Sunday, June 11, 2006

The arrogance of U.S. officials, the danger from them

"The contemptuous tone of United States admonishments to Iran over its nuclear ambitions is but one source of the humiliation, alienation and rage that propels disaffected Muslim youth to espouse fanaticism, Hans Blix said Monday." -Former weapons inspector decries U.S. tone against Iran

Blix is right. The arrogance of U.S. officials has really been amazing. And the media continues to pave the way for a confrontation by not mentioning the illegality of some of the "options" and by not questioning Bush's competence and right to do anything to Iran.

The bottom line is Bush is dangerous, there should be a reflection of this concern in the mainstream media but they continue the pattern of making excuses for him. The media should be reporting how off the wall Bush really is.

On July 14, 2003, President Bush said, "did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

What Bush said is simply is not true, Saddam did let the inspectors in. Contrary to your impression of how the media behaves, the media sat by and let the President get away with saying this. Dana Milbank, White House reporter for The Washington Post gave this excuse for why they let Bush get away with saying this blatantly false statement, "I think what people basically decided was this is just the president being the president. Occasionally he plays the wrong track and something comes out quite wrong. He is under a great deal of pressure. Everybody in the White House is under a great deal of pressure."

"The New York Times didn't even report his bizarre statement, and the rest of the media followed along meekly."

That was the first time, President Bush has gone on to say this two more times and the press has continued to allow him to get away with it. You should ask yourself how it is that "a free press permitted the world's most important official to say such things without contradiction."

The second time he said it was January 27, 2004. Bush claimed Saddam "chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in." Again, this is flat out wrong yet the mainstream media sat by and let he get away with it again.

The third time Bush repeated the falsehood was March 21, 2006 when he said, "we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him."

How did the media react when Bush did this for a third time? "I can find not a single media outlet, broadcast, print or otherwise, that noticed the outrageous lie told by George Bush" wrote a concerned citizen in his letter to the editor that appeared in the online edition of the Seattle Times, presumably in the printed edition as well.

This is simply outrageous. The President of the United States should know why it is he started a war. He should know the basic facts! Not knowing is extremely incompetent. It is an insult to all those he sent into this war. The man has sent men to their deaths, at a bare minimum of Presidential duty, he should at least know why it is he did it.

What is the key to getting the blogisphere to make this an issue?!: Bush thinks Saddam didn't let the inspectors in and that is why we attacked him! He has said it at least 3 times now and the media keeps letting him get away with it!

No comments: