Newsweek‘s Evan Thomas visited Germany recently, and came away thinking the United States is headed for some serious trouble. The country is falling apart—polarized, susceptible to populist demagoguery and so on. Forces on both sides are to blame; they’re not all bad (“I think the Tea Partiers, despite their contradictions, are not all wrong about Big Government,” he writes), but some should be singled out for criticism:
Cable-TV and talk-radio personalities and bloggers have risen up to speak for the people. But as they pander for clicks and ratings, their standards of factual accuracy are often low. This is not by any means just a right-wing phenomenon. As my friend Charles Krauthammer points out, it was an article of faith on the left that George W. Bush deliberately lied about WMD to get us into the Iraq War. Never mind a complete absence of evidence.
Wait—did he just cite Charles Krauthammer in an appeal for rigorous factual analysis? Because that would be funny!
The idea that Bush never “lied” requires one to adhere to a weird definition of lying. By any reasonable standard, Bush made an array of charges about Iraq that were false; some he should have known were false, since the administration was rejecting intelligence that did not conform to its desired conclusion. And the Downing Street memo revealed that the British thought the Bush administration was determined to go to war no matter what: “The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy,” as the memo put it.But that’s not a lie, right?
Thomas thinks that what is needed is less of this Internet-fueled inaccuracy and more old-fashioned, Evan Thomas-style journalism—though he worries it may be too late:
But the old and weary (and increasingly cowed) mainstream media, of which I have been a charter member for more than 30 years, may not be as successful as it used to be at exposing the sort of distortions that can fuel mindless rage. Whether those distortions come from the far right or far left, the consequences could be disastrous: a protectionist who sets out to shield workers from foreign competition and wrecks the free-trade regimen that has made America prosper; a law-and-order vigilante who comes to office after a terrorist attack with a program to suspend cherished individual liberties to keep America “safe”; a soak-the-rich populist who kills economic growth in the name of helping the little guy.
Set aside for a minute the idea that a “protectionist” who critiques “free trade” agreements or a populist who raises taxes on the wealthy are disasters in the making (unless the media summon the power to stop such creeps). Let’s talk about something already happened—like, say, the Iraq War. A reckless administration, determined to invade another country no matter what, cited false intelligence; surely old-fashioned reporters like Evan Thomas rose to stop this madness? Nope. They wrote things like this:
Saddam could decide to take Baghdad with him. One Arab intelligence officer interviewed by Newsweek spoke of “the green mushroom” over Baghdad—the modern-day caliph bidding a grotesque bio-chem farewell to the land of the living alongside thousands of his subjects as well as his enemies. Saddam wants to be remembered. He has the means and the demonic imagination. It is up to U.S. armed forces to stop him before he can achieve notoriety for all time.
Well, at least he’s not a blogger accusing Bush of lying. That’d be really irresponsible.
I AM a blogger with a long record of documenting–not just accusing–Bush of lying. I was banging that drum well before the Iraq war even began:
http://claslib2.tripod.com/lh/archive.html
More recently, I transformed that site into a regular blog, and, with the subject of Iraq a regular one on message boards I frequent, I put together a series of posts on the lead-up to the war, all of them using publicly-available information from mostly “mainstream” press outlets (avoiding the more “exotic” ones). They’re all linked through here:
http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/courage-consequence-and-iraq-papers.html
Readers can judge, from this, whether Evan Thomas is right in asserting there was a “complete absence of evidence” of Bush lying. Thomas pawns off this view on Krauthammer, but that he printed that assertion at all should preclude anyone serious from taking seriously anything he has to say about anything for a period of at least, say, eternity.
A recent personal matter–a disaster, really–has pretty much sapped my will to write or to follow much in the news, or do much of anything, but this did, at least, get a little rise out of me. A very well-done little piece, Hart–it made me chuckle when I haven’t had much cause to do so in weeks.
dan froomkin counts the many ways bush lied……”the two most essential lies — among the many — in bush’s new memoir are that he had a legitimate reason to invade iraq, and that he had a legitimate reason to torture detainees…..neither is remotely true….”
http://huffingtonpostnews.blogspot.com/2010/11/two-most-essential-abhorrent.html
The #1 lie, about which I have written on more than one occasion, was in essence a simple one – the claim that the administration “knew” that Iraq had or was developing WMD. If they had only claimed they “thought with some certainty” that that was the case, it would be much harder to accuse them of lying (although, in my opinion, it still would have been the case). But just claiming they “thought” so wouldn’t have been enough to convince enough people (such as liberal Democrats or mainstream media opinion makers) to endorse their endeavor. That’s why they had to put forward their claims with certainty instead. Making virtually every claim that was made a bald-faced lie.
I’m pretty much with Eli Stephens, and would note that, without that feigned certainty, there wouldn’t have been a war–it, backed up by images of mushroom clouds over U.S. cities, isn’t just what sold the war; it was the entire basis of the war.
Taking this on a tangent, I strongly object to the way in which the treatment of pre-war intel is covered (when anyone bothered to cover it). Those in the intel community who rejected the publicly-offered conclusions of the Bush administration are portrayed as merely “dissenters” or the authors of “caveats.” When it comes to most of the major fictions that sold the war, though, these “dissenters” weren’t dissenters at all–they reflected the majority view among the experts.
For example, the claim was made that those intercepted aluminum tubes were intended for nuclear centrifuge work. The expertise necessary to back it up such a claim is found in the national laboratories under the Energy Department. Colin Powell was almost alone in publicly admitting (in his UN presentation) there was a disagreement about the intended use of the tubes, but at the same time, he claimed most of the experts supported the Bush assertions. This is a direct lie, but the characterization of what happened as a “disagreement” is, itself, a lie, as well. It has been widely reported that the experts at the national labs unanimously rejected the administration’s claims about the tubes. The basis for the claim of a “disagreement” is that spooks in other agencies without any expertise in the nuclear field were insisting the tubes were intended for nuclear use. Imagine a situation in which one consults a brain surgeon and a room full of auto mechanics about how best to perform brain surgery, allows the votes of the mechanics to overrule that of the actual surgeon, then portrays the surgeon as a “dissenter.”
Another obvious example is the notion of the Saddam-Osama tag-team. This, combined with the WMD claims, is what sold the war, yet every source has reported that the intelligence community believed there was no basis for it at all. The administration went so far as to establish a new group in the Pentagon political shop whose job was to cook up a phony “alternative” intel analysis that supported the administrations’ public claims. Again, portraying those who countered the Bush claims as “dissenters” who authored “caveats” is inappropriate.
The movie Fair Game includes a very plausible dramatization of an aluminum discussion inside the CIA–it’s very clarifying about how the intelligence process actually works.
Regarding accusations that the Bush administration lied about WMD, you stated “Never mind a complete absence of evidence.” In fact there was evidence, including reports by the UN inspectors that there were no more WMDs in Iraq. Moreover, the Bush administration claimed that there were ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeeda. Again, since it was well known that Al Qaeeda were the sworn enemies of secular governments, this was a patent lie fabricated by the Bush administration. There was plenty of evidence, but the press was largely caught snoozing.
Leo Toribio
Pittsburgh, PA
The reason why Bush/Cheney were so sure was because for years the USA and allies sold such materials, equipment and seed cultures to Iraq. They either didn’t want to believe or want us to know that the UN had done its job and closed down, buried or removed everything from the chemical, biological and nuclear areas of Iraq’s arsenal. So by the time of the second invasion Iraq was powerless to even halt for a moment the massive onslaught of foreign invasion and occupation.
The first big lie Dubya told, (whoever he told it to) was “I have just been elected President of the U.S.
Bush bush bush.BUSH bUsH BoooooSh.For some it is still Carter cart carte Carterr.Regan Regan…Clinton Clinton Clinton.Bla bl bla.Guys it is Obama now.Dig deep into his lies.They matter NOW!
You shot your load against Bush during his presidency and he shrugged it off.You stated your case and it failed to pursuade.The book has been written ,read and you have crapped on the dog eared copies that fail to agree with you.You hate him .We get it.When he is dead and buried you will stand at his grave and spend your days rocking away like at the wailing wall.We get it.Now turn you insight to the lier in chief we now have.Debate the merit of Palins ideas.Dr Paul.Obama and those that are not simply fishing at a Texas watering hole.
Pointing out that Bush is a proven liar requires no hate, just a working relationship with reality.
Not surprisingly, Mikey can’t counter bush’s lies so he just tries to deflect the discussion to his ongoing Obama derangement syndrome, while wearing his Ron Paul kneepads.
Since Bush’s lies cost the American people $1 trillion dollars [so far], all put on the Chinese credit card, I’d point out we’re not past the toxic effects of his disastrous tenure.
When Bush visited the Miami Book Fair in November he did a public interview with Michael Barone, and at one point, discussing Decision Points, he said, “The book wasn’t an attempt to rewrite history” or “an attempt to refashion a legacy.” Pretty much every word in that comment, including the “a,” was a lie.
Since Mikey wants us to debate “the merit of Palin’s ideas,” I’ll go first. They have no merit and they barely qualify as ideas…
Helen….we can play this game all day and simply say the idea that Bush lied about”everything”has no merit and barely qualify’s.Im willing to admit lots of mistakes before victory in Iraq was in a sense declared by Obama.But lets have as you say a working relationship with reality.And stop the Bush derangement syndrome.I have never bent at the alter of liberal spin that attacked Bush every moment of every day.You have bought it hook line and sinker.I can sit here and tell you this week what i agree with that obama has done.What can you point to with Bush or Palin?Nothing.Nadda.Your hatred lives without facts.Along the same lines…Would you say Obama is a proven liar as you begin a discourse?Such a dishonest liberal disingenuous way to start.But so predictable.It is well known BAMS grasp of the truth has always been weak.Yet he gets a pass.(And this is a hoot) As time goes by he seems to more and more follow Bushes military dictums.And this week his supply side economic ideas.All you have left is this policy of personal attack.Bush shrugged it off.Palin does.Paul does.And you are more and more left to nash your teeth in a mounting solitude.
I’m discussing specific lies that Bush told and have been proved to be lies by virtually every person posting a response here. [I guess that’s your idea of “a mounting solitude.”]
I will add that I have never made any sort of statement resembling “Bush lied about everything.” I did not spend the last eight years “attacking Bush every moment of every day.” I do not have Bush derangement syndrome and don’t “hate” him.
You’re just making stuff up again.
Well, my old friend Willy asks what the definition of Lying IS?
Wow! That Evan Thomas sure is a piece of work. It actually reads like satire (” . . . my friend Charles Krauthammer . . . the free-trade regimen that has made America prosper . . . a soak-the-rich populist who kills economic growth in the name of helping the little guy.”) He’s not gonna take it! No more of those goddam libs impugning the character of his men Bush and Krauthammer! No more attempts, no matter how feeble and phony, of soakin’ the rich by jacking up their top rate by 2%! No, no and no! Eat cake, cake and sawdust, you bastards!
P.S.: You know, Helen, you’ve got a lot on the dome, and I’m sure you’ve noticed certain things about, um, certain posters by now. It’s best to leave it be. Just my opinion, but to really feel free around here, one needs to drop the need to answer the wall when it burps out a response. I like your name, even more than Ann A. Countant’s.
Helen specific lies are not proven lies.At least outside the halls of these blogs.I was no Bush fan.Ever.I have read all sides.Pre and post- and I believe the windup to the war…the mistakes….and the blame were not due to lies by our president.In fact I believe that even if the intelligence of WMDs were known to be false that other factors would of led us to a similar result.Of course that is not an absolute but Bill clinton has state similar views.
Saddam had decided to stand in stubborn defiance and threat, and break all seventeen caveats of his surrender terms refusing to be brought to heal on his nuclear and bio chem goals at a time of attack on this country.I am convinced he was playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship.He believed Bush to be a paper tiger.He was not.On Saddams death bed he defiantly said he was the lion of judea and would of reconstituted his lethal power and used it against israel if need be.He saw this as his birth right.Some talk as if Saddam was not a player.In fact i seldom hear his name mentioned on these blogs as if Bush “lied” and constituted war in a vacuum.Sadam was adamant that no power had any hold over him.And I do believe that if he had been brought to heel that war could of been averted.If I someday hear Obama say that Bush lied(he has not)with his top secret access and hatred of all things Bush I will reconsider of course.As it now stands it seems BAM every day seems to be ashen faced and enjoining with Bush at the threats faced by this country.Much may I add to the liberal consternation.It is called top secret briefings.When recently asked his views on the coming threat of military action against Iran Bush said”I have no idea.I am out of the loop.I do not have the top secret information anymore”.Words people here might learn from.And the Posters here would have your head for saying “you don’t hate Bush”
Wow, that lazy shrub. If he wanted to know the current “top secert information” about Iran, he could ask his father who still gets briefed by the CIA on a regular basis.
Michael e. Still at it I see, equating nonsense with true debate. Yours is, of course the nonsense. By the way, I took one of your posts to heart. The one about the Heritage Foundation and their debunking liberal lies. Now I know where you get your nonsense. I was unable to find any debunking just more FOX BS which you spew most of the time. I am amazed the HF call themselves a think tank, because there is very little thinking going on. They consistently bait ‘n switch their articles, quoting legitimate sites but no reference to the quotes they give. Ann Coulter is famous for this, you know take things out of conext. I read at HF that science views are equal to folk magic and they used a legitimate humanities website to conclude this. Unbelievable.
Ray…To each his own.Rush often scores 98% in non part truth meters and fact accuracy.To some he is 99% wrong.HF has a good record.Ann is a” hoot” to me.There are many feeds to conservative beliefs.As i say to each his own.I must say having obama last week seemingly agree with bush tax moves did hurt my confidence in supply side eco.Oh well even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.Thanks for checking a sight outside what i would guess you are used to.It is always a growth to see the other side though you may not agree.i watch keith O and democracy now often.
Good grief. Micheal runs out this lie again…”Rush often scores 98% in non part truth meters and fact accuracy.”
There are no such studies.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17050,25657,26486,26488,26492,26494&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=rush+scores+98%25+accuracy+from+nonpartisan+fact+check+groups&cp=59&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=rush+scores+98%25+accuracy+from+nonpartisan+fact+check+groups&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=267856ed3ee60de5
ps
Neither FactCheck.org or PolitiFact cover statements from media personalities.
REAd Jeff Berlucci who gives Rush only 32%.THe net is a wash in trying to indicate his “disinformation”.Do you really believe there have not been extensive articles in Wallstreet and the such that have not shown the exact opposite.New Yorker.Countless mag rags.His people who do his fact base research are among the best.You may hate his spin but his facts are hard fare.Sometimes I do believe that this blogger base lives and dies by the limits of Google.Little hint.In diagnosing illness it can be incredibly misleading.Little bit of knowledge an all that.
Michael e. Sadly it seems I challenge most everything you say, which is in most cases a symptom of your being bamboozled by Rush, Beck, Savage, FOX……you know who I mean.
Among Americans’ most prized possessions are the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. In a free society, controversial public policy issues should be expected to generate vigorous and even heated debate. Our political leaders should expect to be subject to exacting scrutiny and energetic criticism. And Americans must be willing to embrace the First Amendment rights even, or especially, of those whose opinions we disagree with and find offensive.
But Americans must also be willing to use their First Amendment freedoms to challenge those who exploit their political positions or media megaphones to promote lies that are intended to inflame rather than inform, that encourage paranoia rather than participation, and whose consequences are at best divisive and at worst, violently destructive.
“REAd Jeff Berlucci who gives Rush only 32%.”
This is a double win, not only does this study not exist, either…but there’s no one named Jeff Berlucci who is a writer of any sort.
I know you get easily confused, but this is a new personal best. I haven’t the slightest idea who you are thinking of…