"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
Media yawn as evidence accumulates that Bush lied in taking the country to war
Major news outlets continue to give scant attention to new evidence that President Bush knowingly misled the nation in making the case to go to war in Iraq -- and give even less attention to the consequences of those lies. Reporters had to be pushed, prodded, and pulled into covering the Downing Street memo.
National Journal reporter Murray Waas has written the latest in a long line of explosive reports about the Bush administration's handling of prewar intelligence and the Valerie Plame leak. Waas's article reveals:
Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration. Rove expressed his concerns shortly after an informal review of classified government records by then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley determined that Bush had been specifically advised that claims he later made in his 2003 State of the Union address -- that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon -- might not be true, according to government records and interviews.
Hadley was particularly concerned that the public might learn of a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002. The summary said that although "most agencies judge" that the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."
Three months after receiving that assessment, the president stated without qualification in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
[...]
"Presidential knowledge was the ball game," says a former senior government official outside the White House who was personally familiar with the damage-control effort. "The mission was to insulate the president. It was about making it appear that he wasn't in the know. You could do that on Niger. You couldn't do that with the tubes." A Republican political appointee involved in the process, who thought the Bush administration had a constitutional obligation to be more open with Congress, said: "This was about getting past the election."
Waas's full article, available here, is essential reading -- particularly since you shouldn't expect other news outlets to give it the attention it deserves. Instead, they'll dismiss this new evidence as "old news" -- everybody knows Bush didn't tell the truth, move on, nothing to see here.
But everybody doesn't know the extent to which Bush and his administration misled the public and then covered up those actions. Plus, even if everybody did know everything, that isn't the whole story. As we've said:
And it is important to assess the consequences of the administration's lies about, and mishandling of, the Iraq war. Is the public less likely to believe the administration if it says we need to use force against Iran because of their false claims about Iraq? That's a question we've repeatedly asked; why don't reporters? Perhaps the third anniversary of the Iraq war would be a good time to finally include the question in a poll.
Media continue to ignore Democrats' agenda -- and assert it doesn't exist
In articles on November 17 and 18, The Washington Post and The New York Times covered speeches by Vice President Dick Cheney, in which he attacked critics of the Iraq war, and by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA), in which he called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Glaringly absent in the coverage of Cheney's speech was a single word quoting -- or even paraphrasing -- Democrats' response to the attacks. Instead of providing both sides of the dispute, the Times and Post simply turned their pages over to the Bush White House, giving readers nothing more than a stenographer's recitation of the administration's attacks on its critics -- a performance that would have made Pravda proud.
To the extent that there are people who think the Democrats lack ideas or an agenda, [Paula] Zahn and her colleagues might want to examine why they think that. It certainly isn't because Democrats actually lack ideas or an agenda. HouseDemocrats.gov offers plenty of detail about the House Democrats' ideas and agenda; as do the websites of many progressive organizations, like the Center for American Progress.
If people think Democrats lack ideas, it is largely because news organizations ignore the Democrats' ideas. It's because Paula Zahn devotes an hour every night not to assessing the political parties' policy proposals, but to urgent topics like "Breast Milk Black Market"; "Oprah Flip-Flops on Controversial Book" and "New Clues in Missing Honeymooner Case?" -- and those are all from a single edition of Paula Zahn Now. Other recent editions have focused on "A Life Changed By Cosmetic Surgery," the always-popular "Googling For Pornography," and the pressing question: "Can voodoo make a comeback?"
In covering the Bush administration's controversial decision to allow a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), to run terminals at six U.S. ports, many news outlets have ignored long-standing demands by leading Democrats that more be done to secure U.S. ports.
NBC's Tim Russert even suggested that Democrats are talking about the port deal in order to exploit it for political gain and ignored the other possibility: that Democrats are talking about port security because they've been talking about port security for years.
[...]
If port security is not a topic that was on most Americans' minds until the current controversy, it isn't because Democrats haven't been pressing the issue. It's because Russert and his colleagues haven't been covering it. It's a pattern we see time and time again: First, the media ignore Democrats' ideas and proposals; then reporters accuse Democrats of not having any ideas -- or of discovering an issue only when they see the potential for political gain.
Over the past year, CNN hosts, anchors, and reporters have repeatedly commented on the Democratic Party's purported lack of a clear plan or concrete set of alternatives on issues ranging from Social Security to the war in Iraq. But on the day that Democratic leaders announced a broad national security strategy, CNN barely covered this development, instead devoting an hour and a half of uninterrupted coverage to a speech by President Bush on Iraq, his third in two weeks. Moreover, when CNN finally reported on the Democrats' national security plan, it omitted any details about the proposals put forth by the congressional leaders.
[...]
[D]espite repeatedly highlighting the Democrats' purported lack of such plans, when a large coalition of Democrats stood together on March 29 to unveil a unified national security platform, CNN largely ignored the news.
In the early afternoon on March 29, the Democrats held a 40-minute press conference announcing the release of their new national security agenda, "Real Security: Protecting America and Restoring Our Leadership in the World." The proposals in this set of policy papers include screening 100 percent of containers and cargo entering the United States, boosting the size of the U.S. Special Forces and National Guard, ensuring that troops have better body armor, providing more resources to first-responders, and allotting greater funding for veterans benefits.
A Media Matters for America survey of CNN's programming on March 29 between 6 a.m. ET and 4 p.m. ET found only one mention of the Democratic plan. It came at 2:23 p.m. when CNN's Live From ... aired a brief clip of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid [NV] speaking at the Democrats' press conference. The two-minute clip came directly after CNN had provided uninterrupted coverage of Bush's speech at the Hyatt Regency in Washington, D.C., an event that spanned an hour and a half and largely mirrored the multiple foreign policy addresses Bush has given in recent weeks.
CNN ran its first full-length segment on the Democrats' plan during the 5 p.m. edition of The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. But in the report, CNN congressional correspondent Dana Bash offered viewers no information regarding the specific proposals put forth by the Democrats during the press conference, instead she speculated on the Democrats' motives in releasing the plan at this specific time. As for the document itself, Bash held it up for the camera and merely noted that it included "some of the ideas that, frankly, we've heard before" and did not include a "clear plan for Iraq."
[...]
Beyond its extensive coverage of Bush's speech and its two-minute segment on the Democratic national security plan, CNN found time between 6 a.m. and 4 p.m. to air a report on the different helmets available for child athletes, a story about "a family whose reality turned into a nightmare" after appearing on a reality television show, a discussion of a recent poll on the use of profanity among Americans, and a review of the racy new TV show, The WB's The Bedford Diaries (The WB Television Network, 2006).
The New York Times published no reports in its March 30 edition about a national security platform that Democratic leaders released on March 29, in advance of the midterm elections. On March 29, the Times previewed the Democrats' security platform by reporting that "[m]ost of the proposals are not new" and relaying Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond's (R-MO) claim that "[i]t's taken them [Democrats] all this time to figure out what we've been doing for a long time." As Media Matters for America noted, that article made no mention that congressional Republicans -- including Bond -- have blocked the Democrats' "not new" security proposals for years.
There is no longer any real doubt that the media consistently give scant attention to Democratic proposals, particularly on security issues -- and, adding insult to injury, falsely assert that Democrats lack ideas.
The only remaining question is whether the people involved -- media, Democratic leaders, progressive activists -- are going to do something about it.
Wash. Post's Kurtz sees paper's hiring of conservative activist as evidence of liberal "tilt" in hiring practices
In the aftermath of The Washington Post's "Red America" fiasco, Post media reporter Howard Kurtz addressed the paper's decision to hire Ben Domenech. Under the headline "Media hiring bias?" Kurtz wrote in his March 28 online column:
One major issue in the hiring (and subsequent ouster) of former Bush administration aide and RedState.com guy Ben Domenech was whether he was the right guy for the job. In light of the pattern of plagiarism that came to light, I think the answer is pretty clear.
A second major issue was whether hiring a conservative activist as a blogger was a reasonable stab at "balance" when there was no self-proclaimed liberal blogging away, as opposed to left-leaning journalists. I think that's a fair point, but I don't want to see washingtonpost.com or any other MSM outfit abandon efforts to include voices from the right.
And that brings me to the larger question: Do the hiring practices of big newspapers, magazines, networks and Web sites tilt toward people of the liberal persuasion, thereby requiring hand-wringing about intellectual diversity?
In a span of three sentences, Kurtz conceded that the Post hired a "conservative activist" to write a blog, despite not having a single "self-proclaimed liberal" blogger on staff -- then suggested that this is evidence that "big newspapers" (including, presumably, the Post) "tilt toward people of the liberal persuasion."
Nowhere did Kurtz explore, or even hint at, the possibility that the people who hired Domenech tilt toward people of the conservative persuasion -- which was, after all, the simplest explanation for Domenech's hiring.
To Howard Kurtz, the nation's most influential media reporter, the Post's decision to hire a clearly unqualified conservative blogger, when it had no liberal counterpart, is evidence of a "tilt toward people of the liberal persuasion" in media hiring practices.
Up is down. Black is white.
Bizarre conclusions like Kurtz's suggest that the media have so thoroughly internalized conservative assertions of "liberal bias" that they see liberal bias everywhere, even in the hiring of conservatives -- with predictable results.
In considering the supposed "tilt" in media hiring, Kurtz quoted a conservative (former Bush administration speechwriter David Mastio, who complained about the "literal conveyor belt from left-wing opinion journalism into straight news reporting and editing slots") -- but didn't include the views of a single liberal. That must be another example of the "liberal bias" we've been hearing so much about.
Media fall for Bush backers' claims that Iraq coverage is too negative
Given that we're now beginning Year Four of a war that was supposed to take closer to four weeks, it's hard to believe any thinking person would fall for the claims made by war supporters that the media are painting an unduly negative picture of the situation in Iraq, or that the media are responsible for violence there.
Unsurprisingly, many in the media have spent about a week giving every indication that they fell for it.
CNN aired a segment titled "Media to Blame?" in which CNN's Candy Crowley actually said the Bush administration's assertion that the media are responsible for violence in Iraq is "not wholly incorrect":
CROWLEY: He [Bush] sees a symbiotic relationship between the violence in Iraq and the coverage of it, a cycle draining support for the war. It is a recurring theme in Bushville that negative news coverage is making the war worse. Not that direct, but close. The defense secretary also complains of news that is flat wrong.
DONALD H. RUMSFELD (U.S. Secretary of Defense) [clip]: The steady stream of errors all seem to be of a nature to inflame the situation and to give heart to the terrorists and to discourage those who hope for success in Iraq.
CROWLEY: Critics dismiss the charges as the excuses of an administration in its darkest days. Still, it is not wholly incorrect. Click the remote.
ELIZABETH VARGAS (CNN anchor) [clip]: A major insurgent attack has dealt another blow to the struggling security forces.
CROWLEY: From one channel --
ZAIN VERJEE (CNN anchor) [clip]: Insurgents armed with rocket grenades and machine guns stormed a police station today.
CROWLEY: -- to another.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE [clip]: The prison in Sunni territory, killing 18 policemen and freeing all the prisoners --
And on March 23, CNN aired another segment on the topic, this one titled "Is the Media Too Negative?" which concluded with this exchange between Situation Room host Wolf Blitzer and Reliable Sources host and Kurtz:
BLITZER: Very briefly, is there any sign of a backlash against the mainstream media because of our coverage of what's happening in Iraq?
KURTZ: Yes, among conservatives, among military family members and others. A lot of people, as we saw that woman from West Virginia, blaming us for the situation there.
Neither Kurtz nor Blitzer seemed aware of the possibility that progressives, or people opposed to the war, might also be angry at the media. And that's a characteristic of nearly all of the media's navel-gazing about their coverage of the Iraq war -- the question addressed is almost always whether war supporters' claims that the media are too negative have merit. Where is the CNN segment exploring whether the media are adequately covering Murray Waas's revelations about the Bush administration's cover-up of evidence that Bush lied to the nation about the Iraq war? Where is the CNN segment about whether the media are sanitizing the war? As journalist and documentary filmmaker Gabriel Rotello wrote for The Huffington Post weblog:
Mr. Bush wants to know why the media don't publish more "success stories" about Iraq. I want to know the opposite: why the media don't publish photos and videos that -- in no uncertain terms -- show the blood-drenched truth.
Watching TV news or reading the papers, you'd think this was a war without human faces.
There are no victims, only numbers. "39 Killed." "50 Dead."
But where are the bodies? That's right, the mangled, gouged, decapitated, amputated, burned bodies?
I'll tell you where: On File. Locked away in the photo and video archives of the major news organizations. The supposedly "negative" media are deliberately holding back from actually showing us the negative human costs of Bush's war, and that puts the lie to any blather about how negative they really are.
It wasn't always this way. In Vietnam, three famous photos spelled things out: The photo of the little girl running down the street drenched with napalm. The photo of the Viet Cong captive having his brains blown out on the street, execution-style. The photo of the bodies piled up at My Lai.
I bet most of you instantly conjured those images just now. For good reason. They're iconic. They won Pulitzer Prizes and major journalism awards because they told, in an instant, everything you needed to know about what was happening.
Three years into Iraq, can you conjure any comparable images? I'll bet the answer's no.
Yet when the media assess their own performance in covering the Iraq mess, they don't talk about these things. Instead, they consistently focus on complaints from conservatives and war supporters -- complaints that their coverage is too negative, never that it's too positive.
Kurtz, for example, wrote a 1,300-word washingtonpost.com article on March 27 that began with the question "Have the media declared war on the war?"
Not one of Kurtz's 1,300 words addressed -- or even hinted at the existence of -- complaints that maybe the media aren't being critical enough in covering the war. Not a single word.
Post ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote her own column about coverage of the Iraq war. The expanded online version of the column ran to more than 3,900 words; the third paragraph read:
The Post's work (and that of other news media in Iraq) draws intense attention and a steady stream of complaints from readers, military and civilian, who say the coverage is excessively negative and too focused on violence.
For more than 3,900 words, Howell discussed the Post's coverage of Iraq in those terms -- as an issue of whether the Post is "excessively negative and too focused on violence" or just right. No discussion, no mention, not even a hint of the possibility that the Post's coverage of Iraq is excessively positive, or doesn't do an adequate job of illustrating the violence and chaos in Iraq.
The way Howell and Kurtz and Crowley and Blitzer and the rest of the media cover the coverage of the Iraq war, you'd think Rotello was all alone in his belief that the media are sanitizing the war. But he isn't. A CBS News poll conducted earlier this month found that 24 percent of Americans think the media are "making things in Iraq sound better than they really are," compared to 31 percent who think the media are "making things sound worse than they really are."
Imagine what the numbers might be if the media actually presented both sides of the debate.
Imagine what the numbers might be if progressive and Democratic leaders criticized the media as loudly and as often as their conservative and Republican counterparts.
And imagine what effect that might have on news coverage of the war.
Is McCain "reforming" the system -- or rigging it?
Imagine this scenario: a participant in an ongoing contest writes new rules governing that contest. Some time later, he writes still more rules. A little while after that, he proposes to again change the rules, this time to undue the effect of his first rule change.
There may well be defensible reasons for the changes, but surely observers would at least begin to wonder if the participant is trying to rig the contest; to turn it into a game of Calvinball -- constantly changing the rules to his supposed advantage. Surely reporters, who often seem to pride themselves on their skepticism (cynicism?) about political figures, would be suspicious of any politician whose actions fit this pattern.
Unless, of course, that politician was Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).
A quick refresher:
2000: After a group called Republicans For Clean Air, incorporated under section 527 of the tax code by backers of Bush's presidential primary campaign, ran television ads that helped Bush defeat McCain for the Republican nomination, McCain introduced legislation that mandated disclosure of donors to 527s. At the time, McCain described his legislation as closing the "527 loophole" and clearly stated that he wasn't trying to stop 527s from raising and spending money for political purposes; his legislation simply required disclosure:
[T]his amendment in no way restricts the ability of any individual or organization from spending money to influence the political or electoral system. It protects free speech. But it recognizes that the public has a right to know who is speaking.
After McCain's legislation passed, he declared on NPR's Talk of the Nation: "We've cured one of the most outrageous, and most evil, kinds of practices, which requires full disclosure of people who contribute to a loophole in the tax code called 527. And we were able to force full disclosure of those people who contribute to it." The media joined him in applauding the legislation. Roll Call, for example, ran a celebratory editorial headlined, simply, "Hooray!"
2002: The McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation passed Congress and was signed into law by Bush. McCain declared that the legislation would "eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars of unregulated soft money that has caused Americans to question the integrity of their elected representatives." Because Republicans had been more successful at raising hard money than Democrats had, and Democrats were more reliant on the soft money banned by McCain-Feingold, the legislation was seen by many as likely to hurt Democrats.
The legislation did not prevent 527s from raising or spending money. Indeed, Roll Call reported on March 14, 2002: "As the Senate inched closer to a vote on the comprehensive campaign finance reform proposal he has championed, McCain pledged yesterday that he and reform partner Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) would 'resist strongly' any effort to make sweeping changes to the 527 law."
The possibility that McCain-Feingold would result in massive amounts of money flowing through 527s instead of party committees was widely understood; a year before passage of the bill, The New York Times reported:
Lewis M. Eisenberg, an investment banker, chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and longtime Republican contributor, said he would favor some changes in the system, but only if they did not tread on the First Amendment. Like others, Mr. Eisenberg said he expected more donors to begin using loopholes like that provided by Section 527 of the federal tax code, which allowed tax-exempt groups to raise and spend money on political activities.
Many of the donors predicted that whatever rules were put in place, the parties and some donors would find ways around them.
"Where there's a will, there's usually a way," Mr. [John] Moran, the former Republican committee official, said. "And I've been around long enough to know that some ingenious ideas surface from time to time. So I suspect that if and when a campaign finance reform bill does pass, people will begin immediately to think about how they can get around it."
Sure enough, that happened, surprising only the incredibly naïve. The Washington Post reported in an October 17, 2004, article headlined, "Super Rich Step Into Political Vacuum; McCain-Feingold Paved Way for 527s":
This was going to be the year -- thanks to the 2002 campaign finance law -- when big money lost its influence in American politics.
But if the election comes down to which presidential candidate is better at getting supporters to the polls, the huge donations of a handful of wealthy liberals named Linda Pritzker, Stephen L. Bing, Peter B. Lewis and George Soros could determine the outcome. Together, they have given more than $26 million to help finance the most extensive get-out-the vote operation in history, the goal of which is to make John F. Kerry president.
The recipient of the largess, America Coming Together (ACT), is one of the so-called 527 organizations playing a crucial role in the presidential campaign. Named after a section of the tax code, the 527 groups are doing much of the advertising and field work traditionally left to party organizations.
This election year, the groups have become the main way for the wealthy to affect events. Six of the top 10 donors to 527 groups are billionaires, and all are on Forbes magazine's list of richest Americans. Eight dollars out of every $10 collected from individuals by Democratic-leaning 527 groups have come from donors who have given at least $250,000 each, according to an analysis by The Washington Post of data on 527 donations maintained by Center for Public Integrity.
[...]
These big donors have stepped into the vacuum created by the continuing controversy over the role of the 527s. By banning the use of large "soft money" contributions to party organizations, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law essentially made 527s the only conduit for unregulated and unlimited contributions.
Let's pause here to recap:
1) After a 527 attacked him, McCain wrote legislation in 2000 that allowed 527s to continue to raise and spend money, as long as they disclosed their donors.
2) In 2002, McCain said he didn't want to make sweeping changes to the 527 law, and his campaign finance overhaul allowed 527s to continue to raise and spend money.
3) That legislation was seen by many as hurting Democrats more than Republicans.
4) That legislation was seen by many as guaranteeing that large amounts of money would flow through 527s and other groups rather than political party committees.
5) What happened? Things played out largely as expected: large amounts of money flowed through 527s during the 2004 campaign. But Democrats weren't hurt as badly as expected by the changes in campaign finance law, largely because of the success of progressive 527s in raising money to offset the party's inability to raise soft money.
So, now that McCain is again preparing to run for president, where are we? Well, McCain is yet again proposing a change in the rules -- and, conveniently, that change would "affect Democrats more," according to The Washington Post. In fact, that's the headline: " '527' Legislation Would Affect Democrats More." The Post reported:
In 2001, when Karl Rove first outlined plans for a $50 million get-out-the-vote program, his PowerPoint presentation made one point clear: The effort would be a "joint project of the White House and the Republican National Committee."
Rove's declaration points to a crucial difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. Less than a year later, top Democratic strategists began moving in precisely the opposite direction. During the Bush years, voter mobilization in large measure has been run by what analysts call a "shadow Democratic Party" -- consisting of outside groups operating independently from the Democratic National Committee and the party's top office seekers.
The difference between the two approaches explains why the Democrats are a lot more worried about proposals to impose sharp limits on spending by tax-exempt, non-party political groups.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is sponsoring legislation that would restrict donors to giving just $5,000 annually to "527" groups (named after the section of the tax code they operate under). In recent years, tycoons such as George Soros and T. Boone Pickens have given millions to such groups.
[...]
In 2002, the legislation commonly known as McCain-Feingold imposed a ban on "soft money" -- large, party-raised contributions on which Democrats, more than Republicans, had become heavily dependent. This led to a blossoming of 527 groups, orchestrated by such veteran liberal operatives as Harold Ickes, an aide to President Bill Clinton; Ellen Malcolm of the feminist group Emily's List; and labor organizer Steve Rosenthal; and funded by such people as Soros and insurance millionaire Peter Lewis.
[...]
In the first election in recent memory in which Democrats raised nearly as much as Republicans, the 527s flooded the 2003-04 election cycle with $424.8 million. The money favored pro-Democratic groups, which outspent their pro-Republican adversaries 2 to 1, or by $110 million.
How many times can McCain try to change the rules governing elections in a way that is expected to benefit his party before reporters begin to wonder if his own electoral aspirations may play a role? If McCain were just about any other politician, there would be at least a few among the relentlessly cynical media who would suggest that perhaps he isn't trying to reform the system -- he's trying to rig it.
Instead, McCain is so revered by the media, they treat him as an independent, all-knowing authority on ethics issues, as Media Matters explained:
During the March 29 broadcast of the CBS Evening News, contributor Gloria Borger reported on the disappointed reaction of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to the lobbying reform bill that was passed by the Senate that day. Passage of the bill, which McCain voted against, followed the initial investigation by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs into disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Borger noted McCain's assertion that continued investigations by both the Indian Affairs and Finance Committees "should light a fire under [McCain's] colleagues." However in reporting McCain's pledge to "light a fire under his colleagues," Borger ignored reports that, as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, McCain steered the investigation into the Abramoff scandal away from examining any potential wrongdoing by his Republican colleagues. According to a March 10, 2005, report by Roll Call, McCain assured Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) they would not be caught up in the investigation into how Abramoff bilked $82 million from the American Indian tribes he represented, stating, "We stop when we find out where the money went."
This is not the first instance in which Borger has suggested McCain is a paragon of lobbying reform. As Media Matters for America previously noted, during a February 6 Evening News report on a dispute over lobbying reform between McCain and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Borger uncritically presented McCain's version of the dispute. Noting that McCain accused Obama of distancing himself from McCain's reform proposals for "partisan reasons," Borger proclaimed: "It's very clear that lobbying reform is a very personal issue for John McCain. It's very important to John McCain."
i like the analogy
Well,
When one ponders the state of this venerable 200+ year old Constitutional Republic today and the extent to which WE have deviated from what our Founding Fathers had envisioned for US by handing down a document without equal in the annals of history to align government to the WILL of the people, a reasonable inquiry demands that WE come to terms with what has come to pass.
The NeoConmen have infiltrated every aspect of our society whether that be the GOP, the Media, the Courts, Our Military............ And thus have undermined every safeguard guaranteed to US by our Constitution. So, aside from their position papers which call for a 21st Century American Imperium as announced on the PNAC "Project for New American Century" website, who are these people, what drives them and ultimately to what allegiance are they beholding to?
Their philosophical mentor was Leo Strauss, a University of Chicago Professor who came of age in the 60's and whose modern-day adherents are William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, William Bennet, Gary Bauer, Jeb Bush, Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith and a host of other lesser players. Having been around for some two decades in the Reagan, Bush1 and now Bush 2 administrations, they became the guiding force for positioning a very aggresive American Foreign Policy which has brought US to the situation we confront today.
The basic tenets which compise their philosophical roots are the following: (1) Mankind is innately warlike which they draw from the German Nihilist, Friedrich Nietzsche, of "God is Dead" fame (2) The MASSES, that's you and I folks, are not as enlightened as THEY and therefore all lies, chicanery and Machiavellian exploits are accomplished for the Public Good. (4) Religion is tolerated, not as a spiritual anchor BUT as a control means by which the Nation is defined or to be utilized as a rallying dictate to further the Aims of the Masters.
They no doubt rejoiced greatly when GWB was selected as President of the United States for they saw in him an easy mark to dominate, cajole and ultimately control AS this was their TIME to implement their philosophy and create a paradigm to unleash their ills upon what they obviously gauged as a weak and corrupt society. Is it any wonder that we are now engaged in multiple wars, deception abounds and the very fabric that tethers US to our Constitutional Rights is currently under assault??????????
Time will tell what evenually befalls these stooges, Perle has been marginalized from DOD, Feith left Dodge, Scooter well, we all know his current fate, Wolfowitz moved over to the World Bank, Rove seems to be handing US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald certain archived forgotten emails from the VP's Office................ William Kristol wants Rumsfeld fired for not administering to the war needs commensurate with HIS higher intellect.
Oh, one other characteristic defines the NeoConmen. When cornered, THEY tend to turn on each other. They blame it on Leo Strauss!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You sound a bit paranoid if not slightly anti-semitic. You've either been reading too much S.B. Drury or spending too much time on these boards(I'll include myself in that last statement!)! Here is some snippets from an article by Peter Berkowitz.
"What Hath Strauss Wrought? From the June 2, 2003 issue: Misreading a political philosopher. by Peter Berkowitz 06/02/2003, Volume 008, Issue 37
THE NEW YORK TIMES, the New Yorker, and the Boston Globe, among others, have sounded the alarm: The Bush administration, particularly its foreign policy team, is in the grip of a coterie of neoconservative intellectuals who are themselves in the grip of the antidemocratic and illiberal teachings of Leo Strauss, a political philosopher who taught at the University of Chicago in the '50s and '60s and who died in 1973.
On its face, this scenario is wildly implausible. It supposes that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and National Security Adviser Rice, non-Straussians by all accounts, are stooges and dupes. It insinuates that neoconservative intellectuals--Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is at the top of everybody's list--have craftily ascended to positions of power in the federal government from which they aim to implement Strauss's teachings. And it invests Strauss, a student of political philosophy whose life's work consisted in writing learnedly about thinkers from Plato to Heidegger, and sharing his discoveries with students, with almost superhuman powers: Through the force of his ideas, we are told, this scholar and teacher is able, a generation and a half after his death, to command the respect and loyalty--and indeed, to compel the actions--of highly successful and well-placed individuals not only in politics but in the media and the academy.
These accusations, similar versions of which are often leveled at neoconservatives, are nonsense, and in parts vicious nonsense. Yet the ideas that the accusations pervert are those of Strauss, and when those ideas are restored to their true shape they can be seen as articulating core neoconservative convictions.
Strauss was not an elitist--but he was a lover of excellence. He believed in the cultivation of the mind, and sought to restore respect for its manifestation in the ambition for honor and nobility in the soul, which he understood to be not only compatible with but essential to democracy. On the occasion of Winston Churchill's death, he told his class that "We have no higher duty, and no more pressing duty, than to remind ourselves and our students, of political greatness, human greatness, of the peaks of human excellence." Strauss also shared Churchill's famous praise of democracy as the worst regime except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. Although he regarded modern democracy as flawed, it is, Strauss suggested, the form of government best suited to the protection and enjoyment of human liberty, and therefore should be defended wholeheartedly. "
Well, it seems I have aroused some ire in what you infer is an 'ad hominem' attack. First of all, spare me the tripe about being paranoid or anti-semitic. It doesn't work in the Real World.
As for what constituted the essence of Straussian philosophy, you are quite correct in stating that he was an admirer of Plato as in 'Plato's Republic' which unequivocally purports to outline a society in which ' PHILOSOPHER KINGS' are entitled to RULE due to their esteemed position as being enlightened over the massses, with beneficence of course. Sort of like the 'DIVINE RIGHT Of KINGS'. Hardly a system of governance WHICH is congruous with Constitutional Democracy where the Will of the People is paramount.
As for whether Cheney, Rumsfeld et al are Straussians at heart, Well, last time I checked ,their signatures were attached to the PNAC document which was comprised of the Straussian school of former students, including Wolfowitz. In the Bush1 adminstration, Colin Powell would refer to Wolfie and others as the 'Crazies' in the basement WHO advocated marching into Baghdad in the wake of Gulf War1, only to be undermined by National Securuty Advisor Brent Scowcraft and Joint Chiefs Chairman Powell. Perhaps, JR. should have taken their advice. Why do you think Powell left the State Department after realizing he 'had been had' much to the detriment of his otherwise illustrious career by the ' Crazies WHO under Cheney in the Office of Special Plans had filtered the INTEL, all NeoConmen.
But there is another who has spoken out about the true intentions of what the Straussians believe. His name is Stanley Hilton, a lawyer and former Republican Senator Bob Dole's Chief of Staff WHO also attended the University of Chicago and was a fellow student of Wolfowitz. Hilton states that they had spent many a midnight session embroiled in fierce academic debate on the means by which Constitutinal Democracy in the US could be overthown with the intent of establishing a Military dictatorship................ It would only take a Pearl Harbor event................. funny how that same concept showed itself again some thirty years later in the PNAC Document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, a blueprint for the 21ST Century American Imperium.
AS for your advice about visiting these boards too much, I will take it under advisement!
. Navy Guy, after reading your response I went back and re-read your original post. I was reading into your very last sentence and that is where I inferred your anti-semite remark. Please accept my apologies and I retract that statement.
As for being paranoid, well I'm sure there is a better phrase, but it sure sounds paranoid to me. You wrote: "They no doubt rejoiced greatly when GWB was selected as President of the United States for they saw in him an easy mark to dominate, cajole and ultimately control AS this was their TIME to implement their philosophy and create a paradigm to unleash their ills upon what they obviously gauged as a weak and corrupt society. Is it any wonder that we are now engaged in multiple wars, deception abounds and the very fabric that tethers US to our Constitutional Rights is currently under assault?????????? "
That looks like a bad episode of Star Trek to me! Do you really believe that in this day and time a handful of cabinet members can prop up a president and take over the world? Is this really what your saying? If that is the case, then why didn't we take over Iraq after the first Gulf war? Much of the same players were in power then.
As the article I posted said, I think you're bastardizing Strauss' views. I agree these men follow a tenet that American style democracy is good, and it will probably be good for others to emulate. On another note Leo was an atheist. You posted: " (4) Religion is tolerated, not as a spiritual anchor BUT as a control means by which the Nation is defined or to be utilized as a rallying dictate to further the Aims of the Masters. " I'm not sure how Leo would view that.
Again my apologies for taking your original thread out of text. I've never been a fan of philosophy so if you don't mind me, I'll wade back into the shallow end of the pool! ;)
I dropped in on the PNAC site. I didn't see any recent posts or articles posted (at least 6months) and I wonder has this movement run its course?
As the article I posted said, I think you're bastardizing Strauss' views. I agree these men follow a tenet that American style democracy is good, and it will probably be good for others to emulate.
[link to www.informationclearinghouse.info]
Perhaps no scholar has done as much to illuminate the Strauss phenomenon as Shadia Drury. For fifteen years she has been shining a heat lamp on the Straussians with such books as The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988) and Leo Strauss and the American Right (1997).
Shadia Drury: Leo Strauss was a great believer in the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics. Public support for the Iraq war rested on lies about Iraq posing an imminent threat to the United States – the business about weapons of mass destruction and a fictitious alliance between al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime. Now that the lies have been exposed, Paul Wolfowitz and others in the war party are denying that these were the real reasons for the war.
Danny Postel: The neo-conservative vision is commonly taken to be about spreading democracy and liberal values globally. And when Strauss is mentioned in the press, he is typically described as a great defender of liberal democracy against totalitarian tyranny. You’ve written, however, that Strauss had a “profound antipathy to both liberalism and democracy.” Shadia Drury: The idea that Strauss was a great defender of liberal democracy is laughable. I suppose that Strauss’s disciples consider it a noble lie. Yet many in the media have been gullible enough to believe it.
Danny Postel: What is the relevance of Strauss’s interpretation of Plato’s notion of the noble lie? Shadia Drury……How could an admirer of Plato and Nietzsche be a liberal democrat? The ancient philosophers whom Strauss most cherished believed that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty, and that giving them these sublime treasures would be like throwing pearls before swine. In contrast to modern political thinkers, the ancients denied that there is any natural right to liberty. Human beings are born neither free nor equal. The natural human condition, they held, is not one of freedom, but of subordination – and in Strauss’s estimation they were right in thinking so. …..A second fundamental belief of Strauss’s ancients has to do with their insistence on the need for secrecy and the necessity of lies. In his book Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss outlines why secrecy is necessary. He argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons – to spare the people’s feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals. The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many. In On Tyranny, Strauss refers to this natural right as the “tyrannical teaching” of his beloved ancients. It is tyrannical in the classic sense of rule above rule or in the absence of law (p. 70).
Solon, I'm not a student of Strauss and don't pretend to be any kind of expert on his political thoughts. Drury has written on him extensively (two books) and as this snippet points out she has valid criticisms in her first, but the second is over the top. I should point out I haven't read anything by her, so I'll defer to you if you have. There are some other references to books about Strauss in this paragraph also.
Here is part of the article by Robert Locke; Frontpage Magazine from May 31, 2002:
"Note: If you want to learn about Strauss for yourself, start with Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind to get a popularized version, bearing in mind that Bloom is an odd character with his own peculiar obsessions. Then try Strauss’s own Natural Right and History, followed by Persecution and the Art of Writing. With his student Joseph Cropsey, Strauss also edited The History of Political Philosophy, which has essays on all the major political philosophers and is an excellent and reliable introduction to the field as a whole. Shadia B. Drury is the Left’s designated debunker of Strauss; her first book on him, The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, written when she still had some respect for him, is somewhat useful, though not wholly reliable. Her second book, Leo Strauss and the American Right, is a snide, careless and inaccurate piece of liberal boilerplate. "
Is at its most basic a rationale why ELITES should rule and the messy, bewildered herd should just shut up and do what they are told. This is where the very concept of the Noble Lie comes from. THEY are our betters so THEY should make the decisions, if they have to lie to get us to go along with what these elites want it is for the best. Very simple, you can agree or disagree but it is not at its heart a prinicpled democratic concept. Its a rationale for the protection of priveledge. What Drury or her detractors say arent central to the facts we are discussing. No one seriously disputes this is a concept Strauss embraces.
Could not the same argument be made for modern liberal thought? A few privileged leaders and the masses do what they are told. Isn't this part of the Frankfurt school of thought? Keep the masses uneducated and in the dark while the superiors rule. What I've seen referred to as neo-marxist? It seems to me I could take parts of either schools, Frankfurt/Straussian and make the square peg fit into the round hole.
At least not what I consider liberal philosophy. That of Jefferson and the founding fathers that thought the people were the ONLY worthy repositiry for power. That is what I think of when I think liberal philosophy. There are some on the left who see the real struggle between a red elite and a white elite who would run the world by either alligning with the power or the revolution. I wouldnt think of either as liberal, but thats semantic. IF you mean is it like some far leftist philosophy, absolutly. In fact a good catch. This is why some people like Horowitz feel very comfortable moving from the authoritarian left to the authoritarian right. IF that is your point it is a good one.
Are you talking about the difference between Classical and Modern Liberalism? As you have referenced in above threads the founding fathers were considered liberal thinkers in their day. They supported public works, protecting rights and freedoms in all areas and supported a strong military (sounds kind of conservative to me!).
Moder Liberalism, seems to keep these freedoms in check, i.e. gun control, socialized medicine (can't pick the doc of your choice) and higher taxes.
I could see where there would be a struggle for the two schools of thought.
Authoritarian left and liberals. Lenin was a leftist but no liberal. One of the defining characteristics of liberalism to me is keeping the power WITH the people in actuality. I dont see Socialized medicine as losing freedom. Most people cant choose their doctor now with an HMO, that is hardly taking away their freedom. Anytime you have a philiosophy about why us bewildered rubes need to shut up and let our betters tell us what is good for us, or that lying to us is a good thing because we arent smart enough to make our own decisions so the lie is necessary. Its NOT liberal thought. Its authoritarian and anti democratic and THAT is the subject here
Hogprint,
I fully accept your apology and I might add, one so disposed to recognize what can readily be discerned as an emotional response to my RANTS signifies to me a person with character and honor.
Now as to your question whether a certain cabal with a pre-conceived agenda could easily sway a president to do their bidding, I reply, most certainly, YES!!!!!
In the Presidential debates of 2000, THEN Texas governor George W. Bush when asked by the moderator , "What kind of Foreign Policy might WE expect from a Bush Administration, GWB replied specifically THAT, "The United States should not be engaged in NATION BUILDING, and that a gentler, more HUMBLE Foreign Policy would be a signature of his State Department.
He no doubt was attempting to distance the GOP from the Clinton administration's dalliances in Serbia, Somalia and Haiti WHICH Republicans at the time condemned and in my view rightfully so as nation building attempts and an unwise AND less than judicious use of our military. Although I am vehemently against the Bush Family's role in National politics for various and sundry reasons, I was somewhat relieved WHEN Colin Powell was selected as Secretary of State.
Shortly thereafter, I realized that appointments by this administration to key foreign policy POSITIONS were encompassing a sordid list of Iran-Contra players, many who were indicted ONLY to be pardoned by the President's father some twelve years previous. Hmmm,! Knowing intuitively that such scoundrels were Machiavellian in nature WHO often schemed in the shadows to deceive Congress, I at that time concluded that GWB Bush's foreign policy agenda was likely to be roguish, clandestine AND offensive in the sense THAT any moderating influence championed by Colin Powell was likely to be challenged. This came to full fruition with the addition of the NeoConmen. Cheney's OSP, "Office of Special Plans with the likes of Libby, Feith et al in addition to the WHIG, White House Iraq Group , in my view proceeded to undermine the State Department and ultimatley caused the ruination of Powell, All NeoConmen and some NeoConwomen.
To be fair , I do not believe that the NeoConmen are exclusively tied to the GOP, although most certainly under GWB, THEY have reached the pinnacle of power and influence. Madeline Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in my view are also swayed to the NeoCon 's perpective although BOTH are distancing themelves from our illegal folly into Iraq.
This pernicious rationale whereby the United States can act pre-emptively against any NATION it so deems as a THREAT, including the use of nuclear weapons IS INSANE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL and DANGEROUS.............. And only idealogues like the NeoConmen believe THIS as an inherent right by the mere fact that we are a SUPERPOWER. How HUMBLE is that???????????????
Anti Semetic????? I didnt see the words Israel or Jew anywhere in Navy Guys post. This is the old tried and failed tactic of changing the argument from a discussion about policy to one about personality. NG says neocon, a description of a PHILOSOPHY, and Hoggie counters with anti semite. Apparantly not wanting to argue the policy he accuses racism based on NOTHING. The strategy is to shield the neocons from ANY criticism by conflating any criticism about them as being based on racism. Its soooo weak. The Straussian concept of the NOBLE lie, so clear in the Iraq agenda is that our betters know whats best for us and as a bewildered herd we have no business having input into policy so for our own good they LIE to us. Its pathetic, even hoggie doesnt want to address it so he cries racism without any POSSIBLE justification. Unless he has amazing mind reading powers he has no way of discerning Navy Guys motivation but chooses to make an argument based on what he deems, from info apparantly coming from his rectal database, to be venal motives. Sad, yes. Pathetic, you bet. Par for the course, unfortunatly
Navy Guy hits it on the head: The "philosopher" existed, his teachings known, his students grown up, his students banded together under a "manifesto", his students appointed en masse to positions of power in the Bush administration, his students, following their manifesto (PNAC), implement POLICY which follows exactly the philosophy stated.
It couldn't be more clear or proven ... it would be clear EVEN IF THEY HADN'T PUT IT ALL DOWN ON PAPER, which they did, and removed all doubt.
Yet, their conspiracy must be protected ... because it is undemocratic and UnAmerican. It is elitist, in the manner of Plato's "PHILOSOPHER KINGS", those enlightened and thus destined to rule (excellent point, Navy Guy!).
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", says Hog, bolstered by a dismissive article in the NYTimes which says, sure, these guys are true believers, but Strauss SUPPORTED our democracy, which he admits is "flawed". This is unconvincing in the max, since this attempted "coup" is justified by saying it corrects the "flaws".
-------
Tom Lehrer was a brilliant social satirist, and any of my friends unfamiliar with his work are highly encouraged to find an album (he put out only three).
[link to www.casualhacker.net]
(the words are great, but his musicianship excellent ... you really need to HEAR him...)
On the topic of folk songs, Lehrer said (satrically) : "the reason most folk songs are so atrocious is that they were written by THE PEOPLE." This elitist, dismissive philosophy is core to the NeoConmen (who are NOT satrical), those who fancy themselves of transcended superiority (Cheney embodies this "no mere human has the right to question me" attitude).
So, there is absolutely no doubt that we have witnessed an attempted philosophical COUP.
What is stunning is that those who claim to be "conservative" don't see it. You'd think they'd get a hint when BUSH violates nearly every one of their core beliefs: Protection of borders, OPEN and ACCOUNTABLE government, fiscal responsibility, non-interference in foreign affairs, SMALLER government, environmental protection, Individual Rights paramount ... all scorned by this Bush Administration.
Luckily, it's looking like the coup has failed. THE PEOPLE, in their slow but deliberate manner, have "given the GOP (read: NeoCons) a chance", and they have FAILED utterly, demonstrating the absurd combination of incompetence and arrogance, destroying everything they touch.
Tex/Solon,
My sincere and many thanks to both of you for your very astute and additional commentaries to my post.
Solon, I have taken the liberty of reviewing some of our previous communications in the past year. DO NOT DESPAIR, The tide is turning ............AND before it is all through, these Neo-Cretins will be exposed for WHO they are!!!!!!
Perhaps, WE the American people need a 'catharsis' every now and then JUST to test our 'mettle 'as a Nation bounded by a common heritage HANDED down to US by some very enlightened and esteemed GENTLEMEN WHO knew inherently that such a compromise of our Constitutional system could occur. Jefferson most certainly saw it, Franklin challenged US to keep it.
GWB may well go down in history AS the President who singlehandedly destroyed the Republican Party ......... AND I might add, "When the Lights go out" There will be only AMERICANS, bounded by a LOVE of TRUTH. Truth is a great arbiter, but like the US Marine's Recruiting TV spot, that sword of truth must bear the crucible of fire SO ultimately it is refined, perfected and without blemish.
Keep the Faith!!!!
Navy
I have the one with Werner Von Braun on it. I love the guy
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun
Lehrer rules, where is the modern TL?
It's pretty obvious that that smear is just intended to prevent intelligent debate. Most everyone see it for what it is -- but I suppose it still works in the mind of cons.
LOOK FOR THE MEDIA AND MOSTLY FOX NEWS TOO GET ON BOARD WITH THE GUESSWORKER BILL THAT MCCAIN AND KENNDY ARE TRYING TO PAST NOW THAT AMERICANS ARE IN FAVOR OF IT. AND MARK MY WORD THE MEDIA WILL ONLY BE SAYING AND SHOWING MCCAIN, AND FOX AND THE RNC WILL BE ALL OVER THIS BILL NOW. LIKE I SAID WHEN THE RIGHT-WINGERS AND FOX NEWS SEE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE FOR SOMETHING THEN THEY WILL TRY TO ASK LIKE THEY WERE FOR IT ALL THE TIME. LOOK FOR KARL ROVE MAKE SURE THAT THE MEDIA MAKE SURE BUSH WILL GET ALL THE PRAISE FOR THIS NOW.
but what is it? When the Bush gang blames the media for not reporting the "good" news from Iraq the average dummy doesn't think to as, "what good news?" Instead he assumes there must be good news from Iraq and since he never pays attention anyhow he just says things are going well in Iraq. Didn't work this time. Is "he" getting smarter or preoccupied with something else?
The mexican issue is a setup for the fall election. Wait for the "charges" that are made in both directions, "he voted for.. or he voted against" done with the attitude that "he was all wrong" no matter and the media will repeat it over and over, "conservative candidate again pointed out that the liberal voted..." and then run a clip of it without giving the other side an opportunity to rubuke. The voter is required to look one thin layer deep into the prophaganda, a mentally taxing thing for the average.
"Worth a bucket of warm spit." Bush and his neocons have the MSM soooo cowed. Hopefully the electorate finally has the sense to ask as one previous poster noted "what good news from Iraq?".
Thanks again Media Matters for America for the week's work, and thank you Mr. Foser for this synopsis. The subject that leads the synopsis...
Media yawn as evidence accumulates that Bush lied in taking the country to war
...and in particular the concluding thought...
"And it is important to assess the consequences of the administration's lies about, and mishandling of, the Iraq war. (Is this happening again, with regard to Iran?) That's a question we've repeatedly asked; why don't reporters? Perhaps the third anniversary of the Iraq war would be a good time to finally include the question in a poll."
...to which I would add that if the polls we see reported in the media were to seek much more than the single word response to the question "approve or disapprove?", we would then get a far more comprehensive Public Opinion poll than we presently get; and we would then get something that more resembles a dialogue on the matter; for who is it that trades in nothing but the words "approve" and "disapprove", and calls that barter "dialogue"? Who in a forum such as this posts only the word "approve" or "disapprove", and would at the same time think themselves well understood on the matter?
Not me, or any others that I see, and that I would think myself to understand. And I'm at no loss to understand why we get no dialogue at all in the media on this matter; why we get nothing but one word answers to Public Opinion polls, "approve" or "disapprove"; anything more might look like dialogue; anything more could only generate more "disapproval".
As to that part of the synopsis titled...
Media fall for Bush backers' claims that Iraq coverage is too negative
I guess certain members of the national media agree with the Administration (and their Paid Hacks) that the reporting of events in Iraq is too "negative".
It's not hard to do, to agree that reports of street bombings that kill dozens (whose only mistake was to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time) is "negative".
And so those same members, who agree that reports of Iraq events are "negative", now become somehow "shamed" by the Administration, as though they were contributing to those events by reporting on them? That perhaps they should ignore some (or all) of those events? And perhaps even to substitute reports of "positive" things in their place?
Now, would the "positive" reporting of events in Iraq be anything like the "positive" reporting of a WMD threat, or an Iraq-9/11 link, or of biological and chemical weapons, or of forgeries and lies alleging an attempt to acquire Uranium?
Think about it: Can the Administration's phony "shame" heaped on the consciences of the conscientious members of the media (they must know who they are), be anything like the real shame of reporting "positively" the WMD threat, and the other above-named FALSE (or FALSIFIED) 'pre-war intelligence'?
Does the Administration itself, or any of it's Paid Hacks (we all know who they are), do they feel any shame for providing that FALSE (or FALSIFIED) 'pre-war intelligence', and for reporting it "positively"?
The Administration itself are the true authors of the "negative" reports of events in Iraq; not in a journalistic sense, but in the sense of cause and effect, as in that FALSE (or FALSIFIED) 'pre-war intelligence' is the cause of the invasion and occupation Iraq, and the unstable government that results from that invasion and occupation is the cause of the anarchy and chaos we see on our televisions, and read about in our newspapers...
..."negative" reports of events in Iraq, which the Administration itself (the true authors of those events) would use to "shame" the media into an ignorance of those events, or a "positive" spinning of them...
...which reminds me too much of the "positive" reporting of the FALSE (or FALSIFIED) 'pre-war intelligence': lies, ignorance, and a manipulation of the American People, redux.
Let's only hope we continue to get the truth about Iraq (which we didn't get when we got the FALSE (or FALSIFIED) 'pre-war intelligence' that caused that invasion), and that we can get an investigation into the cause of the FALSE (or FALSIFIED) 'pre-war intelligence' itself.
Or else it's deja vu in Iran, or Iraq redux, or whatever other French words you can think of to describe being lied to perpetually.
like me and many I have spoken with that Iraq is all about oil and little or nothing else? If it's about oil, fuel for our cars then maybe we should pay attention to other events, good news that is going un reported. Brazil beeomes ENERGY INDEPENDENT. Is that good news or bad? It's bad if you're into oil and good if all you want to do is DRIVE to work.
They're fueling their autos with ethenol in Brazil. Come Carnival they can take a sip or three from the gas tank and save even more. That's probably why we're not doing the entenol thing. The devil himself lives in the demon rum and they are running their cars on rum in Brazil. How immoral can people get?
So I guess Media Matters cannot give Murray Waas' article a critical eye, can they? Nope, apparently not. Murray Waas, and the National Journal, continue to pull the wool over their readers' eyes.
The National Journal summarized Waas' article on the front page claiming that "uranium tubes in Niger" was catastrophic for Bush and had to be hidden. That's right, "uranium tubes in Niger". I'm not joking. That's how far Waas is spinning and lying - we have now entered a parallel universe.
Please read 3,339 Words of B & S to be informed of the truth, and a critical look at the writings of Murray Waas, instead of shilling for him like Media Matters does.
Media Matters is not an objective nor truthful enterprise. It is a cesspool of liberal propaganda. This is painfully obvious to anyone who manages to think on their own, and not gulp down everything MM provides without scrutinizing it.
The National Journal summarized Waas' article on the front page claiming that "uranium tubes in Niger" was catastrophic for Bush and had to be hidden. That's right, "uranium tubes in Niger". I'm not joking. That's how far Waas is spinning and lying
Uh, excuse me, but it appears that the National Journal's summary of Waas ("uranium tubes in Niger") is what you have a problem with. Then you turn around and blame Waas, when he was the victim of a misquote or a poor paraphrase. Waas is not spinning and lying.
we have now entered a parallel universe.
Where we can blame person A for person B's words. Yes, indeed.
Please read 3,339 Words of B & S to be informed of the truth, and a critical look at the writings of Murray Waas, instead of shilling for him like Media Matters does.
Ah, yes, point us to your own article. That proves your point, doesn't it? And again, it's the National Journal, not Murray Waas, that apparently deserves your criticism.
Media Matters is not an objective nor truthful enterprise. It is a cesspool of liberal propaganda. This is painfully obvious to anyone who manages to think on their own, and not gulp down everything MM provides without scrutinizing it.
Now you've made a mountain out of a poorly-constructed molehill. MMFA has made some errors, and is always quick to admit them. They have proven over and over again that they are a tremendously truthful enterprise. If you have any evidence to buttress your sweeping statements, then please present them. Just leave your blog and your poor reasoning out of it this time.
By all means keep posting, but be forewarned: there are lots of people on board here who are pretty adept at shooting down trolls.