A Time For A Perfect WAR

Psychoblues

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
2,701
Reaction score
142
Points
48
Location
North Missisippi
"Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber have a new book, which is always a good thing; but this one is especially good. It's called "The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies, and the Mess in Iraq." It's 206 pages and you'll read it in one sitting, because it's more entertaining than the corporate media whose infotainment is the book's focus. While this book is every bit as well researched as Congressman John Conyers' 350-page report "The Constitution in Crisis," it's written as a compelling narrative rather than a list of evidence or a draft indictment. I recommend reading these two works together.

Rampton and Stauber present a case not only that Bush, Cheney, and gang lied us into a war, but that the lies fooled the liars themselves at least as much as anyone else, and that the lies impeded the planning. According to this analysis, the reason the occupation of Iraq was not planned was primarily that the undertaking of such planning, had it become known, would have conflicted with the lies about Americans being welcomed as liberators. The authors also make a case that the viciousness of the Bushies' attacks and retribution against whistleblowers significantly helped to expose the lies the Administration had been telling.

Rampton and Stauber recount the twists and turns in this war's narrative from the point of view of careful consumers of media. Because the media has repeatedly erased old storylines and begun anew, a review of where we've actually been is helpful. One of the first major stops on this chronicle of media wonders is the effusive praise bestowed on Colin Powell's U.N. presentation by the U.S. corporate media. Here was a list of blatant and in some cases quite obvious lies, lies that Powell's own staff had warned him would not even seem plausible. And yet, corporate U.S. media outlets universally decreed that the case for war was made undeniable by this speech. Tellingly, however, U.S. newspapers stated that Powell had told the truth because he couldn't possibly have done otherwise, not because the newspapers had checked out any of the claims.

Rampton and Stauber quote, to refresh our memories, what several newspapers and pundits had to say about Powell's performance, including these gems and others like them:

"It is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction." – The Washington Post

"Powerful and irrefutable." – Democratic Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr.

By irrefutable, Biden may have meant simply that no refutation could be printed in U.S. newspapers, because Powell's lies had been refuted almost as well before he made them as they have since. Powell cited descriptions of weapons by Hussein Kamel without adding that Kamel had said the weapons no longer existed. The CIA and Powell's own staff had refuted many of the claims. Many commentators (generally shunned from the corporate media) maintained that there were no weapons. Over half of the Democrats in Congress voted against the war. No war was needed to determine whether the scary weapons were really there (not that such an investigatory war, or even a war based on real weapons known to exist, would be legal or justifiable).

And, as Rampton and Stauber remind us, Bush and Cheney and their co-conspirators didn't claim to think there might be weapons; they claimed to know it with absolute certainty. They did so repeatedly on our television sets, even if the same television sets now seem to have forgotten that fact.

Moreover, during the early days and weeks of this war, the U.S. media reported numerous possible discoveries of WMD, and reported them as probabilities or near certainties, and reported as an absolute certainty that if this latest find wasn't the big one the big one would come soon. When each new find later turned out to be bogus, that fact did not receive the same intensity of reporting. Thus we ended up with 34 percent of Americans believing WMD had been found, and 22 percent for similar reasons believing WMD had been used by Iraq in the war. (I don't know of any polls reporting what percentage of Americans know that the United States has been using WMD.)

When all the claims fell apart, the Busheviks proposed a new narrative: Saddam Hussein had intentionally fooled them into thinking he had WMD, Saddam Hussein had – as Rampton and Stauber put it -- "suckered the United States into overthrowing his government, killing his sons, and putting him on trial…." The absurdity of this did not stop the corporate U.S. media from reporting it with a straight face. This was one of the whoppers that came and went as the bizarre and incoherent telling of this war wound on and on.

Rampton and Stauber's book focuses in useful detail on three aspects of this sorry saga. First, they examine the role played by Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress (INC). While most nations didn't believe the hype and opposed the war, while the presidents of Russia and France denounced the lies, while U.S. experts outside and within the Bush Administration warned against a fraudulent war, and while no other nation made the same wild claims about vast quantities of WMD with the same certainty that Bush and Cheney did, it is still true that the Bushies were able to point to "intelligence" services in other countries who shared some of their beliefs. However, as Rampton and Stauber point out, these countries were all being fed the same lies by the INC, which was being paid by U.S. taxpayers to spread them.

Second, Rampton and Stauber examine the White House's shifting of arguments for the war to completely new arguments. The authors dissect each new argument one-by-one. Third, they examine the question of counting the dead and the seriously injured and take a look at the near total absence of news reporting on the killing and injuring of Iraqis.

While the authors do not conclude with any recommendations, they do warn against falling for similar lies in a buildup to another war against Iran or another nation. And Rampton has committed to coming to Camp Democracy to speak and sign books at this gathering of activists pressing for change in Washington, D.C., in September. http://www.campdemocracy.org

Other speakers at Camp Democracy will include: Cindy Sheehan, Antonia Juhasz, Gael Murphy, Raed Jarrar, Anne Feeney, Lennox Yearwood, Ann Wright, John Kim, Kevin Fagan, Ryan McAllister, Regina Miranda, Mike Gravel, Elizabeth Holtzman, John Nichols, Marcus Raskin, Elizabeth de la Vega, Michael Avery, Ray McGovern, Dave Lindorff, Barbara Olshansky, Jennifer Van Bergen, Geoff King, David Waldman, Dan DeWalt, Steve Cobble, Anthony Arnove, Howard Zinn, and many others.

Among those invited to speak at Camp Democracy and not yet scheduled is Jeff Cohen, whom I mention because his forthcoming book will make an ideal follow-up to "The Best War Ever." While Rampton and Stauber viewed the media with keen eyes, Cohen was the media. He was a talking head on Fox News, MCNBC, and CNN, and a producer for the Phil Donahue Show when that show was MSNBC's most popular and that network canceled it because Donahue was insufficiently supportive of the coming war. Cohen's forthcoming book, "Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media," reveals in entertaining detail the disturbing fact that television news, hideous as it may be for viewers, is even uglier from the inside."

This is another rendition of WAR IN REALITY. I hope you enjoy, as always, and I hope that you might remark on the substance and stifle your propensities to kill the messenger.


Psychoblues
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Well I can tell from the title that I have no interest in reading the book. I have little time as it is. Why should I read a book abou a fictious mess in Iraq.

Please. Show me this mess. How on earth is anything going on in Iraq a mess? Its one of the most amazing military victories in the history of the world in terms of time/and casualties.

Its amazing how few people can see the end from the beginning and have the vision to understand what we have just done.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
The authors must be French.

They want to fight the terrorists the same way France fights their war

Perhaps Camp Democracy should meet in Paris.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Of course we could let the French talk to the terrorists and reason with them.....
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
32,322
Reaction score
17,210
Points
1,905
Location
Arizona
"Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber have a new book, which is always a good thing; but this one is especially good. It's called "The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies, and the Mess in Iraq." It's 206 pages and you'll read it in one sitting, because it's more entertaining than the corporate media whose infotainment is the book's focus. While this book is every bit as well researched as Congressman John Conyers' 350-page report "The Constitution in Crisis," it's written as a compelling narrative rather than a list of evidence or a draft indictment. I recommend reading these two works together.
Hmmm, sounds like they have absolutely no evidence, otherwise why leave it out? Don't know about you but I like to see actual evidence, rather than someone's opinion of what they think is going on.



Rampton and Stauber present a case not only that Bush, Cheney, and gang lied us into a war, but that the lies fooled the liars themselves at least as much as anyone else, and that the lies impeded the planning. According to this analysis, the reason the occupation of Iraq was not planned was primarily that the undertaking of such planning, had it become known, would have conflicted with the lies about Americans being welcomed as liberators. The authors also make a case that the viciousness of the Bushies' attacks and retribution against whistleblowers significantly helped to expose the lies the Administration had been telling.
Oh no! Bush and Co. LIED! LIES LIES LIES.


Rampton and Stauber recount the twists and turns in this war's narrative from the point of view of careful consumers of media. Because the media has repeatedly erased old storylines and begun anew, a review of where we've actually been is helpful. One of the first major stops on this chronicle of media wonders is the effusive praise bestowed on Colin Powell's U.N. presentation by the U.S. corporate media. Here was a list of blatant and in some cases quite obvious lies, lies that Powell's own staff had warned him would not even seem plausible. And yet, corporate U.S. media outlets universally decreed that the case for war was made undeniable by this speech. Tellingly, however, U.S. newspapers stated that Powell had told the truth because he couldn't possibly have done otherwise, not because the newspapers had checked out any of the claims.
Just how in hell is any newspaper supposed to "check out" any of the claims in a dictator's country. The whole point was no one could check them out to satisfaction.



Rampton and Stauber quote, to refresh our memories, what several newspapers and pundits had to say about Powell's performance, including these gems and others like them:

"It is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction." – The Washington Post

"Powerful and irrefutable." – Democratic Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr.

By irrefutable, Biden may have meant simply that no refutation could be printed in U.S. newspapers, because Powell's lies had been refuted almost as well before he made them as they have since. Powell cited descriptions of weapons by Hussein Kamel without adding that Kamel had said the weapons no longer existed. The CIA and Powell's own staff had refuted many of the claims. Many commentators (generally shunned from the corporate media) maintained that there were no weapons. Over half of the Democrats in Congress voted against the war. No war was needed to determine whether the scary weapons were really there (not that such an investigatory war, or even a war based on real weapons known to exist, would be legal or justifiable).
Same as above, how are newspapers supposed to verify or refute claims of the intell?


And, as Rampton and Stauber remind us, Bush and Cheney and their co-conspirators didn't claim to think there might be weapons; they claimed to know it with absolute certainty. They did so repeatedly on our television sets, even if the same television sets now seem to have forgotten that fact.
To this day, how can anyone claim they did not exist? If they were moved to Syria for example?
Did Rampton and Stauber forget that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds years prior?


Moreover, during the early days and weeks of this war, the U.S. media reported numerous possible discoveries of WMD, and reported them as probabilities or near certainties, and reported as an absolute certainty that if this latest find wasn't the big one the big one would come soon. When each new find later turned out to be bogus, that fact did not receive the same intensity of reporting. Thus we ended up with 34 percent of Americans believing WMD had been found, and 22 percent for similar reasons believing WMD had been used by Iraq in the war. (I don't know of any polls reporting what percentage of Americans know that the United States has been using WMD.)
I remember them reporting possible sites, never once did they say WMDs had been found.



When all the claims fell apart, the Busheviks proposed a new narrative: Saddam Hussein had intentionally fooled them into thinking he had WMD, Saddam Hussein had – as Rampton and Stauber put it -- "suckered the United States into overthrowing his government, killing his sons, and putting him on trial…." The absurdity of this did not stop the corporate U.S. media from reporting it with a straight face. This was one of the whoppers that came and went as the bizarre and incoherent telling of this war wound on and on.
Hey if Saddam didn't want us to think he had WMD, then he should of let the inspectors do their job. Not to mention stop violating the no-fly zone rules. Oh, I'm sure that wasn't mentioned in the book.



Think I'll pass on the book. Feel free to post any actual facts in the book though.
 
OP
P

Psychoblues

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
2,701
Reaction score
142
Points
48
Location
North Missisippi
Read the goddamned book, Hawk. Read and learn. Your bullshit exposes you.


Psychoblues

Hmmm, sounds like they have absolutely no evidence, otherwise why leave it out? Don't know about you but I like to see actual evidence, rather than someone's opinion of what they think is going on.




Oh no! Bush and Co. LIED! LIES LIES LIES.



Just how in hell is any newspaper supposed to "check out" any of the claims in a dictator's country. The whole point was no one could check them out to satisfaction.




Same as above, how are newspapers supposed to verify or refute claims of the intell?



To this day, how can anyone claim they did not exist? If they were moved to Syria for example?
Did Rampton and Stauber forget that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds years prior?



I remember them reporting possible sites, never once did they say WMDs had been found.




Hey if Saddam didn't want us to think he had WMD, then he should of let the inspectors do their job. Not to mention stop violating the no-fly zone rules. Oh, I'm sure that wasn't mentioned in the book.



Think I'll pass on the book. Feel free to post any actual facts in the book though.
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
Hmmm, sounds like they have absolutely no evidence, otherwise why leave it out? Don't know about you but I like to see actual evidence, rather than someone's opinion of what they think is going on.




Oh no! Bush and Co. LIED! LIES LIES LIES.



Just how in hell is any newspaper supposed to "check out" any of the claims in a dictator's country. The whole point was no one could check them out to satisfaction.




Same as above, how are newspapers supposed to verify or refute claims of the intell?



To this day, how can anyone claim they did not exist? If they were moved to Syria for example?
Did Rampton and Stauber forget that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds years prior?



I remember them reporting possible sites, never once did they say WMDs had been found.




Hey if Saddam didn't want us to think he had WMD, then he should of let the inspectors do their job. Not to mention stop violating the no-fly zone rules. Oh, I'm sure that wasn't mentioned in the book.



Think I'll pass on the book. Feel free to post any actual facts in the book though.

:clap:
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
psychoblieu, I would never accuse you of posting anything worth a shit reading.........Oh wait, yes I will.................:tng:





The facts are footnoted, but I would never accuse you of understanding that, Staph.





Psychoblues
 
OP
P

Psychoblues

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
2,701
Reaction score
142
Points
48
Location
North Missisippi
I saved you from that shit eating dog that was heading your way, yet you still in your juvenile way want to antagonize me.

Psychoblues


psychoblieu, I would never accuse you of posting anything worth a shit reading.........Oh wait, yes I will.................:tng:
 
OP
P

Psychoblues

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
2,701
Reaction score
142
Points
48
Location
North Missisippi
Oh, Yes. The WAR ON IRAQ HAS ACCOMPLISHED PLENTY. And not much of it to the benefit of the United States Of America. The Billionaires in the WAR INDUSTRY just love it. From a practical standpoint, common Americans and likeminded seekers of genuine justice think it an abomination.

Psychoblues


So the war in Iraq accomplished nothing?
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Thank God the Kerry Security Service is not in charge of protecting America
 
OP
P

Psychoblues

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
2,701
Reaction score
142
Points
48
Location
North Missisippi
Clinton shot missles up camels asses in Afghanistan according to some Republicans. From a military standpoint, Kerry was much more qualified. What is it with you narrow minded rightwing jerks? Are you completely uninformed or are you just stupid?

Psychoblues


Thank God the Kerry Security Service is not in charge of protecting America
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
:alco:




Clinton shot missles up camels asses in Afghanistan according to some Republicans. From a military standpoint, Kerry was much more qualified. What is it with you narrow minded rightwing jerks? Are you completely uninformed or are you just stupid?

Psychoblues
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
:thup: At least I have a life that isn't a lie....Huh psychoblieu? Google can be sooooooooo interesting..:cool:

In your case, Staph, I understand that you are just stupid. Get a genuine life and hopefully be happy in it.

Psychoblues
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top