A Quiz, Plus Some Bonus Shameless LAT Lies and Spinning
Quiz time. Oh — and after the quiz, there will be a couple of examples of lies and spinning in this morning’s L.A. Times. So make sure to keep reading once the quiz is done.
Here is an article from the L.A. Times about the presidential campaign. I have removed the names of the candidates. Question: based simply on the rhetoric of the article, which candidate is Candidate A, and which is Candidate B?
Because it would be unfair to use any knowledge of which candidate has given what sort of speech where, I have removed all references to specifics regarding the location or topic of the speech. This is a timeless quiz. I just want you to look at the rhetoric used by the reporters:
In his most blistering attack yet on his opponent . . . [Candidate A] on Monday unleashed a lengthy critique of [Candidate B's position on a particular issue]
. . . .
In a speech that lasted nearly an hour and referred repeatedly to [an issue], [Candidate A] used selective citations of [Candidate B's] comments and [his] record . . .
. . . .
[Candidate A] began his campaigning . . . . with a speech that aides advertised as a major address on [a particular topic]. It turned out to be a point-by-point attack on his rival.
. . . .
Aides said [Candidate B] would fight back vigorously against the latest assault . . .
To make it even more fun, an earlier version of the article contained these quotes:
[Candidate A] made several questionable assertions . . .
. . . .
The charge was based largely on selective citations of [Candidate B]’s comments and [record] and appeared to signal a “no-holds-barred” approach to the campaign’s final stage.
In a diatribe that lasted nearly an hour . . .
A “diatribe”! Bias doesn’t get much clearer than that! Too bad that word, as well as the “no-holds-barred” language, was edited out of the final version. These words and phrases would have provided readers tell-tale signs of the reporter’s hidden biases. (See the postscript below for more details on the earlier version of the article.)
Okay, we’ll stop there. Who is Candidate A, and who is Candidate B?
Well, I didn’t say it was a particularly tough quiz . . .
Of course, evil Candidate A is President Bush. Has John Kerry ever given a speech that the L.A. Times would describe as a “diatribe”? And how eager has this paper ever been to correct misstatements by Kerry? Furthermore, I hate to remind you of the same post I mentioned yesterday, but I have already detailed how the mainstream media loves to describe criticism they don’t like as an “attack.”
In its zeal to defend Kerry, the article also sets forth at least one apparently deliberate falsehood:
“He has complained that my administration, quote, ‘relies unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations,’ ” Bush said. “He says that preemptive action is unwise not only against regimes but even against terrorist organizations. Sen. Kerry’s approach would permit a response only after America is hit.”
In fact, Kerry has explicitly endorsed using preemptive attacks when the U.S. is under threat.
The Kerry quote Bush referred to came from an op-ed article in March 2003, in which he argued for tougher efforts to find and destroy terrorist organizations, saying the threat of preemption was inadequate on its own: “It is troubling that this administration’s approach to the menace of loose nuclear materials is long on rhetoric but short on execution. It relies unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations, which can be defeated if they are found but will not be deterred by our military might.”
Here is the op-ed. It is from March 2003, and contains the portions quoted by Bush and by the L.A. Times. You find me where it argues for “tougher efforts to find and destroy terrorist organizations.”
The article’s assertion that the op-ed “argued for tougher efforts to find and destroy terrorist organizations” is not true. What’s more, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that it is, quite simply, a knowing lie. After all, the reporter read the op-ed, saw that it made no such argument, but said it did. My friends, is that not a lie? I have written the Reader’s Representative about this.
Did the people at the L.A. Times think we couldn’t find this op-ed??
By the way, you may or may not agree with the op-ed, but “tough” it is not. Here is an example of the sort of “tougher” proposal set forth in the op-ed:
We must establish worldwide standards for the security and safekeeping of nuclear material and define a new standard of international legitimacy, linking the stewardship of nuclear materials under universally accepted protocols to acceptance in the community of nations.
It doesn’t get much tougher than that . . . I bet those terrorists are quaking in their boots (or whatever the terrorists’ footwear of choice may be) worrying about those worldwide standards and universally accepted protocols. You scared yet, Zarqawi?
Speaking of Zarqawi, the article’s other supposed knock-downs of “questionable” Bush assertions are also less than convincing:
[Bush] made some assertions that had been contradicted by officials of his administration or the intelligence community.
Bush implied a link, for example, between Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian extremist leader, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime, saying Zarqawi “fled to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, where he received medical care and set up operations with some two dozen terrorist associates.”
Last summer, the CIA said that while Zarqawi had spent time in Iraq, it knew of no evidence that the regime had harbored or supported the Jordanian while he was there.
(I’m not sure why the Times is referring to something the CIA said “last summer.” I think the reporters are confused. I think the story means to say that Bush said this summer that Hussein had harbored Zarqawi, but a CIA report delivered to the White House about two weeks ago found no conclusive evidence of that.)
If the story is going to say that Bush made assertions in this speech that had been contradicted by his own officials, you’d think the story would back up that accusation with something more convincing than a Bush assertion which is undeniably true — Zarqawi fled to Iraq, got medical care, and set up terrorist operations — but which, the article claims, implies something that has not been substantiated by the CIA.
That’s the most questionable assertion he made? (By the way, the earlier, more interesting version of the article had claimed that Bush made “several questionable assertions” in the speech.)
By the way, even the implication attributed to Bush is not that “questionable.” The Times doesn’t tell you that officials have said that the case is not closed on whether Saddam harbored Zarqawi. And for good reason: it is pretty far-fetched to think that Hussein had no idea Zarqawi was there. Michael Totten observes:
As Christopher Hitchens once put it, Baghdad under Saddam Hussein was a place that was as difficult to enter as it was to leave. You couldn’t exactly waltz in there as a foreigner and check yourself into a hospital as if you were showing up to buy smokes at a corner grocery in Brooklyn.
And if Zarqawi wasn’t welcome in Iraq, why did he choose Baghdad as a place to see a doctor?
Bush must be doing well, if the Times needs to spin this hard to defend Kerry.
P.S.: I refer above to a quote from an earlier version of the story filed at 8:32 p.m. the evening before it appeared. The story was later edited to excise some of the true feelings of the reporters who wrote the article.
I have decided to present both versions of the article below — just for posterity’s sake. The one on the left is the earlier, unedited, unfiltered (and more interesting) version. A comparison of the two versions is instructive. It is especially interesting to note how some references to factcheck.org were hurriedly tossed into the final version of the story at the last second, apparently to beef up the argument that Bush was dishonest in the speech.
| War Rhetoric Heats Up in Final Days of Campaign | Candidates Lock Horns on Iraq, War on Terrorism |
| MARLTON, N.J. — In his most blistering attack yet on his opponent’s credentials to serve as commander in chief, President Bush on Monday unleashed a lengthy and intense critique of Sen. John F. Kerry’s position on Iraq and warned that the Democrat’s policies would raise the danger of new terrorist attacks in the United States.
“While America does the hard work of fighting terror and spreading freedom, he has chosen the easy path of protest and defeatism,” Bush told several hundred supporters in this Philadelphia suburb. “Giving up the fight might seem easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th that if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live.” The charge was based largely on selective citations of Kerry’s comments and legislative record and appeared to signal a “no-holds-barred” approach to the campaign’s final stage. In a diatribe that lasted nearly an hour and referred repeatedly to the terrorist attacks, Bush sought to portray Kerry as advocating retreat in Iraq and “giving up” the fight against terrorism. Kerry, campaigning earlier in the day in Florida, tried to pre-empt Bush’s expected attack by lambasting what he called the president’s “arrogant” approach to the war in Iraq. The Democrat, who had planned on pounding the administration for the flu-shot shortage, quickly switched gears to capitalize on a report in Monday’s Washington Post that Army Lt. General Ricardo S. Sanchez, a top commander in Iraq last year, complained last winter that a lack of supplies threatened the Army’s fighting capacity. “Despite the president’s arrogant boasting that he’s done everything right in Iraq and that he’s made no mistakes, the truth is beginning to come out and it’s beginning to catch up with him,” Kerry said at a retirement community in West Palm Beach, Fla. “And on Nov. 2, it will catch up with him.” Both the Democratic challenger and Republican incumbent made stops in Florida, one of four states that opened polling places Monday for early voting. There were long lines and a few computer glitches reported across Florida, but no major problems with newly installed electronic voting machines. Kerry, on the second day of a swing there, joined Florida Sens. Bob Graham and Bill Nelson in urging residents to cast their ballots. “If you vote early now, we don’t have to stay up late on Tuesday night, Nov. 2,” Kerry told seniors in West Palm Beach. “I want you to get out and get the job done.” Bush began his campaigning in Marlton with a speech that aides advertised as a major address on foreign policy. It turned out to be a point-by-point attack on his rival. After several days of portraying Kerry as an out-of-mainstream liberal, Bush returned to a central issue of the 2004 campaign: who best can lead the country as violence rages on in Iraq and the threat of terrorism looms? The president suggested that Kerry learned nothing from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and would take a defeatist approach to terrorists. “He has complained that my administration, quote, `relies unwisely on the threat of military pre-emption against terrorist organizations,”‘ Bush said. “He says that pre-emptive action is unwise not only against regimes but even against terrorist organizations. Senator Kerry’s approach would permit a response only after America is hit.” In fact, Kerry has explicitly endorsed using pre-emptive attacks when the United States is under threat. His original quote comes from an op-ed article in March 2003, in which he argued for tougher efforts to find and destroy terrorist organizations, saying the threat of pre-emption was inadequate on its own: “It is troubling that this administration’s approach to the menace of loose nuclear materials is long on rhetoric but short on execution.” Aides said Kerry would to fight back vigorously against the latest assault, saying it presents an opportunity to remind voters of what they call Bush’s bad judgments on the war. The campaign released a new television commercial called “Bush’s Mess,” attacking his handling of both Iraq and the war on terrorism; Kerry advisers said they would unveil a second ad Tuesday. Kerry plans to respond directly to his rival’s charges with a speech Wednesday in Waterloo, La. Bush “is running a campaign now for months that has primarily been based on distortion and mischaracterization and taking things out of context,” Kerry senior adviser Joe Lockhart said. “It is now a fundamentally dishonest campaign from a fundamentally dishonest president.” The choice of New Jersey, traditionally a die-hard Democratic state, as the location for Bush’s speech was deliberate. A statewide poll released over the weekend showed the race in a dead heat — 46 percent to 46 percent — among likely voters here. The poll, by Fairleigh Dickinson, had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points. Nationally, Bush and Kerry remained statistically tied. A CBS News-New York Times poll released late Monday showed Bush holding a slim lead over Kerry, 47 percent to 45 percent among likely voters nationwide. Independent candidate Ralph Nader had 2 percent, and 6 percent of voters were unsure whom to support. The poll had a margin of error of 4 percentage points. Both candidates’ focus on Iraq demonstrated that the war remained the campaign’s dominant theme. For Bush, it’s the one issue on which polls suggest he enjoys a clear advantage over Kerry. “A reporter recently asked Senator Kerry how September the 11th changed him,” the president said. “He replied, `It didn’t change me much at all.’ His unchanged world view is obvious from the policies he still advocates.” Kerry’s original comments in an interview with The New York Times referred to the fact that he had written about the dangers of non-state threats before the Sept. 11 attacks and advocated policies to combat them. Bush used his speech in part to respond to some of Kerry’s previous charges, including that the war in Iraq was a “diversion” from the larger fight against terrorism. In doing so, he made several questionable assertions, including some that have been contradicted by officials of his administration. Bush implied a link, for example, between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime, saying that Zarqawi “fled to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, where he received medical care and set up operations with some two dozen terrorist associates.” Last summer, the CIA said that while Zarqawi had spent time in Iraq, it knew of no evidence that the regime had harbored or supported the terrorist while he was there. Kerry, campaigning in West Palm Beach earlier in the day, said he was proud to have voted for or supported “the largest defense budgets” in the nation’s history, as well as “every single weapons system that we’ve used in Iraq.” He also peppered his 30-minute speech with at least a half-dozen references to his military service, returning to a theme many Democrats said he relied on too heavily during the spring and summer. “I’ll never send our soldiers into harm’s way without the equipment that they need, because I’ve been one of those soldiers and I know what that means,” Kerry said. He also charged that the president was indifferent to spikes in health-care costs and anxiety among Americans about the flu-shot shortage. “With senior citizens standing in line for hours, mothers frantic about how to protect their children, this president gave the public his solution: don’t get a flu shot,” he said. | MARLTON, N.J. — In his most blistering attack yet on his opponent’s credentials on national security, President Bush on Monday unleashed a lengthy critique of Sen. John F. Kerry’s position on Iraq and warned that the Democrat’s policies would raise the danger of new terrorist attacks in the United States.
“While America does the hard work of fighting terror and spreading freedom, he has chosen the easy path of protest and defeatism,” Bush told several hundred supporters in this Philadelphia suburb. “Giving up the fight might seem easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th that if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live.” In a speech that lasted nearly an hour and referred repeatedly to the terrorist attacks, Bush used selective citations of Kerry’s comments and legislative record to portray the Democrat as advocating retreat in Iraq and “giving up” the fight against terrorism. Kerry, campaigning earlier in the day in Florida, tried to preempt Bush’s expected attack by criticizing what he called the president’s “arrogant” approach to the war in Iraq. The Democrat, who had planned on pounding the administration for the nation’s shortage of flu vaccine, switched gears to capitalize on a report in Monday’s Washington Post that Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq last year, complained last winter that a lack of supplies threatened the Army’s fighting capacity. “Despite the president’s arrogant boasting that he’s done everything right in Iraq and that he’s made no mistakes, the truth is beginning to come out and it’s beginning to catch up with him,” Kerry said at a West Palm Beach retirement community. “And on Nov. 2, it will catch up with him.” Both the Democratic challenger and Republican incumbent made stops Monday in Florida, one of four states that opened polling places for early voting. There were long lines and a few computer glitches reported across the state but no major problems with newly installed electronic voting machines. Kerry, on the second day of a Florida swing, joined Democratic Florida Sens. Bob Graham and Bill Nelson in urging residents to cast their ballots. “If you vote early now, we don’t have to stay up late on Tuesday night, Nov. 2,” Kerry told seniors in West Palm Beach. “I want you to get out and get the job done.” Bush began his campaigning in Marlton with a speech that aides advertised as a major address on foreign policy. It turned out to be a point-by-point attack on his rival. After several days of portraying Kerry as an out-of-mainstream liberal, Bush returned to a central issue of the 2004 campaign: Who best can lead the country as violence rages on in Iraq and the threat of terrorism looms? The president suggested that Kerry learned nothing from the Sept. 11 attacks and would take a defeatist approach to terrorism. “He has complained that my administration, quote, ‘relies unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations,’ ” Bush said. “He says that preemptive action is unwise not only against regimes but even against terrorist organizations. Sen. Kerry’s approach would permit a response only after America is hit.” In fact, Kerry has explicitly endorsed using preemptive attacks when the U.S. is under threat. The Kerry quote Bush referred to came from an op-ed article in March 2003, in which he argued for tougher efforts to find and destroy terrorist organizations, saying the threat of preemption was inadequate on its own: “It is troubling that this administration’s approach to the menace of loose nuclear materials is long on rhetoric but short on execution. It relies unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations, which can be defeated if they are found but will not be deterred by our military might.” Aides said Kerry would fight back vigorously against the latest assault, saying it presented an opportunity to remind voters of what they called Bush’s bad judgments on the war. The Kerry campaign released a new television commercial called “Bush’s Mess,” which attacked his handling of Iraq and the war on terrorism; Kerry advisors said they would unveil a second ad today. Kerry plans to respond directly to his rival’s charges with a speech Wednesday in Waterloo, Iowa. Bush “is running a campaign now for months that has primarily been based on distortion and mischaracterization and taking things out of context,” said Kerry senior advisor Joe Lockhart. “It is now a fundamentally dishonest campaign from a fundamentally dishonest president.” The choice of New Jersey, a state that has leaned Democratic, as the location for Bush’s new speech was deliberate. Polls have found the race there surprisingly close. With his stop in Marlton, Bush also sought to reach an audience of voters across state lines in Pennsylvania, a critical battleground state. Two new national polls continue to show a close race. A CBS News-New York Times poll released late Monday showed Bush holding a slim lead over Kerry, 47% to 45% among likely voters nationwide. Independent candidate Ralph Nader had 2%, and 6% of voters were unsure who to support. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. A Washington Post poll showed Bush at 50% and Kerry at 47% with Nader getting 1%. The poll’s margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points. Both candidates’ focus on Iraq demonstrated that the war remained the campaign’s dominant theme. And for Bush, in particular, it’s the one issue on which polls suggest he enjoys a clear advantage over Kerry. “A reporter recently asked Sen. Kerry how September the 11th changed him,” the president said. “He replied, ‘It didn’t change me much at all.’ His unchanged world view is obvious from the policies he still advocates.” Kerry’s comments in an interview with the New York Times referred to the fact that he had written about the dangers of nonstate threats before the Sept. 11 attacks and advocated policies to combat them. Bush used his speech in part to respond to some of Kerry’s previous charges, including that the war in Iraq had been a “diversion” from the larger fight against terrorism. But in doing so, he made some assertions that had been contradicted by officials of his administration or the intelligence community. Bush implied a link, for example, between Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian extremist leader, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime, saying Zarqawi “fled to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, where he received medical care and set up operations with some two dozen terrorist associates.” Last summer, the CIA said that while Zarqawi had spent time in Iraq, it knew of no evidence that the regime had harbored or supported the Jordanian while he was there. Bush also revived a long-standing Republican mantra this year, played out in speeches and television ads, that Kerry is weak on defense. He said Kerry had proposed in 1994, one year after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, to cut $6 billion in the intelligence budget. And he told supporters that Kerry tried, but failed, to cut intelligence funding again a year later. He also ticked off the names of six weapons systems that he said Kerry voted against. “Sen. Kerry has a record of trying to weaken American intelligence,” the president said. According to factcheck.org, a website operated by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, Kerry has been more of a supporter than an opponent of weapons systems that troops depend on. Moreover, factcheck.org said, Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush’s father, former President George H.W. Bush, had proposed cutting or eliminating several of the weapons systems that the president now faults Kerry for opposing. Those proposals came after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. It is true that Kerry proposed cutting the intelligence budget by several billion dollars in 1994. But that amendment, defeated on a 75-20 Senate vote, was part of a larger effort on Capitol Hill to reduce the deficit and had the support of some Republicans. Kerry, campaigning in West Palm Beach, said he was proud to have voted for or supported “the largest defense budgets” in the nation’s history, as well as “every single weapons system that we’ve used in Iraq.” He also peppered his 30-minute speech with at least half a dozen references to his military service, returning to a theme many Democrats said he relied on too heavily during the spring and summer. “I’ll never send our soldiers into harm’s way without the equipment that they need, because I’ve been one of those soldiers and I know what that means,” Kerry said. Speaking later at the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center, Kerry argued that it was Bush who had proven to be the risky prospect when it came to matters of war and national security. “Mr. President, you can choose to ignore the facts, but in the end you can’t hide the truth from the American people,” he said. “Your mismanagement of the war has in fact made Iraq and America less safe and less secure than they could have and that they should have been today.” Kerry charged that his rival was indifferent to increases in healthcare costs and anxiety among Americans about the flu-shot shortage. He noted that officials in Bloomfield, N.J., had decided to distribute the town’s 300 flu shots by lottery. “With senior citizens standing in line for hours, mothers frantic about how to protect their children, this president gave the public his solution: Don’t get a flu shot,” Kerry said. During the Oct. 13 debate, Bush appealed to healthy Americans to forgo flu shots to make sure enough were available for the elderly and very young. |


Location, Location, Location
Patterico notes the LAT Lies and Spinning” href=”http://patterico.com/archives/002919.php”>some serious fact-checking on some incredible LATimes spinning for Kerry. The subject? Zarquawi’s presence in Iraq, and the media’s and CIA’s cluelessness about …
Trackback by Shot In The Dark — 10/19/2004 @ 5:32 am
The LAT has been anti-American since the Communist shot puter from Stanford starting making decisions there. Their slander of Bush is only the latest in over 45 years. Of course they like JFK after all he has been pro Communist for at least 33 years. My guess is the reason he chickened out after only 0.25% ao a tour was that he was pro Communist in the 60’s.
Rod Stanton
Cerritos
Comment by Rod Stanton — 10/19/2004 @ 7:16 am
Other Liars of the Day: Maura Reynolds and Matea Gold
Patterico catches two L.A. Times reporters with their pants down.
Trackback by damnum absque injuria — 10/19/2004 @ 7:51 am
Media Watch: 2004-11-02
Rather is CBS election anchor; Great speech to AP on blogs; 2004 Election coverage analysis; Media partisanship stats; Empty headed journalism; Poll shennanigans; Opening the records; LA Times dishonesty; Election contributions; Slant-O-Meter; Fager & …
Trackback by Winds of Change.NET — 11/2/2004 @ 1:05 am
Location, Location, Location
Patterico notes the LAT Lies and Spinning” href=”http://patterico.com/archives/002919.php”>some serious fact-checking on some incredible LATimes spinning for Kerry. The subject? Zarquawi’s presence in Iraq, and the media’s and CIA’s cluelessness about …
Trackback by Shot In The Dark — 11/25/2004 @ 4:17 pm