Rachel Maddow has a great re-cap of the faulty and deceitful tactics used by the Bush administration that led to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.  Using video evidence Maddow shows the shifting justifications for war — an aggressive war that was clearly criminal.  Yet Obama and the Democrats want us to look forward, not back.  This is all in the past, they say.  What we have here is an affirmation that our political elites are and will never be held responsible for their crimes.  Completely depressing if you ask me.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Technorati Tags: George W. Bush, Iraq war, propaganda, Rachel Maddow

I know this is from last week (sorry, been watching the World Cup), but it’s yet another Daily Show clip exposing the sorry state of the American mainstream media. Michael Hastings, with his Rolling Stone piece that led to the downfall of General McChrystal, showed these morons how to do real journalism and the best they can do is whine about how Hastings got so much access.

For more on this I recommend Glenn Greenwald’s excellent post on the subject.

Technorati Tags: Afghanistan, corporate media, McChrystal, Obama

Glenn Greenwald has yet another excellent post that I have to share with anyone who hasn’t read it.  Here he focuses on the views of Cass Sunstein, Obama’s top official in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is tasked with — according to its website — “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs” among other things.

Greenwald begins by noting a paper Sunstein co-wrote in 2008 detailing how government should “employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-’independent’ advocates to ‘cognitively infiltrate‘ online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems ‘false conspiracy theories’ about the Government.”

Sunstein’s strategy of using propaganda reflects long-standing liberal ideas in American political culture.  In the early- to mid-20th century, liberal theorists like Harold Lasswell, Edward Bernays, and Walter Lippmann praised the use of propaganda as a means of controlling public opinion, and Sunstein is simply carrying on this tradition.

But Greenwald is most forceful in pointing to the hypocrisy of liberals who are now defending the Obama Administration for committing the very same acts they were so outraged about when done under Bush — particularly the paying of conservatives Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher to promote Bush Administration programs as implicit “independent” experts.  But now Obama’s Administration has been outed doing the same with Jonathan Gruber’s advocacy of the health care reform proposals.

Paul Krugman, for instance, in 2005 angrily lambasted right-wing pundits and policy analysts who received secret, undisclosed payments, and said they lack “intellectual integrity”; he specifically cited the Armstrong Williams case.  Yet the very same Paul Krugman last week attacked Marcy Wheeler for helping to uncover the Gruber payments by accusing her of being “just like the right-wingers with their endless supply of fake scandals.”  What is one key difference?  Unlike Williams and Gallagher, Jonathan Gruber is a Good, Well-Intentioned Person with Good Views — he favors health care — and so massive, undisclosed payments from the same administration he’s defending are dismissed as a “fake scandal.”

I recommend reading the Greenwald article in its entirety.  Don’t miss it:

Greenwald: Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal

Technorati Tags: Liberals, Obama, propaganda

Updated below

With the economy in the tanks and McCain’s poll numbers sagging because most Americans blame Republican policies for the current downturn, it appears the McCain campaign is planning to go even more negative than they already have.  While a desperate strategy of change-the-subject and attack with non-issues is no surprise, what is a little encouraging is that the Obama campaign is not simply sitting back and taking it but are already fighting back.  They’re bringing up the Keating Five scandal from the 1980s and 90s that cost American taxpayers nearly $3 billion (part of the $124 billion Savings and Loan debacle), and they’re making sure we know McCain was at the center of it all.

Obama for America has produced and released online a short documentary about the whole affair.  Check it out:

UPDATE: In yet another excellent post Glenn Greenwald recounts how Sean Hannity had Andy Martin, who in the 1980s and 90s filed unnumerable lawsuits that “were routinely filled with the most extreme anti-Semitic venom one could find anywhere this side of Mein Kampf,” on his Fox News Sunday show Hannity’s America.  But of course Hannity had nothing to say of the dark side of this so-called “internet journalist,” and instead gave him a national stage to attack Barack Obama’s past as a community organizer, claiming that during this time the presidential candidate was actually “training for a radical overthrow of the government,” and that if Obama becomes president, America is “basically going to be … in the throes of a socialist revolution, which attempts to essentially freeze out anybody who’s not part of this radical ideology.”

Setting aside the absurd notion that the increasingly centrist Obama is secretly planning to bring about a red dictatorship, Greenwald points out that the Obama campaign didn’t simply fall over and take it.  Instead, Obama communications director Robert Gibbs “mauled Sean Hannity” on Hannity & Colmes following the second presidential debate “by taking [Fox News'] deceitful standards and … applying it to Fox and their ‘journalists.’”  Watch the video below:

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Election 2008, John McCain, Keating five

Obama points out the tactics and goals of the Republicans during this election: anything but issues.

Technorati Tags: Democrats, Election 2008, Lipstick on a Pig, Republicans

While the mainstream media devote hours of analysis to lipstick-gate, they continue to accept without question the Bush and McCain claim that the surge in Iraq has been a success.  One doesn’t have to look far to find example after example of this being put forward as a self-apparent truism.  The logic behind the reporting is little more than, “Look, the violence is down, therefore the surge has worked.”  Forget the over-arching goal of the surge was to bring about political reconciliation between the conflicting groups in Iraq.  In reality, the political situation is worse than ever.  As Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress writes:

The greatest myth promoted by Bush in his speech [at the National Defense University] was found in this line: “Political reconciliation is moving forward, and the Iraqi government has passed several major pieces of legislation.” By overstating the meagre steps taken by Iraq’s leaders in barely passing a few relatively insignificant laws in their parliament, Bush’s statement ranks right up there with his 2003 “mission accomplished” speech and vice-president Dick Cheney’s assertion that the insurgency was in its “last throes” in 2005.

Katulis continues:

The surge has frozen into place the accelerated fragmentation that Iraq underwent in 2006 and 2007 and has created disincentives to bridge central divisions between Iraqi factions. Moreover, rather than advancing Iraq’s political transition and facilitating power-sharing deals among Iraq’s factions, the surge has produced an oil revenue-fuelled, Shia-dominated national government with close ties to Iran. This national government shows few signs of seeking to compromise and share meaningful power with other frustrated political factions.

So much for political reconciliation.  Rather than furthering steps toward some form of power sharing, the surge has solidified the divisions unleashed by the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  But McCain, Bush, and the media will inevitably make the case that at least the surge has reduced violence.  This is the core of the “surge worked” hypothesis, yet it rests on a basic logical fallacy.  Just because Y came after X, it doesn’t follow that X caused Y.  Professor Juan Cole recently pointed this out with regards to media commentary on the surge.

The reality is far more complex than this simplistic narrative.  An important factor to declining levels of violence was the so-called Sunni Awakening movement in Anbar province in which the US allied with, armed, and paid Sunni insurgents to fight Al-Qaeda.  But this began before the surge, and there is no reason to believe this strategy required an increased troop level.  Cole agrees:

In al-Anbar Province, among the more violent in Iraq in earlier years, the bribing of former Sunni guerrillas to join US-sponsored Awakening Councils had a big calming effect. This technique could have been used much earlier than 2006, indeed, could have been deployed from 2003, and might have forestalled large numbers of deaths. Condi Rice forbade US military officers from dealing in this way with the Sunnis for fear of alienating US Shiite allies such as Ahmad Chalabi. The technique was independent of the troop escalation. Indeed, it depended on there not being much of a troop escalation in that province. Had large numbers of US soldiers been committed to simply fight the Sunnis or engage in search and destroy missions, they would have stirred up and reinforced the guerrilla movement.

An additional reason for the reduced violence in Iraq has been the unilateral cease-fire of the Mahdi Army ordered by Moqtada al-Sadr.  Gen. Patraeus even admits this fact, stating that the “Sadr trend stands for service to the people,” and that he hopes Sadr’s organization will become “constructive partners in the way ahead.”  While Patraeus would like to see the cease-fire as a result of the surge, the reality is again more complicated.  Cole sees the successful ethnic cleansing of Baghdad – in which it has become a mostly Shiite city with almost no mixed communities and others separated by walls – as an important reason for the Mahdi Army’s cessation of hostilities because this was one of their major aims.  As well, their pro-Iranian Shiite rivals, which include the Iraqi state, were becoming much more powerful militarily in relation to Moqtada al-Sadr’s organization.

Ethnic cleansing in Iraq points to a darker aspect of the surge, in which what so many call “success” is the result of brutality and violence.  Robert Parry also makes this point:

With the total Iraqi death toll estimated in the hundreds of thousands and many more Iraqis horribly maimed, the society has been deeply traumatized. As tyrants have learned throughout history, at some point violent repression does work.

But this dark side of the “successful surge” is excluded from the U.S. political debate. As during the pre-invasion period, the Washington press corps acts more like Bush’s propagandists than anything close to skeptical journalists.

Instead media commentators waste our time with meaningless questions and speculation about what Barack Obama actually meant when making a comment about lipstick on a pig.  Well all I can say, at least there are alternatives to the he-said-she-said style of reporting that passes for journalism and analysis.  The following video is a commentary by Aijaz Ahmad from TheRealNews.com.  It was originally broadcast following Bush’s State of the Union address in early 2008.  Ahmad covers some of the issues I mention above and provides compelling reasons to question much of the conventional wisdom.

Technorati Tags: Election 2008, George W. Bush, Iraq, Iraq surge, media, propaganda