| About | |
| Contact Us | |
| Articles | |
| Topic Index | |
| Reports | |
| Quotes | |
| On the Web | |
| Links | |
| TW Tracker | |
| Support | |
Times Watch for
April 9, 2004
Condi Not Contrite?
David Sanger's front-page "News Analysis" of Condoleezza Rice's testimony, headlined "Sticking to Their Scripts," seems annoyed that Rice didn't concede enough blame on the part of the Bush administration for 9-11.
Sanger sniffs: "She did not acknowledge failings…She also did not concede that the newly arrived Bush administration was part of that problem, or that it, too, underestimated what it confronted or was distracted by other issues like tax cuts, China and missile defense. Moreover, her tone--as controlled as her delivery at one of her Stanford seminars--left many panel members wondering if she was defending a position that several of them have publicly said is indefensible. For viewers who have not been following the details of the argument, there was the lingering question of whether anyone in the Bush White House is capable of admitting error--a step many of Ms. Rice's current and former colleagues said would help calm the political waters."
Sanger also fails to provide the full context to a heated exchange between Rice and Democratic interrogator Richard Ben-Veniste: "Addressing Ms. Rice with a tone of impatience that she rarely hears in the quiet halls of the West Wing, he demanded that she reveal to the world the title of that Aug. 6 briefing. 'I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,' ' she said, immediately trying to explain that it was a historical document, not one containing an explicit warning. 'I would like to finish my point here,' she said as Mr. Ben-Veniste interrupted. Mr. Ben-Veniste shot back, 'I didn't know that there was a point.'"
But Sanger fails to point out that Ben-Veniste actually asked Rice two questions at the time, and that Rice questioned the premise of the more important one.
What Ben-Veniste asked Rice: "Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?"
Rice volunteered the title, but disputed Ben-Veniste's premise that it contained warnings: "You said, did it not warn of attacks? It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States."
Reporter Philip Shenon also fails to put the confrontation into context, concluding his story with the same truncated version of Democrat Ben-Veniste putting Rice down: "Ms. Rice was interrupted frequently in the course of her questioning, with Democrats on the panel accusing her of unnecessarily long-winded answers to simple questions. 'I would like to finish my point,' she said to Mr. Ben-Veniste when he began speaking as she was. 'I didn't know there was a point,' he replied."
For Sanger in full, click here.
For Shenon's take, click here.
• Condoleezza Rice | David Sanger | Philip Shenon | Terrorism
Philip Shenon Called On Caller Double Standard
Reporter Philip Shenon didn't get a warm welcome from conservative callers Thursday morning on C-SPAN's
Washington Journal, where he was on to discuss Condoleezza Rice's upcoming testimony before the 9-11 commission. Apparently, the feeling was mutual. While Shenon got combative with a conservative caller, he remained calm amid left-wing ranters--and another caller called him on it.
In his opening remarks Shenon stated: "As a result of Richard Clarke's testimony a couple of weeks ago, we now know that there's a lot to be answered for during those eight months [of the Bush administration]."
During the call-in portion of the program, Shenon didn't refute allegations from a New Jersey caller claiming Bush knew about 9-11 "before it happened," addressing only the factual parts of the caller's rant.
Yet he interrupted a Pennsylvania caller who claimed Bill Clinton wasn't held accountable for besmirching the office of the presidency:
Shenon: "May I interrupt?…May I ask you, did, weren't there lots of investigations of President Clinton, including an impeachment investigation while he was in office? I think he was well investigated during his presidency."
Caller: "But what came out of it? Nothing."
Shenon (laughing): "I believe he was impeached by the House of Representatives."
Later a Florida viewer called Shenon on his interruption: "…whenever we get these wild allegations and misstatements by critics of the administration, like, 'Jerry Ford pardoned the Iran-Contra people,' [a reference to a false allegation from a previous caller] you never correct it. But any slight variance--and you just interrupted the caller, two calls ago--any slight variance in your mantra, you're quick to defend the previous administration [Clinton] and quick to defend such reports."
• C-SPAN | Condoleezza Rice | Philip Shenon | Terrorism
Neil MacFarquhar's Friday story from Cairo, "Arabs Worry Over Extremism While Evoking Vindication," is on Arab reaction to the rebellion in Iraq, and includes this statement: "Many commentators drew parallels between Israeli repression in the occupied territories--and its failure to pacify the Palestinians after more than three decades--and United States actions in Iraq. Indeed, there have been frequent accusations that the Bush administration is mistakenly following the Israeli model."
Question: Is MacFarquhar merely parroting anti-Israeli complaints or is he signing on to the idea that Israel is "oppressing" Palestinians?
For the rest of MacFarquhar's coverage from Cairo, click here.
• Iraq War | Israel | Neil MacFarquhar | Palestinians
Kate Zernike's "Lawyers Shift Focus From Big Tobacco to Big Food" describes attorneys slavering over an imminent feast of fast-food litigation: "The federal government calls obesity an epidemic and released statistics last month showing that it was close to overtaking smoking as the nation's No. 1 cause of death." The story's teaser takes the idea even farther: "With obesity now recognized as an epidemic, a wave of litigation looms."
Zernike doesn't point out how the government has radically changed the way it measures obesity. According to The Center for Consumer Freedom, "in 1998 the federal government changed its measurement standards, tipping 30 million Americans from healthy to 'overweight' overnight--without gaining an ounce."
Zernike could have also questioned the government throwing around the medical term "epidemic" about something that's not, in fact, contagious--overeating, unlike tuberculosis, does not spread from fat body to fat body.
For the rest of Zernike's piece on lawyers targeting "Big Food," click here.
• Gaffes | Health | Obesity | Kate Zernike
E-mail TimesWatch Director, Clay Waters, with TimesWatch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org