When Democrats Attack The President and How The MSM Reports It
Responding to an attack is called a defense.
Unfortunately, the Associated Press doesn’t see it that way.
As a recipient of one of today’s stupid-headline awards, AP declares: “Bush Escalates Bitter Iraq War Debate”
“President Bush escalated the bitter debate over the Iraq war on Monday, hurling back at Democratic critics the worries they once expressed that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat to the world.”
Playing a semantical game by stating that Bush is “escalating” the “bitter debate,” the AP makes it sound as though Bush is the aggressor. In other words, if he remained silent (as he has heretofore), that would be better. And Democrats most assuredly wish it would be so.
“Bush went on the attack after Democrats accused the president of manipulating and withholding some pre-war intelligence and misleading Americans about the rationale for war.”
Once again, the AP is mischaracterizing. Intentionally? Readers can decide. But the truth is: In responding to the Democrats’ repeated and increasingly shrill accusations of “lies about the war” (their attack), President Bush is defending his position — not “attacking.”
“Some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past,” Bush said. “They’re playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. That is irresponsible.”
In this example, it’s clear the MSM is actively engaged in “playing politics” as well.
“Iraq and a host of other problems, from the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina to the indictment of a senior White House official in the CIA leak investigation, have taken a heavy toll on the president. Nearing the end of his fifth year in office, Bush has the lowest approval rating of his presidency and a majority of Americans say Bush is not honest and they disapprove of his handling of foreign policy and the war on terrorism.”
First of all, “bungled response” is a subjective phrase. Was the response handled well? We’ll concede it could have been done better. But is that the President’s fault? No. FEMA is responsible. And the blame should be spread fairly, from the federal government to Louisina’s governor and New Orleans’ mayor.
Second, asserting that “a majority of Americans say Bush is not honest and they disapprove of…blah blah blah” is misleading. It’s a majority of Americans polled* — and that certainly is not a numerical majority of Americans. The AP is framing hyperbole, subtle but yet effective.
Finally, American opinion is largly shaped by the very same media which is doing the reporting. By sheer repetition of accusations by Democrats, in public and via press releases, the MSM is promoting the negative impression. What else are people going to think?
Of course, when President Bush and the Administration decide it’s time to defend the record and point out the facts, then the AP describes it as an “escalation” and an “attack.”
Guarding themselves against being blamed for total transparent bias, the AP does present some of the facts. So, if you got past the headline and the first few loaded paragraphs (which most casual readers don’t), you’d read this:
[Bush] quoted pre-war remarks by three senior Democrats as evidence of that Democrats had shared the administration’s fears that were the rationale for invading Iraq in 2003. Bush did not name them, but White House counselor Dan Bartlett filled in the blanks.
_”There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.”  Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
_”The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as (Saddam Hussein) is in power.”  Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich.
_”Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president’s approaching this in the right fashion.”  Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., then the Democratic whip.
“The truth is that investigations of the intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world  and that person was Saddam Hussein,” Bush charged.
In the Senate, 29 Democrats voted with 48 Republicans for the war authorization measure in late 2002, including 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, and his running mate, John Edwards of North Carolina.
Those words constitute neither attack nor escalation, the President is merely presenting the facts.
On Capitol Hill, top Democrats stood their ground in claiming Bush misled Congress and the country. “The war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history,” Kerry told a news conference.
Sounds like someone is “escalating the bitter debate,” and it ain’t the President.
Now, there’s news.
UPDATE: (11/15)
Welcome Instapundit readers!
As is customary, we encourage you to look around our site.
See the latest posts listed on your left side. Or by clicking here.
(Click and scroll down)
You might also be interested in these categories:
Foreign Policy
Homeland Security
Immigration
Iraq
Liberals
Military
Terrorism
W
RELATED:
Michelle Malkin: “Bush Battles Back, Round II”
TruthLaidBear: “Bush Continues Pushback”
Baldilocks: “How Dare He Fight Back!”
GatewayPundit: “Bush Takes Out WAPO & Sen. Levin. Who’s Next?”
PoliPundit: Here’s Why Dems Thought They’d Get Away With it
Trackbacks:
November 14th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
Bush: Dems Sending ‘Mixed Signals’
President Bush escalated the debate over the Iraq war by hurling back at Democrats the worries they
November 14th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
Bush Continues To Counter-Attack
(See my previous related post here.) … Read the official transcript of President Bush’s speech here. …
November 14th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
Keep driving these points home, Mr. Prez
The President gave a speech tonight Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska - the speech is a continuation of the same theme that the President has been pushing hard over the last week in response to the lying Democrats in Congress who are tryin…
November 15th, 2005 at 1:15 am
Bush Whacks Situational Hawks
37% approval? No problem. On his way to Japan tonight, the president is stopping in Alaska. According to Katie MacGuidwin of the RNC eCampaign, Bush’s speech includes:
November 15th, 2005 at 6:55 am
Better Late Than Never
Bush is at long last beginning to fight back against his political opponents in the type of speeches he should have been delivering all along. A sample from his remarks yesterday at Elmendorf AFB:Some of our elected leaders have opposed
November 15th, 2005 at 8:08 am
Also, the press has been so quick to take all of the latest poll numbers and use them to declare Bush (paraphrased) “A President in trouble”.
Will they respond in kind when/if his poll numbers rise? E.G. “Bush on the mend.” or “Bush rebounding.”
I won’t hold my breath.
November 15th, 2005 at 8:09 am
Once More, From The Top
UPDATE IV: Oh, God, this is hilarious!
IS BUSH ACTUALLY ISRAELI? When he defends himself, the press says he’s escalating.
Thank you, Glenn! I needed a laugh this morning.
November 15th, 2005 at 8:24 am
Bush flailing about and in off places hitting out at Democrats (how about rhe GOP now wanting to exit Iraq?)…and now his blogging pals also joinging in if not the :attack: at least the flailing…
Relax: the public now sees through him and that is why his numbers so low. It is not simply Iraq and the Democrats that have brought this about.
November 15th, 2005 at 8:24 am
Note too that the Democrats are merely described as being “critics” as though falsely accusing the President of lying to get us into a war is simply a ‘criticism.’
November 15th, 2005 at 9:16 am
Haven’t you figured it out by now? Republicans aren’t allowed to defend themselves. When they do it is a smear or an attack. Democrats are mere critics. Republicans smear and escalate. Now that we have that clear, let’s move on.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:36 am
Go CC great post.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:32 am
rewriting isn’t only just for liberals apparently.
1. Bush is to blame for FEMA’s response. Why? Because he said, it was his fault at the federal level and last time I checked the F in FEMA stood for Federal.
2. “The majority of people” hyperbole has been used by the Republicans and the Presiden just as much to vindicate agendas, bills, budget plans, supreme court nominees, etc. Of course, what you don’t say is that conservative groups will point to their own POLLS to show that majority of Americans do support the President.
3. MSM bashing. burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me. Reporters and editors have been repeatedly duped and burned by this administration and you wonder why MSM is negative? It should be apparent to everyone that this administration “worked” the media thru anonymous sources in some channels and then went “public” on others, to using the very articles they “deep backgrounded” to as means of “validating” the “need for war” claims. Don’t believe me, look at who and when Karl Rove and Scooter Libby (amongst others) were talking to and what those people wrote and then look at when Chenney, Rice, Rummsfield, and Powell went and hit the airwaves. Thus the WHIG agenda. The polls stating that people don’t trust the president are basically stating what most reasonable people are now asking, If you truly believed what you were doing was justified, Mr. President, why would you need to manipulate the medium in order to convince us? Maybe because the President didn’t trust us first…
November 15th, 2005 at 11:05 am
Matt, if you really believe that, be sure mommy pins your name and address inside your collar before letting you leave the yard.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:05 am
I don’t know about “escalating”, but Tim Russert has repeated said Bush was “lashing out at his critics.”
November 15th, 2005 at 11:27 am
Nice post. We should be used to these type of semantic gymnastics by now. Dems and the left wing extremists buddies attack, its ok, but when we counterattack, oh my goodness, we are “escalating”, “playing politics”, and so on.
No sweat, let’s just keep pounding them with the historical record. After reading about Rocky from WV on Fox the other day, the Dems cannot handle the pushback. They will be on the ropes in all areas if we just keep up the pressure.
I know we can. Its the Administration, the Pres, and his handlers about whom I’m concerned. Can THEY go the distance required to counterattack?
November 15th, 2005 at 11:28 am
When the media says you are “escalating” “lashing out” etc. it is almost a sure sign you are doing the right thing.
As for Matt A’s explicit statement that the media has been “repeatedly duped and burned” by the Administration and therefore are allowed to behave in an outright partisan manner (with freqeunt lies of ommission) then the debate is over and the media has lost. Even assuming (for purposes of argument only) that the administration DID dupe and burn certain reporters, that in no way provides blanket immunity to the entire media. Guess what, they’ve got their job to do REGARDLESS. Their most basic journalistic obligations (and obligations as Americans) don’t end just because their egos are bruised and feelings are hurt. Unless they are very small, very weak, very vindictive people. Which apparently they are.
Bush does best when he follows the Reagan rule: ignore the media, speak directly to the people.
November 15th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
“At the risk of repeating myself…”
One of the ways the “Big Lie” is made to work is through a process of endless repetition. Through repeating something over and over again, it is hoped that people — the weaker people, anyway –will eventually be convinced that…
November 15th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
E.J. Dionne Is Lying
Check out this howler from the increasingly-unhinged E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post: He doesn’t want us to remember that…
November 15th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
[...] UPDATE Tue, 11/15/05 01:11 - Then you should go read the excellent analysis of the AP artilce that we wrote about yesterday. It’s by The California Conservative. [...]
November 15th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Tuesday Night Round-Up
On the 24th of November, William Buckley Jr. will celebrate his 80th birthday. The Economist (via The Mote in God’s Eyes, with an amazing post) takes the chance to ponder about the future of the American Conservative Movement and the Republican Party…
November 16th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Fenriss, very mature…Did we sneak this post in during milk break or recess?
Jack T - Well, here’s the thing. If you campaign on the idea of bringing integrity and dignity back to the White House, people expect you to actually walk the walk. What did they burn the reporters about??? Oh, yeah, the rationale for that a $500+ Billion War and 2000+ American lives lost (Never mind the number of Iraqi’s lives lost innocent or otherwise). Its kind of a big thing or at least it should be that our executive branch felt the need to manipulate the media in order to convince the public the need to invade another country. Lets remember, for all the power of the press, they are not a coordinated force unlike the WH. The reporters for the NYT aren’t cross checking their info with the reporters on the WASH POST or Tim Russert on NBC. The admin played these guys off each other in order to convince the people there was a need for millitary force. The backlash from doing so is a somewhat skeptical MSM. Make your bed, you lie in it.
November 16th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
[...] And why don’t we trust public opinion polls?* [...]
November 19th, 2005 at 7:37 am
It’s simply a vicious rumor that the Bush administration withheld valuable information from the pre-war intelligence report, or in any way distorted facts. It’s not like them to do something so shady.
Yes, it’s true that when Dubya was running for governor in 1994, he pledged to never raise the sales tax or create a business tax, and then did both. But that’s a broken promise, not a lie.
Yes, in 2000, the Bush team launched a smear campaign against Sen. McCain, even accusing him of fathering children out of wedlock; and yes, they did something similar to John Kerry in 2004. And yes, Bush said he performed active duty with the Alabama National Guard, although his commanding officer said he never showed up. And yes, a Bush political ad told us he had reduced the growth of government in Texas to its lowest in 40 years, when in fact it rose 34 percent. But that’s campaign rhetoric, not lies.
Yes, in 2000 Dubya told us his budget plan would reduce America’s National Debt, but it has since soared to $7 trillion, which can only be the fault of theose big-spendng Democrats. And Dubya said he was against nation building and foreign military entanglements, yet today we’re deeply involved in both. Hey, s__t happens.
Yes, when Clinton departed in 2001, the Bush team charged his administration with acts of vandalism inside the White House and a GAO investigation proved the accusations false. But confusion occurs during a transfer of power.
Yes, when the Bush tax cut was passed in 2001, Dubya said the bottom end of the economic ladder would get the biggest percentage, though it turned out that the top one percent of America’s wealthiest got the most. But maybe Dubya was talking about mere millionaires rather than billionaires.
Yes, in 2002 Dubya said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that on May 29, 2003, he told a Polish TV audience, “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. For those who say we haven’t … they’re wrong.” And yes, we went to war without letting the UN arms inspectors finish their job and it’s true we ended up not finding any WMD. But the important thing to keep in mind is that it’s far more important to trust the intelligence of other nations than that of your own.
Yes, when the Enron scandal broke in 2002, Dubya said that he first met the company’s chairman, Ken Lay, back in 1994, when he was running for governor. Although the truth is that they had been friends as early as 1986, when the two of them drilled for oil together, it was just a memory slip, not an effort to distance himself from someone who was indicted for fraud and conspiracy.
Yes, it’s true that Dubya’s vice president, Dick Cheney, denied knowing Ambassador Joe Wilson when the Valerie Plame scandal broke around the head of the Bush administration, when all evidence points to the contrary. But gee, politicians meet so many people. Yes, it’s also true that “Scooter” Libby denied having any involvement in disclosing Plame’s CIA connection to the press, and it’s outrageous that he was later indicted by a grand jury, when it was nothing more than a case of male gossip.
And yes, it’s true, Dubya once said, “I am a uniter, not a divider” and that today the nation is in one of its most divisive periods. But you can blame that on all those nasty Democrats.
The list goes on, of course, causing Dubya’s mean-spirited critics to accuse him and his team of being unable to carry a factual sentence from one end of a room to another. Shame on them! And while some may see these and several other instances as a pattern of deception, I would argue that the Bush administration does not a history of feeding us chicken-fried whoppers. It only looks that way.