Today:

Here is how Obama justifies his opposition to the Iraq war (from 2002):

“What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.”

from

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

there’s this too:

“What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

and so naturally the lies of the press are justified, A picture must be painted in people’s minds so they will believe George Soros’s fraudulent Lancet study..

The idea of a conscious conspiracy directed from Moscow or wherever is silly — except that I honestly can’t think of any other explanation which makes sense.

Consider that we had our MSM supporters of Stalin back in the day, and that during the Soviet pact with Nazi Germany, Hollywood wasn’t critical of the Nazis.

We have had a 5th column for quite some time. Most are what some would call “usefull idiots”.

McCarthy was in fact correct that the Soviets had active spys in Hollywood. Read this:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/27732.html

When the plot twist of the article itself is revealed I felt so cheated.. I want to see it!

Ah yes… this ole gem… every time it’s tried, the results have been wonderful… and yet people keep the dream alive.

sick

This damned linky thing better work :\

How’s that?

cue Starwars Darth Vader theme…

Having graduated from a “radical” university in the 70s, my theory is that members of the radical left (my classmates) actively sought to penetrate the media and education during that period and eventually drive out those that didn’t agree with them. This was classical Saul Alinsky radical anarchist agenda stuff (of which Hillary is an acolyte).

Largely, they have succeeded in capturing these organs of propaganda. Thank God for the internet and talk radio.

One day in 1969 during my tour of duty in Viet Nam, we were being resupplied in the field by a helicopter “log bird.” Along with our supplies was a media film crew of three.

A little later, as we were “saddling up” to go out on a patrol, our company commander came over and asked if I wanted to take our visitors out with the squad. For some reason, my reply was “Do I have to bring them back?”

CHADWICK: What did you think when you saw the recent demonstrations by the monks there in Myanmar, demonstrations that were put down quite severely by the military with the imprisonment of, well, reports of thousands?

Mr. RABINOWITZ: Well, I wasn’t there so I really didn’t see anything firsthand. How it was handled by the government is something I actually can’t speak to because I’ve heard different reports. My own people in Yangon tell me that the crowds were not nearly as large as the media reported, that the shooting was not nearly as intense. But I don’t know what’s true and what’s not true.

CHADWICK: You know, Alan, some people listening to this would say right there Alan Rabinowitz is crossing the line.
Mr. RABINOWITZ: I know. I thought that as I was saying it.
(Soundbite of laughter)

CHADWICK: He is saying I don’t know what’s going on there when we have reports and videotape of people being shot and we have many reports of people being imprisoned, and how can you not know?

Mr. RABINOWITZ: How can I not know - you do not have videotape of many people being shot. There’s no videotape of many people getting shot there. There’s videotape of a Japanese reporter getting shot. This is what I get very disturbed about, is that when it comes to Myanmar, people seem to want to deal in a lot of rhetoric, in a lot of pre-conceived notions rather than pure facts.
Yes, this government is not the nicest government in the world, but what I have seen in that country doesn’t match up with what the media tries to portray is happening in that country. And I don’t quite understand why people love to hate Myanmar. I’m not an apologist for them. If anybody reads my books, they see that I talk very strongly about some of the bad things which are occurring in that country. But I balance everything. We’re talking about what - what’s happening that’s good and what’s happening that’s bad. And the government seems to respect that kind of balanced honesty.

It’s exactly the mindlessness of the NPR host that led to NATO bombing Serbia and on the verge of creating a Jihad state in Europe.

There is an easy one - simply that journalism is predisposed to be this way. In many cases it doesn’t take an over arching effort from a group to do things - you will note most engineers are conservatives. Why? Because the type of mind that becomes and engineer is typically conservative.

I would say the type of mind that goes through (and enjoys) what journalist do are generally out to do it to “make a difference”. Generally speaking people who are activist (and for the most part journalism is a form of activism) are on the left side of the political spectrum - always has been and always will be. There are exceptions, there are certainly activist conservatives and non-activist leftist but those are the exceptions.

This is the same thing as to why the vast majority of protests are leftist - conservatives don’t protest, that isn’t the way a conservative generally thinks about solving an problem (along with most protests being a bonding experience for the participants, something conservatives do not tend to be interested in either). There are some, but they tend to be few and far in between.

I haven’t been posting here for a while, because I found the discussions were getting overly bizarre for my taste, but I popped back over here and decided to read again, since I continue to find Neo’s posts quite interesting, and I’m really responding here primarily just to her.

As I’ve written before, I’ve always been more partial to the left side of the political spectrum, but I actually think the most sensible political position is a sort of synthesis of left and right. I.e., I believe in free markets, but I think some regulation is nevertheless essential and effective. I believe war should be avoided if at all possible, but when necessary, one ought to go to war all out. Etc.

But to me, most importantly, I don’t believe that one side or the other has a monopoly either on the truth or on mistakes. The fact that the left has been wrong in the past doesn’t mean the right is correct, the fact that the press has distorted stories in the past doesn’t mean they are always getting the story wrong in the same way. Times change and circumstances change.

The press does distort stories, greatly. They tend to side with whatever seems to be the political tide of the moment, in fact. In the early days of the Vietnam war, they were not particularly critical of it. As public opinion turned against it, as the war dragged on, as the protests grew, the press turned against it, and critical stories became more prevalent.

The same happened with the Iraq war. Any objective analysis of the press coverage prior to the war would conclude that the press was far more biased in FAVOR of Bush’s foreign policy than against it, at the outset. There was very little in the way of critical coverage. Only Reuters noticed how fishy most of the WMD stories, which were later discredited, were. The New York Times published article after article favoring the war, many of which have now turned out to have been filled with factual errors.

This is not to say that I think the press doesn’t tend to lean liberal, overall — but it’s obvious to me that the errors are hardly all on one side. The press makes mistakes constantly. One has to read everything with a critical eye.

I have to say that I find Neo’s story of her journey quite compelling, but the fact is, it strikes me as driven a bit by the shattering of illusions. But the fact that, say, a particular Vietnam image was wrong, or a particular news story was hyped or distorted — does this mean that the “other” side is right? I don’t happen to think so. There are far more than two sides. There are many other alternatives to “everything the press told us about Vietnam, or Jenin, or whatever, is 100% correct” than “the right wing view of the world is correct after all.” I’ve never bought into many of the ideas on the left, despite my overall sympathy for the left — yet I certainly haven’t found the right to be convincing (despite my adoption of many of its ideas as well).

The Iraq war is I believe a case in point: it’s actually a war which I think might have been appropriate in many other circumstances — right after the first Gulf War, for example, it might have worked. But the timing, execution, and tactics I believe were absolutely terrible, and have hurt our security by diverting troops from more pressing national security matters.

In other words: just because some stories about Vietnam or Jenin, etc., turned out to be exaggerations or misleading or false — doesn’t mean the Iraq war was a good idea. Every situation should be evaluated on its own terms, in my view.

I do find Neo’s reasoning and writing very interesting and well thought out, despite my disagreement with her conclusions, though.

but by the rational assessment by millions of Muslims that they will never win freedom or justice through non-violent means, because the world’s powers will continue to put their economic and strategic interests - which are tied to the existing system and its local leaders - ahead of supporting the systemic transformation of the world’s economy and political system that would be necessary to bring about real democracy and peace.

Mark LeVine, PhD, is a professor in the department of history, University of California-Irvine, and author of Why They Don’t Hate Us: Lifting the Veil on the Axis of Evil

A new command I give you:

Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another (John 13:34).

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14).

We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it (1 Corinthians 4:12).

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).

Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:9).

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble (1 John 2:9-10).

Those in positions of authority in the State are not motivated by any sectarian dogma, instead they swear allegiance to the Constitution and ensure the secular law is obeyed.

Therefore it is inappropiate to link Patereus and the bible.

I think Kosovo will be our biggest mistake.. not Iraq (which I dont consider a mistake anyway)

Besides his academic, journalistic and consulting activities, LeVine has a long history of blending art, scholarship and activism.

show us who is “anyone more unserious?” than this guy?

http://www.meaning.org/Levine_OReilly.ram

A modern parallel to the media’s ‘Nam lies is “Global Warming.” In fact, you could say that 1972’s “Napalmed Girl” = today’s “Polar Bears on an Ice Flow”

Narrative #1 is “America is BAD.” Narrative #2 is “America is BAD.” Both photos show pre-adolescent vertebrate mammals in supposed mortal danger from America).

Obviously, lie #1 = lie #2. To this American, it appears that the lies always point in the same direction.

When will the liars get what’s coming to them? Maybe if we reject their Obama/Clinton pet-ticket in ‘08 the propagandists will read the tea-leaves…and shove-off.

Your rational voice is much needed in today’s writings. Thank you.

As I have pointed many times, political activism and scholarship in the same field are not compatible. Those who “blend” them are fraudsters.

Several months ago, the NYT ran an article about how women no longer see marriage as a necessity, citing the fact that 51% are not married. James Lileks commented that the thrust of the article was, “When I am old, I shall wear purple.”, and, presumably, haunt indie bookstores in the Village.
But to get to 51%, the NYT had to start with girls aged fifteen. While it is true that many fifteen-yeaer old girls are not married, it is a stretch to say that it’s because of a dislike of the institution. At least, the article should have factored in the problem that it’s bloody illegal, too.
They counted widows who, while not married, could be said to be unmarried because their husbands died, not necessarily because they are tired of marriage.
And, to hit the magic 51%, they counted married women whose husbands were deployed.

They lie and lie and lie.

It’s not, Mitsu, a matter of a couple of photographs. But you knew that.

Sensational, but not sensationalized…

“…they will never win freedom or justice through non-violent means, because the world’s powers will continue to put their economic and strategic interests - which are tied to the existing system and its local leaders - ahead of supporting the systemic transformation of the world’s economy and political system that would be necessary to bring about real democracy and peace.”

But, “Truth” — isn’t that _exactly_ what the U.S. is attempting in Iraq and Afghanistan? Bush decided that supporting the systematic transformation of the economic and political systems in those lands was not only congruent with, but actually necessary for the promotion of America’s interests. So why are the Muslim fanatics opposing us?

(Two answers to that question, actually. First, because Levine is a tiresome old Marxist trying to shoehorn a religious/nationalist movement into the model of a “class struggle” — the tipoff is that he puts economic transformation first. Second, because there really are some really evil bastards out there, who aren’t interested in the slightest bit in rationally promoting the greater good.)

Of course. Like the old proverb: “Once burnt, twice burnt; burnt again; roasted; incinerated; carbonized….”

This is not to say that I think the press doesn’t tend to lean liberal, overall — but it’s obvious to me that the errors are hardly all on one side.

I know! Like all those times the press reported that the military held fire and didn’t kill civilians when they actually did! And all those times the press reported that the economy was looking up for jobs and opportunities for women and minorities! And all those times the press debunked global warming!

The Iraq war is I believe a case in point: it’s actually a war which I think might have been appropriate in many other circumstances — right after the first Gulf War, for example

Yeah, the ‘Arab Coalition’ would have sat still for that kind of betrayal…. Furthermore, Saddam was still in compliance with the UN resolutions that left him in power at that point. There was no casus belli at all just after the war….

But the timing, execution, and tactics I believe were absolutely terrible, and have hurt our security by diverting troops from more pressing national security matters.

Hmmmm, interesting point…. How was the residence course at Command and General Staff College? Did I know you at the Officer’s Advance Course back in the 90’s?

In other words: just because some stories about Vietnam or Jenin, etc., turned out to be exaggerations or misleading or false — doesn’t mean the Iraq war was a good idea. Every situation should be evaluated on its own terms, in my view.

So that’s how an ostrich gets its head back in the sand! I’d never observed the actual mechanism….

You can blend poop, flour and eggs too, but you can’t call it a pastry.

Even though Al Reuters might….

I think Kosovo is going to turn out to be our biggest mistake too—I’m interested in hearing what your reasons are for believing this!

And Neo, this, and the preceding post, are truly excellent pieces of writing.

NED

Yellow Press was born as an outgrowth of Joseph Pulitzer’s vision as a publisher that, in contrast to the generally accepted ideal of impartial journalistic integrity, journalism should be used to as a vehicle of social change. As Wikipedia has it “Pulitzer believed that newspapers were public institutions with a duty to improve society, and he put (his newspaper) The World in the service of social reform.” Of course social reform is one of the early code words for what we today call progressivism and which is, in reality prototypical socialism. Pulitzer was then, as the newspaper establishment in the U.S. is still (with some exceptions) a left-leaning, self-righteous band of socialistic sympathisers.

Ok.. I have a few different reasons, so I’ll start with the ones I’m sure about.

1 - The amount of death and alledged genocide that “they” said was going on… was not going on. Yes there was killing of Albanias by Serbs but nothing like the scale that Halfwit (Albright) said

2 - The KLA was doing just as much violence to the Serbs

3 - Kosovo is a province of Serbia, thus it’s an internal matter.

Now those reasons are enough for me to say the US overstepped its bounds. and I dont have to go into the muds of reality to state them and reasonable people could agree.

But beyond those reasons there are many many more.

For me the most important reason is this:

The Serbs were protecting themselves against HUNDREDS OF YEARS of Jihad Islamic Domination which WW-II and Cold War temporarily froze.

The Serbs understood prefectly well what would happen if they were in a bad stragetic position.

Unfortunately most peolpe are ignorant of history and so they just the violence as some sort of imperialism.

Secondly, Russia has traditionally be the patron of the Slavic countries. We really stuck our nose deep where it did not belong at all.

We had nothing to gain in that region.. we have no tradition there.. no deep roots.. and the region was not a threat to us.

I think we damaged our relationship with Russia profoundly by humiliating Russia and Serbia by having NATO attck Serbia

Third: Going to war on behalf of Muslims does not earn us their gratitude or respect. So if Clinton did this war as a way to get some points from the Arabs, that was a flawwed premise.

Fourth: We were supporting our enemies becuase our enemies have goals they want to achieve in teh balkins.. namely, the islamification of all the balkans. Iran is supporting KLA so is Saudi Arabia so is Al Qaida.

And I heard little snippets here and there that we were engaged in some cooperation with IRan in helping the KLA.

Fifth: Historical Betrayal. Serbia was on our side in WWII aginst the NAZIs.. and we dare to bomb them.. who the hell are we to bomb them??

So.. we are wher we are.. on the verge of forcing the creation of a new Jihad state in the Balkins. We will piss off Russia even more. We will inculcate to the Jihadis in thinking Allah is opening the way to them for world rule.

The Rape and Pillage of Kosovo may be one of our most shameful acts ever.

ok that’s it for now.. I have to hit send or this will never go..

“I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast.”

-William Tecumseh Sherman

I agree with Neo and others about the nature of photography in the news today. Without context, what you get is simply “The Horror of War.” I think the photographers and reporters who do this have convinced themselves that unless they show us a constant stream of horrible images and reports of death, failure and hopelessness, we will forget how terrible war is and become militarists. Any depiction of war as other than unthinkable horror is, to them, pro-war propaganda. For many of them, there is no middle ground.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

I saw both of those photos back in the day, when I was actively “anti-war”. I thought we’d have to invade N. Vietnam to “win”, but would then only end up in a war with China, which would also invade, along with the Soviets through their continuing proxy support of anything Communist.

So it looked more like a “no-win” war to me. I was trying to be rational and had also searched out the history of Vietnam as described by Joseph Butterfield in a long book called “A Dragon Enchained”. It seemed very credible and supported the idea that the Vietnamese had a long illustrious history of not wanting to be ruled by outsiders, which was emphasized quite dramatically when they forced the French, who we strongly backed, to actually surrender at Dien Bien Phu.

And I really didn’t get the “blame the U.S.” message from the Vietnam era photos: as I watched the video on the nightly news I thought Gen. N. Van Loan must have had a damn good reason to execute that V.C. guy and felt sympathy and maybe even some admiration for the General!

The only message I got from the photo of the burned girl was something I already knew, and I did not blame anyone in particular for what are the inevitable consequences of war.

Iow, I was at least trying to be a Classical Liberal, in contrast those of the Faux Liberal Religion who now beset us. I saw some of them start to form-up immediately after the Vietnam War by becoming overt Communists, which at the time I thought was merely quite bizarre and possibly due to a rare but harmless personality defect.[Wrong!]

One fellow I know quite well even became the leader of a/the San Francisco Communist Party. Then around 1984, thinking no one would notice his clever, invisible machinations, he quietly became a Democrat University Professor specializing in the History of Vietnam - I only wondered to myself, “who-the-hell would want to do that?”, given that the war was long over. Little did I know…. And around 1984 the Communist Party itself seemed to effectively disappear from the larger U.S. political scene, which I didn’t even notice for a long time.

Hmmmm…. remember Marx’s first principle for attaining the Communist Utopia, the critical first majority, after which democracy would be abolished and the “minority” subjugated? It turns out that the Communists here simply became Democrats, because they realized they weren’t going to be a majority in the U.S. as Communists.

Regardless, those particular photos didn’t communicate the correct blame-America message to me, although I am beginning to doubt the truth of much of what was reported back then given the MSM’s current performance, which now seems to easily rival the same kind of thing the MSM was trying to tar the whole U.S. Government with back then: the crass, ulterior motive, agenda-driven communication of lies and distortions based upon our own trust of those who are supposed to be acting in our interests.

Funny how that psychological dynamic - or devious propogandistic tactic - works, and it explains to me why the Faux Liberal Progs manage to get nearly everything exactly 180 degrees wrong. I say they either hate and fear themselves and/or life, or else have a self of control only, where the ends=control justify and are also the means=control, especially thought control. In either case the Progs literally have nothing better to do. The rational analysis of reality is their target. The radical Islamics are their soul mates.

I remain very skeptical of the spin machines of both right and left, because both have been egregiously guilty of lies and distortion. The run-up to the Iraq War is a perfect example of this! And, it may be that the current anti-war sentiment in the press is also a distortion. But that’s the way the world works. I’m not about to change my political views just because I found out the press distorts things. That is not to say I don’t sympathize with Neo’s transformation — I keep saying I do admire her writing and reasoning, even if I disagree with how far she took it. I am simply saying that the press distorts on both sides, and it is worth being skeptical of the impulses to distort on both sides.

There are powerful interests on both the right and the left who are vying for public support. They both have the resources and the ability to put out misinformation.

But the press does not evenly distort. One study after another shows that.
As you know and hope we don’t.

Many thanks for responding—those are all good reasons, and conclusions I’d come to on my own (I was aware, for instance, that the Serbs were our allies in WWII, and even sheltered downed American pilots.)

Just adding my own two-cents’ worth (not as good as vince’s post, but just as an amusing coda), I remember at the time how popular our glorious little war against the Serbs was, especially in the MSM. At the time, it seemed that only myself, my older brother and a weird goth/fantasy mag I was reading at the time, were against it. By gum, we were teaching those evil Serbs a lesson, showing that the American military wasn’t just a band of murdering thugs, and—oh yeah—that we didn’t support just Israel, and, by gummety-jingo-gee, Moslems would see what we were doing for the oppressed Albanians, and like us! They’d really LIKE us!

It didn’t work out that way.

There were also few protests, I recall, over the fact that we went in there without UN approval, or the morality of bombing helpless Serb civilians (including kids), or bombing Serbian churches filled with priceless Medieval art, or bombing Serbs on their holiest day (Easter)—the very same sort of stuff the Left goes ballistic over, when the subject is the WoT, and we’re fighting Moslems.

What we did was wrong. It’s going to cause us endless trouble in coming decades.