Trump

[J Dory]

At the time, I believed there were WMD in Iraq, it was trotted out as fact by the mainstream media, unquestioned.

Up until that time I had a naive view of mainstream media as a kind of government fact checker. Learned me it did, perhaps it's gotten progressively worse, but now I regard anything on the news with a superior sneer of cynicism.

[kk67]

'tis possible that BBC TV news was somewhat dumbed-down, and certainly there would have been a feeling of support the armed forces in the red tops. and 'tis possible the BBC and ITV didn't carry everything Blix and others commented on that ran contrary to the government's claims (as I doubt they reported everything the government said), but it's simply not the case there was no coverage of claims we shouldn't go to war and there was no justification (legal or moral)

There was some coverage of the 2million people who marched in London against the war. Not much though.
It was on a 6n's weekend and the rugby got more coverage.
The evidence of lying, in retrospect albeit, was there for any decent journo' to discover. The Gentlemans agreement to unify once war has been declared is not helpful.

[morepork]

Fair enough, but the weight of justification was carried on balance by the main stream media. That mission accomplished banner was unfurled behind Bush in coordination with some generally accessed satellites polluted at least in part by the seed of Tony Blair.

The BBC and ITV both admitted to ignoring multiple independent articles released on the AP, verifying there were no WMDs in the "black site" list provided by Bush and Blair. All the mainstream news outlets ignored an interview with the Head of the UN Weapons inspection team who stated point blank it would have been impossible for Iraq to be carrying WMDs at the time, just 3 years after he had signed off that they had none. The BBC did play the interview on BBC2, at 3am in the morning; once.

The former head of BBC news has said on camera she no longer believed they needed to verify, corroborate or investigate government press releases; they deemed the statement itself news. It was up to the people at home to investigate the legitimacy of official press releases, somehow.

Saying it was just the tabloids is a load of codswallop, as usual the mainstream press dished up a ton of superficial alternative opinions that gave the guise of choice, whilst deliberately manipulating the evidence the public had to weigh those opinions against.

I recall an awful lot of coverage and debate about whether or not there actually were WMD in Iraq, and whether there was a legal case for war. Though at the time that was in a context of a society still in large part in shock from 9/11 and looking to lash out and perhaps not being mindful, and that their anger was used is perhaps why there's been such anger to the various failings over the Iraq war/debacle. Now I don't swear I heard all that debate around the existence of weapons, including interviews with Hans Blix, and the legality of the war on the BBC, but I can't think it feasible I'd have gone 2-3 days without hearing Radio 4 whenever in the UK.

And I don't see what's wrong with BBC news reporting the government statements on the build up to Iraq war, they are news, as they would be with any story.

'tis possible that BBC TV news was somewhat dumbed-down, and certainly there would have been a feeling of support the armed forces in the red tops. and 'tis possible the BBC and ITV didn't carry everything Blix and others commented on that ran contrary to the government's claims (as I doubt they reported everything the government said), but it's simply not the case there was no coverage of claims we shouldn't go to war and there was no justification (legal or moral)

A watered down 4th estate. They fucked up. The sooner this fact is acknowledged, the sooner we can start respecting them.

[Digby]

The BBC and ITV both admitted to ignoring multiple independent articles released on the AP, verifying there were no WMDs in the "black site" list provided by Bush and Blair. All the mainstream news outlets ignored an interview with the Head of the UN Weapons inspection team who stated point blank it would have been impossible for Iraq to be carrying WMDs at the time, just 3 years after he had signed off that they had none. The BBC did play the interview on BBC2, at 3am in the morning; once.

The former head of BBC news has said on camera she no longer believed they needed to verify, corroborate or investigate government press releases; they deemed the statement itself news. It was up to the people at home to investigate the legitimacy of official press releases, somehow.

Saying it was just the tabloids is a load of codswallop, as usual the mainstream press dished up a ton of superficial alternative opinions that gave the guise of choice, whilst deliberately manipulating the evidence the public had to weigh those opinions against.

I recall an awful lot of coverage and debate about whether or not there actually were WMD in Iraq, and whether there was a legal case for war. Though at the time that was in a context of a society still in large part in shock from 9/11 and looking to lash out and perhaps not being mindful, and that their anger was used is perhaps why there's been such anger to the various failings over the Iraq war/debacle. Now I don't swear I heard all that debate around the existence of weapons, including interviews with Hans Blix, and the legality of the war on the BBC, but I can't think it feasible I'd have gone 2-3 days without hearing Radio 4 whenever in the UK.

And I don't see what's wrong with BBC news reporting the government statements on the build up to Iraq war, they are news, as they would be with any story.

'tis possible that BBC TV news was somewhat dumbed-down, and certainly there would have been a feeling of support the armed forces in the red tops. and 'tis possible the BBC and ITV didn't carry everything Blix and others commented on that ran contrary to the government's claims (as I doubt they reported everything the government said), but it's simply not the case there was no coverage of claims we shouldn't go to war and there was no justification (legal or moral)

A watered down 4th estate. They fucked up. The sooner this fact is acknowledged, the sooner we can start respecting them.

I doubt you'd fine anyone even in the industry who doesn't think they made a mistake in the level of questioning, on the link from the attack in the USA to Iraq, to WMD in Iraq, to the legal process we undertook to go to war, to the planning for what came after the initial invasion and toppling of power, to the removal of assets from Afghanistan....

Which isn't the same as there was no coverage other than bomb, bomb, bomb ahead of the invasion. I would also add looking at most media, even just most news media, they could stand atop the London Shard and scream their apologies and I'm not sure a lot of them would be worth respecting. Still, if they're that bad there's nothing to stop anyone in a digital age free of the costs of printing to do better if they can.

[rowan]

At the time, I believed there were WMD in Iraq, it was trotted out as fact by the mainstream media, unquestioned.

Up until that time I had a naive view of mainstream media as a kind of government fact checker. Learned me it did, perhaps it's gotten progressively worse, but now I regard anything on the news with a superior sneer of cynicism.

You and millions of others. But for me this was the big turning point in my view on America - because I knew without a shadow of a doubt they had no legitimate reason for invading Iraq, and that they were going to destroy that country, kill millions of people and cause untold suffering. I was living in Spain at the time and reading the press there daily, and that taught me a lot of things about internetional politics that I'd never learned in NZ. I even joined a demonstration against the invasion of Iraq in Barcelona. Then came the internet (for me, at least) and researching international politics became a major hobby of mine. I spend hours a day at it and have had a few articles on the topic published myself. Of course, once I understood what America was doing to the Middle East, I began to understand their involvement in Latin America much more clearly, and of course their genocidal wars in South East Asia. The picture is now very clear. We live in the age of brutal American Empire, which has basically just carried on from where the British Empire left off, and which uses very similar tactics and strategies - including a very extensive propaganda apparatus. Naturally this effects much of what is going on in the world, the US has its fingers in many, many pies, and has left very few regions of the world alone.

Meanwhile, interesting perspective on the upcoming Trump presidency here:

[Vengeful Glutton]

I see that the Don has stood up to Lockheed Martin.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... hter-18710

"Stealth".

[rowan]

I see that the Don has stood up to Lockheed Martin.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... hter-18710

"Stealth".

& good luck to him! He might actually achieve a few things - if he doesn't get assassinated first...

Meanwhile, just read this (fantastic news, by the looks of it):

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Tuesday largely commuted the remaining prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, the army intelligence analyst convicted of an enormous 2010 leak that revealed American military and diplomatic activities across the world, disrupted the administration, and made WikiLeaks, the recipient of those disclosures, famous.

The decision by Mr. Obama rescued Ms. Manning, who twice tried to commit suicide last year, from an uncertain future as a transgender woman incarcerated at the male military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. She has been jailed for nearly seven years, and her 35-year sentence was by far the longest punishment ever imposed in the United States for a leak conviction.

Now, under the terms of Mr. Obama’s commutation announced by the White House on Tuesday, Ms. Manning is set to be freed on May 17 of this year, rather than in 2045.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/p ... epage&_r=0

[WaspInWales]

#Orangeyougladyouvotedforme

#MAGA

[rowan]

Bye bye, O'Bomber. It's Trump Time

[Digby]

[Len]

Wheres that cunt on the grassy knoll when you need him?

[Stones of granite]

Wheres that cunt on the grassy knoll when you need him?

He's probably there. Armed and ready....in Dallas

[kk67]

Still, if they're that bad there's nothing to stop anyone in a digital age free of the costs of printing to do better if they can.

Well said, you knut.

[WaspInWales]

So, ISIS have about 30 days of existence remaining.

I wonder if they have their affairs in order?

[Mikey Brown]

Well that's one upside I suppose. They're really starting to get on my tits.

[rowan]

ISIS is nothing more than a byword for terrorists brought in to Syria by NATO, Saudi & Israel with a view to helping overthrow Assad by proxy. The videos of them are mostly fake and they have never carried out a terrorist attack outside the region. But don't expect to stop hearing about them. Just like the word 'Al Qaeda,' 'ISIS' will henceforth be used to describe any resistance America encounters in its continuing imperial expansion.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

ISIS is nothing more than a byword for terrorists brought in to Syria by NATO, Saudi & Israel with a view to helping overthrow Assad by proxy. The videos of them are mostly fake and they have never carried out a terrorist attack outside the region. But don't expect to stop hearing about them. Just like the word 'Al Qaeda,' 'ISIS' will henceforth be used to describe any resistance America encounters in its continuing imperial expansion.

If that were true, why not just stick with using Al Qaeda as the brand that everyone knows?

[rowan]

It eventually ran out of credibility, clearly. British Labour Party politician Robin Cook was among the many to dismiss them (shortly before his sudden death). The US had already played that card far too many times. So they rebranded it as 'ISIS,' but it's exactly the same thing - their own proxy mercenaries and jihadists, who they, the Saudis and others armed and trained, and who can conveniently be blamed for every act of resistance to their imperial expansionism.

[Donny osmond]

Even UG wasnt this loopy. Great tv.

[belgarion]

Why the feck are people HERE protesting over an AMERICAN election winner.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38700123

Trump's election may well effect us in some way but as he is totally ignoring
protests in America the chances of him paying any attention to us protesting
are less than zero.

[Vengeful Glutton]

[rowan]

It's a fact of life that America has such an overwhelming influence over the rest of Western society that its problems and issues transcend all borders. & while I fully understand, and applaud, international demonstrations over the election of a sexist, racist Islamophobe, I just wonder where all the protestors were when Obama and Clinton were bombing Middle Eastern countries to rubble.

[Vengeful Glutton]

It's a fact of life that America has such an overwhelming influence over the rest of Western society that its problems and issues transcend all borders. & while I fully understand, and applaud, international demonstrations over the election of a sexist, racist Islamophobe, I just wonder where all the protestors were when Obama and Clinton were bombing Middle Eastern countries to rubble.

Sat at home, cheering them on?

[rowan]

It's a fact of life that America has such an overwhelming influence over the rest of Western society that its problems and issues transcend all borders. & while I fully understand, and applaud, international demonstrations over the election of a sexist, racist Islamophobe, I just wonder where all the protestors were when Obama and Clinton were bombing Middle Eastern countries to rubble.

Sat at home, cheering them on?

Yup, seems women of the light brown, Muslim variety don't really strike a chord with feminists in the West - nor anyone else, for that matter...

[morepork]

It's a fact of life that America has such an overwhelming influence over the rest of Western society that its problems and issues transcend all borders. & while I fully understand, and applaud, international demonstrations over the election of a sexist, racist Islamophobe, I just wonder where all the protestors were when Obama and Clinton were bombing Middle Eastern countries to rubble.

Don't forget Bush cupcake. There were massive demonstrations across the country in 2003, as there were across the world. Also, there was some nasty shit going down after Obama was elected in 2008. Like torching churches bad shit.

I know you have a hard on for the Clintons, but jesus wept.