|
 |
Thursday, January 24, 2008 |
Attacks Imperil U.S.-Backed Militias in Iraq. American-backed Sunni militias who have fought Sunni extremists to a standstill in some of Iraq's bloodiest battlegrounds are being hit with a wave of assassinations and bomb attacks, threatening a fragile linchpin of the military's strategy to pacify the nation.
At least 100 predominantly Sunni militiamen, known as Awakening Council members or Concerned Local Citizens, have been killed in the past month, mostly around Baghdad and the provincial capital of Baquba, urban areas with mixed Sunni and Shiite populations, according to Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani. At least six of the victims were senior Awakening leaders, Iraqi officials said.
Violence is also shaking up the Awakening movement, many of whose members are former insurgents, in its birthplace in the Sunni heartland of Anbar Province. On Sunday, a teenage suicide bomber exploded at a gathering of Awakening leaders, killing Hadi Hussein al-Issawi, a midlevel sheik, and three other tribesmen.
Born nearly two years ago in Iraq's western deserts, the Awakening movement has grown to an 80,000-member nationwide force, four-fifths of whose members are Sunnis. American military officials credit that force, along with the surge in United States troops, the Mahdi Army's self-imposed cease-fire and an increase in Iraqi security forces, for a precipitous drop in civilian and military fatalities since July.
But the recent onslaught is jeopardizing that relative security and raising the prospect that the groups' members might disperse, with many rejoining the insurgency, American officials said.
 [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
12:39:15 PM 
|
|
Marjorie Cohn: Cheney Impeachment Gains Traction in House Judiciary Committee.
Nine out of 23 Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee favor starting impeachment hearings against Vice-President Dick Cheney. Six of the nine are co-sponsors of H.R. 799, which contains three articles of impeachment.
Articles I and II of H.R. 799 accuse Cheney of purposely manipulating intelligence to deceive Congress and the American people about a fabricated threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, respectively. Article III charges Cheney with openly threatening aggression against Iran absent any real threat to the United States. All three articles say Cheney's actions have damaged our national security interests.
Three of the nine Judiciary Committee Democrats who advocate launching impeachment hearings against Cheney, Reps. Robert Wexler (D., Fla.), Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) and Tammy Baldwin (D., Wis.), co-authored an op-ed that appeared on December 27 in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
They wrote, "The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that, if proven, may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under the Constitution. The allegations against Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens."
There is also credible evidence that policies set in Cheney's office authorized the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody, in violation of three treaties the United States has ratified, as well as the U.S. Torture Statute and War Crimes Act. The policies on the treatment of prisoners emanating from Cheney's office triggered the abuse and torture, according to Lawrence Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff.
"It was clear to me that there was a visible audit trail from the Vice President's office through the Secretary of Defense down to the commanders in the field," Wilkerson, a former colonel, said on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition."
In November, the House of Representatives sent the impeachment resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for further proceedings. However many Democrats oppose impeachment, citing the year and a half of testimony about Bill Clinton's personal relations. They think impeachment will detract from Congress's other pressing business.
Yet, the three congresspersons noted, the Clinton impeachment "must not be the model for impeachment inquiries. A Democratic Congress can show that it takes its constitutional authority seriously and hold a sober investigation, which will stand in stark contrast to the kangaroo court convened by Republicans for Clinton."
And, they argue, the hearings would "involve the possible impeachment of the vice president - not of our commander in chief - and the resulting impact on the nation's business and attention would be significantly less than the Clinton presidential impeachment hearings."
Seventy percent of American voters think Cheney has abused his powers and 43 percent say he should be removed from office, according to a Nov. 13 poll by the American Research Group. Organizations, including the National Lawyers Guild, have called for the impeachment of Dick Cheney.
Impeachment hearings against Cheney would not only fulfill the Constitution's command that high officials who commit high crimes and misdemeanors be brought to justice. It would also deter the vice president from committing additional crimes that threaten the national security of the United States.
Any impeachment proceeding would have to start in the House Judiciary Committee. The nine Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee who favor impeachment hearings are: Robert Wexler, Fla.; Luis Gutierrez, Ill.; Anthony Weiner, N.Y.; Tammy Baldwin, Wisc.; Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas; Steve Cohen, Tenn.; Keith Ellison, Minn.; Maxine Waters, Calif.; and Hank Johnson, Ga.
Here is a list of the entire House Judiciary Committee.
For information about the campaign to impeach Dick Cheney, see http://impeachcheney.org.
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and the President of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law. Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.
 [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
12:36:49 PM
|
|
Vivian Norris de Montaigu: Davos 2008: Bill Gates' Creative Capitalism and Muhammad Yunus' Social Business.
The way it works is that instead of giving money away to a non-profit charity, you help create businesses -- in fact new business models. As little as a $25 can motivate an entrepreneur in the developing world, by funding a microcredit organization such as Kiva.org, which gives out small loans. This process allows that money to grow and be reused and help create true sustainability, unlike the charity dollar which must be raised each year. Now try the same thing on the corporate level and you can begin to see that it is truly possible to create a "world without poverty", and that poverty is indeed an "artificial construction." These words have been stated time and again by Professor Muhammad Yunus', the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner, and they are put forth in his latest book, Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism. Professor Yunus, also known as the "banker to the poor" is asking that the poor be poor no more and is inviting major international corporations to not make a profit off the poor, but actually create sustainable businesses which also provide a public service, be it in the areas of health, technology, infrastructure, communications, education, etc.
Microsoft's Bill Gates is now also on board, and at Davos just the other day spoke about "social business" as "creative capitalism." Interestingly enough, many at the Gates Foundation, and some retired Microsoft execs are already working with Yunus, such as Paul Maritz, chair of the Grameen Foundation and Grameen Technologies. In other words, slowly if surely, the leaders from the symbol of hyper-capitalist culture are becoming those dedicated to the cause of eliminating poverty, utilizing that same capitalist-friendly optimism and innovation. In fact, many of them are the biggest supporters of Yunus: former eBay chief, Jeff Skoll, Paul Maritz, Intel's Craig Barrett, just to name a few. Arguably many of those deeply involved with the world of innovative technology have always had a utopian belief that advances would serve everyone...unfortunately the reality is that there has been very little "trickle-down" technology and business creation. There needs to be a revised business structure and capital which serves not just profit but human beings in order to create more than "trickle down" but rather a wave of sustainability and optimism. And not just in the developing world, but in places such as impoverished areas of the United States as well.
With two such influential people as Gates and Yunus focusing on innovation, capital-driven change-making and the world economy, there is nothing to stop the social business model from snowballing into a worldwide movement, which can indeed eliminate poverty. That Davos, the meeting place of the truly wealthy and powerful, should now come to include themes that were often spoken of at Porto Alegre and conferences, populated more by NGOs than executives means that the war has indeed been won. The words being used by Yunus are being spoken by someone who has seen both what great wealth can do, and what it could potentially do if harnessed in a more evolved way to help all the people of the planet.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism, simply that it can be put to better use than serving greed, speculation and that miniscule percentage at the very top. It does need to be distributed but in an intelligent way, one based also on human needs so that the social businesses created have a true purpose beyond simply profit. No one needs a billion dollars, and unfortunately, most billionaires and millionaires are not Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and Jeff Skoll, donating the bulk of their money to good causes, while still following what most would call 'sound" business practices.
Yunus already has some major companies onboard such as Danone, building yogurt factories in rural Bangladesh, providing vitamin enriched food, at an affordable price for the poor. More announcements about other partnerships are in the works. One successful social business is Grameen telephone which has built the infrastructure of the largest phone company in Bangladesh. Social entrepreneurs are also an important part of this growth and sustainability and organizations such as Ashoka and its funder, Bill Drayton, are making sure that funds are channeled into the hands of "change-makers" who understand locally what kind of business is needed and how to make it truly sustainable. Others include David Bornstein,, whose powerful book, How to Change the World, continues to be taken down off my bookshelf in Paris by various friends.
Call it "creative capitalism" or "social business," but it is all about believing in the potential of individuals to help themselves, and that they indeed want to be able to do so, to work and earn a living and be proud to look their fellow human beings in the eye.
We are more than just money making machines and do-gooders, we are part of a common humanity. And if someone else's child is suffering, somehow, so is mine. And thank you Klaus Schwab at Davos for truly promoting public-private partnerships and creating a forum which is evolving into more than another CEO retreat , but rather a forum for opinion leaders, governments, business and many organizations serving humanity to gather and ask hard questions, while allowing for the opportunity to come up with concrete solutions.
 [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
12:34:54 PM
|
|
Chris Matthews is right. (updated below - Update II) If there's a more revealing (though unsurprising) illustration of our modern press corps than this exchange last night between Chris Matthews and Tom Brokaw, I don't know what it is: MATTHEWS: Tom, we're going to have to go back and figure out the methodology, I think, on some of these [polls]. BROKAW: You know what I think we're going to have to do? MATTHEWS: Yes sir? BROKAW: Wait for the voters to make their judgment. MATTHEWS: Well what do we do then in the days before the ballot? We must stay home, I guess. BROKAW: No, no we don't stay home. There are reasons to analyze what they're saying. We know from how the people voted today, what moved them to vote. You can take a look at that. There are a lot of issues that have not been fully explored during all this. But we don't have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed. And trying to stampede in effect the process. Look, I'm not just picking on us, it's part of the culture in which we live these days. I think that the people out there are going to begin to make judgments about us if we don't begin to temper that temptation to constantly try to get ahead of what the voters are deciding. All of the points Brokaw made would have been just as valid even if their Wicked Witch had been crushed last night by 15 points, just as they were all hoping, predicting, and (therefore) trying to bring about. The endless attempts to predict the future and thus determine the outcome of the elections -- to the exclusion of anything meaningful -- is a completely inappropriate role for journalists to play, independent of the fact that they are chronically wrong, ill-informed, and humiliated when they do it. It would all be just as inappropriate and corrupt even if they knew what they were talking about, even if they were able to convert their wishes into outcomes. But Matthews' response to Brokaw is perfect in several ways. The very idea of discussing issues, examining the candidates' positions, or even analyzing voter preferences does not and cannot even occur to Chris Matthews. That -- the most elementary nuts and bolts of standard, healthy journalism -- is way, way beyond the scope of what our media stars are able to do or want to do. Petty personality-based gossip and speculative, worthless chatter is all they know. Drudge, after all, rules their world. He's their Walter Cronkite. And they wallow exclusively in the Matt Drudge currency, what two of their most revered members -- Mark Halperin and John Harris -- described as their fixation with the "attacked-based, personality-obsessed politics" pioneered by their Ruler. Can one find more compelling proof of all of this than their juvenile, sadistic, lynch-mob savaging of Hillary Clinton over the last several days based on the pettiest and most fact-free assaults and their long-harbored desire to see her crushed? As is so often the case, Maureen Dowd today unintentionally provides a perfect view of the core sickness of our press corps: When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes. A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it over and over, drawn to the "humanized" Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues cringed. "We are at war," he said. "Is this how she'll talk to Kim Jong-il?" Another reporter joked: "That crying really seemed genuine. I'll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand." He added dryly: "Crying doesn't usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships." Bill Clinton was known for biting his lip, but here was Hillary doing the Muskie. Certainly it was impressive that she could choke up and stay on message. Dowd is describing here the conversation that took place in her "office" -- which happens to be the newsroom of The New York Times -- between what are undoubtedly very Serious Journalists, including one who covers (said with whispered reverence) "security issues." And in this one short passage, on vivid, revolting display is every repellent attribute that defines the Standard Modern Political Journalist:*Jaded, bitterly cynical coolness masquerading as sophistication (no emotion, no passion, is even real); * Vapid, shallow stupidity (political matters judged exclusively by Drudge-like personality distractions); * Mindless recitation of idiotic, Kristol-like right-wing talking points (we need manly Tough Guys, not Girly Crying, for our Wars); * The basest and most glaringly obvious strain of sexism (no mention of the endless crying episodes from GOP Warrior-Cheerleaders); * Their self-absorbed and almost-always-wrong belief that their own insulated biases are how the Regular Folk Think (hence, Hillary's "crying," which voters apparently either appreciated or ignored, was going to doom her candidacy, just as Huckabee's press conference would doom his in Iowa); * Herd-like adolescent malice rituals directed towards the Hated Loser (NYT reporters grouping together to chortle and cackle oh-so-knowingly at the Wicked Witch). Brokaw's sudden, embarrassment-driven request for the media to act differently (where has his sermon been for the last 20 years?) will not have the slightest effect on what they do. It can't, because the media stars and their editors and producers who shape coverage aren't capable of anything else. They're selected and in those positions precisely because this is all they're capable of doing. Are Gloria Borger and Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman and Wolf Blitzer suddenly going to abandon their desire to impose shallow, melodramatic narratives on our elections and spend their time, instead, analyzing the candidates' responses to Charlie Savage's questionnaire on presidential power, or the dominant, corrosive role lobbyists and large corporations play in our political culture, or the widening rich-poor gap, or the strain and stain on our country from our imperial policies? The question is so absurd, so laughable, that to ask it is to answer it. None of them could remotely do that even if they wanted to, even if they were allowed to, and they don't and aren't. As I wrote the other day after Mike Huckabee's Iowa win, which was preceded by our media geniuses' collective, condescending declarations of his death: It's a reminder that the political prattle that spews forth from group-think media stars without end and which consumes our political dialogue for a full year is based on absolutely nothing. Also, most predictive "analysis" from the media stars' cousins, the cogs in the right-wing noise machine, is merely self-absorbed wishful thinking masquerading as objective knowledge. . . . One knows much more by ignoring and tuning all of this out. But for a full year, our mainstream political dialogue is filled with all of this -- in every leading political magazine and news show -- at the expense of anything that is actually real. But none of this can be different, at least not in the short-term. Our entire media edifice is structured to operate the Drudgian Freak Show and its stars are the ringleaders, chosen for their affinity for it. In that sense, Matthews really is right and Brokaw absurdly wrong, almost delusional. If our media stars ceased spewing the type of worthless (though destructive) chatter that (when directed at Hillary Clinton) has been more apparent in the last week than it has been for a long time, they'd be left with nothing to do. As Matthews says, if they didn't do that, they might as well stay home. It's who they are. * * * * * TODAY'S REMINDER: If you find that one (or both) of the following thoughts is entering your brain, it may be helpful to remind yourself that they are fallacies: * X criticizes negative media coverage of Candidate Y. Therefore, X supports Candidate Y. * X criticizes positive media coverage being lavished on Candidate Y. Therefore, X opposes Candidate Y. For a rational person, it is actually possible to criticize negative media coverage directed at a candidate that one does not support. It's equally possible -- for a rational person, that is -- to criticize positive media coverage being lavished on a candidate one likes.
UPDATE: On CNN last night after Clinton's victory, Hillary Obsessive Carl Bernstein -- along with Lou Dobbs and Bill Bennett -- continued to recite the standard media storyline that Bill Clinton was Dragging Her Down:BERNSTEIN: The other thing is that Bill Clinton women see less of, that part of what she is doing -- and I talked to some people today about this -- is that... DOBBS: Right. BERNSTEIN: ... is that she knows that Bill Clinton is the baggage she has to deal with. This can no longer be about the restoration of the Clintons to the White House, because she cannot make it to the White House that way. And she knows it. The question is how to do it. It's a difficult dynamic between the two. This is a very human story that we're watching. We have never seen anything like this. It goes back to this national psychodrama with the Clintons. BENNETT: Yes. BERNSTEIN: That's part of the story. That's the opposite of reality in (at least) two ways. First, Bill Clinton is wildly popular among Democrats generally and New Hampshire Democrats specifically. He just is. Secondly, over the last week, he played a more prominent role in Hillary's campaign than ever before, not less. And then she won. That doesn't prove causation, but the "Bill-is-baggage" storyline has long been one of the media's favorites, even though there has never been factual support for it, and -- even now, with the most compelling evidence yet of its falsity (Hillary's victory in the wake of Bill's intensive campaigning), they continue to cling to it. It has always been, and still is, the right wing, along with Carl Bernstein and his media comrades, who need and crave the "Clinton psychodrama" -- not voters -- and they will do and say anything to keep it alive.
UPDATE II: Markos Moulitsas, who is voting for Obama, explains exactly how and why -- as has been true for a long time -- the most potent asset the Clintons possess is the repulsive malevolence of their media and political enemies.  [Salon: Glenn Greenwald]
12:30:15 PM
|
|
John O'Bryan: What More Does Lou Dobbs Have to Do to Prove He's Not Racist?.
It never ceases to amaze me. Somehow liberals and other sensitive types in this country have managed to turn America's greatest cable news crusader into a bigot.
Just because Lou Dobbs spends night after night fighting to criminalize people who cross the desert to pick your tomatoes, some loony leftwingers have accused him of harboring white supremacist sentiments. Just because he accidentally quotes studies conducted by racist organizations and occasionally references the opinions of eugenicists, some people have decided that Daddy Dobbs is driven by nefarious motives. Well I'm not one of them. Who among you has not unwittingly supported a Nazi on occasion? We're all only human.
Let's give Dobbs the benefit of the doubt. How was he supposed to know that Council of Conservative Citizens was a white supremacist organization when he invited one of its members to appear on his show? When he gives verbal support to the Minutemen vigilantes, how is he supposed to know that many of them are shameless racists who threaten and maim illegal immigrants, knowing they can never report it to the cops? Lou Dobbs is not Santa. He can't be everywhere at once, so he can't possibly know what all of his contributors have to say about minorities when they're not on the air.
But lucky for Lou, I'm here to give him a complete image makeover.
Read closely, Louis "Big D" Dobbs -- by following these simple suggestions, you're sure to dispel any myth of racial prejudice behind your reports...
(1) MARRY A MEXICAN: Think about it. Any time somebody tries to call you a whitebread xenophobic bigot, all you have to say is, "Hey, what about my little non-white sidekick over here?" It worked for Frank Sinatra, and it can work for you too.
(2) RANT CONSTANTLY ABOUT YOUR FAVORITE TAMALES: Everybody knows that racists can't possibly enjoy Mexican food. And it's pretty obvious that Sweet Lou likes food of all nationalities. My suggestion is this: Find your favorite brand of tamales. (The more obscure, the better. You must become the indie rock fan of tamale lovers!) Then take a few seconds in every broadcast to share this secret with your audience. Once people hear the genuine tamale lust in your voice, it will be downright impossible for them to ever assert that you've anything other than love for our Latin neighbors.
(3) GO PUBLIC WITH YOUR SYPHILIS INFECTION: People need an explanation for your constant obsession with diseases spread by immigrants. Especially when said obsession turns out to be based on faulty data. But fret not, Daddy Dobbs. When you come clean and admit to the world that you have syphilis, it will explain everything: your obsession with communicable disease, your poor reasoning skills, your shoddy fact-checking, your rectal lesions...Who wouldn't sympathize with you?
(4) GET 'JUMPED-IN' BY MS-13: You're always talking about the rising crime rates caused by illegal immigration, even though "statistics" and "facts" show illegal immigrants to be fairly law-abiding (other than immigrating illegally, of course). If you are going to continue to insist that Chicanos are the reason for our burgeoning crime wave, you need first-hand experience to speak factually, and what better way to get it than by joining the biggest Latino crime syndicate in North America. You get benefits for life, and all you have to do is let them beat you mercilessly for one minute. One minute. When it's all done, you'll be a bona fide authority on Latino street gangs, and the liberal media won't be able to call you on your ignorance. So quit being a puta and sign up!
(5) START REFERRING TO YOUR CORRESPONDENTS AS 'PUTA' AND 'PENDEJO': Let's face it. Part of your problem is you're just too buttoned up. You need to spice up your lingo a bit. Fortunately, I live in Northeast Los Angeles, so I can help you. From now on, whenever one of your dutiful correspondents sign off, you say, "Gracias, Puta Madre." It will charm the pants off the youth, and give you a rare inroad to Hispanic viewers age 13-22. They'll tune in every week to see what that crazy old white man with the floppy cheeks is going to say this time. Plus, it will prove to detractors that you're not just picking this immigration fight so you don't have to learn Spanish.
(6) REMEMBER TO INCLUDE WHITE PEOPLE when you're discussing wacky conspiracy theories of 'reconquesta.' Your viewers have heard you mention the Mexican conspiracy to re-seize the American Southwest--or "Aztlan," as those part-Indian Indian-givers call it. I applaud your diligence. It must have taken quite an effort to generalize the entire Mestizo race as sore losers who are still bitter about land that was taken from their ancestors a hundred years ago. So nice work.
I for one think we should worry more about the conspiracy to reclaim our nation's other regions. For example, did you know there are French people in New Orleans right now? Why do you think they are there, to sample the beignets and king cake? Are they trying to reclaim the Louisiana Purchase, which America bought off them for a song? And how about all those British tourists on the East Coast? What do you think they're up to? I'll tell you right now, they ain't trying to assimilate and let bygones be bygones. They're plotting to avenge their great loss of 1776 and retake the colonies. Before we know it, the tea will pulled back out of the harbor, and "football" will mean "soccer"! Now fly, noble crusader, and protect our other broken borders!
(7) GROW A PENCIL-THIN ZORRO MOUSTACHE: It will not only improve your looks tenfold, but it will make you seem like someone who truly does fight for the welfare of the Mexican people (a claim you're always reiterating). Then whenever anyone accuses you of being a faux-populist charlatan, you wield your news pen like a rapier and scratch a big "L" on their chest. Then shout out something memorable like, "You just got Lou'd on!" or "Dobbs away!"
(8) READ AT LEAST ONE BOOK BY GABRIEL GARCIA MARQUEZ, so you can talk about it parties. No, Marquez isn't Mexican, but he speaks Spanish, so close enough. And the mere mention of his name will impress the hell out of liberals with college degrees, which is most of them. Also try to see that movie Y Tu Mama Tambien, with that handsome Mexican actor that's in all the Hispanic-y movies. Make sure you mention how you had no trouble telling the Mexicans in the movie apart. 'Cause that's you--always acutely aware of the subtle variations within La Raza.
Well, that's about all I have for you, Daddy Dobbs. Follow these points, and you'll be well on your way to fame as the bastion of tolerance that I know you to be! I leave you with one last piece of advice: (8.5) IF YOU'RE NOT SURE IF SOMETHING YOU'RE ABOUT TO SAY IS RACIST, TRY THIS FIRST -- say it in a southern accent. Or a German accent. If it sounds racist in either dialect, it probably is. After all, let's not hold Southerners and Germans to a different standard than ourselves.
Hasta Manana.
<script type="text/javascript"> window.location = "http://www.236.com/blog/w/john_obryan/what_more_does_lou_dobbs_have_3761.php "; </script>
 [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
10:45:05 AM
|
|
Drought Could Force Nuke-Plant Shutdowns. Lake Norman, N.C. - Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate.
Utility officials say such shutdowns probably wouldn’t result in blackouts. [...] [CommonDreams.org » Headlines07]
9:51:44 AM
|
|
The 935 Lies They Told Us About Iraq. The Center for Public Integrity has launched a new Web site that documents some of the 935 “false statements” that George W. Bush and his seven hawks made while pushing war with Iraq. The site endeavors to show that this wasn’t a case of just getting it wrong, but “a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation.”
The War Card:
In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).
The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.
Read more READ THE WHOLE ITEM Related Entries
[Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines]
9:44:23 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2008 Patricia Thurston.
|
|
|
