Posted on 08/26/2005 3:45:14 AM PDT by L.N. Smithee
Washington Post writer Dan Froomkin, in what is termed "Special to WashingtonPost.com," authored an article headlined "Another Poll Finds Bush Sinking," and outlines the latest approval numbers for President Bush. Froomkin linked several sources (Wall Street Journal, Harris, Gallup polls, etc.) to detail just how bad everything is going for Bush.
As I was reading Froomkin's rundown, I got the idea that he was enjoying Bush's troubles a little too much to be objective. But the numbers don't lie, and they are bad numbers. Then Froomkin stopped making reference to the polls, and started writing for himself.
This is what he wrote:
If you're like me, you are a bloodhound when it comes to media bias; you can always sniff it out. And Froomkin's text stinks to high heaven. Why? Because Froomkin says, “as several media reports pointed out this morning, critics of the Iraq war are not advocating an immediate withdrawal…”
Fighting Back -- and Mischaracterizing His Critics
Bush took 10 minutes away from biking and boating at a Utah resort yesterday to step before the microphones. The first question he faced from reporters, not surprisingly, was about war protester and grieving mother Cindy Sheehan.
Here's the text of his remarks.
"I think immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake," Bush said. "I think those who advocate immediate withdrawal from not only Iraq but the Middle East would be -- are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States. So I appreciate her right to protest. I understand her anguish. I met with a lot of families. She doesn't represent the view of a lot of the families I have met with. And I'll continue to meet with families."
But as several media reports pointed out this morning, critics of the Iraq war are not advocating an immediate withdrawal from the greater Middle East. And many are not even calling for an immediate pullout from Iraq. Rather, they are asking for a specific plan to bring the troops home, and maybe an acknowledgement of error.
Froomkin knows that's...baloney. And I can prove it.
In the August 17, 2005 edition of the Los Angeles Times, an article entitled Politics of War Could Pivot on Mother’s Vigil written by Ronald Brownstein (emphasis mine):
The danger for Bush in this trend is that more Americans might support a change in direction on Iraq if they hear more about alternative approaches, such as the Jones-Abercrombie resolution for an exit plan.The danger for critics is that pressure on Bush to change direction may diminish if the public considers their alternatives less attractive.
Though groups like MoveOn support the Jones-Abercrombie proposal for a gradual withdrawal, Sheehan told a conference call Tuesday that she considered that time frame "not soon enough." She is urging an immediate return of all U.S. troops — an idea that polls show most Americans oppose.
"We're not going to stop there, either," she said Tuesday. "We are going to join forces and we are going to just transform this country from a country that always supports war and killing to a country that is at peace."
Here is the COMPLETE transcript of this exchange from the White House web site completely in context, emphasis mine:
Q: Mr. President, we know you met with Cindy Sheehan a year ago, but she says a lot has changed since then; she has more to say to you. And even some Republicans have said that you should meet with her. Why not do that when you get back to the ranch?THE PRESIDENT: Well, I did meet with Cindy Sheehan. I strongly support her right to protest. There's a lot of people protesting, and there's a lot of points of view about the Iraq war. As you know, in Crawford last weekend there were people from both sides of the issue, or from all sides of the issue there to express their opinions.
I sent Deputy Chief of Staff Hagin and National Security Advisor Hadley to meet with Ms. Sheehan early on. She expressed her opinion. I disagree with it. I think immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake. I think those who advocate immediate withdrawal from not only Iraq but the Middle East would be -- are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States. So I appreciate her right to protest. I understand her anguish. I met with a lot of families. She doesn't represent the view of a lot of the families I have met with. And I'll continue to meet with families.
All critics aren't advocating immediate withdrawal, but as anyone with middle school-level reading skills can see, the President was asked specifically about Cindy Sheehan, who clearly espouses immediate withdrawal from the Middle East. And his answer only dealt with a critic who wants immediate withdrawalNothing is deceptive about that.
Presuming that Froomkin made it past the ninth grade, the question arises: Why would Froomkin suggest that Bush 'mischaracterized his critics' when it’s clear that he didn’t, even linking to the evidence that proved his conclusion false?
If you ask me (which you didn't -- but I'll do that for you), it’s obvious; Froomkin is well aware of the pitfalls of letting the President reiterate that Sheehan is in favor of a plan that the American people reject, and he wants to refocus attention on the Jones-Abercrombie withdrawal plan that MoveOn likes, and, as conventional wisdom says, the public also would prefer to Sheehan's cut-and-run demand. So Froomkin pretended – IMHO – that Bush was trying to cleverly make it sound as if each and every one of his Iraq War critics echo the “Get Out Now” stance.
That...and Froomkin thinks that you're too lazy to read the transcript and see what the President really said.
When New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd* truncated a Bush quote using an ellipsis and deliberately mischaracterized what the President meant, that dishonest practice became popularly known as “Dowdification.” Fortunately for Froomkin, coining a catchy new word out of his surname as a tribute to his underhandedness will be a little more difficult.
*Ms. Dowd, who somehow won a Pulitzer Prize in 1999, devalues the award with every new column, IMHO.
What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that this guy thinks there's a danger that the citizens of this country might actually decide they PREFER Bush's plan as opposed to some half-a$$ed trumped up proposal -- and that the DANGEROUS part is that the country might actually decide NOT to agree with them?
BTW, great job, as usual.
BTTT
bump
The Post's Ombudsman, Michael Getler, is the readers' representative within the newspaper. E-mail him at ombudsman@washpost.com or call 202-334-7582.
How about "Froomkinized"?
The Code Pinkos also carry signs that say "Bring Them Home NOW." I'm sure there is a photo of one in the many threads of the DC Chapter FReeps at Walter Reed. Right up the street from Froomkin's cube too.
Vigil my @ss.
Thanks for the tip. I just sent it off.
Thanks, Howlin. I really appreciate that.
Predatory recruitment????
The ONLY predators are the Code Pinko's!!
These peace at any price 60's leftovers make me barf!!
I was hoping they were all dead from drug overdoses.
Predatory recruitment????
The ONLY predators are the Code Pinko's!!
These peace at any price 60's leftovers make me barf!!
I was hoping they were all dead from drug overdoses.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
"Ms. Dowd, who somehow won a Pulitzer Prize in 1999..."
Of course someone had to inform MoDo that it was NOT a sex toy .
Oh that Bush is a sly one. Responding directly the question and not twisting Sheehan's words. The left considers that foul play.
Nicely done, sir. Bravo!, and bump.
"Froomkinder" ???
"Al-Froomkin" ???
"Al-Froomkinder" ???
Sorry - only 2 cups of coffee so far
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.