OMG! CONDI (and BUSH & Now SCOTT) Still Thinks IRAQ = 9/11

Baldimo wrote:

JTT wrote:

Lash wrote:

There is no evidence they didn't collude, Setanta. I'm not denying the best evidence presented, as you said.

I accept it. There were meetings and offers of assistance between them. I strongly suspected this to be the case.

The evidence lends itself more toward my assertions than yours.

Lash, the CIA operative under deep cover, that even the CIA doesn't know about.

You see Lash, rational people look for proof, especially before they rush off and kill thousands of people. "I have an inkling that such and such happened" just doesn't cut it.

Concocting evidence is much much worse and I suspect that your school of red herrings is designed to move the discussion away from those very pertinent FACTS!

Do you hold the media to those same standards? First CBS and now Newsweek. Don't forget about the New York Times and their plagiaristic writer who got fired.

More red herrings, Baldimo.

Evidently they do hold themselves to standards. Honest mistakes and still there have been consequences for all of those situations. Have you read the news?

Newsweek retracts story on Koran

Newsweek' Apologizes For Errors In Koran-Desecration Report

Have you heard boo from the biggest liars of all? No, they just spin their mistakes so rapidly that it confuses some idiots.

They are another liberial news media mouth piece that would do anything to make the US and this curent president look bad. Something of this much importance and it wasn't fact checked.

Thirteen words vs. 16: The Newsweek non-story


The Bush administration is reportedly "furious" over Newsweek's now-retracted story alleging that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay may have flushed a Koran down the toilet while questioning prisoners.

"People lost their lives. People are dead," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, referring to at least 15 people who died in protests in Afghanistan following the Koran disclosures. "People need to be very careful about what they say, just as they need to be careful about what they do."

"It's appalling that this story got out there," intoned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher was also appalled, he said, that "an article that was unfounded to begin with has caused so much harm, including loss of life."

Appalling, indeed. Except for the fact that this "article," this "story," was neither. It was 13 words, with no further elaboration or mention -- this part of one sentence:

"Interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Koran down the toilet ..."

Now compare those 13 words -- and the harm done, including loss of life -- to these 16:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Newsweek's possibly inaccurate reporting -- the Pentagon is has not closed its investigation into alleged Koran-flushing -- is the big story on every news channel, and will be exploited by the blogosphere's right-wing ozone holes to further vilify the media as liberal and anti-American. But George Bush's 16-word State of the Union fabrication about Saddam having his yellowcake -- well, the right wing has eaten that, making all gone.

In the eyes of Bush propagandists and apologists, being careful about what you say applies only when the "you" is not them.

Yes, people died. But many, many more have died during our unnecessary, illegal war on Iraq -- a war justified on dire warnings of imminent mushroom clouds and cooked intelligence like Bush's uranium allegation. Including civilians and allied forces, the official death count is over 23,400 -- and that's the minimum number, as painstaking estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths range tens of thousands higher.

But that's old news. The Newsweek retraction is hot and fresh, allowing the cable news shows to do what they do best -- heat up ratings, while shedding no light, with easy, inexpensive, you-suck-no-you-suck partisan demogoguery.

I could point out here that Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, last Thursday attributed the violence in Afghanistan to that country's "political reconciliation" process. I could also point out that had we not abandoned Afghanistan for Bush's manliness-proving Iraq venture, American security forces might have been able to quell the violence -- no matter what the cause -- before anyone died.

Thirdly, I could point out the British government memo confirming that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." I could add that this smoking gun has generated nowhere near the U.S. media coverage over a period of weeks that the Newsweek apology and retraction has in two days.

But I won't. Instead I'll note only that at least Newsweek had the class to admit a possible error. And I'll leave you with the words of that inveterate seeker and teller of truth, White House spokesman Scott McLellan.

"The (Newsweek) report has had serious consequences," he scolded on Monday. "People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged. I just find it puzzling."

Puzzling indeed, Scott. Who would have thought that reckless, unfounded claims could have profoundly disastrous consequences.

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=356

Baldimo wrote:

They are another liberial news media mouth piece that would do anything to make the US and this curent president look bad. Something of this much importance and it wasn't fact checked.

I beg your pardon! "Something of this much importance". The gall, the unmitigated gall! The blindness, the wilful blindness! Have you any inkling of what you've just admitted, Baldimo?

Regarding the facts; are you completely certain that the story wasn't fact checked?

tommrr wrote:

JTT wrote:

Quote:

Concocting evidence is much much worse and I suspect that your school of red herrings is designed to move the discussion away from those very pertinent FACTS!

Got a pretty good idea of your line of thinking here. Care to expand on that statement, so I am not accussed later of putting words in you mouth?

I wonder who it might have been that bestowed this gift of prescience upon your good person, Tommrr? Do you also tell fortunes?

I thought I very civily asked a question about expanding on what you wrote. So that rather than assuming what you meant, which I interpeted to be a belief that Bush made up evidence, I decided to politiely ask you to clarify your statement. I actually enjoy participating in the debates and discussions, and try not to just assume the what someone is saying and attack them, just to find out its not what they meant at all and either have to retract my statement or just argue on blindly. What I don't like here is all the name calling, rudeness, personal attacks and mud slinging. However, I do accept the fact that it is the way around here, and am willing to deal with it. Also, I try maintain my own standards as well. So at this point, you can either answer my easy question, or continue being an ass. IF you prefer, we can do it your way, and while I'm not a fan of it, I can be very good at it. Your choice

They are another liberial news media mouth piece that would do anything to make the US and this curent president look bad.

Press Voted for Kerry 2-to-1 over Bush

A new survey confirms what many conservatives have long believed: Members of the press have an overwhelming bias for the Democratic Party.

The University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy found that journalists who were surveyed picked Democrat John Kerry over George Bush in the 2004 election by a margin of over 2-to-1.

The study found that media professionals are often out of step with the rest of America:


43 percent of the public say the press has too much freedom, but only 3 percent of journalists feel that way.

70 percent of journalists say the media do a good or excellent job when it comes to accuracy, while just 40 percent of the public agree.

Only 14 percent of the public can cite "freedom of the press" as a guarantee in the First Amendment.

60 percent of the public believe the media are biased in reporting the news.

22 percent of the public say the government should be allowed to censor the press.

53 percent of the public think journalists should not run stories with unnamed sources.

80 percent of journalists read blogs; fewer than 10 percent of non-journalists do.

61 percent of the public use TV as their main news source, while 20 percent use newspapers.

Among the journalists in the survey - from both newspapers and TV - Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3-to-1, although about half claimed to be independent.

Press Voted for Kerry 2-to-1 over Bush

A new survey confirms what many conservatives have long believed: Members of the press have an overwhelming bias for the Democratic Party.

The University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy found that journalists who were surveyed picked Democrat John Kerry over George Bush in the 2004 election by a margin of over 2-to-1.

Myth: The U.S. has a liberal media.

Fact: The media are being increasingly monopolized by parent corporations with pro-corporate or conservative agendas.

Summary

The U.S. media are rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues. Surveys of journalists show that the majority were personally liberal in the 1980s, but today they are centrists, with more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news. On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits -- who do engage in noisy editorializing -- leans heavily to the right.

The most extreme example of this is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal.


Argument

Conservatives often promote the myth that the U.S. media are liberal. This myth serves several purposes: it raises public skepticism about liberal news stories, hides conservative bias when it appears, and goads the media to the right. GOP strategist William Kristol also reveals another reason: "I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." (1)

In unguarded moments, however, even far-right figures like Pat Buchanan come clean: "The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive." He further conceded: "I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked… For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that." (2)

What does this show, Tommrr? It shows, thankfully, that at least one group of Americans still have functioning thought processes.

And for the record, I don't care which way the media leans, its the general lack of journalistic skills that worry me more than anything.

tommrr wrote:

And for the record, I don't care which way the media leans, its the general lack of journalistic skills that worry me more than anything.

i will agree with you on this point.

but, listing a newsmax poll on any and everything that makes liberals "out of step with america" is pretty lop sided.

that's why i don't use any thing from moveon. i may agree with a lot of what they have to say (in fact, i am a supporter), but it is a fully liberal action committee.

http://coldfury.com/reason/?p=513

LIVING IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE: THE TERRIBLE PRICE OF FANTASY


So now Newsweek has retracted its story about religious desecration at Guantanamo. In my post yesterday about the subtext of the rightwing/warhawk outrage that Newsweek would have dared to report this story in the first place, I maintained that censorship is the logical end point of these kinds of complaints about media coverage of Bush's endless and never-defined "War on Terror." I want to offer one brief point of clarification on that issue: of course, the warhawks will say that they don't want censorship, that censorship is the last thing in the world they desire, that censorship is "un-American," and any number of similar things. That's always how this kind of campaign is waged.

But what you need to ask yourself is this: if the warhawks' demands were followed consistently, what would the result be? It is indisputable that the result would be reporting very close to the model from World War I that I discussed: nothing but good news, all the time. Oh, of course they say they want reporting about bad news, too (in fact, John Fund made a statement to this effect on Drudge's radio show: "we need to know about all the bad things that are happening," or words to that effect)?-but the overall context in which such statements occur makes it clear that the only bad news that will be tolerated is that which those in power approve, and the bad news that those who support Bush's foreign policy are prepared to acknowledge. All other bad news is off limits?-because it might damage America, it might harm our troops or, in the Newsweek case, it might get people killed. The major storyline may not be questioned: that the United States is close to a pure exemplar of the good, that everything we do is wise, virtuous and noble, and that any mistakes we make are comparatively trivial.

The speed and the depth of Newsweek's climbdown on this story is deeply disheartening. And it shows that there is a danger that is perhaps even greater than the profound danger that outright censorship represents: self-censorship by the media, on every story of importance and across the board. In fact, it is this kind of self-censorship that we have been seeing during most of the Bush administration's time in office: a reluctance to question authority too much, and beyond a certain point. Outright censorship is a clearer danger: in such circumstances, everyone knows that "news" is officially dictated, and they realize they need to find the truth via other outlets. But self-censorship allows people to believe that they are getting the full story: after all, no one is making the media report these stories, so they must be true, right? But of course, that isn't right?-but the illusion is a deeply damaging one. If people think they're getting the truth from major news outlets, they have no incentive to look elsewhere?-and the full truth will forever escape them. In that sense, a self-emasculated press is more insidious a danger than a press in chains which everyone can see.

What is most striking to me about the Newsweek controversy, and what I find inexpressibly depressing, is the overpowering air of unreality about it. Another part of the subtext to the orchestrated Newsweek outrage is the notion that it is inconceivable that America could ever do anything that is less than admirable, that we are always on the side of good, and that our motives are always noble and heroic. Such fables might be comforting to children (although children are often the first to see through this kind of subterfuge), but they are singularly inadvisable for adults living in this world. Many Americans, and almost all the warhawks, seem to find it impossible to believe that any American might be guilty of racial prejudice, or that racial and/or religious animus might play any role in the behavior of our troops. Yet one need only consult an article like Bob Herbert's about Aidan Delgado to see how far from the truth such a belief is. And there are and have been many similar stories. I am certainly not saying that the kinds of ignorant and hateful attitudes that Delgado describes are true of most, or even many, of our troops. But I also do not think those kinds of attitudes are that unusual, as Delgado makes clear.

I have written at length about the attitude of the Bush administration that saying something will make it so. In fact, this opposition to facts, logic and evidence on principle was the primary reason I finally voted for Kerry. As a libertarian, supporting Kerry obviously would not be my choice under most circumstances?-but as I explained in this essay, I view Bush's determined refusal to acknowledge facts, a refusal which is all-encompassing and covers every area of policy, as a unique and especially great danger to the United States, and to the world. When this kind of refusal to acknowledge what is staring one in the face is coupled with an aggressively militaristic foreign policy, the possibilities for widespread disaster and destruction are unnerving to contemplate. I greatly fear that we may soon see just how dangerous Bush's delusions are, if and when we (or Israel) go ahead with plans to attack Iran's nuclear capability. Read this to see just how calamitous such a course might be, and then remember that no one in this administration ever seems to be concerned with the possible (and even probable) consequences of their actions. Keep in mind all the fantasies that accompanied the buildup to the Iraq invasion: the notion that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the reconstruction, that a new government could be installed in short order and we could leave quickly, etc. And they believed these things (or said they did) even though many of their own experts were telling them that the exact opposite was the truth.

Returning to the Newsweek story: the unreality in which Bush and his supporters have submerged us has revealed itself in yet another way. The hawks who so vehemently criticize Newsweek are in effect saying: "Well, since we never talk about these sorts of things, and since we don't know about them, they can't possibly be true. They must be lies." They seem to honestly believe (if "honestly" can be used here, which I tend to doubt) that if they don't know about something, then it can't be worth knowing.

This is a very, very dangerous way to run a notably aggressive foreign policy, and this is a very dangerous way to run an occupation. (It is also a very dangerous way to run domestic policy, but that is a subject for another day.) I noted yesterday that one of the hawks' targets in the latest campaign against the traitorous and un-American mainstream media was to minimize the abuses at Abu Ghraib to the point of insignificance. The hawks still maintain that it was only "a few bad apples" that committed these outrages, and that these "minor" but regrettable errors do nothing to undercut the great nobility of "the liberation of Iraq." As I also noted yesterday, Christopher Hitchens is still peddling this line, despite the overwhelming evidence which undercuts such contentions.

This reminded me of an entry from Riverbend, from almost exactly one year ago. Unlike the warhawks and the warbloggers, Riverbend of course lives in Baghdad, so it might just be that she knows a bit more about the Iraqis' own view of Abu Ghraib than they do. It is worth recalling part of what she said:


People are seething with anger- the pictures of Abu Ghraib and the Brits in Basrah are everywhere. Every newspaper you pick up in Baghdad has pictures of some American or British atrocity or another. It's like a nightmare that has come to life.

Everyone knew this was happening in Abu Ghraib and other places… seeing the pictures simply made it all more real and tangible somehow. American and British politicians have the audacity to come on television with words like, "True the people in Abu Ghraib are criminals, but…" Everyone here in Iraq knows that there are thousands of innocent people detained. Some were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, while others were detained ?'under suspicion'. In the New Iraq, it's "guilty until proven innocent by some miracle of God".

People are so angry. There's no way to explain the reactions- even pro-occupation Iraqis find themselves silenced by this latest horror. I can't explain how people feel- or even how I personally feel. Somehow, pictures of dead Iraqis are easier to bear than this grotesque show of American military technique. People would rather be dead than sexually abused and degraded by the animals running Abu Ghraib prison.

There was a time when people here felt sorry for the troops. No matter what one's attitude was towards the occupation, there were moments of pity towards the troops, regardless of their nationality. We would see them suffering the Iraqi sun, obviously wishing they were somewhere else and somehow, that vulnerability made them seem less monstrous and more human. That time has passed. People look at troops now and see the pictures of Abu Ghraib… and we burn with shame and anger and frustration at not being able to do something. Now that the world knows that the torture has been going on since the very beginning, do people finally understand what happened in Falloojeh?

...

And through all this, Bush gives his repulsive speeches. He makes an appearance on Arabic tv channels looking sheepish and attempting to look sincere, babbling on about how this ?'incident' wasn't representative of the American people or even the army, regardless of the fact that it's been going on for so long. He asks Iraqis to not let these pictures reflect on their attitude towards the American people… and yet when the bodies were dragged through the streets of Falloojeh, the American troops took it upon themselves to punish the whole city.

He's claiming it's a "stain on our country's honor"... I think not. The stain on your country's honor, Bush dear, was the one on the infamous blue dress that made headlines while Clinton was in the White House… this isn't a ?'stain' this is a catastrophe. Your credibility was gone the moment you stepped into Iraq and couldn't find the WMD… your reputation never existed.

So are the atrocities being committed in Abu Ghraib really not characteristic of the American army? What about the atrocities committed by Americans in Guantanamo? And Afghanistan? I won't bother bringing up the sordid past, let's just focus on the present. It seems that torture and humiliation are common techniques used in countries blessed with the American presence. The most pathetic excuse I heard so far was that the American troops weren't taught the fundamentals of human rights mentioned in the Geneva Convention… Right- morals, values and compassion have to be taught.

All I can think about is the universal outrage when the former government showed pictures of American POWs on television, looking frightened and unsure about their fate. I remember the outcries from American citizens, claiming that Iraqis were animals for showing ?'America's finest' fully clothed and unharmed. So what does this make Americans now?

We heard about it all… we heard stories since the very beginning of the occupation about prisoners being made to sit for several hours on their knees… being deprived of sleep for days at a time by being splashed with cold water or kicked or slapped… about the infamous ?'red rooms' where prisoners are kept for prolonged periods of time… about the rape, the degradations, the emotional and physical torture… and there were moments when I actually wanted to believe that what we heard was exaggerated. I realize now that it was only a small fragment of the truth. There is nothing that is going to make this ?'better'. Nothing.

...

I don't understand the ?'shock' Americans claim to feel at the lurid pictures. You've seen the troops break down doors and terrify women and children… curse, scream, push, pull and throw people to the ground with a boot over their head. You've seen troops shoot civilians in cold blood. You've seen them bomb cities and towns. You've seen them burn cars and humans using tanks and helicopters. Is this latest debacle so very shocking or appalling?


We also should remember the title of Riverbend's post: "Just Go." Again, this entry is dated May 7, 2004.

The point is so obvious that it shouldn't need to be stated, but since Bush has plunged all of us into The Twilight Zone, I find it necessary to do so: our administration may not have acknowledged the horrors at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere before the photographs surfaced, our media may have ignored all such stories on the grounds that they were not "credible," the hawks may have known nothing about the abuse and torture and they may still seek to minimize them as Fund, Hitchens, et al. do?-but the Iraqis knew. Victims always know what is done to them?-and the victims have families, and many relatives, and many friends. So many people knew?-but most Americans did not. And the Bush administration turned a blind eye to any such concerns.

As Riverbend says, "we heard stories since the very beginning of the occupation." Many Iraqis (probably most of them) knew of the abuse and torture, and they knew how widespread it was?-and they also knew that many completely innocent Iraqis were victimized in this manner. And now we are seeing all of this again with the Newsweek controversy.

Neither the Bush administration nor the warhawks seem to understand that people talk, and that information has many ways of making itself known. Just because Newsweek or The New York Times or the warbloggers do not cover a story doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. And it certainly doesn't mean that it is unimportant. A great number of Iraqis?-and a great number of Afghanis?-know what has been done to them in the name of "liberation." As someone noted about the recent riots (I can't remember who just now [Ed.: not surprisingly, it was Digby]), the only notable aspect of this story is that the riots didn't happen sooner, not that they have happened at all.

Even though I am not willing to grant this dispensation to members of the Bush administration (since the evidence of their duplicity is so monumental), I am more than willing to believe that many of our servicepeople have laudable motives in terms of what they are trying to accomplish in Afghanistan and Iraq. But as I discussed in detail the other day, when we remain so determined in our refusal to understand those people whom we seek to "liberate," when we refuse to try to grasp their perspective, their attitudes, and their goals, we are doomed to failure even if our motives are the purest in the world. And failure is now spreading more and more rapidly through both Afghanistan and Iraq. (See Patrick Cockburn's latest dispatch from Iraq for further details about that unfolding disaster.)

Yet even as the evidence of our failure continues to mount?-and even as more and more people die every single day and the carnage continues without end?-the Bush administration and the warhawks continue to insist that we are "winning," that "freedom is on the march," and that we are spreading democracy.

People can certainly choose to live in a world built on their own delusions if they wish?-but they ought to recognize that facts will inevitably reassert themselves at some point. Fantasies cannot go on forever. Bush's foreign policy is built on many delusions, including "The Fatal Utopian Delusion." But this dream world cannot go on much longer. Facts and reality again reasserted themselves for a moment with the Newsweek story?-and the hawks have convinced themselves that a retraction will make the undeniable reality vanish, still another time.

And so it might, at least in their own minds. They will be able to return to the fables with which they comfort themselves. But in the meantime, in the real world, people continue to die, people continue to suffer horrible injury, our own troops continue to be brutalized by what they are asked to do, and more and more people throughout the world grow to resent and hate the United States.

Refusing to face and deal with facts carries a tragically high price. That price is exacted from all of those who are the victims of our actions abroad. Victims know what has happened to them, and they know why, and they know who did it.

And they talk. Word gets out. One story in Newsweek doesn't matter. The truth, indeed, is out there?-but Bush and his associates will continue to deny it, their enablers will continue to deny it, and our media will continue to deny it.

But the victims know. Every day, more and more people know. And at some point, the consequences of that knowledge will be brought home to all of us, in one form or another. We can only pray that the consequences are not too terrible. But the longer the fantasists ply their trade, the worse they will be.

Those who are unable or who refuse to distinguish between what they wish to be true and what actually is true place all of us in mortal danger, not only innocent Iraqis, Afghanis and others, but all of us here at home. One day, and probably one day not too far in the future, all of us will have to pay the price. We can only hope that it is not too high, or too horrifying.

UPDATE: Not that it will make any difference to the Bush administration itself or to the warhawks?-the vilification of Newsweek serves other goals, which are much more important to them?-but this story should be noted:


The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff says a report from Afghanistan suggests that rioting in Jalalabad on May 11 was not necessarily connected to press reports that the Quran might have been desecrated in the presence of Muslim prisoners held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Air Force General Richard Myers told reporters at the Pentagon May 12 that he has been told that the Jalalabad, Afghanistan, rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process in Afghanistan than anything else.

According to initial reports, the situation in Jalalabad began on May 10 with peaceful student protests reacting to a report in Newsweek magazine that U.S. military interrogators questioning Muslim detainees at the Guantanamo detention center "had placed Quran s on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book." By the following day the protests in the city had turned violent with reports of several individuals killed, dozens wounded, and widespread looting of government, diplomatic and nongovernmental assets.

However, Myers said an after-action report provided by U.S. Army Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, commander of the Combined Forces in Afghanistan, indicated that the political violence was not, in fact, connected to the magazine report.


Well, these are only comments from one of our own generals, and he's only talking about facts. Never mind. Sorry I even mentioned it.

http://coldfury.com/reason/?p=513

LIVING IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE: THE TERRIBLE PRICE OF FANTASY


So now Newsweek has retracted its story about religious desecration at Guantanamo. In my post yesterday about the subtext of the rightwing/warhawk outrage that Newsweek would have dared to report this story in the first place, I maintained that censorship is the logical end point of these kinds of complaints about media coverage of Bush's endless and never-defined "War on Terror." I want to offer one brief point of clarification on that issue: of course, the warhawks will say that they don't want censorship, that censorship is the last thing in the world they desire, that censorship is "un-American," and any number of similar things. That's always how this kind of campaign is waged.

But what you need to ask yourself is this: if the warhawks' demands were followed consistently, what would the result be? It is indisputable that the result would be reporting very close to the model from World War I that I discussed: nothing but good news, all the time. Oh, of course they say they want reporting about bad news, too (in fact, John Fund made a statement to this effect on Drudge's radio show: "we need to know about all the bad things that are happening," or words to that effect)?-but the overall context in which such statements occur makes it clear that the only bad news that will be tolerated is that which those in power approve, and the bad news that those who support Bush's foreign policy are prepared to acknowledge. All other bad news is off limits?-because it might damage America, it might harm our troops or, in the Newsweek case, it might get people killed. The major storyline may not be questioned: that the United States is close to a pure exemplar of the good, that everything we do is wise, virtuous and noble, and that any mistakes we make are comparatively trivial.

The speed and the depth of Newsweek's climbdown on this story is deeply disheartening. And it shows that there is a danger that is perhaps even greater than the profound danger that outright censorship represents: self-censorship by the media, on every story of importance and across the board. In fact, it is this kind of self-censorship that we have been seeing during most of the Bush administration's time in office: a reluctance to question authority too much, and beyond a certain point. Outright censorship is a clearer danger: in such circumstances, everyone knows that "news" is officially dictated, and they realize they need to find the truth via other outlets. But self-censorship allows people to believe that they are getting the full story: after all, no one is making the media report these stories, so they must be true, right? But of course, that isn't right?-but the illusion is a deeply damaging one. If people think they're getting the truth from major news outlets, they have no incentive to look elsewhere?-and the full truth will forever escape them. In that sense, a self-emasculated press is more insidious a danger than a press in chains which everyone can see.

What is most striking to me about the Newsweek controversy, and what I find inexpressibly depressing, is the overpowering air of unreality about it. Another part of the subtext to the orchestrated Newsweek outrage is the notion that it is inconceivable that America could ever do anything that is less than admirable, that we are always on the side of good, and that our motives are always noble and heroic. Such fables might be comforting to children (although children are often the first to see through this kind of subterfuge), but they are singularly inadvisable for adults living in this world. Many Americans, and almost all the warhawks, seem to find it impossible to believe that any American might be guilty of racial prejudice, or that racial and/or religious animus might play any role in the behavior of our troops. Yet one need only consult an article like Bob Herbert's about Aidan Delgado to see how far from the truth such a belief is. And there are and have been many similar stories. I am certainly not saying that the kinds of ignorant and hateful attitudes that Delgado describes are true of most, or even many, of our troops. But I also do not think those kinds of attitudes are that unusual, as Delgado makes clear.

I have written at length about the attitude of the Bush administration that saying something will make it so. In fact, this opposition to facts, logic and evidence on principle was the primary reason I finally voted for Kerry. As a libertarian, supporting Kerry obviously would not be my choice under most circumstances?-but as I explained in this essay, I view Bush's determined refusal to acknowledge facts, a refusal which is all-encompassing and covers every area of policy, as a unique and especially great danger to the United States, and to the world. When this kind of refusal to acknowledge what is staring one in the face is coupled with an aggressively militaristic foreign policy, the possibilities for widespread disaster and destruction are unnerving to contemplate. I greatly fear that we may soon see just how dangerous Bush's delusions are, if and when we (or Israel) go ahead with plans to attack Iran's nuclear capability. Read this to see just how calamitous such a course might be, and then remember that no one in this administration ever seems to be concerned with the possible (and even probable) consequences of their actions. Keep in mind all the fantasies that accompanied the buildup to the Iraq invasion: the notion that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the reconstruction, that a new government could be installed in short order and we could leave quickly, etc. And they believed these things (or said they did) even though many of their own experts were telling them that the exact opposite was the truth.

Returning to the Newsweek story: the unreality in which Bush and his supporters have submerged us has revealed itself in yet another way. The hawks who so vehemently criticize Newsweek are in effect saying: "Well, since we never talk about these sorts of things, and since we don't know about them, they can't possibly be true. They must be lies." They seem to honestly believe (if "honestly" can be used here, which I tend to doubt) that if they don't know about something, then it can't be worth knowing.

This is a very, very dangerous way to run a notably aggressive foreign policy, and this is a very dangerous way to run an occupation. (It is also a very dangerous way to run domestic policy, but that is a subject for another day.) I noted yesterday that one of the hawks' targets in the latest campaign against the traitorous and un-American mainstream media was to minimize the abuses at Abu Ghraib to the point of insignificance. The hawks still maintain that it was only "a few bad apples" that committed these outrages, and that these "minor" but regrettable errors do nothing to undercut the great nobility of "the liberation of Iraq." As I also noted yesterday, Christopher Hitchens is still peddling this line, despite the overwhelming evidence which undercuts such contentions.

This reminded me of an entry from Riverbend, from almost exactly one year ago. Unlike the warhawks and the warbloggers, Riverbend of course lives in Baghdad, so it might just be that she knows a bit more about the Iraqis' own view of Abu Ghraib than they do. It is worth recalling part of what she said:


People are seething with anger- the pictures of Abu Ghraib and the Brits in Basrah are everywhere. Every newspaper you pick up in Baghdad has pictures of some American or British atrocity or another. It's like a nightmare that has come to life.

Everyone knew this was happening in Abu Ghraib and other places… seeing the pictures simply made it all more real and tangible somehow. American and British politicians have the audacity to come on television with words like, "True the people in Abu Ghraib are criminals, but…" Everyone here in Iraq knows that there are thousands of innocent people detained. Some were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, while others were detained ?'under suspicion'. In the New Iraq, it's "guilty until proven innocent by some miracle of God".

People are so angry. There's no way to explain the reactions- even pro-occupation Iraqis find themselves silenced by this latest horror. I can't explain how people feel- or even how I personally feel. Somehow, pictures of dead Iraqis are easier to bear than this grotesque show of American military technique. People would rather be dead than sexually abused and degraded by the animals running Abu Ghraib prison.

There was a time when people here felt sorry for the troops. No matter what one's attitude was towards the occupation, there were moments of pity towards the troops, regardless of their nationality. We would see them suffering the Iraqi sun, obviously wishing they were somewhere else and somehow, that vulnerability made them seem less monstrous and more human. That time has passed. People look at troops now and see the pictures of Abu Ghraib… and we burn with shame and anger and frustration at not being able to do something. Now that the world knows that the torture has been going on since the very beginning, do people finally understand what happened in Falloojeh?

...

And through all this, Bush gives his repulsive speeches. He makes an appearance on Arabic tv channels looking sheepish and attempting to look sincere, babbling on about how this ?'incident' wasn't representative of the American people or even the army, regardless of the fact that it's been going on for so long. He asks Iraqis to not let these pictures reflect on their attitude towards the American people… and yet when the bodies were dragged through the streets of Falloojeh, the American troops took it upon themselves to punish the whole city.

He's claiming it's a "stain on our country's honor"... I think not. The stain on your country's honor, Bush dear, was the one on the infamous blue dress that made headlines while Clinton was in the White House… this isn't a ?'stain' this is a catastrophe. Your credibility was gone the moment you stepped into Iraq and couldn't find the WMD… your reputation never existed.

So are the atrocities being committed in Abu Ghraib really not characteristic of the American army? What about the atrocities committed by Americans in Guantanamo? And Afghanistan? I won't bother bringing up the sordid past, let's just focus on the present. It seems that torture and humiliation are common techniques used in countries blessed with the American presence. The most pathetic excuse I heard so far was that the American troops weren't taught the fundamentals of human rights mentioned in the Geneva Convention… Right- morals, values and compassion have to be taught.

All I can think about is the universal outrage when the former government showed pictures of American POWs on television, looking frightened and unsure about their fate. I remember the outcries from American citizens, claiming that Iraqis were animals for showing ?'America's finest' fully clothed and unharmed. So what does this make Americans now?

We heard about it all… we heard stories since the very beginning of the occupation about prisoners being made to sit for several hours on their knees… being deprived of sleep for days at a time by being splashed with cold water or kicked or slapped… about the infamous ?'red rooms' where prisoners are kept for prolonged periods of time… about the rape, the degradations, the emotional and physical torture… and there were moments when I actually wanted to believe that what we heard was exaggerated. I realize now that it was only a small fragment of the truth. There is nothing that is going to make this ?'better'. Nothing.

...

I don't understand the ?'shock' Americans claim to feel at the lurid pictures. You've seen the troops break down doors and terrify women and children… curse, scream, push, pull and throw people to the ground with a boot over their head. You've seen troops shoot civilians in cold blood. You've seen them bomb cities and towns. You've seen them burn cars and humans using tanks and helicopters. Is this latest debacle so very shocking or appalling?


We also should remember the title of Riverbend's post: "Just Go." Again, this entry is dated May 7, 2004.

The point is so obvious that it shouldn't need to be stated, but since Bush has plunged all of us into The Twilight Zone, I find it necessary to do so: our administration may not have acknowledged the horrors at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere before the photographs surfaced, our media may have ignored all such stories on the grounds that they were not "credible," the hawks may have known nothing about the abuse and torture and they may still seek to minimize them as Fund, Hitchens, et al. do?-but the Iraqis knew. Victims always know what is done to them?-and the victims have families, and many relatives, and many friends. So many people knew?-but most Americans did not. And the Bush administration turned a blind eye to any such concerns.

As Riverbend says, "we heard stories since the very beginning of the occupation." Many Iraqis (probably most of them) knew of the abuse and torture, and they knew how widespread it was?-and they also knew that many completely innocent Iraqis were victimized in this manner. And now we are seeing all of this again with the Newsweek controversy.

Neither the Bush administration nor the warhawks seem to understand that people talk, and that information has many ways of making itself known. Just because Newsweek or The New York Times or the warbloggers do not cover a story doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. And it certainly doesn't mean that it is unimportant. A great number of Iraqis?-and a great number of Afghanis?-know what has been done to them in the name of "liberation." As someone noted about the recent riots (I can't remember who just now [Ed.: not surprisingly, it was Digby]), the only notable aspect of this story is that the riots didn't happen sooner, not that they have happened at all.

Even though I am not willing to grant this dispensation to members of the Bush administration (since the evidence of their duplicity is so monumental), I am more than willing to believe that many of our servicepeople have laudable motives in terms of what they are trying to accomplish in Afghanistan and Iraq. But as I discussed in detail the other day, when we remain so determined in our refusal to understand those people whom we seek to "liberate," when we refuse to try to grasp their perspective, their attitudes, and their goals, we are doomed to failure even if our motives are the purest in the world. And failure is now spreading more and more rapidly through both Afghanistan and Iraq. (See Patrick Cockburn's latest dispatch from Iraq for further details about that unfolding disaster.)

Yet even as the evidence of our failure continues to mount?-and even as more and more people die every single day and the carnage continues without end?-the Bush administration and the warhawks continue to insist that we are "winning," that "freedom is on the march," and that we are spreading democracy.

People can certainly choose to live in a world built on their own delusions if they wish?-but they ought to recognize that facts will inevitably reassert themselves at some point. Fantasies cannot go on forever. Bush's foreign policy is built on many delusions, including "The Fatal Utopian Delusion." But this dream world cannot go on much longer. Facts and reality again reasserted themselves for a moment with the Newsweek story?-and the hawks have convinced themselves that a retraction will make the undeniable reality vanish, still another time.

And so it might, at least in their own minds. They will be able to return to the fables with which they comfort themselves. But in the meantime, in the real world, people continue to die, people continue to suffer horrible injury, our own troops continue to be brutalized by what they are asked to do, and more and more people throughout the world grow to resent and hate the United States.

Refusing to face and deal with facts carries a tragically high price. That price is exacted from all of those who are the victims of our actions abroad. Victims know what has happened to them, and they know why, and they know who did it.

And they talk. Word gets out. One story in Newsweek doesn't matter. The truth, indeed, is out there?-but Bush and his associates will continue to deny it, their enablers will continue to deny it, and our media will continue to deny it.

But the victims know. Every day, more and more people know. And at some point, the consequences of that knowledge will be brought home to all of us, in one form or another. We can only pray that the consequences are not too terrible. But the longer the fantasists ply their trade, the worse they will be.

Those who are unable or who refuse to distinguish between what they wish to be true and what actually is true place all of us in mortal danger, not only innocent Iraqis, Afghanis and others, but all of us here at home. One day, and probably one day not too far in the future, all of us will have to pay the price. We can only hope that it is not too high, or too horrifying.

UPDATE: Not that it will make any difference to the Bush administration itself or to the warhawks?-the vilification of Newsweek serves other goals, which are much more important to them?-but this story should be noted:


The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff says a report from Afghanistan suggests that rioting in Jalalabad on May 11 was not necessarily connected to press reports that the Quran might have been desecrated in the presence of Muslim prisoners held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Air Force General Richard Myers told reporters at the Pentagon May 12 that he has been told that the Jalalabad, Afghanistan, rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process in Afghanistan than anything else.

According to initial reports, the situation in Jalalabad began on May 10 with peaceful student protests reacting to a report in Newsweek magazine that U.S. military interrogators questioning Muslim detainees at the Guantanamo detention center "had placed Quran s on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book." By the following day the protests in the city had turned violent with reports of several individuals killed, dozens wounded, and widespread looting of government, diplomatic and nongovernmental assets.

However, Myers said an after-action report provided by U.S. Army Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, commander of the Combined Forces in Afghanistan, indicated that the political violence was not, in fact, connected to the magazine report.


Well, these are only comments from one of our own generals, and he's only talking about facts. Never mind. Sorry I even mentioned it.

Olberman see's it for what it is: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240