You've gotta be careful what you say in front of the muslim fella's. They actually listen to what is said.............
As much as I don't like much of what the Vatican is doing these days, I hope this thread become an excuse for anti-Catholicism. I am not accusing you of it, but I can see where this can head.
I can see how you could get that impression from the MSM. But as usual, the MSM made a hash out of the statement.
AP Breaks News PromiseAlso, the outgoing Vatican ambassador said that the difference between the US and Vatican positions regarding the justness of the Iraq war was the imminence of the Iraqi threat, something over which reasonable people can disagree.HERE'S A STORY IN WHICH THE ASSOCIATED PRESS CLAIMS THAT A "CARDINAL SAYS BUSH BROKE IRAQ PROMISE."
Trouble is, the article shows the cardinal (Pio Laghi) saying nothing of the kind.
It quotes him as saying:
"When I went to Washington as the pope's envoy just before the outbreak of the war in Iraq, he (Bush) told me: `Don't worry, your eminence. We'll be quick and do well in Iraq,'"I'm sorry, but "Bush was wrong" does not mean "Bush broke a promise." The first statement attributes to the President a misperception of fact (how things would go), while the second attributes to him a moral failure to perform actions that were reasonably within his power to bring about--or a moral failure by making promises regarding something that one unreasonably believed to be within one's power to bring about."Unfortunately, the facts have demonstrated afterward that things took a different course — not rapid and not favorable."
"Bush was wrong."
The Cardinal attributes neither of the latter to President Bush.
Opponents of the President might wish to attribute these to him, though based on what the Cardinal says I severely doubt that Bush was understood to promise a specific outcome. It would be more natural to understand the President as making a commitment to act expeditiously and making a prediction (not a promise) that things would go well. The first (commitment to act expeditiously) is a promise. The second (things will go well) is not.
In any event, but the Cardinal does not say that Bush broke a promise, and by headlining the article the way it did, the Associated Press misportrayed the Cardinal's remarks--and simultaneously portrayed itself as a petulant organization willing to spout Democratic Party spin as if it were a pouting child suffering a disappointing loss.
Since the AP says it subscribes to the Associated Press Managing Editors' ethics statement, it's interesting to note that this statement says:
The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation.Well, the AP didn't sufficiently do these things in crafting the headline of this story. It therefore is also interesting to note that the APME ethics statement also says:The newspaper should deal honestly with readers and newsmakers. It should keep its promises [SOURCE].
It should acknowledge substantive errors and correct them promptly and prominently.Somehow, I doubt the AP will issue a retraction.Now, someone might nitpick that I haven't demonstrated that the AP broke a promise because the ethics statement only says a paper should guard against inaccuracies, not that it is committed to preventing them.
Fair enough. If the AP is not committed to preventing inaccuracies then it has not broken one of its commitments.
But my headline is at least as accurate as the AP's.