The snivelling media
The Washington Post printed an article yesterday regarding Vice President Dick Cheney's interview on Meet the Press. The entire article has a completely whiney tone to it, but it also took something Cheney said totally out of context:
Cheney was less forthcoming when asked about Saudi Arabia's ties to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 hijackers. "I don't want to speculate," he said, adding that Sept. 11 is "over with now, it's done, it's history and we can put it behind us."
What did he really say?
RUSSERT: There are reports that the investigation Congress did does show a link between the Saudi government and the hijackers, but that it will not be released to the public.
CHENEY: I don't want to speculate on that, Tim, partly because I was involved in reviewing those pages. It was the judgment of our senior intelligence officials, both CIA and FBI, that that material needed to remain classified.
At some point we may be able to declassify it, but there are ongoing investigations that might be affected by that release, and for that reason we kept it classified.
The committee knows what's in there. They helped to prepare it. So it hasn't been kept secret from the Congress, but from the standpoint of our ongoing investigations we needed to do that.
One of the things this points up, that's important for us to understand, there's this great temptation to look at these events as discrete events. We got hit on 9/11, so we can go investigate it. It's over with now. It's done, it's history, and we can put it behind us.
From our perspective, trying to deal with this continuing campaign of terror, if you will, the war on terror that we're engaged in, this is a continuing enterprise. The people that were involved in some of those activities before 9/11 are still out there. We learn more and more as we capture people, detain people, get access to records and so forth that this is a continuing enterprise.
And therefore, we do need to be careful, when we look at things like 9/11, the commission report from 9/11, not to jeopardize our capacity to deal with this threat going forward in the interest of putting out information that's interesting that relates to the period of time before that. These are continuing requirements on our part, and we have to be sensitive to that. [emphasis added]
Sure, they've put forth a "correction", but who the heck reads those? When will journalists start to be at least a little more careful? Did they not have the transcript or video tape of this interview? From the tone of the article, it's quite obvious that they watched the interview with a constant eye-roll.
I'm really tired of the press, to say the least. That's why I read so many blogs. The truth is out there, it's just not coming from our media.