"In the run-up to the war, Bush and his national security team, including Vice President Dick Cheney, attempted to link Saddam to the attacks as a way to build support for the invasion."
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Or is this article her AP editor's fault?
Ignoring the cynical tone oozing out of the article covering Karl Rove's new book (it is to be expected I suppose) what I absolutely cannot abide is paragraph four:
In an entire piece otherwise devoted to what Karl Rove wrote in his book, paragraph four sits there: detached from the rest of the article. It is the only paragraph without reference to Rove or his writing, and it is a complete lie, gratuitously dropped in the article like a turd in a punchbowl.
Ms. Fouhy, are you stupid enough to actually believe what you wrote? Were you merely incompetent in accepting the assertion without reflection from some less-than-reputable source? Or did you know better but threw it out there as a lie because you wanted it to be true?
Alternatively, was the paragraph just slipped in by an uncredited editor for any/all of the reasons above? What IS the explanation? Is the AP still trying to rewrite History?
It won't work. Here are a couple of examples why:
Interestingly, what you WILL notice is that within just about every credibly-sourced news article on the subject between 2001 and today (including those linked above), is the assertion that while the Bush Administration never claimed a linkage between 911 and Iraq, they “implied” or “hinted” or “gave the impression” that there was a link.
Big Media would like you to believe it was the Bush Administration ‘linking’ Saddam and 911, but a review of the reporting shows us that it was Big Media doing all that hintin’, implyin’ and impressin’-- and this hardly a revelation at this late date: Polls, not Bush administration, helped shape Americans' bias against Saddam.