What the Bush Administration Said (NY Times backtracks on Al-Q/Iraq!)

NY Times ^ | 6/20/04

[Reo]

"They still don't admit fault. But they've got to be the laughing stock of journalism at this point. The emporer is stark raving naked. What an embarassment. "

The Grey Lady naked.....bad visual image....

[cwb]

While you are right that a direct link to Saddam and 9/11 wouldn't be a shock, the fact is that Bush has deliberately avoided connecting the two. When Bush said..."We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," he was clearly putting Saddam into this special box. It was the media who ignored these peripheral ties...when they were the very ones making them less than 4 years ago.

The fact is, it is the media that has misrepresented and flat out lied about everything this administration has said. From the "16-words," were they directly attributed to Bush a British Intel report (which they still stood by) to their claims that Bush labeled Saddam an immenent threat when he said just the opposite...and that we couldn't wait "until" Saddam became an immenent threat, this media has lied.
I've never seen anything like this before.

[mathluv]

'although whether there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association is difficult to say.'

Looks like they are still trying to 'blame Bush'.

[GarySpFc]

Excellent analysis.

[Grampa Dave]

Peach and Backhoe, you will probably interested in this mini retraction by the NY Slimes posted by finnman69!

[feedback doctor]

A survey of past public comments seems to bear that out — although whether there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association is difficult to say.

Interpretation, yes we we wrong, they did tell the truth, but it's difficult to say whether they had bad thoughts somewhere along the line.

[marty60]

Geez, the liars are even lying about their lies. Sort of like Clinton. Ofcourse they are birds of a feather.

[lepton]

bookmark bump