something made him unhappy enough, and i don't know if it was moral or ethical outrage or something else, but he "came clean."
of course, i was at a press lunch he gave in washington well before the war, and he was saying he was against the war, not because we shouldn't go into Iraq -- but because he didn't like the way Bush was doing it. off mic, he said (and i paraphrase, using very close wording -- "the problem with bush is that he doesn't understand real politik.")
he was at that point pushing himself as a dove, with the same pr agency martin sheen and crew had. then during the war he seeemed be a fairly laissez faire minded consultant/regular/commentator guest (paid? i don't know) on one of the news networks. during this time he already knew about the lies, but he certainly wasn't behaving outraged -- until well after the fact and the invasion.
yeah. it's conflict within the status quo.
the institute for public accuracy has helped document (and i've helped them) others research debunking the assertions and lies well before the war. so the "if we only knew" lines given by Rice and Rummy this weekend are complete BS. but it's already been framed -- what do you do?
matt
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> There's another thing too. Chomsky talks about how an
> Official Source is necessary for validation in the
> press. The avalanche started (seems to me) when the
> Brit Parliament released a report that criticized
> Blair for lying. That made it OK to let the lies out
> into the open. Now, it's everyone pile on. Lovely to
> see. Nice to see the Bushies squirm, too! jks
>
>
> --- Dwayne Monroe <idoru345 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>My interpretation of Joanna's comment that it
>>"...was
>>all made up to begin with" (and I'll take my
>>corrective medicine without complaint if wrong) is
>>that the lies in question were the Bush
>>Administration’s interlocking web of false
>>statements
>>about the imminent threat Iraq posed to the world
>>under Hussein.
>>
>>The American media (with notable exceptions like
>>Seymour Hersh), despite abundant opportunities, did
>>not debunk even the most egregious and glaring lies.
>>Now, they are starting to do their job, with the
>>Niger
>>uranium story acting as the opening crowbar.
>>
>>Why the change from then to now? This was Joanna's
>>question.
>>
>>From Secretary Powell's astoundingly absurd UN
>>presentation to 'Phony' Tony Blair's claim that Iraq
>>could launch horribly war headed missiles within 45
>>minutes of the go order, we were bombarded with
>>propaganda that tried to portray Iraq as a sort of
>>new
>>Hitlerian Germany, Soviet Union and one-stop
>>terrorist
>>supply shop all rolled up into one heavily weaponed
>>package. And, crucially, bent on world terrorism.
>>
>>So yes, everyone with an interest knew that Iraq had
>>weapons programs in the past. But weapons or no,
>>these statements about super-threat were incredible
>>as
>>even non-lefty critics like former inspector Scott
>>Ritter pointed out again and again and again.
>>
>>I suppose that now the war's 'over', and the
>>Administration got what it wanted and elites see the
>>results (which do not seem, to date, to tend towards
>>the accumulation of capital or influence) there is
>>greater room for critical reportage.
>>
>>Which, as Doug stated, is probably the working out
>>of
>>elite infighting in plain view.
>>
>>DRM
>>
>>__________________________________
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>>http://sbc.yahoo.com
>>___________________________________
>>
>
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk