Credibility

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer continues to stonewall my requests to either validate or retract their astonishing claim that

The constitutional standard for warfare is for the United States to face a "clear and present danger."

I have sent two follow-up e-mails to reader representative Glenn Drosendahl asking for documentation of the P-I's explanation that

[the standard of] when to declare war, has developed over time, through court rulings and political discussions

Twice I have asked for either a list of the specific court rulings or a retraction, twice I have received no response. I even sent Drosendahl a list of other blogs that criticize the editorial, which include:
Xrlq, SoCal Law Blog, Sleaze Report, Jim Miller, Reductio ad Absurdum and Kathy Kinsley. At least two others have since picked up on the P-I's editorial fabrication, including The Omudsgod and WSJ's Best of the Web. Still, no indication that the P-I is interested in retracting its fabrication. The P-I's credibility hangs in the balance.

Meanwhile, Xrlq points to the paper's Sunday editorial: "The case for war, case for credibility" Let's see what it can teach us about "credibility":

It may even be likely that illegal weapons will be discovered in Iraq. But the detection of such weapons might not be enough to bridge the credibility gap explaining the very reason we went to war.

The P-I is still inconsolable that Saddam Hussein was removed from power and it is so out of touch with the majority of Americans that it has to grasp at straws in its desperate attempt to discredit the Bush administration. As we've seen, the P-I is willing to compromise its integrity by fabricating "constitutional standards". Sunday's editorial demonstrates a few more feats of disreputable journalism. For exampe, the P-I distorts people's quotes with ellipses, Dowd-style, and it rewrites its own prior interpretation of events. This Sunday:

Last October, the Bush administration made the case that Iraq posed a clear and present danger. "Some citizens wonder," the president said, "after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of Sept. 11. ... Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

The President's full quote is here:

Some citizens wonder: After eleven years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical weapon, or, when they have one, a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962: "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

That puts things in a different context, doesn't it? Anybody who reads this should be able to see that Bush did not portray Iraq as a "clear and present danger", but as a serious potential threat that even in the absence of certainty still had to be dealt with. In fact, that is exactly how the P-I interpreted his speech at that time.

The case for forcing Iraqi disarmament, of course, does not rest solely on potential threats of Iraq using weapons of mass destruction or supplying them to terrorists. At the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War, having suffered devastating military defeats, Iraq sued for peace and agreed to certain terms and conditions. Foremost among Iraq's obligations were disarming itself of all weapons of mass destruction and allowing inspections to verify compliance. Iraq repeatedly has failed to live up to those obligations. The United States is right to be leading the new -- and overdue -- push for compliance

The P-I can't find anything new to say, so it stoops to digging up discarded old news, and respins it as shamelessly as it can. This Sunday:

In Bush's State of the Union speech, he said Iraq sought uranium from Niger -- the materials needed to build a nuclear weapon. That intelligence report has since been discredited as fanciful

Well yes, Colin Powell himself acknowledged that the report was a forgery back in March.

And that's the credibility gap between the Bush administration and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The administration admits its mistakes and retracts disproven allegations. The P-I, on the other hand, continues to publish fabrications, lies and distortions and refuses to retract its obvious mistakes.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 17, 2003 11:07 AM