P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 26-06-05, 09:44 AM   #61
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

M ichael Smith of the Sunday Times keeps on digging up more dirt:

Quote:
June 26, 2005

General admits to secret air war
Michael Smith

THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.
Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 “carefully selected targets” before the war officially started.
obviously, a secret air war, conducted months before Bush went before Congress to get authorization to attack Iraq, would be illegal under international law and a violation of the US War Powers ACt.

Quote:
The nine months of allied raids “laid the foundations” for the allied victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to start the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.

If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted illegally.
you could argue it's a thin line between enforcing the no-fly zones in Iraq and bombing any target that might impede an invasion, but perhaps the general could clarify what the criteria was for the 391 "carefully selected targets". obviously, if these targets "laid the foundation" for the Allied victory, then it's more than a little disingenuous for the prez to continue to claim that war was a last resort.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-05, 01:18 PM   #62
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Ed Williams, NYT editorial writer, in today's Charlotte Observer hits the nail right dead smack on the head:
Quote:
Let me talk briefly about what we now know about the decision to invade Iraq, then focus on why it matters.

The administration has prevented any official inquiry into whether it hyped the case for war. But there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that it did.

And then there's the Downing Street Memo -- the minutes of a prime minister's meeting in July 2002 -- in which the chief of British overseas intelligence briefed his colleagues about his recent trip to Washington.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam," says the memo, "through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Many in the U.S. news media ignored the memo for five weeks after it was released in The Times of London. Then some said it was "old news" that Bush wanted war in the summer of 2002 and that WMD were just an excuse. No, it isn't. Media insiders may have suspected as much, but they didn't inform their readers, viewers and listeners. They have never held Bush accountable for his repeated declarations that he viewed war as a last resort.

Some of my colleagues insist that we should let bygones be bygones. The question, they say, is what we do now. They're wrong: It's crucial that those responsible for the war be held to account.

Let me explain. The United States will soon have to start reducing force levels in Iraq or risk seeing the volunteer Army collapse. Yet the administration and its supporters have effectively prevented any adult discussion of the need to get out.

On one side, the people who sold this war, unable to face the fact that their fantasies of a splendid little war have led to disaster, are still peddling illusions: The insurgency is in its "last throes," says Dick Cheney. On the other, they still have moderates and even liberals intimidated: Anyone who suggests the U.S. will have to settle for something that falls far short of victory is accused of being unpatriotic.

We need to deprive these people of their ability to mislead and intimidate. The best way to do that is to make it clear that the people who led us to war on false pretenses have no credibility and no right to lecture the rest of us about patriotism.

The good news is that the public seems ready to hear that message -- readier than the news media are to deliver it. Major media organizations still act as if only a small, left-wing fringe believes we were misled into war.

In a Gallup poll in early April -- before the release of the Downing Street Memo -- 50 percent of those polled agreed that the administration "deliberately misled the American public" about Iraq's WMD. In a new Rasmussen poll, 49 percent said Bush was more responsible for the war than Saddam Hussein, versus 44 percent who blamed Saddam.

Once the media catch up with the public, we'll be able to start talking seriously about how to get out of Iraq.
what he is saying is that recent polls indicate at least half of the public is ready to face the truth. this is actually an amazing number, considering there has been little media support or any kind of organized groundswell. americans are arriving at this conclusion all on their own.

Karl Rove can keep on giving speeches that liberals are pussies and dissent is unpatriotic, but his attempts to deflect attention from the real issues are pitifully transparent. as chief architect of administration policy, there isn't a thing he can say to mitigate the inherent duplicity and gross incompetence of the Bush administration.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-05, 05:02 PM   #63
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theknife
what he is saying is that recent polls indicate at least half of the public is ready to face the truth. this is actually an amazing number, considering there has been little media support or any kind of organized groundswell. americans are arriving at this conclusion all on their own.
That's absolutely right, if what you want is to split the country right down the middle and start a second civil war. Red vs. Blue, neighbor vs. neighbor. You've got one half that'll buy into any anti-Bush op ed or 60 Minutes story they see, and the other half that will never trust the media to think for them, and both sides are getting angry and could even get violent if the tension got to them. Maybe the media does have some sense of responsibility after all, 'cause this is just the kind of divisive political crap that could cause Americans to hate each other. The American media is the most syndicated around the world, and what kind of examle would they be setting if they published such one-sided, biased, black and white, left and right, unchecked and unquestioned propaganda like all the editorials you've dredged up? At best our media would simply be ignored abroad, but more likely foriegners would turn their anti-Bush sentiments against all Americans, especially those in foreign countries. I think the big meida companies understand how they could easily isolate this nation from the rest of the world, economically as well as politically, and that is probably one of many reasons they won't report on the Dwoning Street minuites until Congress launches an investigation.

This is my plea that everyone reserve judgement until judgement has been passed in a court of law. And if that never happens then that's just the way it's going to be. Trust our Constitutional system to hold those accountable to account, and if you can't trust it then change it, if you think you can. Elect a new government if you don't find this one agreeable. Have a little patience, my friends. We wouldn't want our troops to come back to find their homeland in ruins because we couldn't agree on the resons for sending them off if the first place. Not that we would actually do such a thing, but still, we want them to be as proud of us as we are of them. A little healthy skepticism will go a long way toward keeping this nation intact, else we risk betraying those who put their lives on the line for us.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-05, 02:57 AM   #64
malvachat
My eyes are now open.
 
malvachat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford uk
Posts: 1,409
Default

Good post Mazer.
All what you say makes perfect sense.
My only gripe is,you have to have debate.
Are you saying mainstream media cannot take part,
they are not to print views that are in the minority.
The bottom line is,the administration possibly broke the law
and must be held accountable if proven.
Shame that America is split right down the middle but you get that
when you have extreme right or left government.
The world view is "That Bloody Woman"(TBW)was
popular in Britain,yes she won three elections to prove it.
The facts are different.We had a extreme left wing Labour party
at the time,which never would have been elected,so no competition.
Plus whose who didn't like her,hated her with a hate.
I for one couldn't stand the silly cow,just thinking about her
makes my blood boil.The classic phase from her"The Enemy Within"
talking about working people fighting to save their livelihoods
I sense the same thing about the Bush administration,
you either like it or hate it.
In last years election what choice did you have.
Kerry for me was a toss pot who didn't seem to know what he stood for.
Was that was the best the democrats could come up with?
What's that phrase "They drink the sand because they don't know the difference"something like that.From the film The America President with
Mike Douglas.
Debate is healthy and more debate is healthier too,people feel better if they can express their views right or wrong.
Calling people names because they don't support one
view is unhealthy and leads to mutualy loathing.
__________________
Beer is for life not just Christmas
malvachat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-05, 07:40 AM   #65
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Yes, that was what I was getting at. Debate is healthy as you say, but arguing for the sake of arguing isn't and neither is jumping to conclusions. I'm willing to keep an open mind as long as debate continues and as long as facts are discussed. Expressing one's opinion is a two way street; you need to be willing to hear opposing opinions without crying foul if you're ever to accomplish anything.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-05, 08:46 AM   #66
malvachat
My eyes are now open.
 
malvachat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford uk
Posts: 1,409
Default

Listening to other points of view is so important in a healthy democracy.
Sometimes this is forgotten what a freedom this is.
To be shouted down and called names or smeared is not right.
But of course the freedom to be stupid is still a freedom of sorts.
Politics is a dirty game,sometimes moral issues have to be put aside
to get the end result.
I know "TBW"worked with Chilli's government during our dispute
with Argentina.Even though it was a right wing dictatorship,
With dreadful human rights issues
Sometimes the rules have to be bent to achieve the end.
In that case no law was broken and the British government
managed to keep it quiet.
Years later it came out and "TBW"defended her action on the grounds that it saved British lives.Ends justifying means and all that.
It seems to me that the Bush administration is not too good
at covering it's tracks,thence the name calling.
At the end if it's proven they broke the law,
I don't think it's right that they get away with it.
I know we need the oil in the west,and Britain backing the states
is in my opinion the right thing for Britain.
I just wish it could all be a little more honest and within
the laws of each respective country
__________________
Beer is for life not just Christmas
malvachat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-05, 12:15 PM   #67
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

the media is a critical part of this debate, and it is because of the media's failures that this debate is even necessary.

in a healthy democracy, the media's role should be that of a watchdog - challenging and adversarial, because that is the only thing that keeps government even slightly honest. the US media rolled over like sick sheep after 9/11, didn't ask the hard questions when Bush was selling us a war we didn't need, was too afraid of looking unpatriotic and basically allowed the adminstration to dictate the terms of the debate.... and look where that has gotten us.

Mazer's logic is an extension of this mindset: criticism is unpatriotic and divisive, questioning the war and how we got there hurts the troops, editorial dissent is propaganda etc. this is the same mentality that allowed us to get swept into this arguably illegal, certainly foolish, and apparently unwinnable war in the first place. by questioning it, by investigating how we got there, by demanding some accountability from the leaders who misrepresented the material facts, then can lessons be learned from the catastrophic mistakes we have made.

the media doesn't create the problem - they only make people aware of it. this awareness is how things that are broken in a democracy get fixed.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-05, 03:28 PM   #68
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

Quote:
the media doesn't create the problem - they only make people aware of it. this awareness is how things that are broken in a democracy get fixed.

I agree






EDIT
Now Knife, you do know the media is owned by corporations right? In 1983 fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium and by 1997 with all the mergers that number dropped to 10. Info from Ben H. Bagdikian book The Media Monopoly… Now in 2005 that number could be lower.
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend

Last edited by Sinner : 27-06-05 at 03:41 PM.
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-05, 06:28 PM   #69
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theknife
the media is a critical part of this debate, and it is because of the media's failures that this debate is even necessary.
The critical part the media plays is to report on both sides of the debate fairly, and when the media fails in this respect then debate becomes impossible despite its necessity. Granted, there is no law that requires news outlets to provide equal time, but there's still a code of ethics that the media follows (however selectively), and when a scandal of this magnatude comes to light it is important for journalists to double and triple check their sources and hunt down corroborating evidence. As watchdogs they tend to ask questions no one else asks, and those are the true powers of the free press. Make no mistake here knife, the press isn't staying away from this story for fear of being called unpatriotic, they're refraining because they know that one-sided reporting is wreckless and irresponsible, and that would be far more damning in the public eye than mere unpatriotism. To keep their audiences loyal to them the media need to appear fair and balanced (sorry to repeat that epithet here, but why do you think Fox News uses such a phrase to advertise themselves?).

The divide and conquer approach does not work for political reporting. Convincing one half of the citizenry of a presidential conspiracy doesn't make convincing the other half any easier, and in fact it may make that other half more vocal and disidient. In that situation the lessons to be learned would be hard and few; mostly you would learn that polarizing the nation is a mistake to begin with. If the media is to report on the Downing Street minutes it must frame the debate in a way that allows all points of view to be understood, all evidence to be admited, and all accusations to be cross examined, and after that you may begin to question, to investigate, and ultimately to hold someone accountable. This can be done in public forums, in Congress, and in the courts as well as the media, but the point is that the truth is meaningless unless you follow a logical, balanced, methodic process to uncover it. This has yet to happen.

The media may not have created this problem, but it can sure make it worse. Raising awareness is one thing, but the reporters you've quoted so far are just drawing lines in the sand.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-05, 07:45 PM   #70
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theknife
the media doesn't create the problem - they only make people aware of it.
Yeah knife, the same way they make people aware of a koran getting flushed down a toilet. They didn't create a problem at all eh?

And I guess they didn't create any problems revealing that a certain woman was a CIA agent.

The media has it's own selfish agenda and it means screwing other people or organizations they have no problem with that.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-05, 01:14 PM   #71
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

the latest Zogby poll
Quote:
In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

Among those living in the Western states, a 52% majority favors Congress using the impeachment mechanism while just 41% are opposed; in Eastern states, 49% are in favor and 45% opposed. In the South, meanwhile, impeachment is opposed by three-in-five voters (60%) and supported by just one-in-three (34%); in the Central/Great Lakes region, 52% are opposed and 38% in favor.

Impeachment is overwhelmingly rejected in the Red States—just 36% say they agree Congress should use it if the President is found to have lied on Iraq, while 55% reject this view; in the “Blue States” that voted for Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry in 2004, meanwhile, a plurality of 48% favors such proceedings while 45% are opposed.

A large majority of Democrats (59%) say they agree that the President should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, while just three-in-ten (30%) disagree. Among President Bush’s fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25%) indicate they would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances, while seven-in-ten (70%) do not. Independents are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49% opposed.
interesting that Zogby polled on the impeachment question at all....
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)