|All is well in Iraq, NOT!
|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||Channel Zero [ Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:54 am ]|
|Post subject:||All is well in Iraq, NOT!|
But that doesn't stop the propaganda machine from reporting falsehoods.
Bernie Ward talked about a Salon article that editorialized as much.
It appears that a pair of neocons, Michael O'Hanlon Ken Pollack, were painted as anti-war advocates who turned-into pro-war advocates after a recent trip to Iraq that painted a rosie pic of Iraq.
They were found out to BS'ers.
The truth behind the Pollack-O'Hanlon trip to Iraq
"The itinerary the D.O.D. developed"
But the far greater deceit involves the trip itself and the way it was represented -- both by Pollack/O'Hanlon as well as the excited media figures who touted its significance and meaning. From beginning to end, this trip was planned, shaped and controlled by the U.S. military -- a fact inexcusably concealed in both the Op-Ed itself and virtually every interview the two of them gave. With very few exceptions, what they saw was choreographed by the U.S. military and carefully selected for them.
|Author:||Channel Zero [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:53 am ]|
O'Hanlon responds to the Greenwald article with egg on his face.
O’Hanlon attacks Greenwald’s ‘kind of journalism.’
On NPR’s On Point today, a caller asked Brookings analyst Michael O’Hanlon to respond to Glenn Greenwald’s recent article which revealed O’Hanlon’s trip to Iraq had been choreographed by the Defense Department. “Well, I don’t have high regard for the kind of journalism that Mr. Greenwald has carried out here,” O’Hanlon said. “I’m not going to spend a whole lot of time rebutting Mr. Greenwald because he’s had frankly more time and more readership than he deserves.” Crooks and Liars has the audio. August 14, 2007
A caller to Tom Ashbrook’s radio program asks O'Hanlon to clarify his bullcrap. Precious.
|Author:||DO.g's [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:38 pm ]|
Caught with his lies and nowhere to run, his big eyes like a deer in headlights.
Good find and an important reminder of how important our free journalists really are to counter the narrative the neo-cons want us to believe.
That interview with Stewart and Kristol was a great one, but I really thought at first it was a repeat show, because it seemed that Kristol was saying the same things he's said before on the Daily Show as he has been there 4-5 times. He probably thinks that since most people aren't on his side anyway who watch this show, it doesn't matter what he says or does. There's always the sheep watching O'Biley who will swallow this and regurgitate it ad nauseum throughout the land for him.
|Author:||shoeless [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:44 pm ]|
The worst part about this whole charade is that the MSM has been telling everyone that these two warmonging Bush administration toadies used to be critics of the war.
CBS Evening News falsely described proponent of Iraq "surge" as former opponent of it
On the July 30 edition of the CBS Evening News, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin falsely described Brookings Institution senior fellow Michael O'Hanlon as "a critic" of the Iraq war "who used to think the surge was too little too late, [but] now believes it should be continued." In fact, while O'Hanlon has been critical of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, he supported the invasion and argued in a January 2007 column that President Bush's troop increase was "the right thing to try."
Additionally, during the July 30 broadcast of Fox News' Special Report, while introducing a report on a July 30 New York Times op-ed by O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, director of research at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy -- in which they asserted: "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms" -- host and Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume suggested that O'Hanlon and Pollack were longtime Iraq war critics. Hume described the two as "[a] pair of longtime opponents of President Bush's policies in Iraq." The same night, ABC's World News anchor Charles Gibson began his show's report on O'Hanlon and Pollack's op-ed by describing the authors as "long and persistent critics of the Bush administration's handling of the war." But in focusing only on O'Hanlon and Pollack's criticisms of the "handling" of the war, the news broadcasts failed to note that O'Hanlon and Pollack were influential proponents of the Iraq war before the invasion, leaving viewers with the impression that the two were war opponents who have now become more supportive of the war.
As Media Matters for America has noted, however, Pollack authored a book advocating invading Iraq called The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq (Random House, October 2002). Describing Pollack's book in a February 8, 2003, New York Times column (subscription required), Bill Keller -- now the Times' executive editor -- wrote: "Kenneth Pollack, the Clinton National Security Council [NSC] expert whose argument for invading Iraq is surely the most influential book of this season, has provided intellectual cover for every liberal who finds himself inclining toward war but uneasy about Mr. Bush." Random House's online description of the book states: "Examining all sides of the debate and bringing a keen eye to the military and geopolitical forces at work, Pollack ultimately comes to this controversial conclusion: through our own mistakes, the perfidy of others, and Saddam's cunning, the United States is left with few good policy options regarding Iraq. Increasingly, the option that makes the most sense is for the United States to launch a full-scale invasion, eradicate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and rebuild Iraq as a prosperous and stable society -- for the good of the United States, the Iraqi people, and the entire region."
O'Hanlon similarly argued in support of the invasion. For instance, in a February 5, 2003, Washington Times op-ed, O'Hanlon wrote: "Even those of us who have questioned the case for war over the last year, and who do not buy all of the Bush administration's arguments for invasion even today, need to face the fact that there soon will be no other plausible option." Continuing, O'Hanlon laid out the rationale for invading Iraq and warned that "the time for patience" with Saddam Hussein "is running out":[/quote]
|Author:||Catherine [ Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:30 am ]|
[url=http://www.rawstory.com/comments/36181.html]Iraqi officials: Bombings killed at least 500
The death toll in the suicide bombings Tuesday in northern Iraq has risen to at least 500, local officials in Nineveh province said Wednesday. Iraqi Army and Mosul police sources earlier put the number at 260, but said it was likely to rise. 320 were reported wounded.rnrnThe Tuesday truck bombs that targeted the villages of Qahtaniya, al-Jazeera and Tal Uzair, in northern Iraq near the border with Syria, were a "trademark al Qaeda event" designed to sway U.S. public opinion against the war, a U.S. general said Wednesday.
Be sure to read the comments at the link. Here are a few examples:
The General is an ignorant. The vast majority of the public never supported this undeclared police action. Get your shit straight moranic General, wars are declared, that makes you a traitor.
August 15th, 2007 at 18:57:36 From: WTF
An anon General, Hmmmmmmm sounds like more of the same propaganda to me. I'm sure Fox news and now ABC will be reporting on this every 3 minutes. What's up with Brit and K-fed?
August 15th, 2007 at 18:57:39 From: Phoenix Rising
Question: What do you call a series of "trademark al Qaeda events designed to sway U.S. public opinion against the war?" Answer: a war.
August 15th, 2007 at 19:04:51 From: justice for all
Right. We're already against the freakin'war.
August 15th, 2007 at 19:12:35 From: ADA
Wow. Since the entire Yazidis population is numbered in the tens of thousands, this is a huge blow to an entire culture.
August 15th, 2007 at 19:30:29 From: SSD
The Yazidi population is 500,000+ worlwide, not "tens of thousands". And not all of the people who died are Yazidis. 500 is highly unlikely to be the number of deaths. 200 the most.
August 15th, 2007 at 19:34:26 From: John Conley
There is no 'swaying Americans' against the war." We're already there!
August 15th, 2007 at 19:36:50 From: Bobo the Clown
Talk about an understatement
That's stupid on so many levels! To SWAY us against the war... HELLLOOOOO! We were screaming before the U.S. ever invaded NOT to go to war. The majority of the U.S. didn't want it then and now even MORE don't want it. This bullshit propaganda needs to stop and we need to make our leaders PAY for this shit. Enough already!!!
August 15th, 2007 at 19:38:08 From: Terrible
|Author:||sadie53 [ Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:15 pm ]|
Baghdad Runs Short of Water
For the past 24 hours, Baghdad has had virtually no running water. (This article was published on August 9, 2007.) Major parts of the city of six million people have lacked running water for six days, while daily high temperatures have ranged from 115 to 120 degrees. The tiny amount of water dripping through the pipes is causing many of those who must drink it to suffer acute intestinal illness.
According to reports, not enough electricity is available to run Baghdad's water pumps. This in a country with vast energy resources. . .
|Author:||Catherine [ Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:29 am ]|
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?_r=1&oref=slogin]The War as We Saw It
Seven US soldiers write op-ed pieces about their experiences in Iraq. These reports certainly don't sound like all those rosy stories that Bush and his generals have been putting out about the "successes" in that war-torn country:
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.
|Author:||dori [ Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:43 am ]|
Active-Duty US Troops Become Outspoken Critics of Iraq War
By Brad Knickerbocker
The Christian Science Monitor
Wednesday 29 August 2007
A recent op-ed about the war in Iraq charged that upbeat official reports amount to "misleading rhetoric." It said the "most important front in the counterinsurgency [had] failed most miserably." And it warned against pursuing "incompatible policies to absurd ends."
Five years into a controversial war, that harsh judgment in a New York Times opinion piece might not seem surprising, except for this: The authors were seven US soldiers, writing from Iraq at the end of a tough 15-month combat tour.
In books and professional journals, blogs, and newspapers, active-duty military personnel are speaking publicly and critically as never before about an ongoing war.
Respectfully, but with a directness and gritty authenticity that comes from combat experience – sometimes written from the battlefield – they offer a view of current strategy, military leadership, and the situation on the ground that is more stark than Pentagon and White House pronouncements.
Another take on Catherine's New York Times piece.
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]|
|Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group