"Buying the War" - PBS, April 25th - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Elphaba · 04-12-2007, 09:46 PM

Those that have doubted the legitimacy of the Iraq preemptive war from the beginning, may not find anything new in Moyers's documentary, "Buying the War." The evidence of complicity by our main stream press is the reason to take the time to watch this documentary on April 25th.

Link

Quote:

Record of Iraq War Lies to Air April 25 on PBS
By David Swanson
t r u t h o u t | Guest Columnist

Thursday 12 April 2007

Bill Moyers has put together an amazing 90-minute video documenting the lies that the Bush administration told to sell the Iraq war to the American public, with a special focus on how the media led the charge. I've watched an advance copy and read a transcript, and the most important thing I can say about it is: Watch PBS from 9:00 to 10:30 PM on Wednesday, April 25. Spending that 90 minutes will actually save you time because you'll never watch television news again - not even on PBS, which comes in for its own share of criticism.

While a great many pundits, not to mention presidents, look remarkably stupid or dishonest in the four-year-old clips included in "Buying the War," it's hard to take any spiteful pleasure in holding them to account, and not just because the killing and dying they facilitated is ongoing, but also because of what this video reveals about the mindset of members of the DC media. Moyers interviews media personalities, including Dan Rather, who clearly both understand what the media did wrong and are unable to really see it as having been wrong or avoidable.

It's great to see an American media outlet tell this story so well, but it leads one to ask: When will Congress tell it? While the Democrats were in the minority, they clamored for hearings and investigations, they pushed Resolutions of Inquiry into the White House Iraq Group and the Downing Street Minutes. Now in the majority, they've gone largely silent. The chief exception is the House Judiciary Committee's effort to question Condoleezza Rice next week about the forged Niger documents.

But what comes out of watching this show is a powerful realization that no investigation is needed by Congress, just as no hidden information was needed for the media to get the story right in the first place. The claims that the White House made were not honest mistakes. But neither were they deceptions. They were transparent and laughably absurd falsehoods. And they were high crimes and misdemeanors.

The program opens with video of President Bush saying "Iraq is part of a war on terror. It's a country that trains terrorists. It's a country that can arm terrorists. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country."

Was that believable or did the media play along? The next shot is of a press conference at which Bush announces that he has a script telling him which reporters to call on and in what order. Yet the reporters play along, raising their hands after each comment, pretending that they might be called on despite the script.

Video shows Richard Perle claiming that Saddam Hussein worked with al Qaeda and that Iraqis would greet American occupiers as liberators. Here are the Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, William Safire from The New York Times, Charles Krauthammer and Jim Hoagland from The Washington Post, all demanding an overthrow of Iraq's government. George Will is seen saying that Hussein "has anthrax, he loves biological weapons, he has terrorist training camps, including 747s to practice on."

But was that even plausible? Bob Simon of "60 Minutes" tells Moyers he wasn't buying it. He says he saw the idea of a connection between Hussein and al Qaeda as an absurdity: "Saddam, as most tyrants, was a total control freak. He wanted total control of his regime. Total control of the country. And to introduce a wild card like al Qaeda in any sense was just something he would not do. So I just didn't believe it for an instant."

Knight Ridder Bureau Chief John Walcott didn't buy it either. He assigned Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay to do the reporting and they found the Bush claims to be quite apparently false. For example, when the Iraqi National Congress (INC) fed The New York Times's Judith Miller a story through an Iraqi defector claiming that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons labs under his house, Landay noticed that the source was a Kurd, making it very unlikely he would have learned such secrets. But Landay also noticed that it was absurd to imagine someone putting a biological weapons lab under his house.

But absurd announcements were the order of the day. A video clip shows a Fox anchor saying, "A former top Iraqi nuclear scientist tells Congress Iraq could build three nuclear bombs by 2005." And the most fantastic stories of all were fed to David Rose at Vanity Fair Magazine. We see a clip of him saying, "The last training exercise was to blow up a full-size mock-up of a US destroyer in a lake in central Iraq."

Landay comments: "Or jumping into pits of fouled water and having to kill a dog with your bare teeth. I mean, this was coming from people who are appearing in all of these stories, and sometimes their rank would change."

Forged documents from Niger could not have gotten noticed in this stew of lies. Had there been some real documents honestly showing something, that might have stood out and caught more eyes. Walcott describes the way the INC would feed the same information to the vice president and secretary of defense that it fed to a reporter, and the reporter would then get the claims confirmed by calling the White House or the Pentagon. Landay adds: "And let's not forget how close these people were to this administration, which raises the question, was there coordination? I can't tell you that there was, but it sure looked like it."

Simon from "60 Minutes" tells Moyers that when the White House claimed a 9/11 hijacker had met with a representative of the Iraqi government in Prague, "60 Minutes" was easily able to make a few calls and find out that there was no evidence for the claim. "If we had combed Prague," he says, "and found out that there was absolutely no evidence for a meeting between Mohammad Atta and the Iraqi intelligence figure. If we knew that, you had to figure the administration knew it. And yet they were selling the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam."

Moyers questions a number of people about their awful work, including Dan Rather, Peter Beinart and then Chairman and CEO of CNN Walter Isaacson. And he questions Simon, who soft-pedaled the story and avoided reporting that there was no evidence.

Landay at Knight Ridder did report the facts when it counted, but not enough people paid attention. He tells Moyers that all he had to do was read the UN weapons inspectors' reports online to know that the White House was lying to us. When Cheney said that Hussein was close to acquiring nuclear weapons, Landay knew he was lying: "You need tens of thousands of machines called 'centrifuges' to produce highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. You've got to house those in a fairly big place, and you've got to provide a huge amount of power to this facility."

Moyers also hits Tim Russert with a couple of tough questions. Russert expressed regret for not having included any skeptical voices by saying he wished his phone had rung. So Moyers begins the next segment by saying, "Bob Simon didn't wait for the phone to ring," and describing Simon's reporting. Simon says he knew the claims about aluminum tubes were false because "60 Minutes" called up some scientists and researchers and asked them. Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post says that skeptical stories did not get placed on the front page because they were not "definitive."

Moyers shows brief segments of an "Oprah" show in which she has on only pro-war guests and silences a caller who questions some of the White House claims. Just in time for the eternal election season, Moyers includes clips of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry backing the war on the basis of Bush and Cheney's lies. But we also see clips of Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy getting it right.

The Washington Post editorialized in favor of the war 27 times, and published in 2002 about 1,000 articles and columns on the war. But the Post gave a huge anti-war march a total of 36 words. "What got even less ink," Moyers says, "was the release of the National Intelligence Estimate." Even the misleading partial version that the media received failed to fool a careful eye.

Landay recalls: "It said that the majority of analysts believed that those tubes were for the nuclear weapons program. It turns out though, that the majority of intelligence analysts had no background in nuclear weapons." Was Landay the only one capable of noticing this detail?

Colin Powell's UN presentation comes in for similar quick debunking. We watch a video clip of Powell complaining that Iraq has covered a test-stand with a roof. But AP reporter Charles Hanley comments, "What he neglected to mention was that the inspectors were underneath watching what was going on."

Powell cited a UK paper, but it very quickly came out that the paper had been plagiarized from a college student's work found online. The British press pointed that out. The US let it slide. But anyone looking for the facts found it quickly.

Moyers's wonderful movie is marred by a single line - the next to the last sentence - in which he says, "The number of Iraqis killed, over 35,000 last year alone, is hard to pin down." A far more accurate figure could have been found very easily.

It is my hope that this documentary will provide an opportunity here for a dialog regarding the current state of our media, and what is needed to return it to our "fourth" branch of government.

host · 04-12-2007, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Those that have doubted the legitimacy of the Iraq preemptive war from the beginning, may not find anything new in Moyers's documentary, "Buying the War." The evidence of complicity by our main stream press is the reason to take the time to watch this documentary on April 25th.

Link

It is my hope that this documentary will provide an opportunity here for a dialog regarding the current state of our media, and what is needed to return it to our "fourth" branch of government.

Whoa !!!!!....wayyyyy too much information. Gimme little factoids of USA Today style, "McNews"..... ala the "hoes" in the "Imus story" thread, soes I can get up and running.....in other words....start posting away, without having to read some loooonnnnggggg OP, and then digest all of it, before I post a response. Fuggedaboutit....this thread is not going result in dialog, IMO.

Sorry, Elphaba....but that is how I see things happening here, and my disappointment is showing, I guess. The "Imus" thread shows that this forum is just like any other at TFP. Participants want to post....after a very brief read.....preferably on a topic that can be completely understood in less than a paragraph.

It is of little consequence that Brett Bozell has convinced half the country that the mainstream, working press is "liberal", or that Pat Robertson's Kay Coles James was appointed in 2001, to oversee all of the hiring and the personnel administration at the White House and in the rest of executive branch agencies.

People just want to be entertained.....they seem most eager to discuss the least impacting events and controversies. The CNP can continue to pick our presidents in secrecy, while we're all watching NASCAR or the NCAA "final four".....

My own reaction to the article in the thread OP was posted, in advance, in many of my last 1500 posts on this forum.

Xell101 · 04-12-2007, 11:35 PM

All I know is that Fox News is the least biased of any government supporting news organization.

Wait, shit...

All I know is it seems like even just the context supplied is designed for manipulation. It seems like the only way to have an idea of what's going on is to disregard all but primary sources and work from there. I mean the actual reports, people who're actually there, etc. I think the great myth of our times is that the media is something that you can trust at least a little. I think the Iraq War is a pretty good example of the media's ability to manufacture consent. I figure "BUying the War" will probably contain interesting stuff and will be watching it, thanks for the heads up.

Lizra · 04-13-2007, 04:01 AM

I hope I'm not too miserably off topic here....

Host! I'm sorry you are bummed....I love your effort

Please keep it up in what ever fashion that seems "worth it" to you.

Imo......People are just people...the "winners" will be those who out manipulate and deliver a message in the most digestable fashion (for the masses). I believe much of the public's desire "to discuss the least impacting events and controversies" comes from our inability to actually DO anything about much of the information today's technology delivers us. You read/see these things, get angry, and what....you are left hanging with simmering frustration. (Even voting isn't enough after Bush stole the first election.

)
After so many times, you naturally start to shut the frustration down.
It's a giant, almost cellularly complex power struggle, the ultimate, never ending chess match. I am just another fairly clueless cell

.....but I hope my side (liberal) figures out (or natuarally falls into) a winning strategy soon. Fuck the Carl Rove's and his greed inspired efforts.

debaser · 04-13-2007, 09:52 AM

The blame lies in part with the media, but far more with the masses who wish to be fed "McNews". They can take anything you throw at them, so long as it can be packaged into 15 second clips, has a few cool explosions, isn't too messy, and doesn't raise thier taxes...

But I'm not bitter.

Really.

ubertuber · 04-13-2007, 10:07 AM

Well, a it's a system that isn't set up to deliver accurate information. All of the incentives reward outlets that deliver valuable advertisees, not those that disseminate true or complete information. One should never forget this.

I do think it's neat that this "expose" is being aired on PBS. I'll be sure to TIVO it so I can watch.

Elphaba · 04-13-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Those that have doubted the legitimacy of the Iraq preemptive war from the beginning, may not find anything new in Moyers's documentary, "Buying the War."

Quote:

My own reaction to the article in the thread OP was posted, in advance, in many of my last 1500 posts on this forum.

I wish I had kept track of the number of scroll wheels you were accused of killing.

roachboy · 04-14-2007, 10:16 AM

i wouldn't despair so much, host.

i think that you adopt a narrow view of the political sometimes: the actions of bozell et al have obviously to do with the fashioning of an ideological context--critique then involves both the understanding of networks behind this fashioning and the nature, extent and internal logic of the context they have been instrumental in fashioning, taken on its own terms. it makes little sense to force a separation, as if by accounting for the networks you account for the ideological field, its mechanisms of relay and reproduction, the effects these have had, and the problems created by these effects.

if this moyer's doc has more resonance now than the same information had in 2003, it would be a function of shifts in the ideological context that enframes that information now as over against that which enframed it in 2003. there are a number of obvious conditions of possibility for this: among them is perhaps the perception amongst written and (to a lesser extent) television "news" operations that their legitimacy was drawn into question by the way in which it allowed the administration to use it as a conduit for self-evidently false information, for arguments based on faulty logic rooted in crap data to justify a colonial war on grounds that had nothing to do with its actual motives...this as an example of the kind of process that is of not a little importance that you cant get to across the research approach that you adopt.

in other words, there is not only room for a number of ways to think about the extent and nature of the political, but there is every reason to encourage a diversity of approaches.

we have been working in a kind of informal concert for quite a while here and it should be obvious that we do so in part because we do not operate in the same way. i have faded a bit out of debates about the iraq debacle simply because for me there really is no debating any longer about the facts of the matter concerning the case for war, the way this debacle has unfolded etc etc etc. that and the fact that what i am doing in 3-d has required more attention from me, so putting elaborate posts up is something that i have curtailed.

so be of relatively good cheer. even stuff like the imus thread became interesting after a while. it does not follow that situations within which the premises of a question are fairly superficial that therefore nothing interesting can be said.

this on its own requires that one not limit one's thinking to the naming of names and tracking of networks--which is not diminish the interest of what you have been doing on bozell et al--it is simply to say that there are a number of angles from which one can approach the matter of ideology.

dc_dux · 04-16-2007, 04:29 AM

re: the OP interest in the current state of our media

The Pew Center just released a survey on "the public knowledge of current affairs" and the changing sources of news.

On average, today's citizens are about as able to name their leaders, and are about as aware of major news events, as was the public nearly 20 years ago.
...
The survey provides further evidence that changing news formats are not having a great deal of impact on how much the public knows about national and international affairs.

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=319

One interesting finding is that the most knowledgable viewers by news source are those who are regular watch the Daily Show/Colbert Report, major newspaper (MSM?) websites, and News Hour w/Jim Lehrer. Among the least knowledgable are the regular viewers of Fox News Channel.

Take the same news quiz yourself: http://pewresearch.org/newsiq/
(proudly in the 96th percentile - 9 out of 9 correct)

jorgelito · 04-16-2007, 10:13 PM

Cool "fact sheet" DC, the ones that stand out to me are Rush and O'Reilly. That Fox News is at the bottom is not a surprise.

dc_dux · 04-17-2007, 06:25 AM

What I find really repugnant is Bush's continuing to "sell his falied war policy" by fear mongering and with never-ending references to 9/11, insinuating some connection between the two.

"...the enemies who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001 want to bring further destruction to our country. They know that the only way to stop them is to stay on the offense, to fight the extremists and radicals where they live, so we don't have to face them where we live.
...
If we do not defeat the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, they won't leave us alone -- they will follow us to the United States of America.
...
The consequences of failure in Iraq would be death and destruction in the Middle East and here in America.
...
As we saw with last week's brutal attack on the Iraqi parliament, our troops face depraved and determined enemies -- enemies that could just as easily come here to kill us."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20070416.html

At least one news sources is calling him out on his bullshit:

Quote:

Is there any truth to 'the enemy would follow us here?'

It’s become President Bush’s mantra, his main explanation for why he won’t withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq anytime soon.

In speech after speech, in statement after statement, Bush insists that “this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here.”

The line, which Bush repeated Wednesday in a speech to troops at California's Fort Irwin, suggests a chilling picture of warfare on American streets.

But is it true?

Military and diplomatic analysts say it isn't. They accuse Bush of exaggerating the threat that enemy forces in Iraq pose to the U.S. mainland.

[“The president is using a primitive, inarticulate argument that leaves him open to criticism and caricature,” said James Jay Carafano, a homeland security and counterterrorism expert for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy organization. “It’s a poor choice of words that doesn’t convey the essence of the problem - that walking away from a problem doesn’t solve anything.”

U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush's own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States.

Foreign-born jihadists are present in Iraq, but they're believed to number only between 4 percent and 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgent fighters - 1,200 to 3,000 terrorists - according to the Defense Intelligence Agency and a recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a center-right research center.

“Attacks by terrorist groups account for only a fraction of insurgent violence,” said a February DIA report.

While acknowledging that terrorists could commit a catastrophic act on U.S. soil at any time - whether U.S. forces are in Iraq or not - the likelihood that enemy combatants from Iraq might follow departing U.S. forces back to the United States is remote at best, experts say.

"The war in Iraq isn't preventing terrorist attacks on America," said one U.S. intelligence official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he's contradicting the president and other top officials. "If anything, that - along with the way we've been treating terrorist suspects - may be inspiring more Muslims to think of us as the enemy."

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...hington_nation

Most Americans arent "buying the war" anymore as an anti-terrorist action to protect the homeland (in fact, most know it is now a civil war we created and cant control), but unfortunately, most of the press, wont challenge the Bush/Cheney bullshit so it continues unimpeded.

Elphaba · 04-26-2007, 06:46 PM

I watched the program and didn't see anything new, but Fox and it's stable of talking heads sure went ballistic in response.

04-13-2007, 04:01 AM	#4 (permalink)
Lizra Insane Location: rural Indiana	I hope I'm not too miserably off topic here.... Host! I'm sorry you are bummed....I love your effort Please keep it up in what ever fashion that seems "worth it" to you. Imo......People are just people...the "winners" will be those who out manipulate and deliver a message in the most digestable fashion (for the masses). I believe much of the public's desire "to discuss the least impacting events and controversies" comes from our inability to actually DO anything about much of the information today's technology delivers us. You read/see these things, get angry, and what....you are left hanging with simmering frustration. (Even voting isn't enough after Bush stole the first election. ) After so many times, you naturally start to shut the frustration down. It's a giant, almost cellularly complex power struggle, the ultimate, never ending chess match. I am just another fairly clueless cell .....but I hope my side (liberal) figures out (or natuarally falls into) a winning strategy soon. Fuck the Carl Rove's and his greed inspired efforts. __________________ Happy atheist

04-13-2007, 09:52 AM	#5 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	The blame lies in part with the media, but far more with the masses who wish to be fed "McNews". They can take anything you throw at them, so long as it can be packaged into 15 second clips, has a few cool explosions, isn't too messy, and doesn't raise thier taxes... But I'm not bitter. Really. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

04-13-2007, 10:07 AM	#6 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Well, a it's a system that isn't set up to deliver accurate information. All of the incentives reward outlets that deliver valuable advertisees, not those that disseminate true or complete information. One should never forget this. I do think it's neat that this "expose" is being aired on PBS. I'll be sure to TIVO it so I can watch. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

04-14-2007, 10:16 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i wouldn't despair so much, host. i think that you adopt a narrow view of the political sometimes: the actions of bozell et al have obviously to do with the fashioning of an ideological context--critique then involves both the understanding of networks behind this fashioning and the nature, extent and internal logic of the context they have been instrumental in fashioning, taken on its own terms. it makes little sense to force a separation, as if by accounting for the networks you account for the ideological field, its mechanisms of relay and reproduction, the effects these have had, and the problems created by these effects. if this moyer's doc has more resonance now than the same information had in 2003, it would be a function of shifts in the ideological context that enframes that information now as over against that which enframed it in 2003. there are a number of obvious conditions of possibility for this: among them is perhaps the perception amongst written and (to a lesser extent) television "news" operations that their legitimacy was drawn into question by the way in which it allowed the administration to use it as a conduit for self-evidently false information, for arguments based on faulty logic rooted in crap data to justify a colonial war on grounds that had nothing to do with its actual motives...this as an example of the kind of process that is of not a little importance that you cant get to across the research approach that you adopt. in other words, there is not only room for a number of ways to think about the extent and nature of the political, but there is every reason to encourage a diversity of approaches. we have been working in a kind of informal concert for quite a while here and it should be obvious that we do so in part because we do not operate in the same way. i have faded a bit out of debates about the iraq debacle simply because for me there really is no debating any longer about the facts of the matter concerning the case for war, the way this debacle has unfolded etc etc etc. that and the fact that what i am doing in 3-d has required more attention from me, so putting elaborate posts up is something that i have curtailed. so be of relatively good cheer. even stuff like the imus thread became interesting after a while. it does not follow that situations within which the premises of a question are fairly superficial that therefore nothing interesting can be said. this on its own requires that one not limit one's thinking to the naming of names and tracking of networks--which is not diminish the interest of what you have been doing on bozell et al--it is simply to say that there are a number of angles from which one can approach the matter of ideology. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-16-2007, 04:29 AM	#9 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	re: the OP interest in the current state of our media The Pew Center just released a survey on "the public knowledge of current affairs" and the changing sources of news. On average, today's citizens are about as able to name their leaders, and are about as aware of major news events, as was the public nearly 20 years ago. ... The survey provides further evidence that changing news formats are not having a great deal of impact on how much the public knows about national and international affairs. http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=319 One interesting finding is that the most knowledgable viewers by news source are those who are regular watch the Daily Show/Colbert Report, major newspaper (MSM?) websites, and News Hour w/Jim Lehrer. Among the least knowledgable are the regular viewers of Fox News Channel. Take the same news quiz yourself: http://pewresearch.org/newsiq/ (proudly in the 96th percentile - 9 out of 9 correct) __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-16-2007 at 04:38 AM..

04-12-2007, 11:35 PM	#3 (permalink)
Xell101 Junkie	All I know is that Fox News is the least biased of any government supporting news organization. Wait, shit... All I know is it seems like even just the context supplied is designed for manipulation. It seems like the only way to have an idea of what's going on is to disregard all but primary sources and work from there. I mean the actual reports, people who're actually there, etc. I think the great myth of our times is that the media is something that you can trust at least a little. I think the Iraq War is a pretty good example of the media's ability to manufacture consent. I figure "BUying the War" will probably contain interesting stuff and will be watching it, thanks for the heads up.

04-16-2007, 10:13 PM	#10 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Cool "fact sheet" DC, the ones that stand out to me are Rush and O'Reilly. That Fox News is at the bottom is not a surprise.

04-26-2007, 06:46 PM	#12 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I watched the program and didn't see anything new, but Fox and it's stable of talking heads sure went ballistic in response. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007