"Media Matters"; by Paul Waldman
A declaration of war
This week, the conservatives declared war.
Not on The New York Times. Not even on the media in general. No, this week the entire conservative movement -- from the White House to Republicans in Congress to Fox News to right-wing talk radio to conservative magazines -- declared war on the very idea of an independent press.
They declared war on the idea that journalists have not just the right but the obligation to hold those in power accountable for their actions. They declared war on the idea that journalists, not the government and not a political party, get to decide what appears in the press. They declared war on the idea that the public has a right to know what the government is doing in our name.
This is a profound threat to our democracy, and we underestimate it at our peril.
Here at Media Matters for America, we spend a great deal of time pointing out the news media's faults and missteps. But we do so because we believe in journalism, because we want journalism to fulfill its sacred obligations to the public, because we know that even in the world's oldest democracy, a free press is what stands between us and tyranny. The right wing, to put it plainly, does not share this belief.
There is a reason the Founders singled out the press for special protection when they wrote the Bill of Rights. It was because they understood that without an independent, free, aggressive, courageous press, democracy itself is impossible. When the government decides who gets to report the news and what they get to say, we no longer live in a free society. When journalists live under threat of prosecution and even violence, we cease to be citizens and become only subjects.
The right has kept the media under constant assault for decades, and the response from the media has been to bend over backward to prove they aren't biased -- by being harder on Democrats. They should have learned long ago that the "liberal bias" charge has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the news. It is a political strategy, a way of "working the ref" and providing easy excuses for public rejection of the right's goals. But what we have seen this week is something qualitatively different.
Given the constant drumbeat of criticism directed at the media from conservatives, it might be easy to dismiss this latest expulsion of bile as just more of the same. But it's worth stepping back to take a look at exactly what has occurred over the past week. Members of Congress have suggested revoking the Capitol Hill credentials of journalists, so that only news organizations that do not displease the ruling party may be permitted to report from Congress. Other members have accused members of the media of "treason" and advocated their prosecution. A conservative television and radio personality suggested that the government establish an Office of Censorship to screen the news. Another said, "I would have no problem with [New York Times editor Bill Keller] being sent to the gas chamber." The House of Representatives passed a resolution saying it "expects the cooperation of all news media organizations."
In short, the right assembled a posse this week -- vigilantes stalking television studios, radio airwaves, print, and the Internet, their apparent goal to revoke the First Amendment.
So let's review what happened. The New York Times published a story detailing a government program attempting to monitor the movement of money to terrorist organizations, through an arrangement with SWIFT, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. Members of the administration and their allies in Congress quickly came forward to allege that terrible damage had been done to national security:
- Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that the article "made it more difficult for us to prevent attacks in the future" and "will enable the terrorists to look for ways to defeat our efforts."
- President Bush commented, "If you want to figure out what the terrorists are doing, you try to follow their money. And that's exactly what we're doing. And the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."
- White House press secretary Tony Snow said the newspaper "ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know in some cases might override somebody's right to live" and suggested that the article "could place in jeopardy the safety of fellow Americans."
- Rep. Peter King (R-NY) argued that the Times had "compromised" the program and "violated the Espionage Act." King urged the attorney general to prosecute the "reporters, the editors who worked on this, and the publisher."
Conservative media figures agreed that while the day before Al Qaeda was blissfully unaware that the United States had any interest in the movement of their money, now they knew we were on to them. Just a few examples:
- Michelle Malkin, syndicated columnist: "The New York Times (proudly publishing all the secrets unfit to spill since 9/11) and their reckless anonymous sources (come out, come out, you cowards) tipped off terrorists to America's efforts to track their financial activities." ["The terrorist-tipping Times," 6/28/06]
- Cal Thomas, syndicated columnist and Fox News host: "If our enemies now see the way we are going after them on the front page of The New York Times, the L.A. Times, The Washington Post, all they have to do is wait a little bit and counteract our counteracting measures. ... [W]hen you give too information to the other side, you're simply setting yourself up for another attack or defeat." [Fox News Watch, 6/24/06]
- Editors of National Review: "The terrorists will now adapt. They will find new ways of transferring funds, and precious lines of intelligence will be lost. Murderers will get the resources they need to carry out their grisly business. As for the real public interest, it lies primarily in safety -- and what the Times has ensured is that the public today is less safe." ["Stop the Leaks," 6/26/06]
- Brit Hume, Fox News Washington managing editor: "[N]ow they [the terrorists] know it. That's the problem. Now they know it. ... The objective is to find out what channels they are using, who's got the money and where it's coming from. ... You don't want to drive this stuff further underground because it undermines your ability to track it and to stop it." [Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, 6/25/06]
- William Kristol, editor, The Weekly Standard: Asked how the program's disclosure damaged national security, Kristol responded, "Because this has broken up plots that now they may be able to go around the international banking system." [Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, 6/25/06]
- NewsMax, conservative news website: "That newspaper, of course, is the New York Times, now rapidly taking on the role of Osama bin Laden's reliable informant." ["Reminder to the N.Y. Times: We Are At War," 6/27/06]
There was only one problem with this argument: For nearly five years, George W. Bush and other members of his administration have been proclaiming proudly that they have been tracking terrorist financing through international financial institutions.
Beginning fewer than two weeks after September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has "been very public about its efforts to track the overseas banking transactions of Americans and other foreign nationals," as a June 28 Boston Globe article noted. Keller addressed this issue in a June 25 letter to his readers, noting that the administration had voiced concerns prior to the article's publication that it "would lead terrorists to change tactics." Keller noted in response, "It has been widely reported -- indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department -- that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror." Following are numerous examples:
- In a September 24, 2001, speech, Bush announced the establishment of a "foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks." He added, "It will bring together representatives of the intelligence, law enforcement, and financial regulatory agencies to accomplish two goals: to follow the money as a trail to the terrorists, to follow their money so we can find out where they are; and to freeze the money to disrupt their actions."
- In a September 24, 2001, letter to Congress, Bush noted, "Terrorists and terrorist networks operate across international borders and derive their financing from sources in many nations. Often, terrorist property and financial assets lie outside the jurisdiction of the United States." He affirmed his commitment to working with international agencies such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) "to build momentum and practical cooperation in the fight to stop the flow of resources to support terrorism."
- A White House fact sheet published on September 24, 2001, noted the launch of the Treasury Department's Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center (FTAT): "The FTAT is a multi-agency task force that will identify the network of terrorist funding and freeze assets before new acts of terrorism take place."
- In a September 26, 2001, statement, Bush said, "We're fighting them on a financial front. We're choking off their money. We're seizing their assets. We will be relentless as we pursue their sources of financing. And I want to thank the Secretary of Treasury for leading that effort."
- On October 1, 2001, Bush told FEMA employees, "As you may remember, I made it clear that part of winning the war against terror would be to cut off these evil people's money; it would be to trace their assets and freeze them, cut off their cash flows, hold people accountable who fund them, who allow the funds to go through their institutions; and not only do that at home, but to convince others around the world to join us in doing so."
- On October 10, 2001, Bush stated that the "nations of NATO are sharing intelligence, coordinating law enforcement and cracking down on the financing of terrorist organizations."
- During remarks at FTAT, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said, "[W]e have begun to act -- to block assets, to seize books, records and evidence, and to follow audit trails to track terrorist cells poised to do violence to our common interests." O'Neill added, "We have built an international coalition to deny terrorists access to the world financial system."
- A December 2001 report on the steps the administration had taken to combat terrorism noted that the FATF "-- a 29-nation group promoting policies to combat money laundering -- adopted strict new standards to deny terrorist access to the world financial system."
- A September 10, 2004, Treasury Department statement read: "The targeting of terrorist financing continues to play an important role in the war on terror. Freezing assets, terminating cash flows, and following money trails to previously unknown terrorist cells are some of the many weapons used against terrorist networks."
Moreover, SWIFT's cooperation in international efforts to monitor terrorists' banking activities was a matter of public knowledge long before the Times detailed the Treasury Department program. As former Bush administration counterterrorism official Roger Cressey noted in the June 28 Globe article, "There have been public references to SWIFT before. ... It has been in the public domain before." Indeed, in his June 28 column, washingtonpost.com columnist Dan Froomkin noted that according to SWIFT's website, the consortium has a "history of cooperating in good faith with authorities such as central banks, treasury departments, law enforcement agencies and appropriate international organisations, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), in their efforts to combat abuse of the financial system for illegal activities." And as former State Department official Victor Comras noted in a June 23 Counterterrorism Blog post, the United Nations Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group learned of the SWIFT program years ago -- a fact the group incorporated into its December 2002 report to the U.N. Security Council:
The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.
And long before June 23, Bush and other administration officials acknowledged that terrorists were increasingly using other methods of transferring money to evade detection. As Media Matters wrote:
In testimony before Congress in 2004, Treasury Department undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence Stuart A. Levey said, "As the formal and informal financial sectors become increasingly inhospitable to financiers of terrorism, we have witnessed an increasing reliance by Al Qaida and terrorist groups on cash couriers. The movement of money via cash couriers is now one of the principal methods that terrorists use to move funds." In 2002 and 2003, the Congressional Research Service documented terrorists' increased use of alternative money flows, including "informal value transfer [hawala] systems that leave virtually no paper trail." Further, various news outlets and independent organizations have noted terrorist organizations' hesitance to use the international banking system in recent years.
Yet White House press secretary Tony Snow said during his June 27 press briefing, "I am absolutely sure they [the terrorists] didn't know about SWIFT."
If this sounds familiar, it should. When the NSA domestic spying scandal broke, the administration and its defenders argued -- just as absurdly -- that Al Qaeda terrorists now knew we were trying to listen in on their phone calls. But of course, they had known that for years. What that story revealed was not that the government was monitoring phone calls, but that it was doing so in violation of the law and without the proper warrants. When he was confronted with the obvious fact that Al Qaeda terrorists were quite well aware they were being monitored during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales replied, "If they're not reminded about it all the time, in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget."
Nonetheless, as we detailed, this week conservatives trooped to television studios to propose that the Times be prosecuted for treason:
- Melanie Morgan, radio talk show host: "I see it as treason, plain and simple, and my advice to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at this point in time is chop-chop, hurry up, let's get these prosecutors fired up and get the subpoenas served, get the indictments going, and get these guys [Keller and The New York Times] behind jail." [MSNBC's Hardball, 6/26/06]
- Ann Coulter, right-wing pundit: [R]evealing a classified program, which no one thinks violates any laws ... that has led to the capture of various terrorists, and to various terrorist money-laundering operations. If that is not treason, then we're not prosecuting anymore." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 6/26/06]
- William Kristol, editor, The Weekly Standard: "I think the Justice Department has an obligation to consider prosecution. ... This isn't a partisan thing of the Bush administration. This is a U.S. government secret program in a time of war, willfully exposed for no good reason by The New York Times." [Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, 6/25/06]
Many other conservative media figures took to the airwaves to claim that The New York Times was aiming to help Al Qaeda:
- L. Brent Bozell III, president, Media Research Center: "The New York Times needs to be reminded ... that on September 11, 2001, something really awful happened right down the street from the newspaper. ... And the last thing we need is The New York Times aiding and abetting the terrorist movement. And that's exactly what they're doing by divulging these secrets." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 6/27/06]
- Rush Limbaugh, syndicated radio host: "If you look at The New York Times and the kind of stories they're leaking and running and the information they're getting, it's clear that they're trying to help the terrorists. They're trying to help the jihadists." Limbaugh added that he thought that "80 percent of their subscribers have to be jihadists." According to the latest circulation statistics, the Times sells more than 690,000 copies of its daily edition, and has more than 1.1 million subscribers to its Sunday edition, via home delivery. [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/27/06]
- Andrew C. McCarthy, senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies: "Yet again, The New York Times was presented with a simple choice: help protect American national security or help al Qaeda. Yet again, it sided with al Qaeda." ["The Media's War Against the War Continues," National Review Online, 6/23/06]
- Newt Gingrich, former House speaker (R-GA) and Fox News political analyst: "You would think that The New York Times, located on the same island where the World Trade Center once existed, would have some residual memory of 9-11. You'd think that The New York Times ... would have some sense of survival. ... [M]y sense is that they hate George W. Bush so much that they would be prepared to cripple America in order to go after the president." [Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, 6/26/06]
- Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report senior writer: "Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? ... We have a press that is at war with an administration, while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt while confident of remaining safe under their roof. But how safe will we remain when our protection depends on the Times?" ["Why do "they" hate us?" syndicated column, 6/26/06]
- Morton M. Kondracke, Roll Call executive editor: "And for God's sake, The New York Times ought to look down the street and remember where 9-11 happened. It really happened in New York City, you know? And they act as though it never happened." [Fox News' The Beltway Boys, 6/24/06]
- Heather Mac Donald, contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute's City Journal: "By now it's undeniable: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives." ["National Security Be Damned," The Weekly Standard, July 3 issue]
So have news organizations stood up for their colleagues at the Times? Unfortunately, the response from most of the country's editorial boards has been muted at best. A Media Matters review of the 50 papers contained in the Lexis-Nexis "major newspapers" database found that fewer than half editorialized in the Times' defense. (For the honor roll, click here.) The Wall Street Journal's editorial page criticized the Times yet somehow managed to exonerate its own reporting on the subject.
And what of the rest of the news media? Have they been beaten down so badly by years of conservative haranguing that they can't even stand up in support of independent journalism when members of Congress are calling for their colleagues to be prosecuted for doing their jobs, when right-wing talk show hosts are saying things like, "I would have no problem with [Keller] being sent to the gas chamber"? Have they not an ounce of courage left?
"Thank you, sir, may I have another?"
One question many people are asking is, why now? Why is this coordinated assault on the media happening now, especially when the idea that the newspapers actually endangered national security falls apart on even a moment's examination?
One answer is that the deeper Republicans sink politically, the more eager they are to change the subject, particularly to something that will rile up their base. The fact that all the right wing's anger is focused on one of its favorite whipping boys, The New York Times -- when the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal also ran stories on the banking program -- suggests that the attack was planned for maximum political effect.
And consider what happened on Capitol Hill just before this story broke: The big story of the week was Iraq, the albatross around the administration's neck. Republicans had gleefully brought up for debate two Democratic proposals on the war, sure that they could successfully paint the opposition as weak, cowardly advocates of "cut and run," yet things weren't turning out quite as they had hoped.
And at first, the media were happy to help. As we discussed last week, despite the fact that Republicans were unified in their support for the indefinite continuation of an unpopular war, the dominant theme of coverage was that Democrats were "on the defensive."
Then something interesting happened: On Sunday, The New York Times reported that Gen. George Casey, the commander of American forces in Iraq, had presented to President Bush a plan to begin withdrawing U.S. troops. Democrats were quick to point out that Casey seemed to agree with them (although CBS News' Joie Chen asserted that Casey's plan was "not a cut-and-run strategy").
The Los Angeles Times, fervently looking for the cloud behind any Democratic silver lining, came up with this bit of insightful analysis:
Last week, Congress debated two Democratic proposals that called for Bush to begin a troop drawdown, resolutions that divided the party. Public acknowledgment of the Casey plan by administration officials could leave the Democratic Party's leaders in an even more awkward position, having backed a withdrawal plan already embraced by the White House -- in effect leaving the party with no Iraq policy distinct from the administration's as the parties head into the midterm elections.
As Greg Sargent wrote on his weblog The Horse's Mouth, "Just try to wrap your brain around that logic for a second." Yes, it must be just like the time Bush abandoned his bid to privatize Social Security, leaving Democrats flummoxed and politically weaker because they were unable to accuse him of trying to privatize Social Security.
But here's what ABC's The Note asked:
The Note is confused: If General Casey (and President Bush) are going to do what the Democrats want anyway in terms of troop withdrawals (as Democrats are now claiming), how can they justify all this yelling about Bush not listening to the American people? Do they care more about the name calling or the policy?
Yes, you read that correctly: ABC News thinks it was Democrats who were doing too much "name calling" when it came to Iraq. But just remember: The Note is the expression of conventional wisdom among the Washington press corps. In their world, Republicans are tough, smart, and cool, and Democrats are weak, dumb, and nerdy; Republican hypocrisy just reveals the hypocrisy of Democrats; bad poll numbers for Bush only indicate a coming turnaround, and on and on. As Lapdogs author Eric Boehlert wisely noted, "The Note's definition of buzz has been whatever Beltway Republicans are chattering about. The Note has been nourished on an era of total Republican rule. It shows."
And it was hardly just The Note. As we documented, the media's discussion of Iraq of late has been steeped in GOP talking points, including the following:
- Republicans are "pro-military" and "support the troops," while Democrats are "anti-military" and "attack the troops."
- Democrats want to "cut and run."
- Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.
- Democrats are "divided" or "weak" on national security.
- The Republicans will always win debates on national security.
- The Republicans won the Iraq debate.
All of these ideas were repeated not just by Republican spokespeople and conservative commentators, but by allegedly neutral reporters. And if, as the media were so eager to report, the debate in Congress over the war was such a victory for the Republicans, then they should have gotten some political benefit. But that doesn't appear to be the case. The last Gallup poll before the debate showed Democrats leading Republicans on the question of which party voters would support in the upcoming midterm elections, 51 percent to 39 percent. The Gallup poll taken after the debate showed a 3-percentage-point increase in the Democratic lead, to 54-39.
The events of the past week provide one more demonstration that progressives must begin to fully appreciate the importance of the media in our political life. Look what happened: Conservatives began a coordinated attack on a news organization, and suddenly we weren't talking about Iraq or about anything else, we were actually debating whether The New York Times should be prosecuted for treason.
And journalists could barely summon the energy to defend not just their colleagues, but their profession -- let alone the citizens they are supposed to serve. At the same time that they were being subjected to this assault, they continued to view the political world through a lens created by the very people battering them mercilessly.
In recent editions of our weekly wrap-up, Jamison Foser has been making the case that, as he wrote back on May 26, "The defining issue of our time is the media." Conservatives obviously understand this fact. Perhaps soon progressives will come to the same understanding.
I read somewhere where Bush wants an office created to read the news before it can be printed to make sure it doesn't affect his war on emotion - oops terror. The way I see it, the shutting down of a free and independent press is one of the big signs of the coming dictatorship. The coming of throwing everything about this country out the window. His imperial highness. He hides behind terror for everything including manipulation. I fear if we will actually have a freely and independently elected congress in 06 and a new president in 08. I feel the republicans have something to do with the voting machines. Given this and the clamping down on the press now that they are not being good little lapdogs is something we need to fear a heck of alot more than the Terrorist. I'm afraid the real and worst terrorist is in the White House.
By: Dr. Ron Paul , a Republican member of Congress from Texas [link to www.lewrockwell.com]
All should read or re-read: Sinclair Lewis's satirical political novel: "It Can't Happen Here"
"...It serves as a warning that political movements akin to fascism or Nazism can come to power in countries such as the United States when people blindly support their leaders..."
and the media needs to stand up to Bush and start calling him out on all the things they sat on the past 5 years. Of course the cable news networks are safe but the print media esp. the Times needs to start a turf war and come out full guns blazing. They let Judy Miller use the front page to deliver the Iraq war to her secret high level source in the Whitehouse. The print media is on the defensive because they are not so naive to think that if the Times is prosecuted they might be next.
The conservatism I grew up with was steeped in the "Constitution" , the "Bill of Rights", and keeping ones nose out of foreign intrigues... then the neocons came and made a mess of it all. Thank you Media Matters for drawing your own line in the sand. Many on the Right like myself are cheering you on.
ANTI-WAR... ANTI-GLOBALIZATION... AMERICA FIRST
...People like you might restore some my faith in my country. It is clearly time to get past the partisan lines of Republican and Democrat, and take back the nation that once belonged to “We, the people,” but which now belongs to “We, the corporations”. This administration is without doubt the greatest threat this nation has ever seen since the Civil War, and we must unite across partisan lines to stop them. That is the only way.
Thanks for posting and showing that there are still some conservatives out there who know what is happening. I was starting to think they did not really exist.
I am conservative. I see america getting taken away by large corporations. I personally feel both parties are guilty of personal interests. Taxation without representation. It is a joke.
On topic, I do feel the media tends to be one sided. Leaving out interesating facts that may make a person think twice about a subject matter..... imagine that.
Durring the Civil War Lincoln locked the press because he felt hey where jeopardizing the war.
Of all our rights and liberties currently being trampled upon, this may be the most significant. Media Matters' excellence is a beacon of light in an otherwise very dark time for the American Media.
Those unfamiliar should research the effects of 'conservative' AND 'liberal' idealogical groups on our media system. 'Orwell Rolls in his Grave' is an outstanding documentary stepping stone.
If we cannot reclaim our media we'll never know what hit us.
If we say it all is good, if you say it your a traitor.
This was also mentioned by commentators on tonight's PBS show Washington Week with Gwen Ifill.
One of the journalists said that the Republicans win when the press is discussing the press coverage of a news story instead of the news story or another news story, and so the Republicans were HAPPY that Washington Week was spending time on that subject, rather than spending time on 'real' news.
It's really sad and depressing, if you let yourself get down about it.
I am thrilled that Media Matters is so good at covering these issues!
Really, really scary. My friend in Canada was reading some of these quotes, and then pasting me some bits from an essay about Nazi Germany.. this is just a tidbit.. but it speaks volumes.
The whole essay can be read at [link to www.thirdreich.net]
I really do recommend reading it.
My conservative friends, of all ages, say that "our troops are fighting in Iraq for our freedoms here." Most of them really do not want to think about, discuss, or be critical of the administration's selling of the war for the last several years. I suppose that this can be expected of a portion of our society...they are busy working and making payments to house, car and club. It makes it easier to have Fox News or News Week force-feed them an opinion that they can use it the next day, or week, if a discussion comes up around their cubicle. It is nice to have efficient answers to complex issues.
This will be a tough issue for them to explain. Why would Fox News be advocating for media censorship?... unless they are already censored. Fox is so attatched to the Bush administration that their ratings are falling as well. Murdoc has a great marketing machine that just happens to be backing a defective product. Why not advocate that all other media products be required not to exceed the defective quality of Fox News. Perhaps this is a last chance, hail mary, Doug Flutie pass to the end-zone, making them the standard by which all other media outlets must equal...legally.
You're RIGHT about the incremental steps taken towards establishing tyrannical control.
Each step flows from the last, and pushes the boundry further. No individual step is of sufficient outrage to send people into the streets, but the cumulative effect is crushing.
9/11 happened with Bush asleep at the switch. Well, he was new on the job, and never an accomplished manager, so the past was forgotten and we focused on what he was going to DO about it.
At first, he went after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. The world was WITH us; this was our attacker.
Then a different step was taken, one announced years prior by PNAC, a great many of whose members were in policy positions in the new Administration. Iraq had to be invaded. Bush went along, even though the REASONS for the invasion had to be falsified.
Invading Iraq has had many terrible consequences for America:
* placed American troops in harm's way on the basis of false "threat assessment".
* diverted our assets from a REAL "war on terror" to a land battle which has us trapped in the midst of a civil war.
* alienated the world, including allies, with our "go it alone" and "our way or the hiway" attitude.
* plunged us into deep deficit spending.
* required a bitter division of Americans into stark "with us or against us" camps, with the Administration demonizing AT LEAST half the nation.
* crippled our ability to address REAL threats in other areas of the world.
* signaled to the world that the BEST way to avoid American aggression was to quickly obtain a nuclear capability.
For these and a myriad of other reasons, the Iraq adventure has been a disaster for America. It is BAD in many ways, and GOOD in none.
"But we're killing terrorists there!"
... and creating thousands more, meanwhile killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens. According to the CIA, terrorists are in 60 countries around the world ... and growing. Why Iraq? It wasn't even on the list!
"An Iraq democracy will make us safer!"
... Saddam had elections. The Palestinians freely elected a terrorist party into leadership. Our Iraqi aggression prompted Iran to elect a militant wartime president hostile to the USA. "DEMOCRACY" by itself is no assurance of good returns for the USA, and such a gamble is not worth the life of ONE American soldier, let alone over 2500.
"We're fighting them there so we won't have to fight them HERE!"
The terrorists are patient, and their attacks might be YEARS apart. They hit the towers in '93, and again in '01 -- an eight year gap. That we haven't had another attack YET is neither a surprise nor a reason to crow that we've changed any patterns. Plus, the PREMISE of this catch-phrase is ludicrous; we wouldn't be fighting terrorists in the streets in any event. By their nature, terrorists attack from stealth. Our best means of protection is INTELLIGENCE, and rooting out the cells wherever they may be, in America, or anywhere else in the world. Root them out and kill them. Instead, we are bogged down in a ground war.
"The world is better off without Saddam in power!"
A contained and defenseless Saddam was a bad man, to be sure, but NO threat to the USA. There are MANY brutal leaders in the world. We cannot depose them all, and we have to determine where "nation building" is worth the lives of our soldiers. Contained and defenseless, Saddam should have been WAY down the list. That Iraq has oil would explain why his nation got priority, but doesn't sit well as a reason for expending our soldier's lives.
"A democracy in the Middle East will spread!"
Israel has been a democracy in the Middle East for decades. Iraq and Iran held elections. The idea of "spreading democracy" where it already exists is a toothless claim.
Here's a sample of these so-called "conservative" types:
Bill O'Reilly -- a right-wing thug doing the dirty work of his masters at Fox News Channel and CBS/Westwood One.
Rush Limbaugh -- a creep with Nazi-like views who got caught with drugs again and is fighting to stay out of prison.
Tony Snow -- a right-wing liar who cut his teeth with Gannett (USA Today etc.) and Fox News Channel.
Michelle Malkin -- a brunette fascist who thinks concentration camps are cool.
Cal Thomas -- an apologist for Oliver North, who drew up plans to suspend the Constitution and install a military dictatorship in the U.S.
Brit Hume -- a right-wing hack and tennis partner of George "Poppy" Bush, father of the current head of state.
William Kristol -- a congenital right-winger.
William Bennett -- a moralistic right-wing thug with a gambling habit.
Brent Bozell III -- a censorship advocate and congenital blacklister.
NewsMax -- a right-wing website propped up by fascist billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.
Melanie Morgan -- another right-wing screecher doing the dirty work of her masters at ABC.
Newt Gingrich -- a right-wing hypocrite with another sorry record.
These people are NOT "conservative". They are right-wing and fascist. By calling these people "conservative" you are soft on the right wing and soft on fascism.
If you don't want a fascist America start calling out these right-wing types for who they really are!
...you make an excellent point. These people are the most radical group to ever sit in the White House. There's nothing "conservative" about them except the army that supports is comprised of people who call themselves "conservative." Dems should start stressing some of THESE talking points in the media - get THAT message out!
Being a Liberal, myself, I especially appreciate the point you've made here. Thanks.
where are all the people who were wringing their hands over "poor poor judy miller"?
if they were really so concerned about the "chilling effect" on the press, wouldnt this be the time for them to speak up?
For all the water-carrying the MSM does, and look what they get. You really wonder what it would take to get them angry enough to fight back.
It would be very easy to run wall-to-wall stories about what they said about NYT article, and then about Novak's leaking a covert operative's name. Think they'll ever do it or something similar?
The news media do not care about the news, they care about their bottom line. Their owners are weathly and benefiting greatly from the current situation. Their audience is busy with life's everyday demands, uncritical, easily persuaded and easily distracted.
Politicians do not care about the American people or the great American democratic experiment; they only care about their bank accounts. War is profitable. Working for the government is profitable. Every small business wants to grow up to be a government contractor.
The wealthy do not really care about America. When the country is no longer recognizable, crippled by debt and devoid of industry, they'll relocate. They do not and will not have to face the consequences of their decisions. They have no stake in our future.
In 2003, 75% of taxpayers reported an AGI of less than $58K, 50% less than $30K. Only 5% were over $130K. I would imagine that every reporter cited in that story makes over $130K. There's something about money in that it makes you think you're better, smarter, more worthy, whatever, than the other 95%.
It's the money. Those that have it, want more, much more. Those that don't, brainwashed to think they too can make it if only those pesky liberals are kept out of power.
And the ones who should be calling their politicians to account are too easily appeased with talk of gay marriage. Or they're in violent blograge against the latest Supreme Court decision and calling for the impeachment of the Court and a total re-write of the Court's traditional role. Or they're A-OK with censorship and totalitarian-style government, as long as it leans their way.
This site is special because it really tries to focus on facts, not opinion or spin. Unfortunately, the people who most need to be reached generally aren't the readers. Not if their choice is between paying for the the internet or cable TV. Besides, the internet requires reading and many people just don't like to do much of that. But they vote and their votes count too.
We need a television version of MMFA. And I need a beer.
Pretty much anyone who generates or conveys information at variance with their consticted view of reality. Thus the war on education (NCLB and higher education's pointy-headed intellectuals), scientists (especially anyone who disputes the Bible) and journalists (drive-by Bush Bashers according to Rush and Colter). Oh, and then there's the generic target of hate, contempt and charges of treason, reserved for the generic "liberal." All of this bashing and denigration is going to result in tragedy, as a Timothy McVeigh-type takes it on himself to step beyond rhetoric into violence, just as anti-abortion activists have bombed and shot clinics and physicians. This has to stop.
No, but one declaration that pretty much all conservatives can agree on is how silly and stupid your conclusion is, Paul. I've read hysterically overreactive posts by flighty liberals plenty of times, and this one is right up there. We went after the NYT because they prioritized their own interests over the national security of the nation that gives them the right to produce exactly what they did. This is called harsh criticism by those who also have the same free speech and free press rights as the NYT and you. Deal with it, bub.
The president went to Graceland and according to Maureen Dowd even Priscilla and Lisa Marie were there. How wonderful! How subliminal! Elvis the man who always fought for the girl, a man any man would want fighting for them, a man who seems to be making a comeback in death. And the Japanese Prime Minister who loves him. Doesn't that take minds off of our servicemen and servicewomen who are killing and dying senselessly in Iraq? Does it matter that Elvis died, how he died or the incredible unpopularity of the man as the extreme right embraced his image? Or maybe that didn't happen. Maybe Elvis wasn't poised politically as the opponent of the Beatles, The Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan. Elvis would fight for you, but would you lie to him about what he was going to fight for? Would you say, hey, we have Elvis and then exploit the fact? The President cooked the books to get us into Iraq and I think this war was more Wag the Dog than Clinton's war in Kosovo and much more costly. Why does News back off? Do they lack the courage or is their opponent to forbidding? I watch Democracy Now! on LINK TV, and while sometimes it doesn't grab me, it's always there as an alternative voice to what I have most recently heard referred to as "corporate" news. They played "Don't Be Cruel" which wasn't just one of Elvis's biggest hits, but his first!
... and up to now, no one paid attention.
I'm afraid that it may take another loss for Democrats in November to wake up the slumberers.
If you want to help me do something about the media imbalance, read the media strategy I prepared over a year ago for MoveOn.org, which met with a resounding silence, [link to makethemaccountable.com]
and read this writeup on one of the proposals from that document. [link to makethemaccountable.com]
Carolyn Kay MakeThemAccountable.com
In my own insignificant way, on these forums, I've been harping about this trend for at least 3 years. Of course, I've been ridiculed by the Right Wingers, and some fellow Liberals, as a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
I also don't think this is something new. I truly believe that this scheme was hatched back around the time of Reagan, maybe even before. The Nixon administration certainly had no love for the press; and, if you saw "Good Night and Good Luck", it's easy to believe that the enmity between the press and Fascists, I mean Conservatives, may go back to the 50s.
I think what we're seeing now is an act of either desperation or extreme hubris on the part of the Troglodytes. It's hard to tell which. On the one hand, Iraq is threatening to drag them down the drain, as it should. On the other, they now control most of the media and all of the government. They may, in fact, think that this is the time to deliver the death blow to the Free Press.
As someone pointed out earlier, these buffoons are a bigger threat to our freedoms than any terrorist could ever be.
It's obvious there is a very organized and concerted effort by Republicans and their mostly controlled press to shift the focus of the mid term elections. This would be the overt part of their plan. If you believe they will do anything to keep control of Congress and the White House then you know there are less obvious ways they plan to hold on to their power in the 2006 elections.
For all intents and purposes there are really only 35-40 Congressional seats up for grabs. 30-35 may be more accurate. In this era of over 90% incumbent re-election there are only so many seats that have a chance in hell of being turned over. As the designers of many Congressional district maps, the Republicans are well aware of this. They will throw big money into these very critical races and as it gets closer to election day, if they don't like the poll numbers they are seeing they will resort to more desperate tactics. These tactics will hardly be new to us. They will try to discourage voter turn out in inner city districts with misinformation in print and phone canvasing by leading voters to believe if they have any outstanding bills or parking tickets they will be made to pay or arrested if they show up to vote. They will try to manipulate voter registries and of course have people outside of voting places in attempt to misdirect voters to incorrect districts as well as outright intimidation.
And then there's that ace in the hole of hacking into voting machines. It's easy to do for anyone with any experience at computer hacking. An entire districts votes can be rendered useless. Measures can be taken to stop voting machine violation, but with many of the machines owned and controlled by Republican supporters, a very organized effort with sufficient resources (people) will be needed to ensure a fair voter count. This, as well as volunteers in critical voting districts who will show up to stop voter intimidation, is what is going to be needed.
Securing the voter process should be first and foremost in the minds of all who truly want to see a change in the policies of our government. I certainly don't see much of an organized effort in this area. It won't make a bit of difference whether we have a 54-39% lead in the polls or whether it's 61-32%, if we don't secure the process.
" Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. "
Thomas Jefferson
Close to the eve of OUR 230TH anniversary of the signing of the "Declaration of Independence" the above referenced quote holds valid significance given the determination of the current administration and its minions of RW hacks who are calling for the criminal prosecution of the NY Times.
However, when one ponders the real reasons for such effrontery being levied against the NY Times, a much more sinister and onerous attempt is being marshalled against a " Free Press". With a disastrous war policy adventure now unravelling in Iraq AND a 'War on Terror' which now stretches the logic of any rational attempt towards conclusion... And couple that with the Republican Party and its NeoCon administration approaching polling numbers reminiscent of the adage, " The Ship that Couldn't Sink," WE now see the feeble and lame attempt by an alignment of RW hacks calling for the evisceration of a venerable source of information to the public intelligence.
Scapegoating is the REASON. When Judith Miller of the Times was essentially serving up to the public diet a steady and deceitful array of NeoCon talking points concerning our proper and principled 'raison d'etre' for invading a country which had not threatened US and for all practical purposes was constrained, DID the administration challenge the patriotism, veracity and OPINION of the Times when they were in fact embellishing their faulty rationale for our descent into Arab Hell??? Au Contraire!
But now that the public mind has been informed and clarity and TRUTH starts to enlighten our consciousness, The "Press" , once an unwitting partner in the worst foreign policy strategic mistake in the history of these United States is now feeling the brunt of its co-dependent partner in crime. This should serve as a warning to others who have aligned themselves with the NeoConmen. When the ____ hits the fan, all is fair game.
Perhaps, Mr Jefferson had future administrations in mind who would betray the PUBLIC TRUST, when he stated:
"When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hang on. Thomas Jefferson."
Let's ALL hope so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You guys are right to call this a war. Now, if we can only get our Democratic leaders to understand what they are up against and how important it is for them to fight as hard as they can for our American freedoms!
Too many of them are getting fat and rich off the same lobbyists that have bought the Republican party. What the Democrats need is a strong, forceful leader who is not afraid of the Right Wing propaganda machine. Hillary has the stature but, apparently, not the courage to carry the progressive banner. Al Gore still has a charisma problem, though he has improved greatly since 2000.
Is this great leader in the wings, somewhere?
I'm ever hopeful, but not too optimistic.
Something is seriously wrong with our country right now. And it's very frightening.
If newsrooms start getting bombed by right wing zealots, and journalists start getting pulled out into the streets and beaten to death by fanatics, I will not be surprised.
And then the traditional media that utterly inexplicably bows down to and cowers in the shadow of the Bush White House, will blame the journalists and news organizations for bringing it on themselves.
It happened in Zimbabwe, when the country was at the peak of its socioeconomic evolution, so why not here when our country is going down the drain?
I previously thought that the GOP had deliberately set up talk radio as a planned disinformation channel after killing the fairness doctrine under Reagan. But RFKjr cautioned me to not underestimate the complicity of corporate mega-media owners who saw/see an opportunity to enact under the GOP policies wholly favorable to their bottom line without any of the protections of a free press that Dem control would caveat. Another factor is what Kathleen Hall Jamison discovered during the Hillarycare debate as "false certainty". Growing millions were turning into Rush as entertainment but accepting at fatface value his outlandish lies merely because they heard it on the radio! It didn't occur to them that someone would lie that baldly on radio since it hadn't been done so blatantly before in our experience (Father Coughlin was several generations earliers). This was exemplified at the same time by a front page NYT article on flash mob protests against Hillarycare, orchestrated by talk radio, where a schoolteacher was quoted as saying that she was certain her doctor would be thrown in jail for treating her because she had "heard it on Rush." He wouldn't back down even then. I spent some time experimenting with calling into Rush and others to see how total their screening was. I could indeed get onto Rush, and did in 5-6 notorious calls in the mid-90's, where Rush never could debate the issue but instead attacked me. The two most notable calls were when he refused to discuss the fact that the public was turning on Newt's Contract after reports lobbyists were writing laws in the committee rooms. Rush said he "couldn't debate someone who actually believes that Republicans would poison the air and water" and hung up on me (but not before I tagged him "Jabba the Hut of American politics" and "the very caricature of all he represents - a fat, belching pig" - he stopped belching his lunch and started losing weight right afterward, thank you). Callers actually shamed him for not debating me so he offered an open hour for liberals to prove that GOP wants to wreck the environment. The first caller was RFKjr to whom Rush was strangely deferential. My last call to Rush was when I taunted him with the prospect of how he, a draft dodger, was going to smear a true war hero like John Kerry, who had gone down to the recruiting office along with John J. Pershing III and the founder of FedEx to sign up. He denied he dodged the draft so I read his 4F form on the air. I wonder to this day if Karl Rove was listening.
Lets face it after missing the obvious clues to the 9/11 attack and knowing there is no way to easily detect or deflect future attacks it makes sense to lay down excuses as we go along. The next attack will be caused by the NY Times release of well known information that just might have stopped the attack if it remained a well known secret. Hey we have already been through 5+ years of Clinton did it!
I can see it 200+ years from now the attack on Microsoft Rawapindi was caused by Democratic leaks back in 2006 according to Rush Hannity the 12th.
we no longer have the press that the founders envisioned: a multitiude of opinion by a multitude of publishers. we have a media of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations. not that there aren't some good and honorable people in the msm. but the large corporations that now own the media have a vested interest in keeping republicans in congress. because they deliver all the things the corporations want. lower taxes, less regulation, and an ability to feed at the public trough. so the msm ignores things like the downing street memo, the criticisms of bush in the 9-11 report, and the many irregularities in electronic voting. ask yourself why the republicans, who insist that the government can do nothing right, still oppose a paper trail and insist the machines, every model, every machine, are flawless. but there is one thing that i am always glad of. and that's to be an american. not as proud as i once was, because it seems like despite our flaws, we always moved forward. can't say that now. but there are hopeful things. like a supreme court that said the president is not the king. and they told the world that we're better than the stone age barbarians who slice people's throats on video. we have laws and we have justice, imperfect as it may be at times.