Post by ErinB on Jun 6, 2004 15:31:31 GMT -5
www.dailyhowler.com/dh060504.shtml
GORE ON WAR (PART 4)! Pundits pretended that Gore was lying—and helped rush the nation to war:
SATURDAY, JUNE 5, 2004
READ EACH EXCITING INSTALLMENT: Howler history! Gore spoke on Iraq—and the press corps clowned. Read each exciting installment:
PART 1: Two years ago, Gore nailed Iraq. Guess how your pundits reacted? See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/2/04.
PART 2: Gore discussed the rush to war, giving some good sound advice. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/3/04.
PART 3: Gore discussed the rush to war. But Sean was upset by his hairdo. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/4/04.
And now, for today’s installment:
GORE ON WAR (PART 4): Gore’s speech about the rush to war was delivered on Monday, September 23. Five days later, on CNN’s Reliable Sources, Howard Kurtz took a look at the coverage the speech had received. For starters, he noted the way the cable nets avoided live broadcast of the address. “I thought it was embarrassing,” he said, recalling the way CNN and Fox “carried so many sheriff's press conferences when there were missing kids this summer.” And then he reviewed the way the speech had been approached by the pundit class:
KURTZ (9/29/02): Dana Milbank, again, all this analysis and psychobabble about what was Gore doing and he was appealing to the left, and he was positioning himself for 2004. Any possibility this is what Gore really believes or should it be reported in a strictly political context?
Milbank seized on a tiny, alleged problem with Gore’s speech. Then he said that it had given Gore-haters a perfect opening:
MILBANK: Well, it’s funny. Here’s a time when Al Gore actually took a risk and conceivably did something principled, and he didn’t get any credit for it at all. That’s partially our fault, perhaps, but it’s also partially his fault. During the speech, at one point, he leveled all these criticism and then said, well, wait, I’m not actually saying this. There are other people who have said this.
So that sort of gave the opening for this sort of—this industry of sort of Al Gore haters to jump on it and say just another bit of the typical Al Gore.
Please don’t make us waste our time discussing the part of Gore’s speech where he said, “I’m not saying this—other people have.” But Milbank was clearly right in one way. By the time Gore spoke on war, there was indeed an “industry of Al Gore haters” working within the American press corps. And yes, their reaction to Gore’s speech was fully predictable; they reacted just as they had reacted to every word Gore uttered since he began his 2000 run for the White House. Was the nation caught in a “foreshortened deliberation” about Iraq? Did the Admin lack a plan for post-war Iraq? Could a war in Iraq hurt the War on Terror? Your press corps showed no sign of caring. Instead, they did the thing they do the best—they engaged in the vacuous “psychobabble” which Kurtz correctly diagnosed. Two years later, they wring their hands about the way they helped rush us to war.
But by the time Kurtz’s program aired, the corps had found another way to avoid discussing Gore ideas. No, the notion that Al Gore is insane hadn’t yet become a press spin-point; that would start a few months later, when he dared to offer criticism of the conservative press (links below) . In September 2002, the Washington press corps was still in love with a story it had been flogging since 3/99. Al Gore is a big liar, just like Bill Clinton! During Campaign 2000, they had invented a series of phony “lies,” then pretended that Gore had said them. And that’s the way the press moved now as they sponsored the rush to war. Too stupid and empty to consider Gore’s speech, they engaged in their latest campaign of distraction. Today, of course, they wring their hands over their conduct at this juncture. We should have done better in the fall of 02, the penitent pundits pretend.
What lie was Gore alleged to have told? By Wednesday evening, September 25, Sean Hannity had finished complaining about Gore’s hair. On this evening, he helped kick off the bogus campaign which would dominate reaction to Gore’s speech. Speaking with perpetually-furious William Bennett, Hannity played a clip from Gore’s speech on Iraq. This is the passage in question—a passage which was now being flogged all over the pseudo-con empire:
GORE (9/23/02): Back in 1991, I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s hasty departure from the battlefield even as Saddam began to renew his persecution of the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south, groups that we had, after all, encouraged to rise up against Saddam.
That’s what Gore had said in his September 23 speech on Iraq. But then, Hannity quoted something Gore said back in 1991:
HANNITY (9/25/02): He said, “President Bush should not be blamed for Saddam Hussein's survival to this point. There was throughout the war a clear consensus that the United States should not include the conquest of Iraq among its objectives. On the contrary, it was universally accepted that our objective was to push Iraq out of Kuwait, and it was further understood that when this was accomplished, combat should stop.”
Uh-oh! “He lied through his teeth there,” Hannity thundered. “Well, I agree he lied through his teeth,” Bennett replied, gambling that Hannity knew whereof he spoke. “And this speech is meretricious in many ways. But I don’t—you know me, I’m not one to hesitate to criticize Democrats.”
No, Bennett wasn’t one to hesitate—and as usual, his claim was utterly wrong. But no matter: The notion that Gore had lied about this matter now became the Standard Spin whenever Gore’s speech was discussed. Did we need a fuller debate on Iraq? Did the Bush Admin lack a real plan for post-war Iraq? Might a war in Iraq hurt the War on Terror? Happy pundits avoided such talk, eager to tell us that Gore lied again. How effective was this campaign? On that same Reliable Sources program, Kurtz—after trashing the press corps’ clowning—recited this spin about Gore’s speech himself! And Byron York of the National Review said that this was the Big Story:
KURTZ (9/29/02): On the other hand, Byron York, did the media do a good job of pointing out some of the contradictions between what Gore was saying this week and his vote for the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and some of what he’s had to say since then about Saddam Hussein?
YORK: Right. That would have been the bigger news story, it seems to me.
KURTZ: The bigger news story—bigger than what Gore actually said?
YORK: Well, the fact that it was a major restatement of some of the things that he has said in the past.
Forget Gore’s analysis of Iraq. Forget the need for a fuller debate. The “bigger news story” was the fact that—in a minor aside—Gore had engaged in “a major restatement of some of the things that he has said in the past.” For the record, neither of Kurtz’s other panelists criticized what York had said. No, Milbank and the New Republic’s Michelle Cottle haplessly stared into air.
More> click on link
GORE ON WAR (PART 4)! Pundits pretended that Gore was lying—and helped rush the nation to war:
SATURDAY, JUNE 5, 2004
READ EACH EXCITING INSTALLMENT: Howler history! Gore spoke on Iraq—and the press corps clowned. Read each exciting installment:
PART 1: Two years ago, Gore nailed Iraq. Guess how your pundits reacted? See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/2/04.
PART 2: Gore discussed the rush to war, giving some good sound advice. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/3/04.
PART 3: Gore discussed the rush to war. But Sean was upset by his hairdo. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/4/04.
And now, for today’s installment:
GORE ON WAR (PART 4): Gore’s speech about the rush to war was delivered on Monday, September 23. Five days later, on CNN’s Reliable Sources, Howard Kurtz took a look at the coverage the speech had received. For starters, he noted the way the cable nets avoided live broadcast of the address. “I thought it was embarrassing,” he said, recalling the way CNN and Fox “carried so many sheriff's press conferences when there were missing kids this summer.” And then he reviewed the way the speech had been approached by the pundit class:
KURTZ (9/29/02): Dana Milbank, again, all this analysis and psychobabble about what was Gore doing and he was appealing to the left, and he was positioning himself for 2004. Any possibility this is what Gore really believes or should it be reported in a strictly political context?
Milbank seized on a tiny, alleged problem with Gore’s speech. Then he said that it had given Gore-haters a perfect opening:
MILBANK: Well, it’s funny. Here’s a time when Al Gore actually took a risk and conceivably did something principled, and he didn’t get any credit for it at all. That’s partially our fault, perhaps, but it’s also partially his fault. During the speech, at one point, he leveled all these criticism and then said, well, wait, I’m not actually saying this. There are other people who have said this.
So that sort of gave the opening for this sort of—this industry of sort of Al Gore haters to jump on it and say just another bit of the typical Al Gore.
Please don’t make us waste our time discussing the part of Gore’s speech where he said, “I’m not saying this—other people have.” But Milbank was clearly right in one way. By the time Gore spoke on war, there was indeed an “industry of Al Gore haters” working within the American press corps. And yes, their reaction to Gore’s speech was fully predictable; they reacted just as they had reacted to every word Gore uttered since he began his 2000 run for the White House. Was the nation caught in a “foreshortened deliberation” about Iraq? Did the Admin lack a plan for post-war Iraq? Could a war in Iraq hurt the War on Terror? Your press corps showed no sign of caring. Instead, they did the thing they do the best—they engaged in the vacuous “psychobabble” which Kurtz correctly diagnosed. Two years later, they wring their hands about the way they helped rush us to war.
But by the time Kurtz’s program aired, the corps had found another way to avoid discussing Gore ideas. No, the notion that Al Gore is insane hadn’t yet become a press spin-point; that would start a few months later, when he dared to offer criticism of the conservative press (links below) . In September 2002, the Washington press corps was still in love with a story it had been flogging since 3/99. Al Gore is a big liar, just like Bill Clinton! During Campaign 2000, they had invented a series of phony “lies,” then pretended that Gore had said them. And that’s the way the press moved now as they sponsored the rush to war. Too stupid and empty to consider Gore’s speech, they engaged in their latest campaign of distraction. Today, of course, they wring their hands over their conduct at this juncture. We should have done better in the fall of 02, the penitent pundits pretend.
What lie was Gore alleged to have told? By Wednesday evening, September 25, Sean Hannity had finished complaining about Gore’s hair. On this evening, he helped kick off the bogus campaign which would dominate reaction to Gore’s speech. Speaking with perpetually-furious William Bennett, Hannity played a clip from Gore’s speech on Iraq. This is the passage in question—a passage which was now being flogged all over the pseudo-con empire:
GORE (9/23/02): Back in 1991, I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s hasty departure from the battlefield even as Saddam began to renew his persecution of the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south, groups that we had, after all, encouraged to rise up against Saddam.
That’s what Gore had said in his September 23 speech on Iraq. But then, Hannity quoted something Gore said back in 1991:
HANNITY (9/25/02): He said, “President Bush should not be blamed for Saddam Hussein's survival to this point. There was throughout the war a clear consensus that the United States should not include the conquest of Iraq among its objectives. On the contrary, it was universally accepted that our objective was to push Iraq out of Kuwait, and it was further understood that when this was accomplished, combat should stop.”
Uh-oh! “He lied through his teeth there,” Hannity thundered. “Well, I agree he lied through his teeth,” Bennett replied, gambling that Hannity knew whereof he spoke. “And this speech is meretricious in many ways. But I don’t—you know me, I’m not one to hesitate to criticize Democrats.”
No, Bennett wasn’t one to hesitate—and as usual, his claim was utterly wrong. But no matter: The notion that Gore had lied about this matter now became the Standard Spin whenever Gore’s speech was discussed. Did we need a fuller debate on Iraq? Did the Bush Admin lack a real plan for post-war Iraq? Might a war in Iraq hurt the War on Terror? Happy pundits avoided such talk, eager to tell us that Gore lied again. How effective was this campaign? On that same Reliable Sources program, Kurtz—after trashing the press corps’ clowning—recited this spin about Gore’s speech himself! And Byron York of the National Review said that this was the Big Story:
KURTZ (9/29/02): On the other hand, Byron York, did the media do a good job of pointing out some of the contradictions between what Gore was saying this week and his vote for the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and some of what he’s had to say since then about Saddam Hussein?
YORK: Right. That would have been the bigger news story, it seems to me.
KURTZ: The bigger news story—bigger than what Gore actually said?
YORK: Well, the fact that it was a major restatement of some of the things that he has said in the past.
Forget Gore’s analysis of Iraq. Forget the need for a fuller debate. The “bigger news story” was the fact that—in a minor aside—Gore had engaged in “a major restatement of some of the things that he has said in the past.” For the record, neither of Kurtz’s other panelists criticized what York had said. No, Milbank and the New Republic’s Michelle Cottle haplessly stared into air.
More> click on link