Buying the War/Moyers PBS Special on tonight

[Skeptic Ginger]

For alternative views on the program to start you off with your favorite preconceived ideas about the topic:

Here's Bill O'Reilly's rant on Moyers' program (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268302,00.html), (though O'Reilly seems mostly reoccupied with his personal image rather than any substance on the program itself). Maybe someone else has a better rebuttal to the program's topic.

Here's Amy Goodman's interview with Moyers (http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl) on tonight's program which was on Democracy Now this morning.

And here's the link to the program web page, "Buying the War". (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html)

[Iamme]

A key word I read in your bottom link was "propaganda". Was it? Or was it a President merely acting on misinformation trying to stop an evil in the world...with grandeur aspirations, as a bennie, to one-up his dad?

I think what made the war, in general, so easy to start, was the fact that our military is comprised only of volunteer enlistments. If Bush stated his case and tried to implement a draft, due to insufficient volunteer forces, let's say...this war probably never would have happened, based on what has been burned into our heads regarding the Vietnam war (i.e., going to foreign lands, while not under an actual attack ourselves, under the premise that if we don't act first, that things could get worse later, if we didn't act first.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

The program was excellent. The title was not what I would have called it but the point was the media ownership (all the mainstream media) ordered the stations in the lead up to the war, not to put on anything that questioned the President. Moyers looked at the marketing of the media influence which resulted in a complete failure to question anything that was being said, despite the fact some things were easily fact checked and completely false. But a lot of the program was documenting the media failure to do their job in the months before the Iraq war began regardless of the motivation behind the decisions.

Was it propaganda? Absolutely!

I'll post more on this later, including the specific evidence presented that we were knowingly being sold a war regardless of who believed what.

[pgwenthold]

Probably the best line was something about how, the ones who got the story right were outside of Washington.

The guys from Knight Ridder came out looking pretty good. Judy Miller and Bill Safire did not.

I like the point at the end. After having been shown to be completely wrong on everything they said in the lead-up to the war, how do folks like Safire and Krystol still get booked to provide commentary on the situation? Experience has shown that the truth is probably 180 degrees from what they say. Of course, every clip they had was from Fox.

[davefoc]

I watched part of it.

It was saddest when it dealt with the people who had worked so hard to find the truth and present it and whose efforts even to this day have not been recognized. It's best moment was the interview of the New Republic editor who was so willing to reexamine his ideas based on new facts, he was the only person featured in the series that had undergone that kind of change. Although, arguably Howared Fineman might have been a second.

Overall, the program was based on the assumption that the decision to initiate the Iraq war was wrong and that the war was justified based on manipulated intelligence. I happen to roughly agree with that, but the conclusion that the decision for war was wrong hinges on the balance of other things than just the existence or non-existence of WMD's and an Al-Qaida connection. Given time constraints and the willingness of an audience to listen to a discussion of complex issues this was probably the right decision, but it did mean that the opinions of a lot of people who continue to believe the decision for war was correct were not fairly represented.

[Dr Adequate]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/fouryearslater1.jpg

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Overall, the program was based on the assumption that the decision to initiate the Iraq war was wrong and that the war was justified based on manipulated intelligence. I happen to roughly agree with that, but the conclusion that the decision for war was wrong hinges on the balance of other things than just the existence or non-existence of WMD's and an Al-Qaida connection. Given time constraints and the willingness of an audience to listen to a discussion of complex issues this was probably the right decision, but it did mean that the opinions of a lot of people who continue to believe the decision for war was correct were not fairly represented.I don't have that impression at all. The program was highlighting the fact the press rolled over at a time when we could have really benefited from good investigative journalism, regardless of anything else.

It's still going on today.

[corplinx]

highlighting the fact the press rolled over

Uhhhh. No? Judith Miller and William Sapphire were not "the press". The problem was Saddam had unaccounted for stockpiles of WMD. The press couldn't challenge that these stockpiles were destroyed by Saddam without a UN inspector present.

I remember plenty of skepticism over whether we should go to war.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Uhhhh. No? Judith Miller and William Sapphire were not "the press". The problem was Saddam had unaccounted for stockpiles of WMD. The press couldn't challenge that these stockpiles were destroyed by Saddam without a UN inspector present.

I remember plenty of skepticism over whether we should go to war.You are not looking at the big picture. The information was out there. Moyers identified how easily the information could have been obtained. But the overwhelming trend in the media was pro-war, don't question Bush.

You can still watch the Moyers program online I believe. You should. Everyone should.

[corplinx]

You are not looking at the big picture. The information was out there. Moyers identified how easily the information could have been obtained. But the overwhelming trend in the media was pro-war, don't question Bush.

You can still watch the Moyers program online I believe. You should. Everyone should.


There was no proof he had destroyed the unaccounted for stockpiles.... And yes, I remember it being brought up.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Cor, what are you talking about, "you remember it being brought up"?

There is no discussion here about who believed what when and why. It's about the press not questioning even the most easily disproved statements coming from the White House.

[FarmallMTA]

I loved it. I tuned in just to watch Gunga Dan Rather pandering to Moyers by saying he'd been wrong not to be more hard nosed about the run-up to the war.

Truth is, Danny Boy was holding his partisan fire because he thought the Great George Bush National Guard story he'd hoaxed together was going to do in W. Don't bash him on the war so his National Guard Hoax would look like neutral, unbiased hard nosed investigative journalism.

Wrong. He screwed himself twice. First, he didn't get his licks in on a subject that was dear to his heart. Then he completely amateured the phony crap with the dumb bubba from Baird, TX (Danny's producer cutout met the lunatic nut at a Whataburger on I-20, for Chrissakes! Ain't that a rich one!!) and got his dumb ass self fired from CBS.

NOW... now he's all self loathing that he didn't stand on the Tianamen Square of Public Opinion and martyr himself for the Saddam Hussein/Al Queda/Democratic party triangle jerk.

Hell, I wish he had of. Then at least we wouldn't have to hear from him again, except through Sylvia Browne.

[davefoc]

I don't have that impression at all. The program was highlighting the fact the press rolled over at a time when we could have really benefited from good investigative journalism, regardless of anything else.


I agree with you that the main point of the program was that the press was not skeptical enough of the Bushco claims that were being used to justify the war. The implications were that if the press had done a better job the US and the UK might not have gone to war and that not going to war would have been a good thing. The program did not address the issue of whether the war might have been justified for reasons other than WMD and an Al-Qaida connection. Rather most of the editorial content of the show was based on an implied assumption that the decision for war was wrong if there weren't any WMD and there wasn't an Al-Qaida connection.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree with you that the main point of the program was that the press was not skeptical enough of the Bushco claims that were being used to justify the war. The implications were that if the press had done a better job the US and the UK might not have gone to war and that not going to war would have been a good thing. The program did not address the issue of whether the war might have been justified for reasons other than WMD and an Al-Qaida connection. Rather most of the editorial content of the show was based on an implied assumption that the decision for war was wrong if there weren't any WMD and there wasn't an Al-Qaida connection.Don't you think the results we have today of the Iraq war is evidence it was a very bad idea? Is it not evidence the people quoted couldn't have been more wrong like Bill Kristol and Dick Cheney who said it would be a breeze, over in a few months, and Paul Wolfowitz said it would pay for itself, just to name a few? Is it really such a questionable premise?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I loved it. I tuned in just to watch Gunga Dan Rather pandering to Moyers by saying he'd been wrong not to be more hard nosed about the run-up to the war.

Truth is, Danny Boy was holding his partisan fire because he thought the Great George Bush National Guard story he'd hoaxed together was going to do in W. Don't bash him on the war so his National Guard Hoax would look like neutral, unbiased hard nosed investigative journalism.

Wrong. He screwed himself twice. First, he didn't get his licks in on a subject that was dear to his heart. Then he completely amateured the phony crap with the dumb bubba from Baird, TX (Danny's producer cutout met the lunatic nut at a Whataburger on I-20, for Chrissakes! Ain't that a rich one!!) and got his dumb ass self fired from CBS.

NOW... now he's all self loathing that he didn't stand on the Tianamen Square of Public Opinion and martyr himself for the Saddam Hussein/Al Queda/Democratic party triangle jerk.

Hell, I wish he had of. Then at least we wouldn't have to hear from him again, except through Sylvia Browne.

Does it take your mind off the corruption, cronyism and incompetence at the top, Farmall, by focusing on Rather? ;)

[corplinx]

I didn't watch it, I read it. And quite frankly, its revisionist *********.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html


BILL MOYERS: For months now, his administration has been determined to link Iraq to 9/11.

Conjecture based on what Moyers wants to be true.


BILL MOYERS: At least a dozen times during this press conference he will invoke 9/11 and Al Qaeda to justify a preemptive attack on a country that has not attacked America.

Misleading. Iraq and the US had a cease fire but still had issues in the no fly zones. To call it "preemptive" ignores the fact that we had a cease fire that was in non-compliance and had regular run-ins with Iraqi anti-aircraft.

BILL MOYERS: But the White House press corps will ask no hard questions tonight about those claims. Listen to what the President says:

Moyers goes on to show a fluff question from a press member about Bush's faith.
APRIL: How is your faith guiding you

Why don't we take a look at some questions he didn't show.



Q Thank you, Mr. President. How would -- sir, how would you answer your critics who say that they think this is somehow personal? As Senator Kennedy put it tonight, he said your fixation with Saddam Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place. And as you prepare the American people for the possibility of military conflict, could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisors have shared with you about worse-case scenarios, in terms of the potential cost of American lives, the potential cost to the American economy, and the potential risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here at home?


Q Thank you, sir. May I follow up on Jim Angle's question? In the past several weeks, your policy on Iraq has generated opposition from the governments of France, Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, the Arab League and many other countries, opened a rift at NATO and at the U.N., and drawn millions of ordinary citizens around the world into the streets in anti-war protests. May I ask, what went wrong that so many governments and people around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power?

I wonder why Moyers didn't show this question:

Q Mr. President, to a lot of people, it seems that war is probably inevitable, because many people doubt -- most people, I would guess -- that Saddam Hussein will ever do what we are demanding that he do, which is disarm. And if war is inevitable, there are a lot of people in this country -- as much as half, by polling standards -- who agree that he should be disarmed, who listen to you say that you have the evidence, but who feel they haven't seen it, and who still wonder why blood has to be shed if he hasn't attacked us.


How about that press corp just rolling over for Bush and cheering him on.

Now lets look at the actual transcript of the softball question Moyers refers to:

Q Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the U.N., how is your faith guiding you? And what should you tell America -- well, what should America do, collectively, as you instructed before 9/11? Should it be "pray?" Because you're saying, let's continue the war on terror.

Let's look at more creative revisionism:
MICHAEL MASSING: I think that what happened in the months leading up to the war is that there was a sort of acceptable mainstream opinion that got set. And I think that people who were seen as outside that mainstream were viewed as sort of 'fringe.' And they were marginalized.
ERIC BOEHLERT: So in October of 2002, 100,000 people in Washington, the-- one of the largest, you know, peace demonstrations in-- in-- in years in the United States. And the press just-- you know, the WASHINGTON POST put a photo on its Metro page.

This rally was organized by Answer, attended by groups like Anti-Capitilist Convergence and other neo-marxist factions. It was covered by the Ny Times, LA Times, NPR and most every other major news outlet. And the Washington Post just put a photo in the metro? O Rly? Errr. No.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24432-2002Oct26?language=printer

Should I go on or do you want me to stop ripping apart this shocking expose? It was misleading and as I've also shown dishonest.

[corplinx]

Reading the transcript, it seems like Moyers has a special bolgia of hell reserved for Safire, Krystol, and Fox. Perhaps his best parts, that being the administration exaggerating Saddam's nuclear capabilities gets lost between the venom of Moyers going after conservative editorialists and the distortions/fabrications I show in my previous post.

Is it necessary to counter distortions with distortions?

[Ranillon]

Conjecture based on what Moyers wants to be true.


Not at all. The fact that the Bush Administration and its allies wanted to link 9/11 with Iraqi is well-known and well documented. The show itself offered plenty of evidence. I don't see how anyone could disbute this point.


Misleading. Iraq and the US had a cease fire but still had issues in the no fly zones. To call it "preemptive" ignores the fact that we had a cease fire that was in non-compliance and had regular run-ins with Iraqi anti-aircraft.

The Bush Administration called it preemptive. Everyone did. That was the whole point -- to preemptively remove Iraqs supposed WMD and support for terrorism before it could either could harm us. Again, no one is arguing over this point.


Moyers goes on to show a fluff question from a press member about Bush's faith.


So, you agree it's fluff?


Why don't we take a look at some questions he didn't show.<snip>


None of your examples contradict anything Moyer's said. None of them were particularly challenging questions. How could they have been when Bush and Co. effectively knew what they were going to be? Moyer's point was that the press corp was basically acting like White House staffers, not independent journalists asking hard questions. This is a relevant point considering that there was a lot of evidence out there questioning the Bush Administration's whole justification for the invasion.


This rally was organized by Answer, attended by groups like Anti-Capitilist Convergence and other neo-marxist factions.


And your point is......?


It was covered by the Ny Times, LA Times, NPR and most every other major news outlet. And the Washington Post just put a photo in the metro? O Rly? Errr. No.


Note that the line you are criticizing came from someone being interviewed, not Moyer's himself.


Should I go on or do you want me to stop ripping apart this shocking expose? It was misleading and as I've also shown dishonest.

I don't see how you can reasonably make such a claim. You offered a lot of innuendo and implications, but nothing that directly or even indirectly contradicts Moyer's basic argument. The fact that some Marxists rallied in Washington or that some of the questions asked at the news conference referenced weren't complete softballs isn't much evidence on which to call someone "dishonest".

[corplinx]

Not at all. The fact that the Bush Administration and its allies wanted to link 9/11 with Iraqi is well-known and well documented. The show itself offered plenty of evidence. I don't see how anyone could disbute this point.

Evidence that they mentioned Iraq and 911 a lot. No evidence they tried to link Saddam to the 911 attack. More revisionism and wishful thinking.

The Bush Administration called it preemptive. Everyone did. That was the whole point -- to preemptively remove Iraqs supposed WMD and support for terrorism before it could either could harm us. Again, no one is arguing over this point.

Is it okay for me to disagree that it was preemption vs cleanup? The admin tried to call it preemption and as an example of why they chose 911. But if they mention 911 you claim they are trying to link Iraq to 911. Thats a nice loop.




So, you agree it's fluff?


Did you read the full question later? It was out of context, and honestly I am not even sure what the reporter meant. Was it supposed to be "you want us to keep praying while you launch another war?"



None of your examples contradict anything Moyer's said. None of them were particularly challenging questions.

If you trim them the way Moyers did the faith one, they are challenging.


Note that the line you are criticizing came from someone being interviewed, not Moyer's himself.


Its his documentary and was offered as evidence to support his claims. It might as well be him saying it.


The fact that some Marxists rallied in Washington

Try re-reading the original post. He had someone crying foul that war protesters were marginalized as fringe groups. Fringe groups organized the protest that they complain went under-reported in the media a few lines later in the transcript. This doesn't mean much but it sort of ironic. The real point in bringing up the protest was to show how he gets it wrong on the coverage of the protest.

But yes, I showed two clear examples of dishonesty in this misrepresentation of the press conference and of the protest coverage by the Post. Mind you, this dishonesty isn't as bad as the administration's dishonesty about Iraqi nuclear tech. But it isn't an excuse. Moyers is practicing the same groupthink and bad reporting he accuses the pre-Iraq media of. He is just doing it from the other side of the issue.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are in an incredible state of denial, corplinx.

The Moyers - Jon Stewart interview tonight was superb. Stewart is so insightful. If you didn't see it, make the time. It was that good.

BTW, watching is better because they play the clips they then discuss.

[corplinx]

You are in an incredible state of denial, corplinx.

The Moyers - Jon Stewart interview tonight was superb. Stewart is so insightful. If you didn't see it, make the time. It was that good.

BTW, watching is better because they play the clips they then discuss.

I am in denial about the Moyers piece having several claims supporting his thesis that I was able to easily debunk with a simple google search while I was at work?

please.

Moyers is not the hero you are looking for.

[davefoc]

Don't you think the results we have today of the Iraq war is evidence it was a very bad idea?

The results are evidence that it was a very bad idea, but not proof that it was a very bad idea.

My opinion is that it was a very bad idea. But, I notice that there are still quite a few people in this forum that think it was a good idea. Given that I respect most of them, I am concerned that my opinion is not necessarily true and maybe their combination of knowledge and biases on the subject might be better than my combination of knowledge and biases on determining what the truth is in this complicated question. In other words, I don't think it is intellectually comprehensive to just assume that without WMD or an Al-Qaida tie-in the Iraq war was a bad idea.

By the way, did you notice my new avatar? Can you tell which one is Randi and which one is me?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am in denial about the Moyers piece having several claims supporting his thesis that I was able to easily debunk with a simple google search while I was at work?

please.

Moyers is not the hero you are looking for.


Quote:
BILL MOYERS: For months now, his administration has been determined to link Iraq to 9/11.
Conjecture based on what Moyers wants to be true.I don't even know how to reply to this. If you missed the talking points army out linking Iraq to 9/11 over and over and over and over and over, not to mention all the reruns of the clips yet you believe Bush's "newspeak" claim he never linked the two? And you say 'pluueease' to me?

Quote:
BILL MOYERS: At least a dozen times during this press conference he will invoke 9/11 and Al Qaeda to justify a preemptive attack on a country that has not attacked America.
Misleading. Iraq and the US had a cease fire but still had issues in the no fly zones. To call it "preemptive" ignores the fact that we had a cease fire that was in non-compliance and had regular run-ins with Iraqi anti-aircraft.You are brainwashed.

Quote:
BILL MOYERS: But the White House press corps will ask no hard questions tonight about those claims. Listen to what the President says:
Moyers goes on to show a fluff question from a press member about Bush's faith.
Quote:
APRIL: How is your faith guiding you
Why don't we take a look at some questions he didn't show.Right, that's the same press corp that had a planted reporter asking fake questions when one day his question was so blatantly a$$ kissing he gave away his cover. Try this Google search:
"wa press corp plant gay"

Every town meeting Bush held was fake with an audience that was so carefully screened to only include Bush's adoring fans they actually blocked entry to invited guests because they had the wrong bumper sticker on their cars.

Screened Audiences, Fake News Promote Bush Agenda; Bush, Government Manipulate Media; by Helen Thomas (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0401-31.htm)


Quote:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. How would -- sir, how would you answer your critics who say that they think this is somehow personal? As Senator Kennedy put it tonight, he said your fixation with Saddam Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place. And as you prepare the American people for the possibility of military conflict, could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisors have shared with you about worse-case scenarios, in terms of the potential cost of American lives, the potential cost to the American economy, and the potential risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here at home?
Quote:
Q Thank you, sir. May I follow up on Jim Angle's question? In the past several weeks, your policy on Iraq has generated opposition from the governments of France, Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, the Arab League and many other countries, opened a rift at NATO and at the U.N., and drawn millions of ordinary citizens around the world into the streets in anti-war protests. May I ask, what went wrong that so many governments and people around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power?
I wonder why Moyers didn't show this question:

Quote:
Q Mr. President, to a lot of people, it seems that war is probably inevitable, because many people doubt -- most people, I would guess -- that Saddam Hussein will ever do what we are demanding that he do, which is disarm. And if war is inevitable, there are a lot of people in this country -- as much as half, by polling standards -- who agree that he should be disarmed, who listen to you say that you have the evidence, but who feel they haven't seen it, and who still wonder why blood has to be shed if he hasn't attacked us.

How about that press corp just rolling over for Bush and cheering him on.

Now lets look at the actual transcript of the softball question Moyers refers to:

Quote:
Q Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the U.N., how is your faith guiding you? And what should you tell America -- well, what should America do, collectively, as you instructed before 9/11? Should it be "pray?" Because you're saying, let's continue the war on terror.
Let's look at more creative revisionism:
Quote:
MICHAEL MASSING: I think that what happened in the months leading up to the war is that there was a sort of acceptable mainstream opinion that got set. And I think that people who were seen as outside that mainstream were viewed as sort of 'fringe.' And they were marginalized.
Quote:
ERIC BOEHLERT: So in October of 2002, 100,000 people in Washington, the-- one of the largest, you know, peace demonstrations in-- in-- in years in the United States. And the press just-- you know, the WASHINGTON POST put a photo on its Metro page.
This rally was organized by Answer, attended by groups like Anti-Capitilist Convergence and other neo-marxist factions. It was covered by the Ny Times, LA Times, NPR and most every other major news outlet. And the Washington Post just put a photo in the metro? O Rly? Errr. No.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Should I go on or do you want me to stop ripping apart this shocking expose? It was misleading and as I've also shown dishonest.

What hardball questions are you even pointing out here?

I don't know what news you've been watching for the last 6 years but you sure have been a sucker to not recognize how carefully this administration has controlled every bit of information, manipulated information, and repeated endlessly to the extreme. There was a screw up or two, but that just led to tighter controls.

For pete's sake look at the current lies Gonzales can't now explain. Clearly there is no sense in pointing any of this out to you if you really actually believe what you posted here.

I can only shake my head astounded at the ability of the human mind to fit masses of contradictory round evidence into the square holes that make up those preconceived beliefs in your brain.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The results are evidence that it was a very bad idea, but not proof that it was a very bad idea.

My opinion is that it was a very bad idea. But, I notice that there are still quite a few people in this forum that think it was a good idea. Given that I respect most of them, I am concerned that my opinion is not necessarily true and maybe their combination of knowledge and biases on the subject might be better than my combination of knowledge and biases on determining what the truth is in this complicated question. In other words, I don't think it is intellectually comprehensive to just assume that without WMD or an Al-Qaida tie-in the Iraq war was a bad idea.Maybe you should trust your own instincts on this one. :)

By the way, did you notice my new avatar? Can you tell which one is Randi and which one is me?:)

[corplinx]

I don't even know how to reply to this. If you missed the talking points army out linking Iraq to 9/11 over and over and over and over and over, not to mention all the reruns of the clips yet you believe Bush's "newspeak" claim he never linked the two? And you say 'pluueease' to me?

Which clip showed him saying Iraq was behind 911?

You are brainwashed.
No you're brainwashed. See how easy that is? Stop being childish.


Right, that's the same press corp that had a planted reporter asking fake questions when one day his question was so blatantly a$$ kissing he gave away his cover. Try this Google search:
"wa press corp plant gay"


Helen Thomas asked loaded hardballs every day. Does that mean the press corps was too liberal? Use your brain. (mind you, the admin back rowed helen for televised news conferences after a while, but she still got her televised questions to the press secretary on daily)


Every town meeting Bush held was fake with an audience that was so carefully screened to only include Bush's adoring fans they actually blocked entry to invited guests because they had the wrong bumper sticker on their cars.

The Thomas story is talking about Social Security rah rah rallies. Not town halls about going to war pre-Iraq. Please check your sources and make sure they actually support what you are saying. Don't bust a Moyers on me here.



I don't know what news you've been watching for the last 6 years but you sure have been a sucker to not recognize how carefully this administration has controlled every bit of information, manipulated information, and repeated endlessly to the extreme. There was a screw up or two, but that just led to tighter controls.


I've been watching the same news you have. I saw the Rather memo, the weapons dump October scandal, the week of nonstop looting coverage after the toppling of Saddam, questions raised about whether the statue falling was real, questions about the military securing the uranium stockpiles, Abu Ghraib, many misleading Guantanamo stories, etc, etc, etc. The idea that the media as a whole is cheerleading Bush's iraq war is comfort food for the DailyKOS drones. They want to believe it. The media is for the other guy. You know what, I heard nothing but "the media won't go after Clinton hard enough" for the 8 years before Bush took office. Its one of the most myopic mentalities I have seen and you have it.


I can only shake my head astounded at the ability of the human mind to fit masses of contradictory round evidence into the square holes that make up those preconceived beliefs in your brain.

You offered the Moyers documentary as evidence. In 10 minutes I was able to find distortions in it with a simple google search. Instead of saying "wow, good job", you attack the messenger. That isn't skepticism.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you such a concrete thinker, corplinx, that if Bush repeated 9/11 and Saddam multiple times in multiple speeches carefully mixing the two with the intent to deceive, and an army of talking heads does the same thing on all the morning talk shows all in the weeks building up to invading Iraq, using the excuse of 9/11 to do so and not to mention the desire and plans Bushco wanted to specifically invade Iraq but needed an excuse was documented in both Woodward's (pro Bush) and Richard Clarke's books....[sucks air in] ...all that and you are such a concrete thinker you claim because it wasn't stated directly (actually I think Bush did screw that up once or twice anyway then denied it when asked) then they didn't mean to do it?

Wow! No wonder you're in the group of holdouts still fantasizing Bush is doing a heck of a job.

BTW, you didn't find distortions unless you were looking in your head. I refuted the other ones, you wouldn't change your view anyway and almost everyone else here knows you are wrong, so no more refuting needed.

[corplinx]

Wow! No wonder you're in the group of holdouts still fantasizing Bush is doing a heck of a job.


Putting you on ignore now. Thanks for playing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Might as well make the denial complete.

[Ranillon]

Evidence that they mentioned Iraq and 911 a lot. No evidence they tried to link Saddam to the 911 attack. More revisionism and wishful thinking.

Did you actually watch Moyer's special or even just the news at the time of the Iraq war? At best you are trying to use a technicality to get Bush and Company off the hook. The Administration used Saddam and 9/11 together in the same context all the time. What sort of conclusion were people obviously supposed to make even if "Saddam caused 9/11" wasn't explicitly said? Clearly, given opinion polls the tactic of guilt by association worked.


Is it okay for me to disagree that it was preemption vs cleanup? The admin tried to call it preemption and as an example of why they chose 911. But if they mention 911 you claim they are trying to link Iraq to 911. Thats a nice loop.


The series of deducations you are apparently trying to make here don't work. "Preemptive" was a term used and meant by the Administration and others regarding invading Iraq. That's not a subject anyone meaningfully involved on both sides disputes. You are right that 9/11 was used to justify a preemptive strike -- which only serves to help illustrate the implied connection that the Administration made between 9/11 and Saddam.


If you trim them the way Moyers did the faith one, they are challenging.


Not in comparison to what was going on. The Administration was at least practicing willful ignorance or wishful thinking regarding the evidence for Saddam having and making WMD. There was plenty of evidence to back this up available if people had gone looking -- we know this because some reporters did find it, just not enough to really be noticed. The President was using such knowledge to take the country to war and put American lives at risk. What decision could better deserve close scrutiny? Yet, by the President's own admission, the news conference in question was tightly managed, clearly to make sure the President wouldn't face embarrassing questions (why else bother?).

So, you have a situation where the President is making serious decisions on evidence wide open to doubt. In that situation reporters should be asking tough questions about the evidence, yet even the examples you list are little more than softballs that just allowed Bush to reiterate various talking points. It's sort of like only asking a CEO about his $1000 shower curtains even while his Fortune 500 company is falling toward bankruptcy. Sure, I guess the question might be a bit embarrassing, but is trivial compared to what is actually going on.


Its his documentary and was offered as evidence to support his claims. It might as well be him saying it.


One, the quote wasn't necessarily wrong. The best you can say that it was possibly misleading. Two, just how far was Moyer's supposed to go to make any quote given by someone else was beyond any reproach? You are at best trying to turn a molehill into a mountain.


The real point in bringing up the protest was to show how he gets it wrong on the coverage of the protest.


Did he? This question is something of a matter of opinion -- just how much coverage is "enough" to be considered well covered? At best you are trying to turn a fairly subjective point into a terrible "wrong". More mountainous molehills.


But yes, I showed two clear examples of dishonesty in this misrepresentation of the press conference and of the protest coverage by the Post.


No, what you did was bring up a few debatable aspects of Moyer's presentation. While your criticism might in the final analysis be fair, these points are nowhere to the point of "dishonesty" and "misrepresentation." That would require outright lies or obvious distortion, not matters of opinion.


Moyers is practicing the same groupthink and bad reporting he accuses the pre-Iraq media of. He is just doing it from the other side of the issue.

You are using two maybe questionable items in a hour-and-a-half news report to accuse Moyer's of gross misconduct? Your reasoning is absurdly flimsy. It reminds me of conspiracy theorists who point out a handful of debatable aspects in the "official" story in order to claim that the whole thing is wrong.

Even if you are absolutely correct when it comes to these few points that would only show that Moyer's wasn't as conscientious as he should have been. It would hardly even begin to disprove the overall contention of his piece -- namely that reporters failed in their job of providing all the available information concerning the events and data that led up to the invasion of Iraq. To do that you'd have to come up with loads of evidence showing that reporters really were tough on Bush and brought the reality of the evidence to light for everyone to see and understand. Good luck with that.

[corplinx]

No, what you did was bring up a few debatable aspects of Moyer's presentation. While your criticism might in the final analysis be fair, these points are nowhere to the point of "dishonesty" and "misrepresentation."


On the first item I mentioned, Bush was asked about withering international support and the fact that he lacked evidence for his claims. Moyers was incorrect. Why did he misportray the press conference? Why did he cut one small snippet of a long question to support his thesis? He obviously had access to the same transcript I did.

Its not debatable. It is incorrect.

On the second item, I found with a simple google search that papers did cover the protest and the paper they specified by name covered it much more than the documentary claims.

You are seperating two issues. One is that the administration's case for war was bankrupt. However, the issue I am talking about is the Moyers' documentary.

If you would like you can pay me to read the entire transcript and fact check the rest of his documentary as well. Unfortunately, I don't think you are interested in the truth. I believe you want to believe Moyer's thesis and hence my exposing his own shoddy case makes you think I am defending Bush or the Bush admin's case for war.

[corplinx]

Let me lecture you some as well on being a skeptic. Moyer here is presenting claims. Instead of cheering rah-rah, your job is to examine them. I really have no interest in examining his claims that the media rolled over for Bush. I got bored at work the other day and started at the top of the transcript and stopped at the first item I could fact check. Then took a break, and did the same at the bottom. I am a slacker, I just checked it out, posted my results. I have no interest in going through his whole show.

The big question is, why didn't you? Why are you taking it as gospel? Where is your skepticism?

I'll answer you. You want to believe.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Corplinx says I'm on ignore, but I will still respond that the above post is meaningless. Moyers carefully documented the claims he was making. I don't think anyone has to refute the odd conclusions corplinx is claiming. He has his own version of reality.

[pgwenthold]

I like the part about the CIA guy who was sent to Europe _to try to find a link between Iraq and Al Queda_!

Corplinx claims that "the administration was trying to link Iraq and Al Queda" is "wishful thinking." That guy called it his job.

[billydkid]

Evidence that they mentioned Iraq and 911 a lot. No evidence they tried to link Saddam to the 911 attack. More revisionism and wishful thinking.


Frankly, this is insulting and does not even deserve comment. You entire post - beneath you, I would hope to be able to think.

[Ranillon]

On the first item I mentioned, Bush was asked about withering international support and the fact that he lacked evidence for his claims.


I am amazed that anyone could say that with a straight (virtual) face. You are correct only as a technicality. The questions were like "confronting" an international diamond thief about his crimes by asking about that watch he stole from from the corner store -- and giving him warning of what you were going to ask so he could come up with the most convenient answer. It's an approach that robs what should have been an explosive subject of any force.

Nothing was asked that might embarrass Bush or force him to confront the fact that the evidence for war was poor. Instead, he could just talk about the "coalition of the willing" and how his political opponents needed to go along with him or else subject the US to attack -- you know, classic Bush White House talking points. This is hardly fitting with the news reporter's (supposed) primary task of properly evaluating the facts and getting them out there for the rest of us to know.

To put it another way, if the questions asked were hardly different than what a White House staffer would ask just how "challenging" could they have really been?


Moyers was incorrect. Why did he misportray the press conference?


On the whole he didn't, at least not according to any evidence you've provided. Again, even if you are right all that shows is that Moyer's argument is not as strong as it first appeared, not that it is wrong. I mean, what about the whole rest of the show? You are trying to use a few debatable points to conveniently dismiss the whole thing.


On the second item, I found with a simple google search that papers did cover the protest and the paper they specified by name covered it much more than the documentary claims.


It's amazing how you are treating a subjective evaluation like a fact of science.


I believe you want to believe Moyer's thesis and hence my exposing his own shoddy case makes you think I am defending Bush or the Bush admin's case for war.

I never said that. What I said is that your criticism of the documentary is weak at best and does not counter the show's fundamental arguments.

[corplinx]

Its easy to jump on the Iraq/911 bandwagon.

As was mentioned in this thread, the Bush admin played up the resumption of conflict with Iraq as a preemptive move and compared the Al Q. (known enemy) and 911 (attack from not dealing known enemy) situation for why we should pursue it. That was a large part of the sales pitch and I think all of you know it.

You choose to see this pitch as linking Iraq to 911 because it suits the viewpoint you want to have. The closest the admin got doing as Moyers claimed was linking Iraq to Al Q. I think all of us here (at least I hope) know that these links weren't collaborative. Hence, mentioning them was wishful thinking on the admin's part at the time and later turned out to be a wash as they were looked at with more scrutiny.

So yes, I can say with a straight face that Moyers made this assertion and it is unproven by the evidence he provides.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Cor's in denial. What can you say?

I just watched a pretty good special, Journeys with George, (http://www.journeyswithgeorge.com/) which was an entertaining documentary following the press corp that followed Bush from the beginning of the primary campaigning to the election in 2000.

Two things, when the reporter making the film asked Bush on camera about the Texas executions when he was governor, Bush literally snubbed her. Later when she asked him about it, he told her it was an unfair attack and he said something like it was an ambush (can't remember the exact quote). So here is the press corp following Bush for more than a year and if they dare ask anything that isn't a, "tell us how great you are" question, they all know they won't last long on that press bus. But at the same time, it's their job to stay on the bus. They work for the network, or news magazine or newspaper.

I'm sure all the candidates try to be seen in the best light, I just wonder how many of them go to the extremes Bush has gone to? Clinton didn't. He was known for being good at answering the hardball questions. Any Goodman, Democracy Now, caught him off guard with some hardball questions when he called in on her show. Clinton expected a little banter and got angry when Goodman wouldn't give up. So I'm not saying there aren't similar issues with these candidates, they are on a campaign. But I still have never seen any of the Presidential candidates or later, once in office, go to such lengths to control their image as Bush has. I believe Bush's strict audience screening at his fake town meetings was a first.

The second thing in the documentary of interest, which I shouldn't have been surprised by but I was, all those handmade signs people were holding up with all sorts of stuff on them from "Hunters for Bush" to "We love Dubya" painted, drawn, stenciled, hundreds of them, appearing handmade, no two alike, were made by the campaign staff and handed out.

Bush and his Rove run campaign have truly taken marketing an image in politics to new heights.

[FarmallMTA]

The fact that Iraqi hatreds and passions have filled the void left when the most murderous genocidal tyrant in the Middle East was deposed is not a fault of Bush/Cheney or the War in Iraq. Fear of the unknown should never be an excuse for allowing genocide and national mutilation by a murderous totalitarian thug to continue. If so, the NAZI party would still be running Germany.
Fact also that machinations by Al Queda, Iran, Syria, within Iraq do not change that this is the best opportunity Iraqis may have to make a peaceful, prosperous, respectable nation for themselves. The fact is that the vast, vast, vast majority of Iraquis want exactly what Bush and Cheney have proffered. Left to themselves without outside interference, they can make it happen in a peaceful environment.

Thanks to the firm resolution of our President and his cabinet, we continue to hold the ground to give the nation a footing to develop away from it's suicidal, fratricidal, hate and outrage ridden past.

I notice Moyers completely failed to make any of those points. Saddam was a monster, Iraq was an international menace and getting worse, and the Middle East was becoming more and more unstable as a result.

Now if the former Colonial Powers who created this mess in the first place, along with the international organization(s) which aided and abetted the mess for corrupt purposes, would only step up to the plate and help fix the dysfunctional political landscape they made....

But I notice Moyers didn't mention THAT either.

[corplinx]

I notice Moyers completely failed to make any of those points. Saddam was a monster, Iraq was an international menace and getting worse, and the Middle East was becoming more and more unstable as a result.



These are all topics that are out of scope of what Moyers was going into. Moyers is indicting the media for either facilitating (Safire/Krystol/Miller) the Iraq war or being useful idiots regarding it.

I contend that some of his evidence I have looked at is subjective and/or unproven while there are some examples I have pointed out as factually inaccurate (and in my opinion dishonest).

I am sorry Hannity, but this thread isn't about whether the war was justified.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The fact that Iraqi hatreds and passions have filled the void left when the most murderous genocidal tyrant in the Middle East was deposed is not a fault of Bush/Cheney or the War in Iraq. Fear of the unknown should never be an excuse for allowing genocide and national mutilation by a murderous totalitarian thug to continue. If so, the NAZI party would still be running Germany.
Fact also that machinations by Al Queda, Iran, Syria, within Iraq do not change that this is the best opportunity Iraqis may have to make a peaceful, prosperous, respectable nation for themselves. The fact is that the vast, vast, vast majority of Iraquis want exactly what Bush and Cheney have proffered. Left to themselves without outside interference, they can make it happen in a peaceful environment.

Thanks to the firm resolution of our President and his cabinet, we continue to hold the ground to give the nation a footing to develop away from it's suicidal, fratricidal, hate and outrage ridden past.

I notice Moyers completely failed to make any of those points. Saddam was a monster, Iraq was an international menace and getting worse, and the Middle East was becoming more and more unstable as a result.

Now if the former Colonial Powers who created this mess in the first place, along with the international organization(s) which aided and abetted the mess for corrupt purposes, would only step up to the plate and help fix the dysfunctional political landscape they made....

But I notice Moyers didn't mention THAT either.

This is off topic and I'm sure there must be a number of threads discussing this which already pointed out to you the folly in your position. So I'll just summarize and link you to the post I just put in another thread about the incompetence which began Iraq's new start.

Yes it is the fault of Bush and his cabinet that Iraq is so screwed up and the evidence of how poorly they managed the war grows every day.

Just read the part of this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2565525&postcount=157) that starts about halfway down, You could learn a lot from this book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1400044871/ref=dp_proddesc_0/002-4986289-5174434?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books) but if you don't have the interest in or time to read it, just look at the editorial reviews. They reveal a lot of the book's contents.

Read about the incompetent appointments your "firmly resolved" President sent to Iraq. They so screwed that place up, it's shameful.