Sunday, February 08, 2004

Quick media survey I got curious to see how the media would headline and cover the interview, particularly how prominent the coverage of a promise to release his military records would be played.  So I've been cruising a few websites. Most interesting is that the one paper (WaPo) that headline the promise has changed the headline on the main page, but when you click through to the article, the old headline is still there.  I've save the original article page to see what other changes, if any, get slapped into Dana Milbank's piece. Here's a few items: Websites & wires: Fox News:  "Bush Defends Iraq War".  No mention of a promise to release his military records. CNN:  "Bush Defends Iraq War".  No mention of a promise to release his military records. MSNBC: "On the Record - President defends military service, the war in Iraq"  Lead paragraph:  "President Bush defended his service in the National Guard during an interview aired Sunday on NBC’s "Meet the Press" and offered to produce evidence to counter allegations raised by political opponents that he was AWOL for a time in 1972." ABC News: "Bush Defends War in Rare TV Interview" No mention of a promise to release his military records. CBS News: "Bush Defends Iraq Invasion"  No mention of a promise to release his military records.           AP: "Bush Defends War in Rare TV Interview" One short paragraph dismissing concerns about his NG service.  No mention of a promise to mention his military records. Reuters:  "Bush Offers Shifting Rationale for War". No mention of the AWOL issue whatsoever. Newspapers: NY Times: Two articles: "In Rare Talk Show Interview, Bush Defends Decision on War"    No mention of the AWOL issue at all, and "As Kerry Gains Strength, Bush Says 'I'm Not Going to Lose'".  Only a brief mention of his defense of his military reference, but no mention of a promise to release his military records. Washington Post: "Bush Defends Vietnam Era Military Service"  This headline WAS "Bush to Release Vietname-Era Military Records" less than an hour ago! Actually, as I write this, the first headline is on the main page, but the "Release Records" head is in the article.  I've saved the original to see if there's much re-write in store for this puppy.  I bet Dana Milbank's cell battery is burning up... Boston Globe:  NOTHING on the the front page of their website on the interview. Are the Bruins and the Celtics both at home today??? LA Times:   Only a link to the AP lead, "Bush Defends War in Rare TV Interview"  So it seems like the major emphasis is the "defense of war" theme, which is best, I think.  But I expect a few news orgs will keep the "release the hounds, er, records" theme alive over the next few days or weeks.  I think they smell blood in the water... 2:40:53 PM    Comment []  trackback []

Hans Blix shoots off his mouth again! Blix for president, anyone? LONDON (AP) -- Prime Minister Tony Blair's government ``dramatized'' some of its prewar evidence about the threat posed by Iraq, former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Sunday. On the British Broadcasting Corp.'s ``Breakfast with Frost'' program, Blix said it was unclear what was meant by the claim in a September 2002 intelligence dossier that Iraq could deploy some weapons of mass destruction on 45 minutes' notice. ``The intention was to dramatize it just as the vendors of some merchandise are trying to increase and exaggerate the importance of what they have,'' he said. ``From politicians, from our leaders in the Western world, I think we expect more than that. A bit more sincerity.'' [snip] Blix, whose team of U.N. inspectors did not make any significant weapons finds during months of searching Iraq before the war, said it was clear now that there were no weapons of mass destruction there before the U.S.-led invasion. ``I think we issued the correct warning. Nevertheless, they did not take that seriously,'' he said. More coverage at the BBC, too. 1:44:34 PM    Comment []  trackback []

Did he really say this???? Interesting take by the Washington Post's coverage on "The Interview": Bush to Release Vietnam-Era Military Records Sen. Kerry, the Democratic Frontrunner, Says Honorable Discharge Does Not Answer Question About National Guard Service By Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, February 8, 2004; 3:16 PM President Bush committed to the release of additional military records that would prove definitively whether or not he fulfilled his National Guard duties during the Vietnam War. Bush, seeking to quell a renewed controversy over whether he earned the honorable discharge he received, said he would "absolutely" release records such as pay stubs that would likely indicate more precisely how often he showed up for duty. Bush, seeking to quell a renewed controversy over whether he earned the honorable discharge he received, said he would "absolutely" release records such as pay stubs that would likely indicate more precisely how often he showed up for duty. This sounds swell, but the whole Q & A goes like this: Russert:  Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this? President Bush:  Yes, absolutely.  We did so in 2000, by the way. Which, as Calpundit astutely points out,  sounds like he thinks he doesn't have to release anything, 'cuz he's put it it all out there four years ago.  Are Dana Milbank and the WaPo missing this, or is it a sign that they're trying to "frame the debate"?  Much as I'd like to see Bush forced to release all his records, I'm not sure I'd like to see it forced in this way -- I mean, Gore got press-gored in 2000, but that hardly justifies this sort of exaggeration.  But, then again, it was a total weasle move by Bush to make the statement that way.  On the one hand, he assures the people he has nothing to hide, and in the next breath, gives himself room to keep hiding what he wants concealed.  Maybe it is good journalism to call him on it.  I'm convinced Bush said exactly what he said on on purpose.  It's a point that his preparers wouldn't have missed.  And, you know their worst fear is a Bush who has to ad-lib. It'll be interesting to see how much of the mainstream press picks up the WaPo angle, or plays it as primarily as a "defense of the war" story. 1:07:12 PM    Comment []  trackback []

The Bush vision in a nutshell Here's the razzle-dazzle finish to the Russert interview (emphasis added): Russert: Biggest issues in the upcoming campaign? President Bush: Who can properly use American power in a way to make the world a better place, and who understands that the true strength of this country is the hearts and souls of the American citizens, who understands times are changing and how best to have policy reflect those times. Oderint dum metuant indeed.  This is a completely different "vision thing" from Daddy's. 12:07:08 PM    Comment []  trackback []

Report from Washington Democratic Precinct 74-0047 That's in Auburn, Wa., folks... (ohmigod...Karl Rove knows where I live now!). About 20 local precints met in the cafeteria of Auburn High School yesterday at 10 a.m. to select delegates for the Democratic national convention.  It was a typical high school cafeteria, I suppose, with a bunch of cheap round tables and cheap plastic chairs.  Each precinct was assigned a table. Note to Democratic Party, Auburn WA division:  SIGNS HELP.  There were no signs outside the school directing us to the cafeteria (Auburn HS is one of the three largest high schools in the state), and the signs on the table indicating which precinct was to meet there were small cardboard affairs laid flat on the table.  The result was everyone had to stumble all around the room trying to find a proper seat.   My precinct caucus drew 11 people.  Me, three young couples, an older gentleman wearing a "Berlin Airlift Veteran" cap festooned with airplane pins, a well dressed middle aged fellow, a young man who looked like he was right out of high school, an a woman of around 55 or sixty. Before the proceedings started, I asked how many people at the table were attending their first caucus -- only the well dressed gent had been to one before.  The sense was clearly that everyone else was, to not coin a phrase, part of an "energized base". The whole affair was run by a young man in his mid twenties, who immediately confessed that this was his first time.  He did a fine job, with some help from some attendees who knew Robert's Rules of Order ("Sir, the chair cannot second a motion"). Before the delegate voting began, several people got up and proposed resolutions.  Two were on better health care, and both passed unanimously on voice votes.  The only one of any controversy dealt with a resolution put up by a representative of Phil Talmadge, who is running for Governor.  It dealt with "corporate welfare", and clearly aimed at the billions in tax preferences that Boeing has received to keep jobs in state.  A member of Boeing's machinist union stood up and opposed the referendum on the grouds that "if there is no pie, you can't have a slice.  The referendum passed anyway, as I recall the vote was 39-26, with most in the room not passing. Our job was to decide how to allocate 5 delegates to the state convention to be held in May.  Our voting went pretty quickly.  On the first declaration, Kerry had 2 votes, Edwards 3, Kucinich 1, Dean 2, and the remaining 3 were undecided.  After 20 minutes of discussion and mini-speeches (I spoke for Kerry in part on the basis of inevitability and a long history of good policy positions).  On the final vote, Edwards had 4, and Dean and Kerry 3 each (I forget who had the last vote).  This meant that Edwards would get 2 delegates to the state convention, and Dean and Kerry 1 each.  Because Kerry and Dean were tied in the decimal column (don't ask), we had to flip a coin to resolve the tie.  Not surpisingly, given Dean's fortunes lately, Kerry won the fifth delegate. It was fun.  Disorganized and chaotic, but, hey, I'm not a member of an organized political organization.  I'm a Democrat. 9:22:07 AM    Comment []  trackback []

Intelligence is as Intelligence Does MSNBC already has excerpts from the Russert interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/4209295/ ).  Russert: How do you respond to critics who say that you brought the nation to war under false pretenses? President Bush: The … first of all, I expected to find the weapons.  Sitting behind this desk making a very difficult decision of war and peace, and I based my decision on the best intelligence possible, intelligence that had been gathered over the years, intelligence that not only our analysts thought was valid but analysts from other countries thought were valid. Ahem....I know this is only an excerpt (I'm on the West Coast and haven't seen the whole interview).  Putting aside the issue that W is deflecting blame to other countries, this statement can only be applied to the state of the intelligence before UNSCOM and IAEA took that intelligence and scoured Iraq for WMD's and program related activities for 110 days leading up to the invasion.  The fact of the matter is that those extensive investigations were showing, day-by-day, inspection-by-inspection, that the intelligence was deeply flawed. I just wish our happy camper, rolodex journalists would start to make this point:  the state of the intelligence before the inspectors went in is an entirely different matter than the state of the intelligence when Bush ordered the troops in.  And it is the latter point, not the former, that needs to be one of the focal points of any commission investigating our intelligence procedures. In other words, why did this administration ignore the disprobative findings of the UN inspections???? 8:34:21 AM    Comment []  trackback []

Grave and Gathering Threat. I believe this is consistent with what many experts predicted beforem the Iraq war started ...  a grass roots radicalization in the Islamic world.  Thanks, George... Regional Terrorist Groups Pose Growing Threat, Experts Warn By RAYMOND BONNER and DON VAN NATTA Jr. JAKARTA, Indonesia, Feb. 7 — The landscape of the terrorist threat has shifted, many intelligence officials around the world say, with more than a dozen regional militant Islamic groups showing signs of growing strength and broader ambitions, even as the operational power of Al Qaeda appears diminished.  Some of the militant groups, with roots from Southeast Asia, Central Asia and the Caucasus to North Africa and Europe, are believed to be loosely affiliated with Al Qaeda, the officials say. But other groups follow their own agenda, merely drawing inspiration from Osama bin Laden's periodic taped messages calling for attacks against the United States and its allies, the officials say. 7:57:40 AM    Comment []  trackback []

© Copyright 2004 Jon Moyer. Last update: 2/15/2004; 5:40:43 AM.