For example, here’s how an AP writer portrayed one Q&A exchange:
Bush unexpectedly invited questions from the audience and immediately was asked about the number of Iraqi casualties in the war.
“I would say 30,000 more or less have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis,” the president said. “We’ve lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq.”
“Since the inception of the Iraq war, I’d like to know the approximate total of the Iraqis who have been killed. And by Iraqis, I include civilians, military, police, insurgents, translators…”
Bush Concedes 30,000 Iraqis Dead; Would Do It Again
And I don’t think it’s ironic anymore that Al-Jazeera and American MSM stories seem almost completely indistinguishable.
But the “admission” isn’t the only thing MSM is creatively covering.
Another questioner challenged the administration’s linkage of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with the Iraq war. Bush said that Saddam Hussein was a threat and he was widely believed to have weapons of mass destruction ï¿½ a belief that later proved false.
“I made a tough decision,” Bush said. “And knowing what I know today I’d make the decision again. Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country.”
Here’s the entire exchange…
QUESTION: I would like to know why you and others in your administration invoke 9/11 as justification for the invasion of Iraq when no respected journalists or other Middle Eastern experts confirm that such a link existed.
BUSH: Oh, I appreciate that.
9/11 changed my look on foreign policy. I mean, it said that oceans no longer protect us; that we can’t take threats for granted; that if we see a threat, we’ve got to deal with it. It doesn’t have to be militarily necessarily but we got to deal with it. We can’t just hope for the best anymore.
So the first decision I made, as you know, was to deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan because they were harboring terrorists. This is where the terrorists plan and plotted.
And the second decision - which was a very difficult decision for me, by the way, and it’s one that I didn’t take lightly - was that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He is a declared enemy of the United States. He had used weapons of mass destruction. The entire world thought he had weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations had declared in more than 10 - I can’t remember the exact number of resolutions - that disclose or disarm or face serious consequences.
I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein: “You’re a threat.’ And the 9/11 attacks accentuated that threat, as far as I’m concerned.
And so we gave Saddam Hussein the chance to disclose or disarm. And he refused.
And I made a tough decision. And knowing what I know today, I’d make the decision again. Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country.
So the “journalist” jumped over the first 5 paragraphs in the response, which included Bush’s explanation of how 9/11 impacted the decision to go to war with Iraq. But jumped straight to the end of Bush’s response to allow the “journalist” to maintain the false premise of her question and paint Bush’s response in the context of such false premise.
But why should we be suprised?