Buying The War

I missed the airtime of Bill Moyers' widely discussed inquiry into the media and the Iraq War, but I've been perusing some of the additional features on the show's website and there's some remarkable stuff there. Here's Scott Ritter:

And when I first resigned and spoke out, you know, I was treated as the darling of the right-wing media especially, because it was the time of the Clinton administration. And I was basically Clinton-bashing, or at least that's how they chose to interpret it. When it turned out that I wasn't Clinton-bashing, I was bashing, you know, American policy objectives-- some of which were endorsed by the right wing, the conservative side, I no longer was the darling of the media.
Having been pushed into a corner as a Clinton basher, there are certain elements of the media now that, you know, the analysis put me in another corner, didn't know how to deal with me. So, you're not getting-- the message out. I wrote a book. I made a documentary film. I did everything I could to get the data out there to the public and it wasn't working.

What can you say?

4/26/07 11:56AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

I've already signed the Blue Dog Pledge

http://www.bluedogdemocrats.us

I'm against the neocon / neoliberal war.

Posted by: Andrew on April 26, 2007 12:01 PM

What can you say?

That Ritter was bought by Iraq?

Posted by: Al on April 26, 2007 12:02 PM

I saw the show last night. It was incredible. I try to stay reasonable detached. But, the cumulative effect of seeing what these people have done...by the end of it, I was almost ready to vomit.

I know its a cliche to say this, but I think everyone in the country should see that show.

Posted by: Jim W on April 26, 2007 12:04 PM

If you don't want to take the time to watch it, you can skim the transcript.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on April 26, 2007 12:18 PM

Al: "Ritter was bought by Iraq"

Yes...very sneaky of those Iraqis, the way they bought Ritter to tell the truth.

Posted by: Jon on April 26, 2007 12:20 PM

"That Ritter was bought by Iraq?"

You crack me up, Al. Yeah, you can say that. You can say whatever you want. The question is, what is the relationship between reality and what you say? I realize that Bush loyalists like to ignore this question.

Posted by: MQ on April 26, 2007 12:26 PM

Would be interesting to side-by-side public statements regarding WsMD by Bush Administration and Saddam Hussein. I wonder which was closer to the truth?

(Oh, and for the record: Saddam bad. Very bad.)

Posted by: ed on April 26, 2007 12:28 PM

"You crack me up, Al. Yeah, you can say that. You can say whatever you want."

I think we should give Al credit for not going to the underage girls argument against Ritter.

Posted by: Petey on April 26, 2007 12:29 PM

There was also some weird storyline that emerged implicating Ritter in some kind of sexual indiscretion or something--with an underage female maybe? I want to be careful not to overstate this flap, because it seemed to get left hanging at the time--and it seemed suspiciously well-timed to put Ritter out of commission as a war critic. But I, of course, as a war opponent, was just psychotic in my paranoia and blinded by my Bush-hatred, and yadda yadda. Whatever the case--it did neutralize Ritter's media prominence and perhaps availability at the time, as I recall it. Anyone else up to speed on that one?

Posted by: elle loco on April 26, 2007 12:34 PM

does anybody remember that story where ritter was caught allegedly trying to seduce a girl for sex over the internet literally a month before the iraq war began?

i always thought that story smelled really fishy, and from what i recall he alluded to the fact that he had been set up. and then again, with that type of story, the more you talk about it and deny it, the more people are going to believe you're guilty.

Posted by: lyle on April 26, 2007 12:34 PM

beat me to it, elle.

hah

Posted by: lyle on April 26, 2007 12:35 PM

Oops--thanks Petey for due diligence--beat me to it.

Posted by: elle loco on April 26, 2007 12:35 PM

Matt,

You can watch the whole thing online now, from the site itself.

Posted by: patience on April 26, 2007 12:50 PM

MSM uses source credibility to compensate for not doing independent verification, etc. As long as they do that there will a commenter waiting to bring up alleged personal misdeeds, much as there will always be somebody willing to dig through Al Gore's trash to find those misdeeds.
Had the post stuck to talking about Bill Moyers we would be talking about his time in the Johnson administration by now.

Posted by: ChrisB on April 26, 2007 12:58 PM

Re "I missed the airtime of Bill Moyers' widely discussed inquiry into the media and the Iraq War"
-------
"widely discussed"?? I haven't seen any discussion of it over at the New York Times.

hee hee hee

If a tree falls on your house but the New York Times doesn't report it then the tree never existed.

Posted by: Don Williams on April 26, 2007 12:58 PM

"...I missed the airtime of Bill Moyers' widely discussed inquiry into the media and the Iraq War..."

Missed? It doesn't air until tomorrow night here in DC.

Posted by: Njorl on April 26, 2007 01:06 PM

17th!!

Posted by: Trolly McTroll on April 26, 2007 01:18 PM

Number one problem in America, and number one job for the blogosphere. Destroy the MSM. Destroy them as if they were Bourbons or Romanovs. It will be difficult, because they are very good, and because they will try to co-opt and buy anyone dangerous. They have astonishing inducements:money, fame, respect, access, stability. They arrange great support: Judy Miller, Powell, Blair vs Scott Ritter? C'mon...

Obama and Edwards don't matter. Broder & Klein matter. See Max Sawicky.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on April 26, 2007 01:27 PM

It was a great piece. I experienced an odd disconnect watching Moyers bust out some whoopass on Frontline. It was especially interesting to watch the takedown of Peter Beinhart. It went something like this:

Moyers: So what is it you do, exactly?

Beinhart: I'm a journalist.

Moyers: A political journalist. Not a real reporter, right?

Beinhart: Well, I don't do a lot of primary source rep--

Moyers: --What are your sources?

Beinhart: I read. I talk to people ..."

And so on.

Posted by: sangfroid826 on April 26, 2007 01:43 PM

Re "watch the takedown of Peter Beinart".

I know. I almost wet my pants laughing -- you could hear Peter's voice rising an octave as he realized that Moyers was showing to the world why Marty's New Republic is not worth using for toilet paper.

Captured for eternity on DVD. Priceless.

No wonder Richard Perle, William Kristol,etc wouldn't show up.

Posted by: Don Williams on April 26, 2007 01:54 PM

Only Israel benefits from these endless Middle East wars. Iraq is the beginning. As we commit war-crimes in Baghdad, the US gov't commits treason at home by opening mail, eliminating habeas corpus, using the judiciary to steal private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia America Deceived (book), conducting warrantless wiretaps and engaging in illegal wars on behalf of AIPAC's 'money-men'. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier by Mossad) and the US will invade Iran.. Then we'll invade Syria, then Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon (again) then ....

Posted by: Paulie on April 26, 2007 03:13 PM

Beinart did come across as a WATB!

Moyer does the low key evisceration thing with style.

I'm sure glad he he gave the McClachy/Knight Ridder DC bureau lots of kudos and air time. Real journalists for sure, but they were ignored by the grey lady and wapoo.

And, Russert, just waiting for someone to call and tell him some juicy news. His phone only receives calls, I guess.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR on April 26, 2007 03:16 PM

"Only Israel benefits from these endless Middle East wars."

Bullshit. Every tyrant from Mubarek to Musharref, going geographically, benefits. Jordan would be in huge trouble if the Palestinians had security, stability, and the opportunity to look around the neighborhood.

And that is not to mention oil & religion.

I/P is to the ME politics as gay marriage or abortion is to American politics. That is not to say it isn't real and important; but it is also never what it seems, but a focus for other agendas and structures.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on April 26, 2007 03:25 PM

There's a brilliant Glenn Greenwald post about this exact topic: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/26/moyers/index.html

Posted by: A fan on April 26, 2007 03:48 PM

Obama and Edwards don't matter. Broder & Klein matter. See Max Sawicky.

But we agree about Broder and Klein, so where's the fun in it?

Posted by: Cyrus on April 26, 2007 04:01 PM

Number one problem in America, and number one job for the blogosphere. Destroy the MSM.

The problem with that is, Bob:

99.8% of the bloggers never do any original reporting, they do what Beinart does - "read and [maybe, maybe] talk to people". So without the MSM to feed on - no blogosphere. So let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater and sound like Roger L. Simon, please.

Posted by: novakant on April 26, 2007 04:06 PM

"99.8% of the bloggers never do any original reporting"

Well, it is a really big blogosphere, and this may be true. But even over the totality, I don't thin it is. Riverbend and Zeyad are "very small" bloggers, but they, in combination with ten other Iraqi blogs, have provided me with plenty of information. Yes, Dana Milbank can go to Europe, and get some really great sources; but I certainly can imagine that story of the prisons getting broken by Poles, Italians, Brits, and Americans working in concert over the Internet.

99.8% of what "original reporters" do is transmitting and/or analyzing spin. I am not impressed. Beinart was supposedly embarrassed by Moyers, but I don't think Juan Cole or Marc Lynch has made very many trips to Iraq in the last decade. I watch Lynch interact with Eric Martin or Brian Ulrich (American Footprints), and commenters, everybody providing links to primary or secondary sources...

...blogosphere looks fine to me. It could use some money.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on April 26, 2007 05:39 PM

More bullshit from you retarded shitheads. Ritter's quote clearly illustrates he was marginalised because he was seen as a "clinton basher" implying what everybody with any sense already knows, that most of the media has a pronounced democratic bias. If the media was indeed soft on the case for war they were so because it was supported by the democrats and infact was just the fullfillment of stated democrat policy.

Posted by: pimp hand strikes! on April 26, 2007 06:19 PM

The reason Ritter was marginalized isn't a rightwing conspiracy or the fact that a leftwing press hates "Clinton bashers." Its that he made a 180 degree turn about the WMD issue from ultrahawk to dove without any new evidence emerging. He just changed his mind. As it turns out he was right to do so. But its got to hurt your credibility with anyone when they can just cite your past public arguments against everything you're saying now and you can't point to anything objective that changed your stance.

Posted by: rd on April 26, 2007 06:54 PM

"...and you can't point to anything objective that changed your stance."

1) It is tough to prove a negative
2) I am sure Ritter had plenty of sources, inside Iraq, inside the UN, that preferred to remain anonymous. Even:"An Iraqi scientists, high in the heirarchy, has told me that Iraq hasn't manufactured anything for a decade" might get a bunch of Iraqi scientists tortured and/or killed, either by Saddam or the Americans.
3) There was evidence, for instance the defecting sons-in-law, that convinced me there were no WMD's. Clinton himself played games in the late 90s, and has blood on his hands.
4) See 1.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on April 26, 2007 07:16 PM

Re pimp's comment "it was supported by the democrats and infact was just the fullfillment of stated democrat policy"
--------
1)Ah, even a blind pig finds a truffle now and again.

Pimp is mostly right -- the Iraq invasion was supported by those Democrats who are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Israel Lobby. Plus those scared shitless of having their head cut off by AIPAC as was done to Cynthia McKinney in 2002.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney#2002_Primary_defeat

2) Not ALL of the Democratic Party -- the rank and file were largely against the war but some major financiers like billionaire Haim Saban were not.

Howard Dean argued with Joe Lieberman in a debate prior to the Iowa Presidential primary that the US should be "even-handed" in the Israel-Palestinian issue -- then promptly had a knife buried in his back by long time supporter of Israel , billionaire S Daniel Abraham. See FORWARD's article at http://www.forward.com/articles/campaign-confidential-85/ and
scroll down to the following:
***************
"Fat Contribution: The contribution of Slim-Fast mogul S. Daniel Abraham to a group that ran negative ads about Dean raised eyebrows in Washington political circles.

Abraham, a major Jewish philanthropist, gave $100,000 to Americans for Jobs, Healthcare & Progressive Values, the Associated Press reported, making him one of the two biggest donors to the group.

The group ran ads attacking Dean in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, including one raising questions about his lack of foreign policy experience that showed the face of Osama bin Laden. Its funders included supporters of Gephardt and Kerry.

What raised eyebrows, however, is that Abraham’s longtime chief political factotum, Sara Ehrman, was an adviser to Dean."
***********

Hee hee hee I believe S Daniel Abraham actually gave $200,000 to this effort.

I believe S Daniel Abraham gave almost $2 Million to some Democratic pols in the 2002 cycle.

Posted by: Don Williams on April 26, 2007 07:20 PM

The reason Ritter wasn't taken seriously is very easy to understand. In the late 1990s he was saying that Saddam had a very serious nuclear program. Immediately afterwards his inspectors were restricted to their hotels and then left. Just before the Gulf War II, he was opining that Saddam had no serious nuclear program. He offered no reason whatsoever for the dramatic change in opinion--leaving the impression that he was either a hack in the 1990s or in the early 2000s, with no way of figuring out which was the hack time and which was the correct time.

Posted by: Sebastian Holslcaw on April 26, 2007 07:26 PM

1) Some of you saw the Bill Moyers special last night -- with the TV clips of the Neocons beating the drums for war on Iraq via a barrage of misleading and untruthful claims.

The Neocons belong to a pro-Israel front called Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. What's interesting is to look at the FDD's Board of Advisors at http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm .

You see all of the usual neocon suspects: Charles Krauthammer. Richard Perle. Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard.

But you also see another name: "Sen. Charles E. Schumer"

Chuckie! How could you?

Posted by: Don Williams on April 26, 2007 07:30 PM

Pimp Hand, you should stick within the scope of your own genre. Policy insights are not your strength. Your talents are much more linguistic. At alternating times Matthew Yglesias has been a: "Jabba the Hut", "Vile fat bastard" or a "... dead mass of stretch marked flesh ..." etc, etc.

See? You're an artist. Don't lower yourself to the intricacies political discourse. But rather, continue to pepper this blog with gems that make us smile.

Posted by: sangfroid826 on April 26, 2007 07:54 PM

He offered no reason whatsoever for the dramatic change in opinion--leaving the impression that he was either a hack in the 1990s or in the early 2000s, with no way of figuring out which was the hack time and which was the correct time.

I think this misses the point that in the intervening period, he was paid to produce a movie by an Iraqi (who, it turns out, got his money via the Oil-For-Food program).

So the chronology is like this:

Late '90s: Ritter complains bitterly that the US and UN isn't doing enough to disarm Iraq

~2000: Ritter paid big bucks for a movie by an Iraqi

'00s: Ritter says Saddam not a threat after all

Posted by: Al on April 26, 2007 08:12 PM

First, PBS needs to air the show again -- it's a must see. It should be mandatory watching for students at journalism and public policy schools.

Second, Bill Moyers should win an award for his hard-hitting, clearly reported piece. It's the capstone to a long and distinguished career. Maybe it will help prevent needless deaths from a fiction-based war in the future.

Third, one of the most telling issues Bill Moyer raises is the fact that so many journalists/pundits who basically just parroted the Administration's propaganda as "policy" or "journalism" are still being asked to speak on cable and broadcast television shows: William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and so forth (not to mention Dick Cheney and Condi Rice, who were shown to be consummate liers and fearmongers with their repeated "let's not wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud" scare tactics). It's like that guy in the movie the "Hoax" -- the more outlandish and false your statements and conduct, the more in demand you become!

Posted by: Aunt Lisa on April 26, 2007 08:25 PM

"I think this misses the point that in the intervening period, he was paid to produce a movie by an Iraqi (who, it turns out, got his money via the Oil-For-Food program)."

Ritter was one of the only people that I can remember who was explicitly saying that Iraq didn't have a large scale WMD program. The whole point of an ad hominem attack is to argue that someone's views are wrong because of whatever dirt you want to throw at them. But Ritter was proved right.

So, even if Satan was briefing him on what to say and he was being funded by illegally harvesting the organs of girl scouts, he wouldn't be any less right.

I can understand why I want to trash talk about Bill Kristol, or Peter Beinart. What's the point of going after the people who got it right?

Posted by: justaguy on April 26, 2007 09:44 PM

What can you say?

That Americans love war more than they love truth.

Posted by: Uncle Kvetch on April 27, 2007 12:45 PM

The regular war supporters haven't even tried understand what Scott Ritter has been saying. Specifically Sebastian Holsclaw is ignoring reality here, when he's dishing out the standard lies about Ritter.

See an old 2002 interview on salon for the real stuff:

http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/2002/03/19/ritter/index.html

Posted by: Dutch on April 27, 2007 02:59 PM

resim
adult bomba resim video
adult clip resim video
adult resim
akrep resim
alti etek gizli resim
amator liseli resim videolar
asena resim
ataturk ile ilgili resim
ataturkun resim
bebek resim
bedava cep resim
bedava erotik resim
bedava porno resim
bedava resim
chucky resim
ciplak resim
ciplak resim turbanli
dizdar resim zeynep
ensest resim
erotik resim
erotik resim com
erotik resim galerisi
etek alti liseli resim
frikik resim
frikikler resim
gaffur resim
got liseli resim
guzel resim
hareketli resim
komik resim
lise resim
liseli kiz resim
liseli resim
manken resim
manzara resim
mp3 resim video
msn resim
porno resim
reaksiyon resim yetenek
resim boyama
resim galeri
resim galerileri
resim gelerisi
resim indir
resim kursu
resim sanati
resim somut
resim teknikleri
resim turbanli
resim upload
resim video
seks resim
sex resim
sibel can resim
soyut resim
teknik resim
turbanli resim
turk_porno_resim