From the first time I saw the phrase, "we were almost all wrong," as a headline, I knew that the presentation of David Kay's opinion was going to be... well... edited in a certain way. A little removal of context, the change of "were" to "was," and here's what we get, in this instance from the Associated Press:
Bush said former chief weapons inspector David Kay, who has said that U.S. intelligence was "almost all wrong" about Saddam's arms, said Saddam found the "capacity to produce weapons."
The take away message: everything we thought we knew was wrong (and Bush is lying). But of course, that's not at all what Kay meant. Here's what he said (and here's the video):
Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction.
I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD.
The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.
It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.
Kay is clearly saying that everybody was wrong about the extent of Iraq's existing WMD stockpiles, not that anybody in particular was wrong about everything. One could perhaps suggest that the AP just let a little bit of a grammatical error slip in which would be unforgivable enough for an international news wire to do except that reporter Deb Riechmann used "U.S. intelligence" to represent a group that included such varied parties as David Kay himself, the French, and the Germans (and perhaps even Saddam Hussein).
This is precisely the reason that I find myself instinctively searching for original transcripts. Now, that would be a worthwhile service: a wire that provided the actual words that people use, in context.
Posted by Justin Katz at February 8, 2004 1:01 PMAP has become the BBC of the US. Every headline and lead paragraph is slanted to put us in a bad light. It is not an accident or poor writing. It is deliberate and intended. And the President's interview on Meet the Press will not help us at all. His actions are correct and he has chosen good advisors, but his inability to act as an effective spokesman puts him at risk of losing the election. And that would be a setback in our war against the enemies of our civilization. Oh how we need an FDR or JFK or Winston or even (gulp) a Bill Clinton, to rally our people.
Ted,
Concerns about the President's abilities as a spokesman are well founded, and they do make a difference. It is, however, a question how much of a difference. VP Cheney, for example, forgot to say "weapons programs" a single time out of many instances of the phrase in an interview on Meet the Press last year, and that single instance continues to be repeated out of context to this day.
Posted by: Justin Katz at February 8, 2004 2:48 PMJustin,
That makes Cheney a 300 hitter. The election will be decided by a small percentage of the voters who are in the undecided middle. Most of us have already made up out minds. With the print media totally biased, it is important to have a leader who can inspire that "middle".
I am just getting finished with Lee Harris' CIVILIZATION & ITS ENEMIES. Glenn Reynolds has a blurb on the back of the dust jacket. I recommend it to you and your readers
Ted
Posted by: Ted at February 8, 2004 3:37 PM
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 |