WHY WON'T The Main Stream Media Say The Word LIAR...???
Link Here
Snip...
Can’t Say Liar
Also note how the mainstream press continues to choke on calling Bush a liar even when the facts are obvious. For instance, the disclosure that Bush signed his order for warrantless wiretaps in 2002 led researchers back to an assurance he made to the American people in a speech in Buffalo, N.Y., on April 20, 2004.
After calling for renewal of the USA Patriot Act, Bush veered off into a broader discussion of wiretaps. “By the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order,” Bush said. “Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”
Though a clip of Bush’s statement was carried on network news programs, it was followed by the White House explanation that Bush was only talking about the Patriot Act. The network news reporters presented that claim as the final word on the subject.
But Bush’s wording indicates that he is not talking only about wiretaps under the Patriot Act. He clearly deviates from that discussion when he says “by the way” and adds “any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap.” He then insists that “nothing has changed” when the policy had changed two years earlier.
Perhaps, a listener should conclude that whenever Bush inserts the words “by the way” that’s a signal he’s lying. Or maybe there’s some semantic argument about what the words “any time” mean.
If Bill Clinton’s spokesmen had tried to spin such an obvious lie by their boss, they would have been ridiculed; the right-wing news media would have hammered away at this proof of Clinton lying – and the mainstream media would have heartedly agreed.
In this Bush case, however, the outcome is the opposite. The right-wing media defends – or simply ignores – Bush’s lie, and the mainstream press accepts the false explanation.
The pattern has been evident before, for instance, when Bush has repeatedly lied about Iraq’s Saddam Hussein refusing to admit United Nations weapons inspectors, thus forcing a reluctant Bush to order the invasion in March 2003.
The truth is the opposite. Hussein relented and let U.N. inspectors into Iraq in November 2002 and eventually gave them unfettered access to whatever suspect-WMD sites they wanted to inspect. According to chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix, Bush forced the U.N. inspectors to leave in March 2003 so the invasion could proceed.
Snip...
Can’t Say Liar
Also note how the mainstream press continues to choke on calling Bush a liar even when the facts are obvious. For instance, the disclosure that Bush signed his order for warrantless wiretaps in 2002 led researchers back to an assurance he made to the American people in a speech in Buffalo, N.Y., on April 20, 2004.
After calling for renewal of the USA Patriot Act, Bush veered off into a broader discussion of wiretaps. “By the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order,” Bush said. “Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”
Though a clip of Bush’s statement was carried on network news programs, it was followed by the White House explanation that Bush was only talking about the Patriot Act. The network news reporters presented that claim as the final word on the subject.
But Bush’s wording indicates that he is not talking only about wiretaps under the Patriot Act. He clearly deviates from that discussion when he says “by the way” and adds “any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap.” He then insists that “nothing has changed” when the policy had changed two years earlier.
Perhaps, a listener should conclude that whenever Bush inserts the words “by the way” that’s a signal he’s lying. Or maybe there’s some semantic argument about what the words “any time” mean.
If Bill Clinton’s spokesmen had tried to spin such an obvious lie by their boss, they would have been ridiculed; the right-wing news media would have hammered away at this proof of Clinton lying – and the mainstream media would have heartedly agreed.
In this Bush case, however, the outcome is the opposite. The right-wing media defends – or simply ignores – Bush’s lie, and the mainstream press accepts the false explanation.
The pattern has been evident before, for instance, when Bush has repeatedly lied about Iraq’s Saddam Hussein refusing to admit United Nations weapons inspectors, thus forcing a reluctant Bush to order the invasion in March 2003.
The truth is the opposite. Hussein relented and let U.N. inspectors into Iraq in November 2002 and eventually gave them unfettered access to whatever suspect-WMD sites they wanted to inspect. According to chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix, Bush forced the U.N. inspectors to leave in March 2003 so the invasion could proceed.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home