DISQUS

roger · 1 year ago

I keep hearing how the major "news" outlets are owned by only five corporations--if that's true (and I have very little reason to doubt it), then it might stand to reason that these corporations had much to gain from egging on a rush to war (headlines and profits) and, five years later, have much to gain from manipulating this election.


I've stopped watching CNN and never read local papers. It's easy to pick on Faux News, but CNN is just as bad--if not worse--than Faux. I read the NY Times and BBC.co.uk, but other than that, what can we do to bring responsible--and actual--journalism back?

D. · 1 year ago

What I don't get is why, five years later, we're still trying to pass blame.


Everyone had some complicity in us going to Iraq....from the President to the media all the way down to the average citizen who protested, and then sent the same leadership back to Washington.



But, again, none of this is important now. What is important is finishing our mission there, and bringing our military home safely.

Anonymous · 1 year ago

Amen on the criticism of the media.


The media in a democracy function almost as a de facto 4th arm of the govt; they have enormous influence and ideally would hold the govt accountable.



Instead, they too often engage in tabloid style journalism, and ignore the real issues. And when confronted with an issue like war in Iraq, they lack the courage to ask the tough questions.



A functioning democracy depends on the people getting as accurate information as possible so as to make the best possible voting decisions. That is why a truly free and fair press is so important. The media is failing us miserably.



The only ones who can hold the media to account are all of us...the people...we are the change we've been waiting for.

roger · 1 year ago

d. wrote "What is important is finishing our mission there, and bringing our military home safely."


What, exactly, IS that mission?

D. · 1 year ago

Roger,
The mission is to secure the country and her people, and to remove the threat posed by terrorists and extremists so the the Iraqi government can work to be better able to provide for its citizens.

roger · 1 year ago

d.,


You mean the mission is to fix the mess WE instigated by invading the country on bogus "information" and try to prevent Iraq from becoming a "terrorist haven" due to deep resentment by Iraqis for our destroying their infrastructure and killing over one million of their people? The so-called "mission" that you outlined is a bunch of propaganda proffered in order to justify an illegal, unjust and thoroughly unnecessary invasion of a sovereign nation.

D. · 1 year ago

Roger,
No, I meant what I said. But, in all fairness:



1. Yes, we did invade Iraq.

2. Yes, part of the justification as originally stated ("to disarm Iraq") was based on intelligence that has been rendered suspect.

3. Yes, we are there to prevent Iraq from becoming a terrorist haven. However, a large percentage of the terrorists/extremists we are fighting against are not Iraqi. They're foreign.



Whether the investigation was unjust and unnecessary is a question that will be left to history to decide.

Anonymous · 1 year ago

d.,
History has already decided the "invasion" was unjut and unnecessary.



Iraq wasn't a "terroris haven" unitl Bush invaded and occupied Iraq. We can't "prevent" what we provided.



The Intelligence that took us to war in Iraq wasn't "suspect" it was DEAD WRONG.



Iraq was secure and it's people were not exposed to threats by extremist until we invaded and occupied their country. The Iraqi government was providing for it's citizens before Bush shocked and awed the place.



Bush dressed up like Top Goon 5 years ago and said Mission Accomplished in Iraq.



So tell us again, what exactly IS the mission in Iraq?

Anonymous · 1 year ago

The whole thing was for Bush to avenge daddy's war in the gulf that made him look like a chump and that got him bounced out of office. Cheney and all the rest of them were all in cahoots and buddies with Saddam (sp) , and, then a war? Please, just a lame reason to bankrupt the country, loss of lives and $4 a gallon gas.


Bush, Cheney, Powell and Rice along with both houses of Congress are all to blame for this fiasco that can't and won't be won, no matter how much money the American taxpayer spends, the same taxpayer who is easily duped and usually believes 90% of what they see on the so called main stream media.

D. · 1 year ago

None of that changes what the mission is.


But if you must argue the point:

1. Yes, AQI didn't exist in Iraq until we got there. But now that they've stated that Iraq is the central battleground in their jihad, would you like for them to establish another base to attack us from?



2. If Iraq was doing such a great job of providing for her citizens under Saddam, why did he feel the need to kill 100,000 of them?

roger · 1 year ago

Oh, d., your arguments amount to nothing more than circular reasoning and red herrings. You keep arguing that we have some "mission" there--what was that mission in 2003 when the United States invaded? Further, you claim that the 'terrorists' we're fighting aren't even Iraqi--has it not occurred to you that they might not even BE in Iraq had we not destabilized it so thoroughly?


Further, does it make sense to have all this chaos (4,000 American soldiers dead, thousands more horribly disfigured/maimed, over half a MILLION Iraqis dead) based on "suspect"--nay, flat-out WRONG--intelligence?



And finally, how will we know when we've completed "the mission"? Have you not seen how Bush and Co. keep shifting the "mission"? After all, did not Bush himself parachute onto the USS Abraham Lincoln and declare "mission accomplished"? That was several years ago--what, pray tell, was the mission then?

D. · 1 year ago

The mission as stated in 2003 was "to disarm Iraq, free the Iraqi people, and protect the world from grave danger."


We will know that we have completed the mission when the Iraqi government is able to provide for the welfare and security of their country.



The world recognizes that Bush's 2003 declaration of "mission accomplished" was premature (he flew onboard, by the way, not parachuted). The facts on the ground, however, dictate that our mission there is being accomplished today.



I grieve for the 4,000 as much as anyone. I was honored to wear this country's uniform with them. And as I said here last week (think the post is still here), the truest way to honor their memory is by seeing Iraq through to stability.

Anonymous · 1 year ago

If, America is safer from this war, why is it that every night on my local news a 'drop house' filled with people who flow across the border from Mexico are still able to do so with abandon? I'm still suprised that the so called terrorists haven't figured this masive loophole out, yet.... Safe means different things to different people I guess.

roger · 1 year ago

d. wrote, "The mission as stated in 2003 was "to disarm Iraq, free the Iraqi people, and protect the world from grave danger."


Fallacy one: Disarm Iraq of what?

Fallacy two: Free them from Hussein...and to what kind of government? And why would "freeing" the Iraqis from Hussein take precedence over capturing Osama bin Laden--which leads to...

Fallacy three: What threat did Iraq pose to the world?