"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
Quote of the week
"It's dishonest, it hurts the country, and I'm gonna bring those people down. Mark my words. I'm gonna take 'em down, because nobody else will. I'm gonna do it. And that's what I was talking about last night in the coalition of the willing. We're gonna go after those people where they live."
-- Bill O'Reilly (click here for audio)
U.S. military propaganda aimed at Iraqis shapes congressional opinion about Iraq
This week brought news of yet another example of the Bush administration's use of fake "news" to win support for its policies. The Los Angeles Times reported on November 30:
As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.
The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.
Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.
Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year.
[...]
One of the military officials said that, as part of a psychological operations campaign that has intensified over the last year, the task force also had purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station, and was using them to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public. Neither is identified as a military mouthpiece.
The official would not disclose which newspaper and radio station are under U.S. control, saying that naming them would put their employees at risk of insurgent attacks.
[...]
"Absolute truth was not an essential element of these stories," said the senior military official who spent this year in Iraq.
While demonstrating that the U.S. military is manipulating the Iraqi media by paying for fake news stories -- news stories in which "absolute truth was not an essential element" -- the Times noted that the Bush administration has used the "free media" in Iraq as evidence in its argument that things are going well in Iraq, that Democracy is burgeoning:
Underscoring the importance U.S. officials place on development of a Western-style media, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday cited the proliferation of news organizations in Iraq as one of the country's great successes since the ouster of President Saddam Hussein. The hundreds of newspapers, television stations and other "free media" offer a "relief valve" for the Iraqi public to debate the issues of their burgeoning democracy, Rumsfeld said.
The administration isn't alone in pointing to the "free" -- actually, it turns out, "bought-and-paid-for" -- media as evidence of things going well in Iraq.
In a November 10 speech, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) touted Iraq's "truly free press":
Despite bombs, daily attacks, and untold threats against the democratic process, Iraq has held free elections, with open campaigns and a truly free press. Iraq has ratified the most progressive constitution in the Arab world and instilled justice in a country that for so long lacked it. Iraq has put Saddam on trial and held his henchmen accountable for their murderous rule. In doing all these things and more, the Iraqi people have issued to their more peaceful, prosperous neighbors a profound challenge.
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) recently returned from a trip to Iraq and wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal in which he pointed to Iraq's "independent television stations and newspapers" as evidence of the "remarkable changes" there:
I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there.
[...]
Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.
None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.
Lieberman went on to tout the results of public-opinion polling in Iraq:
While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today.
Of course, those polls lose a great deal of meaning now that we know that public opinion in Iraq is being shaped by Pentagon propaganda masquerading as "independent television stations and newspapers" in Iraq.
The strong impression the (not-so) "independent television stations and newspapers" in Iraq apparently made on Lieberman is demonstrated by how often he mentioned them. A November 29 Hartford Courant article quoted Lieberman describing the presence of "a lot of independent television stations and newspapers covering" the December 15 elections as among the "most exciting" developments in Iraq. In a press conference the same day, Lieberman pointed to the "slew of independent television stations, newspapers, and radio stations" covering the elections as evidence of "a remarkable transformation" from the Hussein dictatorship. Lieberman also mentioned the "independent" Iraqi media in separate appearances on CNN's American Morning and The Situation Room; he mentioned Iraqi opinion polls on the November 30 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes.
The possible effect that U.S. propaganda efforts aimed at the Iraqi people have apparently had on a senior U.S. senator is not a trivial matter. Lieberman bases his view of what our Iraq policy should be in part on his view of the progress being made there; his view of the progress being made there is likewise dependent in part on what he saw of the Iraqi media -- a media that, it turns out, may not be so "independent" after all. Thus one of the most prominent and influential backers of the Bush administration's Iraq policy -- one whose support President Bush talked about during his November 30 speech -- might be basing his support in part on Pentagon propaganda.
Lieberman's views of the situation in Iraq, in turn, drove news coverage about the war for much of the week: He made multiple appearances on CNN on the same day, appearances the network replayed and quoted throughout the week; he appeared on Fox News and on MSNBC and was mentioned in The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and several other major news outlets.
So news about Iraq this week was largely shaped by Lieberman's positive assessment of progress in Iraq, an assessment that relied in part on his having seen Iraq's "independent" media for himself. But the Los Angeles Times made clear just how hollow claims of a free and independent Iraqi media are:
The U.S. military-written articles come in to Al Mutamar, the newspaper run by Chalabi's associates, via the Internet and are often unsigned, said Luay Baldawi, the paper's editor in chief.
"We publish anything," he said. "The paper's policy is to publish everything, especially if it praises causes we believe in. We are pro-American. Everything that supports America we will publish."
Yet other Al Mutamar employees were much less supportive of their paper's connection with the U.S. military. "This is not right," said Faleh Hassan, an editor. "It reflects the tragic condition of journalists in Iraq. Journalism in Iraq is in very bad shape."
Ultimately, Baldawi acknowledged that he, too, was concerned about the origin of the articles and pledged to be "more careful about stuff we get by e-mail."
After he learned of the source of three paid stories that ran in Al Mada in July, that newspaper's managing editor, Abdul Zahra Zaki, was outraged, immediately summoning a manager of the advertising department to his office.
"I'm very sad," he said. "We have to investigate."
Lieberman and Rumsfeld certainly haven't been alone in touting a free Iraqi press as evidence of success. The Bush administration's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" claims: "A professional and informative Iraqi news media has taken root," adding:
Signs of a vibrant political life are sprouting. The constitutional drafting committee received more than 500,000 public comments on various provisions. More than 100 newspapers freely discuss political events every day in Iraq.
Ironically, the "National Strategy" document portrays "propaganda" as a tactic "The enemy" uses:
- Enemy Lines of Action. The enemy seeks to ...
- Weaken the Coalition's resolve, and our resolve at home, through barbaric mass-casualty attacks, public slaughter of Iraqi civilians and hostages, infliction of casualties on Coalition forces, and use of the media to spread propaganda and intimidate adversaries.
[...] - Damage trust in Iraqi Security Forces through propaganda, infiltration, and barbaric attacks on the weak and the innocent.
- Sabotage Iraqi unity through propaganda against the Shi'a majority punctuated with attacks intended to spark sectarian conflict and civil war.
- Weaken the Coalition's resolve, and our resolve at home, through barbaric mass-casualty attacks, public slaughter of Iraqi civilians and hostages, infliction of casualties on Coalition forces, and use of the media to spread propaganda and intimidate adversaries.
The disclosure of the military's practice of paying for "news" stories in the Iraqi media has drawn the attention of U.S. news outlets and members of Congress. But little attention has been paid to the fact the "free" and "independent" Iraqi media has frequently been cited by supporters of the administration's Iraq policy as evidence of our success in Iraq -- evidence that now seems irrevocably tainted.
Each of the following are direct quotations of either Fox News host Bill O'Reilly or MSNBC host Chris Matthews. Can you tell which host made which comments?
3) "Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left."
5) "I don't understand this kind of politics, unless they got some thimble-wit over there ..."
6) "These pinheads running around going, 'Get out of Iraq now,' don't know what they're talking about."
7) "Do you think the Democrats are a little bit stupid ...?"
Answers: Odd numbers are Matthews; even numbers are O'Reilly.
In claiming that only "real whack-jobs" on the left dislike Bush, Matthews was only demonstrating how out of touch he is. In fact, the majority of Americans not only disapprove of Bush's job performance, but also they have an unfavorable view of him personally. A recent Diageo/Hotline poll reported that 56 percent of Americans have an "unfavorable" opinion of Bush; an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey reported that a large plurality have "very negative" feelings toward Bush.
In recent weeks, Matthews has also said that Bush sometimes "glimmers" with "sunny nobility" and praised a recent Bush speech as a "brilliant political move" -- before the speech was even delivered. Now he is calling the majority of Americans "whack-jobs" and deriding critics of the Iraq war as "carpers and complainers."
When it comes to insults and invective, Matthews has put up a good show recently, but his attacks on "real whack-jobs" and "carpers and complainers" can't hold a candle to O'Reilly's bottomless pit of bile. O'Reilly's angry, screaming November 29 rant on his radio program is a masterpiece of the genre; you can practically see his face redden and the spittle flying from his lips:
CALLER: And I think that, you know, when you talk about the people in America who are spewing this filth, you know, that's arising from pure ignorance --
O'REILLY: No, it's not. No, no, you're wrong. It's arising from hatred. Here's the point. You can dissent about the war and feel it is not a good policy for America and they screwed it up. And that's absolutely legitimate dissent. Absolutely legitimate. OK? But you can't accuse Bush and Cheney of lying purposely to get people killed, because they wanted Halliburton to make money. You can't do that unless you have proof. Once you start down that defamation lane, then you have to be held accountable for what you say. That's what I'm talking about. Not honest dissent. I'm talking about blatant propaganda spit out there on a daily basis by hateful liars, picked up by the mainstream media and rammed down the public's throat. That's what I'm talking about. And you know who I'm talking about too. You know the newspapers that do it, you know the radio people that do it, you know the TV people that do it. And you should be as angry about it as I am. It's dishonest, it hurts the country, and I'm gonna bring those people down. Mark my words. I'm gonna take 'em down, because nobody else will. I'm gonna do it. And that's what I was talking about last night in the coalition of the willing. We're gonna go after those people where they live.
If mainstream media continues to run out this slander and run out this defamation, I'm gonna name the name, put their face on television, and tell you about it on the radio. So you walk away from them, so they fail in the marketplace. Enough's enough. We got people with lives on the line. We got people wanting to kill us where we live. And we gotta put up with this kind of crap on the Internet funded by George Soros? Not gonna happen. No spin zone. I'll be right back.
Time reporter aided Rove's defense
A December 2 New York Times report indicates that Time magazine reporter Viveca Novak assisted Karl Rove's defense by telling Rove's lawyer that her colleague, Matthew Cooper, might have interviewed Rove about Valerie Plame:
A conversation between Karl Rove's lawyer and a journalist for Time magazine led Mr. Rove to change his testimony last year to the grand jury in the C.I.A. leak case, people knowledgeable about the sequence of events said Thursday.
Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, spoke in the summer or early fall of 2004 with Viveca Novak, a reporter for Time. In that conversation, Mr. Luskin heard from Ms. Novak that a colleague at the magazine, Matthew Cooper, might have interviewed Mr. Rove about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the case, the people said.
Time reported this week that the prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has summoned Ms. Novak to testify about a conversation she had with Mr. Luskin, but provided no explanation of what Mr. Fitzgerald might be looking for. The account provided Thursday by people with knowledge of the discussions between Ms. Novak and Mr. Luskin suggests that Mr. Fitzgerald is still trying to determine whether Mr. Rove was fully forthcoming with investigators and whether he altered his grand jury testimony about his dealings with reporters only after learning that one, Mr. Cooper, might identify him as a source.
[...]
Months before the conversation between Ms. Novak and Mr. Luskin, Mr. Rove testified to the grand jury that he had held a conversation about the C.I.A. officer with only one journalist, Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist. Mr. Rove did not disclose that he had also spoken to Mr. Cooper either in his first grand jury testimony, in February 2004, or in an earlier interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
But after his conversation with Ms. Novak, who is not related to the columnist, Mr. Luskin asked Mr. Rove to have the White House search for any record of a discussion between Mr. Rove and Mr. Cooper around the time that Ms. Wilson's identity became public in July 2003.
The search turned up an e-mail message from Mr. Rove to another senior White House official, Stephen J. Hadley, who was the deputy national security adviser, that recounted a conversation between Mr. Rove and Mr. Cooper. On Oct. 14, 2004, Mr. Rove went before the grand jury again to alter his earlier account, by saying he had also discussed the C.I.A. officer with Mr. Cooper.
Associates of Mr. Rove said that he did not initially recall the conversation with Mr. Cooper amid the hundreds of calls and e-mail messages he deals with each day, and that once the message to Mr. Hadley was uncovered he took it to prosecutors and testified fully.
In other words, Rove testified to the grand jury that he discussed Plame with only one journalist, Robert D. Novak (no relation to Viveca Novak). In fact, he had also discussed the matter with Cooper. Viveca Novak then told Rove's lawyer about that conversation, whereupon Rove miraculously remembered it. By telling Luskin about the conversation between Cooper and Rove, Viveca Novak essentially told Rove that his testimony might be contradicted, giving him a chance to change his testimony and potentially avoid a perjury charge.
And, while Novak was helping Rove's defense, she was keeping her readers in the dark: Though Viveca Novak apparently knew Rove was Cooper's source, she didn't report that fact.
Time still hasn't explained why it deceived its readers by printing White House denials of involvement by Rove that the magazine knew to be false. Instead, the magazine has claimed it didn't seek a waiver from Rove to allow Cooper to testify in 2004 because "Time editors were concerned about becoming part of such an explosive story in an election year" -- though, by printing White House denials it knew to be false, Time did take a side, and actively aided Bush's re-election efforts. Now the magazine and Novak owe readers an answer to this question: Why did Novak take sides in the Plame investigation, aiding Rove's defense efforts while keeping readers in the dark about what she knew?
Wall Street Journal grudgingly corrects editorial -- but ducks blame for mistake
A December 1 Wall Street Journal editorial attacked Atlantic Monthly national correspondent James Fallows:
In the latest issue of the Atlantic Monthly ... James Fallows purports to explain "Why Iraq Has No Army." But the public affairs office of the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq (or "Min-sticky") says Mr. Fallows not only didn't visit but didn't even contact them while reporting the article or at anytime during at least the past nine months.
By the standards of the Journal's editorial page, that's not particularly stinging criticism. But it turns out it is yet another example of the page's complete lack of interest in quaint notions of "journalistic ethics" and "the truth." Turns out, the Journal's editors didn't bother contacting Fallows for comment before writing about him -- the very journalistic sin the editorial accused Fallows of. But, unlike the Journal, it turns out Fallows wasn't guilty.
Atlantic Monthly managing editor Cullen Murphy's letter to the Journal was quoted by National Review's Rich Lowry:
You said that according to the training organization, the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq, Fallows "didn't even contact them while reporting the article or at anytime during at least the past nine months."
That is untrue. Mr. Fallows had extensive email correspondence, starting last August, with the Public Affairs Officer for that organization, Lieutenant Colonel Frederick Wellman, who arranged an interview with its commander, Lieutenant General Dave Petraeus, in September. Mr. Fallows spoke with General Petraeus by phone for more than an hour, and checked quotes from that interview via Lt. Col. Wellman before using them in his article.
He also interviewed one of Petraeus's deputies, Colonel John Martin, and had not-for-attribution discussions, via phone and email, with other members of the organization. As Mr. Fallows pointed out in his article, and as he has records to demonstrate, the Pentagon's press office turned down his requests to interview Major General Paul Eaton and others who had been involved in the training effort.
At no point before printing this false statement did you contact Mr. Fallows or me to determine whether what you intended to publish was true.
The December 2 edition of the Journal didn't include Cullen's letter, though it did contain partial acknowledgment of the mistake -- in the form of a correction on the letters page:
Due to inaccurate information from a source, yesterday's editorial on Iraq, "'Complete Victory'," misstated information about James Fallows's reporting for his essay in the Atlantic Monthly, "Why Iraq Has No Army." While Mr. Fallows did not go to Iraq, as we reported correctly, he did interview U.S. military officers involved in training Iraqi forces by phone and email, including Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, then-head of the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq.
While grudgingly correcting its false claim, the Journal pins the blame on "inaccurate information from a source," rather than on its own apparent failure to contact Fallows for comment. Still, a correction of an error in a Journal editorial is encouraging. We assume Journal editors are still working on a six-volume collection of corrections of the paper's Whitewater editorials.
So Iraqis are not supposed to hear any good news about what is happening in their country? Lieberman and McCain (bless them for going in country) are paying too much attention to what is happening in the country instead of listening to Pelosi, Kerry, etal(when was the last time any of them were in country?) If they want the bad news, all they have to do is pick up a US paper. If a little stretching of the truth can have a positive impact on how the Iraqi population responds and reacts, what is the harm? If it allows the Iraqis to ramp up faster to take control, is that not a good thing? Do we want Zarqawi's (sp?) head on a platter or do we want to keep giving the insurgency hope? The freedom fighters in Iraq are the brave Iraqis that are filling the ranks of the police and the military, not the little cowards that sent innocent men, women and children to death with a misguided belief they (the men, women and children) will be blessed in an afterlife.
In the middle of Katrina, it seems like all we heard was BAD NEWS from New Orleans. Even SINCE the storm, it's all destroyed lives and toxic contaminations and levees that won't work.
C'mon now. This LIBERAL MEDIA pessimism had GOT to go.
We need GOOD news from New Orleans. Let's see guys who say they may have lost their house and their car and their family, but they're saving a bundle on CAR INSURANCE from GEICO.
The NEWS owes us at LEAST a balance between "feel good" patriotic fluff tales, and hard news that might be hard to hear. In fact, it's not too early to begin promoting IRAQ as the number one HOLIDAY VACATION spot for Americans. Put together those airline ticket and hotel packages, make it seem as if Cancun and Vegas are passe. All the HIP crowd will be partying in Baghdad. Buy your tickets NOW.
FOX can feature a fantastic "attraction" on every segment they air, promoting IRAQ as all fixed, all better, and a wonderful place to visit. Get your tickets TODAY!
If indeed the information fed and paid for to Iraqi reporters was factual and unbiased, (which I'm skeptical about) the problem I have with the practice of paying the journalists to publish stories is one of honesty. An Iraqi free press isn't free if its being bribed by ANY outside scource. Its important for the U.S. military to publish its positive effects to the Iraqis and indeed the world, but do it honestly. In my opinion, if the American military wants to announce its accomplishments to the Iraqis, It has the funds and means to do so without the deceit.
From the LA Times story, by way of this MMFA item...
As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.
Though the articles are basically factual ...as part of a psychological operations campaign ...to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public.
...and from a NY Times article (not part of this MMFA item) titled Senate Summons Pentagon to Explain Effort to Plant News Stories in Iraqi Media
Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican who heads the Armed Services Committee, said he had directed Pentagon aides to describe and justify the program on Friday in a closed briefing for senators and staff aides.
Asked about the issue on Thursday, the top military spokesman in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, appeared to defend the practice ...because the American military was disseminating truthful information.
General Lynch continued: "We don't lie. We don't need to lie. We do empower our operational commanders with the ability to inform the Iraqi public, but everything we do is based on fact, not based on fiction."
In Iraq, the effort is seen by some senior commanders as an essential complement to combat operations in the field.
...and just now, watching Hannity&Colmes, Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt lapped it up, with Sean serving him up softballs on the matter, all so Hunt could say "nobody lied; I'm glad they're doing it, it's called 'civil affairs', and it's too bad they got caught; but nobody lied."
...and watching their scripted colloquy made me realize that this is their issue; they made it, they're gonna promote it, and for good reason: they can't lose, because they're right, and they know it; and they're just aching for administration/war opponents to take the bait, and cry foul.
Republican Sen. Warner calling for Pentagon testimony? When was the last time any Republican Senator officially proposed anything that would embarrass the Republican administration/war?
Heads up: It's a phony non-issue, meant to bait war opponents and distract from the bigger issues, like Mr. Murtha's plan, Republican Randall "Duke" Cunningham's plea, and oh yea, as I live and breathe (and watched w/ utter disgust)...
...they, Hannity and Col. Hunt and Col. Bill Cowan began their segment solemnly noting that 10 U.S. Marines were killed in Iraq today, and Sean said solemnly "We'll get to that in a moment..."; and then never did! They completely ignored that story, that 10 Marines were killed in action, and instead continuously looped video of, well here's the blurb, lifted from the website, as to the story...
Did British private contractors fire at innocent victims in Iraq? Judge for yourself when we show you the shocking amateur video at the center of this investigation!
...and no lie, I watched the entire Hannity&Colmes to it's end, which just ended, and they never did say anything about today's tragedy; they were too busy commenting on "shocking amatuer video", and spinning about the 'Iraq civil affairs' operation.
It disgusted me that they forgot those 10 Marines.
10 Semper Fidelis Marines
The truly revealling thing I've noticed from all the talking-point puppets on this subject is that they either don't understand or have no problem with the fact that their government LIED! AGAIN!
Geeze, why don't you guys just go ahead and send money to al-Qaida? You seem to want to help them in Iraq. Why not just start sending them money and make it official?
capitalist says, "Geeze, why don't you guys just go ahead and send money to al-Qaida? You seem to want to help them in Iraq. Why not just start sending them money and make it official?"
You mean OFFICIAL, like the OFFICIAL support given al-Qaida by President Reagan, Bush I, and now Bush II?
"In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels."
and,
"The gift of $43 million to the Taliban, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God."
So, capitalist, if you're so against helping out terrorists, you're blaming the wrong folks. It's the REPUBLICANS who arm, train, fund, direct, assist, and deal with terrorists. I know you wish to play the "WITH BUSH, or WITH THE TERRORISTS" sillyassed card, but it don't play in a game where the players know REAL HISTORY.
Ya, it's called helping the lesser of two evils. At the time we felt that these people were freedom fighters and not terrorists. What were we supposed to do? Give money to the Soviets?
capitalist - Saturday December 3, 2005 03:21:04 AM EST
Bush gave the Taliban money about two months before 9/11. Read a book. As for the Muhajadeen which became al Queda the first money was appropriated for them six months BEFORE the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
capitalist - Saturday December 3, 2005 03:21:04 AM EST
Bush's policies are giving al Queda all the help they need.
If the conservatives are guilty of being liers, then a large amount of the people who post on MMFA have the distinction of having an 8th grade maturity level.
If you don't like a certain public figure because he or she makes false statments,fine, I don't either.Stick to issues and leave the name calling for middle schoolers.
Lying IS the issue.
You may want to add "The" Don Rumsfeld trip to Iraq in the 80's with satillite intel to aid Saddam carefully aim Chemical weapons on the Kurdish region of Northern Iraq. That's one which people seem to forget.
Oh yeah.... Saddam's genocide trial makes no mention of the Kurds.
Wonder why?................
"Talk Hate" Radio & TV Propaganda: Why it matters: O'Reilly style "talk hate" shows aren't just limited to the U.S.A. What might the future hold, if we ignore this seemingly endless Tsunami of ugly filth on America's public airwaves"?
Well, in "HOTEL RUANDA", an HBO movie about genocidal war between the "Hutu's" & "Tutsi's" in Ruanda,Africa, they showed the role played by the country's Talk Hate Radio.
Radio propaganda was used by the ruling tribe's leaders to spread hate, agitating & working up people for weeks, leading to violence against people they had been living peacefully with for generations. The result was GENOCIDE, with machete-welding men raping women, wholesale massacres of those whose only "crime" was belonging to the wrong "tribe", men, women, children, babies.
TALK RADIO propaganda was used also in TOLEDO, OH, where an AM Talk Radio "Hate" program's propaganda led up to & helped to incite violence, by promoting an OUTSIDE NEO-NAZI gang of thug's plan to come in & march in a black, poor neighborhood. Then FOX News helped spread the Neo-Nazi's message for them, portraying the victims of Neo-Nazi hatred as the bad guys.
If deliberate Hate Propaganda is allowed to go unchallenged? In Germany, pre-WWII, Nazis used Hate Propaganda quite effectively to spread their message, using Radio, etc. The "good Germans" stood by silently, until it was too late to stop them.
The POWER of the media to use propaganda to stir emotions may seem like harmless trash tabloid "news". But it's a "slippery slope". Just ask the citizens in Toledo, Oh. Ask the survivors of "Hotel Ruanda".
Ask survivors of Nazi death camps, what can happen when people don't stand up for what is right & good against the bullies of the world!! The Nazi's started out just trashing "Swing Clubs" for German kids wanting to dance to Western music; then came beating the "Swing Kids" up. Then...
There once was a tiny segment of English descendants who as history has proven inhabited a narrow geographic corridor on the edge of a vast continent. Being content for some 150 years to be subjects of the most prominent imperialistic power on earth, a restive spirit started to awaken in their minds and hearts as the occupying power began a formidable and illicit control of their lives, finances and posterity.
A certain elite assembly of very learned men, men of substance and means who at one time swore an allegiance to this same occupying power gathered under the threat of sedition and death to challenge their forbears with the aim of establishing a sovereign nation, born in independence and whose charter would commission them to create a Constitutional Republic with the aim of establishing liberty for all.
As these men were students of history and the 'Age of Reason' they fully recognized that Governments tend to overtime to become corrupt. They recognized also that Rule by Family Lineage was an anachronism which invited 'Royalty among Bloodlines' THUS alienating the populace. Being cognizant of the poisonous relationship which had existed among Europe’s temporal or Ruling Classes and that of the ecclesiastical or Church, these same revolutionaries were determined that spiritual matters or how one worshipped were to be guaranteed and kept separate from the affairs of state. These very precepts would be challenged over and over again as the struggling nation won its independence AND began its march into the future.
Another Nation of ancient origins which some 230 years later would feel the angst of betrayal labels levied against her had been very instrumental in the young nation casting off the yoke of’its one-time imperial master. It had furnished both treasure and naval assistance. In fact were it not for the help of this Nation, the battle of Yorktown which finally culminated in the Young Nation severing the bonds of again, its one-time imperial master , the Young Nation would never had appeared as an independent sovereign entity upon the world stage.
With a pioneer spirit and a government whose basic precepts allowed for the unleashing of its peoples talents and industriousness, the Young Nation prospered like none other ever recorded. However, the defeated imperialist power never quite got over the loss of its once-prized North American possession. Some thirty years after being defeated by the ‘A-F’ alliance, it had returned again only to torch the Young Nation’s capital to the ground. Some fifty years later, this same Imperialistic Power had actually sided with an alignment of Southern states attempting to secede from the Union in what is commonly referred to as the ‘War Between the States.
To be continued.......
As the Young Nation expanded, it became a formidable economic power AND by the time of the emergence of the 20TH century, this experiment in self-governance became the envy of the world. Concurrent with its expanding population and innovations in industry, the young nation was recognized by the world powers as a nation to be reckoned with. With the advent of what historians would later term, ‘World Wars’, the Young Nation emerged as a superpower, a somewhat nebulous term which if not carefully scrutinized by the caretakers of government would lend itself to an ethos of ‘might makes right’ and an enthusiasm to militarism.
The learned men who are now known as our ‘FOUNDING FATHERS’ actually were very aware of this propensity to become what they had given their lives and fortunes AGAINST, an IMPERIALIST POWER. The first President, a General himself and Commander of the Revolutionary Army stated emphatically that he was against large-standing armies. Other presidents in his wake would offer comments about the emergence of industry or what is commonly referred today as Corporate Power today AND how even back then, their rivalry for control and influence often times was in direct contrast to the Public Will.
This pernicious extent of Corporatism would later be defined by another President, who some historians refer to as the last true Republican President as a consortium of influence-peddling power centers, now known as the ‘Military –Industrial Complex whose appetite for resources and ever-making war capacity was to be keenly watched and controlled NOT only by the elected representatives of the people BUT BY the AMERICAN CITIZENRY as well. This former president was actually a Five-Star General who had witnessed more carnage and death visited upon the earth’s inhabitants in the last World War WHICH was often fueled by this same alignment of war-making proponents.
The result of this dynamic has brought the American Experience to the following conclusive results: (1) Political Parties are now controlled by established Family Dynasties (2) Corporatism runs unabated, with a sitting Vice-President who trumped a war for very tenuous reasons AND stands to gain from its execution. (3) Welcome to the American Empire, the US now has over 500 military bases extended across the Globe with more being added each year. (4) A military budget which in one year’s time will exceed all of the Nations of earth combined (5) An act of Congress authorized by both parties WHICH in essence compromises the CONSTITUTION
Incidentally, WE did return the favor to that Nation who freed us from our Imperialist Yoke 200+ years ago. News pundits still malign her as a traitor to the American cause. Perhaps, our partner who gave to US her treasure and blood as WE did for her in this century stands aghast as to what WE have allowed OURSELVES to become. Well, at least we renamed Freedom Fries back to FRENCH fries.
[link to inbrief.threatswatch.org]
I wonder if Mr. Brock, when not serving drinks to Soros, will bother to mention this piece of biased coverage. Or, since it involves the AP helping the terrorists, I doubt he will.
I wonder if Mr. Brock, when not serving drinks to Soros, will bother to mention this piece of biased coverage. Or, since it involves the AP helping the terrorists, I doubt he will.
by eddiebear2
I find it interesting that in an internet world that has a major website for any subject one can think of, David Brock has come up with one that exposes right wing media bias in abundance. Why is there no right wing equivalent to expose the supposed abundance of left wing bias in the media?
Might be for a lack of subject matter.
"Why is there no right wing equivalent to expose the supposed abundance of left wing bias in the media?"
No right wing equivalent? You might want to check this out.
[link to www.mediaresearch.org]
There's about ten other sites just like this. It's pretty hard to fit all of the left wing bias onto one sight. And you might notice that they don't cover left wing radio talk show hosts. They only cover the mainstream media, and that just shows you that they're not desperate for information like MMFA is.
So eddybear2, Your attempt at lame humor regarding Mr. Brock who had the courage to walk away from the RW fascist brigade which has become the hallmark of our 'Neconized' PRESS today must be taken from the latest FAUX news, Sean Hannity clip since this ChickenHawk charlatan often embellishes the extent of 'George Soros' effect on the news of the day. The site you ask us to link to means what????????????
In the spirit of active debate, try this one: [link to www.informationclearinghouse.info]
And if you read the summation in its entirety, SPARE me the labels of being a Leftist, a terrorist sympathizer....blah blah blah. You see in 'Bush World' the labels don't work anymore. There are only realists, truth-seekers coming to grips with what former NSA Advisor to Reagan, General Odom along with Colin's Powell's Chief of Staff, Colonel Wilkerson has described as the 'GREATEST STRATEGIC FOREIGN POLICY BLUNDER IN US HISTORY..... AND we can even UP the Ante as quoted by an esteemed Israeli Military Historian who was quoted recently that the Ivasion of Iraq was the most ill-conceived and disatrous war ever undertaken by any Nation-State in the last 2000 years.
Enjoy..............
General Odom Calls for Immediate Exit from Iraq United Press International
Friday 02 December 2005
Washington - The US general who used to head the National Security Agency says the only way to stabilize the Middle East is to leave Iraq.
Retired three star Lt. Gen. William Odom, writing for NiemanWatchdog.org, wrote that while President George W. Bush wants to bring democracy and stability to the Middle East, the only way to achieve that goal is for the US armed forces to get out of Iraq now.
Odom, one of the most respected US military analysts and a prominent figure at the conservative Hudson Institute in Washington, wrote, "We have seen most of our allies stand aside and engage in Schadenfreude over our painful bog-down in Iraq. Winston Churchill's glib observation, 'the only thing worse that having allies is having none,' was once again vindicated.
"There is no chance that our allies will join us in Iraq," he wrote. "... Iraq is the worst place to fight a battle for regional stability. Whose interests were best served by the US invasion of Iraq in the first place? It turns out that Iran and al-Qaida benefited the most, and that continues to be true every day US forces remain there."
[link to www.truthout.org]
It's Propaganda (Shock, Horror)! By David Isenberg Asia Times
Saturday 03 December 2005 excerpt:
"The Lincoln Group is not the only firm engaged in psyops. In June, the Washington Post reported that the Pentagon had awarded three contracts, potentially worth up to $300 million over five years, to companies it hoped would inject more creativity into its psychological operations efforts to improve foreign public opinion about the US, particularly the military.
SYColeman Inc of Arlington, Lincoln Group and Science Applications International Corp were to help develop ideas and prototypes for radio and television spots, documentaries, or even text messages, pop-up ads on the Internet, podcasting, billboards and novelty items.
It is worth emphasizing that because of the security situation, US correspondents in Iraq are rarely able to leave the Green Zone in Baghdad or other US military bases to engage in on-the-ground reporting, and thus must rely, in part, on reports by Iraqis in the Iraqi press to assess the situation on the ground.
But the news that some of this media are simply US military propaganda undermines even this source of information.
Reportedly, the US military's top commanders, including General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not know about the Lincoln Group contract until it was first described by The Los Angeles Times. Pentagon officials said Pace and other top officials were disturbed and demanded explanations from senior officers in Iraq.
The bottom line is the Iraqi press is neither free, nor even Iraqi.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Isenberg, a senior analyst with the Washington-based British American Security Information Council (BASIC), has a wide background in arms control and national security issues. "
[link to www.truthout.org]
Cheney 'may be guilty of war crime'
· Vice-president accused of backing torture · Claims on BBC by former insider add to Bush's woes
Julian Borger in Washington Wednesday November 30, 2005 The Guardian
excerpts:
"Vice-president Dick Cheney's burden on the Bush administration grew heavier yesterday after a former senior US state department official said he could be guilty of a war crime over the abuse of prisoners. Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005, singled out Mr Cheney in a wide-ranging political assault on the BBC's Today programme.
Mr Wilkerson said that in an internal administration debate over whether to abide by the Geneva conventions in the treatment of detainees, Mr Cheney led the argument "that essentially wanted to do away with all restrictions". "
"Mr Wilkerson, a former army colonel, also said he had seen increasing evidence that the White House had manipulated pre-war intelligence on Iraq to make its case for the invasion. He said: "You begin to wonder was this intelligence spun? Was it politicised? Was it cherry-picked? Did, in fact, the American people get fooled? I am beginning to have my concerns." "
[link to www.guardian.co.uk]
"The disclosure of the military's practice of paying for "news" stories in the Iraqi media has drawn the attention of U.S. news outlets and members of Congress. But little attention has been paid to the fact the "free" and "independent" Iraqi media has frequently been cited by supporters of the administration's Iraq policy as evidence of our success in Iraq -- evidence that now seems irrevocably tainted."
This is an important point, boiled down. I hope to see some journalists (any who are worth their salt) put these questions to Congress.
[link to www.truthout.org]
How (Not) to Withdraw from Iraq By Tom Engelhardt TomDispatch
Thursday 01 December 2005
Some eye-opening ideas here, recommended reading.
just a few excerpts:
"How to Tell Withdrawal from Its Doppelgangers"
"If you pay attention not to the war of words or the storm of confusing withdrawal proposals, but to four bedrock matters, you'll have a far better sense of where we're really heading. These are air power, permanent bases, an "American" Kurdistan, and oil; and, not surprisingly, they coincide with the great uncovered, or barely covered, stories of the war. In the present flurry of withdrawal discussions, only air power, thanks to Hersh, is getting any attention. The others have so far gone largely or totally unmentioned - and yet, without them, none of this makes any sense at all. "
---------------------
" In perhaps the most important piece of reportage of the year, Up in the Air, the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh dissects the sinews of the administration's Iraqification strategy. Unsurprisingly, while drawing-down troops (in hopes of lessening American casualties), the Pentagon is to intensify the air war, which means, of course, loosing the US Air Force on Iraq's urban areas where the insurgency thrives and undoubtedly increasing Iraqi casualties. Or as Hersh puts it:
"A key element of the drawdown plans, not mentioned in the President's public statements, is that the departing American troops will be replaced by American airpower. Quick, deadly strikes by US warplanes are seen as a way to improve dramatically the combat capability of even the weakest Iraqi combat units. The danger, military experts have told me, is that, while the number of American casualties would decrease as ground troops are withdrawn, the over-all level of violence and the number of Iraqi fatalities would increase unless there are stringent controls over who bombs what."
As Hersh essentially points out, what this is likely to mean in practice - if combat is significantly turned over to the new Iraqi Army - is sending our Air Force against targets of that army's choosing; that is, putting American air power in service to a Shiite and Kurdish revenge war against the Sunnis - not exactly a recipe for a pacified Iraq. "
--------------------
[link to www.truthout.org]
vital excerpts con't.:
" "The idea of 'withdrawing' from Vietnam was there from the beginning, though never as an actual plan. All real options for ending the war were invariably linked to 'cutting and running,' or 'dishonor,' or 'surrender,' or 'humiliation,' and so dismissed within the councils of government more or less before being raised. The attempt to prosecute the war and to withdraw from it were never separable, no less opposites. If anything, withdrawal became a way to maintain or intensify the war, while pacifying the American public.
"'Withdrawal' involved not departure but all sorts of departure-like maneuvers - from bombing pauses that led to fiercer bombing campaigns to negotiation offers never meant to be taken up to a 'Vietnamization' plan in which ground troops would be pulled out as the air war was intensified. Each gesture of withdrawal allowed the war planners to fight a little longer; but if withdrawal did not withdraw the country from the war, the war's prosecution never brought it close to a victorious conclusion." "
--------------
" Add in another reality of America's Iraq: L. Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority, in a burst of blind pride in 2003, disbanded the Iraqi military. For well over a year or more, Pentagon plans for rebuilding it called for a future Iraqi military force (lite) of only 40,000 men with minimal armaments and essentially no air force at all! This is the Middle East, mind you. What that meant, simply enough, was that the Bush administration intended the American Army and Air Force to be the Iraqi military for eons to come. Under the pressure of the insurgency, the army part of that plan was thrown out the window. But "standing up" the Iraqi military has meant just that. Standing on the ground. There is still no real Iraqi air force. "
" But one major change from the Vietnam era is that we have potential "sanctuaries" in the area to withdraw to. Murtha suggested one of them, Kuwait, and it is the focus of attention at the moment. But Kurdistan, at present the quietest part of Iraq (despite fierce tensions between the two main Kurdish political parties and non-Kurdish residents of the as-yet somewhat undefined area), is also likely to be the most welcoming to American forces "withdrawing" from "Iraq." ..................The sole reference I've seen to this possibility was in a recent piece by veteran reporter Martin Walker who wrote: "There are other ideas circulating in the Pentagon, including the establishment of a major and possibly permanent base in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, where US troops are less controversial, and would be welcomed by the neighboring Turks, always worried at the prospect of an independent Kurdistan becoming a magnet for their own disaffected Kurdish minority." "
"...............Interestingly, the Los Angeles Times has just revealed that one of the Kurdish political parties signed a private oil exploration deal with a Norwegian company. Of course, the Kurdish areas would have their own set of explosive problems, but over the next year watch for Kurdistan to surface as part of any American draw-down which isn't actually a withdrawal. "
------------------------
" Oil: So here we are at another of the great, hardly covered stories of the Iraq war. As Mark LeVine has recently made so clear, the Bush administration, with its former energy industry execs and consultants, was thinking oil - and Iraqi oil in particular - from literally the first moments of its existence. "[T]he few documents that have been made public from [Vice President Cheney's] Energy Task Force... reveal not only that industry executives met with Cheney's staff [in February 2001] but that a map of Iraq and an accompanying list of 'Iraq oil foreign suitors' were the center of discussion." Hmmm... These were people who already had "peak oil" on their minds. They entered Iraq, a nation sitting on untold amounts of oil, thinking about the global control of future energy resources. They sent soldiers to guard the Oil Ministry and the oil fields, while allowing pretty much everything else to be looted as the country fell to them. They have no desire to abandon either their permanent bases or that reservoir of "black gold" to others. But beyond pious statements about preserving the Iraqi "patrimony" (i.e. oil) in the early days of the war, they never broached the subject publicly and the media followed their lead. "
[link to www.truthout.org]
just lost my last iota of respect for john mccain, not that there was much left after his fawning over bush in 2004, especially when bush had refused to stop his supporters from making personal attacks on mccain in the 2000 south carolina primary. mccain was just on meet the press, saying that if we don't kill the terrorists in iraq they will be here killing us. except he doesn't explain how they are all suddenly going to get from iraq to here or why we're not fighting them in the 60 countries that we have identified as having al-qaeda members. he also gave an interview in which he said this about john murtha: "as we get older, we get more sentimental". he also said he had no problem with paying iraqi newspapers to publish stories "as long as they are accurate". and we sure know we can trust the bush administration to be accurate. the chair and vice chair of the 9-11 commission are on now, saying that nothing has been done to implement their recommendations.
just finished watching thomas kean and lee hamilton of the 9-11 commission. they said another attack is a matter of if not when and they blamed the "president and congress" for us being unprepared. anyone know who controls those institutions? they also responded to louie freeh's op-ed in the wall street journal attacking the commission for ignoring "able danger". [freeh was heavily criticized in the 9-11 report.] they pointed out that there is not one single written document that supports the able danger allegations. the documented evidence actually shows that mohammed atta was not even in this country at the time. it's gop rep. curtis weldon of penn. who has pushed this story. here's a quote from him talking about pentagon lawyers pre 9-11: "they said you can't talk to him because he's here on a green card". except a green card means resident alien and none of the hijackers had a green card.
mefirst,
Your expression of outrage concerning McCain mirrors my own sentiments. The Bush people have 'got the goods' on him, bought and sold like so much chump change. What a disgrace! I drew that inference in 2000 when he made up with 'Frat Boy' at his ranch in AZ after suffering the most humiliating,personal diatribe AGAINST his family. his wife, his child amd whatever honor still resides in the man!!!!
Proving once again that crud is heavier than water, The Wall Street Journal now sinks to where it belongs: among the bible-thumpin', Duhhbya-worshipin', teleprompter-readin' buffons at FNC.
The universe has become a bit more balanced.