Bernstein: Bush administration lack of truth is unprecedented

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Bernstein: Bush administration's disinformation, misinformation 'something I have never witnessed before on this scale'

Mike Sheehan
Published: Wednesday February 14, 2007

Veteran reporter Carl Bernstein says the lack of truth and candor from the Bush administration is unprecedented in his experience.

Comparing the Nixon administration's press relations to those of Bush, Bernstein says, "Nixon's relationship to the press was consistent with his relationship to many institutions and people. He saw himself as a victim. We now understand the psyche of Richard Nixon, that his was a self-destructive act and presidency.

"The Bush administration," Bernstein continues, "is a far different matter in which disinformation, misinformation and unwillingness to tell the truth -- a willingness to lie both in the Oval Office, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in the office of the vice president, the vice president himself -- is something that I have never witnessed before on this scale."

Bernstein contrasted Nixon's covering up of illegal activities tied to his re-election campaign with the Bush White House's "unwillingness to be truthful, both contextually and in terms of basic facts that ought to be of great concern to people of all ideologies.

"This president has a record of dishonesty and obfuscation that is Nixonian in character in its willingness to manipulate the press, to manipulate the truth," he adds. "We have gone to war on the basis of misinformation, disinformation and knowing lies from top to bottom."

Bernstein blasts what he describes as "the willingness of the president and the vice president and the people around them to try to undermine people who have effectively opposed them by telling the truth." He cites attacks on Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) and even Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

"That's the real story, and that's the story that [the press] should have been writing," he says.

Bernstein, who gained fame with Bob Woodward for their breakthrough reporting on the Watergate scandal, was interviewed for a PBS Frontline series on the media. In an earlier interview reported on at RAW STORY, the famed journalist said the Bush administration had done "far greater damage" than Nixon.

Excerpts from an Editor and Publisher article with portions of the PBS interview follow...

It's very difficult, as a reporter, to get across that when you say, "This is a presidency of great dishonesty," that this is not a matter of opinion. This is demonstrable fact. If you go back and look at the president's statements, you look at the statements of the vice president, you look at the statements of Condoleezza Rice, you go through the record, you look at what [counterterrorism expert] Richard Clarke has written, you look at what we know -- it's demonstrable.

It's fact. Now, how do you quantify it? That's a different question.

But to me, if there is a great failure by the so-called mainstream press in this presidency, it's the unwillingness to look at the lies and disinformation and misinformation and add them up and say clearly, "Here's what they said; here's what the known facts were," because when that is done, you then see this isn't a partisan matter. This is a matter of the truth, particularly about this war. This is a presidency that is not willing to tell the truth very often if it is contrary to its interests. It's not about ideology from whence I say this.

It's about being a reporter and saying: "That's what the story is. Let's see what they said; let's see what the facts are." ...
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
I think everyone is aware who he is- without putting up bio--

Lets see he based entire transcript on his opinion with Richard Clarke as reference to one statement-

Hmm we couldn't have another liberal blog episode could we--lets do google search and see what we find--
search Bernstein: Bush administration's disinformation--top 5

++++++++++++++++++++++++

More from 'Frontline' Interviews: Carl Bernstein on Nixon vs. BushI think what we're talking about with the Bush administration is a far different matter in which disinformation, misinformation and unwillingness to tell ...
www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003545556 - Feb 14, 2007 - Similar pages

The Raw Story | Bernstein: Bush administration's disinformation ..."The Bush administration," Bernstein continues, "is a far different matter in which disinformation, misinformation and unwillingness to tell the truth -- a ...
www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Bernstein_Bush_administrations_disinformation_misinformation_something_0214.html - Feb 14, 2007 - Similar pages

More from 'Frontline' Interviews: Carl Bernstein on Nixon vs. BushBERNSTEIN: First, Nixon's relationship to the press was consistent with his ... the Bush administration is a far different matter in which disinformation, ...
www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003545556 - Feb 14, 2007 - Similar pages

Citizens for a Free Kuwait - SourceWatchTo sell war in the Middle East, Bush needed to convince Americans that former ... of the Kuwaiti government and its collusion with the Bush administration. ...
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_for_a_Free_Kuwait - 43k - Cached - Similar pages

Independents Unbound: Bush administrationMore from 'Frontline' Interviews: Carl Bernstein on Nixon vs. Bush ... about with the Bush administration is a far different matter in which disinformation, ...
independentsunbound.blogspot.com/search/label/Bush%20administration - 297k - Feb 14, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages

Carl Bernstein: Senate Hearings on Bush, NowIn the case of the Bush administration's two attorneys general, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, ... Carl Bernstein is a Vanity Fair contributing editor. ...
www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041806Z.shtml - 51k - Cached - Similar pages

These wouldn't be liberal blog sites quoting extremely liberal author would they--

--and as far as terrorist sympathizer--I see he rants about ashcroft and gonzales--but can't seem to find anything on him dissing Ramsey Clark for defending saddam--so you be "the judge" on that one ;)
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
The easy way to follow the lies was given to us with Libby trial. Can't believe what I read and seen.
And unless something changed. Libby now not taking stand and this peed judge off. Pre trial were exception were made for different things some were made based on Libby taking stand. But this could force appearance of Cheney. And no one in administration wants him on that stand. If he finally told truth it would burn Row to. Not just Libby.
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,062
1,349
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
These wouldn't be liberal blog sites quoting extremely liberal author would they--

Let me back through your rebuttal for my own sanity.

1. You run a search on a topic that is CERTAIN to only be discussed by opponents of the administration.

2. You post the results of search.

3. You use results of search to back your argument that he is not credible because like-minded columnists and bloggers have quoted his article.

Do you see how asinine that "logic" is? You'd have done better to post his bioand discredit him that way. I didn't know who he was and not sure why we're all expected to.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
He rants about his opinion on lies misinformation.

Riddle me this without going into quotes from liberal parties on same issue he dissing this Rebs--what about the U.N. who came to same conclusion-- if I read GW's speech correctly that is reason why we used force--because of non compliance numerous times.

Now my liberal friends lets look at the axis of evil--

Iraq-- lets see who was against force to make Saddam comply--we had Russia-the French in U.N. and now liberals.

NK-- Kim tries to hold out for one on one so he can slip it to us again without 3rd party being brought in--and who has been screaming for same unilateral talks for last 6 years- the liberals

Iran--We try to take no options off table to persuade them they might have consequences for their behavior--and what is Hiliary and Pelosi and liberals agenda now-- to assure Iran that if they have any say they will NOT let this admin make any hostile actions towards iran.

Al-Quada--It is their # 1 goal to have victory in Iraq by running us out--Liberals #1 goal to get us out.

Now pray tell me my lberal friends--how is it you have same agenda as EVERYONE of our adversaries.

Explain how you are tough on terror--

You want always bring these liberal opinions on board how about some simple facts disputing your common goals with enemies--and no -your not going to get off --slinking off and bouncing back tomorrow with next liberal opinion--I'll bump this everyday until you give us some answers.
 
Last edited:

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Actually Iran has been trying to help Shiites since 2003 and we looked other way. And according to Gen Case 10% of our problem come from that direction. The other 90% comes from Jordan and Saudi. Their helping Sunnies. So why are we not treating them as a bigger problem to our soldiers. Were getting smoke up our but on Iran. Just like smoke we got why we had to start this invasion first place.
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
Now pray tell me my lberal friends--how is it you have same agenda as EVERYONE of our adversaries.
That's odd, I thought this thread was about how big of a liar our President is and now I wake up this morning only to discover that since I am against the war on Iraq, not only am I branded as a "liberal" but I am also a terrorist sympathizer just like Mike Sheehan.

How the hell did that happen? :shrug:
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
""It's very difficult, as a reporter, to get across that when you say, "This is a presidency of great dishonesty," that this is not a matter of opinion. This is demonstrable fact. If you go back and look at the president's statements, you look at the statements of the vice president, you look at the statements of Condoleezza Rice, you go through the record, you look at what [counterterrorism expert] Richard Clarke has written, you look at what we know -- it's demonstrable.""

where is the paragraph on sandy berger stealing documents from the national archives to cover the clinton administration`s butt around the time of the 9/11 commission?....

i missed that part...
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
That's odd, I thought this thread was about how big of a liar our President is and now I wake up this morning only to discover that since I am against the war on Iraq, not only am I branded as a "liberal" but I am also a terrorist sympathizer just like Mike Sheehan.

How the hell did that happen? :shrug:

that's because you over-slept...


imo,the article would be more effective if the author wasn't a known partisan (sp ?).
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
that's because you over-slept...


imo,the article would be more effective if the author wasn't a known partisan (sp ?).

isn`t it sad that there are practically no political or journalistic "non" partisans left?......

the civil war is coming..obviously,the ideological civil war is underway already.............think about it....it`s not as far fetched as you might think...

given some of this irresponsible,inflammatory hysterical rhetoric we`re hearing from so-called responsible professionals,how far fetched is it to think that some of these tolerant,multi-cultural radical leftwing fringe groups(if another presidential election is lost), may graduate from just slashing tires and breaking windows to actual violent behavior?......

not far fetched at all...
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,062
1,349
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
First off, I just proved your logic made no sense because I got frustrated after wasting time reading your sources, then realized you didn't actually make a point with them. But since your on the offensive, I'll respond.

He rants about his opinion on lies misinformation.

Isn't that what Hannity and Limbaugh do for a living? God forbid someone has a political opinion and wants to talk about it.

Riddle me this without going into quotes from liberal parties on same issue he dissing this Rebs--what about the U.N. who came to same conclusion-- if I read GW's speech correctly that is reason why we used force--because of non compliance numerous times.

You got it ass backwards Wayno. http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/09/16/annan_says_iraq_war_was_illegal/

Furthermore, look at who your source is!!!!! GW?!! You are going to disprove accusations of lying by going to the liar. THAT MAKES NO SENSE and you know it.

Now my liberal friends lets look at the axis of evil--

Iraq-- lets see who was against force to make Saddam comply--we had Russia-the French in U.N. and now liberals.

NK-- Kim tries to hold out for one on one so he can slip it to us again without 3rd party being brought in--and who has been screaming for same unilateral talks for last 6 years- the liberals

Iran--We try to take no options off table to persuade them they might have consequences for their behavior--and what is Hiliary and Pelosi and liberals agenda now-- to assure Iran that if they have any say they will NOT let this admin make any hostile actions towards iran.

Al-Quada--It is their # 1 goal to have victory in Iraq by running us out--Liberals #1 goal to get us out.

Now pray tell me my lberal friends--how is it you have same agenda as EVERYONE of our adversaries.

Explain how you are tough on terror--

Off topic. Changing the topic doesn't make your argument.

You want always bring these liberal opinions on board how about some simple facts disputing your common goals with enemies--and no -your not going to get off --slinking off and bouncing back tomorrow with next liberal opinion--I'll bump this everyday until you give us some answers.

The conclusion to your argument is a rant about a completely different topic. That's nonsense. If you want to start a new thread, that's fine, but I'm not going to play the game of topic change every time someone challenges your political views.

-Gary
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
gw...

i don't remember ever seeing media outlets (both sides) being this way before.....have you ?
 
Last edited:

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,062
1,349
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
isn`t it sad that there are practically no political or journalistic "non" partisans left?......

I don't think it is partisan as much as it is ideology. The war in Iraq isn't the kind of thing people don't have an opinion about. I am liberal but I don't consider myself a Democrat. Never voted for Clinton and didn't vote for Gore.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Gregg Was not pointed in your direction my friend--only thing I directed toward you was little jab on which side of fence author was on considering his stance or lack thereof on diff Attorney Generals-- Was worth 50 cents of cost of Sweatshirt--which you looked might dapper in I might add-was good pic:SIB
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Groz you sure haven't saved a bump without one fact other than Koffies opinion--and he and son were found to be corrupt to nth degree--as with Kerry's buddies the french.

Give us some facts --name one of the axis of evils that you siding with? Simple enough????

Somebody will have to explain come 08--cause if Rove doesn't make same case- I will be surprised.
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
That's odd, I thought this thread was about how big of a liar our President is and now I wake up this morning only to discover that since I am against the war on Iraq, not only am I branded as a "liberal" but I am also a terrorist sympathizer just like Mike Sheehan.

How the hell did that happen? :shrug:

It's simple Judge. If you don't support GW and the war, then you are an America hating liberal and side with the terrorists. A simple world for simple minds.

I am sure that the recent capitulation to NK is now OK with the neo's. It was weakness under Clinton and now its just good diplomacy.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
the civil war is coming.....
This is what makes you YOU.

Judge - DTB's traps are very tricky. You certainly didn't deserve to be caught up in it. I hope you learned your lesson and will not ever fall asleep again.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top