Blog For America, the official Howard Dean campaign blog, has a link to articles that say the Bush Administration is rewriting press releases and articles on whitehouse.gov that proclaimed the "end of combat operations" in Iraq. [link] Apparently, the word "major" has been inserted at the beginning of "combat operation". Unfortunately for the White House, the evidence here is pretty irrefutable. [link] That, in and of itself, is enough to make me think it's time to pull out my copy of 1984 and start cataloging the similarities.
But while we're on the subject, I want to set the record straight on something that is, in comparison to the major news noted above, relatively minor. But still, I think it's worth mentioning.
The blogs that I surveyed on the subject are saying that this isn't the first time the Bush Administration and the Republican Party have done this. Remember last spring, they say, when the Republicans announced the date of the 2004 convention? According to a report in the New York Times on April 22, 2003, "advisors" to Mr. Bush said that the convention, to begin August 30, 2004, was timed to blend into the third anniversary of 9/11. [link] But wait, the bloggers say -- a month later, in May 2003, the Republicans changed their story because of public outcry and said the schedule was chosen only to avoid conflicting with the Summer Olympics in Athens, which take place in the middle of August:
Sadly, this isn't the first time this week the Bushites have engaged in such historical revisionism. A couple days ago, I posted about how their rationale for having the Republican Convention so close to the September 11th commemerations has apparently changed from taking advantage of the commemeration (as stated in April) to "only" trying to avoid a conflict with the 2004 Summer Olympics (as stated in May). [link]
Now, is the White House changing stories and altering headlines? Maybe, but I'm not sure that the Republican Convention angle fits the pattern. Here's why: Adam Nagourney's article in the Times (also reprinted elsewhere) does report that "advisors" to the President said that they chose the date to flow into the commemoration of 9/11. [link*] Certainly, that's one piece of the puzzle. But the next piece -- that the Republicans belatedly attempted to rewrite the facts -- doesn't fit. In fact, there's a story in the Guardian (UK) on April 23, 2003 (the next day) interviewing Republicans by name (rather than anonymous "advisors") who refute the 9/11 connection and, indeed, cite the conflict with the Olympics and the fact that a late convention tolls the clock on public financing spending limits (which kick in only after a party has selected its nominee). [link] Now, the Guardian casts a skeptical eye on the assertions that there is no connection to 9/11, but it's hard to say that the Republicans waited and then tried to revise the story -- it seems that they did it in real time.
Anyway, it's a minor point, but we shouldn't ruin a good story by arguing that the conspiracy is broader than it really is. The truth is bad enough.
*The Times article is archived on the Times's website, but for a fee. This link is to the reprint of the article in the Charlotte Observer (free registration required).
But while we're on the subject, I want to set the record straight on something that is, in comparison to the major news noted above, relatively minor. But still, I think it's worth mentioning.
The blogs that I surveyed on the subject are saying that this isn't the first time the Bush Administration and the Republican Party have done this. Remember last spring, they say, when the Republicans announced the date of the 2004 convention? According to a report in the New York Times on April 22, 2003, "advisors" to Mr. Bush said that the convention, to begin August 30, 2004, was timed to blend into the third anniversary of 9/11. [link] But wait, the bloggers say -- a month later, in May 2003, the Republicans changed their story because of public outcry and said the schedule was chosen only to avoid conflicting with the Summer Olympics in Athens, which take place in the middle of August:
Sadly, this isn't the first time this week the Bushites have engaged in such historical revisionism. A couple days ago, I posted about how their rationale for having the Republican Convention so close to the September 11th commemerations has apparently changed from taking advantage of the commemeration (as stated in April) to "only" trying to avoid a conflict with the 2004 Summer Olympics (as stated in May). [link]
Now, is the White House changing stories and altering headlines? Maybe, but I'm not sure that the Republican Convention angle fits the pattern. Here's why: Adam Nagourney's article in the Times (also reprinted elsewhere) does report that "advisors" to the President said that they chose the date to flow into the commemoration of 9/11. [link*] Certainly, that's one piece of the puzzle. But the next piece -- that the Republicans belatedly attempted to rewrite the facts -- doesn't fit. In fact, there's a story in the Guardian (UK) on April 23, 2003 (the next day) interviewing Republicans by name (rather than anonymous "advisors") who refute the 9/11 connection and, indeed, cite the conflict with the Olympics and the fact that a late convention tolls the clock on public financing spending limits (which kick in only after a party has selected its nominee). [link] Now, the Guardian casts a skeptical eye on the assertions that there is no connection to 9/11, but it's hard to say that the Republicans waited and then tried to revise the story -- it seems that they did it in real time.
Anyway, it's a minor point, but we shouldn't ruin a good story by arguing that the conspiracy is broader than it really is. The truth is bad enough.
*The Times article is archived on the Times's website, but for a fee. This link is to the reprint of the article in the Charlotte Observer (free registration required).
posted by Daniel at 9:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home