thedrifter
11-30-05, 02:39 PM
'People's Eyes and Ears,' the Press, Fails Us
Written by J. B. Williams
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Elected representatives in Washington are intended to be the mouthpieces of the people who elect them. Though they are constitutionally obligated to the will of the people, most Americans feel unrepresented by either political party today. That’s because politicians are no longer beholden to the people who elect them. They are, instead, beholden only to those who control their power (their money): namely, the two major political parties, their respective political platforms and their agendas of division.
The press is supposed to be the eyes and ears of the people, keeping a close watch on our elected officials and reporting unfettered facts so that the people (our real government) can keep those elected mouthpieces doing the people’s work. Instead, we have a press operating with its own agenda and the people’s eyes and ears on Washington are failing us miserably as a result.
We hope the press will help keep politicians honest, at least as honest as any politician is capable of being. Help us rid ourselves of the dishonest politicians from time to time in order to assure the interest of the people. But it turns out that the one group we can trust less than politicians is the so-called mainstream press. Both make trial lawyers seem like decent folks. So who keeps the press honest?
EXAMPLE: Who made this case for forced regime change in Iraq? “In the four years since U.N. inspectors left [were thrown out] of Iraq, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.”
“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter to political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.”
“This much is UNDISPUTED!”
According to the lame-stream press, this was, in a nutshell, the pack of “lies” told by the Bush administration leading us wrongly into war with Iraq; WMD remember? But these are not the words of George W. Bush or any member of his administration, though they do mirror those words almost to a letter. These are the words of a prominent Democrat senator from New York who had just spent the previous eight years of her life reading intelligence reports in the White House. These are the words of Hillary Clinton, as she made her case for voting to authorize military action in Iraq in 2002. Did she tell a lie?
The once mainstream press would have once told the American people this important tidbit of information, particularly once anti-Bush partisans began accusing the administration of “misleading” us into war. But not today. The press has an anti-war, more accurately, an anti-Bush, agenda and telling the people these facts won’t help that agenda at all.
The press actively promotes the false idea that the Bush administration used “manipulated” intelligence to secure congressional authorization for action in Iraq. But the press has not told the American people that Democrats demanded an updated intelligence briefing of their own during the debate to authorizing action in 2002.
They have not told the American people that the Clinton-appointed Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet delivered that updated report, known as the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), concerning Iraq in October of 2002, which indicated that the intelligence against the Hussein regime was, as Tenet put it, a “slam dunk.”
They have not told the American people that literally none of the Democrats currently critical of pre-war intelligence bothered to even read that report before casting their vote to send American troops into harm’s way.
When asked in a recent press briefing if he had read the NIE before casting his pro-war vote in October 2002, Senate Democrat Harry Reid said “The answer is - if you ask me, I didn’t read it.”
When Senator John Kerry was asked the same question, he answered “I got briefings.” (Which means, no, he didn’t read it.)
When prospective presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton was asked, she responded “I’m not going to say anything about that. Just let the intelligence committee do their work, okay?” (Which translates to, my answer won’t help the Democrat agenda to regain political power, so I have nothing to say about that.)
It was only a 92-page detailed summary which was issued at the demand of Senate Democrats and according to their own admissions, few of today’s Iraq war critics bothered to even read it. In fact, according to Senate Democrats, only six did read it and they all voted to support the action in Iraq.
You would think that congressional Democrats now critical of pre-war intelligence, voting to send troops into harm’s way without even reading the special intelligence reports they demanded, would be headline news. Not in today’s newsrooms it isn’t.
The press doesn’t want the people to know that two investigations into pre-war intelligence have already found no evidence of any manipulated, invented or even exaggerated intelligence concerning Iraq. They don’t want the people to know what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did find in its 2004 investigation. Proof of why the Clinton administration was wrong in assuming we no longer needed intelligence assets on the ground, and wrong to limit our intelligence to that provided by the United Nations, as the Clinton administration had once thought adequate.
The press hasn’t and won’t tell the American people that to the extent we had any pre-war intelligence failures, it was the direct result of degrading our intelligence community throughout the 90’s and not the result of anyone’s efforts to intentionally mislead anyone. Telling the truth is not helpful to the anti-war anti-Bush agenda prevalent in today’s newsrooms. So you won’t find this story in any lame-stream headlines today.
The American people are losing their will to win the war on international terror as a direct result of intentional disinformation in the press. The same thing happened regarding Vietnam and in that respect alone, it is a déjà vu experience for many Americans, and soldiers in particular, who have seen this tactic before.
Forget what political party you thought you belonged to, would real Americans support elected officials who voted to send American troops to war without even reading the special intelligence reports they requested first, no matter what party they belong to? Apparently, some Americans would…because some do.
Americans see hospitals and schools reopening in Iraq. They see Iraqi citizens thanking America for freeing them from the world’s most brutal regime. They see children once imprisoned for their parents’ anti-Hussein speech, released and returned home by American soldiers. They watch as more Iraqis turn out to vote than Americans do in the U.S. today, even though they risk life and limb to do so. Yet some still buy the media propaganda that the mission in Iraq is some sort of monumental failure. Why?
Average Americans do not have international experience, a depth of knowledge concerning world history in the Middle East, a direct understanding of terrorism, or any direct expertise concerning issues of national security, foreign policy, or military planning. Whatever opinions they have of these topics are likely derived from media assessments alone, almost all of which are agenda driven reports based on disinformation or at best, selective information. And when this is the case, those opinions are often distorted.
Many Americans sense that their system of self-governance is failing them. But few realize how they have contributed to that failure, or at least accepted the media’s contribution.
When they do figure it out, they are tuning out ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, NPR, and MSNBC as well as canceling their subscriptions to old media news rags in numbers that threaten the future viability of all mighty media. They are turning more and more to the Internet as a means of researching and cross-referencing information on their own in order to find the truth that no longer exists in the once mainstream outlets.
America’s future hangs in the balance. The American people are slowly catching on and they don’t like what they see. Al Gore didn’t invent the Internet, but thank God he did help make it available to every individual.
Little did he know it would become the catalyst for his undoing.
About the Writer: J. B. Williams notes that he is a business man, husband, father, and a writer. His website is at www.jb-williams.com. J. B. receives e-mail at JBW@JB-Williams.com.
Ellie
Written by J. B. Williams
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Elected representatives in Washington are intended to be the mouthpieces of the people who elect them. Though they are constitutionally obligated to the will of the people, most Americans feel unrepresented by either political party today. That’s because politicians are no longer beholden to the people who elect them. They are, instead, beholden only to those who control their power (their money): namely, the two major political parties, their respective political platforms and their agendas of division.
The press is supposed to be the eyes and ears of the people, keeping a close watch on our elected officials and reporting unfettered facts so that the people (our real government) can keep those elected mouthpieces doing the people’s work. Instead, we have a press operating with its own agenda and the people’s eyes and ears on Washington are failing us miserably as a result.
We hope the press will help keep politicians honest, at least as honest as any politician is capable of being. Help us rid ourselves of the dishonest politicians from time to time in order to assure the interest of the people. But it turns out that the one group we can trust less than politicians is the so-called mainstream press. Both make trial lawyers seem like decent folks. So who keeps the press honest?
EXAMPLE: Who made this case for forced regime change in Iraq? “In the four years since U.N. inspectors left [were thrown out] of Iraq, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.”
“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter to political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.”
“This much is UNDISPUTED!”
According to the lame-stream press, this was, in a nutshell, the pack of “lies” told by the Bush administration leading us wrongly into war with Iraq; WMD remember? But these are not the words of George W. Bush or any member of his administration, though they do mirror those words almost to a letter. These are the words of a prominent Democrat senator from New York who had just spent the previous eight years of her life reading intelligence reports in the White House. These are the words of Hillary Clinton, as she made her case for voting to authorize military action in Iraq in 2002. Did she tell a lie?
The once mainstream press would have once told the American people this important tidbit of information, particularly once anti-Bush partisans began accusing the administration of “misleading” us into war. But not today. The press has an anti-war, more accurately, an anti-Bush, agenda and telling the people these facts won’t help that agenda at all.
The press actively promotes the false idea that the Bush administration used “manipulated” intelligence to secure congressional authorization for action in Iraq. But the press has not told the American people that Democrats demanded an updated intelligence briefing of their own during the debate to authorizing action in 2002.
They have not told the American people that the Clinton-appointed Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet delivered that updated report, known as the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), concerning Iraq in October of 2002, which indicated that the intelligence against the Hussein regime was, as Tenet put it, a “slam dunk.”
They have not told the American people that literally none of the Democrats currently critical of pre-war intelligence bothered to even read that report before casting their vote to send American troops into harm’s way.
When asked in a recent press briefing if he had read the NIE before casting his pro-war vote in October 2002, Senate Democrat Harry Reid said “The answer is - if you ask me, I didn’t read it.”
When Senator John Kerry was asked the same question, he answered “I got briefings.” (Which means, no, he didn’t read it.)
When prospective presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton was asked, she responded “I’m not going to say anything about that. Just let the intelligence committee do their work, okay?” (Which translates to, my answer won’t help the Democrat agenda to regain political power, so I have nothing to say about that.)
It was only a 92-page detailed summary which was issued at the demand of Senate Democrats and according to their own admissions, few of today’s Iraq war critics bothered to even read it. In fact, according to Senate Democrats, only six did read it and they all voted to support the action in Iraq.
You would think that congressional Democrats now critical of pre-war intelligence, voting to send troops into harm’s way without even reading the special intelligence reports they demanded, would be headline news. Not in today’s newsrooms it isn’t.
The press doesn’t want the people to know that two investigations into pre-war intelligence have already found no evidence of any manipulated, invented or even exaggerated intelligence concerning Iraq. They don’t want the people to know what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did find in its 2004 investigation. Proof of why the Clinton administration was wrong in assuming we no longer needed intelligence assets on the ground, and wrong to limit our intelligence to that provided by the United Nations, as the Clinton administration had once thought adequate.
The press hasn’t and won’t tell the American people that to the extent we had any pre-war intelligence failures, it was the direct result of degrading our intelligence community throughout the 90’s and not the result of anyone’s efforts to intentionally mislead anyone. Telling the truth is not helpful to the anti-war anti-Bush agenda prevalent in today’s newsrooms. So you won’t find this story in any lame-stream headlines today.
The American people are losing their will to win the war on international terror as a direct result of intentional disinformation in the press. The same thing happened regarding Vietnam and in that respect alone, it is a déjà vu experience for many Americans, and soldiers in particular, who have seen this tactic before.
Forget what political party you thought you belonged to, would real Americans support elected officials who voted to send American troops to war without even reading the special intelligence reports they requested first, no matter what party they belong to? Apparently, some Americans would…because some do.
Americans see hospitals and schools reopening in Iraq. They see Iraqi citizens thanking America for freeing them from the world’s most brutal regime. They see children once imprisoned for their parents’ anti-Hussein speech, released and returned home by American soldiers. They watch as more Iraqis turn out to vote than Americans do in the U.S. today, even though they risk life and limb to do so. Yet some still buy the media propaganda that the mission in Iraq is some sort of monumental failure. Why?
Average Americans do not have international experience, a depth of knowledge concerning world history in the Middle East, a direct understanding of terrorism, or any direct expertise concerning issues of national security, foreign policy, or military planning. Whatever opinions they have of these topics are likely derived from media assessments alone, almost all of which are agenda driven reports based on disinformation or at best, selective information. And when this is the case, those opinions are often distorted.
Many Americans sense that their system of self-governance is failing them. But few realize how they have contributed to that failure, or at least accepted the media’s contribution.
When they do figure it out, they are tuning out ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, NPR, and MSNBC as well as canceling their subscriptions to old media news rags in numbers that threaten the future viability of all mighty media. They are turning more and more to the Internet as a means of researching and cross-referencing information on their own in order to find the truth that no longer exists in the once mainstream outlets.
America’s future hangs in the balance. The American people are slowly catching on and they don’t like what they see. Al Gore didn’t invent the Internet, but thank God he did help make it available to every individual.
Little did he know it would become the catalyst for his undoing.
About the Writer: J. B. Williams notes that he is a business man, husband, father, and a writer. His website is at www.jb-williams.com. J. B. receives e-mail at JBW@JB-Williams.com.
Ellie