me a way to do this," says O'Neill."Go find me a way to do this"? George Bush said that, and neither Richard Stevenson nor the NY Times found it worth quoting? We'd have thought it would be the headline:
Bush: Find me a Way to Topple Saddam, Ex-Official Says
Another small point: Stevenson repeats the reminder (from the wire stories) that the policy of "regime change" in Iraq started with Clinton:
Since the Clinton administration, the official position of the United States, backed by bipartisan votes in Congress, has been to call for "regime change" in Iraq.For some reason, however, Stevenson does not follow that point with, "But the Clinton administration, which repeatedly tried in vain to warn the incoming Bush administration of the looming danger from Al Queda, never used any event as a pretext for an Iraq invasion, whereas the Bush administration did just that, using now largely discredited allegations of weapons of mass destruction and connections to terrorists to link the terrorist attacks of 9/11 with Iraq."
Anything non-factual about that last paragraph? Don't think so. In fact, it's not only factual, it's utterly relevant, and serves to further illuminate the very point of O'Neill's charge--which is supposedly the point of the article. But for some reason Stevenson and the Times don't bother.
