More evidence that the media is not to blame for Iraq--or is it?
The wingers want everyone to believe that the U.S. media are the reason why things are going so badly in Iraq. They want that almost as much as they want everyone to believe that nothing bad is happening in Iraq.
Yet another problem for the wingers arose before this latest self righteous reign of bullshit began. On March 19, 2006, Iyad Allawi told the BBC that Iraq was in a civil war:
Another problem for the wingers is a report by the L.A. Times on March 7, 2006, which disclosed statements by Zalmay Khalilzad. He is the U.S Ambassador to Iraq, and he was also hand-picked by the Bush administration. Here are some excerpts:
Furthermore, the reports on these statements from Khalilzad and Allawi were not reports about IEDs or suicide bombers, or kidnappings, etc. Even so, the wingers would have us believe that reporting the statements of two high-ranking officials that were anointed by the Bush administration its ownself shows that the media is focusing on only the negative.
Khalilzad is absolutely right about opening Pandora's box. What still astounds me is that it was so damn bloody obvious before the war that Iraq was a Pandora's box. That was a solid reason for never invading in the first place, but did anyone hear that in the mainstream media before the war? If you did, that voice was hardly above a whisper, because the majority of the media were just going along with all the bullshit. So maybe the media is to blame for Iraq after all.
Yet another problem for the wingers arose before this latest self righteous reign of bullshit began. On March 19, 2006, Iyad Allawi told the BBC that Iraq was in a civil war:
We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people through the country, if not more...If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is.Allawi is the former Iraqi Prime Minister. In fact, he was the first Iraqi Prime Minister after the fall of Saddam. In fact, he was hand-picked by the Bush administration to be Prime Minister. I am not trying to prove that there is civil war in Iraq. I am merely showing that 1) the very person the Bush administration wanted to head up the Iraqi government says there is a civil war, and 2) Allawi's comments were not some fabricated or manipulated story created by the media.
Another problem for the wingers is a report by the L.A. Times on March 7, 2006, which disclosed statements by Zalmay Khalilzad. He is the U.S Ambassador to Iraq, and he was also hand-picked by the Bush administration. Here are some excerpts:
In remarks that were among the frankest and bleakest public assessments of the Iraq situation by a high-level American official, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the "potential is there" for sectarian violence to become full-blown civil war.(emphasis added). Once again, this is not some biased, liberal, lover-of-terrorists media scum making these comments. It is George W. Bush's personal freaking choice to be the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq.
For now, Iraq has pulled back from that prospect after the wave of sectarian reprisals that followed the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra, he said. But "if another incident [occurs], Iraq is really vulnerable to it at this time, in my judgment," Khalilzad said in an interview with The Times.
Abandoning Iraq in the way the U.S. disengaged from civil wars in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Somalia could have dramatic global repercussions, he said.
"We have opened the Pandora's box and the question is, what is the way forward?" Khalilzad said.
Furthermore, the reports on these statements from Khalilzad and Allawi were not reports about IEDs or suicide bombers, or kidnappings, etc. Even so, the wingers would have us believe that reporting the statements of two high-ranking officials that were anointed by the Bush administration its ownself shows that the media is focusing on only the negative.
Khalilzad is absolutely right about opening Pandora's box. What still astounds me is that it was so damn bloody obvious before the war that Iraq was a Pandora's box. That was a solid reason for never invading in the first place, but did anyone hear that in the mainstream media before the war? If you did, that voice was hardly above a whisper, because the majority of the media were just going along with all the bullshit. So maybe the media is to blame for Iraq after all.
posted by WCharles @ 3/29/2006 02:26:00 AM
3 Comments:
All I can say right now is that the evidence of any significant, meaningful links between Iraq and terrorist groups is--and always has been--weak at best. Were there such ties? Yes. Were there close ties with Al Qaeda? No. The state activity was with terrorist groups that focused on and operated in the Middle East. There was no threat to the U.S. Much of the "evidence" that was hyped before and in the early stages of the war was supplied by bogus sources, many of whom were supplied by Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. And Chalabi, BTW, is an admitted liar in this regard.
The issue of Iraq's ties to terrorism is something on which I have done a vast amount of research. I will start putting that in a form to post on a separate site like I did with MC 02.
All that being said, I don't recall hearing anything before now about the alleged connection to Abu Sayyaf, so I will check into that.
In the meantime, consider the following. Abu Sayyaf has been seen as an Al Qaeda affiliate. The truth is that after the war started, more and more terrorist groups who had previously been independent became "affiliates" of Al Qaeda, and major terrorist attacks around the globe actually increased. If Saddam was such a major player in world terrorism, why did attacks increase after he was deposed?
"I will start putting that in a form to post on a separate site like I did with MC 02."
This might take a while, so don't hold your breath. I stopped working on this at the end of July 2004 (and then started this blog). At that time, the length of my writing, with footnotes, was 168 pages. Significant sections were left undone, which means there could be 30-50 more pages to be done, and finding all the research material I have saved is going to require a good bit of work.
In the meantime, I will check out the worldmag article.
I have read the World mag article. I am going to see whether I have some material that covers some of its allegations because some of the claims seems familiar.
In the meantime, consider a few things. First, there is no question that the "war on terror" rationale for the war was couched as Iraq posing an immediate threat to the U.S. Events that happened several years before the war do not directly support that rationale. At best, they raise supposition as to the state of affairs at the time of war.
Second, consider whether all the allegations, if true, justified a full scale war, especially when considering the rationale mentioned above.
Third, none of the items mentioned in the article are definitive or conclusive. For instance, the article says "One of them, Iraqi Haqi Ismail, was trained in Afghan camps, he told WORLD, after he was recruited by 'a man named Ahmed Fadil Khalaylah,' likely the then-unknown Zarqawi." Likely? That's not convincing. Now, I have to say that is not one of the sentences you quoted, but I am quoting it because to me it is indicative of the quality of most of what is cited in the article. Another example is the memo which "reports on the status of rumors..." What was the status? How can rumors serve as justification for a war?
Fourth, consider what level of proof you would deem sufficient to justify full scale war. This is a tricky and very important question. For instance, do you think a mere preponderance of the evidence (i.e., 51%) is sufficient, or should it be "beyond a reasonable doubt," or something in between? When pondering this question, factor in the costs of war, both in a general sense and in light of what it has cost this country (and I'm talking about more than money).
Fifth, there is a vast variety of conflicting info on Zarqawi, including that he is not alive. Go back and find everything you can on Zarqawi and see what you think. It is not outside the realm of possibility that "Zarqawi" is the equivalent of the "dread Pirate Roberts" from "The Princess Bride"--one goes away and a new person assumes the mantle of Zarqawi.
There are other things I could mention, but I will say here that the "level of proof" question is VERY important.
Post a Comment
<< Home