Sunday, June 12, 2005
Can Americans Trust the Associated Press?
Here's how the A.P. described the Downing Street memo this evening:
The Downing Street memo did not say the Bush administration "believed war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam Hussein".
It said: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Not the same thing, are they?
A.P. has seen fit to spin its description of the Downing Street memo to comport with the Bush Administration's claim that the invasion was predicated on faulty intelligence. It does so in a way that can plausibly--though not honorably--deny being a lie, as on a purely grammatical level the phrasing is technically true. But it is not actually true, as it does not accurately describe what the Downing Street memo says.
"...determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam Hussein"?
"Use"?
Who at A.P. chose the word "use"? As opposed to, say, "fix"? That's the word in the actual memo: "..the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Isn't it odd that the A.P. mischaracterized the Downing Street memo in a way that exactly matches the Bush Administration's spin on the lead-up to the Iraq war?
Who at A.P. made that decision? The reporter? An editor?
Here's two other goodies from the memo A.P. leaves out:
Yes, that means what you think it means.
We knew George W. Bush saw himself as a cowboy; we didn't realize it was Lee Marvin in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance."
But back to the messenger: Can Americans trust the Associated Press?
According to those minutes -- known as the Downing Street Memo -- British officials who had just returned from Washington said the Bush administration believed war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam Hussein.Not exactly.
The Downing Street memo did not say the Bush administration "believed war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam Hussein".
It said: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Not the same thing, are they?
A.P. has seen fit to spin its description of the Downing Street memo to comport with the Bush Administration's claim that the invasion was predicated on faulty intelligence. It does so in a way that can plausibly--though not honorably--deny being a lie, as on a purely grammatical level the phrasing is technically true. But it is not actually true, as it does not accurately describe what the Downing Street memo says.
"...determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam Hussein"?
"Use"?
Who at A.P. chose the word "use"? As opposed to, say, "fix"? That's the word in the actual memo: "..the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Isn't it odd that the A.P. mischaracterized the Downing Street memo in a way that exactly matches the Bush Administration's spin on the lead-up to the Iraq war?
Who at A.P. made that decision? The reporter? An editor?
Here's two other goodies from the memo A.P. leaves out:
But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.And check out military option two:
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli.[italics added]Initiated by an Iraqi casus belli?
Yes, that means what you think it means.
We knew George W. Bush saw himself as a cowboy; we didn't realize it was Lee Marvin in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance."
But back to the messenger: Can Americans trust the Associated Press?
