Old book, new spin (7/6)

By Ben Fritz and Bryan Keefer

Is John Kerry the "author of a strategy to win the war on terror?" That's what the Kerry campaign claimed in a recent ad aired in New Mexico and online that showed an image of the Senator's 1997 book, The New War.

However, by the standards of what Americans consider today to be the "war on terror" -- combating radical Islamic groups like Al Qaeda and others who would commit acts of terrorism against the United States -- the answer is almost surely no.

As a New Republic article by Michael Crowley about the book (which is out of print) explains, "The New War" said very little that is directly relevant to the post-9/11 war on terror. "Yes, Kerry briefly considered the possibility of a terrorist catastrophe on American soil," Crowley wrote. "But The New War was almost entirely focused on the threat of global crime -- not terrorism. If the future Kerry predicted really had arrived, we'd currently be locked in a vicious cyberwar with CD-pirating Japanese yakuza, Chinese kidney-traders, and Italian mobsters -- not hunting Islamic fundamentalists potentially armed with weapons of mass destruction."

Of course, very few politicians were aware of, let along talking publicly about, Al Qaeda in 1997. But for the Kerry campaign to claim in its ad that he's "author of a strategy to win the war on terror" disingenuously implies that he wrote a book with a strategy relevant to the current political context. In fact, according to Crowley's summary of the book, it contained few of the ideas included in the seven major points of a plan to win the war on terror outlined (41K PDF) by his campaign, such as winning the "war of ideas" in the Arab and Islamic worlds or controlling the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It also doesn't discuss Al Qaeda at all, although it does mention the Taliban at one point.

The Bush team responded immediately with an ad of its own in New Mexico and on the Internet that pounced on Kerry's exaggeration -- but added in a layer of distortion that confused the issue almost beyond recognition.

The Bush ad begins by taking Kerry's claim that he is "Author of a strategy to win the war on terror" and spinning it into the accusation that he "doesn't know the enemy" by implying Kerry's 1997 book is an illustration of his current proposals to combat terrorism. Bush's ad attacks the book in the present tense: "Never mentions Al-Qaeda. Says nothing about Osama Bin Laden. Calls Yasser Arafat a 'statesman.'" It continues, "The New Republic says Kerry's plan 'misses the mark' ... How can John Kerry win a war if he doesn't know the enemy?" -- all of which imply that these comments relate to his current proposals.

In fact, Crowley's article, which the Bush campaign cites in its backup materials, actually states that "It is, of course, true that almost no one predicted a September 11-like attack, and few correctly identified Islamic terrorists as the chief post-cold-war security threat to the United States. But the ways in which The New War missed the mark are nevertheless revealing" (italics ours). By changing the tense of Crowley's criticism, the ad implies that Kerry's 1997 book is actually his current proposal for dealing with terrorism.

The Bush campaign's suggestion that Kerry's book "calls Yasser Arafat a 'statesman'" is also questionable. In it, he quotes historian Paul Johnson stating, in part, that "After the PLO [Palestinian Liberation Organization] and the other terrorist movements it succored racked up an appalling total of lives extinguished and property destroyed, how far have they progressed toward achieving their stated political ends?" Kerry then goes on to write that "Only eleven years have passed since those words appeared in print. If nothing else, this indicates the velocity of change in the late twentieth century. Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged and emboldened by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman, while those whose only object is to disrupt society require no such 'role models.'" (italics ours) In context, Kerry's characterization of Arafat as a statesman is more a comment on the Palestinian leader's image in the world than an unqualified endorsement. While the Senator's writing is ambiguous, the Bush campaign's quotation of a single word unfairly strips out the relevant context, a problem both sides have had when discussing this book.

Update 7/15 9:50 PM EST: A version of this column appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer today.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

7/6/2004 01:56:52 AM EST |

Conason botches Bush's letter to Congress (7/5)

By Brendan Nyhan

In a recent New York Observer column, liberal commentator Joe Conason has become the latest journalist to distort the letters President Bush sent to Congress announcing the beginning of the invasion of Iraq.

The first such letter was dated March 18, when the President gave his final ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, and the second version (which was longer but used similar language) was sent on March 21, the day after the invasion began. Both included a certification required by Congress in the resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. The second, for instance, stated that "I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

As we previously pointed out, these statements have been distorted by several journalists in the debate over the administration's pre-war claims about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Conason is the latest member of the media to alter or shorten the quotes in a way that makes it appear that Bush premised war with Iraq on a direct allegation of a connection to 9/11, rather than the more vague rhetorical connections the administration generally made.

He writes the following:

Although President George W. Bush has since admitted there is no evidence that the deposed dictator was behind the 9/11 attacks, he sent a letter to Congress in 2002 indicating he knew otherwise: "I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with taking necessary action against those nations who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11."

Conason fails to clarify the letter's relationship to the Congressional resolution and misstates its timing. More importantly, however, he misquotes Bush in the same way that Time magazine's Margaret Carlson did on CNN's "Capital Gang" on June 19. By omitting a key phrase in Bush's statement that action against Iraq is "consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 (italics ours), Conason falsely suggests that Bush said he knew Saddam was involved in 9/11 in the letter. The President actually wrote that military action is "consistent with" action against "international terrorists and terrorist organizations," including those associated with the Sept. 11 attacks - a far more indirect claim.

Update 7/8 12:06 AM EST: Conason has included a correction in the newest version of his column. It correctly states Bush's original quote but does not clarify the year the letter was sent.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

Related posts:
-Distorting Bush's letters to Congress (Brendan Nyhan, 6/22/04)

7/5/2004 06:16:17 PM EST |

This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.

Comments by YACCS