June 2nd, 2009
Love how the snark oozes just a hair below the surface:
(CNN) — It appears President Obama has to step up his reading pace if he wants to beat his predecessor in one particular measure: how many books a president can polish off a year.
In an interview with the BBC Tuesday, Obama said he is currently reading Joseph O’Neill’s 270-page novel “Netherland,” a book Obama first said he began back in April.
If Obama is close to finishing the novel, that puts him on less than a 10 book-a-year pace, far less than the close to 100 books President Bush was reportedly able to finish in the same amount of time.
[...]
In 2006, Bush read 95 books to Roves 110: a Herculean pace of nearly two books a week — in an election year to boot — for the ex-president. But, according to Rove, Bush’s reading slowed a bit in the final years of his presidency, finishing a not-too-shabby 51 books in 2007 and at least 40 in 2008.
And if that’s not impressive enough, Rove also said Bush found time to read the Bible “from cover to cover” every year.
What can one say, except, Yeah, right!? One hundred books per year my [blip]!
I wish he had read the August 6, 2001, President’s Daily Brief: Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.
May 28th, 2008
A lot has been written about Scott McClellan’s — the Bush loyalist and former White House spokesperson — tell all book. Of course, conservative apologists and Bush supporters are already gunning for their former colleague. Bush apologists don’t particular like this claim by the former White House spokesperson:
“If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.
“The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”
Writing in The Corner, a blog from the conservative National Review magazine, Seth Leibsohn takes issue with McClellan’s claim:
The evidence I’ve seen does in fact show that the administration had different justifications for the liberation of Iraq — but we saw them plainly and in the open before as well as after the invasion. The president, the secretary of state, the VP, and many others gave lots of reasons for the invasion of Iraq. There were international legal cases, there were public policy cases, there were national security cases all to be made. And they were. The idea that the press didn’t do its job and was too soft on the president — as McClellan writes — is, frankly, laughable. Raise your hand if you have any evidence that the press was too soft on the administration.
Conservatives have long labored to caricature the press as liberal — which has served conservatives well, as they use this now conventional wisdom as bludgeon against submissive journalists if they don’t parrot conservative memes and talking points. Therefore, conservatives are not about to concede that, if anything, during the run up to the war, the media did as they were expected: they unquestionably parroted the Bush administration’s talking points, and claims about the threat that Iraq posed to our national security.
David Kurtz, over at TPM media, will be taking Seth’s challenge. However, I here offer Judith Miller and the New York Times subsequen apology as exhibits A and B, in response to Seth.
April 26th, 2008
As I previously posted, last week the NY Times reported that the Pentagon and Bush administration used domestic propaganda, in the form of so-called retired generals with direct ties to the Pentagon and to military contractors, to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American public.
Since then, and it should come as no surprise, the networks have refused to come clean on their use of, and participation in the Pentagon’s domestic propaganda program during the lead up to the war. And when the subject is finally covered by a minor network, PBS, an apologists of domestic propaganda — with ties to the Pentagon and to corporate media — is prominently featured in the segment.
The take away of the segment for me is that the networks refuse to acknowledge their responsibility for the war, and that they will simply ignore the NY Time’s report all together. Thus, again, the vast majority of the public, which still gets their news from the networks, will remain in the dark about this on going manipulation of the public discourse by the Pentagon and by the Bush administration.
For the record, as Judy Woodruff mentions in the segment:
And for the record, we invited Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC to participate, but they declined our offer or did not respond. [Emphasis added.]
Let’s see how long the networks go on ignoring their complicity in this fiasco that’s the Iraq war. I bet it’ll be a long while before a word is uttered.
