bushes

[jfb]

For my friends who believe that W.'s drive to eliminate Saddam Hussein is motivated in large part by issues with his father, a new twist: Bush Sr.'s doubts about a unilateral war. The article is misleading but still interesting.

Comments

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

I'm not surprised by this -- I always preferred senior to junior (even though I voted for neither). It's nice to hear, although I'm surprised he's making the plea in public.

What's misleading about the article?

[jfb.livejournal.com]

Well, it's slanted. The Boston Globe report (http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/058/metro/At_Tufts_elder_Bush_defends_US_Iraq_policy+.shtml) on the same speech is undoubtedly slanted in the other direction, but the counterpoint is still instructive.

It's largely a matter of emphasis. The Times article says that Bush issued a "warning" about the unwisdom of proceeding without UN support, and barely mentions that Bush's speech supported a war on Iraq. The Globe article acknowledges the importance of an international coalition, but suggests that the speech's essential thesis was pro-war.

The Times article claims that Bush indicated "hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity." But the quotes it provides support only the position that international unity was required in 1991. It's not a wild leap to conclude that it's still necessary today, but it's not a conclusion Bush appears to have stated. In fact, the Globe article says that Bush "drew a distinction between the importance of multilateral action in the Gulf War and today," for multiple reasons.

The article says that Bush "came close to conceding that opponents of [the case against Hussein] have legitimate cause for concern," which is a labored attempt to make it sound like Bush doubts the case against Hussein. (Another way to say that he "came close to conceding" is to say that he "did not concede". Choose your slant.) According to the Globe article, though, when Bush said that something was "a little fuzzier" (the articles differ on what he was referring to), he was not saying that he doesn't support the war, he was explaining why it's harder today to build a coalition for it.

The Times article leads with the claim that "Bush has told his son" something, but in fact has nothing to say about what Bush may have told his son directly. It goes on to admit that it's just an article about a speech, but "the message... was unmistakeable." But the very fact that the Globe's account differs so widely is evidence that the message is completely mistakeable.

I have no idea, of course, whether Bush doubts the case for war, or whether he has expressed such doubts to his son. But I do have an idea what sloppy journalism looks like, and this looks like it to me. (If it were presented as an op-ed piece, I'd have more relaxed standards.) I can't say for certain, of course, without the actual text of the speech.

Re: unmistakeable

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

Far be it from me to paraphrase the same movie quote in one day, but:

"I don't think you should use this word anymore -- I do not think it means what you think it means."

And, if I were to use the other objoke:

"Different reporters hear different things from a speech -- film at eleven."