January 22, 2005

Misleading Lede Watch

If you read the headline to this Dave Sanger piece, you'd think Dick Cheney was encouraging an Israeli strike on Iran. But--as you burrow through the article--you see that, well, he's not.

Posted by Gregory at January 22, 2005 03:18 AM
Comments

I don't see it.
The headline I see is
"Cheney Says Israel Might 'Act First' on Iran", which is perfectly accurate. I don't read an implication of approval.
There is something I'm curious about.
Cheney says he would prefer to see a diplomatic rather than a military one. What did he say about Iraq in 2001-2002? I imagine it was similar.
There are many ways one can read the Cheney remarks, but since he was a driving force behind the Iraq war, I take any statements of peaceful intent from Cheney as strictly pro forma.

I wish the administration had not lied about what they understood of Saddam's nuclear program.
They cried the loudest where they had the least evidence, and it looks like the public will be put in a position where it is asked to trust the administration's judgment again on the question of a nuclear program.

Posted by: marky at January 22, 2005 04:46 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

The implication I get from the 'first' is that the IDF might beat us to the punch.
There's another possibility - that the Israelis will attack Iran 'first' - i.e., before Iran nukes Tel Aviv. Let us certainly hope that is the case.

Posted by: MrGrumpyDrawers at January 22, 2005 07:02 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

One other thing. Since the "Bush didn't fulfill his military obligation" canard failed when the Rathergate memos were shown to be crude frauds, it appears the new tack of the MSM, and especially the NYTimes, will be to generate a new canard, "Bush isn't president, Cheney is."

Posted by: MrGrumpyDrawers at January 22, 2005 07:09 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Sure, you might think that, if you suffer from poor reading comprehension skills.

Posted by: praktike at January 22, 2005 06:55 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"Since the "Bush didn't fulfill his military obligation" canard failed when the Rathergate memos were shown to be crude frauds, ...."

Wait a minute. A canard is a deliberate mistruth.

It hasn't been established whether Bush fulfilled his military obligation. Or maybe it could be considered that he did, that he spent the last part of his service doing nothing because there was nothing the military wanted him to do.

CBS got taken in by those crude frauds, and the investigation got dropped. I haven't heard yet that there has been any resolution about why the fraud who deceived CBS did it. The immediate result was to get the investigation dropped, so that should be the leading hypothesis for his intention.

So I insist that next time you say this, you replace Bush didn't fulfill his military obligation" canard' with "Bush didn't fulfill his military obligation" scandal'.

It's a scandal whether or not it's true, that gives no claim whether it's true -- something that is still unknown. It's way premature to use 'canard' which claims it isn't true.

Posted by: J Thomas at January 23, 2005 06:27 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I don't see how you interpret Cheney as you do (ie ".....well, he's not")

Care to elaborate?

Posted by: avedis at January 23, 2005 08:02 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
"Must-read list"
--Washington Times
"Pompous Ass"
--an anonymous blogospheric commenter
Recent Entries
Search
English Language Media
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
U.S. Blogs
Columnists
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Security
Books
The City
Western Europe
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Central and Eastern Europe
CIS/FSU
Russia
Armenia
East Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
Middle East
Egypt
Israel
Lebanon
Syria
B.D. In the Press
Archives
Categories
Syndicate this site:
XML RSS RDF

G2E

Powered by