Today offered numerous instances of misinformation on Iraq war in marking its four-year anniversary
On the March 19 edition of NBC's Today, co-host Matt Lauer promised "a look back and a look forward" on the war in Iraq, noting that "[a]s the war enters its fifth year, America is shell-shocked. The casualties staggering [and] the price tag in the hundreds of billions." Lauer then asked: "Is the war worth it, and is there a chance for victory?" However, in purporting to explore the four-year-old war, the show's hosts and reporters advanced misinformation regarding the size of President Bush's troop increase, the potential effect of pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, and the state of Saddam Hussein's weapons program prior to the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion:
- Size of the troop increase. Running through a timeline of some of the more significant events resulting from the Iraq war, co-host Meredith Vieira noted Hussein's execution in December 2006 and added: "Two weeks later, President Bush committed more than 20,000 additional troops to the war over the objections of the Iraq Study Group and Democrats on Capitol Hill." Vieira did not mention, however, that the size of Bush's troop increase has risen by thousands more since he originally announced the plan in January. On March 16, the American Forces Press Service quoted a Defense Department official as stating that "[t]he total number of U.S. servicemembers who will be part of the surge in Iraq will be about 28,000 overall." Additionally, a March 19 Washington Post article reported:
In January, after years of fluctuating deployments, President Bush told the nation that an additional 21,500 U.S. troops were needed to quell escalating violence in Baghdad. As of Friday, that total had reached 28,700.
- The argument for withdrawal. In his subsequent report on the politics of the Iraq war, NBC News White House correspondent David Gregory stated that "the debate over a withdrawal deadline [has] stalled" in Congress, adding that "the question is whether satisfying an anti-war public is worth the risk of even greater carnage in Iraq and in the region should troops pull out too soon." Gregory's "question" assumes that the debate over U.S. involvement in Iraq is limited to only two factors: public clamoring for troop withdrawal versus "the risk of even greater carnage ... should troops pull out too soon." But just the day before, on the same network's edition of Meet the Press, former Rep. Tom Andrews (D-ME) argued in favor of redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq, not simply to "satisfy[] an antiwar public," as Gregory suggested on Today, but in order to "take our kids out of harm's way who find themselves in the middle of a civil war."
Nonetheless, Gregory presented only two scenarios -- succumb to public demand for withdrawal or remain and avoid the "risk of even greater carnage." Then, in answering his question, Gregory only aired a clip from former assistant secretary of defense Richard Perle, who asserted that "if we pull out of Iraq, it will be a huge victory for those who want to destroy us." He provided no opposing view. Moreover, in asserting that withdrawal from Iraq would risk "greater carnage ... in the region," Gregory ignored the argument by Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), also made on Meet the Press, that the United States should be "redeploying but remaining in the region" because "2 million have overflowed [Iraq's] border where they don't want to have that instability continue."
- Saddam's quest for WMD. During an interview with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Lauer noted that "it turns out" that Saddam did not have any weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but went on to baselessly claim that "[w]e don't know if he was in the process of acquiring them" during the run-up to the war. Lauer then left unchallenged Rice's similar claim that "[i]t was clear" before the 2003 invasion "that [Hussein] was continuing to pursue" WMD. In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, the Iraq Survey Group's final report -- more commonly known as the Duelfer report -- specifically addressed the state of Saddam's WMD programs at the time of the invasion." It noted that "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability -- which was essentially destroyed in 1991 -- after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized," but that Iraq "had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions."
From the March 19 edition of NBC's Today:
LAUER: As the war enters its fifth year, America is shell-shocked. The casualties staggering, the price tag in the hundreds of billions. Is the war worth it, and is there still a chance for victory? A look back and a look forward today, Monday, March 19, 2007.
[...]
VIEIRA: Just before the end of 2006, a cell phone video showed the world a sight that many Iraqis thought they'd never see: the execution of Saddam Hussein. Two weeks later, President Bush committed more than 20,000 additional troops to the war over the objections of the Iraq Study Group and Democrats on Capitol Hill. The debate over that decision and on the future of U.S. involvement itself continues as American troops carry on their in efforts in a war that, today, enters its fifth year.
[...]
GREGORY: For Democrats, however, the politics of war also create a trap. Given the president's strong political standing during the war debate, few dared oppose him. Now those running for the White House are looking for cover.
FORMER SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC): I was wrong, and I've taken responsibility for that.
SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY): If we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote, and I never would have voted to give this president that authority.
GREGORY: With the debate over a withdrawal deadline stalled, the question is whether satisfying an anti-war public is worth the risk of even greater carnage in Iraq and in the region should troops pull out too soon.
PERLE: I believe that if we pull out of Iraq, it will be a huge victory for those who want to destroy us.
GREGORY: Four years later, it's also striking how polarized the debate over the war has begun [sic] with Democrats and Republicans exchanging accusations about lying, about unpatriotic behavior, as again the focus is on how to get U.S. troops back home.
[...]
LAUER: You go back to Saddam Hussein and, of course, it turns out that he did not possess weapons of mass destruction. We don't know if he was in the process of acquiring them. So to get rid of him, even if now we have a democratically elected government, was it worth the cost of 3,200 American lives and some $350 billion?
RICE: Well, first of all, one has to recognize that those are lives that are irrevocably lost for their loved ones and for the country, and we have to acknowledge that sacrifice, but nothing of value is ever won without sacrifice. And Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction when we invaded Iraq -- when we invaded Kuwait in 1991. It was clear that he was continuing to pursue them. We don't know where he would have come out, but we do know that this was a bloody tyrant who had used weapons of mass destruction before against his people and against his neighbors.
still lyin after all these years, huh condi? and i tend to like david gregory, but this line about "greater carnage" if we pull out too soon is a talking point. it's non stop carnage now. there will be bloodshed when we leave, but all we are doing is postponing the inevitable.
Drivel.
"[w]e don't know if he was in the process of acquiring them" during the run-up to the war. Lauer then left unchallenged Rice's similar claim that "[i]t was clear" before the 2003 invasion "that [Hussein] was continuing to pursue" WMD.
As this administration tells us daily about the intentions of its friends and enemies (Scooter didn't intend to out Plame, Bush didn't intend to mislead us, Saddam intended to get WMD's, etc.) you'd think a real journalist somewhere down the line would say, "Prove it!" Maybe asking Matt Lauer to do that is a bit much...
Yep, MeFirst they are still ( Rice and exec branch ) Still Lyin after all these years.....
NBC Today morning crew on the other hand has no excuse of their shoddy reporting and using Repug talking points as statements or questions.
4 years in Iraq and they has to get the acknowledgement down to what 10- 15 minutes tops before they went to commercial. and the more important items of the day- American idol?
Anyone who has taken any time following this war could see the gaping holes in this sorry excuse for reporting. For gawd sake there were weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq when Bush Jr. decided that he'd push his war of choice with his won timing.
No Santa Claus, no WMD program in operation. Geeze. Anyone who followed Desert Storm, continued bombings right thru Clinton's admin, crippling sanctions, would wonder about the so called "intelligence " on this.
Pathetic. And yeah, they've had their own man on the ground for years- Richard Eng- who Lauer could only give about 2 minutes to- and mention his "special" on MSNBC at 10 pm. Nice. No prime time show for him on NBC- way to risk one's life to report what is happening.
It's outrageous that Lauer can't find the questions to ask Rice or challenge her on the most absurd lies of all.
the lies continue as the deaths continue ,the term bloody tyrant that rice used actually is more fitting for bush and co which includes rice its time to put our self centered selves aside and some how bring these war mungers to justice its a sick society when many stay silent because there portfolios are doing well based on war material ,but you know what that has much to do with this insanity,and that is sick god help yous joed
Lauer keeps enabling Rice
All these morning talk shows refuse to ask the tough question. Rice is part of this war criminal administration and the fact that the Today show allows he to spew her propaganda without balanced, fair questions is a shame. Bill O'Reilly might as well be the host on Today.
Perle: "if we pull out of Iraq, it will be a huge victory for those who want to destroy us."
The huge victory for those who want to destroy us happened on the very day we set foot in the pit of quick sand that is Iraq. Each additional day we are there is yet another day of victory for them.
There is no graceful, face-saving way out for us. There will be no "peace with honor" for us. Our leaders have failed us again, as they did with Vietnam, and now none of these people want to admit it, none of them want to take the responsibility for the deaths and destruction.
The Bush administration, to their disgrace, merely wants to run-out-the-clock and pass the buck on to somebody else. This particular instance of media misinformation only goes to further enable them to do so. It's a disgrace.
What do you expect when the Today Show had on O'Reilly at least twice completely unbalanced. He was treated like some kind of objective or independent commentator who criticizes everyone equally. Four years into this mess and we are still where we were exactly four years ago today in many ways. Sad indeed.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Iraq "had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions."
I thought for sure Saddam put all his raping and pillaging in writing.
We know with certainty that Bush did not put all his raping and pillaging in writing (he can't write), but we will eventually have his minion's writings declassified. I am assuming Spector did not write something special into the Patriot Act keeping all of Bush's lies from the public until the entire family has passed to avoid embarrassment.
BTW -- Bush reads 60 books a year. Sure.
I don't know who pays you to troll here, Leatherhead. Whoever they are, they're not getting their money's worth.
WMD programs require written communications between those actually engaged in developing these weapons. Whispered asides just won't cut it. The creation of complex systems for storing & delivering nuclear material, deadly & unstable chemicals, & biological agents aren't done in a tree fort, for God's sake! They require labs & factories. They require large numbers of workers. They require enormous expenditures of money in the aquisition, development, & assembly of such weapons. THEY LEAVE A F*CKING PAPER TRAIL... as well as a LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT!
Yeah, you definately owe someone a refund.
Nicely put, Mescal. Unmask the troll and send the idiot back to his village.
I thought for sure Saddam put all his raping and pillaging in writing.
Is that all you've got, Knute?
PERLE: I believe that if we pull out of Iraq, it will be a huge victory for those who want to destroy us.
Yes, huge, We'll probably have to concede the Louisiana Territory and one Dakota, before converting to Islam en masse.
Right after the Al Qaeda Air Force follows us back here and subdues America.
War groupies are such pansies.
Hey... be fair, HBL.
What have pansies ever done that deserves you comparing them to a sh#thead like Perle?
Make that a FASCIST sh#thead, while we're at it.
I apologize to actual flower type pansies. I think they're pretty and smell nice. I should have said "paranoid selfish weaklings" when referring to those who try to deal with their neuroses by sending other people to fight still other people thousands of miles away.
If any representatives of the paranoids, selfish people, or the weakling union want me to take that back, p*ss off. weaklings.
Sorry.
Never mind.
I... I... Igotta' go.
Every time I see Gregory, Bush is patting him on the head. I skipped HardBall last week because he was the host - should have been called No Balls or Softball while Matthews was away. You'd think he'd get a little upset about being used.
One really sad observation I recently made. Every morning I go outside my college's main administration building for some "fresh air." I'm either at classes or at work, since both are at the same place.
Last Friday, I was out taking some air with a number of people from Facilities management. I noticed that the flags were at half mast and have been for as long as I can remember. So I asked, "it must be tiring to have to raise and lower those flags all the time?"
They told me that at he beginning of the war they used to raise and lower the flags all the time. But now they just leave them down, because every time a respectful period of morning for a fallen soldier is finished, we get word that another Michigan native has died.
And it seems that we hear about one fallen Michigan soldier a day. One station even has a period of their show, every day where they put up a graphic with the soldier(s) of the day. Now thats sad.
"if we pull out of Iraq, it will be a huge victory for those who want to destroy us."
How many teenage boys have been talked into doing something stupid on a similar taunt? Essentially, he's saying "don't let them think you're a chicken". What unmitigated bullsh*t. The biggest victory for our enemies is the obscene waste of trained soldiers and valuable equipment. We're pouring our resources down a rathole over there. If you think it won't hurt us, just look at what happened to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. I promise you, that conflict contributed as much to the U.S.S.R.'s collapse as Ronnie Reagan did...probably more.
The transcription begins with the host of the TV show announcing the subject of their report or discussion or whatever you'd call it they broadcast between commercial breaks:
LAUER: A look back and a look forward [at the war in Iraq] today, Monday, March 19, 2007.
...but not before the guy characterizes America's (I assume he means the American People) reaction to four years of U.S. Troops occupying Iraq:
LAUER: ...America is shell-shocked. The casualties staggering, the price tag in the hundreds of billions.
And then he asks the rhetorical question that is eventually asked about all wars:
LAUER: Is the war worth it, and is there still a chance for victory?
When this guy uses the term "shell-shocked" to describe the American People, he uses a term that is all at once vague and inflammatory and meaningless: the perfect mix for a good 'talking point'... which is just what it is.
At present, that is the completely false manner in which the administration and their many "media" hacks wish to describe the sentiment of the American People regarding Iraq:
The American People are weary of war (that's the 'talking point')...
The American People have not the resolve to see the job through (even the president hammers away at this point)...
The American People have not the stomach to bear the true cost of war (which is loss of life and limb: casualties, "staggering" or not)...
The American People are no longer up to the fight in Iraq, having not the strength and the discipline and the nerve necessary for battle (that's the 'talking point')...
So I guess you combine all that, and say it in one hyphenated word: The American People are shell-shocked.
That's the 'talking point', and it's a lie.
The opposition amongst the American People, to the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, does not spring from a gutless and cowardly loss of nerve... the American People know well the true cost and sacrifice of war, and have born those costs and made those sacrifices before, and will make them again and again, as the Security of America requires (and here we now have my point)...
The American People bear the full and complete burden of their National Security, at every and all times that National Security is threatened (my point)...
The American People are not opposed to the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq for any reasons at all related to weariness or cowardice or loss of nerve or lack of resolve (that's their 'talking point': shell-shock)...
The American People are over-whelmingly opposed to the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, because they know that that invasion and occupation serves in no way whatsoever, their National Security.
Truth.
And I don't wonder too much, why it is that simple term NATIONAL SECURITY, is so little mentioned (not mentioned at all, ever!) by the administration and their many paid "media" hacks, when they report on or discuss or whatever, Iraq.
Yet that term NATIONAL SECURITY is more than necessary, when discussing war and the consequences thereof (loss of life and limb being the most irrecoverable of those costs)...
NATIONAL SECURITY is the only legitimate reason for war... with that requirement satisfied, all sacrifices are made and all costs born, by the American People (shell-shock not withstanding).
True.
Without NATIONAL SECURITY as the reason for any invasion or occupation, by any people anywhere at any time...
Without a NATIONAL SECURITY requirement for war, those people are always left in a position of bewilderment and blame, at the disasterous consequences of what they have done, and are always left to ask such stupid questions as:
LAUER: Is the war worth it, and is there still a chance for victory?
Which is a question to be asked up front, before the invasion, and not at the four year mark of the occupation...
...and is a question that should necessarily include the concept of NATIONAL SECURITY... because with NATIONAL SECURITY as the reason for war, the American People (all good people!) make all sacrifice, and are always victorious...
But without NATIONAL SECURITY as our motivation to war, we are destined to ask stupid questions such as the game show host is here transcribed asking... and to make sad and tragic memorials, on the four year anniversary and at all other times, to those who have fallen in Korea and Vietnam and now Iraq.
We're not 'shell-shocked', that's a lie... that's not what we feel about Iraq.
Well I can see I've missed nothing on the Today show since I stopped watching it the day after Anna Nicole Smith died and they used up god knows how much time at the top of first hour covering her death. I'm not sure because I had to take my son to the school bus and I was gone for about 15 minutes. Anyway after that I wrote an email to NBC telling them I would no longer watch as they didn't cover the important things at the time like L. Paul Bremer saying in effect "Yeah there's about 9 billion dollars missing in Iraq but hey so what?"
Yes I should have turned it off long before then but somehow that just drove me over the edge. Somehow I could ignore when they spouted the right wing talking points, and consistently had on "people" (and I use the term loosely) like Cultwhore and O'Lielly without any feedback from the opposite view, but for some reason this got to me. Maybe it's because they treated the death of a bimbo like it was earth shattering news or as I told them "it was the straw that broke the camels back. The good news is now in the mornings I watch C Span. While there are some wingnuts that do call in at least they balance it out with comments from democrats and independents.
Am I forgiven for having watched so long before I turned it off? LOL!
Well done! Good for you. I haven't watched any of the US "news" channels for over 10 years now. I may catch a snippet here and there on other people's tvs, but it only reinforces the reality that they are total garbage when it comes to journalism and are just there to sell mass murder and mindless consumption to the masses.
Now if we can only get enough people to turn the channel that it drives these sick propaganda stations out of business....