Monday, December 26, 2005
Bush's Remarks on the Constitution: Is Skepticism Warranted?
Since dropping the post a couple of weeks ago (and writing an article for Greenville's Times Examiner) about Bush's having called the Constitution "just a G__d____ piece of paper" I've been asked by three people now, If Bush really said that, then how come the liberal media hasn't picked up on it and trumpeted it all over every major newspaper in the country? The implication, of course, is that it didn't really happen, that this is just the unchecked, unregulated "Internet media" reporting another urban legend, etc., etc.
My initial response was that the liberals in the media haven't picked up the story because their belief in / loyalty to the Constitution is probably less than Bush's; the Democrats hate Bush because he's not international-socialist enough.
But here's a portion Doug Thompson's own response to the query, worth noting since he was the one who first broke the story.
Are we that good? Damn right we are
By DOUG THOMPSON
Capitol Hill Blue
Dec 26, 2005, 04:08
“Why is it,” the emailer who signed their name only as “skeptical” wanted to know, “that your story about President Bush’s remarks about the Constitution has not been reported by any other news media? That convinces me that it must be untrue. Why is it that you have sources that no one else seems to have? Are you that good?”
In a situation like this, false modesty usually kicks in and I say something like “well, sometimes we just get lucky” but to hell with false modesty. Luck had nothing to do with this story just as luck has had nothing to do with many other stories that we all too often break long before the so-called “mainstream media.”
Are we that good? Damn right we are.
On January 22, 2003, before President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, we ran a story, Role reversal: Bush wants war, Pentagon urges caution. Among the points in that story:
But conversations with sources within the Bush administration, the Pentagon, the FBI and the intelligence community indicate a deepening rift between the professionals who wage war for a living and the administration civilians to want to send them into battle.
Sources say the White House has ordered the FBI and CIA to “find and document” links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
“The implication is clear,” grumbles one longtime FBI agent. “Find a link, any link, no matter how vague or unproven, and then use that link to justify action against Iraq.”
We followed that story up the next day, January 23 with this one: Intel pros forced to fabricate Iraqi intelligence:
U.S. intelligence professionals, under pressure from the Bush administration to provide proof needed to justify war with Iraq, say they have been forced to fabricate evidence of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction as well as the location of non-existent hidden chemical weapon warheads.
The fabricated documentation, shared for the first time with the White House on Thursday, provides the basis for material the administration requires to justify an attack on Iraq.
It was two years, repeat two years, before the same information appeared in mainstream media.
[Read the rest here.]
My initial response was that the liberals in the media haven't picked up the story because their belief in / loyalty to the Constitution is probably less than Bush's; the Democrats hate Bush because he's not international-socialist enough.
But here's a portion Doug Thompson's own response to the query, worth noting since he was the one who first broke the story.
Are we that good? Damn right we are
By DOUG THOMPSON
Capitol Hill Blue
Dec 26, 2005, 04:08
“Why is it,” the emailer who signed their name only as “skeptical” wanted to know, “that your story about President Bush’s remarks about the Constitution has not been reported by any other news media? That convinces me that it must be untrue. Why is it that you have sources that no one else seems to have? Are you that good?”
In a situation like this, false modesty usually kicks in and I say something like “well, sometimes we just get lucky” but to hell with false modesty. Luck had nothing to do with this story just as luck has had nothing to do with many other stories that we all too often break long before the so-called “mainstream media.”
Are we that good? Damn right we are.
On January 22, 2003, before President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, we ran a story, Role reversal: Bush wants war, Pentagon urges caution. Among the points in that story:
But conversations with sources within the Bush administration, the Pentagon, the FBI and the intelligence community indicate a deepening rift between the professionals who wage war for a living and the administration civilians to want to send them into battle.
Sources say the White House has ordered the FBI and CIA to “find and document” links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
“The implication is clear,” grumbles one longtime FBI agent. “Find a link, any link, no matter how vague or unproven, and then use that link to justify action against Iraq.”
We followed that story up the next day, January 23 with this one: Intel pros forced to fabricate Iraqi intelligence:
U.S. intelligence professionals, under pressure from the Bush administration to provide proof needed to justify war with Iraq, say they have been forced to fabricate evidence of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction as well as the location of non-existent hidden chemical weapon warheads.
The fabricated documentation, shared for the first time with the White House on Thursday, provides the basis for material the administration requires to justify an attack on Iraq.
It was two years, repeat two years, before the same information appeared in mainstream media.
[Read the rest here.]
