DOWNLOADS: (334)

PLAYS: (3542)

Embed

Bill Maher had a warning for North Korea's Kim Jong-un, who seems all too willing to push his luck with the United States given the fact that our country has been addicted to war for far too long. Maher also told his audience that it's time that we "start defining peace as strength" instead:

In the last part of his weekly “New Rules” segment, Maher lambasted “Kim Jong Pugsley of North Korea” for his threats of war with the U.S. and the West.

“Have you seen a North Korean rocket test?” he asked. “They don’t even look like real rockets. They look more like that thing the Russian kosmonauts were in when they crashed on to ‘Gilligan’s Island.’”

No, he said, the real threat here is the war-mongering Americans who are looking for “any excuse to ramp up the war machine again.” [...]

“Just like we’re the gun country,” he said. “Come on, we’re the war people. We don’t need a lot of encouragement. Have you ever met John McCain? Offering to go to war with the U.S. is like offering to go out to drinks with Lindsay Lohan. We’re already in the car.”

“Just in my lifetime, we’ve invaded Vietnam, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, Granada, Panama, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iraq again,” he said. “That’s when you know you’re war-mongers, when some countries are coming up twice.”

“At some point, don’t you have to look in the mirror,” he asked, “and say ‘Maybe it’s me?’”

“America needs to start defining peace as strength,” he said. “Do you know who the role model for every president should be? Jimmy Carter. He was the one out of all of them who figured out how to sit in office for four years and never fire a shot.”

“And every president’s negative example,” he concluded, “should be Dick Cheney, who even shot his friends in the face.”

DOWNLOADS: (171)

PLAYS: (1075)

Embed

From this Monday evening's Viewpoint on Current TV, Phil Donahue discusses his 2007 documentary, Body of War, which told the story of paralyzed Iraq vet Tomas Young, who recently penned this heartbreaking letter to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Phil Donahue on the Iraq War: After Vietnam, ‘I thought we’d learned our lesson’ :

Phil Donahue, former TV talk show host and co-director and executive producer of “Body of War,” sits down with Current TV’s John Fugelsang to discuss the 2007 documentary and the impact of the Iraq War. “Body of War” profiles Tomas Young, a veteran who was shot and paralyzed while serving in Iraq in 2004. Nine years later, Young has decided to go on hospice care and is now dying at home.

Donahue describes the “spiritual experience” of telling Young’s story: “None of us had ever been this close to a catastrophic injury — an injury that turns the whole family upside down — and it’s happening behind the closed doors of thousands of homes in this country and nobody sees it.”

Fugelsang asks Donahue whether it will be “harder for the American people to get fooled again the next time they try and run a war like this on us?”

“I thought that would happen after Vietnam,” Donahue says. “I thought we’d learned our lesson.”

For more from Donahue, check out the Web exclusive outtakes from his one-on-one interview with John Fugelsang, in which he shares what it was like being a first-time filmmaker and how he feels about the fact that his MSNBC show was canceled because of his opposition to the Iraq War.

From Democracy Now: Phil Donahue on His 2003 Firing from MSNBC, When Liberal Network Couldn’t Tolerate Antiwar Voices:

In 2003, the legendary television host Phil Donahue was fired from his prime-time MSNBC talk show during the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The problem was not Donahue’s ratings, but rather his views: An internal MSNBC memo warned Donahue was a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war," providing "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity." Donahue joins us to look back on his firing 10 years later. "They were terrified of the antiwar voice," Donahue says.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (239)

PLAYS: (2049)

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 »

On this tenth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, both Joe Scarborough and Luke Russert attempted to do a bit of revisionist history this Tuesday morning on MSNBC and Salon's Alex Pareene did a fine job of taking them apart for it.

MSNBC selectively remembers the Iraq War:

Updated: Morning Joe and Luke Russert leave out some important context. Like how much MSNBC pushed for war

MSNBC today ran two very interesting segments addressing the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. In one, Luke Russert interviewed veteran NBC foreign correspondent Richard Engel on the state of Iraq today (spoiler: not great). In another, Joe Scarborough hosted a large panel to discus how the Iraq War happened and what went wrong.

The Russert segment is sort of bizarre, referring to “that big anniversary” and completely ignoring the reasons the Iraq War started. It concludes — after Engel explains how Iraq is once again in a sectarian civil war — with Russert essentially asserting the inevitability of a military strike against Iran, saying they could be “months” away from building nuclear weapons. [...]

Both of these segments show how incredibly little anyone learned from very recent history. [...]

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (211)

PLAYS: (1523)

Embed

On the ten year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, there has been an awful lot of naval gazing by our media, sadly with most of it being revisionist history on what happened during the run up to that invasion and occupation, with a lot of glossing over just how complicit the media was in helping the neocons beat the war drums. And as Jeremy Scahill noted during this interview on Martin Bashir's show, there's still a lot to answer for by our politicians on both sides of the aisles -- but in particular, the neocons and Bush administration.

It's too bad there wasn't any accountability for his fellow guest on the program, Michael O'Hanlon, who supported the invasion and who was as guilty as the rest of them with enabling the neocons. Scahill sadly didn't go after O'Hanlon, but I appreciate what he was given a chance to say during the segment.

SCAHILL: People like Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith should not be able to show their faces in public in this country without being confronted with what they did to Iraq. I mean, the reality is... having spent time in Iraq throughout the '90's... many of the Iraqis I knew are dead. Many of the Iraqis that survived the war are displaced and with the millions of others that have been displaced.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (107)

PLAYS: (799)

Embed

A Republican congressman who served in Iraq and Afghanistan on Sunday looked back at the Iraq war and declared that it was a "just and noble war."

During an interview on CNN, host Candy Crowley asked Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR) for his views on the war 10 years after the U.S. invaded.

"The Iraq war noble and just war," the Arkansas Republican declared. "I would say it was worth it, but it's also a little too soon to tell because there's nothing ever certain in human affairs."

"But if you look at the accomplishments of our troops in Iraq, they deposed an evil tyrant who was an aggressive international dictator," Cotton continued. "He'd invaded across two boundaries. He had demonstrated the ability and the will to use weapons of mass destruction. He was believed by every Western government -- including senior high-ranking officials in President Obama's cabinet right now -- to be developing new weapons, who was in violation of numerous United Nations resolutions."

"But under those conditions, I think as I said, it was a just and noble war."

Many in Congress, however, now look back at the Iraq war as a mistake because President George W. Bush's administration used false information about weapons of mass destruction as a "pretext" to invade.

"You remember World War II, Korea, all the major wars of this nation," Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said recently. "This is one that slips into the background, and people are comfortable with it slipping into the background. I think the legacy of this is always going to be that it was a mistake, that it was pre-emptive, that it wasn't based on real information, and that the whole struggle could have been handled differently."

DOWNLOADS: (114)

PLAYS: (231)

Embed

The more things change, the more they remain the same. It's now almost ten years later, and Colin Powell is still defending going in front of the United Nations and pushing the faulty intelligence to justify our invasion of Iraq. Of course don't expect any introspection from host David Gregory who decided to treat this as merely some policy disagreement between Powell and former Sen. Chuck Hagel, who he was defending as President Obama's pick for Defense Secretary during this segment on Meet the Press.

It's no wonder all of the neocons don't seem to mind re-litigating the invasion of Iraq if this is the type of coverage that we're going to get from our corporate media once those hearings start.

GREGORY: The renewed debate about Iraq is also occurring, the New York Times write about-- writes about that today. And his-- in his memoir, he writes something very pointed about the Iraq war. He writes, "it all comes down to the fact we were asked to vote on a resolution based on half-truths, untruths and wishful thinking. I voted for this resolution that gave the president the authority to go to war in Iraq if all diplomatic efforts were exhausted and failed. Unfortunately, it was not his intention to exhaust all diplomatic efforts.” He is talking about the diplomatic efforts you were engaged in as Secretary of State in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

GEN. POWELL: I would disagree with this characterization. We were basing all of our actions on a national intelligence estimate that the Congress asked for and was provided to the Congress by the CIA. And all of us in the Bush administration at that time accepted the judgment of our 16 intelligence communities. I presented it to the U.N. Three months before I presented it to the U.N., Congress passed a resolution, also supported by Senator Hagel and many other senators that would give the president the authority to go to war. They weren’t half-truths is what we were being told by the intelligence community. We subsequently found out that a lot of that information was not accurate and that is very unfortunate but that’s the way it unfolded.

GREGORY: Was he wrong on Iraq?

GEN. POWELL: With respect to what?

GREGORY: With respect to what he ultimately called a huge foreign policy blunder?

GEN. POWELL: He-- that’s his characterization and if people want to challenge his characterization, they will have that opportunity during the confirmation.

GREGORY: In your judgment, was he wrong on Iraq?

GEN. POWELL: I would not have called it that. I would have said that what I think was wrong was the president had more than sufficient basis to believe that there were weapons of mass destruction that were a danger to the world and the possibility of those weapons going to terrorists. And so, he undertook military action. I think that was the correct thing to do and it was well supported by the intelligence. I think we did not execute the operation well. Once Baghdad fell, there was a feeling that well that was the end of it. It was not the end of it. That was just the beginning of it.

Here's a little reminder about just what Powell knew and didn't know when he made that presentation to the United Nations: The U.N. Deception: What Exactly Colin Powell Knew Five Years Ago, and What He Told the World

DOWNLOADS: (159)

PLAYS: (575)

Embed

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) says that President Barack Obama's response to the attacks in Libya that killed a U.S. ambassador is like former President George W. Bush's widely-mocked 2003 "mission accomplished" speech which suggested that the U.S had won war in Iraq even though violence was only escalating in the country at the time.

Issa, who held hearings last week over the attacks, on Sunday told CBS host Bob Schieffer that he had determined that the Obama administration had downplayed the attacks in Benghazi because it wanted the appearance that the country had been stabilized.

But Schieffer noted that Republicans had pressured the State Department to cut security by voting to slash about $500 million from the embassy security budget over the past two years.

"Quite frankly, we believe that they didn't want the appearance of needing the security," the California Republican insisted. "The fact is, they are making a decision to not put security in because they don't want the presence of security."

"This is not very Republican, if you will, but when President George W. Bush went aboard an aircraft carrier and said, 'mission accomplished,' I listened -- rightfully so -- to people saying, 'Look, but there's still problems and they're still dying.' And quite frankly, things got worse in many ways after that famous statement," Issa continued. "We're going through a mission accomplished moment. Eleven years after Sept. 11th, Americans were attacked on Sept. 11th by terrorists who pre-planned to kill Americans. That happened and we can't be in denial."

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MA) later told Schieffer that the election-season hearings into the attacks in Libya were just politics as usual from Issa and other Republicans.

"This conspiracy stuff is kind of ridiculous," Cummings explained. "I'm kind of surprised that they've gone to these lengths, but, you know, that's what they do."

"Issa did admit that they did try to cut the budget -- they did in fact cut the budget for security," he added. "And I'm hoping that they will join me -- by the way, in that hearing I requested that they join me in getting an emergency supplemental [funds] for our embassy so we can protect our people."

DOWNLOADS: (248)

PLAYS: (999)

Embed

Conservative Fox News contributor Dick Morris is asserting that the news media "ruined" President George W. Bush's presidency because coverage of the Iraq war was "too harsh."

During a Wednesday morning segment with Morris, Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy pointed out that Arthur Brisbane, ombudsman for The New York Times, recently complained that the paper had been more critical of President George W. Bush while he was in office than it had been of President Barack Obama.

"It's terrific that he said that," Morris explained. "There are two factors that make the media liberal. One is that the reporters are liberal. But the other fact is that the media tends to react to what it last did badly. So for example, it was relatively mild toward Bush during the early years of his administration after 9/11, and then it over compensated by being too harsh during the Iraq war."

"And then when Obama got elected they said, 'Oh, wow. We just ruined a presidency with Bush. Maybe we'll be nicer to Obama,'" he added. "And I think you will begin to see a bit of pendulum swing against Obama even though the media itself is liberal."

A 2003 study by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) found that 71 percent of guest on U.S. television news programs were pro-war, while only 3 percent were against the Iraq war -- a ratio of almost 25 to 1.

A recent analysis by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism found that coverage of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was twice as favorable as the coverage of Obama during the primary season.

(h/t: Media Matters)