Gore on Bush Propaganda
US Bombs Shiite Sadr City
It is no surprise that Al Gore is attacking Bush in his new book, of course. Nor is it a surprise that Gore accuses Bush of ignoring all reasonable evidence in both making the decision to invade Iraq and in deciding to do nothing about global warming.
What is important about what Gore is saying is his focus on how the pollution of America's information environment by 1) corporate media consolidation (all television news is brought to Americans by five private corporations, the CEOs of which all vote Republican) and 2) government propaganda (i.e. lies purveyed to Americans using the money and resources of Americans).
Polling shows that the percentage of Americans who view Iran as the number one threat to the United States has risen to 27 percent now. I think it was only 20 percent in December 2006. First of all, how in the world can a developing country with about a fourth of the population of the US, about a $2000 per capita income (in real terms, not local purchasing power), with no intercontinental ballistic missiles, with no weapons of mass destruction (and no proof positive it is trying to get them), with a small army and a small military budget-- how is such a country a "threat" to the United States of America? Iranian leaders don't like the US, and they talk dirty about the US, and they do attempt to thwart US interests. The same is true of Venezuela under Chavez. But Tehran is a minor player on the world stage, and trying to build it up to replace the Soviet Union is just the worst sort of fear-mongering, and it is being done on behalf of the US military industrial complex, which wants to do to Iran what it did to Iraq. It is propaganda, and significant numbers of Americans (a 7 percent increase would be like 21 million people!) are buying it.
Why have those poll numbers gone up? Because the Bush administration is trying to hang the Sunni Arab insurgency in Iraq on Iran (and even trying to hang the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan on Iran). The message of administration and military spokesmen is that Iran is deliberately killing US troops and is a major source of insurgency in Iraq. No convincing evidence has ever been presented for either allegation, nor is it reasonable to assume that Iran plays a significant role in funding hyper-Sunni, Shiite-killing death squads to deliberately destabilize its client governments in Baghdad (al-Maliki) and Kabul (Karzai). Yet the New York Times and even the Guardian put this b.s. on the front page, and of course it is all over CNN, Fox Cable News, MSNBC, etc. Are US journalists trapped in the the dictates of the military-industrial complex by virtue of working for these mega corporations? We know that Roger Ailes at Fox Cable News orders his employees how to spin the day's news (he is a former high Republican Party official). Has any of the journalists counted up how many of the 127 US troops killed in Iraq in May was killed in Sunni Arab areas and how many in Shiite neighborhoods? Has any of them actually read the translated communiques on World News Connection of the Sunni Arab guerrillas and what they say about Iran and Shiites? Has any demanded air tight proof and non-anonymous sources before printing this garbage?
No.
It is this sort of thing that Gore is alarmed about. He is a man of enormous experience in public life, and he is saying that he sees a sea change for the worse in this regard. I concur.
The NYT on the fallout of the bridge bombing between Kirkuk and Irbil on Saturday, and increasing Arab/Kurdish and Turkish/Kurdish tensions.
McClatchy reports civil war violence in Iraq on Saturday. Police found 26 bodies in the streets of the capital, victims of sectarian death squads (most of them in Sunni Arab neighborhoods). 2 bodies were delivered to Diyala morgue (presumably in Baquba). Another 2 were found in the city of Khalis in the same province. Other major incidents:
' - 7 civilians were wounded when mortar shells hit Al Fadhil neighborhood [Baghdad]. . .
- A security source said that 5 civilians were killed in insurgencies in different towns of Diyala province yesterday afternoon.
- An Iraqi army soldier was killed in a car bomb explosion targeted a check point south Udhim town north of Baquba on Friday evening. . .
- A source in the 5th Iraqi army division said that an Iraqi army soldier was killed and 4 others wounded in an IED explosion targeted their patrol in Muqdadiyah town north of east Baquba city today afternoon. . .
- 6 civilians were injured when mortar shells hit Al Arasa neighborhood, one of the outskirts of Muqdadiyah town today afternoon. . .
- - 6 members of emergency brigade were injured when an IED exploded targeting their vehicle in Sari Kihya neighborhood downtown Kirkuk city on Friday evening, police said.
'
The US was engaged in a bombing campaign against the civilian neighborhood of Habibiya in Sadr City (Shiite East Baghdad) on Saturday evening. The strikes probably targeted Mahdi Army militiamen; however, you can't bomb civilian neighborhoods without killing civilians.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/03/2007 12:30:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
12 Comments:
The strikes probably targeted Mahdi Army militiamen; however, you can't bomb civilian neighborhoods without killing civilians.
I don't see how the US justifies air strikes in a city. We are making hundreds of enemies per day with all the collateral damage.
Juan: Interesting links. It's interesting how much the American media builds up the sectarian violence and the role of Iran in both internal violence and against the US.
Also, a Shiite from the UAE recently wrote a column for me highlighting Shiite views of America in the Middle East.
Dr. Cole, please check your facts. According to statistics released by the military, no innocent civilians are ever killed by aerial bombardment. Civilians are only killed by ground troops, and that has only happened a couple dozen times. And the survivors were made whole by solatia payments.
Well, 27% is about what Bush's approval rating is, hopefully it will go no farther than this.
Unfortunately, while policy mistakes can be reversed when recognized by policy makers, Gore seems to imply (only 1/2 way through his book) that they are not mistakes but are part of the plan. We do not know the plan because it is shrouded in secrecy, lies and deception, and the corporate owned media is an accomplice in promoting the administrations propaganda.
There is actually a lot of good reporting and opinions on blogs such as yours and the many books that have come out over the past few years, but the entertainment news media just gives them cursory
coverage w/o much follow up.
In my opinion the plan all along was to stay in Iraq permanently and use Iraq as a base of operations to secure the oil rights and take on Iran, Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Starving the Military Industrial complex and returning 100,000 civilian contractors and another 50,000 National Guardsmen to the US by pulling out of Iraq would probably kill the economy which is already weak despite massive government spending, low interest rates, and low tax rates.
Such is the sorry state of the media in this country that the Administration would do its best to influence any poll reporting. With support for the war in Iraq at a low, I suspect that an increase in "polled" support for the bombing and invasion of Iran is not real. These people are not above fudging the numbers.
27% of the public believes Iran is our biggest threat. 28% believes Bush is doing a good job as president.
Coincidence? If anything, the second is more unbelievable than the first
I wonder if you'd consider commenting on Nibras Kazimi's article on the Baghdad wall in the current issue of Prospect. I believe that it's an important article, and that your response would be a valuable contribution to putting it in the proper perspective.
Sadly, this is not a new phenomenon. Hitler invaded the Soviet Union (which was something of an ally) as a means to end his stalemate with Great Britain.
The French leaders thought much the same during their Phoney War with Germany in 1939-40. When Stalin attacked Finland they made plans to go to war against the Soviet Union, despite the unreal distances involved, and even though they were reluctant to cross the Rhine River to fight Germany! Fortunately Finland's defeat removed their rather puerile causus belli, and they were stuck with the war they already had but didn't know what to do with.
Juan,
Thank you for speaking truth to power...it seems it is all we can do.
One other thing that is never mentioned is the link between this longer than WWII war and global warming.
Not only is there an enormous amount of diesel burned every day in tanks, HumVees etc. but there is rocket fuel and carbon from bombs as well as the pollution from the oil wells no one can secure. Yes the same ones 'The Wolf' told us would pay for the Iraq reconstruction - he was dressed in a woollen suit no doubt.
We can't talk about lowering emissions while Georges continues to flog the dead horse that is the Iraq occupation.
"Starving the Military Industrial complex and returning 100,000 civilian contractors and another 50,000 National Guardsmen to the US by pulling out of Iraq would probably kill the economy which is already weak despite massive government spending, low interest rates, and low tax rates"
Yeah, but think also of what you could do with the say $200,000,000,000.00 a year that you'd have to spend. The amounts of money required to solve problems pale in comparison. You could have universal health coverage. You could do amazing things in education. You could conduct major infrastructure projects for a high tech era. You could repair crumbling highways, and built new bullet trains. Many of the above projects would create jobs that have to be done in this country. You can't outsource a nurse to China.
And the advantage of most of these projects is that you create multipliers that continue to improve the economy after the money is spend. You've got a healthier and better educated citizenry that can be more productive. You've got a high tech information and transportation infrastructure that makes many other businesses more profitable or sometimes even possible.
Money spend on the military is only useful to the extent it prevents an attack by an enemy. Or I suppose for a pirate, rogue nation it can be used to steal wealth and resources to aid the economy. But generally when you pay for the military, you are wasting money as you get nothing back for it. There's no new hospital or expanded university at the end of the day that's the result of that money. Just a tank sitting around rusting someplace.
You are absolutely correct. Why in the world would any of us be interested in a lame brain like Paris Hilton when so many "more" important events are happening in this world??? She has no talent at all but her family happens to be rich. So the media reports her every move. That says some bad things about this country. If you have money you are important. "NOT"
Post a Comment
<< Home