DOWNLOADS: (239)

PLAYS: (2050)

Embed

Thom Hartmann takes our corporate media and the cheerleaders for war with Iraq to task and ten years after our invasion, asks 'Where are the apologies?'

Via Truthout: How the Media Fueled the War in Iraq:

Yesterday, the U.S. marked the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. And, over the course of the past ten years, we've learned more and more about how the war with Iraq actually started.

It's incredibly easy to blame the Bush administration for its lies that led us into Iraq. But Cheney, Rumsfeld and company weren't the only ones who played an integral role in convincing this nation that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and that WMD's were a forgone conclusion.

In the days and weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq, corporate media – and even NPR and PBS - were abuzz with the talking points of the Bush Administration, echoing claims that Iraq had its hands on "yellow cake uranium" and that it had a massive arsenal of "weapons of mass destruction."

Thanks to the media's repeated claims that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were immediate threats to our nation, in the weeks leading up to the invasion, nearly three-quarters of Americans believed the lie promoted by Donald Rumsfeld that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the attacks of 9/11.

One of the biggest proponents of the Iraq War was Bill O'Reilly.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (168)

PLAYS: (1209)

Embed

Fox News on Tuesday aired a discredited "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" ad in response to reports that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) was being considered as the next secretary of defense.

"This would be a remarkable brute insult to the men and women in uniform," Fox News strategic analyst Ralph Peters told host Megyn Kelly in reaction to a Monday Washington Post report that President Barack Obama was considering Kerry to replace Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. "To nominate for secretary of defense a man who made his military career trashing our military, criticizing it, who told lies about war crimes in Vietnam... and I don't want to hear, 'John Kerry's a combat veteran.' So is Benedict Arnold."

"Are you out of your mind?" shot back Michael Meehan, who served as senior communications advisor to Senator John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. "John Kerry got the Silver Star for his service in Vietnam. He went twice -- signed up, volunteered twice to serve in the war. This is not about running for president and 'Swiftboating' people."

Without noting that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads were misleading, Kelly played a portion the commercial that was used to undermine Kerry's military credibility during the 2004 campaign.

"It was remarkable that veterans came out so vigorously against him because I'll tell you, vets stick together," Peters opined. "And for them to criticized John Kerry as vociferously and specifically as they did tells you a lot."

"That ad was taken out of context," Meehan disagreed. "He was reading a report about what was happening in war and war is not pretty. It's unfair to sort of rerun that and say it's all the truth without pushing back that he was at that testimony in the 70s, he was reading what others were writing about what was happening in war. So, I don't find that to be a fair charge."

Peters, however, insisted that Kerry had "never been interested in our military except to trash it. So please, don't insult our troops, don't nominate this guy for secretary of defense."

In 2006, Steve Hayes, an early member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, broke with the group and lamented twisting Kerry's record.

"The mantra was just 'We want to set the record straight,'" Hayes said a the time. "It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth."

DOWNLOADS: (207)

PLAYS: (1940)

Embed

After discussing the pick of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate and whether or not the columns at either the Wall Street Journal or the National Review might have pushed Romney into choosing Ryan or not, host John Roberts asks Bill Kristol about the likely attacks coming against Ryan from Democrats. And even Bill Kristol had to wonder if Republicans are going to be able to defend the tax cuts for the wealthy.

KRISTOL: I think taxes are the tougher attack ads. They combined, obviously, they're cutting Medicare. Why do they have to cut Medicare and gut education and do all these other horrible things when they insist on giving those tax cuts to the wealthy. But actually, if you look at polling, it's a pretty close call. People do know that entitlements have to be reformed. Even President Obama has said so. Hasn't done much about it. I think Republicans can pretty easily, honestly hold their own on that.

It's the tax cuts for the wealthy where Republicans have not done a particularly good job of defending it and I think you'll see the Democratic attacks really focus on that side of the equation.

ROBERTS: Steve Moore?

MOORE: Well, Bill is right. We know, we've known this for two years that the Democratic attack line would be we're going to cut entitlements and give tax cuts to the rich, because that's what the Democrats always do. Bill what I think is really exciting about having Paul on the ticket now is, who's better to defend those policies than Paul is and he knows this stuff better than anyone.

As the Think Progress post linked above noted:

Paul Ryan’s infamous budget — which Romney embraced — replaces “the current tax structure with two brackets — 25 percent and 10 percent — and cut the top rate from 35 percent.” Federal tax collections would fall “by about $4.5 trillion over the next decade” as a result. To avoid increasing the national debt, the budget proposes massive cuts in social programs and “special-interest loopholes and tax shelters that litter the code.”

But 62 percent of the savings would come from programs that benefit the lower- and middle-classes, who would also experience a tax increase. That’s because while Ryan “would extend the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of this year, he would not extend President Obama’s tax cuts for those with the lowest incomes, which will expire at the same time.” Households “earning more than $1 million a year, meanwhile, could see a net tax cut of about $300,000 annually.”

Later in the segment Moore called anyone who dares to point out that Republicans want to do exactly that, gut our social safety nets while giving tax cuts to their rich friends, running on the politics of fear and envy. You hear that all you lazy moochers out there? You're just jealous of those job-creating achievers.... yeah, that's the ticket.

Here's to hoping things work out for Mitt Romney as they did for the last person who took Bloody Bill Kristol's advice as to who to choose for a running mate.

DOWNLOADS: (594)

PLAYS: (985)

Embed

Conservatives have slammed a White House video promoting Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as propaganda but Fox News' Brit Hume thinks they should just relax.

Chris Wallace worried Sunday that the video was in danger of resembling a "state run media."

The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes just sees it as effort to control the message. "There's initial roll-out of Elena Kagan was to make her look like a real person. That was the sort of catch phrase. And they want her to appear as she empathizes with everyday Americans," said Hayes. "That's how they want to sell her. I think this is why they did this."

Juan Williams was even more cynical. "You know what concerns me is this media management. Obviously spin control coming out of the White House, it grows in every administration. But the idea that you put out your own media now and control images -- that gets awful close to Pravda," worried Williams.

One of Fox News' most conservatives pundits found himself in the odd position of defending the Obama administration. "Oh, come on. Let them try it. I mean, it's the White House website. People who go there recognize that this is coming from the White House," argued Hume.

"They had every right to do it and there's no harm," said Hume.

(NICOLE:) Let me see if I have this straight: Fox News, by all accounts a propaganda arm of the Bush White House, is bothered by a PR video on the WH website? The White House isn't pretending this is a "news" item like pretty much every story on Fox News Network for the entire eight years of Bush's presidency. Anyone who sees the video on the site is clear that it's coming from the White House. Could we say the same thing about Fox News? Geez, the cognitive dissonance with these guys must be overwhelming.