A columnist for a major daily newspaper e-mails:
One simple way to evaluate nonsense like Scheer's is to ask yourself, as any moderately competent copy editor would do, where we would play this stuff were it true. As a former copy editor, I'm astonished it got through the desk.Good point. I can't find any major news source that reported the first example but the L.A. Times printed this front page headline on Jan. 29, 2003:Thus, why wasn't the following a five column lede in the LA Times:
US: "Bulletproof Evidence"
Iraq Sponsored 9/11 AttacksIraq "Imminent Threat"
To US, President SaysSo here's The Question: If what Scheer wrote was the truth, why wasn't it on the front page?
THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS; Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat; Trusting in Hussein's Restraint 'Is Not an Option,' President SaysWhat Bush actually said in his State of the Union address was this
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.So Bush did not call Iraq an imminent threat, yet the headline in the L.A. Times the next morning was "Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat".
The problem is bigger than Scheer. The newspaper rots from the headline down.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 24, 2003 10:11 AMI'm glad you brought up the State of the Union address. Perhaps you could help W explain these fabrications:
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents."
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
Or on March 17: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Or as Fleischer said on March 21: "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
No, those two railroad cars don't count. 1) They didn't contain weapons and 2) it hasn't been conclusively proved that they were used to manufacture WMD.
Finally, as to the "imminent" threat and the connection between 9/11 and Iraq: Stefan, you have a quirky understanding of quotation marks. An LA Times headline that says "Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat" is not quoting Bush, it's characterizing his speech. While you're right that Bush did not specifically use the word "imminent" to describe the "threat" posed by Iraq, anyone would be mad to assume he wasn't suggesting annything but that. He even cleverly linked it to 9/11 in an exceptionally misleading section:
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein."
He may not say it, but he certainly tries to imply it.
So, I ask: how can you compare Scheer to Blair and ignore Bush?
Oh, and yes, it's an MIT IP, but no, I'm not Chomsky. Flattered though. Thanks.
Posted by: "Harry" on May 29, 2003 11:12 AM