Day by Day

Friday, August 01, 2003

Future Rather Strives to Match the Original's Biased Reporting

It seems John Roberts wants to be just like his "Rather" Biased C.B.S. comrade.*

Roberts reported that he'd asked G.W. a question and that the he'd tried to dodge his penetrating inquiry. "When asked by this reporter why he took the world to war on what critics say was shaky evidence, Mr. Bush promptly changed the subject."
To prove the point, Roberts played a short, 28-word clip that was taken from the 300+ words the president used to reply to his question.

GEORGE W. BUSH: ...people of the Middle East. A free Iraq will show what is possible in a world that needs freedom, in a part of the world that needs freedom.

Based on these 28 words where Bush was not talking about weapons of mass destruction, Roberts proclaimed, "It was a clear example of how the White House is shifting the goalposts on Iraq: from weapons as a rationale for war to liberating the Iraqi people to now promoting global security." But that was far from the truth. Contrary to Roberts's pronoucement that the president had "promptly changed the subject," Bush did address his query.


Here is the exchange:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Building sort of on that idea, it's impossible to deny that the world is a better place in the region, certainly a better place without Saddam Hussein. But there's a sense here in this country, and a feeling around the world, that the U.S. has lost credibility by building the case for Iraq upon sometimes flimsy or, some people have complained, non-existent evidence. And I'm just wondering, sir, why did you choose to take the world to war in that way?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, look, in my line of work, it's always best to produce results. And I understand that. The -- for a while the questions were, could you conceivably achieve a military victory in Iraq? You know, the dust storms have slowed you down. And I was a patient man because I realized that we would be successful in achieving our military objective.

Now, of course, the question is, will Iraq ever be free, and will it be peaceful? And I believe it will. I remind some of my friends that it took us a while to go from the Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution. Even our own experiment with democracy didn't happen overnight. I never have expected Thomas Jefferson to emerge in Iraq in a 90-day period.

And so, this is going to take time. And the world will see what I mean when I say, a free Iraq will help peace in the Middle East, and a free Iraq will be important for changing the attitudes of the people in the Middle East. A free Iraq will show what is possible in a world that needs freedom, in a part of the world that needs freedom.

Let me finish for a minute, John, please. Just getting warmed up. I'm kind of finding my feet. (Laughter.)

Saddam Hussein was a threat. The United Nations viewed him as a threat. That's why they passed 12 resolutions. Predecessors of mine viewed him as a threat. We gathered a lot of intelligence. That intelligence was good, sound intelligence on which I made a decision.

And in order to placate the critics and the cynics about intentions of the United States, we need to produce evidence. And I fully understand that. And I'm confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe, that Saddam had a weapons program. I want to remind you, he actually used his weapons program on his own people at one point in time, which is pretty tangible evidence. But I'm confident history will prove the decision we made to be the right decision.

Hold on for a second. You're through. John.


So Bush did not try to change the subject and avoid charges of "shaky evidence." At the end of the president's explanation, Roberts demanded another question, even though Bush had already given him more than 300 words and addressed his complaint. The president silenced him: "Hold on for a second. You're through."


It must have boiled Roberts blood to be told he was through with his slanted questioning. >:D

Entire news conference

Examples of bias at C.B.S. are abundant at the ratherbiased.com ....check it out!
What liberal media? OH! THAT LIBERAL MEDIA!


* I would have preferred a link to the story that didn't expire. This news item was posted to the website on 2003-08-01 03:02:40 ET for future reference.

The Valiant Elephant

No comments: