Sunday, June 22, 2014
Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller upset that the media keeps wanting to "beat up on who was responsible for the Iraq War." Yes, how unreasonable of them.
ON SCOTT: There has been Iraq fatigue among the public in this country for a long time. What about the media?
JUDITH MILLER: Not the media. Not so, because the media still loves to beat up on who was responsible for the Iraq War, and who is to blame for the current controversy, the current crisis, and that is not helpful, Jon. What we should be doing, what the media should be doing, is encouraging everyone who has a view of what to do now in Iraq to come forward and to discuss it rationally. But they're doing the opposite. They're trying to shut down people like Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney, all of the, quote, "neo-conservatives," who brought us this war. It's not helpful.
You know usually I would be shocked that a so-called reporter would say something like this out loud. But this is Judith "They're using aluminum tubes to make atomic weapons in Iraq" Miller.
She was one of the "journalists" who helped the Bush Administration sell the war to America, and she has almost as muhc blood on her hands as Dick Cheney and George Bush.
Here is what Salon wrote about her in 2005:
Miller was a consistent critic of Saddam’s regime, but before 1998 she was capable of making nuanced judgments about the problem it posed for the United States. At some point after that, she apparently began to believe that she, with her prescient expertise about WMD and radical Islam, and her hawkish and neocon sources were right. This was when her fateful decline began. A minor scientist and sometime college teacher such as Khidhir Hamza became “the highest ranking scientist” to defect from Iraq. She relayed complaints from Gucci revolutionaries like Chalabi that they had been left out of the loop by the Clinton administration, and retailed Iraq National Congress tall tales to her unsuspecting audience. By the late 1990s, she had laid the ground for her subsequent path, of becoming stenographer to a motley crew of neoconservative hawks and Iraqi expatriate wheelers and dealers. The aluminum tubes story, in particular, which she co-wrote and which helped pave the way to war, will likely be taught in journalism classes for years as a textbook study of flawed reporting. In the end, Miller’s decline seems due more to professional ambition than ideological conviction — although her own beliefs clearly grew closer to the neocons’.
“While Miller might not have intended to march in lockstep with these hawks, she was caught up in an almost irresistible cycle,” Foer writes. “Because she kept printing the neocon party line, the neocons kept coming to her with huge stories and great quotes, constantly expanding her access.”
In the end, it seems that Miller will go down in history not so much as a true believer as a useful idiot.
I think "useful idiot" might be the kindest thing that can be said about Judith Miller.
In fact her reporting was so bad, that the New York Times had to officially apologize for it in 2004.
And of course she could not be more wrong about what a reporter's job is concerning Iraq, and what happens going forward.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
I have always felt that Obama was trapped by politics, and the GOP's desire to paint him as weak on defense, into staying in Afghanistan far longer than he would have liked, and I am confident that he will get us out in his second term.
It is absolutely time to end these wars and bring our troops home, and let's face it, despite what he might say, Mitt Romney is married to the military-industrial complex that simply wants eternal strife around the world in order to keep selling weapons and driving up their profits. And the proof of that is found in the neo-cons he has advising him in his campaign.
Monday, October 05, 2009
By: John L. Perry
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States." (And yet they would not have been inspired to oust President Bush who famously referred to the Constitution as "just a goddamned piece of paper"?)
# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized. (You mean like spying on Americans, and using the Patriot Act to illegally search the homes of citizens NOT suspected of terrorism?
# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
# They can see that the economy -- ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation -- is financially reliant on foreign lender governments. (Obama inherited this problem, he did not cause it.)
# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home. (Absolutely NO recognition that this "illegal war" was started by George W. Bush.)
# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.
# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time. (Also the fault of George W. Bush was almost single-handedly destroyed out military by failing to adequately fund it while engaging in two unnecessary wars and damaging our reputation around the world.)
# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
I am not usually one to toss around words like traitor or treason, but I am stumped for another term which adequately describes this article.
And how completely dishonest of this tool to blame the problems we are facing now on a President hat has only been in office for less then one year.
President Obama did not START these wars. He did not destroy the economy. He did not break the military. All of that was done BEFORE he took the reins of power.
And this little prick know it too. He just hopes that his readers, who have been constantly fed big heaping piles of bullshit, will be too ignorant, and too filled with hate for Obama, to doubt him.
This John Perry should be arrested immediately and Newsmax, which is nothing more than a Neo-con rag, should be thoroughly investigated by Homeland Security for domestic terrorism.
(H/T to TPM. You can visit their site by clicking the title.)
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
President Obama has made a mistake in Afghanistan. You can tell by who has come out of the woodwork to congratulate him.
Ms. Palin, the former governor of Alaska and last year’s Republican vice presidential nominee, joined a group of conservatives signing a letter to Mr. Obama praising him for his management of Afghanistan and urging him to commit more troops there.
Among others who signed the letter, organized by the Foreign Policy Initiative, a newly created conservative organization, were Karl Rove, the senior adviser to Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush; William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard; and Ryan C. Crocker, the former ambassador to Iraq.
Uh oh, this can't be good.
As flaming liberal I have finally come to terms with the fact that Obama's presidency did not immediately herald an end to all of the wars started by the Bush administration. It was a painful epiphany, but one that I have learned to live with. However having this group of Republican ne'er-do-wells patting you on the back is a clear indication that you have f**ked up somewhere.
Just take a look at this "Rogues Gallery" of supporters.
Eliot A. Cohen
Ryan C. Crocker
William S. Edgerly
Jamie M. Fly
Frederick W. Kagan
Robert C. McFarlane
Sarah Palin (If you need me to identify this person then you are on the wrong blog.)
Mitchell B. Reiss
Karl Rove (Another person who does not need introduction. Nickname: Turdblossom.)
If I were Barack Obama and any of these people tried to pat ME on the back I would immediately ask to be rushed to the hospital to have the knife removed.
Perhaps the ONLY conservative of note that Obama should accept a pat on the back from is columnist George Will who recently called for a substantial withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. The list of failed politicians, ex-Bush cabinet members, and neo-cons above is exactly the sort of people that President Obama should try to disappoint. If they were unhappy with his policies he could be damn sure he was doing the right thing.
Just having both Sarah Palin and Karl Rove alone endorse your policies in Afghanistan should serve as a huge red flag.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
I never condone violence against women, but there is an evil little part of me that hopes this is the result of a well placed upper cut.
She is, simply put, a horrible, horrible woman.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Okay now I am aware that this is just FOX News and therefore a journalistic joke, and that Frank Lutz has the credibility of a carnival barker, but my point in posting this is how Sarah Palin gave them a performance just good enough for them to run with it.
And Joe Biden could not call her on her bullshit because of her coquettish approach to the debate. He would have looked like a bully and he knew it.
So since Biden was biting his tongue Sarah got to skate through another debate just like her Gubernatorial debate in 2006, which allows the rabid Right Wing to call it a win for her.
Can't imagine such a thing? Then meet the boneheads at Little Green Footballs, and at Power line, and the crazy ass self loathing Michelle Malkin, and from the man who may be the most responsible for Sarah Palin being on the ticket, we have this from Rush Limbaugh.
There are many others but this is a fairly good sampling of how these Right Wing soldiers have received just enough from Sarah to start talking about media bias, and medai filters, and garbage like that to explain how Palin could look so incompetent while talking to Katie Couric and appear much more competent during the debate.
For George Bush the mainstream media lowered the bar of expectations to limbo height so that he could get over it, for Sarah Palin they buried it in the sand.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
"Executive abilities? She doesn't have any," said former Wasilla City Council member Nick Carney, who selected and groomed Palin for her first political race in 1992 and served with her after her election to the City Council.
Four years later, the ambitious Palin won the Wasilla mayor's office -- after scorching the "tax and spend mentality" of her incumbent opponent. But Carney, Palin's estranged former mentor, and others in city hall were astounded when they found out about a lavish expenditure of Palin's own after her 1996 election. According to Carney, the newly elected mayor spent more than $50,000 in city funds to redecorate her office, without the council's authorization.
"I thought it was an outrageous expense, especially for someone who had run as a budget cutter," said Carney. "It was also illegal, because Sarah had not received the council's approval."
According to Carney, Palin's office makeover included flocked, red wallpaper. "It looked like a bordello."
Although Carney says he no longer has documentation of the expenditures, in his recollection Palin paid for the office face-lift with money from a city highway fund that was used to plow snow, grade roads and fill potholes -- essential municipal services, particularly in weather-battered Alaska.
Carney confronted Mayor Palin at a City Council hearing, and was shocked by her response.
"I braced her about it," he said. "I told her it was against the law to make such a large expenditure without the council taking a vote. She said, 'I'm the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can't.'"
When I was breaking bread with my fellow Alaska bloggers on Sunday, I made the observation that Sarah Palin was essentially "George Bush with a vagina".
Even though the get together was predominantly female, nobody took any offence at my crude remark. As a matter of fact all of them seemed to concur with my observation.
But perhaps I was incorrect. I have always believed that George Bush was merely a simpleton who was easily shaped by the neo-cons into an instrument of destruction to move forward their plan for world domination. But the above article seems to demonstrate that Sarah Palin is much more then simply an empty vessel waiting to be filled with the kind of evil that allows somebody to lie about a war and send thousands to their unnecessary deaths.
No Sarah Palin, the Alaska Ice Queen, seems to have already invited the darkness into her soul years before having any inclination of what the Republican demonic forces had planned for her.
She charged rape victims for the rape kits that would assist in bringing their assailants to justice, she cut funding for the mentally ill, and now we learn she spent money that Alaskans desperately needed for snow removal to buy knick knacks for her office.
The woman is pure evil! And we must defeat her at all cost!
Monday, October 29, 2007
Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.
Meanwhile, the idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees — and bombing is the only option, since we’ve run out of troops — is pure wishful thinking. Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign, and ended up strengthening it instead. There’s every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would produce the same result, with the added effects of endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and driving oil prices well into triple digits.
These guys have been making up one horrifying bogeyman after another in an attempt to keep Americans so frightened that they do not ask the logical questions that these crazy assertions demand.
Well it is almost Halloween and what better time to face our fears. Let's look behind the scary language and take a good look at who is using it, and why?
These people are scaring us into allowing them to take our freedoms away, that is what is really scary!
They are scaring us into supporting a war to attack Innocent people, now that is truly frightening!
They are scaring us into supporting a new President that will continue using these tactics to keep us scared, and that is absolutely bone chilling!
Well I am not afraid, and I hope neither are any of you. If we keep our heads uncovered and our hands from in from of our eyes we will see the bullshit coming and act accordingly. And that will take the power away from the neocons and fear mongers.
This a morning of "hat tips" as I give another one to Crooks and Liars.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
If you are thinking about that next vacation, might I suggest signing on for the National Reviews Conservative Cruise. Both alcohol and crazy on tap.
The conversation ebbs back to friendly chit-chat. So, you're a European, one of the Park Avenue ladies says, before offering witty commentaries on the cities she's visited. Her companion adds, "I went to Paris, and it was so lovely." Her face darkens: "But then you think - it's surrounded by Muslims." The first lady nods: "They're out there, and they're coming." Emboldened, the bearded Floridian wags a finger and says, "Down the line, we're not going to bail out the French again." He mimes picking up a phone and shouts into it, "I can't hear you, Jacques! What's that? The Muslims are doing what to you? I can't hear you!"
Now that this barrier has been broken - everyone agrees the Muslims are devouring the French, and everyone agrees it's funny - the usual suspects are quickly rounded up. Jimmy Carter is "almost a traitor". John McCain is "crazy" because of "all that torture". One of the Park Avenue ladies declares that she gets on her knees every day to " thank God for Fox News". As the wine reaches the Floridian, he announces, "This cruise is the best money I ever spent."
They rush through the Rush-list of liberals who hate America, who want her to fail, and I ask them - why are liberals like this? What's their motivation? They stutter to a halt and there is a long, puzzled silence. " It's a good question," one of them, Martha, says finally. I have asked them to peer into the minds of cartoons and they are suddenly, reluctantly confronted with the hollowness of their creation. "There have always been intellectuals who want to tell people how to live," Martha adds, to an almost visible sense of relief. That's it - the intellectuals! They are not like us. Dave changes the subject, to wash away this moment of cognitive dissonance. "The liberals don't believe in the constitution. They don't believe in what the founders wanted - a strong executive," he announces, to nods. A Filipino waiter offers him a top-up of his wine, and he mock-whispers to me, "They all look the same! Can you tell them apart?" I stare out to sea. How long would it take me to drown?
I would seriously consider taking a voyage like this just to see how these nutty people can keep their cognitive dissonance alive under the deluge of conflicting facts. It truly is a very impressive ability.