This is what the BBC says Cheney said about Kerry the other day.
US Vice-President Dick Cheney has said a vote for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry could make a terror attack on the US more likely.
Julian Sanchez, though not fond of Cheney, corrects the record for the sloppy (or deliberately misleading) Beeb. First, the full quote by Cheney:
Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we’re not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.
Sanchez’ observation:
Most of the reports either omit the rest of the quotation entirely, or append it elsewhere, as though they weren’t part of one long, multi-clause sentence. As I read this, he’s not saying the danger is that if we elect Kerry, then the danger is that we’ll be attacked. He’s saying that if we elect Kerry and we’re attacked, then the danger is that we’ll treat it as a criminal act rather than an act of war. And in context, it’s actually pretty transparent that this is what Cheney intended. So transparent once you look at the full transcript, in fact, that I wonder whether some of the misreading isn’t deliberate, either as a partisan tactic or an attempt to generate a news story.
Not too flattering for the Beeb either way.
Note: I failed to note that I first saw the Sanchez article at Instapundit. My apologies to the Blogfessor for this oversight!
UPDATE: Commenter David Field disagrees with my take on this, and I take his point. Deacon over at Power Line does too, differing with his fellow blogger, The Big Trunk, on this one. The blogger who first noticed this, Patterico, is sticking to his guns …that the AP (which the BBC often apes) got it wrong. Hugh Hewitt takes it the way the AP/BBC did. I am more inclined to agree with David Field on this.
UPDATE 2: Cheney ‘splains himself here. As ‘W’ would say, you gotta take him for his word.
Well, it all started with AP. the trend is bigger it seems.
That doesn’t make the “journalists” over at the scbbc look any better, as said.
It’s a telepathy thing i guess.
Repeat mantra: We. Media People. Must. Do. Everything. Possible. In Order. To. Remove. GREAT SATAN!!!
I think you’re stretching a point here.
Cheney clear intended the speech to carry the meaning the BBC reported on . I read the report critically before reading your piece and I must say I thought it was a perfect piece of objective reporting.
David Field
OT: 0815hrs Fri 10 Sep: Still waiting for the Beeb to change their story about Bush’s Guard service and the CBS documentary that used FORGED documents. CBS currently investigating but most other TV stations reporting Dan Rather has screwed up big style and that the forged memos came from the Democratic Party……oh dear. Will the Beeb change their story?
Off-topic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3641192.stm
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php
OFF TOPIC – Sudan
I get the feeling that generally the BBC would regard relief (inc. security) action in Sudan as being a “good thing”.
If the US was preventing action by the Security Council I think it would be named & shamed. But we seem to hear very little of which countries are seeking to avoid a strong UNSC resolution.
On R4 Today those countries were named (China, Pakistan & Algeria, with Russia also doubtful).
However having named those countries the BBC journalist felt the need to point out that the US’s position was partly election driven with US Christian & Jewish groups pressing for action in Sudan.
So even if the US is acting in accordance with the BBC world view, it is just for cynical motives.
Still waiting for any reference on the BBC web site to the forgery controversy on the subject of Bush National Guard documents.
Not even in their In Depth (ha!) Vote USA 2004 page…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/americas/2004/vote_usa_2004/default.stm
…Is any mention made.
As you can imagine, Ratherbiased is going to town on it:
http://www.ratherbiased.com/news/
Stick to hurricanes Dan!
Kerry,
I think you had it right to begin with, as did Patterico, as did Sanchez. Are we saying that the media can’t handle multi-clause sentences? I haven’t read all your links but Hugh Hewitt doesn’t seem to spend much time on it (unless I missed something). I read Patterico on the matter first of all though, and agreed with him then as I do now. But then, I’m an immovable stickler for semantics.
Cheney’s overall argument was that Kerry couldn’t cope, and wouldn’t stay the course, in the event of an attack. Ok, so there is deliberate ambiguity and it could be inferred that electing Kerry will encourage an attack. Perhaps he was being cunning- and an opinion piece might say so- but to report him as saying a vote for Kerry makes an attack is more likely is misrepresening what he said, and less interesting that way.
Dear BBC,
Come and get this guy and take him home.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3624610.stm
He doesn’t like New York, he doesn’t like Bush, he doesn’t like Republicans, he doesn’t even like the Democrats. I don’t even think he likes being in the U.S. It would be a great favor to him as well as us to take him home.
Thank you.
StinKerr- that article really made me mad, so mad I had to confine myself to writing about it another site.
PS.- glad to find Cheney agreeing with me.
I think that article has now disappeared ?
Still there, John. I’ve copied it just in case. I used the link in my post to find it. If it’s not there it was in my cache and I’d be glad to forward you a pdf if you like.
In your free time, check out the sites about pharmacy pharmacy http://www.firstfriends.us/pharmacy.html …