Gore Endorses Dean (Pt. 2 of 2)

(Cont. from Part 1) << It was Osama bin Laden that attacked us, not Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is a bad guy and he's better off not in power, we're all better off, but it was a mistake to get us into a quagmire over there, so don't tell me that because Howard Dean was the only major candidate who was right about that war, that that somehow calls his judgment into question on foreign policy[. S]o whether it is inspiring enthusiasm at the grassroots and promising to remake the Democratic Party as a force for justice and progress and good in America, whether it is a domestic agenda that gets our nation back on track or whether it is protecting us against terrorists and strengthening our nation in the world, I have come to the conclusion that in a field of great candidates, one candidate clearly now stands out, and so I'm asking all of you to join in this grassroots movement to elect Howard Dean President of the United States. >>

I included the last part to give an idea of the general way in which Gore talked about all the issues but one: the Iraq War. Is it really too much to ask of our respectable papers that they say something about the one issue the elected President emphasizes in his endorsement speech for a 2004 Presidential candidate?

One of the Web sites I keep in my Other Journals list is Bob Somerby's Daily Howler. Somerby carefully analyzes how well-known reporters and pundits treat the news, and the conventional wisdom which often seriously distorts their reporting. He repeatedly says that the mainstream press "has contempt for your discourse."

He's right. The initial reporting on Gore's endorsement of Dean is a perfect example. Here are the references on the articles I mentioned. I sincerely hope by the time anyone clicks on these they've been updated to make my comments obsolete:

New York Times
Washington Post
Los Angeles Times

Tags: iraq war