You just used The Weekly Standard as a source?  LOL, I will definitely not respond.

What they say about Mr. Bush now,  I hope this helps.

 

        By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: May 28, 2004


























ARTICLE TOOLS








E-Mail This Article


Printer-Friendly Format


Most E-Mailed Articles























Columnist Page: Paul Krugman

Forum: Discuss This Column

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

TIMES NEWS TRACKER







  Topics

Alerts






News and News Media











Bush, George W











New York Times

ome news organizations, including The New York Times, are currently engaged in self-criticism over the run-up to the Iraq war. They are asking, as they should, why poorly documented claims of a dire threat received prominent, uncritical coverage, while contrary evidence was either ignored or played down.

But it's not just Iraq, and it's not just The Times. Many journalists seem to be having regrets about the broader context in which Iraq coverage was embedded: a climate in which the press wasn't willing to report negative information about George Bush.

People who get their news by skimming the front page, or by watching TV, must be feeling confused by the sudden change in Mr. Bush's character. For more than two years after 9/11, he was a straight shooter, all moral clarity and righteousness.

But now those people hear about a president who won't tell a straight story about why he took us to war in Iraq or how that war is going, who can't admit to and learn from mistakes, and who won't hold himself or anyone else accountable. What happened?

The answer, of course, is that the straight shooter never existed. He was a fictitious character that the press, for various reasons, presented as reality.

The truth is that the character flaws that currently have even conservative pundits fuming have been visible all along. Mr. Bush's problems with the truth have long been apparent to anyone willing to check his budget arithmetic. His inability to admit mistakes has also been obvious for a long time. I first wrote about Mr. Bush's "infallibility complex" more than two years ago, and I wasn't being original.

So why did the press credit Mr. Bush with virtues that reporters knew he didn't possess? One answer is misplaced patriotism. After 9/11 much of the press seemed to reach a collective decision that it was necessary, in the interests of national unity, to suppress criticism of the commander in chief.

Another answer is the tyranny of evenhandedness. Moderate and liberal journalists, both reporters and commentators, often bend over backward to say nice things about conservatives. Not long ago, many commentators who are now caustic Bush critics seemed desperate to differentiate themselves from "irrational Bush haters" who were neither haters nor irrational — and whose critiques look pretty mild in the light of recent revelations.

And some journalists just couldn't bring themselves to believe that the president of the United States was being dishonest about such grave matters.

Finally, let's not overlook the role of intimidation. After 9/11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative about the president, you had to be prepared for an avalanche of hate mail. You had to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your reputation, and you had to worry about being denied access to the sort of insider information that is the basis of many journalistic careers.

The Bush administration, knowing all this, played the press like a fiddle. But has that era come to an end?

A new Pew survey finds 55 percent of journalists in the national media believing that the press has not been critical enough of Mr. Bush, compared with only 8 percent who believe that it has been too critical. More important, journalists seem to be acting on that belief.

Amazing things have been happening lately. The usual suspects have tried to silence reporting about prison abuses by accusing critics of undermining the troops — but the reports keep coming. The attorney general has called yet another terror alert — but the press raised questions about why. (At a White House morning briefing, Terry Moran of ABC News actually said what many thought during other conveniently timed alerts: "There is a disturbing possibility that you are manipulating the American public in order to get a message out.")

It may not last. In July 2002, according to Dana Milbank of The Washington Post — who has tried, at great risk to his career, to offer a realistic picture of the Bush presidency — "the White House press corps showed its teeth" for the first time since 9/11. It didn't last: the administration beat the drums of war, and most of the press relapsed into docility.

But this time may be different. And if it is, Mr. Bush — who has always depended on that docility — may be in even more trouble than the latest polls suggest.  

E-

Hold on there, I just brought the column to your attention. Note its not a editorial. And it was meant to show what THEY are saying now. Here is a new word for you attackful,don't be so attackful!

Baloney. Bush is a bumbling idiot and has gotten us into a war we don't belong in.He is the worst president in my lifetime, and perhaps the worst ever. Afghanastan was justified, Iraq was and is clearly not. Bush was likely played for the fool he is by Chalibi (sp?). There are a great many chickenhawks that support the war, but would not go or send thier kids. Donca' just love armchair quarterbacks? I've got a son-in-law stationed in Baghdad, and I can tell much of our military knows that this war is bull**** and likely a lost cause long term. If you REALLY support our troops, as I do, give them a new commander in chief in November, this time however, give them one with a brain.

I can respect opposing views, and I can respect someone being a supporter of their political party, and I share many of the values that are claimed by Bush's party. I consider myself a conservative democrat.  It has come down to this for me: If you are one to support the republican party....fine. If you are going to suggest to me for a minute that George W. Bush is a competant intelligent man, and he is the best that his party has to offer,I'll dismiss you in an instant as a political hack and you have lost any credibilty in the debate . This guy has to go. A patriot's first duty is to his country, not to his party. A young soldier may be asked to risk his life for his country,and many do willingly. But he never should be asked to risk his life for the idealolgy of a misguided and intellectually challenged persident that has been played like a fiddle by those with access to him, here and abroad. It takes guts to do the right thing. Cowards bomb everything. Name ONE thing that is better in this country since Bush took office. From a historic surplus to a historic deficeit, the loss of goodwill from many important allies, and a misguided war that the country was thrust into by dishonest means.

People, people, we all know that when you run across a brainwashed Bushie like Connections that there is nothing that can be done to fix it.  Thankfully, there are fewer and fewer of them every day.  The truth (not the conservative media nonsense) comes out more and more all the time.  No longer are all the media outlets following the Fox News lead.  (thank goodness)  I love the right wing "liberal media" complaints - yeah, Fox, Bush Limbaugh, and the rest of the right wing cable talk hosts really illustrate that "liberal media."  Seriously, if you ask a real liberal about the media they'll complain about how conservative it is.  To me it just means that reputable outlets like CNN and the NYT are doing their job.  (and the NYT is to be lauded for their recent focus on publishing self evaluations - like the one posted here.)

Re: "Facts" from Connections.  The Weekly Standard is a joke.  And your citations from other sources have nothing to do with what I actually said, which was that there is zero connection b/w Iraq and 9/11.  Note, 9/11 not al Qaeda.  Now I will go further and say that you can find plenty of overwhelming evidence that the so called connections you speak of were tenuous at best.  The truth is that Osama bin Ladin consistently lashed out at Saddam's Iraq as a secular regime.

You want a Bush presidency?  Bring back poppa Bush - at least he knew how to have a foreign policy that didn't destroy our reputation and ability to rally allies to our causes.

Well well a little senstive there connections?

I am sitting here laughing at the notion you think I am a liberal. I do not belong to either of the 2 "leading" parties I vote the person and platform not the party for 1.  Secondly, why is it that when someone does not agree with the Bush-evangelical-right wing-almighty line of BS you are painted as a liberal?

I find it completely clear why someone like you would fall in line behind the lies you are being told by Bush et al because you are buying the same type of BS from Ireland / CC et al.

We have been clear in our arguments.  You attempt to quote media sources that are clearly one sided... WAKE UP and go do your own research.... open your eyes and see how lost you really are.  I know the thought is a bit overwhelming - but try it...