14 Responses to “Bush Welcomes Dissent On War”

1. Callimachus Says:
   November 21st, 2005 at 3:33 am

   I’m not really following every word, but this strikes me as yet another case of the media inventing “shifts.” Hasn’t Bush been saying all along criticism of policies is patriotic if sincere, and the American people have a right and a duty to question and dissent, but politicians who had turned against the war for political reasons were being disingenuous and sending the wrong message.

   The quotes I saw from him late last week are like this:

   Some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue. And they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that is irresponsible.

   And this:

   Listen, patriotic is apt to disagree with the president, it doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics.

   That, as I understand it, was his position. The reporting of that seemed to ride right over the distinction he was drawing between politicians and people, and it came out “Bush slams war critics.”

   Now that the editors have calmed down enough to notice the other half of what he’s been saying all along, the headlines say, “Bush changes tune.”

   Cheney’s another story. But Cheney’s not Bush.

   I don’t mean to imply Bush’s distinction is perfect or right, but I really am seeing a lot of media stuck on stupid here. I mean, look at the lede:

   After fiercely defending his Iraq policy across Asia, President Bush abruptly toned down his attack on war critics Sunday and said there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy.

   Those aren’t opposing qualities. You can defend something and welcome opposition as patriotic. Just because you’re being opposed patriotically doesn’t mean you have to stop defending.

   Besides, he said last week there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy. “Listen, patriotic is apt to disagree with the president, it doesn’t bother me.” So where’s the new in this?

   Then when the AP goes for a quote to back it up, they have to get a Cheney word — “reprehensible.” Couldn’t they even find a Bush word as strong as that? That’s kind of reaching for it.

   I’m glad we’re talking about it, too, but be careful how you read these things. It’s not unusual for the media to cover itself for missing half a story by presenting that half when it realizes the mistake and spinning it as a new wrinkle.

2. Justin Gardner Says:
   November 21st, 2005 at 3:41 am

   I’m not really following every word, but this strikes me as yet another case of the media inventing “shifts.� Hasn’t Bush been saying all along criticism of policies is patriotic if sincere, and the American people have a right and a duty to question and dissent, but politicians who had turned against the war for political reasons were being disingenuous and sending the wrong message.

   Listen, this is a VERY recent development Cal.

   Now that the editors have calmed down enough to notice the other half of what he’s been saying all along, the headlines say, “Bush changes tune.�

   “All along?” Please document and I’ll concede this pont. It’s hard to believe given the 2004 campaign strategy, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

   Of course I haven’t heard it, and I haven’t seen it in any outlets I’ve followed. And what else is their besides the traditional media and the “un”traditional media.

   Again, please provide proof.

   I’m glad we’re talking about it, too, but be careful how you read these things. It’s not unusual for the media to cover itself for missing half a story by presenting that half when it realizes the mistake and spinning it as a new wrinkle.

   Fair enough, but that doesn’t mean this isn’t a “recent development.”

   Agreed?

3. Callimachus Says:
   November 21st, 2005 at 3:44 am

   I just gave you some quotes, man. The AP isn’t talking about now compared to 2004. They’re talking about now compared to last week. The transcripts are still out there.

4. Callimachus Says:
   November 21st, 2005 at 3:57 am

   Like here:

   http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/iraq_11-18.html

   But, whatever. If AP says it’s an “abrupt” tone-down. I must read and obey. I must have been hallucinating last week. Me and PBS. Wouldn’t be the first time.

   What a waste of time.

5. Justin Gardner Says:
   November 21st, 2005 at 5:19 am

   But, whatever. If AP says it’s an “abrupt� tone-down. I must read and obey. I must have been hallucinating last week. Me and PBS. Wouldn’t be the first time.

   Fair enough. The “abrupt” comment was lost on me.

   Still, we can agree that this is fairly recent development.

   You know me, since I’ve been talking about this sooner rather than later…

6. kreiz Says:
   November 21st, 2005 at 9:56 am

   Cal- don’t get bogged down in details like the truth. It’s so much more fun to respond with raw emotion. :) Sorry Justin- Cal’s right on here.

7. Callimachus Says:
   November 21st, 2005 at 4:24 pm

   I’m really interested in this, for the time being, from a very narrow perspective of how the journalism works. This is a story about the quotes. And if you could fine an intelligent person who’d been in a clamshell for the last five years and feed him these two sets of quotes:

   “People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq. … I heard somebody say, `Well, maybe so-and-so is not patriotic because they disagree with my position.’ I totally reject that thought.”

   side by side with:

   “Listen, patriotic is apt to disagree with the president, it doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics.”

   And you told him to pick which one was “fiercely attacking” and which one was “conciliatory,” or whatever, I can imagine he’d be puzzled by the choice.

   I’m not cherry-picking quotes. Those are the ones the stories are built on. One from last week, one from Sunday/Monday. I’m not going to the press conference transcripts to see the totality of what was said. The quotes aren’t incidental to the story — they are the story. The AP is reporting on the “tone” of what the president is saying. And those are the quotes they chose to prove it.

   Now, I don’t watch TV, so maybe Bush was rolling his eyes or had his tongue in his cheek when he spoke last week. But AP didn’t tell me that.

   Part of genuine dialogue and debate is genuinely listening to what someone is saying, whether he’s “your” man or not. AP isn’t being very helpful lately.

8. John Says:
   November 21st, 2005 at 5:58 pm

   I agree with Cal on this. I did a little peak around the other day to find out was the Administration officials actually said, and what I found was not as inflammatory as I thought I had heard. Then I looked into what others had said (namely- talkshow host (Both right and left), journalists, Rightwing and Leftwing Pundits, and the like) What was said around the comments of the administration was what were actually inflammatory, both on the right and the left. Which leaves one to wonder if things aren’t said, left to loosely indicate things, and allowed to be filled in by lesser officials, pundits or whoever can shout loudest. But regardless of whether the president said a number of the things that were read into his comments, you can not deny that they fiercely oppose any opposition that arises to their position.

9. Justin Gardner Says:
   November 22nd, 2005 at 1:18 am

   Again, I’m talking about overall. This is definitely a shift from the “you’re either with us or against us” meme that they spread from 2001 up until recently.

   Come on people, the Administration wasn’t talking about how dissent was good last year this time. In fact, they said that questioning the war was hurting the troops morale and our ability to win the war. What do you think that’s code for? Keep protesting?

   Again, the “abrupt” word was unfortunate, but it’s still a shift and we all know it.

10. john Says:
    November 22nd, 2005 at 11:58 am

    I was not saying that they did not change rhetoric, but the accusation that the administration ACTUALLY stated that opposition to their ideas and handling of the war was unamerican is not true. But I completely agree with you justin that the intention was there to imply that if you oppose the war and the administration’s policy’s you are aiding the “terrorists” is tantemount to being unamerican. The thing is they did not say that out right, but left the accusations up to the press to make.

11. Noodles Says:
    November 22nd, 2005 at 2:00 pm

    The “with us or with the terrorists” statement during the state of the union adress a couple years back was intended for autocratic-terrorist supporting dictators world wide. That was the audience he wanted to shake up, not so much the american people.

    There wasn’t a whole lot of dissent running up to iraq as much as there is now anyway, especially among democrats, because they thought the war would be a repeat of 1991 in terms of time and casualties. Only when things began to get sticky did Kerry & freinds start chanting all that “Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” crap.

12. John Says:
    November 22nd, 2005 at 3:45 pm

    But Noodles it was the wrong war, at the wrong place at the wrong time, in the end. So maybe Kerry & friends were right in the end.

13. Noodles Says:
    November 22nd, 2005 at 4:10 pm

    “But Noodles it was the wrong war, at the wrong place at the wrong time, in the end”

    So its the end now? Thats it huh, time to review our lives and prepare for oblivion. Say goodbye to your relatives, eat some ice cream, smell some flowers. The final moments of the universe are ticking away….

    Ok, why are we still here? I thought we were at the end.

14. Justin Gardner Says:
    November 22nd, 2005 at 4:39 pm

    …the administration ACTUALLY stated that opposition to their ideas and handling of the war was unamerican is not true.

    Did they ever say the word “unamerican?” I doubt it. But if their base can then pick that message up and start saying that, the message meisters in the White House know what they’re doing. They wanted to silence critics of the war from the start. That’s why the denied access to reporters who wrote articles that were critical of their policies.

    Okay…now THIS is the end. ;-)

Leave a Reply

Related Posts:

• War and Dissent
• McCain Welcomes Obama to General Election
• Michael Moore Gets…Michael Moore’d