Claims vs Fact, looking at Bush’s recent stint on Meet The Press.

The folks over at the Center for American Progress have a nicely damning little article up on President Bush’s recent appearance on “Meet The Press” where he tried to again defend his decision to invade Iraq. In this article they contrast the claims Bush makes during his interview now with the facts as they actually are on issues ranging from his Pre-War Assertions to his Personal Military Records.

CLAIM: “I believe it is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It’s too late if they become imminent.”

FACT ADMINISTRATION REPEATEDLY CLAIMED IRAQ WAS AN “IMMINENT THREAT”: The Bush Administration repeatedly claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat before the war ֖ not that it would “become imminent.” Specifically, White House communications director Dan Bartlett was asked on CNN: “Is [Saddam Hussein] an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?” Bartlett replied, “Well, of course he is.” Similarly, when White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether America went to war in Iraq because of an imminent threat, he replied, “Absolutely.” And White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the reason NATO allies including the U.S. – should support the defense of one of its members from Iraq was because “this is about an imminent threat.” Additionally, the Administration used “immediate,” “urgent” and “mortal” to describe the Iraq threat to the United States. [Source: American Progress list, 1/29/04]

And it just gets better from there. Required reading. Get to it.

9 thoughts on “Claims vs Fact, looking at Bush’s recent stint on Meet The Press.

  1. Holy crapola!  Excellent article man, that’s exactly the kind of media attack that was CRAVING for after looking at the smirk on his face and listening to him flip flop and contradict himself through that entire goddamned interview.  THANK YOU!

  2. Wowwwwww. Awesome stuff - now, WHY aren’t the democrats hammering away on this stuff?

    There was an interesting interview on NPR a couple of nights ago that suggested much of the conservative success in the last 30 years can be attributed simply to their command of the language used - “tax burden,” “tax and spend democrat,” and the like. I’ll go link-mining…

    did

  3. Hell, I’ve been calling the Repugnicans “pillage and plunder Republicans” for a year now, trying to get it to catch on. It’s much better than “tax and spend” don’t you think?

  4. Here in Texas, the Repubs made a big deal about not raising taxes for the budget.  Which they didn’t - they just raised FEES.

  5. did,

    Excellent link. Perhaps the most hubristic act of reframing occurred when the Gingrich crowd began referring to the Democratic party as the Democrat party. Having grown up hearing about the Republican and Democratic parties, I find the term dissonant. Because it is patently obvious what the Republicans (Republics?) are doing with this, I also found it insulting. I have often wondered why the press gave them a pass. Although Bob Schieffer did speak up one time, but I don’t recall many other journalists bringing them to heel.

    President Regan was, of course, a master of reframing. However, without a script, the current President can’t seem to string five words together to form a coherent sentence. During the last election Slate.com was keeping a running tabulation of Bushisms, and, if I recall, someone published a book. For some current examples see Adventures in George W. Bushspeak. Although we can have some good laughs, this stuff shouldn’t, to paraphrase the Mikado, entirely be a ‘source of innocent merriment’. That leads to underestimation. President Bush mostly stays on script and thereby stays on message, and, unfortunately, there are a significant number of people who accept the message.

  6. Another example of manipulative framing was Bush’s mispronunciation of “Saddam” in 1990/1991 - he made it almost sound like “Sodom,” with the emphasis on the first syllable, rather than on the second syllable where it belongs (my Dad is a middle-east historian and speaks (or spoke, it’s been a while) Arabic, and was pretty disgusted by that).

    did

  7. Claims vs Fact was the original subject of ths thread. For more on that, check out Molly Ivins’ recent editorial, Before things go down the memory hole.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.