The fabulous Jay Rosen is doing his bit to pry open the narrative bear trap clamped around the legs of journalists — nine ways you could cover the election campaign without once using the language of sports or show biz. What a concept(s)!
How lame! First the Demos let Bush walk into the White House without a struggle (and this prior to 9/11!). Then, they let him circumvent the UN and international community, and stay silent. Now they are imploding, because the party has no real principles, but only jockey for the daily news, looking like imbeciles.
Remember ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’? For Bush, They Are a Nonissue
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: December 18, 2003–New York Times
“So what’s the difference?” he responded.
…continued a gradual shift in the way he has addressed the topic, from the immediacy of the threat to an assertion that no matter what, the world is better off without Mr. Hussein in power.
… “If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger,” Mr. Bush continued, referring to Mr. Hussein. “That’s what I’m trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11…[what I call the Republican guard ‘Ideology of 9/11–B.N.]
Mr. Bush has always been careful to have multiple reasons ready for his major policy proposals, and his administration has deployed them deftly to adapt to changing circumstances. In trying to build public and international support for toppling Mr. Hussein, the administration cited, with different emphasis at different times, the banned weapons, links between the Iraqi leader and terrorist organizations, a desire to liberate the Iraqi people and a policy of bringing democracy to the Middle East. When it came to describing the weapons program, Mr. Bush never hedged before the war. “If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today ? and we do ? does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?”
“And if he doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction?” Ms. Sawyer asked the president, according to a transcript provided by ABC. “Diane, you can keep asking the question,” Mr. Bush replied. “I’m telling you ? I made the right decision for America because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, invaded Kuwait. But the fact that he is not there is, means America’s a more secure country.”
Here’s the logic for you–I’m going to kill the 9 year old boy next door, because in 10 years he might try to seduce my wife, who seems to be quite fond of him. Vote for this. Thanks.
I’m not saying that Hussein didn’t want WMD, or wouldn’t use them, it’s just that stupidity from Bush is just as deplorable.
A variable leads a simple life, full of activity but quite short (measured in nanoseconds, usually). It all begins when the program finds a variable declaration, and a variable is born into the world of the executing program. There are two possible places where the variable might live, but we will venture into that a little later.
Atom Feed
How lame! First the Demos let Bush walk into the White House without a struggle (and this prior to 9/11!). Then, they let him circumvent the UN and international community, and stay silent. Now they are imploding, because the party has no real principles, but only jockey for the daily news, looking like imbeciles.
“without the language of sports or show biz”
. . .
and without war metaphors. The average political correspondent would be speechless without recourse to these three discourses.
Remember ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’? For Bush, They Are a Nonissue
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: December 18, 2003–New York Times
“So what’s the difference?” he responded.
…continued a gradual shift in the way he has addressed the topic, from the immediacy of the threat to an assertion that no matter what, the world is better off without Mr. Hussein in power.
… “If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger,” Mr. Bush continued, referring to Mr. Hussein. “That’s what I’m trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11…[what I call the Republican guard ‘Ideology of 9/11–B.N.]
Mr. Bush has always been careful to have multiple reasons ready for his major policy proposals, and his administration has deployed them deftly to adapt to changing circumstances. In trying to build public and international support for toppling Mr. Hussein, the administration cited, with different emphasis at different times, the banned weapons, links between the Iraqi leader and terrorist organizations, a desire to liberate the Iraqi people and a policy of bringing democracy to the Middle East. When it came to describing the weapons program, Mr. Bush never hedged before the war. “If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today ? and we do ? does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?”
“And if he doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction?” Ms. Sawyer asked the president, according to a transcript provided by ABC. “Diane, you can keep asking the question,” Mr. Bush replied. “I’m telling you ? I made the right decision for America because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, invaded Kuwait. But the fact that he is not there is, means America’s a more secure country.”
Here’s the logic for you–I’m going to kill the 9 year old boy next door, because in 10 years he might try to seduce my wife, who seems to be quite fond of him. Vote for this. Thanks.
I’m not saying that Hussein didn’t want WMD, or wouldn’t use them, it’s just that stupidity from Bush is just as deplorable.
A variable leads a simple life, full of activity but quite short (measured in nanoseconds, usually). It all begins when the program finds a variable declaration, and a variable is born into the world of the executing program. There are two possible places where the variable might live, but we will venture into that a little later.