You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #53: Swanson: "Remember When Bush's Lies Weren't "Old News"? Neither do I." [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
53. Swanson: "Remember When Bush's Lies Weren't "Old News"? Neither do I."
Edited on Tue Jun-21-05 04:04 PM by understandinglife
Remember When Bush's Lies Weren't "Old News"?
Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2005-06-20 23:10.

Neither do I.

By David Swanson, www.AfterDowningStreet.org


The most repeated excuse by U.S. media outlets for not covering the Downing Street Minutes and related documents is that they tell us nothing new, that they're old news. This conflicts, of course, with the second most common excuse, which is that they are false. If they're false, they can't be news at all, much less old news.

So, the question arises, when was this new news? At what point did it become old news to report that Bush had decided by the summer of 2002 to go to war and to use false justifications related to weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism? Of course, in one sense anything we discover now about secret goings on three years ago is old news – but that sense of being old news doesn't seem to spare us details of, for example, the Michael Jackson trial or the steroids in sports scandals. In those and many other cases, we're treated to news that's about old events. By that definition of old news we could have skipped Whitewater altogether.

<clip>

But what interests me is what the Post's editorial board believes was publicly known in July 2002. The Downing Street Minutes, if accurate, make clear that in July 2002 the Bush administration had secretly decided on war and was manipulating evidence related to WMD and terrorism in order to sell it through false advertising. The documents also make clear that going to the United Nations would be an attempt to legalize a predetermined war, not an attempt to avoid the Bush administration's publicly stated goal of "regime change."

Was this public knowledge in July 2002? Let's read the Post: Reading all the Washington Post articles, columns, and editorials containing the word "Iraq" and appearing in the Nexis database in June, July, and August, 2002, fails to find these facts publicly reported. Of course, I cannot comment on what Post editors knew and kept to themselves, but it is what they told the kids who were going to be sent off to kill and die that seems most significant.

The full analysis is definitely worth reading:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/407


Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - WE THE PEOPLE....MUST FILE CHARGES AGAINST THE WAR CRIMINALS; IT'S THE LAW, STUPID




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC