More Media Deception
I have heard the story on television and radio all day that President Bush claimed WMD had been found in Iraq after he had been told that what were first thought to be mobile labs were actually not. I suspected when I heard it that it was not the whole story. Captain Ed exposes the misleading report.
Let’s take a look at the lead first:On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile “biological laboratories.” He declared, “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.”
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.
A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq — not made public until now — had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president’s statement.
Sounds damning, and if that was the only report on the trailers, it certainly would be. What the Post neglects to mention in its sensationalist zeal is that this was one of several teams that investigated the trailers, and the totality of their evaluations came to a different conclusion that that of the leakers who supplied this story. Skip down to the 12th paragraph, which is when Joby Warrick finally gets around to providing the context:
Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of 2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. “It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides,” said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.
The Pentagon didn’t send one team of experts to review the trailers; they sent three, presumably to get a diverse analysis of the evidence, especially since the pre-war intel on WMD had come up remarkably short. That sounds like a prudent strategy to me, having competing teams research the same equipment and evidence to develop independent analyses to present to the Pentagon. They did so, and two of the three teams provided conclusions that fit the pre-war intel, while one did not.
Read it all. And those on the left accuse Bush of misleading. Un. Be. Lievable. It used to make me incredibly angry anytime I saw a story like this reported in such a sloppy and dishonest fashion. It still makes me angry, but it comes as absolutely no surprise anymore. I have come to expect this kind of crap from the mainstream media. The only nice thing I can say is that at least they are consistent.
Update: Jeff makes a good point in the comments: “Funny how this story gets headlines; stories about a PROVEN AQ-Iraq link get backpage treatment. ”
JN criticizes me for complaining about an article that includes the relevant information and says I am complaining about the choice of headline. What I was complaining about first were the television and radio reports on this story that I heard all day that did not once mention the fact that this was a minority opinion and that two other groups of experts reached differing opinions. And yes, I am complaining about the headline chosen because that is a big damn deal considering that is what most people take away with them. It was obviously what ABC News and others took away with them because I did not hear them once mention the fact that two groups of experts were of the opinion that these were mobile labs. I am also complaining that those very relevant facts (necessary to put the story into context) are not mentioned until paragraph 12. There is such a thing as burying a lede. In this case, I suspect the burying was intentional, and I think the first paragraphs make that case.
Update II: I agree with Sister Toldjah in her post titled “The case of the WaPo whopper”
:
I conclude that the headline and the opening paragraphs are willful misrepresentations of the facts as reported by the WaPo.Furthermore, isn’t it mildly ironic that a piece that discusses “allegations that intelligence was hyped or manipulated in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003? has done a bang up job hyping and manipulating the intelligence themselves for this ’story’?
From Bryan Preston at Junkyard Blog: “The story is an exhibit of bias by framing, at the very least. I’m not sure it rises to the level of Mary Mapes, but it’s in the same general genre of ‘news.’”
UPDATE III: On the subject of headlines and buried ledes, just imagine that your local newspaper, read by everyone you know, wrote a story saying that you were accused of some horrible act — let’s say rape for the men, child beating for the women. Imagine that the headline and opening dozen paragraphs of the story herald the accusations made against you. Then in the thirteenth paragraph of the story they say that DNA tests have cleared you of the rape (for the men) or that an investigation had found no evidence of child abuse (for the women). Let’s say that your local television news picks up the story, and reports the accusations, but doesn’t bother to report the DNA or investigation results. That is what George Bush must feel like everday.
Update IV: Lots of links to liberal blog posts on this here. Like ABC News, evidently the leftwing bloggers didn’t make it to the 12th paragraph.
Subscribe to blog feed.