Peter Baker of the Washington Post Lies to All Readers of His Headline and Paragraphs 1-7

Robert Waldmann shakes his head in disbelief at Peter Baker of the Washington Post: only if you read not just the headline and paragraphs 1-7 of Baker's article but paragraph 8 does he come clean.

The headline:

Rove's Version of 2002 War Vote Is Disputed

Paragraph 1:

Former White House aide Karl Rove said yesterday it was Congress, not President Bush, who wanted to rush a vote on the looming war in Iraq in the fall of 2002, a version of events disputed by leading congressional Democrats and even some former Rove colleagues.

Paragraph 2:

Rove said that the administration did not want lawmakers to vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq that soon because it would "make things move too fast," before Bush could line up international allies, and politicize the issue ahead of midterm elections. But Democrats and some Republicans involved with the issue at the time said yesterday that Bush wanted a quick vote.

Paragraph 3:

The fresh clash over the five-year-old vote made plain how political leaders on all sides are trying to shape the history of that moment. Former president Bill Clinton this week asserted that he flatly opposed the war from the beginning, a contention challenged by a former White House official who briefed him at the time. Some presidential candidates, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), have portrayed themselves as more skeptical than others recalled.

Paragraph 4:

Speaking on PBS's "Charlie Rose" talk show last week, Rove said Congress pushed to have the vote before the election. "The administration was opposed to voting on it in the fall of 2002," Rove said. Asked why, he said: "Because we didn't think it belonged within the confines of the election. There was an election coming up within a matter of weeks. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of it. It seemed to make things move too fast. There were things that needed to be done to bring along allies and potential allies abroad."

Paragraph 5:

Democrats accused him of rewriting history. "Either he has a very faulty memory, or he's not telling the truth," said ex-Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.). In an interview, Daschle said he asked Bush during a breakfast to delay the vote until after the election. "They told us time was of the essence and they needed the vote and they were going to move forward," he said.

Paragraph 6:

Steve Elmendorf, chief of staff to then-House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), said it would not benefit Democrats to vote before the elections. "That does not ring true to me," he said of Rove's remarks. "I can't imagine why it would be in our interest to do that."

Paragraph 7:

Rove repeated his assertion in an interview yesterday, pointing to comments made by Democrats in 2002 that they wanted a vote. "For Democrats to suggest they didn't want to vote on it before the election is disingenuous," he said. The vote schedule, he said, was set by lawmakers. "We don't control that."

And finally, paragraph 8:

News accounts and transcripts at the time show Bush arguing against delay. Asked on Sept. 13, 2002, about Democrats who did not want to vote until after the U.N. Security Council acted, Bush said, "If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people -- say, 'Vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.' "

Four years, Washington Post. I give you four years. Four years. And after that who do those of you who have worked so enthusiastically for Graham and Downie and Hiatt think will ever hire you?

Comments

[bmz]

Brad:
Don't you have anything to say about Howard Kurtz's December 2 column saying that whether reducing taxes increase revenues, is "hotly debated"(or words to that effect) among economists?

[bmz]

Brad:
Don't you have anything to say about Howard Kurtz's December 2 column saying that whether reducing taxes increase revenues, is "hotly debated"(or words to that effect) among economists?

[corvid]

The most common sin of reporters in print is either burying the lede of a story or burying an essential element that would either shed light on or undermine the lede. If you could sit on a newspaper copy desk for a week, you'd be astonished at just how often reporters screw this up.
.
Once upon a time, it was the No. 1 job of editors--from section editors all the way down to the copy desk--to spot such misplaced elements and adjust. No more.
.
It is now considered at least impolite and likely impertinent and insubordinate for a reporter to express skepticism about public statements out of the White House or any extended element of the White House in a place in a story that readers might actually see and take note.

While it's desirable to have a stern expression of skepticism in any such story to technically cover the paper's ass, it must be embedded deep enough in the copy to render it invisible. This keeps sources happy (nice for the reporter) and keeps angry phone calls to the editor down (nice for the editor).

The White House understands how this works, just as well as the editors and reporters who cover it. Of course, readers are screwed, as are our democratic institutions and processes, but that's well within the scope of acceptable collateral damage.

[albatross]

Paragraphs 5 and 6 were also not all that misleading. So I think he's lying in only 6/9 of the article (5 paragraphs and the headline). I'm not sure where this puts him compared to the rest of the paper.

[albatross]

Paragraphs 5 and 6 were also not all that misleading. So I think he's lying in only 6/9 of the article (5 paragraphs and the headline). I'm not sure where this puts him compared to the rest of the paper.

[albatross]

Paragraphs 5 and 6 were also not all that misleading. So I think he's lying in only 6/9 of the article (5 paragraphs and the headline). I'm not sure where this puts him compared to the rest of the paper.

[kharris]

On a related topic...

WASHINGTON, Dec 3 (Reuters) - A new U.S. intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and it remains on hold, contradicting the Bush administration's earlier assertion that Tehran was intent on developing a bomb.
The new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released on Monday could hamper U.S. efforts to convince other world powers to agree on a third package of U.N. sanctions against Iran for defying demands to halt uranium enrichment activities...

I see that repeat posts are a fad today. Sorry, I only have time for this one effort.

[c.l. ball]

The criticism here should be that Baker has failed to do research on what happened.

Bush's 13 Sep. comments are not probative here. The first war resolution was not introduced until 26 Sep. (see Thomas.loc.gov). What he was referring to was the question of whether Congress should have voted before UNSC approval or after? That is what Bush is addressing.

What is relevant is Bush's 24 Sep. Cabinet Meeting remarks when hes says: "Congress must act now to pass a resolution which will hold Saddam Hussein to account for a decade of defiance." There Bush clearly wants a resolution passed before the election.