IRAQ
See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil
America's most important foreign policy venture is teetering on the edge of
civil war, and new evidence shows the Bush administration likely fixed
intelligence to justify war. But you might not have heard much about it. Though
print media outlets have provided some coverage of the major stories in recent
weeks, television media -- still the primary source of news for most Americans
(http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=834) -- is failing
miserably. America is being kept in the dark.
THE CARNAGE THEY WON'T COVER: Violence in Iraq is sky-rocketing. The number of
brutal suicide bombings in Iraq recently reached a record high
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1481952,00.html) , "with more than
67 insurgents blowing themselves up in the month of April alone." Newsday
reports
(http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq0512,0,4630319.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)
that insurgents are "effectively encircling the [capital city of Baghdad] and
trying to cut it off from the north, south and west." And Pat Lang, the former
top Middle East intelligence official at the Pentagon, says, "It's just
political rhetoric to say we are not in a civil war. We've been in a civil war
for a long time.
(http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq0512,0,4630319.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)
" But according to ABC News, our television media simply doesn't care
(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238) . The network's morning
briefing yesterday noted, "We say with all the genuine apolitical and
non-partisan human concern that we can muster that the death and carnage in Iraq
is truly staggering. And/but we are sort of resigned to the Notion that it
simply isn't going to break through to American news organizations, or, for the
most part, Americans.... What is hands down the biggest story every day in the
world will get almost no coverage.
(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238) "
THE MEMO THEY WON'T DISCUSS: Last week, a British newspaper released top-secret
documents suggesting that " President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair had
conditionally agreed by July 2002 to invade Iraq
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0512-01.htm) ." In one memo from July
'02, Britain's top intelligence official states that "he had returned from
Washington, where there had been a 'perceptible shift in attitude. Bush wanted
to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of
terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and the facts
were being fixed around the policy
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0512-01.htm) .'" The memo seemed to
provide powerful new evidence that the Bush administration was willing to
consciously manipulate intelligence to push forward its invasion plans. Since
its release, however, the U.S. press has stayed silent
(http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2511) . Days after its release, Salon
columnist Joe Conason asked, "Are Americans so jaded about the deceptions
perpetrated by our own government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no
longer interested in fresh and damning evidence of those lies? Or are the
editors and producers who oversee the American news industry simply too timid
to report that proof on the evening broadcasts and front pages
(http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/05/06/bush_blair_iraq/index_np.html)
?" According to media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, "As far as
the media are concerned, the answer to Conason's second question would seem to
be yes (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2511) ."
THE ISSUE THEY WON'T RAISE: "Are we, or are we not, building permanent military
bases in Iraq? Yes or no?" So asks national security expert and former Sen. Gary
Hart this week, noting that " the press has been unaccountably lax in pursuing
this question
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/gary-hart/iraq-exit-or-empire.html)
," despite its central role in the larger picture of U.S. goals in Iraq. If the
goal of the war was to "dominate the behavior of the region (including securing
oil supplies), then you build permanent bases for some kind of permanent
American military presence. If the goal was to spread democracy and freedom,
then you don't
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/gary-hart/iraq-exit-or-empire.html)
." Brookings Institution scholar Michael O'Hanlon echoed Hart. To push for
permanent bases now, he says, "would politically hurt those we should want to
strengthen, and reinforce the image of America as occupier that has already cost
us so dearly in the Iraq operation." O'Hanlon continues "the issue has received
remarkably little sustained attention to date but demands it
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/michael-ohanlon/iraq-permanent-bases-a-mistake.html)
." And Susan Rice adds, "It is astonishing that the Administration has not been
held accountable by Congress ( or the press
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/susan-rice/iraq-we-should-leave-when-were-done.html)
) to provide a black and white response to this enormously important question."
THE "VICTORY STRATEGY" THEY WON'T QUESTION: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld claims
the U.S. has a " victory strategy
(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aAzfzbHVpVa4&refer=top_world_news)
" for Iraq, the goal of which is "to help the Iraqi Forces develop the skills
and the capacity to provide their own security." But the Government
Accountability Office reported recently that coalition leadership has still
failed " to develop a system to assess the readiness of Iraqi military and
police forces (http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=438) so they can identify
weaknesses and provide them with effective support." Moreover, the GAO states,
"U.S. government agencies do not report reliable data
(http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=438) on the extent to which Iraqi
security forces are trained and equipped," and the high number of security
forces frequently touted by senior White House officials "overstates the number
actually serving," probably by "tens of thousands."
(http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=438) Yet days after this GAO report was
released, Secretary Rumsfeld appeared on two Sunday news programs and repeated
his inflated numbers with impunity. Hosts on both
(http://www.sundaymorningtalk.com/smt/smt_transcripts/FNS_2005_03_20.txt)
programs
(http://www.sundaymorningtalk.com/smt/smt_transcripts/ABCTW_2005_03_20.txt)
failed to question Rumsfeld about the report. |
