Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Viral Video on Iraq war and need for indy media (3:33 pm)
I received this link to a great 2-3 minute video called “Catapult.” It focuses on the “questionable ‘marketing’ of the War in Iraq, and the mainstream media’s failure to expose the false claims that led America to war.” It also lists important indy media and media reform sites to visit and support (including In These Times). Check it out and spread it around.
posted by Tracy Van Slyke
Reader Comments
Wolf says : “The mainstream media, along with the Democrats, the Europeans (including the French), the CIA and everyone else believed that Iraq had WMD. It was a known ?fact?”
Sounds like wet dreams for warmongers all around, eh Wolf??
posted by David in Canada on 11-18-05 at 1:33 AM
David - if you say so. Of course, it was all brought on by the numero uno warmonger, Saddam (who was, apparently, the only one that *knew* Iraq did not possess WMD - ironic, huh?).
Anyway, we had a choice to make. Let Iraq continue to suffer under sanctions, free them of sanctions and let Saddam begin anew his weapons programs (well, unless Saddam decided to become a peaceful guy) or invade. Three bad choices. Anyone got a better one, even with the help of hindsight (plus with hindsight we now know that the food for oil program was quite corrupt)?
posted by wolf on 11-18-05 at 10:29 AM
Well wolfie, when confronted with nothing but bad choices Lao-tsu had a novel solution. It works only if you keep your wits about you, though. Yours seem to have run off somewhere.
posted by luminous beauty on 11-19-05 at 11:15 AM
luminous beauty - perhaps you would care to enlighten someone such as myself with the widson that might have been able to help the Iraqis, before the war. Pray tell, if you were in command, what would you have done?
posted by wolf on 11-21-05 at 11:26 AM
Command of what, pray tell? Food and medicine would have helped a lot of Iraqis. Western education opportunities as well. The economic sanctions made matters worse for the Iraqi people and served to reinforce Hussein’s political hold over them. Just not making things worse than they are means that when the way things are changes, as it always does, things have a chance of getting better. Sabre-rattling and demonizing of foreign leaders just gives them justification for their internal oppression.
posted by luminous beauty on 11-21-05 at 12:28 PM
lb - in command of the US, of course. So are you saying we (US/UN) should have just dropped sanctions and stopped demonizing Saddam? Or are you thinking something more limited, like along the the same lines as the Food for Oil program? Sorry to be slow, but perhaps you can elaborate?
posted by wolf on 11-21-05 at 1:47 PM
Well wolfie my friend, the game of would coulda shoulda is fun around the old parlor for fat and satisfied middle class American’s sitting in our safe and comfortable homes and offices, but it doesn’t get anyone fed or stop an ounce of ordinance from spinning through the air or explosively combusting in the confines of an automobile in Iraq . What is necessary is recognizing past mistakes, errors in judgment, and even possible ethical and moral lapses on our side as well as our foes. If one wishes to be thorough in this effort, one need be mindful of the whole of our history in the region.
In any conflict, as long as either side is unwilling to accept any responsibility for the situation and insists on blaming and accusing the other side for every wrong, then the prospect for reconciliation is moot. It is only the stronger of the two parties which can reasonably initiate recognition of error, remorse and apology and create the possibility of beginning a dialogue of mutually beneficial relations.
We have no business occupying Irag and the Iraqis really don’t want us there. If we just bugged out, there would be hell to pay. If we stopped the corrupt corporate mercenary reconstruction fraud and paid the Iraqi people to rebuild their own country as they are damned well able; if we stop bombing and strafing Iraqi towns villages and neighborhoods, killing always more innocents than insurgents; end breaking into ordinary Iraqi’s homes in the middle of the night and throwing tens of thousands of people into detention centers where only God knows what kind of abuses are still ongoing; and offer to negotiate our immediate peaceful withdrawal from Iraq with all parties, who knows what might happen. It might be that after twenty-five years of death and destruction from all sides the Iraqi people left to their own might possibly decide to live peaceably among themselves.
As long as we think we have the right to force them to submit to our authority there will be rebellion.
posted by luminous beauty on 11-21-05 at 3:26 PM
The mainstream media, along with the Democrats, the Europeans (including the French), the CIA and everyone else believed that Iraq had WMD. It was a known ?fact?, albeit a mistaken one
Don’t forget the Germans.
posted by David in Canada on 11-21-05 at 9:42 PM
Any other facts that need to be set straight Wolf?
Would you care to address more fabricated evidence? Like the Niger Uranium Forgery?
posted by David in Canada on 11-21-05 at 11:35 PM
It would seem that the warmongers took a bunch of campfire stories and used them as a justification for war.
Preemptive Preventive Self Defence ... whatever they are calling it these days.
posted by David in Canada on 11-22-05 at 12:17 AM
i was just reading the 1st part of king henry the VI, & was struck by this passage:
Amongst the soldiers this is muttered,
That here you maintain several factions,
And whilst a field should be dispatched and fought
You are disputing of your generals.
later, it continues…
...no simple man that sees
This jarring discord of nobility,
This shouldering of each other in the court,
This factious bandying of their favorites,
But that it doth presage some ill event.
‘Tis much when sceptres are in children’s hands,
But more when envy breeds unkind division.
There comes the ruin, there begins confusion.
good ol’ bill, what ho?
posted by dAVE on 11-22-05 at 3:09 AM
David - are you really asserting that there was not credible intelligence that WND existed in Iraq?
Here’s a thought experiment: Do you believe in evolution? Is there credible evidence for it? Is there NO evidence against it? What standards should be applied to determine truth from falsehood? If it were to turn out that evolution is not true, are all the people who espouse it liars?
An analogy - was OJ innocent or guilty? Surely one member of the police did plant evidence - but is that enough to prove his innocence? (The answer turned out to be yes, but it took a dumb as dirt jury to decide this.)
From my pov, it was clear that Iraq was not an immediate threat to us (which was the going in position of the administration, if you recall). One of the administration claims was that they could/would become a threat in the near future, which i found to be not believable at the time. However, it was also clear that Santions were doing great harm to the people of Iraq. To me, it seemed something should have been done.
Whether the war was the “right” decision of not, i really don’t know. I don’t even believe such things are knowable. But even now, when looking back on the situation, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, i still don’t know what would have been better. Perhaps just continuing the status quo, with women and children starving, people being shredded by Saddam, etc would have been better (we now know how corrupt the Oil for Food program was, as well)? If nothing else, we would not have lost troops and treasure in Iraq.
I find subjects like this to be too complex to dismiss with “Bush is a liar” or “the democrats are just seeking revenge for the impeachment of Clinton”. It all looks grey to me, with precious little black OR white. . .
posted by wolf on 11-22-05 at 10:10 AM
wolfie, please consider this mere fluff of poesy in the spirit it is written:
NOTHING WAS DELIVERED????? (Bob Dylan)
Nothing was delivered
And I tell this truth to you,
Not out of spite or anger
But simply because it’s true.
Now, I hope you won’t object to this,
Giving back all of what you owe,
The fewer words you have to waste on this,
The sooner you can go.
Nothing is better, nothing is best,
Take heed of this and get plenty of rest.
Nothing was delivered
But I can’t say I sympathize
With what your fate is going to be,
Yes, for telling all those lies.
Now you must provide some answers
For what you sell has not been received,
And the sooner you come up with them,
The sooner you can leave.
Nothing is better, nothing is best,
Take heed of this and get plenty rest.
(Now you know)
Nothing was delivered
And it’s up to you to say
Just what you had in mind
When you made ev’rybody pay.
No, nothing was delivered,
Yes, ‘n’ someone must explain
That as long as it takes to do this
Then that’s how long that you’ll remain.
Nothing is better, nothing is best,
Take care of yourself and get plenty rest
posted by luminous beauty on 11-22-05 at 10:40 AM
O, and wolfie, there is no credible evidence against evolution. Imagining there might be one day does not make it so. The actions of the police (more than just one) did not prove OJ’s innocence, but created reasonable doubt of his guilt.
Even Colin Powell admits he was deceived. When will you?
posted by luminous beauty on 11-22-05 at 11:25 AM
Wolf,
The intelligence community may have believed Saddam had a WMD programs, the whole point of the weapons inspections was to establish whether this was a valid claim. Bush was anxious that such inspections not runtheir course or he would lose one of his central claims in the justification for war. It might be argued that both Bush and Blair exagerated various claims without actual recourse to lying (though where and how you draw the distinction is hard to say)- but the question is why exagerate in the first place ? If your concern is to address the reality of the threat (and remember, this was at the expense of successfully completing operations in Afghanistan), then the proper course would have been to allow the inspectors to complete their assessment and report to the UN.
To accuse Bush of lying, you have to establish that he knew the true nature of Iraq’s weapons program, but told the opposite, both to Congress and the public. Simply becuase he believed his assessment was correct does not make it so. It may be a defense of honest intention, but there has been little honest about any of this build up to war, and the conclusion seems to point more to lying than ‘honest mistake’. The best we can probably do(as none of us are party to the intelligence used) is to weigh things up using ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ as a guide. But conversely, I find plenty of reasonable doubt to suspect he was telling the truth- and that leads to only onr conclusion.
posted by Lyagushka on 11-22-05 at 12:12 PM
Wolf asks : David - are you really asserting that there was not credible intelligence that WND existed in Iraq?
YES - I did not see any credible evidence or intelligence that Iraq still had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
I did see a bunch of warmongers with itchy trigger fingers.
posted by David in Canada on 11-22-05 at 12:38 PM
Wolf says However, it was also clear that Sanctions were doing great harm to the people of Iraq. To me, it seemed something should have been done.
Then end the sanctions. Continue with weapons inspections.
Starting a war and killing some more people is not something that should have been done.
posted by David in Canada on 11-22-05 at 12:45 PM
i used to think the conspiracy was about world domination, ha ha. how childish. why dominate a world that you’re going to quite literally destroy sooner rather than later? the last few years i’ve come to realise it’s all about the MONEY (of course). as long as the assholes who are making their quick billions can keep
making their quick billions, i guess they’re satisfied…i mean, who cares what happens after you’re gone, right? you’ve got to understand that the people who are in charge, really in charge, are nihilists, they believe in NOTHING…going into iraq the way we did (all bungled, w/ no plan is more profitable).
posted by dAVE on 11-22-05 at 3:05 PM
David - thanks for the responses. I appreciate your taking the time to express your thoughts on this, particularly since they differ so much from my own.
Lyagushka - very eloquently put (nice summary statement at the end; i assume you meant: “I find plenty of reasonable doubt to suspect he was NOT(?) telling the truth”)?
dAVE - very cynical. I think/hope you are wrong.
posted by wolf on 11-22-05 at 3:30 PM
...i mean, it just feels like that sometimes…what hurts is that this great country, absolutley the hope of the future, on paper, doesn’t mean quite what it must have seemed to in 1776…the triad of government/corporate inustry/cenral finance is still at their power-jockying outrages, forcing everybody else into increasingly hostile camps (liberal/conservative/cynical) of thought, unable to even see what’s happening, much less affect the outcome…no wonder people don’t vote (altho i still do)...i think the current administration is certainly the least pragmatic, most inept i’ve ever seen (tho i don’t personaly remember carter), but it probably has a lot to do w/ their less government/privatization hokus-pokus…which i could be all for, except the government seems increasingly unable or unwilling to fulfil its sacred mission of protecting people from the (not all, but some) unscrupulous, damn criminal industrialusts…if only there was enough good jobs for everybody, huh? it’s all these little green rectangles, & the godzillions of little zeros on a computer they reperesent…the more money kaliburton loses, the more they make? i wonder if those guys in the private security outfits (blackwater, etc.) will ever lose their pensions? iraq? new orleans? global warming? outsourcing?
free trade? porous borders? ha ha ha ha hahahahahahahaaaaAAA! wow… well, to sum up: jesus said: this too, shall pass….........
posted by dAVE on 11-22-05 at 8:05 PM
And This Too Shall Pass
One day Solomon decided to humble Benaiah ben Yehoyada, his most trusted minister. He said to him, “Benaiah, there is a certain ring that I want you to bring to me. I wish to wear it for Sukkot which gives you six months to find it.”
“If it exists anywhere on earth, your majesty,” replied Benaiah, “I will find it and bring it to you, but what makes the ring so special?”
“It has magic powers,” answered the king. “If a happy man looks at it, he becomes sad, and if a sad man looks at it, he becomes happy.” Solomon knew that no such ring existed in the world, but he wished to give his minister a little taste of humility.
Spring passed and then summer, and still Benaiah had no idea where he could find the ring. On the night before Sukkot, he decided to take a walk in one of he poorest quarters of Jerusalem. He passed by a merchant who had begun to set out the day’s wares on a shabby carpet. “Have you by any chance heard of a magic ring that makes the happy wearer forget his joy and the broken-hearted wearer forget his sorrows?” asked Benaiah.
He watched the grandfather take a plain gold ring from his carpet and engrave something on it. When Benaiah read the words on the ring, his face broke out in a wide smile.
That night the entire city welcomed in the holiday of Sukkot with great festivity. “Well, my friend,” said Solomon, “have you found what I sent you after?” All the ministers laughed and Solomon himself smiled.
To everyone’s surprise, Benaiah held up a small gold ring and declared, “Here it is, your majesty!” As soon as Solomon read the inscription, the smile vanished from his face. The jeweler had written three Hebrew letters on the gold band: _gimel, zayin, yud_, which began the words “_Gam zeh ya’avor_”—“This too shall pass.”
At that moment Solomon realized that all his wisdom and fabulous wealth and tremendous power were but fleeting things, for one day he would be nothing but dust.
posted by David in Canada on 11-22-05 at 8:13 PM
remember bill & ted? “dust….wind….dude”
...socrates looked suitabley impressed…was tyrin to say earlier,1776? hell, i would trade that for 1996 back…& did they finally indict that padilla character? score one for habeus corpus, right on! you, know, nobody was more liberal than the founding fathers, & we’ve all got to righteously conserve what they & so many after them spent lifetimes fighting so hard for…times have just chaged so damn much so damn fast…or rather, the nomenclature has evolved hyper-hegelian neo-orwellian…
random house dictionary defines pork as: appropriations, appointments,etc., made for political reasons. also, pork’barrel
: a government appropriation, bill, or policy that supplies funds for local improvements designed to ingratiate legislators with their constituents. viewed severely, you start to see the big pitfall of representational democracy- it only works if everyone is honest & committed to the common good…at least the g-men got baseball to clean up its act, some tough new rules, yeah, good… pity that’s just a game, meanwhile, in THESE times, bigger, ludicrously powerful companies (private intrests) can buy, quite literally, polititions, (& sell, quite literally, our COUNTRY) & be granted impunity for pollution, price-gouging, & generally pissing on the populace for profit…aside from national security (ha), isn’t that the federal governments whole damn raison d’e tre? in the words of sen. jay bulworth: “you think these pigs are gonna regulate themselves?? of course not, they need to be regulated!” that’s how it’s s’posed to work, right? capitalism & industry keep society moving along, & government keeps the big guys honest & humane & everybody gets two-bits & a new chicken, right? only we don’t even have unions anymore (well, barely), & they’re rewriting the laws…the wobblies are all dead, eugene debbs is spinnin in his grave, an exploding population of americans don’t even get health care, any attempt by the federal government to do anything populist is “creeping socialism” & meanwhile (cue ride of the valkyries) well, inflations got nowhere to go but up…(& yet the philosophy of capitalism seems the economic/social model that could bring out the best in the human spirit…if only enlightened provisions could be made for all the losers…) and then there was iraq…boy, we could sure use a big “win” there…(seriously)
posted by dAVE on 11-23-05 at 12:17 AM
The claim that ‘everyone’ (Europe, Clinton administration, the UN) had reached the same conclusion regarding Iraq and WMD is entirely misleading.
While many thought it likely that Saddam had some weapons capability, or was interested in acquiring them, the Bush administration was virtually alone in thinking that he posed any sort of serious and/or imminent threat.
The Clinton administration did not invade Iraq, and the United Nations was unconvinced by the intelligence analysis provided by the US. France and Germany also believed there was no serious threat from Saddam that needed military action, and they were right.
And, after promising to return to the UN seeking a vote authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush declined to do so, knowing that he had virtually no international support.
The neo-cons in the Bush administration had been very vocal about wanting to invade Iraq for many years prior to Bush’s election. After 9/11 they decided, in the words of Presidential Chief of Staff Andy card, to ‘market’ the ‘product’ of war with Iraq.
The only buyers of this imperialist snake-oil were the American people, the US Congress and the administration of TOny Blair (who may very well be getting impeached over his purchase).
To say that ‘everyone believed Saddam had WMD’ is pointless. As evident by the fact that we are virtually alone in Iraq, most of the world did not believe he posed a threat. They were right, we were wrong. And we are paying a dear price in blood, money, and credibility on the world stage.
David Olson, Producer of ‘Catapult’
speakeasy productions
posted by David Olson on 11-24-05 at 11:14 AM
I wish I had better evidence than ‘intuition’, but it never made sense when the US government justified it’s act of aggression by asserting there were WMD in Iraq ( particularly after the apparent ‘death by suicide’ of that UN inspector… David Kelly…shortly after the start of the war)
Even though the US had armed Saddam Hussein when they were interested in holding off the Iranian hordes in the early 80’s, I never thought they’d let that dog of war too far off the leash. I never believed that WMD come on, and I became afraid of a world where this sort of lie went unconfronted
I wonder if they’re vilifying Hussein now for his heinous behaviour, or for his gall at biting the hand that used to feed him and his people before he decided to invade Kuwait ( Kuwait used to have the highest wage per capita index according to the WHO…I wonder if they still do?...and how we became their mercenary army)
Makes me wonder about that ‘Food for Oil’ program…“black gold, Texas tea..”
It’s disturbing to think that even though we are pounded by ‘news’ everyday, there is little regard for ‘truth’.
Thanks for the link to the Catapult video…it is very excellent propaganda for questioning the illogical main stream story.
It’s time to come out from under the fear blanket and look at the world forces that led to this sort of cluster fuck
posted by minerva on 11-27-05 at 2:01 PM
have ya’ll read worse than watergate on motherjones.com? no new info, really, but a very articulate piece of writing…
“the mainstream media?s failure to expose the false claims that led America to war.?
The mainstream media, along with the Democrats, the Europeans (including the French), the CIA and everyone else believed that Iraq had WMD. It was a known “fact”, albeit a mistaken one (and sorta funny too, when you think about how well Saddam lied and the end results of the lies to him personally). If this is the basis for claiming Bush lied his way into the war, it is a faulty basis.
Surely there must be something more?
posted by wolf on 11-17-05 at 5:54 PM