Posted on 08/28/2005 12:07:17 AM PDT by RadicalSon2
As the American people wise up about the war in Iraq, and the shifting rationale behind it, they aren't letting the press off the hook.
Good for them.
As President Bush led the nation into the invasion of Iraq, the evidence he cited as justification for the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime was too often echoed by news organizations that holstered the skepticism they customarily bring to their work. As a result, any doubts about the wisdom of the war focused on strategy rather than factual truth.
Hussein's purported possession of weapons of mass destruction was accepted as established fact. His alleged attempt to build nuclear bombs was reported without the qualifying statements it deserved. And members of the Bush administration were given greater credibility than those who remained skeptical, including United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix.
The public now knows that. It says so in a new Gallup poll commissioned by the McCormick Tribune Foundation of Chicago.
Sixty-one percent of the poll's respondents said the press keeps them well informed on military and national security issues. That might not sound so bad, but 79 percent gave the same response to the same question in 1999.
More telling is that more than 60 percent of people criticized the news media and the government for failing to inform them adequately before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The problem wasn't that news organizations uniformly expressed support for an invasion -- some did and some did not -- but that they almost universally confirmed the factual basis for it. Since that factual basis has been found to have been untrue, some of the larger organizations responsible, notably including the New York Times, have publicly acknowledged their errors.
Many smaller organizations, however, served as an amen chorus for the drumbeat of news about how dangerous Iraq was. This page, for example, opposed the invasion itself, but spoke uncritically of Saddam Hussein's dangers, at least to his neighbors.
It turned out Hussein was a paper tiger, in more ways than one. His menace to the world existed only on paper -- and in the nation's newspapers.
Most Americans apparently have learned that lesson. Let's hope most of the news organizations responsible for it have. -- J.F.
Democracy for everyone was NOT in the cards. The choice was to ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler or ally with Hitler to defeat Stalin or stay away from the conflict. The first choice brought/secured democracy in Western Europe, the second and third would kill chances for democracy in the WHOLE Old World, and possibly in USA as well.
Do you get it?
I did not say that "Carter was a very good president". I said that he helped the opposition in Eastern Europe to develop and that he helped to prepare the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet system in following decades. I know what I am talking about.
Whether it makes him "a very good president", you can judge for yourself.
and calls Rush names even know there is/was a rule on FR not to do that?
Well, I find Rush repetitive and utterly PREDICABLE. He just toes the party line. I did not know that stating these obvious facts is prohibited on FR. Could you elaborate?
hog wash!
carter was seen by the Soviets as a weak pathetic little man and the Soviets walked all over him.
Carter signed the Helsinki accords, essentially ceding permanent control of eastern Europe to the Soviets in exchange for, what, further controls on our military. The Soviets jumped at it because weak-minded Carter was all so willing to tell them who the “dissidents” or ‘trouble makers’ in Czechoslovakia where and in other Eastern block countries.
With the fall of the Shah the ‘troubled arc’ was seen as free land, if it wasn’t for Reagan the Soviets would of taken what they called the ‘troubled arc’ from Pakistan to South Africa. Nicaragua was given to the Soviets when Carter cut them off, destabilizing all of central America..
There has been a rule on FR not to call Rush names. You can debate what he says but no name-calling.
Really? Like not calling him Hush Bimbo? Show me where is this rule.
I was referring to an example of dictatorship such as existed under Saddam: hard core Stalinism. Apparently from your first post, you would have preferred that we preserve such a dictatorship in Iraq for the sake of so-called stability, rather than risk Democracy, as we are doing now.
After defeating Nazism, we quickly distanced ourselves form our Soviet ally and pushed for Constitutional democratic governments in those areas of Europe and Asia we controlled. Although it took decades, we were successful and stable, productive nations arose from the effort.
Meanwhile, the Soviets and the Chicoms pushed for stable communist dictatorships in the areas they controlled. They were almost immediately successful in achieving stability locally, but devastated the economies of everywhere they touched with their backward brutality. It took 50 years of cold war to resolve this tension: the "stability" of mutually assured nuclear destruction.
Now, we are in a similar situation. We can choose to support the false stability of dictatorship, attempting to play the local Mid East hatreds and feuds off against each other. This was the solution of the post WWI British and French to the break up of the Ottoman Empire, and the solution of GHWB after Gulf War I. It demonstrably fails in its objective.
Or, we can attempt to change the dynamic, and free the people of the Mesopotamian Basin from oppression and let them govern themselves Maybe they'll screw up and collapse into civil war as you fear. We did, but survived to grow greater still. And if this historically keystone region succeeds as well as Poland has, it will forever break the stranglehold of the dictators under which terrorism thrives as a tool of policy.
Not in the vast quantities that he was killing his own people, but yes he was. The Soviets killed many Americans both directly in the espionage war, and indirectly in the various proxy wars. Not to mention the direct threat of nuclear attack at any time, directly analogous to the threat all Americans are under currently from terrorism.
"hard core Stalinism"? You live in a dream world. Do you really believe that under Stalin's regime half of population could be armed, all religions were free to flourish and numerous private businesses were functioning?
After defeating Nazism, we quickly distanced ourselves form our Soviet ally and pushed for Constitutional democratic governments in those areas of Europe and Asia we controlled. Although it took decades, we were successful and stable, productive nations arose from the effort.
Democratic governments in Western Europe were home-grown and USA did not control Western Europe (UK, France are good examples). The exception was Germany where the denazification had to take place.
But US control was much stronger in Central America where plenty of dictatorships had friends in Washington.
Or, we can attempt to change the dynamic, and free the people of the Mesopotamian Basin from oppression and let them govern themselves.
Could the stable American democracy/republic be established by the occupying foreign (of differen language and culture like Spain or Turkey) power in XVIII century?
Ask him, but I suspect he is parroting the rhetoric of Michael Savage, whom I find to be a mouth-frothing demagogue. This sort of name calling of other radio hosts is one of his shticks.
I like Michael Savage - he is the only radio talking head who stood in defence of Christian Serbs against Islamist/NATO attack. Others love to bash Serbs to prove that they are Muslim friendly.
It is quite well established that Saddam Hussein admired and modeled himself and his regime after Stalin. Even the NYT acknowledges it. Try a websearch with "Saddam Stalin" as the terms. Saddam copied Stalin's methods for establishing absolute dictatorship. This doesn't mean he used that power to establish communism.
and USA did not control Western Europe (UK, France are good examples). The exception was Germany where the denazification had to take place.
As I said, "those areas of Europe and Asia we controlled".
But US control was much stronger in Central America where plenty of dictatorships had friends in Washington.
What's your point? That America employed realpolitik? Sure it did, and in most of the places where we supported "our bastard", it turned out to be a grave error. So why do you advocate the same failed policy for the Middle East?
Could the stable American democracy/republic be established by the occupying foreign (of differen language and culture like Spain or Turkey) power in XVIII century?
This is 2005, not 1705. The world has had over two hundred years to see the benefit of Democracy over Kings, regardless of the language they speak. If a totally foreign culture like Japan's can adopt it successfully, anyone can.
"Hussein's purported possession of weapons of mass destruction was accepted as established fact"
The CIA was lied to by a foreign intelligence about WMD. Colin Powell admitted so on Tim Russerts Nightline. Those that wanted to go to war were going to force the issue regardless of substantiated facts. We were told the reason for going to war was based solely on WMD. Now we are told its because we're spreading democracy and got rid of a bad dictator. If thats the case where country is next?
I believe in fighting terrorism. Why did we not go into Saudi Arabia where a lot of terrorists cells are born? Weren't most of the hijackers Saudis?
The Serbs, Croats, Albanians, Kosovians, and every other subgroup in the Balkans have centuries of each other's blood on their hands. As ethnic groups, there isn't a one of them guiltless, nor one who deserves the status of innocent victim.
Do you and NYT deny the fact that under Saddam half of population was armed, all religions were free to flourish and numerous private businesses were functioning? Growing the mustache a la Stalin does not change these facts.
I am sorry, but you have no clue what the hard core Stalin's regime was. I recommend you start with reading Archipelago Gulag.
Sure it did, and in most of the places where we supported "our bastard", it turned out to be a grave error. So why do you advocate the same failed policy for the Middle East?
Why failed? In several places the spread of Communism was stopped by the US supported dictatorships. Would you have rather have Latin America to be ruled by Che Guevara?
The Iran fell to Islamists after dictator/shah was abandoned and Vietnam started to fall to Communists after Diem was killed with approval of Kennedy.
This is 2005, not 1705. The world has had over two hundred years to see the benefit of Democracy over Kings
Human nature did not change. BTW, Democracies/republics existed before 1705 and EACH time if allowed to last long enough and prosper they evolved into monarchies/empires.
B.S. This is one of those Big Lie things, which if told enough times takes on the aura of truth. It was one of the reasons, but not the only, nor the most compelling.
We went to war in Iraq because they refused to abide by the post Gulf War agreements, refused to account for KNOWN SUPPLIES of WMDs, refused to give unimpeded access to inspectors, continued to sponsor terrorists as a State policy both with money and training, continued to develop WMD delivery systems, continued to fire missiles on NATO and US aircraft, attempted assassinations of US politicians, continued to acquire and attempt to acquire nuclear materials (both refined and unprocessed), gave medical support and asylum to know Al Queda members and other internationally wanted terrorists, committed mass murder on their citizens who weren't Sunni, ripped off all the money from the UN "oil for food" program to reestablish and fund a military they were supposed to dismantle, AND were in multiple violation of multiple UN resolutions, including the one authorizing us to do what we did.
The uses that a regime is put to are one thing, The methods used to establish and maintain the regime are something else. Saddam was a hard core Stalinist in his methods of achieving power, not his uses of that power. And, no, all religions were not free to flourish. Shiaa pilgrimages like the current one were repressed, for example.
Why failed? In several places the spread of Communism was stopped by the US supported dictatorships. Would you have rather have Latin America to be ruled by Che Guevara?
Failed because Communism would have never been feasible at all with functional democracies in Latin America instead of the US supported Kleptocracies. Without a Batista, there would have been no support for Castro. Without the corruption of South American Generalissimos, Che would have been a mediocre country doctor.
The Iran fell to Islamists after dictator/shah was abandoned and Vietnam started to fall to Communists after Diem was killed with approval of Kennedy.
The key words here are "abandoned" and "killed". Poor policies that left a power vacuum. Democracies don't spring into vacuums; they have to be built and nurtured.
Human nature did not change. BTW, Democracies/republics existed before 1705 and EACH time if allowed to last long enough and prosper they evolved into monarchies/empires.
Most were not democracies or republics save in name. They were in fact oligarchies, where the power to vote was retained only by the elite (a mistake we almost made, but thankfully remedied).
This is not so black and white. In USA the universal became the norm only in XX century and it did not necessarily correspond with the strengthening of the republican system. And very few if any people in position of power in US are recruited from the lower class. I assume that most of leading positions are occupied by the rich.
BTW, in local government when the salaries are restricted to symbolic low level only rich can afford to be in the office.
Most were not democracies or republics save in name. They were in fact oligarchies, where the power to vote was retained only by the elite (a mistake we almost made, but thankfully remedied).
This is not so black and white. In USA the universal suffrage became the norm only in XX century and it did not necessarily correspond with the strengthening of the republican system. And very few if any people in position of power in US are recruited from the lower class. I assume that most of leading positions are occupied by the rich.
BTW, in local government when the salaries are restricted to symbolic low level only rich can afford to be in the office.
Class and wealth are not synonymous. There are many people in positions of power in the US that have risen from humble means. We do not have a class system here, as it is understood in Europe. There is no such thing as "rising above one's station". Power is the reward of the successful, and as long as success is available to all who strive enough, so is political opportunity.
I am not sure what you mean by the success here. Are you saying that people who are poor have a good chance to be in position of power in USA without getting rich first? Or are you saying that even if the most of politicans are affluent still many of them "have risen from humble means" and their position is a just reward?
You can have upward mobility and oligarchy at the same time. Roman and Athenian republics are good examples of it.
But one can still achieve great political power in the US while remaining relatively poor, by exerting intellectual influence. Think of ML King. I don't know if Condi Rice is wealthy or not; she may fit both categories.
You can have upward mobility and oligarchy at the same time. Roman and Athenian republics are good examples of it.
You must be joking. There is a reason "patrician class" has meaning and Periclean Athens was more rigidly structured than Rome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.