July 13, 2004
Media blame military and government agencies, not Bush
New York, July 13, 2004 – An analysis of the political coverage in the U.S. shows that the media delegated the responsibility for the administration’s Iraq policy and domestic security crisis away from President Bush. The U.S. military, the government in general and the secret services were the most frequent targets of criticism during the first six months of 2004 in that regard.
The latest report from Media Tenor, an independent media analysis institute, compares the coverage of ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today to highlight trends in the campaign coverage. The analysis shows that Bush was not held solely responsible for the two major crises in his government during the first six months of 2004.
When the media reported on the situation in Iraq, including the prisoner abuse scandal, the U.S. military was the focus of 58% of the reports – 80% of these reports, in turn, were overall more negative in tone. Bush was the main protagonist in slightly more than 7% of the reports on the situation in Iraq, of which 44% were negative in tone.
When Richard Clarke published his book criticizing the Bush administration for its anti-terror policies prior to 9/11, Bush was held responsible for his lack of initiative, but the news media focused largely on the administration as a whole and the CIA and FBI in the coverage of domestic security. Almost half (47%) of all reports on domestic security focused on the government as the main protagonist. Of these, 40.9% were negative in tone. The CIA and FBI were the main protagonists in 25% of the reports, of which 50.7% had a predonminantly negative tone. Bush was the focus of only 10% of the reports on domestic security. Nevertheless, 47.3% of his coverage on this issue was negative.
You can find the complete report with graphics at: http://www.mediatenor.com/USElect071304.htm
Posted by Isadora Badi at July 13, 2004 03:55 PMWe all know the buck continues to fall short of the President’s desk. he is just a simple country boy who can’t really be held responsible for much except staying sober, and let’s face, he seems to be doing that very very well. You can’t ask much more of a simple country boy now, can you?
All kidding aside, this administration has been the most adept I have ever seen in my 54 years at deflecting responsibility from the President if criticism is negative, and putting the President squarely in the control seat when good news comes around.
The only really positive event that the President can claim credit for, as far as I can see, is invading Afghanistan and dismantling the Taliban. I honestly can’t think of another feather he can put in his cap. Pretty feeble record to run on in light of all that has happened.
Everything else that is positive has been the result of others credit: The Pentagon can take credit for dispersing Hussein’s army, cyclical economics globally accounts for the moderate recovery from recession as well as Greenspan and the Fed’s actions.
Posted by: David R Remer at July 13, 2004 05:38 PMI ABSOLUTELY cannot believe we are buying this Bushit wholesale! And this man is getting away with this. And mind you, with basically the same speech about “Amuriken freed’m” that he was using three years ago. The Press is PRETENDING THIS IS NORMAL to be unaccountable and not even making a mature and responsible intent to answer questions such as even Clinton would. It’s a bad Machiavelli’s “The Prince” (or Senor Wencas) he’s the dumb little charmer and Cheney is the man behind the curtain telling us to not pay attention to that man behind the curtain.
It’s a lame attempt at Reagan and Bush 1, an off, off, off broadway version of that type of diversionary thing. Problem is that Rove has Bush’s role as Prince thwarted from succeeding. Bush has no speeches that are worth a damn he lacks the charisma to pull it off(although I do think he could have it if Karen Hughes and Karl Rove could stop presenting him so shabbily) and all of Cheney’s behind the scenes wires and movements are all showing.
Yet the press is in a somnaic state and playing that this is normal for a president to have this much “unanswered to” FAILURE he has barely answered for poorly and the press plays it as this is par which is not acceptable in the least to have this much little responsibility for anything.
Okay first off the problem at Abu Ghraib was not a couple of Yokels from West Virginia and Pennsylvania with a dogleash. These people were’nt doing anything they weren’t given orders to do! These orders undoubtedly came from higher-ups and who knows how high this goes perhaps even to Rummy’s desk, who knows and who’s allowed to look? Could Bush have known? Sincerely I don’t give this man that much credit. But Rumsfeld certainly!
Any answers from Bush? He just rambled on mispronouncing the name of the prison.
HERE’S a funny thought, wouldn’t it be great if every republican administration was like the gameshow “THE FAMILY FEUD” and we could hear shouts from their immediate cabinet to dumb explainations saying “GOOD ANSWER!-GOOD ANSWER!” I mean it would atleast make this bearable.
The reason the left doesn’t trust Bush really is that he hasn’t been straight foreward with anyone since the day he bucked into office. There’s no openness and hence we hunt him down, then stalk then give chase, Then harrass, then disdain, Then blame and it’s really Bush’s dumb policy towards the public that accounts for it.
Posted by: SKBD at July 13, 2004 11:35 PMPerhaps the real problem is not that Bush in not be held responsible for failures but it’s hard to decide what is a failure. Past administrations were criticized for things that they obviously failed at. It’s much harder to classify Bush’s failings.
Was Afghanistan failure? No, it probably could have been a greater success had we captured Bin Laden or more fully dismantled Al-Qaeda. It is however not a valid argument to say the actions in Afghanistan constitute failure.
Was/is the economy a failure? No, the economy is improving at a measured pace. Regardless how you interpret economic data, SKBD is right to say that the economy is cyclical.
Is Abu Ghraib Bush’s fault? At this point I take exception to S-KBD’s assertion that those morons were ordered to abuse the prisoners. I’d ask anyone to provide any concrete evidence to support the claim that they were ordered to behave like idiots. To simply state that they must have been ordered, denies the facts and the debate.
Is Iraq a failure? This depends on how you see the conflict. I believe that freeing 25 million people and giving them a chance to chart their own path is good. I believe removing Saddam’s support to Palestinian terrorist groups may provide that region the only chance for peace. I believe that the international communities did everything they could for years to try and fix the problem without result. I also think going to Iraq to find WMD’s was a stupid reason. The removal of a state supporting terrorism was enough for me.
David:
Ahem…your partisanship is showing. Lets focus on an achievement of Bush’s, which is the economy. Now, now…. continue reading before you decide to NOT accept my position.
First, its accepted fact that the economy was dropping when Bush took office. The recession started officially in March of 2001. Simple math leads us to the fact that the economy dropped for 2 consecutive quarters (6 months) before that date (the definition of a recession being 2 quarters of negative GDP growth), meaning that the downturn began back in October 2000.
So, unless you can show a Bush policy in the first 2 months of his presidency that caused the economy to drop in the two months PRECEDING his presidency, I’d say its clear the economy was heading downward.
Secondly, the economy is heading up right now. Jobs have grown for 10 straight months to the tune of 1.5 million jobs. The argument that the jobs are not good ones is refuted by FactCheck.org, by the way. The stock market is back to about 95% of its record high. Consumer confidence is up. Housing starts are up.
Now, the question truly is——Why is the economy on an upswing? Could be the tax cuts, could be a cycle, could just be a bounce. But since so many are so eager to blame Bush when the economy was down, doesnt it make sense (other than from a partisan viewpoint) to give Bush credit when the economy improves?
I recognize also that the deficit is too high right now. I hold Bush in part responsible, though some of the growth there is due to 911 etc.
But I also believe that Clinton did away with much of the deficit by having an strong economy—that will work for any president. The real need there is to cut spending—and that too goes for any president.
Anyway, David, to not give Bush credit for anything is simply not credible. Ive chosen just one example, but I could point to others as well. But we’d probably disagree on an ideological basis, so I chose a factual one.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 14, 2004 09:59 AMjoebagodonuts, as I have done elsewhere here, I give the President credit for those particular tax cuts which boosted consumber spending, i.e. the tax cuts to the lower and middle classes. There is no question that stimulating demand is helpful in resolving a recession. And I agree and have never held President Bush responsible for the recession, which had many causes preceding his taking office. But, this is economics 101, and any President capable of winning the office would have cut taxes for the consumers in order to spur demand. And Bush deserves credit for having done the right thing in this regard.
The roots of next recession however, have also been laid by this President and Congress with the deficits, debt, and obscenely wasteful interest to be paid foreigners on that debt. This is also true, and the GAO, the CBO, and even conservative think tanks all agree, we are not going to grow the economy anywhere near enough to take care of this astronomical debt.
So, taken in whole, I find little reason to give Bush much credit for the economy. The credit largely goes to the global cyclical event, the Fed, and Bush doing, for a change, something that would be expected of any President, cut consumer taxes to stimulate consumer buying. But to bankrupt the future in order to pay political favors back to wealthy donors, that was over the top, especially when the bulk of the wealthy said they would be happy to forego tax cuts if it would help our economic situation. Well, it would have, and Bush once again made the wrong decision, gave them tax cuts anyway and helped move our deficit to over 10 Trillion Dollars by decade’s end.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2004 11:34 AMOkay Joe,
Very rarely do I post remotely seriously but you are wrong on some points, let me address them. And David too.
First of all: The WAR accounts for a good portion of the upswing in the economy. With all the contractors so go too other contractors to enable other contractors and many other contractors to…you get the picture. It’s KEYNESIAN. That actually accounts for a good amount of it. Services are down but manufacture is up.
Secondly: The other reason that the economy is bulleting along HAS DIDDLEY-SQUAT to do with Bush but instead the Federal Reserve/Greenspan and lowering interest rates which is borrowing and leads to more construction in both the private and public sectors. To reduce rates astronomically low as Greenspan has done has jump started export industries and manufacturing. But has also caused many lay offs prior to it’s resurgence. But it causes gas prices to skyrocket so costs on goods are up too. So it’s moving all over the place not just up. Also this goes to contractor’s benefit to borrow low so they can compete domes/inter as well as deal with the gas hikes.
9-11 did not account for the drop off in the economy. It’s too detailed to explain but it didn’t, a loss yes especially in tourism but elsewhere no, not manufacturing, not services, not retail with exception to effected locales.
David: Now the tax-cuts didn’t get people over a hump and certainly not wealthy corporations. What did infact is, again, the lowering of the interest rates to all time lows. Some think this is in preparation for a bubble that is about to burst, so alot of people are holding their breath. I’ve read alot of posts on other sites from rather worried investors, but the ongoing war stimulus evens it out more than likely.
Bush’s spending that people complain about was a failed stimulus package intended to quickly spark the domestic economy. Yeah it was dumb and a waste of resources.
BUT NADER HAS THE BEST means of getting this economy back on track, David listen up, STOPPING CORPORATE WELFARE!
Did you know that if we stop paying corporate welfare that in approximately 11 years we could pay off the national deficit?
Family farms would be able to prosper again without incursion. All by getting rid of Socialism.
Go to any search engine and look up “Corporate welfare” you will learn things that will blow your mind about what corporations and companies get away with in the U.S. It’s a real eye-opener!
Posted by: S-KBD at July 14, 2004 11:02 PMDelzario,
There isn’t quite so much a “smoking gun” as there is one with a warm barrel. The Justice Dept. brief positing the Administration could be “above the law” when going after terrorists, is suggestive that very wrong interrogation practices were being considered.
What’s more likely to have happened, though, was the way emphasis tends to go into warp drive when it comes from the top levels on down, and each subordinate commander adds his own little extra “somethin-somethin” to the nature of the directives as they trickle down the pachinko machine.
President: “It is urgent that we do what we can to get that information out of those rebel captives.”
SecDef: “We must get the information out of the captives at all costs.”
Joint Commander: “Get that information, no matter what the cost.”
Field S-2: “Whatever it takes, get that information!”
Battalion S-2: “No holds barred! Do what it takes to get that information!”
Interrogation Chief: “Anything that can possibly be done to enhance the interrogation climate, do it. Just get the information.”
Interrogator: “I read in a book somewhere that sleep deprivation works. Let’s use that.”
MP shift supervisor: “Sleep deprive the prisoners. Get creative on how to do that.”
MP: “I know… I’ll wire ‘em up to electrodes. That’ll keep ‘em awake!”
As you can see, the ideas get progressively more draconian and more off-the-wall as they filter down the chain. I’ve seen similar things happen with a number of other high-level directives as they get totally out of what by the time local commanders are dealing with them, as each commander wants to go one step beyond where his superior took it.
This is not a justification for Abu Ghraib, but an explanation of the way the process breaks in a way that allows such a thing to happen.
Dear Joe:
You couldn’t be more wrong. The economy and balance of trade are in shambles. Can’t say that during an election year, so the spinmiesters are saying black is white and bla bla bla.
I would say the economy is neither in “shambles” nor in a virile recovery. The domino effect of layoffs producing more layoffs has been mainly halted, but it’s still not “easy” to get a job. My Republican leech friend is still leeching, in spite of her dozens of resumes sent out each week to potential employers. And she’s not unemployable.
It seems disingenuous, at best, for the business world to want to be represented by low-tax Republicans, who claim economic recovery, and then turn around and cite economic weakness as an excuse for their refusal to add to their workforce. If Republicans lose in November, the business world will only have itself to blame for the higher taxes around the corner.
This government hides the true unemployment rate by not counting anyone whose unemployment has run out, whether they have found a job or not. Jobs are being created, but they are all service jobs, like nursing, waitressing or Walmart. Meanwhile the White House is hyping job gains, without talking about what kind of jobs. This country has always flourished when unskilled workers have been given a living wage. We are far from that now thanks to lax enforcement of immigration laws, outsourcing and automation. When similar changes took place in US agriculture the farms, income and trade balance stayed here. But with technology manufacturing the capital, labor and balance of trade has taken flight.
Posted by: bayviking at July 15, 2004 04:10 PMA two-pronged assault should be launched against the conditions you mention, bayviking:
1. Business taxation should be driven off of the compensation disparity ratio between the top executives and the line workers. Business would be tax-incentivized to increase compensation to line workers, and curb the outrageous spending on executives.
2. Public assistance for those who either:
a. Work (partial assistance for part-time work)
b. Are retired
c. Are handicapped
d. Are full-time students
This would incentivize individuals to become workers and to take jobs in all fields that are available whether they nominally pay a “living wage” or not—seeing as this would be supplemented up to a living wage level no matter what the employer pays.
With more of the unskilled positions being filled by domestic labor, there would be less of a business incentive to fight immigration reform, and then we could begin to stop the bleeding of American jobs, and American quality of life.
