The blogosophere is all over slanted, misleading coverage of Bush's remarks at a press conference yesterday, where he continued to pitch the ridiculous canard that Saddam wouldn't let inspectors in. This time around, he's being a little more subtle about it. Here's what Bush actually said yesterday:
There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat to America and others. That's what we know. We know from years of intelligence -- not only our own intelligence services, but other intelligence gathering organizations -- that he had weapons -- after all, he used them. He had deep hatred in his heart for people who love freedom. We know he was a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world. We know that he defied the United Nations year after year after year. And given the events of September the 11th, we know we could not trust the good intentions of Saddam Hussein, because he didn't have any. ... I hoped the international community would take care of him. I was hoping the United Nations would enforce its resolutions, one of many. And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution -- 1441 -- unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.
In case it's not apparent, the insinuation is that Hans Blix and UNMOVIC were unable to perform inspections in Iraq, and that they were "kicked out" of Iraq in 1998. This accounting has been thoroughly and convincingly debunked. But the New York Times doesn't want you to know that. Here's how they quoted Bush's address yesterday:
"We could not trust the good intentions of Saddam Hussein — he didn't have any," Mr. Bush said.
Sadly, No! debunks the first distortion, showing how conservative sources from the Wall Street Journal to Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol have mutated the story of the 1998 withdrawal of UN inspectors from Iraq to one of "Saddam kicked them out". The truth is a little more subtle: they were withdrawn by the UN.
You don't get a mention of any of this from the NYT. That one phrase, "given the events of September 11th," should be a red flag for any journalist to start asking questions. But here it acts as a pacifier, leading the Times reporter to record the moral bottom line: Saddam had no good intentions. If Saddam had no good intentions, then the facts don't matter!
Joe Conason agrees with me in his Salon blog this morning, saying "How dare the press mock Howard Dean when they listen respectfully to this arrant lunacy?" Indeed.
Digby, writing for American Street, throws more mockery on Bush's statements, writing "[I]t is clear that Mr Bush harbors a bizarre belief that Saddam refused inspections and that defiance was the justification for war." Once again, the facts don't matter: one fact is just as good as another fact. Everything is equivalent. So why not just invade? After all, it made us safer!
Posted by Chris at January 28, 2004 10:44 AM