Guest guest Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 " Zepp " <zepp Fri, 17 Mar 2006 06:31:18 -0800 [Zepps_News] " The Final Word Is Hooray! " [Zeppnote: It was, complied by FAIR. Here is the original article, with link] http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2842 " The Final Word Is Hooray! " Remembering the Iraq War's Pollyanna pundits 3/15/06 Weeks after the invasion of Iraq began, Fox News Channel host Brit Hume delivered a scathing speech critiquing the media's supposedly pessimistic assessment of the Iraq War. " The majority of the American media who were in a position to comment upon the progress of the war in the early going, and even after that, got it wrong, " Hume complained in the April 2003 speech (Richmond Times Dispatch, 4/25/04). " They didn't get it just a little wrong. They got it completely wrong. " Hume was perhaps correct--but almost entirely in the opposite sense. Days or weeks into the war, commentators and reporters made premature declarations of victory, offered predictions about lasting political effects and called on the critics of the war to apologize. Three years later, the Iraq War grinds on at the cost of at least tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Around the same time as Hume's speech, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas declared (4/16/03): " All of the printed and voiced prophecies should be saved in an archive. When these false prophets again appear, they can be reminded of the error of their previous ways and at least be offered an opportunity to recant and repent. Otherwise, they will return to us in another situation where their expertise will be acknowledged, or taken for granted, but their credibility will be lacking. " Gathered here are some of the most notable media comments from the early days of the Iraq War. Declaring Victory " Iraq Is All but Won; Now What? " (Los Angeles Times headline, 4/10/03) " Now that the combat phase of the war in Iraq is officially over, what begins is a debate throughout the entire U.S. government over America's unrivaled power and how best to use it. " (CBS reporter Joie Chen, 5/4/03) " Congress returns to Washington this week to a world very different from the one members left two weeks ago. The war in Iraq is essentially over and domestic issues are regaining attention. " (NPR's Bob Edwards, 4/28/03) " Tommy Franks and the coalition forces have demonstrated the old axiom that boldness on the battlefield produces swift and relatively bloodless victory. The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly shattered skeptics' complaints. " (Fox News Channel's Tony Snow, 4/27/03) " The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals, and a few people here in Washington. " (Charles Krauthammer, Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 4/19/03) " We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the country and brought the military back. " (Newsweek's Howard Fineman--MSNBC, 5/7/03) " We're all neo-cons now. " (MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03) " The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war. " (Fox News Channel's Fred Barnes, 4/10/03) " Oh, it was breathtaking. I mean I was almost starting to think that we had become inured to everything that we'd seen of this war over the past three weeks; all this sort of saturation. And finally, when we saw that it was such a just true, genuine _expression. It was reminiscent, I think, of the fall of the Berlin Wall. And just sort of that pure emotional _expression, not choreographed, not stage-managed, the way so many things these days seem to be. Really breathtaking. " (Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly, appearing on Fox News Channel on 4/9/03, discussing the pulling down of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad, an event later revealed to have been a U.S. military PSYOPS operation--Los Angeles Times, 7/3/04) Mission Accomplished? " The war winds down, politics heats up.... Picture perfect. Part Spider-Man, part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. The president seizes the moment on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific. " (PBS's Gwen Ifill, 5/2/03, on George W. Bush's " Mission Accomplished " speech) " We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits. " (MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 5/1/03) " He looked like an alternatively commander in chief, rock star, movie star, and one of the guys. " (CNN's Lou Dobbs, on Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech, 5/1/03) Neutralizing the Opposition " Why don't the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today. " (MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03) " What's he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went too well and it's over? I mean, don't these things sort of lose their--Isn't there a fresh date on some of these debate points? " (MSNBC's Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean--4/9/03) " If image is everything, how can the Democratic presidential hopefuls compete with a president fresh from a war victory? " (CNN's Judy Woodruff, 5/5/03) " It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context..... And the silence, I think, is that it's clear that nobody can do anything about it. There isn't anybody who can stop him. The Democrats can't oppose--cannot oppose him politically. " (Washington Post reporter Jeff Birnbaum-- Fox News Channel, 5/2/03) Nagging the " Naysayers " " Now that the war in Iraq is all but over, should the people in Hollywood who opposed the president admit they were wrong? " (Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes, 4/25/03) " I doubt that the journalists at the New York Times and NPR or at ABC or at CNN are going to ever admit just how wrong their negative pronouncements were over the past four weeks. " (MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/9/03) " I'm waiting to hear the words 'I was wrong' from some of the world's most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types.... I just wonder, who's going to be the first elitist to show the character to say: 'Hey, America, guess what? I was wrong'? Maybe the White House will get an apology, first, from the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Now, Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of this war.... " Do you all remember Scott Ritter, you know, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector who played chief stooge for Saddam Hussein? Well, Mr. Ritter actually told a French radio network that -- quote, 'The United States is going to leave Baghdad with its tail between its legs, defeated.' Sorry, Scott. I think you've been chasing the wrong tail, again. " Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing. " (MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/10/03) " Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years. " (Fox News Channel's Dick Morris, 4/9/03) " This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To hope for defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory meant cheering for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at least a statue of him, has made their arguments even harder to defend. Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and for less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might can set the world right. " (New York Times reporter David Carr, 4/16/03) " Well, the hot story of the week is victory.... The Tommy Franks-Don Rumsfeld battle plan, war plan, worked brilliantly, a three-week war with mercifully few American deaths or Iraqi civilian deaths.... There is a lot of work yet to do, but all the naysayers have been humiliated so far.... The final word on this is, hooray. " (Fox News Channel's Morton Kondracke, 4/12/03) " Some journalists, in my judgment, just can't stand success, especially a few liberal columnists and newspapers and a few Arab reporters. " (CNN's Lou Dobbs, 4/14/03) " Sean Penn is at it again. The Hollywood star takes out a full-page ad out in the New York Times bashing George Bush. Apparently he still hasn't figured out we won the war. " (MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 5/30/03) Cakewalk? " This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.... The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling.... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on. " (Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate-- cited in the Observer, 3/30/03) " I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager? " (Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03) " It won't take weeks. You know that, professor. Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will. " (Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03) " There's no way. There's absolutely no way. They may bomb for a matter of weeks, try to soften them up as they did in Afghanistan. But once the United States and Britain unleash, it's maybe hours. They're going to fold like that. " (Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03) " He [saddam Hussein] actually thought that he could stop us and win the debate worldwide. But he didn't--he didn't bargain on a two- or three week war. I actually thought it would be less than two weeks. " (NBC reporter Fred Francis, Chris Matthews Show, 4/13/03) Weapons of Mass Destruction NPR's Mara Liasson: Where there was a debate about whether or not Iraq had these weapons of mass destruction and whether we can find it... Brit Hume: No, there wasn't. Nobody seriously argued that he didn't have them beforehand. Nobody. (Fox News Channel, April 6, 2003) " Speaking to the U.N. Security Council last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell made so strong a case that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is in material breach of U.N. resolutions that only the duped, the dumb and the desperate could ignore it. " (Cal Thomas, syndicated column, 2/12/03) " Saddam could decide to take Baghdad with him. One Arab intelligence officer interviewed by Newsweek spoke of 'the green mushroom' over Baghdad--the modern-day caliph bidding a grotesque bio-chem farewell to the land of the living alongside thousands of his subjects as well as his enemies. Saddam wants to be remembered. He has the means and the demonic imagination. It is up to U.S. armed forces to stop him before he can achieve notoriety for all time. " (Newsweek, 3/17/03) " Chris, more than anything else, real vindication for the administration. One, credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Two, you know what? There were a lot of terrorists here, really bad guys. I saw them. " (MSNBC reporter Bob Arnot, 4/9/03) " Even in the flush of triumph, doubts will be raised. Where are the supplies of germs and poison gas and plans for nukes to justify pre-emption? (Freed scientists will lead us to caches no inspectors could find.) What about remaining danger from Baathist torturers and war criminals forming pockets of resistance and plotting vengeance? (Their death wish is our command.) " (New York Times' William Safire, 4/10/03) -- " Zepp " <zepp Fri, 17 Mar 2006 06:24:50 -0800 [Zepps_News] Bush Administration Renews " Preemptive War " Strategy http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/nsec-m17.shtml Bush administration renews “preemptive war” strategy By David North 17 March 2006 *Use this version to print* <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/nsec-m17_prn.shtml>* | Send this link by email <http://www.wsws.org/cgi-bin/birdcast.cgi> | Email the author <https://www.wsws.org/phpform/use/comments/form1.html>* The National Security Strategy document released Thursday by the White House reaffirms the prerogative of the United States to take “preemptive” actions to counter possible threats from alleged enemies. When it was first unveiled in September 2002, the Bush administration’s doctrine of “preemptive war” was generally seen as an attempt to justify the impending invasion of Iraq—a country that posed absolutely no real or foreseeable, let alone imminent, threat to the United States. The doctrine was widely condemned outside the United States as advancing a policy for which there exists no foundation in international law. In issuing this updated version of the National Security Strategy, the Bush administration has made it clear that there will be no retreat from the doctrine of preemptive war; the United States reserves to itself the right to attack, at any time, any country that it considers a threat, or merely a potential threat, even if that country has not taken any overt hostile action. Invoking “long-standing principles of self-defense,” the Bush administration declares that the United States does not “rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.” The document states: “To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense.” The Bush administration never addresses the fundamental legal contradiction in its doctrine: how can the United States invoke self-defense as grounds for a military strike against another country in the absence of not only an overtly hostile act, but even of clear evidence that an attack against the United States is imminent or, at a minimum, actually being planned. As always, the White House raises the specter of weapons of mass destruction to justify preemptive war. “When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. This is the principle and logic of preemption. The place of preemption in our national security strategy remains the same.” Four years ago, this doctrine was unveiled to target Iraq. Now, the most likely target of a preemptive attack is Iran, which, according to the document, confronts the United States with its greatest challenge. The Bush administration repeats its claim that Iran is concealing its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. However, it goes on to state that “the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran” that go beyond “these nuclear issues.” The Bush administration repeats its familiar litany of complaints: “The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel, seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq: and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom.” The document continues: “The nuclear issue and our other concerns can ultimately be resolved only if the Iranian regime makes the strategic decision to change these policies, open up its political system, and afford freedom to its people. This is the ultimate goal of US policy.” In other words, the so-called Iranian nuclear threat is a mere pretext: the real issue is that the existing Iranian government is in the way of American global strategic interests. What the Bush administration wants is not a cessation of nuclear development, but a “regime change” in Tehran that would reestablish the pre-revolution status quo, i.e., the existence of a puppet government that would restore Iran to the US-client state status that existed prior to the overthrow of the Shah Reza Pahlavi. Behind all the rhetoric of freedom and democracy, the document makes clear that the strategic goal of the United States is hegemony and domination. The Bush administration takes it as a matter of course that the world must be rearranged in a manner that suits the United States. Every other country and region must simply fall in line. The Latin American people are warned that they must reject the “deceptive appeal of anti-free market populism” with which the regime of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is identified. Russia is warned that it should not attempt to take advantage of its “geography and power” to undercut American influence in regions “of vital importance to us: the broader Middle East, South and Central Asia, and East Asia.” In another passage, the document proclaims that “Africa holds growing geo-strategic importance and is a high priority of this administration.” And, finally, the White House declares that “China’s leaders must realize” that they cannot hold on “to old ways of thinking” if it wishes to avoid a collision with the United States. The establishment of American hegemony is identified with the unfettered triumph of the capitalist market economy, which the document describes as “the single most effective economic system and the greatest antidote to poverty.” This is written at a time when the global rates of mass poverty, the direct result of the subordination of the world’s population to the profit imperatives of the capitalist market, stand at unprecedented levels. There is an element of madness in the document released by the White House. Its collection of lies and logical non-sequiturs is employed in the service of a world-view that is as paranoid as it is reactionary. President Bush opens this document with an introduction that proclaims that “America is at war.” He fails to mention, however, that the war that he is waging was never declared; that the congressional resolution which his administration invokes as justification for its military operations was procured on the basis of fraud and deceit. Bush goes on to state that the strategy unveiled in the document “reflects our most solemn obligation: to protect the security of the American people.” That, as a matter of law, is false; the presidential oath of office requires that he “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This is not a small error. Any military or fascist dictator would agree, without hesitation, that his “most solemn obligation” is to protect the people’s “security”-preferably without the intrusion of legal restraints. See Also: US drumbeat against Iran threatens new war of aggression <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/iran-m11.shtml> [11 March 2006] US ambassador to UN warns of “painful consequences” for Iran <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/iran-m08.shtml> [8 March 2006] Pentagon prepares for military strikes against Iran <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/iran-f14.shtml> [14 February 2006] " Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so " -George W. Bush, April 20, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.