The Most Ridiculous Editorial Of The Month Thus Far…
…is hereby awarded to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! The walking stereotype of ‘progressivism’ opines:
If President Bush had stood on the steps of the White House with a megaphone when he set out to sell the Iraq War, he might have convinced a few people about the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein. But he had something far more powerful that convinced far more people: He had a compliant press corps ready to amplify his lies. This was the same press corps that investigated and reported for years on President Clinton’s lying about an extramarital affair. The difference here was that President Bush’s lies take lives.
In order to be able to get that all-important leak from a named or, better yet, unnamed “senior official,” reporters trade truth for access. This is the “access of evil,” when reporters forgo the tough questions out of fear of being passed over.
And then there is the embedding process. Journalists embedded with US troops in Iraq bring us only one perspective. How about balancing the troops’ perspective with reporters embedded in Iraqi hospitals, or in the peace movement around the world? Former Pentagon spokesperson Victoria Clarke proclaimed the embedding process a spectacular success. For the Pentagon, it was. More powerful than any bomb or missile, the Pentagon deployed the media.
Oh, my…is that insipid or what? Forget the harsh partisan tone for the moment – ‘deployed’ in the peace movement? Any reporter can ‘deploy’ himself in the peace movement – the whole point of Pentagon deployment is to provide inside access to operations that otherwise could not be covered. Any fool with a microphone or a pad and pen can cover the peace movement.
What a load…
She’s not as dumb as I was thinking she would be. I was expecting the “How about balancing the troops . . .” sentence to end with “with reporters embedded with the insurgents.”
She is right about one thing…
Clinton lied about sex and everyone was up in arms about that. But in the end its his personal life and is therefore inconsequential to me.
Bush lied about the threat Iraq posed (or maybe he didn’t lie, he exaggerated). In any case, its costing billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives.
Which is worse?
It was impossible that Bush lied about the threat Iraq posed — unless there is a conspiracy of epic proportions, stretching through multiple governments and across continents. Prior to the war, there was no serious debate on the UN Security Council about whether or not Saddam Huessein had violated the 1991 treaty. The debate was “What do we do about it?” If someone was lying about Saddam having WMD’s, it wasn’t Bush; it was the CIA, Mossad, MI6, French intelligence, Russian Intelligence, Jordanian intelligence, et. al. You may be willing to believe looney conspiracy theories like this — as may many liberals and Democrats — but when reasonable people fairly examine the facts, they will invariably reach this conclusion.
And with regards to Clinton, it wasn’t the content that was so important; it was the context. He lied about sex — UNDER OATH. This is obviously perjury, a federal offense. It doesn’t take a legal expert to tell you that.
Clinton’s lie, at least the one, of many, that precipitated his settlement with Jones and loss of law license was a crime. It was obstruction of justice in a civil suit under color of authority. In that regard it was not about his “personal life”. It was about a judicial matter which incidentally, would not have been admissible save for a law that Clinton championed and proudly signed into law specifically expanding this sort of inquiry in cases of sexual harassment; oh irnoy of ironies! That said, it should be remembered that if it weren’t for his thuggish obstructions of justice in Arkansas the matter would not have been civil but criminal given his assault on Paula Jones, also of course under color of the authority he held as guv. If the question is why the Clinton lie had such salience with the press and public, a good answer is that it told us much about Clinton that was confirmed by our knowledge of his behavior in other incidents. I’m thinking here primarily of Kathleen Willey.
For Bush, I’m dying to know just what was the lie in question. I have asked this of Bush detractors and Clinton apologists for years and never have I received an answer, though plenty of responses. Tell me, sir, to what “lie” do you refer? Or are you lying about the lie?
I expanded on my assertion by saying it could be exaggeration. And it was.
Aaron, I knew that Iraq wasn’t a threat in 1991, just as I knew it was not a threat in 2003 or any other time in that period. Preaching doomsday if we didn’t do something about a 3rd world country with a practically non-existent threat is propaganda/exagerration/lies. I don’t care if they violated treaties; if you care maybe you can start caring about the treaties that the United States breaks.
Feel free to show me the reports from those intelligence agencies detailing where they thought Iraq was a threat. Threat being planning to cause harm to the United States or friendly Western countries.
Oh, and where are the WMD’s that this multinational collaboration of intelligence genius envisioned? Let me guess… they were smuggled outside of Iraq!
“Reporters trade truth for access”…
I agree, in the case of Micheal Ware.
or in the case of CNN and Saddam, which they admitted to.
HExplorer: Why do you guys always ignore these statements from the Democratic leadership? Note the dates and tell me which ‘evel genius’ was responsible!
http://WWW.GLENNBECK.COM/NEWS/01302004.SHTML
“Bush lied about the threat Iraq posed (or maybe he didn’t lie, he exaggerated).”
In my book, an exageration is a lie. (Your scenario offerred is:He lied a little bit or a lot.)
However you do not offer the third alternative, which is he believed the intel that was presented to him. If there was a European intel group that was contradicting the US’s opinion, I missed it. Even the famous sixteen words are being ignored…
The big word in them is ’seeking’…
Who is “you guys” ?
This is just my opinion mtl but I think the administration was hell bent on invading Iraq and I think that the intel was being bent so to speak in that direction.
I’ve said this hundreds of times now but I’ll go ahead and say it again… So what if they did have NBC weapons? Does that pose a threat to the United States? Not necessarily. Does Saddam being a brutal dictator have anything to do with the United States? Nope, hell we supported him in the 1980s. Was Iraq an Afghanistan, supporting and funding terrorist activities within its borders? No.
Where is the imminent threat? Militarily? No, it was practically wiped out in the first Gulf War. Economically? Make gas prices go up? oooo scary. Politically? Haha. Terrorist? The bipartisan 911 commission ruled this out for us. Plus, it simply wouldn’t have been in Saddam’s best interest. The guy isn’t a maniac, he is a politician. Like all politicians he was focused on living it up in his nice palaces with golden toilet seats. Why would he give anyone a reason to attack him?
Meanwhile we have North Korea test firing ICBM’s that can hit the west coast of the conus; and not a soul is suggesting military action against them.
Not true; we’re all very aware of North Korea and Rice today said that any test launch would be viewed as a provocation…
I just read that article. Did she say anything about military action?
Hokie-
Are you saying the U.S. and the rest of the world should have let Saddam have Kuwait in 1991? It sure sounds like that’s what you’re saying. Also, tell me which recent treaties (that have been confirmed through ratification by the Senate) the United States has broken, as you reference in your comment. I’m thinking you may have a hard time establishing credibility to such statements.
In the world of diplomacy, saying something would be a ‘provocation’ is a very strong statement, indeed. You imply we’re just oblivious to the threat from North Korea, I’m just saying it ain’t so…
“Was Iraq an Afghanistan, supporting and funding terrorist activities within its borders?”
Paying 25k openly, to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers-
poof to lie number one from the dems.
“I think the administration was hell bent on invading Iraq”
before 9/11 or after? The opinion was that the threshold of taking action was dramtically lowered.
“So what if they did have NBC weapons?”
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0700world/tm_objectid=17254053&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=al-qaeda–planned-new-york-subway-attack–name_page.html
It is the link to Al-queda having a plan for gassing the subways.
“Where is the imminent threat?”
Imminent? You mean the word john Edwards used three times in a one minute analysis of Iraq? Define ‘imminent’. Better still, find me an example of the admin using that word.
“The bipartisan 911 commission ruled this out for us.”
The only real opinion they gave was that Al-Queda was not operationally involved with 9/11.
“Does Saddam being a brutal dictator have anything to do with the United States?”
Did Saddam destabilize the ME, or help it?
“The guy isn’t a maniac, he is a politician”
This is the point where I link to the thousands of stories accounting for 100,000 plus people killed by his orders.
“Why would he give anyone a reason to attack him?”
Yes, why not invite the US in his borders, without conditions, to prove he had disarmed?
“Meanwhile we have North Korea test firing ICBM’s that can hit the west coast of the conus; and not a soul is suggesting military action against them.”
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/06/18/korea-missile.html
“”All options are on the table,” said Thomas Schieffer, the U.S. ambassador to Japan.”
Hokie-
You seem to have lied about, or exagerated you own intel. As staed earlier, same thing in my book.
“So what if they did have NBC weapons? Does that pose a threat to the United States?”
I see – so if Israel is nuked out of existence, hey, it’s not our problem. Lindbergh would’ve loved you, Hokey – Dokey.
Israel can take care of itself. It won’t be “nuked out of existence for the reasons that I have explained thousands of times.
————————-
“Was Iraq an Afghanistan, supporting and funding terrorist activities within its borders?”
Paying 25k openly, to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers-
poof to lie number one from the dems.
Within its borders
————————-
“The bipartisan 911 commission ruled this out for us.”
The only real opinion they gave was that Al-Queda was not operationally involved with 9/11.
Go read the report.
————————-
“Does Saddam being a brutal dictator have anything to do with the United States?”
Did Saddam destabilize the ME, or help it?
Neither, his neighbors minus maybe Israel didn’t seem to be very worried about him.
————————-
Hokie-
Are you saying the U.S. and the rest of the world should have let Saddam have Kuwait in 1991?
Did I say that? No, I didn’t.
————————-
Also, tell me which recent treaties (that have been confirmed through ratification by the Senate) the United States has broken, as you reference in your comment. I’m thinking you may have a hard time establishing credibility to such statements.
Invading a country without provocation is against international law, I think we’ve all read the prison articles about human rights violations/Geneva convention, ect.
————————-
“The guy isn’t a maniac, he is a politician”
This is the point where I link to the thousands of stories accounting for 100,000 plus people killed by his orders.
That doesn’t make him crazy. I bet if he was examined by a psychologist they would find him clear and lucent. I bet he did that to maintain his grip on power…
————————-
“Why would he give anyone a reason to attack him?”
Yes, why not invite the US in his borders, without conditions, to prove he had disarmed?
For the same reason any country won’t invite another country accusing it if something in. Latest example, explosion on beach in Gaza… interntional committee wants to investigate, Israel says no. Why is that do you think?
————————-
“Meanwhile we have North Korea test firing ICBM’s that can hit the west coast of the conus; and not a soul is suggesting military action against them.”
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/06/18/korea-missile.html
“”All options are on the table,” said Thomas Schieffer, the U.S. ambassador to Japan.”
Did he explicitally say military? Are we building up forces over there to stage a possible operation? Is Bush going to Congress asking for permission to use force over there? No no no no no.
Hokie… two words.
Salman Pak.
What dat?
That, hoss, which you have perhaps not come across in your hundreds of dissertations on the topic, is a military district on a spit of land in the Euphrates where Iraqi intelligence services trained foreign jihadis to hijack planes armed only with small knives, a tactic never seen in the wide, wide world before 9-11. Here’s the bottom line and everyone who has declared, a priori, that Saddam did not and even more preposterously, would not involve himself with anything like the WTC adn Pentagon attacks… Saddam’s bloody paw-prints are all over 9-11. You should limber up your throats now to make the slide in easier later. Salman Pak is just one incidence. You might Google up Ramzi Yousef. This cat is in the supermax facility in Nevada with Whacky Zacky Moussai and a few other notables. Actually no one knows his real name, Yousef was a false identity created under a Kuwaiti passport for this handmaid of Saddam’s mukhbarat during the occupation. One shivers to think of the fate of the real Ramzi Yousef, if there ever was such a person but there is this well-known and redhanded jihadi, veteran of at least one large scale attack in the US homeland. He was the main technical consultant for the earlier WTC attack, the unsuccessful truck-bombing. Now, just because a guy would truck bomb ya doesn’t mean he would hijack airliners and crash ‘em into ya, but it is suggestive, no? Yes, but those who see no relevant humanity in the enslaved millions of Iraq, to say nothing of the rest of the ME; those who would look away from the rape rooms, the acid baths, the human pulping operations and all the bloody rest will have none of that. What a disgrace. As a capper, you might Google up Harold Baer, federal judge presiding over a civil trial that found Iraq as a state liable for 9-11 damages, principally Baer found that the Iraqi gov had prior knowledge of the 9-11 attacks. And no, we can’t blame Saddam’s crystal ball. So sell ignorance somewhere else. Saddam was as culpable for 9-11 as Ossama. Oh, unless it was Bush and Rummy remote piloting those planes… or there were no planes. And there were no attacks, see, it’s all a plot to bolster Halliburton’s bottom line before Cheney’s stock options come due. See, there’s this BIG soundstage in Burbank…
Hokie, there aren’t many certainties in this world, but here’s one: the U.S. is wargaming the hell out of the North Korean situation, and has been for some time…
How would you or I know if they were covertly moving assets into place – do you think they will take out an advertisement?
In any event, you can be sure that all military options are being considered. Think about it for a minute…really…and you can’t possibly doubt it…
This is the point where I link to the thousands of stories accounting for 100,000 plus people killed by his orders.
“That doesn’t make him crazy.”
ohh-kaay. I’m big on moral relativism, but even Peter Singer would gag.