Login Here
So, I saw this headline for an article in the New York Times: The Defendant Isn't the Only Player With a Personal Stake in the Libby Verdict.
"Whoopee!," I thought to myself.
Finally, the establishment media is going to write about how directly and inseparably involved it is in the Libby case. From the Times alone, we've had Judy Miller, David Sanger and Jill Abramson testify before the jury. But now, I imagined, they've let Neil Lewis write about some of the media's personal agendas and reputations on the line in the trial, starting with the Gray Lady herself, perhaps. This is a line I've taken a bit in posts like this, this, this and this.
Not!
The article wanders through a discussion of the lead lawyers in the case, especially Ted Wells for the defense and Patrick Fitzgerald for the government. So, they have a bit at stake in this case, eh? There's a revelatory "ah ha!" moment for you.
But that's not the only coat of whitewash being applied to the sins of the press in today's New York Times. In this front page piece about the vast right wing conspiracy's newfound love, or at least, ambivalence about Democratic presidential primary hopeful Hillary Clinton, we find this nugget (emphasis added):
Mr. Scaife, reclusive heir to the Mellon banking fortune, spent more than $2 million investigating and publicizing accusations about the supposed involvement of Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton in corrupt land deals, sexual affairs, drug running and murder.
Um, excuse me, but may I just ask, are you fucking kidding me?
I bet if you ran a LexisNexis search on the "New York Times" and "Whitewater" you'd get more hits than Cobb and Rose combined. Joe Lelyveld presented a long and tortured defense of the paper's coverage in the New York Review of Books when selected to review (ahem!) Sidney Blumenthal's book The Clinton Wars. Now, suddenly, the New York Times tells us that the Clintons' involvement in Whitewater and other fevered right wing delusions was "supposed"?
Not so fast, Granny.
How many column inches will the New York Times devote to examining the role of the press in propelling right wing falsehoods and power grabbing propaganda? Somehow I don't think the next Sunday Times Magazine piece about the press will cover this. Anyone want to take me up on that wager?
The Gray Lady, like the Washington Post, is trying to pretend she's not in it way past her tits in propelling right wing propaganda, not just about the selling of the Iraq invasion, not just surrounding the Libby criminal trial, but about a whole bucketload of additional history. I wonder, does whitewash stick to sewage?
Joe Conason has a book coming out called It Can Happen Here. If "it" does happen here, it will be because the press willingly became well tended veal to grace the tables of the right wing authoritarian cultists.
UPDATE: Digby has much more.
Spotlight
Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
Woohoooo!
Wow, first ever in top 10
Um, “front” page piece [not “font page”]
[Mod Note; thanks for the heads up. We’re working on it.]
Hi, Pach. Good post.
Also, I’ve read about the “long line of reporters who testified in the Libby case” [and then they name the folks who testified FOR Libby, and how this somehow weakens the privilege/can’t disclose sources argument.
But isn’t this apples & oranges: weren’t the reporters testifying FOR Libby doing so voluntarily, not under subpoena?
topy cop: this font page piece
Did you mean “front page piece” for your linky?
[Mod Note; thanks for the heads up. We’re working on it.]
Time to tell the nationally-based advertisers in the WaPravda and NYzvestia that we cannot support them.
Worthy Spotlight to Imus–the Friedman Unit aka apologist is announced for his show tomorrow morning.
Must not overkill by commenting that ? goes outside the right curly quote…must not….”topy cop” tiptoeing back into her stylebook stacks now….
Great post commentary as always, Pach!
Glad you caught this Pach. I linked to this earlier, with the same expectations you had — and then I read it. It’s useless. Worse than useless.
I’ve only been here since the trial. Could someone summarize the general take on Tom Friedman? I saw the Friedman unit = 6 more months.
Do people generally think he’s out of touch with the Middle East?
Not to be outdone, the WaPoo not only direct assaults the prosecution’s case courtesy p.r. shills like Toensing, they come thru the back door with the ol’ everybody does it…
I refuse to link to their front page. Can you say cookin’ the books for the court of public opinion?
Boston1775 @ 10
This is a hard question. Think of a pyramid of people who take TF seriously in varying degrees. The closer to the top, the more seriously he’s taken; the closer to the bottom, the less so. At the top of the pyramid is TF himself. At the bottom are the rest of us. However, he has seen the pyramids.
Quite a lot of the NYT and WaPo writers, folks like Judy Miller, Michael Gordon, David Sanger, Bob Woodward, etc. have for the last 6 plus years been rubbing Junya’s butt like it was Aladdin’s Lamp, and instead of producing something magical, all we got was Eau du Polecat.
Boston 1775 - Why yes - yes they do.
And FU may “technically” be six months, but the “reality” of the FU is that it is a perpetual 6 months (4evah). Sort of like the speed of light, an FU is always 6 months away.
Scarecrow - I thought it was an easy question - but I usually do, naturally.
I will speak for myself only, Boston1775.
a resounding yes to your Friedman query; he’s got much blood on his hands, imho. The very best thing about the ‘wall’ at the NYT is that I am spared his demonic and pathological drivel.
(hope that’s not too harsh…:))
Dare I say an FU is a physical constant? I do.
Expect the Libby on the Crucifix media swarm to get louder, folks.
This is just the beginning. And of course, the establishment media outlets will not be honest about their own agendas in all this.
reminder, someone in an earlier thread reported that Toensing will be online tomorrow at the WPost.
Indeed.
I believe this is happening as we type.
Evil Parallel Universe @ 15
Well, for you, it would be simple. Mere mortals must struggle with these things, and scarecrows have an even harder time.
scarecrow,
Thanks for the explanation. So, is it that he’s so sure of his wisdom that those who come close are drawn in by his assurance and maybe, forget to think for themselves?
Boston1775 @ 10
If there were 100 different positions to take on the ME, Tommy would be the one who has taken them all…often at the very same time.
In the end however, disregard his sanctimony and “aw shucks, I’m just a good ol’ normal American”, and you find that he is a firmly ensconced pro-Neocon resident of the very same wealthy elites who brought you the Iraq war and are trying their best to bring you the same with Iran.
A turd coated in Cheetos is still a turd! To some eyes, a purty one, but still a turd!
Evil Parallel Universe @ 17
Yes, and a mental variable.
Boston1775 @ 22
That’s pretty good. What’s fascinating is that he can be equally wise in opposite directions. So you can listen to him, or flip a coin.
Mad Dogs, I just thought I was too ignorant…
He seemed so sure….
And The World is Flat did not = neocon, it meant new Economist.
angie, Is the blood from fooling people like me into not fighting sooner?
Actually, he’s (Friedman) quite unsure of his “wisdom,” b/c he has given himself (and others) a perpetual out out.
Of course, one might think that he gives himself a perpetual six months to be proven wrong, is that he knows he’s wrong and doesn’t want to admit it, and then he would no longer be “wise” and its good to be a paid Philospher Moron and he doesn’t want to give up the gig.
Nice post especially the part about her boobies. I spotlighted it to the NYT,
Boston-Do you know about the Spotlight Project?
EPU, got it. You’re funny.
ccmask, No I dont’ know about the Spotlight Project. I can’t even quote in this thing yet.
Tell me.
Late to the thread. Great post, Pach!
wow, Boston1775– there’s plenty of blame to go around, but the Tom Friedman’s of our world surely bear enormous responsibility for the death, despair and destruction of hundreds of thousands of lives.
Welcome to the good fight.
Directions for the Spotlight Function on FDL:
At the bottom of every post you will read this:
This entry is filed under Uncategorized, CIA Leak Case, Washington Post, Media, DC/K Street Elites. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Spotlight
Click on Spotlight. This enables you to send the post to everyone you list. I think you can send 10 in one shot–at least that is the most I can send at once.
I sent this a copy of this post to the NYT and the last post to Brit Hume & Friends.
Great post Pach… another post pointing out that the only real media in this country is right here on the internets.
OT there is a diary over at kos that is just too hard to read.
Book Review: Joshua Key’s “The Deserter’s Tale”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/19/15268/6181
ROFL reading all these Tom Friedman comments.
It is the pretense of intellectuality and the reality of superficiality that irk me. I believe he did outline all the downsides with invading Iraq and then paradoxically supported it wholeheartedly. Then he did his famous Friedman Unit routine where every 6 months he would say we had only 6 months to turn the situation around. Finally, I think he just said it was a mistake and walked away from it without taking any responsibility for his previous support.
He is in general a popularizer of whatever the sexy new meme is. Iraq, the world is flat, china is the new green, all of these are essentially the flavor of the month (or year), promoted, and then forgotten as soon as his next book comes out.
Heavens ccmask, That explanation blew a hole clean through my head. But for the thousands out there who can actually work a computer, listen up!
and now…a message from our sponsor.
Boston: It is easy. Click on the word SPOTLIGHT in the paragraph at the bottom of the post. It will open to a new page. Click on any newspaper name, and click add. It will send a copy to everyone that you put on your list. Just follow the directions–it’s easy!
If you enjoy reading the post and you can think of someone else who might benefit from reading it, just put them on your list and send.
You can also do it for radio and tv personalities. I wish I had me one of these spotlight functions at work. I would love it!
We have so many customers that it would really be great.
Which day is better to watch the trial this week. Tuesday or Wednesday? I want to take a vacation day and I’m not sure which day to stay home…help!
why does MSNBC report the Al Qaeda Camps story as Quote as reported in the New York Times unquote? The NYT’s story reports they got the info from a US Government official who asked his name not be revealed. Doesnt that make the story a USG report, which the NYT’s chose to print, a slightly different characterization?
ccmask @
38
48 hour flu
ccmask - Not sure at all but lhp will be there tomorrow so it must be a good one. I think she will be posting later. Might be a better time to ask.
Check out the link in the update from Digby.
ccmask @ 38
It might be over but for jury deliberation as of Tuesday afternoon. First the prosecution [not Fitz] then the defense who has promised to
talk an insanely long timecover everything necessary, then if time Fitzgerald.Otherwise he will be Wednesday morning. Then the jury will deliberate for…we have no idea how long.
What do you mean “watch”? It’s not on television. However it is on Janevision, Christyvision, and Marcyvision :) It was pretty cool realizing during jury selection I was getting as good coverage in Russia, thru fdl, as anyone.
If you’re trying to go in person this is mighty unlikely. It’s going to be mui crowded.
Two new shiny things at egregiousBlog. Both written within a 15 minute period.
I graduated from High School in 1971. I knew the war was wrong and went to a get together at Harvard Divinity School.
I wanted to do something.
It was a training. And the woman with a nearly shaved head told me to lie down in front of the pigs. I was to let them cuff me and drag me to the cruiser.
I was a minister’s daughter from a wealthy suburb, trying to help. I hadn’t even called policemen names. And I didn’t go to the demonstration.
Maybe I will this time.
Thanks everyone. Yes, I meant watch on Janevision. lol
Pach,
I think it is the disconnect between our expectations of what the NYT should be doing and the reality of what they, in fact, produce. I’ve been looking especially closely at their Iran/Iraq coverage recently. The problem is essentially the same. I keep waiting for a minimum amount of critical analysis and critical thinking by supposedly professional journalists with years of contacts and experience in the area. But it just doesn’t happen. And we’re not talking subtleties but the major stuff. That is what is so frustrating. To discuss fallout of the Libby trial and miss talking about the effects on the press or the White House are staggering lapses. We might expect this at the Podunk Tribune but at major national news outlets it is beyond deplorable.
For me, it is indicative of two things: that professional standards in the news business are a myth and a figleaf and that corporate interests continue to dominate over news reporting. This is, of course, a major raison d’etre of the blogosphere to question and to some extent replace the new paradigm of journalism as stenography and infotainment.
The corporate-subsidiary media outlets need to be brought up on charges of soliciting propaganda. Because, oh yes, it can, and is, “happening here.”
Our modern ’security state’ of a federal government uses the classification of information, to modify a phrase used by the government in the Libby trial, as a “sword and a shield” rather than simply to safeguard and enable the defense of our nation. As a sword against the public’s right to know how our government operates and to score petty politcial points, and as a shield, not to prevent hostile forces from learning of critical secrets, but against accountability and exposure to public ridicule. Both the Executive and Legislative Branches play this game, in tandem with corrupt corporate subsidiaries selling news in service to a private agenda that will benefit their sibling corporate subsidiaries and their profits, our democracy be damned.
ccmask @ 38
Notice how, in true Friedman style, I argued for both Tuesday and Wednesday, thus not answering your question.
OT - TPM Muckraker is reporting that Hillary’s team is trying to pressure strongly anti-war Congressional Democrats to publicly vouch for Hillary’s anti-war credentials.
I imagine Hillary is calling in all her chits and making threats to make this happen. What, if anything, can we do to stop it?
Here’s the link and an exerpt:
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.....f_congress
————-
This is interesting: A high-level Democrat tells me that several of Hillary Clinton’s senior advisers are reaching out to top Dem donors and other political leaders with connections in Congress to ask them to make Hillary’s case on the Iraq war privately to highly-visible antiwar members of Congress.
The idea appears to be to get these go-betweens to suggest to prominent antiwar members of Congress such as Russ Feingold and John Murtha that they either back Hillary or vouch for her position on Iraq.
“They are asking people to try to reach out to members of Congress who are leaders in the antiwar movement, and see if they can be brought on board,” the source says, speaking of Hillary’s senior advisers.
[snip]
The campaign is not so much to get outright endorsements from such members of Congress, the source emphasized (though that certainly wouldn’t be rejected, of course). The goal is more to get visible antiwar Congress people to vouch for Hillary’s antiwar credentials, which she’s being quizzed about due to her backing for the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to go to war.
eg - how very Friedman of you - a non-answer answer that can be repeated at will
/snark
dana priest on tweety now
The continuing willingness of the NYT, CNN and the old big 3 TV networks to continue on with their business as usual attitude, even after the clear message of the 2006 elections, demonstrates beyond any doubt that our media structure is seriously damaged.
If the U.S. is to remain a democracy in anything but name, we must find a way to rebuild our broadcast media apparatus from the ground up. By “broadcast” I refer to unidirectional flow. The internet, which is inherently multi-way, does not share the problems of communication devices which run out from the center only. A TV set does not have any way of sending physical signals back to the transmitting station. For that reason a television channel is more like a club than like a seesaw or even a crowbar. Literally no signal is fed from the target audience back to the source.
Because of their one-way nature, television and radio and newsprint are ideally suited to delivering propaganda and poorly suited to creating substantive dialog. For that reason, a genuine democracy must ensure that what emerges from the boxes and broadsheets does not consist of the propaganda offerings of only one political party.
If we as a people can not devise a means to wrest back control of our own broadcast media apparatus, we may as well forget about fair elections and a healthy Constitution. Nothing substantive will change as long as a small coterie of moneyed interests retain sole possession of the national megaphone.
A proper Friedman would have suggested ALL Tues and Wednes in perpetuity, just to be sure.
How about a column about the tragic fall of the Republican Party, going from Lincoln to Bush?
Pachacutec @ 42
Like usual, Digby does indeed dig it!
Ralph, You said what I’m thinking.
jayt @ 51
This was powerful. Hope you guys can catch it on the repeat. They showed photos of the mold and ratholes. Chris was clearly angry. They talked about the lack of preparation for casualties of the
idiotic escalation’surge.’“Rat-infested.” It’s got legs.
Coverage continues with guests/vets.
*xyz @ 49
Why did my eyes first read that as bought rather than brought?
Alice @
19
Here’s what that link leads to:
Victoria Toensing
*****Lawyer Specializing in White-Collar Criminal Defense*****
That says it all for me. What a scum-bucket.
(yes, I know, EVERYONE deserves defense, but to specialize in getting the frat-boys off? Disgusting waste of human flesh.)
pow wow, Is this something that can actually be done? By whom?
George Porges @ 39
The Times article with the anonymous sourcing is essentially old and somewhat misleading news. What is left out is that Pakistan has never targeted the Taliban in their country. It has always been the view of Pakistan’s intelligence service the ISI that the Taliban (which it helped create) will oust Karzai eventually and it has acted accordingly.
The Pakistanis have occasionally gone after al Qaeda types partly under US pressure and partly due to some assassination plots against Musharraf. However, with the truce last year in the tribal areas, al Qaeda has found it a lot easier to move around there. That is a little different than that they have managed to re-establish their organization worldwide. It is not so much what they have done but what the Pakistanis haven’t done.
The article conflates as our government often does al Qaeda in Mesopotamia with bin Laden’s original al Qaeda. While they share some tactics and rhetoric, they are only tangentially related.
The article also raises the issue of British with Pakistani roots involved in terrorism. Here too the al Qaeda connection is less than meets the eye. Many of the radical madrassas in Pakistan were set up not with al Qaeda but Saudi money. There are loose affiliations but mostly it is one of brand identification. Would be terrorists do things in the name of al Qaeda but the organizational tie-ins are tenuous and are much more an outgrowth of religious radicalism in the madrassas and in Pakistani civil life at large.
Ralph (52) — I understand where you’re coming from, but we don’t need to rebuild the concept of broadcast.
What we need is to reassert OUR OWNERSHIP of broadcast airwaves. WE OWN THEM, we, the people.
Corporations are licensed to use the airwaves while serving the public interest. These corporations have forgotten they do not own the airwaves and are obligated to serve the common good. There’s nothing preventing them from making a profit while serving the public good; broadcast media used to do it all the time.
Further, there is a compelling public interest in restricting ownership of broadcast media; we, the owners of broadcase airwaves, need to revisit whether it is in the public’s interest for there to be such a heavy concentration of ownership among so few outlets. No rebuilding necessary — just a return to the values we used to share in this country.
Hugh @ 61,
Can you explain how you know this?
One of Tom Friedmans’ classic Cheeto-coated turds:
“The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”
– Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree
Corporate authoritarian worship at its acme.
-GSD
Amy Goodman had Chris Hedges on her show today and it is as powerful and frightening as anything I have read lately wrt his new book:
It’s a lengthy interview which I solidly recommend reading, but this tidbit is on topic:
http://www.democracynow.org/ar.....19/1545218
Mad Dogs @ 58
Because you are smart.
It appears that Hillary wants to use her political power to coerce other Democrats to give her cover on Iraq. She clearly has been unable to put forth an argument in her own defense, which makes sense considering her positions and rhetoric on Iraq and Iran have been largely indefensible.
And since we are talking about Friedman, I will make my own bold prediction:
FDL will be to Hillary Clinton in 2007 what FDL was to Joe Lieberman in 2006.
See Matt Stoller’s recent work at MyDD for a sampling of what I’m talking about:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/19/16148/5292
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/14/145458/176
The Newspaper as we have known it is an anachronism.
It is being eclipsed by the emerging Internet- based news gathering and opinion sites the likes of FDL, Kos, WhatReallyHappened.com, CrooksAndLiars.com, etc, etc.
The Ol’ gray lady is just that…old. And unfortunately while still in denial she remains nonetheless, terminal.
Angie!
It’s great to see you again. Hope you are doing well.
thanks egregious– I am fine and it’s nice to be back among the very smart and caring folks at the Lake.
We missed you.
Boston1775 @ 63
Mostly I have been following these matters for a while so my views come from much of what I have seen and read over that time. I would suggest that if you want a quickie course on some of what I was saying you might take a look at the wiki articles on the Taliban and on al Zarqawi: alleged links to al Qaeda. For Saudi money and Pakistani madrassas, you might try here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/.....assas.html
If there is something else specific, let me know.
Boston1775 @ 60
1775 - I think Ralph’s taking it to the next logical step: We, the People, by way of our Congress, must wrest control of our national airwaves/wire services back from the corrupt corporate interests that now control them. I’m using the phrase “soliciting propaganda” to drive home a point and describe the reality, hopefully in a way that will resonate. There may be things around the edges a proactive Congress and regulatory agency could now do to rein some of it in, but not nearly enough, I’m sure, under current law and regulation.
Ralph @ 52 is pointing in the right direction. Instead of the House gearing up to grant more power and control to these corporate interests who dominate and control the flow of information in this country (by way of a federal shield law for reporter employees of these corporations), major due diligence is needed to break the stranglehold these bad faith corporations have on our ‘public common’ and thus on our public debate of the issues.
The Executive Branch classification system (as authorized by Congress) needs massive reform, and national security whistleblowers need solid protection, both long before a federal shield law for repoters is contemplated, in my opinion. But probably most important of all, as Ralph makes clear, is getting at least a significant part of what Ralph calls the “national megaphone” back into the hands and control of the public, where free airtime for political candidates can be used in campaigns, and public-interest (and private-agenda-free) reporting can be done and accessed by the whole country.
It’s a huge though vital undertaking, no doubt, but I think Ralph’s absolutely right about the consequences for our democracy if we cannot find the will and the way to do it.
Yes, Pach, these folks sure have lots of chutzpa. Guess it goes with the territory. Neither the NYT or the WaPo were particularly shy about repeating all those allegations by Scaife, and I seem to remember that at least one reporter earned her nickname via the Whitewater “investigation”.
http://www.firedoglake.com/200.....pulitzers/
Anyway, I had something to say about Ms. Toensing’s article today, and a not-too-surprising guess about the real motivation.
http://cujo359.blogspot.com/20.....skate.html
Hey Angie nice to read ya.
Now OT.
Rawstory is pumping a new headline: US navy denies offensive build-up in the Persian Gulf:
“Commander of the US Naval Forces Central Command and the
Bahrain-based 5th Fleet, Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, said that this
was “an unprecedented time of instability and insecurity in the
region,” with tension in Somalia, Lebanon, Eastern Mediterranean,
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.”
That Neo-Con Pacification Strategy has worked like a charm, eh admiral.
The admiral also pushes some very ominous quotes about “what the Iranians are up to”…including how the Iranians have been war gaming and threatening to “mine” the gulf. The admiral then calls mines a “terrorist weapon”.
Yep, look for a US ship to hit a mine and that will immdediately be laid at the feet of Ahmadinejad.
-GSD
Murray Waas has a new article up.
GSD @ 74
Jim Webb spoke about these carrier groups in the gulf. How as Sec of the Navy, having the carriers in such narrow waters risks the ships and the crews. The straights are too narrow and there are mines there from WWII. This action is an incitement waiting to happen.
Also have heard from Vets from Gulf War I stating their ships had hit these mines during that war.
OMG GSD
From Waas:
In addition, a senior aide to Cheney testified during Libby’s trial that, after learning herself from a senior CIA official that Plame worked for the CIA, she shared that information with both Cheney and Libby during a meeting she had with both men. And Cheney himself told the special prosecutor that he regularly shared any information he learned about Plame with Libby as well, according to people familiar with Cheney’s interview with the special prosecutor.
Is this new info?
well hello Firedogs,
when I saw this ridiculous article and it’s byline, I immediately thought
The Newspaper of Broken Record
GSD @ 74
Remember the Maine !
new thread
*xyz @ 78
Not a Plameologist. The Cathie Martin part isn’t. The Cheney told Libby stuff about Plame isn’t. The Cheney shared info about Plame regularly with Libby I think is.
And it would undercut Libby’s bad memory argument.
*xyz at 78 - I don’t recall reading any report that discussed the substance of Cheney’s interview with the Special Counsel before, from anyone “familiar” with that interview. So, although rather vague, it may well be news.
Wow. Lots of good conversation going on in this thread.
Pachacutec: Thanks for this post. I almost lost my breakfast when I read the copy you emphasized in the Times this morning. And I hadn’t even eaten breakfast!
Boston: I’ve lurked here a while, but, like you, have only recently commented. Thanks for bringing up Friedman, as I always enjoy a good Friedman bashing. Can’t add anything to the criticism of the substance of his writing that astute FDL-ers haven’t already made. But I’ll comment on his style. The guy is a master of the awful, awkward, and unnecessary metaphor. So, he can’t resist making lame arguments, can he not at least write them well? He’s the OpEd rock star of the NY Times, after all. Ooops, never mind. Hie thee, Mr. Friedman, to the works of Jean Rhys and Penelope Fitzgerald. Or, for a contemporary exemplar of the craft, Jane Hamsher. Sparse, direct, powerful prose.
OT and late, but Christy, your earlier post on what’s going on with our wounded troops was so important and well done. If we ever have a president who wants to create a cabinet level position for Secretary of Our National Conscience, you’re my candidate. Keep it up.
As for Hillary calling in chips to support her anti-war creds? I’ve got lots of thoughts on Hillary’s hawkish positions…now I’m supposed to process this? Calls for a nap, or a glass of red.
bellesouth @ 75
Interesting article. Thanks.
Is this really necessary?? Really?
Celtic Music, This whole Friedman thing… I don’t know where to turn. I actually thought he was making sense six months ago…
Honestly, what are we to do with Iran in the offing?
I’m absolutely clear it’s a mess. Now, what to do?
Just curious, on the subject of Michael Gordon - what’s everyone’s opinion about “Cobra II”, the book he co-wrote w/ Bernard Trainor about Iraq? I have had it on my tbr pile a long time, without getting to it. Not sure whether to trust it.
Cujo: Thanks for your story. I don’t think I knew you had a blog…I might have been there at another time unless I’m remembering it anew :}}
tejanarusa, I have the feeling that Michael Gordon’s book isn’t going to a great review… much like my inquiry about Tom Friedman.
We’ve been hoodwinked, even though we read.
It’s quite a problem, and I’m going to have another glass of red.
I’ve been thinking lately about a class action brought on behalf of the citizens of the United States against The Times, WSJ, AP, ABC, FAUX. I believe that we can prove that harm has been done. Settlement to be the cost of the “rebuilding” plus legal expense. IANAL, so I don’t have a clue where to begin or if it’s even possible.
Boston1775 @ 90
Hi– Cobra II was one of my first Iraq purchases - then I started reading FDL. I’ve been here awhile - think that’s why I never actually read past the first chapter or two.
Boston 1775 @87: A few thoughts.
Friedman: Look, I’m cynical about most OpEd writers. Perhaps more so on Friedman. I really believe that he came at his pro-Iraq War position because of his belief in a globalized economy. I’ll be the first to admit that I could be wrong. But he’s tooted that horn for so long. I’ve never seen a sign of a populist bone in the man’s body. The wonderfulness of globalization seems to have seeped into his DNA, and the prospect of a “democracy in Iraq” overrode any qualms he may have had about a war. You know, an event that kills lots of people. I don’t think Friedman is capable of taking a position that doesn’t factor in his near religious belief in the prospects of a globalized economy. But this is one person’s opinion. Who knows what really goes on his head? But it’s the only reason I’ve been able to fathom for his continued support for “six more months.”
And, let’s face it…he’s a DC insider, like so many of the pundits and reporters who shape and frame our so-called national debates. They’re only going to push the envelope just so far, else they’re not going to be invited to Tim Russert’s roundtable or some power broker’s cocktail parties.
To help make sense of it all, read widely. In the run-up to the Iraq war, Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel of Knight-Ridder’s Washington bureau (now McClatchey), were doing reporting that called into question Judy Miller’s articles that were front-paged in the NY Times. I came across them because bloggers linked to them. As you delve into blogland, follow the links they give you. Because they’re often to original reporting that bloggers can’t yet finance. (Waiting for the day.) You’ve come across a good one at FDL. Check out some others in the blogroll at left.
As to Iran, sounds like you’re quite clear on that one. You don’t need Friedman’s take to guide you. Ignore the guy. In the end, he’s just a man with opinions. Like you. Like me. He may have insider access that we don’t, but his brain processes info just like ours do. And perhaps with an agenda that we don’t have.
The mainstream media turds, through negligence and incompetence, have betrayed America for 14many years solid years (and before). Since the 1992 GOP Contract With America. They supported and promoted the GOP unabashedly and gave them a pass on every questionable pose from the pursuit of Clinton to lobby sell-out to Swift Boat to Iraq…you-name-it.
The media did this for the worst of reasons. Money. $$$, avarice.
America’s democracy has been sold-out.
The absurd campaign finance system in America has poisoned all objectivity and honesty of the media. No one asks the question, for example:
Where oh where does all this money raised by parties, candidates and PACS wind up?
In the bank accounts of media entities and pundits etc. That’s where. They are the recipients not the politicians.
Virtually every single campaign in America, win or lose, winds up in debt to the media…and the question always…as it is already with the 2008 candidates….can they get the money?
Its never a question of who has the right ideas. Who has the ability to make things happen.
Who can competently and fairly govern America, protect defend and honor the Constitution?
Its: who can get the money?? to sustain a media campaign expensive and designed to promote the candidate no matter his/her flaws or lackings.
The solution is for Americans to get a fvking education and elect candidates who will overhaul the media/politics relationship.
If I were President I would call all the major media entities in America to the White House, and tell them to bring their FCC licenses.
When they arrived I would tell them:
Put your license on my desk.
And would tell them you will from this day on provide free and equal campaign time and space to all candidates per the order of the new Department of Democracy. Period.
If you’ve got a problem with this, you can leave your license on the desk and get the fuck out of my office.
I would tell those that remained that the Dept would be reviewing and regulating the veracity and truthfulness of all campaign promotion broadcast and printed, so that ridiculous things like Swift Boat would be chopped off at the neck.
You media people owe America and Americans a free and open and honest democracy for us giving you these licenses and allowing you into our homes, TVs, computers, and the public airwaves and places to broadcast advertise and promote yourselves and your clients.
The “press” is accorded extra-constitutional rights and for that Americans have a right to expect they take special care with our democracy and the truth and openness.