The "truth" about the situation in Iraq?

it shocks me so much everytime i hear someone spew the 'left wing media bias' argument.

left wing sentiments don't make for profits. there is no left wing media bias, there is a right wing media bias. it's SOOO bloody apparent in fox..in cnn its shocking...in msnbc it hurts. the only left wing media bias that exists is in the daily show, and we ALL know your suppose to take it with a grain of salt.

 

Yes, I am aware that there are Americans outside the U.S. You and I have had very little previous contact. Thank you for informing me that you are an ex-pat. Forgive me, I must have left my psychic powers at home...

Surely I wouldn't suggest that you share confidential documents online. I just wanted something more substantial than something published in USA Today, for which I thank you. By the way, I sense a lot of hostility in your post. Would you mind telling me why you are so offended? I know I thought you were a foreigner, but certainly you're more gracious than to get so upset over a mistake?

All of our administrations have lied to us, Clinton's being no exception. But I do not believe that all of the progress reported are lies. Refer to the article already posted, OrwellianTimes.com article, that writer wasn't looking to back up the administration, that writer was investigating to find out whether any of it was true, as from the tone of the article, the person had their doubts.

And I think it's already been said that if you are a liberal, you're going to think the news is conservative, and if you're conservative, you're going to think it's all liberal. But let me explain why I'm so picky... I'm actually middle of the road, because while I'm not a liberal, BELIEVE ME, the conservatives would never have me...

And another reminder. It's all opinion here, folks. Try not to take things so offensively, this is a discussion... Remember, the war is over THERE, people.

 

I do apologise for having responded so angrily. It stems from repeated snide remarks about being outside the country as if that somehow lessnes my take on US policy (which for the record I have never seen more clearly than I have since venturing out to see the effects of our foreign policies in various quarters of the globe).

As for the media, Im afraid that the slant of US domestic media is not merely some preferential issue of ideology but a very real and very empirically demonstrated truth based on long term review of the comparative choice of pundits interviewed (by far the mainstream media relies more heavily on right wing "experts" to define US policy to the viewing public), the more often than not unconfirmed and uninvestigated claims of "officials" aimed at decontextualisation our foreign policies on any given issue from their historic context (which would show a consistently corporate led hegemonic agenda), and of course the predominance of right wing editorial license taken by even those supposed bastions of "liberal" press (The NY Times and The Washington Post).

The fact is, when all print and broadcast media is rapidly becoming the exclusive property of of but a handful of monolithic corporations (Murdoch Inc., Clearchannel, etc.) and with clear and dcoumented ties to the MIC (GE, one of our largest military contractors, being one such owner of both print and broadcast media), to suggest that the prevailing ethos is liberal is fraudulent to the extreme.

In a free and open society such as our leaders routinely herald us to be, the media (being the 4th estate and as such the public's window into the decisionmaking process and our essential tool for ensuring thorough public accountability) SHOULD be liberal, meaning decidely focussed on the public interest over the interests of big money. That is not the case with the central obligation of our media to secure advertising revenues.

 

I heartfully apologize that you felt I was being snide... As I thought you were a foreigner, it was truly a thing of horror to think that you would cite USA Today, as we both agree it's reputation is less than desireable.

And it is a matter of opinion, I'm sorry. It really does depend on which side of the political ideology line you stand. A media that is in constant battle to further destroy the reputation of a conservative, Republican president and discredit any positive information regarding his efforts certainly cannot be conservative. But of course, as you already pointed out, I could be wrong.

Again, I'm not saying Bush is a great president. I'm saying he isn't the monster that he is made into... He is merely a man, and he makes mistakes. Look at Reagan, he made mistakes regarding Iran-Contra, and this country holds him in high esteem (R.I.P.) Certainly Bush is no Reagan, but he is no Hussein either, which is how people would protray him.

Mass media is a business, sir, as any other. It is deeply concerned with profits. As you speak with knowledge because of your chosen profession, I am speaking from my knowledge of mine. No one wants to read about how there is some progress is being made, so therefore you will not see it printed. It almost supports your idea that the media is conservative, because it is a business concerned with the money, not the values the people hold. If anything, they exploit the values of the people to make a dollar by confirming what they wish to hear using half truths they find and presenting as full fact. But that's what my experience with our media tells me. I certainly didn't mean to offend you, but I think I will have to agree to disagree with you... Even though I have suggested things that are "fraudulent to the extreme" in your opinion, I hope you can understand that my opinion is all in context with my political views and education. And you can say that I have been poorly educated, since I see that coming next... *grin* Don't tell my father he wasted all that money!!! LOL!

 

I don't think anyone would argue that Bush is any sort of "eveil mastermind" because I don't think the man even ties his own shoes in the morning.

I do think he is a pawn for corporate agenda, and corporate agenda doesn't really care much for the common man. It cares for the "haves and the have-more's" if i may quote the president myself.

 

<<Julie is rolling on the floor, laughing>>

*grin* You're probably right. Which is why all claims of him orchestrating some kind of mass deception is hilarious. He's already made out to be enough of a dolt, and he's an easy target for mudslinging. Thank you for proving my point... No one could believe that anything decent could come from this because everyone knows Bush isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the drawer. But there are other people involved, i.e. our armed forces, who have done a superb job, considering their circumstances. As a matter of fact, we've transfered sovereignty to Iraq 2 days early. I guess all we can do is see how it goes from here.... Keep your fingers crossed... (hopefully we won't be made to look like bigger a**holes than we are )

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_SOVEREIGNTY?SITE=TNMEM&SECTION=HOME

 

I would not say you were poorly educated. I would say you simply buy into the status quo, which has become such an ingrained perception in our national cultural ethos that it has become a filter screening out any objective analysis.

This is why I am a strong advocate for compulsary foreign education transfers for all American youth for 1-2 years so that, by stepping outside of the US cultural milieu, one might gain real exposure to a host of global perceptions concerning both US and other nation's policies and cultures.

Im sorry you are so adamant in refusing to examine the wealth of available analysis on US corporate controlled media and its objectively documented predilection toward right wing bias.

Now you present Bush as a victim of media attack, when in fact I would challenge you to go back and conduct a survey of the predominant uncritical acceptance of Bush admin policies up to the present fiascos which have finally woken the media to begin questioning. In truth our domestic media has not lived up to any semblence of true liberalism else it would have been questioning the repeatedly exposed lies and the inconsistencies in the "official" explanations of policies and events from the start.

Even 9/11 was simply reported, without any real investigative journalistic effort being made by any major media or press agency, according to the "official" administration claims despite the fact that many in the progressive liberal camp have spent the past 3 years collating and examining the glaring discrepencies in that version of events through independent media channels (thank heavens for an as yet uncontrolled internet).

You seem to believe that criminal abuses of power (as indicated by your use of the term "mistakes"), of which Iran-Contra clearly was an example as is the stonewalling of investigations into corporate fraud of companies such as Enron and the subsequent revealtions of Ken Lay's personal involvement in the drafting of Cheney's national energy policy (when he should be in prison along with others who were rounded up in a token show of administration effort) along with the coverup of the anthrax mailer case which Ashcroft duly swept under the carpet, etc...(the list goes on) are merely "mistakes". I suggest that you need learn to differentiate between "mistakes" and betrayal of the oath of office and the American public which any legitimate press and media should have pursued from the outset. Iran Contra was a planned closed door conspiracy to circumvent Congressional authority as has been the consistent demeanor of this administration comprised of many members of that original cabal.

Certainly your supposed "liberal" media aligned itself unceasingly with the right wing hawks in Congress throughout the entirety of Clinton's second term over something as irrelevant to the execution of the duties of the President as a blow job (whilst far more pressing social and foreign policy issues were given low priority).

In the end we can go round in cricles if you do not care to undertake any personal research into the demonstrable facts of the matter, but it will get us nowhere. Perhaps some time abroad might help you, as it has me, to become resensitized to the extreme level of misinformation clouding the US public debate.

The media however, is merely undertaking late what it should have been addressing all along, namely the accountability of an administration which has used every mechanism possible to avoid public scrutiny and deaden public discourse concerning its ongoing demogoguery.

 

I agree...while I think that Bush is a dolt, he is the president of the united states, and him and his administration hold a lot of accountability here. They can't keep ducking it, and they need to stop acting like corporate businessmen and start acting like they are representing the will of the people of the united states.

 

But America is a country that heavily relies on our corporate success, which requires it to be run as a business, in a sense, not merely on the whims of the people. The presidency doesn't have all of the power, our ancestors made sure of that by incorporating a system of checks and balances with judicial and congressional branches to make sure none had any sort of power over the other, but rather shared power. So your blame is centered on one individual branch... rather than sharing the blame.

LickHERish, that's all well and good that you've given your references and I thank you for that, but if I do not trust your sources, then... then what? It's like I said, I disagree with you, and you're telling me I don't have a right to do that after I read your info. I've read it. I don't trust it. I disagree. My apologies. No reason to be so offended, or assume I didn't read the information you provided. It also isn't a reason to be condecending either, though I assure you, I am not offended in the least. Actually, quite the opposite... LOL! I've said all I can say, I've presented my opinion, that it's illogical to believe that our presence in Iraq has not been at all beneficial to the Iraqis, and it's ridiculous to place all the blame on Bush for this fiasco. Ding, ding, you guys... I'm done! I've exhausted all I want to say on the subject, as it is a moot point, because Iraq's interim gov't is in control now.

 

Well, my biggest complaint is with the Bush Administration as a whole.

Although Bush isn't much of a businessman even...his businesses were never successful. The only thing keeping his businesses afloat was Saudi money (for political influence).

 

Iraq's council of handpicked cohorts of the administration is far from "in control". Once again this is prime example of the sort of misinformation ethos which citizens back home so readily accept so long as its blazoned across the front page of the NY Times (or every other paper which reprints it unqeustioningly from the daily feeds from the NY Times).

There has been a transfer of documents but no legitimate power and even if there were this council has no political legitimacy amongst indigenous Iraqis (being comprised of exiles whose families departed in the 1950's when the monarchy was overthrown and who have lived in comfort and luxury whilst their countrymen suffered war and US maintained sanctions) and thus would of course be dependent upon the continued occupation of the country by US forces to prop it up against attempts by the majority to reattain self determination.

Wake up to reality, Washington fought this war (pretexts aside) for 2 fundamental interests: 1. The strategic redeployment of US forces from Suadi Arabia to permanent bases in Iraq and 2. Control over the production and distribution of the second largest oil reserve in the world in order to blackmail Suadi Arabia into maintaining its subservience to US corporate hegemony in the energy sector.

Allowing any real democracy would likely result in the majority will favouring some form of theocracy and that is precisely why despite his promises of support, Bush Sr. abandoned the Shia uprising in 1993 to be brutally quashed by Saddam.

As for your seeming adherence to the US as a corporate society, I suggest you go back and examine the nature of our society as enshrined in our Consititution and Bill of Rights. Our founding fathers sought a Civic Society not one that is Corporately owned and driven.

The view that our nation is one big corporation stems from the bogus and too long accepted notion of "corporate personhood". Overturn that notion and the rights by reason of which big money interests have accorded unto themselves and we might have a chance at restoring our nation to the civic society it was designed to be.

 

Claiming to speak on behalf of indigenous Iraqis and providing the usual misinformation? Yep, another typical LickHERish post.

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1249107,00.html plus other additions:


The prime minister, Ayad Allawi, is a Shia Muslim with military and CIA connections. His power base, the Iraqi National Accord - largely comprising former members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party and ex-military men - stresses secularism and counts Sunni and Shia Muslims among its members. A neurologist born in 1945, he obtained a master of science in medicine and a doctorate in medicine from London University.

The foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, is a 51-year-old who has travelled the globe to canvass support for what he describes as a new, united and democratic Iraq. Iraq's first Kurdish foreign minister, he was a guerrilla fighter during Kurdish rebellions against Saddam Hussein. Served as Foreign Minister with the Kurdistan Democratic Party.

The minister of defence, Hazem Shaalan, was born in Diwaniya in 1947. Sheikh of the Ghazal tribe, he earned a degree in economics and management from Baghdad University in 1972, and began his career by managing the Kut and Diwaniya branches of the Iraqi Real Estate bank. He served as inspector general of the main branch in Baghdad between 1983 and 1985, but was forced to leave the country in 1985 because of his opposition to Saddam Hussein's regime. During his exile, he managed a real estate firm in the UK. Since April 2003, he has been the governor of Diwaniya.

The oil minister, Thamir Abbas Ghadban, was born in Babylon in 1945. He earned a degree in geology from University College, in London, and a masters in petroleum reservoir engineering from Imperial College. He was detained, and demoted from his position in the former regime's oil ministry, for supporting democratic reforms.

The interior minister, Falah Hassan al-Nakib, is a 48-year-old US-trained civil engineer and provincial official in Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's home region. His father was the former deputy chief of staff under Saddam before defecting in the late 70s and joining the exiled opposition.

The justice minister, Malik Dohan al-Hassan, was born in Hilla in 1920. He was elected president of Iraq's Lawyers' Union after Saddam's fall, and lodged early protests about both the conditions under which the US-led occupation administration was holding prisoners and the prisoners' lack of legal defence. He had been a political prisoner under Saddam, and was culture minister in the mid-60s.

==================

So apparently being a Kurdish rebel, being exiled by Saddam or being thrown in prison are not quite good enough to get "legitimacy" with LickHERish. Too bad for them I guess.

 

Thanks, Pointbreak, I needed some assistance...
Somehow telling someone they are full of it is beyond what my ettiquite will allow, no matter how richly they deserve it. All LickHERish keeps saying is that we are all victims of the administrations deception, and I keep saying that I don't disagree with the idea that we have been deceived, but to what level is the rest of the world deceiving us regarding our successes? And I alluded to the fact that he can't speak on behalf of indigenous peoples, regardless of what his invisible "sources" may say (My God! Are they the same "sources" Bush is using? Looks like it, because they can't be found, that's for sure... LOL!)

And it is too bad about that gentleman who is now the prime minister... How much more should he have suffered to gain enough "legitimacy" to suffice? Thank God people like LickHERish don't count when it comes to the bottom line... Sorry, LickHERish, like I said, it's an opinion... if you can't respect my right to feel the way I do, well... Not that I can do anything, but it's not like you're gonna have me crying in my pillow because you don't agree, and you think I'm full of it... I could care less. It's an OPINION, for Christ's Sake, just like yours is an OPINION. It is NOT fact.

 

If you somehow disagree with Lickerish, (even though I don't even like Bush) he will accuse you of "buying in to the status quo" or being "decieved" by the Bush White House. But of course, since his opinion is different, he apparently does not "buy" into anyone or anything. Right. I don't think she buys into anything but her own mind, Lick, like almost everyone else on here. It's like gothic people shopping at Hot Topic (It's a music/goth store) to be different, but yet everyone like them shops there, it then becomes it's own trend, just like every other store.

 

Who likes redneck cowboys with a thirst for war? *grin* I never said I *LIKED* him either, which is what some people are not getting. I'm saying that he's an ignoramus that is extremely human with a lot of flaws, and he doesn't deserve to be president, BUT... he's not a monster. It's almost like hating a retard... there's more than just him involved in this whole scheme. DISTRIBUTE THE BLAME EQUALLY AMONG THE BRANCHES OF THE GOV'T.

<<Julie is rolling on the floor, laughing>>
I thought I was the only one who found that funny... *grin*

 

Completley 100% agree with everything you just said, we should talk more often

BTW I live in VA, not too far from you. :X