Op-Ed
A lot of media outlets are now scrutinizing some of the lies told by
the Bush administration before the invasion of Iraq. Yet the same
news organizations are bypassing their own key roles in the marketing
of those lies. A case in point is the New York Times.
On Oct. 29, hours after the indictment of Lewis Libby, the lead editorial of the Times ended by declaring that “the big point Americans need to keep in mind is this: There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” On Oct. 30, the Times columnist Frank Rich referred to “Colin Powell’s notorious presentation of WMD ‘evidence’ to the UN on the eve of war.”
And so it goes in the opinion section of the New York Times. There’s now eagerness to blast the Bush administration for some aspects of false prewar propaganda -- while the newspaper continues to dodge its own crucial role in promoting that propaganda.
On Oct. 29, hours after the indictment of Lewis Libby, the lead editorial of the Times ended by declaring that “the big point Americans need to keep in mind is this: There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” On Oct. 30, the Times columnist Frank Rich referred to “Colin Powell’s notorious presentation of WMD ‘evidence’ to the UN on the eve of war.”
And so it goes in the opinion section of the New York Times. There’s now eagerness to blast the Bush administration for some aspects of false prewar propaganda -- while the newspaper continues to dodge its own crucial role in promoting that propaganda.
The wheels are falling off. The carriage is headed towards a cliff. The passengers are beginning only beginning to get scared. And where is the driver? Or in our case, where is the president? He is absent without leave, once more leaving the country in the lurch.
This isn't about partisan politics. It isn't about scoring political points. It doesn't matter what politics or ideology you have. Look around. This country is in serious straits and there is no sign of adult super version.
This isn't about partisan politics. It isn't about scoring political points. It doesn't matter what politics or ideology you have. Look around. This country is in serious straits and there is no sign of adult super version.
AUSTIN, Texas -- I am writing about the most extraordinary book by the most extraordinary woman, and I would have interviewed her at length, except she's going to be arrested if she ever sets foot back in our home state.
That's pretty much the way life goes these days for Diane Wilson, who used to be just a regular old shrimper and mother of five kids, until she accidentally became an activist. Then, all hell broke loose. The results are described in "An Unreasonable Woman: A True Story of Shrimpers, Politicos, Polluters and the Fight for Seadrift, Texas."
I believe the book will become a classic, not just of the environmental movement, but of American lit, as well. It is the rare, clear, moving voice of a working-class woman goaded into action against the greatest massed forces in the world today: globalized corporate greed backed by government power.
That's pretty much the way life goes these days for Diane Wilson, who used to be just a regular old shrimper and mother of five kids, until she accidentally became an activist. Then, all hell broke loose. The results are described in "An Unreasonable Woman: A True Story of Shrimpers, Politicos, Polluters and the Fight for Seadrift, Texas."
I believe the book will become a classic, not just of the environmental movement, but of American lit, as well. It is the rare, clear, moving voice of a working-class woman goaded into action against the greatest massed forces in the world today: globalized corporate greed backed by government power.
By a twist of political fate, the Oct. 28 deadline for special
counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to take action on the Plamegate matter is
exactly 25 years after the only debate of the presidential race between
Ronald Reagan and incumbent Jimmy Carter. How the major media outlets
choose to handle the current explosive scandal in the months ahead will
have enormous impacts on the trajectory of American politics.
A quarter of a century ago, conservative Republicans captured the White House. Today, a more extreme incarnation of the GOP’s right wing has a firm grip on the executive branch. None of it would have been possible without a largely deferential press corps.
Among other things, Reagan’s victory over Carter was a media triumph of style in the service of far-right agendas. When their only debate occurred on Oct. 28, 1980, a week before the election, Carter looked rigid and defensive while Reagan seemed at ease, making impact with zingers like “There you go again.” More than ever, one-liners dazzled the press corps.
A quarter of a century ago, conservative Republicans captured the White House. Today, a more extreme incarnation of the GOP’s right wing has a firm grip on the executive branch. None of it would have been possible without a largely deferential press corps.
Among other things, Reagan’s victory over Carter was a media triumph of style in the service of far-right agendas. When their only debate occurred on Oct. 28, 1980, a week before the election, Carter looked rigid and defensive while Reagan seemed at ease, making impact with zingers like “There you go again.” More than ever, one-liners dazzled the press corps.
Many politicians and pundits have told us that “Iraq is not Vietnam.”
Certainly, any competent geographer would agree.
Substantively, the histories of Iraq and Vietnam are very different. And the dynamics of U.S. military intervention in the two countries -- while more similar than the American news media generally acknowledge -- are far from identical.
Iraq is not Vietnam. But the United States is the United States.
War after war, decade after decade, the U.S. news media have continued to serve those in Washington who strive to set the national agenda for war and lay down flagstones on the path to military intervention.
From the U.S. media’s fraudulent reporting about Gulf of Tonkin events in early August 1964 to the fraudulent reporting about supposed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in the first years of the 21st century, the U.S. news media have been fundamental to making war possible for the United States.
Substantively, the histories of Iraq and Vietnam are very different. And the dynamics of U.S. military intervention in the two countries -- while more similar than the American news media generally acknowledge -- are far from identical.
Iraq is not Vietnam. But the United States is the United States.
War after war, decade after decade, the U.S. news media have continued to serve those in Washington who strive to set the national agenda for war and lay down flagstones on the path to military intervention.
From the U.S. media’s fraudulent reporting about Gulf of Tonkin events in early August 1964 to the fraudulent reporting about supposed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in the first years of the 21st century, the U.S. news media have been fundamental to making war possible for the United States.
As the New Orleans disaster recedes from the headlines, citizen activists
face a choice. We can focus exclusively on other newer issues. Or we can
work to make the disaster one of those key turning points with the potential
to transform American politics. For this to happen, we need to consciously
create new dialogue, reaching well beyond the core converted.
If we think back to the 9/11 attacks, which have shaped American politics ever since, a brief window of critical reflection opened up in their immediate wake. Middle East experts critical of U.S. policies had op-eds in our largest newspapers and appeared on network TV. Ordinary citizens mourned the victims, while asking what would make the attackers so embittered they'd be willing to murder 3,000 innocent people. The next day, when I spoke about possible root causes, with even more frankness than usual, at a community college in the overwhelmingly Republican suburbs just north of Dallas, the response was amazingly receptive.
If we think back to the 9/11 attacks, which have shaped American politics ever since, a brief window of critical reflection opened up in their immediate wake. Middle East experts critical of U.S. policies had op-eds in our largest newspapers and appeared on network TV. Ordinary citizens mourned the victims, while asking what would make the attackers so embittered they'd be willing to murder 3,000 innocent people. The next day, when I spoke about possible root causes, with even more frankness than usual, at a community college in the overwhelmingly Republican suburbs just north of Dallas, the response was amazingly receptive.
AUSTIN, Texas -- I have been collecting material for a series of columns on the peppy topic, "How Do We Fix This Mess?" The news is dandy in that there are a lot of a sound ideas being passed around. Really serious messes, like the one this country is in, do not, in my experience, have simple, definitive solutions. And if they do, such solutions are politically impossible. We are looking for progress, not perfection, so anyone who tells you the entire tax code should fit on a postcard is a bona fide, certified, chicken-fried moron.
But listening to the Democratic debate on what to do now, it seems to me some of the brethren and sistren are asking the wrong questions. The question is not, "How Do We Win?" That's a technical question that comes after, "What the Hell Can We Do About This Disaster?"
I personally think some good ideas and a plan should come first -- and to this end, let me chime in on a note of agreement with some Actual Moderates, William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck, a couple of Clintonites still carrying on in that old Third Way that was good enough for Bill C.
But listening to the Democratic debate on what to do now, it seems to me some of the brethren and sistren are asking the wrong questions. The question is not, "How Do We Win?" That's a technical question that comes after, "What the Hell Can We Do About This Disaster?"
I personally think some good ideas and a plan should come first -- and to this end, let me chime in on a note of agreement with some Actual Moderates, William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck, a couple of Clintonites still carrying on in that old Third Way that was good enough for Bill C.
As the New Orleans disaster recedes from the headlines, citizen activists
face a choice. We can focus exclusively on other newer issues. Or we can
work to make the disaster one of those key turning points with the potential
to transform American politics. For this to happen, we need to consciously
create new dialogue, reaching well beyond the core converted.
If we think back to the 9/11 attacks, which have shaped American politics ever since, a brief window of critical reflection opened up in their immediate wake. Middle East experts critical of U.S. policies had op-eds in our largest newspapers and appeared on network TV. Ordinary citizens mourned the victims, while asking what would make the attackers so embittered they'd be willing to murder 3,000 innocent people. The next day, when I spoke about possible root causes, with even more frankness than usual, at a community college in the overwhelmingly Republican suburbs just north of Dallas, the response was amazingly receptive.
If we think back to the 9/11 attacks, which have shaped American politics ever since, a brief window of critical reflection opened up in their immediate wake. Middle East experts critical of U.S. policies had op-eds in our largest newspapers and appeared on network TV. Ordinary citizens mourned the victims, while asking what would make the attackers so embittered they'd be willing to murder 3,000 innocent people. The next day, when I spoke about possible root causes, with even more frankness than usual, at a community college in the overwhelmingly Republican suburbs just north of Dallas, the response was amazingly receptive.
Since I don't believe in "peak oil" (the notion that world production is peaking and will soon slide, plunging the world into economic chaos) and regard oil "shortages" as contrivances by the oil companies, allied brokers and middlemen to run up the price, I fill my aging fleet of '50s- and '60s-era Chryslers with a light heart. Although for longer trips these days I fill an '82 Mercedes 240D with diesel. True, diesel these days costs more than high-octane gasoline, but the Mercedes gets 35 miles to the gallon, whereas the '59 Imperial ragtop and the '62 Belevedere wagon get around 18 mpg, which is still way ahead of the SUVs.
AUSTIN, Texas -- You can only sit around wringing your hands and moaning about what a mess the Bushies have made of America for so long. Sooner or later, even the gloomiest doom-meisters are bound to get beaned by an acorn on the noggin, leading to the startling and productive thought, "So, what could we do that would make things better?" Quel concept, eh?
For those mired in loathing the Bush administration, the program would start with a long, long list of things that need to be undone: repeal the bankruptcy bill, repeal the tax breaks for the rich, and fix the farm bill, the transportation bill, the energy bill, etc. Or you could start with a list of gentle suggestions, such as:
-- Making a rude jerk with a bad temper ambassador to the United Nations, probably not a good idea
-- Putting a veterinarian in charge of women's health policy, maybe not.
-- Making someone with a background in Arabian horses the disaster-relief czar, possibly needs reconsideration.
-- Invading a Middle Eastern country with no provocation, a country that posed no threat and had no connection to 9-11 ... hmmm, perhaps not a shrewdie.
For those mired in loathing the Bush administration, the program would start with a long, long list of things that need to be undone: repeal the bankruptcy bill, repeal the tax breaks for the rich, and fix the farm bill, the transportation bill, the energy bill, etc. Or you could start with a list of gentle suggestions, such as:
-- Making a rude jerk with a bad temper ambassador to the United Nations, probably not a good idea
-- Putting a veterinarian in charge of women's health policy, maybe not.
-- Making someone with a background in Arabian horses the disaster-relief czar, possibly needs reconsideration.
-- Invading a Middle Eastern country with no provocation, a country that posed no threat and had no connection to 9-11 ... hmmm, perhaps not a shrewdie.