Sunday, March 26, 2006

Looking Back

I have sufficient faith in America's historians that when they look back on the outbreak and strategy of the Saddam War, they will get it right. Currently the debacle is somehow being blamed on the MSM in one of those all-out coordinated smears by the White House. I don't don't think an objective look back can support this notion that the Media are reporting all the bad stuff, and burying the good stuff.Iraq is certainly one of the most dangerous places on the planet. Unfortunately we can't ask the 85 dead Journalists that have been killed covering the story of taking Saddam out. Side comment: Am I correct in thinking that more Journalists have died under Bush than soldiers under Clinton ?

Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest lays out the real problem with this administration. BushCo is not "politics-as-usual", it's deconstructing the Constitution. And the major fault of the MSM is letting Bush-Cheney get away with so much.

For instance, the "signing statements" are a red flag as to how much we can count on Bush to carry out Congress' laws. Sure, Clinton had them too - about 105 - but Bush has 500. He has recently created this caveat to the Patriot Act - he says he may not inform Congress about surveillance, even though the bill, his bill, requires it. The real problem is that that Congress and the Media allow this kind of naked grab for unrestrained, anti-Constitutional power.

Finally, Glenn Greenwald puts it this way:

"As usual, the most amazing aspect of all of this is not that the Administration is claiming these powers. It is that even as it claims them as expressly and clearly as can be, the Congress continues to ignore it and pretend that it still retains power to restrict the Administration by the laws it passes. And the media continues to fail in its duty to inform the country about the powers the Administration has seized, likely because they are so extreme that people still do not really believe that the Administration means what they are saying. What else do they need to do in order to demonstrate their sincerity?"


Blogger Jeff H said...

I disagree that "an objective look back can[not] support this notion that the Media are reporting all the bad stuff, and burying the good stuff." Time and time again, without fail, when the voices of actual soldiers and others who have visited Iraq are heard--never, and I mean NEVER in the MSM, but rather in the blogosphere or a few larger media outlets--they relate numerous positives: reconstruction (Chris Matthews' moronic "that's not a story, is it?" diatribe notwithstanding), improved living conditions, on and on. The MSM has an agenda--it's not necessarily a political one, but it's clear to anyone who actually pays attention--and telling the truth about Iraq is not on it. We'll never get the truth from them.

10:05 PM  
Blogger Jim said...

I think that reportage of the bad stuff is inevitable as in "man bites dog", for the news of schools painted or tractors repaired simply can't compete for our attention when compared to mass handcuffed assassinations or beheadings.

As a teacher I find that this reality affects my colleagues and my occupation. You won't read about positive accomplishments nearly as much as stories like that of Deborah LaFave, the attractive child abuser.

8:15 AM  
Blogger Jim said...

You mention improved living conditions in Iraq. My observation of the news is that Iraqis still don't have sufficient electricity or water as yet.

8:17 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

People who paint a pretty picture in Iraq are either blind to the facts or live in a dump.

6:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home