'Stop the Steal' organizer complains 'crippling and crushing' legal bills have hurt his ability to impact elections
August 29, 2022
For customer support issues contact
support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to
corrections@rawstory.com.
Stories Chosen For You
As the world this week mark the 20th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, journalism experts weighed in on the corporate media's complicity in amplifying the Bush administration's lies, including ones about former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's nonexistent nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons upon which the war was waged.
"Twenty years ago, this country's mainstream media—with one notable exception—bought into phony Bush administration claims about Hussein's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, helping cheerlead our nation into a conflict that ended the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis," Los Angeles Times columnist Robin Abcarian wrote Sunday.
That "one notable exception" was a group of journalists at the Washington, D.C. bureau of Knight Ridder—which was acquired by McClatchy in 2006—who published dozens of articles in several of the company's papers debunking and criticizing the Bush administration's dubious claims about Iraq and its WMDs. Their efforts were the subject of the 2017 Rob Reiner film Shock and Awe, starring Woody Harrelson.
"The war—along with criminally poor post-war planning on the part of Bush administration officials—also unleashed horrible sectarian strife, led to the emergence of ISIS, and displaced more than 1 million Iraqis," Abcarian noted.
She continued:
That sad chapter in American history produced its share of jingoistic buzzwords and phrases: "WMD," "the axis of evil," "regime change," "yellowcake uranium," "the coalition of the willing," and a cheesy but terrifying refrain, repeated ad nauseam by Bush administration officials such as then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
"Of course," wrote Abcarian, "there was never any smoking gun, mushroom-shaped or not."
According to the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit investigative journalism organization, Bush and top administration officials—including then-Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Rice—"made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Those lies were dutifully repeated by most U.S. corporate mainstream media in what the center called "part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
"It should not be forgotten that this debacle of death and destruction was not only a profound error of policymaking; it was the result of a carefully executed crusade of disinformation and lies," David Corn, the Washington, D.C. bureau chief for Mother Jones, asserted Monday.
Far from paying a price for amplifying the Bush administration's Iraq lies, many of the media hawks who acted more like lapdogs than watchdogs 20 years ago are today ensconced in prestigious and well-paying positions in media, public policy, and academia.
In a where-are-they-now piece for The Real News Network, media critic Adam Johnson highlighted how the careers of several media and media-related government professionals "blossomed" after their lie-laden selling of the Iraq War:
- David Frum—Bush's lead writer who coined the term "Axis of Evil" to refer to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—is "a well-paid and influential columnist for The Atlantic and a mainstay of cable TV."
- Jeffrey Goldberg, then a New Yorker reporter who pushed conspiracy theories linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and al-Qaeda to Iraq, is now editor-in-chief of The Atlantic.
- MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, an erstwhile Iraq War hawk, rebranded himself as a critic of the invasion and occupation, and is a multimillionaire morning show host on that same network.
- Fareed Zakaria hosts "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on CNN and writes a weekly column for The Washington Post.
- Anne Applebaum, a member of the Post's editorial board at the time who called evidence of Iraq's nonexistent WMDs "irrefutable," now writes for The Atlantic and is a senior fellow at the Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.
"The almost uniform success of all the Iraq War cheerleaders provides the greatest lesson about what really helps one get ahead in public life: It's not being right, doing the right thing, or challenging power, but going with prevailing winds and mocking anyone who dares to do the opposite," wrote Johnson.
In an interview with the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft—which is hosting a discussion Wednesday about the media's role in war and peace—Middle East expert Assal Rad noted:
Rather than challenging the narrative of the state, calling for evidence, or even humanizing the would-be victims of the war, the Iraqi people, reporters such as Thomas Friedman with significant platforms like The New York Times most often parroted the talking points of U.S. officials. There was little critical journalism to question the existence of WMDs and little reflection on important issues, such as the U.S. role in supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980s against Iran, international law, or the humanity of Iraqis.
While there was some contrition from outlets including the Times as the Iraq occupation continued for years and not the "five days or five weeks or five months" promised by Rumsfeld, journalist Jon Schwarz of The Intercept noted that media lies and distortions about the war continue to this day.
"Perhaps the most telling instance of the media's acquiescence was a year after the Iraq invasion," said Rad, "when President Bush's joke at the White House Correspondents' dinner about finding no weapons of mass destruction was met with uproarious laughter from an audience of journalists."
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) was unimpressed with Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) asking for Republicans to stay peaceful as a possible indictment of Donald Trump looms.
While at the GOP retreat in Orlando, Florida, on Monday, McCarthy held a press conference where he urged the MAGA Republicans not to be violent.
"I don't think people should protest this, no," said McCarthy, according to NBC News. "And I think President Trump, if you talk to him, he doesn't believe that, either."
Trump asked his followers to protest on his behalf of him and implied that NYPD officers would refuse to arrest him. So, it's unclear where McCarthy is getting his information that Trump has changed his mind. There has also been an uptick in Trump supporters purchasing more weaponry in preparation for the indictment.
IN OTHER NEWS: Jim Jordan dodges questions why he won't wait to learn charges against Trump before investigating prosecutor
"Imagine if a Democratic president had been accused of trying to cover up an affair," Himes said. "Wait, you don't have to imagine that because what happened to Bill Clinton, the very same Republicans impeached him when he was president and here the Republican Party has reached a point where they are defending somebody who was covering up an affair with a porn star. Oh, and by the way, they are supporting a member of their party, George Santos, who lied about everything.
"Who committed fraud in an election in order to get himself elected. They're defending Paul Gosar who did a video of him killing AOC and the tawdriness of what the Republican Party has become. Would the party of Reagan or Eisenhower countenance any of this? So, I'm not terribly impressed Speaker McCarthy somehow found it in himself to say we shouldn't be violent. My God, that's a low bar."
See the interview below or at the link here.
Congressman rails against 'low bar' for McCarthy denouncing violence www.youtube.com
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Jim Jordan dodges questions why he won't wait to learn charges against Trump before investigating prosecutor
March 20, 2023
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and his associates have fired off new demands that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg provide information on his investigation into former President Donald Trump ahead of a likely indictment, in a move that Democrats are calling a deliberate effort to intimidate prosecutors — but even he admits he doesn't actually know what the former president may be charged with, let alone whether the charges are corrupt or illegitimate.
CNN congressional reporter Manu Raju tried to ask him about this at the House GOP's retreat in Orlando, Florida this week — and got no answer.
"It is going broader than what we initially anticipated," Raju told CNN's Jake Tapper. "After Donald Trump announced that he believes he would be charged as soon as Tuesday in this case, [House Speaker] Kevin McCarthy said they will look into whether federal funds were used to support this investigation. A letter sent today by three key House Republican chairmen went much further, calling for Alvin Bragg to come before Congress for a transcribed interview as this criminal probe is still ongoing. Calling for internal communications between the Manhattan District Attorney and the Justice Department and demanding that information be turned over as well."
"This comes even as Jim Jordan, one of the chairmen ... indicated to me earlier he is still unclear about the potential charges against Donald Trump, but he still maintained that Trump did not break the law," said Raju, playing clips of his conversations with key GOP members.
RELATED: It doesn't matter what Trump says — an indictment is really bad for him: columnist
"It is a misdemeanor," said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX). "So it is not — it is not really the crime of the century either. This thing is going to have political taint to it. You know, any way you spin it."
"I think it is completely appropriate," said Rep. Michael Waltz (R-FL). "I think a lot of people would expect us, from an Oversight standpoint, from a Judicial Committee standpoint, to look into a politicized process."
"We don't think President Trump broke the law at all," said Jordan simply.
"So, I was trying to ask Jim Jordan, why not wait for the investigation to play out until after the charges were made and until after you have reviewed all of the merits of the case?" said Raju. "He did not answer that directly, but instead went after this prosecutor, contended that he has a political motivation here, and defended the call for Bragg to come to Capitol Hill and testify. Meanwhile, Democrats are calling this political interference, and in the middle of an ongoing investigation into the former president here. But Republican after Republican, Jake, that I'm talking to here are aligning themselves with Donald Trump in this effort. Even as Senate Republicans have been silent since Donald Trump's announcement from over the weekend."
Watch video below or at this link.
Manu Raju says Jim Jordan dodging questions about his demands of Alvin Bragg www.youtube.com
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Copyright © 2023 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com, for support contact support@rawstory.com.
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}