It's Not Because of 'Our Freedoms'

It's Not Because of 'Our Freedoms'
by Eric Alterman
02.16.2006

Altercation

So here's how the world works. The U.S. media keeps the country in the dark about things everybody else in the world knows, then Americans, in their ignorance, vote for people who promise to do things that make no sense whatever, except in the context of their own (understandably) confused notions about what might make sense.

Take for instance, this invasion of Iraq, which to be fair, was never really that popular, but was always far more popular than it should have been. Because people were deliberately misinformed on its relative level of popularity by the Bush administration and by Fox News (See the survey by the Program on Policy Attitudes if you doubt this.), they have a hard time understanding why in the world everybody hates us, and think it's because of "our freedoms" rather than because, say, we pretend to liberate people but we actually torture them.

I got to thinking the above when I read in Today's Papers this morning that:

Everybody mentions another batch of photos showing abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib back in 2003. The photos, which were broadcast by on Australian TV, show plenty of blood as well as men with fresh burn marks and welts. There are also images of six corpses, though it's not clear how they died.
So far as TP sees, none of the papers run any of the photos. The Post points out that it has had the images and "hundreds more" since 2004. As the WP's story notes, the paper's editor explained backed then: "We are going to publish only those images that give readers essential information. Many of the images are so shocking and in such bad taste, especially the extensive nudity, that they are not publishable in our newspaper or on our Web site." You can see the photos here and here.

Nobody puts the photos story on Page One. But the Wall Street Journal, which is the only paper to at least go high with its coverage, says "satellite television stations throughout the Muslim world are airing the new footage almost continuously."

There has never been an independent investigation of the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. In fact, the Journal says there is "still no reliable information on the numbers or identities of prisoners who died in U.S. custody."

Get it now? The whole world is looking at these pictures and they are inspiring who knows how many Arabs to enlist in the jihad against the United States (just as the CIA warned us before this lunatic war). But Americans are blissfully ignorant of the evil perpetrated in their name and hence, make the same mistakes over and over.

Now look at the following TP item:

The Post fronts the administration proposing to spend $75 million in Iran to promote democracy and, essentially, regime change. The LAT plays up the potential drawbacks, namely that the plan could backfire.

And if it can backfire, ladies and gentleman, alas, it will. More instability, more jihad, more terrorism and this time these guys really do have these nasty weapons. Who does speak for America?

Thanks, by the way, Ralph.

While I'm letting TP do my foreign policy and "democracy" analysis, we should be aware that this kind of thing is a further problem in the mix:


USA Today fronts records showing that Republican Sen. Arlen Specter channeled $50 million in defense-related earmarks to clients of a lobbyist who's married to one of Specter's top aides. The aide happens to deal with Specter's work on the Senate Appropriations Committee, where, as it turns out, the earmarks were inserted.

"Sorry Dick, I think you're going to have to shoot that old rich guy, maybe this weekend." The Rovian Plot line looks stronger, here.

And about Cheney's decision to blow intelligence details and help America's enemies for political gain, the Note notes this:


"There is remarkably little in the papers today about what Vice President Cheney said about national security in his Hume interview.

Cheney would not comment on court filings that indicate that Scooter Libby, the Vice President's former chief-of-staff, has suggested that his unidentified superiors authorized the release of some classified information.

But he did tell Hume that a vice president has the authority to declassify information and that he "certainly" has "advocated declassification and participated in declassification decisions."

Asked if he's ever made such declassification decisions unilaterally, Cheney said: "I don't want to get into that. There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously focuses first and foremost on the President, but also includes the Vice President."

The AP's Ron Fournier Notes the way in which the Cheney mishap has taken the focus off of the White House leak investigation. LINK

To the sage Fournier's point . . . perhaps demonstrating just how easy it is to distract the White House press corps, the New York Times dedicates six paragraphs to Vice President Cheney's comments regarding his authority to declassify intelligence. LINK

And this, too:

Politics of domestic surveillance:

In another key story that would be on A1 ?- not A4 ?- if not for the Cheney saga, the Washington Post reports that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in an interview yesterday that the Administration will "sharply limit" the testimony of John Ashcroft and James Comey when they appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee. LINK

Et tu, Peggy?

Et tu, too, George?

Here we go again: "Hume. . . touched the major bases in his discussion with the vice president." ?-Howie shills for the administration PART XVIII

Here is Brit describing his hard-hitting interview technique, that so impressed Mr. Conflict of Interest:

I can't really think of anything. Some people have quibbled about whether the sheriff was brought into the picture when he should have been, and that the Vice President should have undergone questioning immediately after that. I don't think that goes very far, and it didn't much interest me. ... I tried to ask questions that would of interest to others.

And Petey reports that NBC's Today show said Fox failed to air Cheney's admission to having a beer at lunch, although that admission did appear in the transcript of the interview. (Although for all I know, Petey had a beer or two at breakfast…)

Also, I'm going to go out on a limb here, but might not a guy who lies about nuclear weapons, terrorism, and whether or not he claimed, on videotape, that there was a Prague meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence be capable of lying about how many beers he had before he started shooting people? Just asking....