Kerry Cheerleaders In The Press?

In Opinion Journal today Brendan Minter writes that “Reporters analyzing the election sound more like Kerry cheerleaders.”

A case, or cheer, in point is Amy Goldstein’s article on the first page of the Washington Post today. First, note the title:

‘We Were Right to Go Into Iraq,’ Bush Says:

President Seeks to Offset Senate Panel’s Findings

Correct me if I’m wrong, but my impression is that the Senate Report concluded that the intelligence provided to the president was deficient, not that he was wrong in deciding to depose Saddam. Neither the president nor his supporters believe now, even after revelations about deficient intelligence, that invading Iraq was wrong. Goldstein should have quoted the “findings” concluding that our invasion was wrong, if such findings exist.

Further, Goldstein writes:

Confronted with unanimous findings by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the administration had relied on unfounded intelligence in going to war, the president essentially sought to reframe the debate. Hussein’s removal, he said, was part of a three-prong strategy for peace.

Really? What “debate” is the president attempting to “reframe.” Goldstein appears to believe that WMD provided the only justification for war that the president relied on, and hence now he must “reframe.” That’s an interpretation, but as such her article should have been labeled “analysis” or whatever editors call interpretive articles.

And immediately following:

“We are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy,” Bush said in a subtle reformulation of the idea of “preemption” that has been a centerpiece of his foreign policy since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. “We have followed this strategy — defending the peace, protecting the peace and extending the peace — for nearly three years. We have been focused and patient, firm and consistent.”

Now I may be overreacting, but by this point in this interpretive story “subtle reformulation” sounds to me like Goldstein is accusing the president of slyly trying to hoodwink the public by changing the subject, but as I say, that may just be me. Except… Goldstein never says what she thinks the “subtle reformulation” is. “Defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy” sounds like classic, traditional, unreformulated pre-emption to me. Wherein lies the “reformulation,” subtle or otherwise?

Regarding the turnaround in Libya, Goldstein writes that

The Kerry campaign accused Bush of traveling [to Oak Ridge, Tenn.] to create an erroneous impression that Libya’s decision resulted from the Iraq war.

Kerry issued a statement saying Bush had not decreased the global nuclear threat, contrasting current administration policies with his own proposal “for dramatically reducing the threats from nuclear terrorism.”

Fine. But she goes on to say, in her own voice, that “there are

are substantial differences of opinion over what motivated Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi to decide eight months ago to stop trying to develop nuclear weapons, allowing Western inspectors to verify its actions and agreeing to destroy some materials and ship others here to Oak Ridge….

Many specialists say the decision grew out of diplomacy with the United States and Britain that began during the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president. Bush did not acknowledge that history on Monday, saying instead that the decision was the result of a determination of the United States, Britain and other allies to “expose the threats of terrorism and proliferation — and oppose those threats with all our power.”

In other words, it is impossible to tell the difference between Goldstein’s front page article in the Washington Post and a Kerry campaign press release.

[Cross-Posted On Oh, That Liberal Media!]

Say What? (2)

  1. ELC July 14, 2004 at 11:28 am | | Reply

    “Wherein lies the ‘reformulation,’ subtle or otherwise?” When she talks about “reformulation”, I think she is engaging in what psychologists call delusional projection.

  2. Doug Purdie July 14, 2004 at 4:54 pm | | Reply

    How can there be differing opinions about why Gaddafi reversed his policy on nuclear development? Didn’t Gaddafi himself admit that he feared the consequences that Hussain suffered in Iraq? Or, was that particular quote (I don’t have the exact quote) not verified?

Say What?