Source: Yahoo!
Link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040925/ap_on_el_pr/bush&cid=694&ncid=716
Title: "Bush Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq"
Date: September 25, 2004
Liberal media conspiracy? Hardly. In fact, the AP writer went to lengths to be more than fair to Bush while seemingly picking up the rhythm and tone of Dionne's opinion piece and running with the headline:
President Bush opened several new scathing lines of attack against Democrat John Kerry, charges that twisted his rival's words on Iraq and made Kerry seem supportive of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein.
It was not unlike the spin that Kerry and his forces sometimes place on Bush's words.
Yahoo! (AP)
And the article is not without its matching examples:
(Bush) stated flatly that Kerry had said earlier in the week "he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today." The line drew gasps of surprise from Bush's audience in a Racine, Wis., park. "I just strongly disagree," the president said.
But Kerry never said that. In a speech at New York University on Monday, he called Saddam "a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell." He added, "The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."
Yahoo! (AP)
So it seems that the folks in the press calling out the administration on its unprecedented degree of bullsh@t are not merely on the opinion pages. But before the Nitwit Division over at the GOP starts howling about media bias, let me reiterate that the article is critical of Kerry, as well. In addition to claiming that Bush spin "was not unlike" Kerry spin, the article shows how Kerry is exactly like Bush to exactly the same degree:
That's not to say Kerry hasn't been playing fast and loose with Bush's words.
Just Friday, the Kerry campaign sent an e-mail to supporters entitled "He said what?" citing Bush's remark that he had seen "a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America."
The e-mail from campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill accused the president of having "no plan to get us out of Iraq" and thinking "the future of Iraq is brighter than the future of America."
Bush has a plan for Iraq — Kerry just disagrees that it is working. And the president wasn't comparing Iraq's future to that of the United States, only accurately reflecting one recent survey in Iraq and the latest trends in America that asked participants for their assessment of the direction their countries are going.
Yahoo! (AP)
See? There's no reason to go complaining about a liberal media. The AP sees little difference 'twixt the old standard ("make yourself look better and your opponent look worse than either of you really are") and the new ("invent things to claim your opponent said in order to get easy applause").
It's just like an argument in the 527 debate: The press accepted the assertion and reported that criticizing the budget, the deficit, or the many vital mistakes the Bush administration has made (e.g. MoveOn) is as morally reprehensible as inventing a story out of thin air and staking the reputation of the entire past, present, and future United States Armed Services on what is definitively a lie (e.g. SBVT). We even had a couple days in which the candidates sought to argue about how to make the groups shut up, despite the fact that the 527 "loophole" exists because it
must. The argument went, "Yes, this Swift ad is bad, just as bad as MoveOn, and is further proof that the 527's need to be shut up." No. Criticizing policy and misinformation is not "just as bad" as flat-out lying and insulting the entire U.S. military in order to do it.
And in the article at hand, I must disagree: to say that Bush has no plan is arguable, or at least
not insupportable. To say that Kerry said something he didn't say in hopes that the people at home are too freaking stupid and lazy to know the difference is
not arguable in the least, and
is insupportable.
A number of questions present themselves:
• Does anyone--in this case either the AP or the GOP--really believe that making a sharp observation of a political maneuver, that criticizing policy, is the same thing as outright lying? "Politics" as it is played in any manner resembling "dignified", is much like sales: tell people the things about the product you think they want, downplay the things they don't want. However, the way it's being played is rather like the guys at Nike saying, "If you wear our shoes you can fly; if you wear Adidas, terrorists will bomb your house." So does anyone actually believe that the two versions of "politics" are the same?
• Does the GOP really think the people are stupid?
• Is the AP really that stupid, or does the AP think the American people are paying close enough attention to tell the difference?
It's encouraging to see the news writers finally actually describing what is taking place inasmuch as Bush no longer gets the easy ride he's had, but what is this reduction of behavior to preset and stratified roles? Republicans lie, Democrats fumble around trying to find a way to be both honest and appealing at the same time, and the people ... what? Take comfort in the illusion of confidence? Disdain the appearance of careful consideration?
It
would be encouraging to think that the comparison--how Kerry has been playing fast and loose with Bush's words--is tongue-in-cheek, but among the charges against liberalism is a smoldering contempt alleged of liberals toward the common folk they intend to protect, advance, &c, and one or the other has to give: either there is no liberal media conspiracy or else the liberal media so trusts the American public as to crack jokes at a time like this.
In the meantime, the Bush camp has gotten so clumsy and obvious that a reporter covering the campaigns might be remiss to not at least mention the situation. Yet in the classic politically-correct style so often charged (by conservatives) of the media, some token words have been thrown at the Kerry campaign just to reassure insecure Republicans that no, the press is not out to eat their children.
I mean, I could point out that the President has said the administration is working hard to find new ways to hurt the American people--(a confession?)--but we all know what he meant. A classic Bushism to be sure, and one I'll chuckle over with my daughter in a few years. But one would have to be an absolute idiot to try and sell the idea that Bush actually
admitted what we all know to be true. Seriously, he's pulled it off far enough to make the office in the first place, it's more likely that he just wasn't paying attention to what he was saying.
And if the Kerry campaign came out swinging tomorrow with a four-point blaster--
(1) Bush "service" in Nat'l Guard
(2) Bush false war pretenses
(3) Bushism about hurting the American people
(4) Tagline: "Why does George Bush hate America?"
--they would still have a greater claim to accuracy and therefore legitimacy than the Bush campaign. Certes, it would upset some people; after all, there is a point at which it is undignified to be honest with Americans. We tell children there's a heaven; we tell adults what they want to hear about instead of what they need to hear about.
What is going on in the separate campaigns is not the same thing. But you know, that damned liberal media bias can't manage to criticize a Republican without blowing an issue out of proportion in order to criticize Democrats at the same time.
Why does George Bush want to eat your children?
____________________
• Loven, Jennifer. "Bush Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq". Associated Press / Yahoo!. September 25, 2004. See Yahoo! (AP)
