Why didn't the media expose Cheney's Iraq flip flops in time for the 2004 election?

Question

In 1994 he told C-Span if the US invaded Iraq civil war would erupt, Iran and Syria would interfere and too many US lives would be lost.

In 2000 he told Tim Russert on NBC if the US invaded Baghdad, it would appear "we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world taking down governments. [Meet the Press, 8/27/00]

In the fall of 2004, the MSM repeatedly criticized Kerry for voting yes on one version of a war funding bill and no on another. Why didn't the media air these clips in time for voters to make an informed choice about Bush/Cheney?

cvq3842: there were no "dots" to connect Iraq and the 9-11 plot and you know it

Answer 1

Because the media doesn't dig deep enough, and doesn't have enough incentive to buck the system. Instead, they'll just go with questionable stories that are handed to them by biased sources--The CBS scandal about President Bush's service in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War (letters were debunked) or the also-debunked Swift Boat Veteran lies about Kerry--often without double-checking. To which I say: SHAME ON THEM.

And shame on us, for believing them so quickly.

Answer 2

The risk and benefit analysis changed. And Democrats were complaining that Bush didn't "connect the dots" and prevent 9/11. Iraq at that point became a pretty big "dot."

They didn't run all the ten-year-old clips of Democrats complaining that Bush 41 didn't "finish the job" either. that's the very reason Cheney was being asked - when the Democrats were in the White House they talked very tough on Iraq (but did virtually nothing).

PS I didn't say Iraq was connected to 9/11 - that should have been clear to anyone who read my answer and was not trying to distort my words. (And neither did George Bush.) I was pointing out what the Democrats were saying - that Bush should have known an attack was coming from al-Qaeda and prevented it, given the information he had. So with Iraq, Bush had a great deal of information about WMDs, links to terrorism, etc., and acted on it, to prevent another 9/11, from Iraq or from a terrorist to whom Saddam passed off weapons. (If you recall, we were also attacked with anthrax, and the attackers have never been identified.)

That's the problem with pre-emption. The information is never perfect.

But to say that there was no reason to re-evaluate the situation in Iraq from 1994 to 2003 ignores the most significant world event to occur during the intervening decade.

Although if you do choose to ignore it, you also have to ask why many Democrats flip-flopped on the issue, after criticizing Bush 41 for not finishing the job - which again was the reason reporters kept trying to play "gotcha" with Bush 41, Cheney, etc. by continually asking the question.

Answer 3

Pay Attention-1994 happened to be prior to 9-11-01! 9-11-01 America was Attracted.Iraq Fired on our Airforsce every day prior to 9-11-01 which made Iraq a BIG ENEMY of the U.S.A. Bill Clinton as President said Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.France,Russia,England,Germany,Saudi Arabia,The F.B.I.,the C.I.A.,Hillary Clinton,John Kerry,Nancy Polosi and every liberal Democrat in this Country said regime change is the only answer for Iraq. Don't blame Bush blame those who were in the Senate and House for years before G.W. took Office!!!

Answer 4

Funny, I thought the liberal media would've exposed it before we went to Iraq. So much for the left-wing bias.

Answer 5

Wow, things didn't happen in the previous 13 years?! Have you forgotten about 9/11 and the war on terror? Get over it, the war is going on right now. Quit crying and come up with a solution!
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

Answer 6

For the same reason that although 25% of Americans disapproved of going into Iraq, only 3% of the media showed this disapproval before we went in.

Answer 7

I'm sure their defense will include:

"9/11, 9/11, terrorists, 9/11"

Doesn't change the fact that going into Iraq was a huge geopolitical and economic mistake.

Answer 8

Where was that damned liberal media we always hear about? How come they did not expose those flip flops? is it because the liberal media does not exist but is just a talking point for the right to justify negative news when it comes their way? i think so

Answer 9

You mean that extremely left biased media the right keeps whining about? Perhaps it wasn't considered important at the time.

Answer 10

Would you be willing to make a decision based only on decade old information?