What do Iran, Lex Luthor, Dr. No, Darth Vader and Saddam Hussein have in common? They are fictional enemies.
But if you believe Senator Clinton, Iran is the latest threat to mankind. In the April 16 televised presidential debate, George Stephanopoulos asked the Democratic candidates if the United States should adopt a new foreign policy to protect Israel’s security. “Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?”asked Mr. Stephanopoulos.[i]
“Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel,” said Senator Clinton. “Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.”[ii]
Senator Clinton expanded her answer during an interview with Keith Olbermann. “I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War, when we had a bipolar world. And what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel,” said Senator Clinton. “In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement, where we said, no, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons. If you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well.”[iii]
Mrs. Clinton continued her militaristic rhetoric during an interview with ABC News. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran… In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,”said Senator Clinton.[iv]
This is a departure from her previous position regarding hypothetical questions. Senator Clinton often refused to answer hypothetical questions in Democratic presidential debates and during interviews.
Furthermore, Senator Clinton criticized Senator Obama about a comment he made early in the campaign regarding potential military action in Pakistan. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act,” said Mr. Obama, “we will.”[v]
The media portrayed Senator Obama’s comment as a gaffe. Senator Clinton used that comment to argue Mr. Obama was too inexperienced in foreign affairs to be president. However, the argument lost its effectiveness when the Bush Administration launched an attack against an Al Qaeda target in Pakistan.
Now she wants to destroy Iran because the Iranians may obtain nuclear weapons in the future, thus jeopardizing Israel’s security. What made her change her mind?
First, she is losing the race to become the Democratic presidential nominee. Second, Senator Clinton is trying to prove she is capable of being the Commander In Chief. Third, she is getting desperate and the Bush Administration has demonstrated fear works even if the threat is not real.
President Bush convinced Americans the evil Saddam Hussein possessed a lethal ray gun that could destroy the United States and the evil Iraqi dictator was about to launch an armada of nuclear powered robots to invade the United States. Implausible? Like Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?
President Bush exploited the fears of Americans to initiate a war against Iraq. The war was based on flawed intelligence. The President took advantage of our insecurity to abuse the Bill of Rights. Mr. Bush used the threat of terrorism to win a second term as president. In politics, fear works. Unfortunately, President Bush created a precedent. To win an election you can scare the electorate into voting for you.
However, there is another factor that is being ignored by the public. The Clintons are motivated by public opinion polls. It is an historical fact. Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign, in particular, is marketed through focus groups. The Clinton campaign may have detected a weakness of Senator Obama’s with Jewish voters and are exploiting that weakness. If Mr. Obama’s support in the Jewish community is soft, then Senator Clinton will try to secure the pro Israel faction of the Democratic Party by implying she is more committed to the security of Israel than Barack Hussein Obama. It is part of the strategy to diminish Senator Obama to the electorate and especially the super delegates.
Senator Clinton is using scare tactics regardless of her true motivation. She learned this skill by observing the Bush Administration over the last seven years and watching movies.
In the movie “Wag the Dog,” a Washington DC poltical insider asks a Hollywood producer to stage a phony war with Albania to distract the public from a presidential sex scandal with a minor. Why Albania? “Because we found out they have the bomb… And wait a second… The bomb’s not there because they’d have to have a rocket… It’s a suitcase bomb. You don’t need missiles. You can put a bomb in a suitcase… And it’s in Canada. Albanian terrorists have placed a suitcase bomb in Canada in an attempt to infiltrate it into the USA,”said Stanley Moss as portrayed by Dustin Hoffman.[vi]
The current presidential campaign has taught us Senator Clinton shares an adverse flaw with President Bush. They do not read. In August 2001, President Bush did not read the Presidential Daily Brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States.”
In 2002, Senator Clinton did not read the flawed National Intelligence Estimate’s report about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, nor did she read the National Intelligence Estimate in 2007. The report clearly stated, “Iran had halted a military program in 2003, though it continues to enrich uranium, ostensibly for peaceful uses.”[vii]
The Mediacracy is participating in the charade because they are asking questions based on a false premise. Furthermore, the media neglects to correct the presidential candidates when they make false assumptions that are based on a false premise.
Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, and is currently not a threat to launch a nuclear attack against Israel. It is extremely irresponsible for President Bush, Senator Clinton and the Mediacracy to declare Iran a nuclear threat.
Americans are uninformed. That is a problem. We do not take the time to research and investigate an issue. We ignore history. For example, in 1974 Pakistan Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutt promised to develop nuclear weapons even if it meant Pakistanis had to “eat grass” to achieve this goal. The urgency to develop nuclear weapons was in response to neighboring India successfully detonating a nuclear device. Pakistan and India are enemies. Pakistan was able to manufacture nuclear fuel using domestic uranium in 1980. Pakistan conducted the first of six nuclear weapons tests in 1998.[viii] It took Pakistan 24 years to develop nuclear weapons – without the consent of the international community.
The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reported Iran stopped its nuclear program in 2003. Using Pakistan as a template, it would take Iran at least a decade to develop nuclear weapons. The nuclear threat against Israel would not be completed until 2019 – the last year in the second term of the Clinton presidency. But we are being led to believe Iran is currently capable of becoming a nuclear threat by a cynical presidential candidate and by a slothful media.
In January, President Clinton characterized Senator Obama’s position on the Iraq war as a fairy tale, but Senator Clinton’s apocalyptic assumptions about Iran launching a nuclear attack against Israel and her hypothetical decisive response is a true work of fiction. She can call it “Wag the Dog II – The Road to Armageddon.”
[i] “Transcript Democratic presidential debate 4/16/08,” The New York Times.
[ii] “Transcript Democratic presidential debate 4/16/08,” The New York Times.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 21, 2008.
[iv] Patrick Healy, “Clinton Clearly Outduels Obama in Pennsylvania,” New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[v] Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Calls For Military Shift in U.S. Focus on Terrorism,” New York Times August 2, 2007.
[vi] “Wag the Dog,” New Line Cinemas, 1998.
[vii] Steven Lee Myers, “An Assessment Jars a Foreign Policy Debate About Iran,” New York Times, December 4, 2007.
[viii] “Timeline: Pakistan’s Nuclear Program,” CNN, 2004.
Showing posts with label the Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the Media. Show all posts
Friday, May 09, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
False Premise
It is a false statement made by informed people often enough to be presumed to be true; Al Qaeda will take over Iraq if the United States withdraws its military presence from the beleaguered Middle Eastern country.
In an interview with the ignorant Fox News personality Sean Hannity, Vice President Dick Cheney said, “If Al Qaeda were to take over big parts of Iraq, among other things, they would acquire control of an assistant oil resource. Iraq has almost 100 billion barrels of reserves, producing 2.5 to three million barrels a day. You take a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda and give it that kind of revenue, there‘s no telling the amount of trouble they could get into.”[i]
Later on in the interview, the vice president said, “and if a great white shark had balls, it would be a man.” Both assumptions are unlikely.
Arizona Senator and Republican presidential nominee John McCain asked U.S Commander in Iraq General David Petraeus during a Senate hearing if Al Qaeda was a major threat in Iraq. General Petraeus testified, “It is a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say 15 months ago.”[ii] Fifteen months ago, Al Qaeda was a major threat, but now Al Qaeda is a major threat. The first casualty of war is the truth. The second casualty of war is grammar. The war in Iraq has greatly improved our ability to manhandle the English language.
The Mainstream Media participates in this deception. The issue of Al Qaeda’s ability to take over Iraq strained its way into a Democratic presidential debate on February 26, 2008. During the debate, Tim Russert, the distinguished but overrated moderator of the political talk show Meet the Press, asked Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama a hypothetical question regarding Iraq after American troops have successfully withdrawn from the besieged Middle Eastern country. “If this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in totality, and Al Qaeda resurges, and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right in your mind as American president to reinvade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?”[iii]
Senator Clinton attempted to answer the question by saying, “You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe…”[iv]
Mr. Russert rudely interrupted the Senator. He had the Senator from New York in his crosshairs. “But this is reality,” he said. Senator Clinton answered, “No, well, it isn’t reality. You are making lots of different hypothetical assessments.”[v]
Senator Clinton is a sophisticated woman who would not use harsh language in a public setting. However, the lovely Mona Lisa Vito, as portrayed by the beautiful and talented Academy Award winning actress Marisa Tomei in the movie “My Cousin Vinnie,” would have said in her charming Brooklyn accent that she could not answer the hypothetical question posed by Mr. Russert. Mr. Russert would have grinned and said, “Aha! You can’t answer the question because you don’t know the answer.” Ms Vito would have said, “The reason I can’t answer your question is because it’s a bullshit question!” Thus wiping the smug look off Tim Russert’s face.
Indeed, Tim Russert. It is not reality. You are making up a lot of hypothetical assumptions.
Mr. Russert’s hypothetical question is based on a false premise, that Al Qaeda is capable of controlling Iraq, a falsity perpetuated by the Bush Administration with the assistance from the Mainstream Media (MSM). The Bush Administration and the Mainstream Media feign ignorance of Iraqi history and current demographic data in order to continually perpetrate the rationale for maintaining a military presence in Iraq.
President Bush’s ignorance is understandable because he does not read. If the incompetent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice walked into the Oval Office to inform the clueless president that Cardassians (Star Trek reference) were threatening to invade Antarctica, our intrepid leader would immediately dispatch troops to Alaska to repel the attack.
But Mr. Russert is a journalist, or at least he portrays one on television. He should know better than to spread a falsehood during a presidential debate.
The correct answer to the question is to challenge Mr. Russert’s assumption by asking him if he honestly believes Al Qaeda is capable of defeating the collective will of 28 million people. The best way to answer Mr. Russert’s question is volley the facts right back to him.
The total population of Iraq is 28.5 million. Ethnically, Iraq consists of Arabs (64.7%), Kurds (23%), Azerbaijani (5.6 %), Turks (1.2%), Persian (1.1%), and other ethnic groups (4.4%). Iraqi religious affiliations are as follows: 62% Shia Muslim, 34% Sunni Muslim, and others.[vi]
Al Qaeda fighters are foreigners, not local Iraqi’s. Estimates of the number of Al Qaeda in Iraq range from 850 to more than a thousand, according to the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Demographically, less than 1% (.0000357% to be exact) of the Iraqi population consists of Al Qaeda fighters. There are probably more Jehovah Witnesses in Iraq than Al Qaeda fighters.
Al Qaeda is a Wahhabi Muslim sect that follows a stricter form of Islam. Wahhabists and Shia are enemies. Wahhabists believe Shia Muslims deviated from the true path of Islam, therefore Shia are heretics who should be put to death unless they return to the true path of Islam.
The Kurds reject Al Qaeda’s perspective of Islam. “Most Kurds are Sunni Muslim, but generally have little religious zeal. They drink hard and dance harder and rarely pray five times a day.”[vii] I’m guessing Wahhabists would not approve of Muslims acting like college frat boys on spring break.
The Sunni Muslims in the Anbar province rejected Al Qaeda oppressive tactics, and formed alliances with the United States military to expel Al Qaeda. It was not the promise of freedom that convinced the Iraqis in Anbar to assist the Americans. Instead, it was the lure of cash. The Bush Administration is paying Iraqis in Anbar not to engage our soldiers.
If you accept the Bush Administration’s argument that Al Qaeda will take over Iraq if the United States military prematurely withdraws from Iraq, or Vice President Cheney’s contention that Al Qaeda is capable of controlling the oil fields in Iraq, or Mr. Russert’s premise of Al Qaeda resurging in Iraq if US troops withdraw, then you are arguing 850 to a thousand foreigners armed with machine guns and suicide bombers are capable of taking over a country.
Incidentally, a report from the office of the vice president indicated a motorcycle gang from southern California is also capable of capturing Iraq.
Not everyone shares the Bush Administration’s pessimism. In a message to the European Union in Belgium, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said, “We are today more confident than any time before, that we are close to the point where we can declare victory against al Qaeda and its allies.”[viii]
If you accept the premise that 1,000 men can take over a country of 28 million people, then you are arguing the United States military (140,000 troops) and the independent contractors (estimate 150,000) are abject failures. One thousand mercenaries can succeed in controlling Iraq, but the “Coalition of the Willing” is incapable of securing the country.
Al Qaeda cannot control the oil fields because 1,000 foreign fighters are incapable of controlling large segments of Iraq. Capturing the oil fields would involve repelling the Iraqi military from the oil fields, extracting the oil from the ground, loading the oil in tankers, selling the oil on the open market, and finding a buyer. It could happen in the movies, except that James Bond would prevail in the end.
Not to say that 1,000 mercenaries are incapable of causing mayhem in Iraq. On September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers created havoc in New York City and Washington DC.
But for the media to hype the threat of 1,000 fighters in order to justify the Bush Administration’s military occupation of Iraq is unpardonable.
It is understandable for the average voter to ask such a question because the public is factually unaware of the status of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The average American probably does not know the difference between a Sunni Muslim and a can of Sunkist orange soda pop. It’s not like voters are asking a question they know the answer to like what is the capital of Vermont – which is…?
The Bush Administration and the Mediacracy are exploiting our collective ignorance regarding Iraq. An attendee of the Christians United for Israel Tour who was actually arguing for more military intervention in the Middle East said, “If we move out of Iraq, the Muslims are going to take over and they are going to follow us here.”[ix] First, Muslims are the majority in Iraq. It is their country. Second, they cannot follow us here. They do not have the means of transporting thousands of soldiers to the United States, unless they decide to launch a massive invasion by swimming from Iraq to the United States.
Al Qaeda will fail to control Iraq, if the threat to take over Iraq ever existed, for the same reason the “Coalition of the Willing” is unable to secure Iraq. It is because Al Qaeda and the soldiers stationed in Iraq are foreigners. Iraqis will not submit to the will of foreigners, as would any other people who are being subjected to a military occupation from a foreign country.
The Bush Administration and the Mediacracy are acting in concert to assert the falsehood that Al Qaeda is capable of taking over the country of Iraq. It happened before. The Bush Administration perpetrated a fraud on the American people when it argued Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security. The Mainstream Media were willing accomplices because the false evidence presented by the Bush Administration was not questioned.
There was sufficient evidence available before the war to contradict the claims made by the Bush Administration. In an interview with Bill Moyers’, 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon said, “We only knew that the connection the Administration was making between Saddam and Al Qaeda was very tenuous at best and that the argument it was making over the aluminum tubes seemed highly dubious. We knew these things.”[x]
But the Bush Administration also duped the Mainstream Media. In his infamous appearance on Meet the Press on September 8, 2002, Vice President Cheney said, “There’s a story in the New York Times this morning, this is – and I want to attribute this to the Times. I don’t want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources, but… it’s now public that, in fact, [Saddam Hussein] has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.”[xi] Vice President Cheney argued the story about Saddam Hussein attempting to acquire aluminum tubes must be true because the story appeared in the New York Times. If the Times printed it, then it must be true. Unbeknownst to the public, the Bush Administration leaked that story to the New York Times.
Displaying brilliant journalistic instinct, Tim Russert sat by his phone, like a high school geek, waiting for someone to call him to counter the Bush Administration’s argument for war. In an interview with Bill Moyers, Tim Russert said, “To this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.”[xii] Mr. Russert lacked the initiative to expose the Bush Administration’s false rationale for invading Iraq.
The Mainstream Media is as guilty of war crimes as is the Bush Administration because it neglected the evidence Saddam Hussein was not the mortal threat before the war. Furthermore, the Mediacracy perpetuates the threat of Al Qaeda in Iraq deception, thereby continuing the justification for war in Iraq.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 11, 2008.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 8, 2008.
[iii] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[iv] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[v] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[vi] Encyclopedia Britannica, “Iraq Fact Sheet.”
[vii] Edward Wong, “In a Twist of History, Kurds Patrol Baghdad,” New York Times, April 24, 2007.
[viii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 17, 2008.
[ix] Max Blumenthal, “Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour.”
[x] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
[xi] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
[xii] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
In an interview with the ignorant Fox News personality Sean Hannity, Vice President Dick Cheney said, “If Al Qaeda were to take over big parts of Iraq, among other things, they would acquire control of an assistant oil resource. Iraq has almost 100 billion barrels of reserves, producing 2.5 to three million barrels a day. You take a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda and give it that kind of revenue, there‘s no telling the amount of trouble they could get into.”[i]
Later on in the interview, the vice president said, “and if a great white shark had balls, it would be a man.” Both assumptions are unlikely.
Arizona Senator and Republican presidential nominee John McCain asked U.S Commander in Iraq General David Petraeus during a Senate hearing if Al Qaeda was a major threat in Iraq. General Petraeus testified, “It is a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say 15 months ago.”[ii] Fifteen months ago, Al Qaeda was a major threat, but now Al Qaeda is a major threat. The first casualty of war is the truth. The second casualty of war is grammar. The war in Iraq has greatly improved our ability to manhandle the English language.
The Mainstream Media participates in this deception. The issue of Al Qaeda’s ability to take over Iraq strained its way into a Democratic presidential debate on February 26, 2008. During the debate, Tim Russert, the distinguished but overrated moderator of the political talk show Meet the Press, asked Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama a hypothetical question regarding Iraq after American troops have successfully withdrawn from the besieged Middle Eastern country. “If this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in totality, and Al Qaeda resurges, and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right in your mind as American president to reinvade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?”[iii]
Senator Clinton attempted to answer the question by saying, “You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe…”[iv]
Mr. Russert rudely interrupted the Senator. He had the Senator from New York in his crosshairs. “But this is reality,” he said. Senator Clinton answered, “No, well, it isn’t reality. You are making lots of different hypothetical assessments.”[v]
Senator Clinton is a sophisticated woman who would not use harsh language in a public setting. However, the lovely Mona Lisa Vito, as portrayed by the beautiful and talented Academy Award winning actress Marisa Tomei in the movie “My Cousin Vinnie,” would have said in her charming Brooklyn accent that she could not answer the hypothetical question posed by Mr. Russert. Mr. Russert would have grinned and said, “Aha! You can’t answer the question because you don’t know the answer.” Ms Vito would have said, “The reason I can’t answer your question is because it’s a bullshit question!” Thus wiping the smug look off Tim Russert’s face.
Indeed, Tim Russert. It is not reality. You are making up a lot of hypothetical assumptions.
Mr. Russert’s hypothetical question is based on a false premise, that Al Qaeda is capable of controlling Iraq, a falsity perpetuated by the Bush Administration with the assistance from the Mainstream Media (MSM). The Bush Administration and the Mainstream Media feign ignorance of Iraqi history and current demographic data in order to continually perpetrate the rationale for maintaining a military presence in Iraq.
President Bush’s ignorance is understandable because he does not read. If the incompetent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice walked into the Oval Office to inform the clueless president that Cardassians (Star Trek reference) were threatening to invade Antarctica, our intrepid leader would immediately dispatch troops to Alaska to repel the attack.
But Mr. Russert is a journalist, or at least he portrays one on television. He should know better than to spread a falsehood during a presidential debate.
The correct answer to the question is to challenge Mr. Russert’s assumption by asking him if he honestly believes Al Qaeda is capable of defeating the collective will of 28 million people. The best way to answer Mr. Russert’s question is volley the facts right back to him.
The total population of Iraq is 28.5 million. Ethnically, Iraq consists of Arabs (64.7%), Kurds (23%), Azerbaijani (5.6 %), Turks (1.2%), Persian (1.1%), and other ethnic groups (4.4%). Iraqi religious affiliations are as follows: 62% Shia Muslim, 34% Sunni Muslim, and others.[vi]
Al Qaeda fighters are foreigners, not local Iraqi’s. Estimates of the number of Al Qaeda in Iraq range from 850 to more than a thousand, according to the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Demographically, less than 1% (.0000357% to be exact) of the Iraqi population consists of Al Qaeda fighters. There are probably more Jehovah Witnesses in Iraq than Al Qaeda fighters.
Al Qaeda is a Wahhabi Muslim sect that follows a stricter form of Islam. Wahhabists and Shia are enemies. Wahhabists believe Shia Muslims deviated from the true path of Islam, therefore Shia are heretics who should be put to death unless they return to the true path of Islam.
The Kurds reject Al Qaeda’s perspective of Islam. “Most Kurds are Sunni Muslim, but generally have little religious zeal. They drink hard and dance harder and rarely pray five times a day.”[vii] I’m guessing Wahhabists would not approve of Muslims acting like college frat boys on spring break.
The Sunni Muslims in the Anbar province rejected Al Qaeda oppressive tactics, and formed alliances with the United States military to expel Al Qaeda. It was not the promise of freedom that convinced the Iraqis in Anbar to assist the Americans. Instead, it was the lure of cash. The Bush Administration is paying Iraqis in Anbar not to engage our soldiers.
If you accept the Bush Administration’s argument that Al Qaeda will take over Iraq if the United States military prematurely withdraws from Iraq, or Vice President Cheney’s contention that Al Qaeda is capable of controlling the oil fields in Iraq, or Mr. Russert’s premise of Al Qaeda resurging in Iraq if US troops withdraw, then you are arguing 850 to a thousand foreigners armed with machine guns and suicide bombers are capable of taking over a country.
Incidentally, a report from the office of the vice president indicated a motorcycle gang from southern California is also capable of capturing Iraq.
Not everyone shares the Bush Administration’s pessimism. In a message to the European Union in Belgium, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said, “We are today more confident than any time before, that we are close to the point where we can declare victory against al Qaeda and its allies.”[viii]
If you accept the premise that 1,000 men can take over a country of 28 million people, then you are arguing the United States military (140,000 troops) and the independent contractors (estimate 150,000) are abject failures. One thousand mercenaries can succeed in controlling Iraq, but the “Coalition of the Willing” is incapable of securing the country.
Al Qaeda cannot control the oil fields because 1,000 foreign fighters are incapable of controlling large segments of Iraq. Capturing the oil fields would involve repelling the Iraqi military from the oil fields, extracting the oil from the ground, loading the oil in tankers, selling the oil on the open market, and finding a buyer. It could happen in the movies, except that James Bond would prevail in the end.
Not to say that 1,000 mercenaries are incapable of causing mayhem in Iraq. On September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers created havoc in New York City and Washington DC.
But for the media to hype the threat of 1,000 fighters in order to justify the Bush Administration’s military occupation of Iraq is unpardonable.
It is understandable for the average voter to ask such a question because the public is factually unaware of the status of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The average American probably does not know the difference between a Sunni Muslim and a can of Sunkist orange soda pop. It’s not like voters are asking a question they know the answer to like what is the capital of Vermont – which is…?
The Bush Administration and the Mediacracy are exploiting our collective ignorance regarding Iraq. An attendee of the Christians United for Israel Tour who was actually arguing for more military intervention in the Middle East said, “If we move out of Iraq, the Muslims are going to take over and they are going to follow us here.”[ix] First, Muslims are the majority in Iraq. It is their country. Second, they cannot follow us here. They do not have the means of transporting thousands of soldiers to the United States, unless they decide to launch a massive invasion by swimming from Iraq to the United States.
Al Qaeda will fail to control Iraq, if the threat to take over Iraq ever existed, for the same reason the “Coalition of the Willing” is unable to secure Iraq. It is because Al Qaeda and the soldiers stationed in Iraq are foreigners. Iraqis will not submit to the will of foreigners, as would any other people who are being subjected to a military occupation from a foreign country.
The Bush Administration and the Mediacracy are acting in concert to assert the falsehood that Al Qaeda is capable of taking over the country of Iraq. It happened before. The Bush Administration perpetrated a fraud on the American people when it argued Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security. The Mainstream Media were willing accomplices because the false evidence presented by the Bush Administration was not questioned.
There was sufficient evidence available before the war to contradict the claims made by the Bush Administration. In an interview with Bill Moyers’, 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon said, “We only knew that the connection the Administration was making between Saddam and Al Qaeda was very tenuous at best and that the argument it was making over the aluminum tubes seemed highly dubious. We knew these things.”[x]
But the Bush Administration also duped the Mainstream Media. In his infamous appearance on Meet the Press on September 8, 2002, Vice President Cheney said, “There’s a story in the New York Times this morning, this is – and I want to attribute this to the Times. I don’t want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources, but… it’s now public that, in fact, [Saddam Hussein] has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.”[xi] Vice President Cheney argued the story about Saddam Hussein attempting to acquire aluminum tubes must be true because the story appeared in the New York Times. If the Times printed it, then it must be true. Unbeknownst to the public, the Bush Administration leaked that story to the New York Times.
Displaying brilliant journalistic instinct, Tim Russert sat by his phone, like a high school geek, waiting for someone to call him to counter the Bush Administration’s argument for war. In an interview with Bill Moyers, Tim Russert said, “To this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.”[xii] Mr. Russert lacked the initiative to expose the Bush Administration’s false rationale for invading Iraq.
The Mainstream Media is as guilty of war crimes as is the Bush Administration because it neglected the evidence Saddam Hussein was not the mortal threat before the war. Furthermore, the Mediacracy perpetuates the threat of Al Qaeda in Iraq deception, thereby continuing the justification for war in Iraq.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 11, 2008.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 8, 2008.
[iii] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[iv] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[v] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[vi] Encyclopedia Britannica, “Iraq Fact Sheet.”
[vii] Edward Wong, “In a Twist of History, Kurds Patrol Baghdad,” New York Times, April 24, 2007.
[viii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 17, 2008.
[ix] Max Blumenthal, “Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour.”
[x] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
[xi] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
[xii] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
