Permanent Bases and Permanent Untruths.
In his recent press conference, Pres-o-dent Bush remarked offhand that the US military presence in Iraq would continue past his pres-o-dency. This may have been the only true thing he said. In his reply to Helen Thomas, which has been getting much attention in the blogosphere, he repeated the whole series of lies with which he sold this war, even though they've been shown false over and over again. The litany began with the ritual invocation of 9/11, of course.
Tactically, nothing about establishing a permanent presence in Iraq would seem to promote national security, especially if by national security you mean protection from 9/11 style attacks. But the Bush administration doesn't seem to believe this itself. So today, for instance, the State Department warned US citizens in Italy (egad!) to be on alert for a 9/11 style attack. (We are also warned to stay away from political rallies, which can turn violent, injuring as many as one person. Oh, those demons of the left.)
Bush has authorized the topic, and by coincidence the Associated Press that same day published a good long article on the construction of US bases. The AP quotes US military personnel and Iraqi civilians as saying that the evidence on the ground points to a permanent presence. Now during the pres-o-denshul campaign, John Kerry brought this up in one of the debates. There was no followup. Will we have some followup now?
That would depend on the Dem-o-crats. The press in our fallen age just will not go on attack without a centrist sponsor, more or less--without authorized politicians giving them "news" on a regular basis. Dennis Kucinich, for some reason, doesn't count.
But the more interesting thing is how little followup there is to the trail of falsehoods justifying the War. Other bloggers have noted that Russ Feingold's attempt to censure Bush for the clear illegality of the wiretapping program has received only "is it a smart tactic" coverage from the press. Now here they have an authorized politician, and as a result there's some coverage, but only through the so-called "game schema," so that news is framed as a tactical move in a political contest, pushing the truth of the matter to the margins. But we don't get even that about lying the nation into a war. What will that take?
Well, the history of the news media does suggest an answer. It will take five years of significant production of dead US soldiers. That's what it took in Vietnam.
In his recent press conference, Pres-o-dent Bush remarked offhand that the US military presence in Iraq would continue past his pres-o-dency. This may have been the only true thing he said. In his reply to Helen Thomas, which has been getting much attention in the blogosphere, he repeated the whole series of lies with which he sold this war, even though they've been shown false over and over again. The litany began with the ritual invocation of 9/11, of course.
Tactically, nothing about establishing a permanent presence in Iraq would seem to promote national security, especially if by national security you mean protection from 9/11 style attacks. But the Bush administration doesn't seem to believe this itself. So today, for instance, the State Department warned US citizens in Italy (egad!) to be on alert for a 9/11 style attack. (We are also warned to stay away from political rallies, which can turn violent, injuring as many as one person. Oh, those demons of the left.)
Bush has authorized the topic, and by coincidence the Associated Press that same day published a good long article on the construction of US bases. The AP quotes US military personnel and Iraqi civilians as saying that the evidence on the ground points to a permanent presence. Now during the pres-o-denshul campaign, John Kerry brought this up in one of the debates. There was no followup. Will we have some followup now?
That would depend on the Dem-o-crats. The press in our fallen age just will not go on attack without a centrist sponsor, more or less--without authorized politicians giving them "news" on a regular basis. Dennis Kucinich, for some reason, doesn't count.
But the more interesting thing is how little followup there is to the trail of falsehoods justifying the War. Other bloggers have noted that Russ Feingold's attempt to censure Bush for the clear illegality of the wiretapping program has received only "is it a smart tactic" coverage from the press. Now here they have an authorized politician, and as a result there's some coverage, but only through the so-called "game schema," so that news is framed as a tactical move in a political contest, pushing the truth of the matter to the margins. But we don't get even that about lying the nation into a war. What will that take?
Well, the history of the news media does suggest an answer. It will take five years of significant production of dead US soldiers. That's what it took in Vietnam.
posted by jnerone at 9:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home