IRAQ: How We Got Into This Mess
01 March 2006 8:21 am by Taylor Marsh
IRAQ: How We Got Into This Mess
 |
| The free press on life support. Access is everything. …it's even become a punchline. |
U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned
the White House beginning more than two years ago that the insurgency in Iraq
had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war, according
to former senior intelligence officials who helped craft the reports. Among
the warnings, Knight Ridder has learned, was a major study, called a National
Intelligence Estimate, completed in October 2003 that concluded that the insurgency
was fueled by local conditions – not foreign terrorists- and drew strength from
deep grievances, including the presence of U.S. troops.
Intelligence
agencies warned about growing local insurgency in late 2003
Where was the media when we needed them on Iraq? How did we get into this mess? Part of the blame goes to the shallow press.
Seduced and imbedded, access helped them buy into President Bush's propaganda
on preemption. Outside of Iraq, the first person that comes to mind is Tim Russert, allowing
Deadeye full access over the airwaves to push his Mohammed Atta in Prague –
reconstituting nuclear weapons storylines. All Mr. Russert did was nod, with
that grave as grave expression plastered on his sycophantic face.
It makes me ask why we are just now finding out about the top-secret
document that warned of an insurgency. But then again, the media was too shallow
to dig into the war. Too scared they'd be branded unpartriotic.
Robert Hutchings, the chairman of the National
Intelligence Council from 2003 to 2005, said the October 2003 study was part
of a “steady stream” of dozens of intelligence reports warning Bush
and his top lieutenants that the insurgency was intensifying and expanding.
“Frankly, senior officials simply weren't ready to pay attention
to analysis that didn't conform to their own optimistic scenarios,”
Hutchings said in a telephone interview.
There was no heat from the press at the time of war. Everyone
just jumped in and went along. Maybe if someone had asked the tough questions,
doing the work of asking why we were going to war, instead of being afraid of
being pegged unpatriotic, we wouldn't be in this mess. Just maybe if the media
wasn't so shallow they could have provided early cover for the dissenters.
When we think about all that could have been many things come
to mind. However, one thing that seems to have slipped our consciousness in
the calamity that has become Iraq, is how shallow the media was in investigating
how we got into this mess in the first place.
I know, you're shocked, the media is shallow, big deal. Yep, it
is a big deal. Take Terror Guy's trip to Afghanistan, now plastered across the
web and across every major news outlet, not to mention cable. We'll have to
see if anyone asks about the timing, or just trumpets Terror Guy's image.
But the president's desperate decline calls for desperate measures. Democrats now lead on national security, and Bush's approval is at 34%, so who you gonna call? You know the drill.
Every time Bush gets into trouble he reminds us of his alter ego,
Terror Guy, and the press blindly follows, asking no questions. That's exactly
what happened at the beginning of this preemption adventure.
Judy Miller told Terror Guy's tale across the pages of the New
York Times, as did Thomas Friedman. She's gone, but Mr. Friedman continues his
lazy scenario on the port deal, calling anyone who challenges the wisdom of
handing our port management over to Dubai as being prejudice or racist. If that
doesn't prove the media is shallow nothing does, because there are real national
security issues involved in the port deal, but Mr. Friedman can't be bothered.
If you want to talk about the media being shallow, just look at
Bob Woodward. He was more afraid of going to jail than telling the truth about
Valerie Plame. If that Bob Woodward would have been present during Watergate,
Bernstein would have worked alone.
The media is shallow and it's one of the reasons we got into Iraq
without a thought. That shallowness screams across the Washington Post in pictures,
with the story also on the New York Times, covering Terror Guy's first visit
to Afghanistan since the invasion.
Then there is the real story about intelligence agencies warning of an insurgency, but Terror Guy not wanting to listen. It was more important for our morally corrupt commander in chief to fabricate the fantasy that Saddam was involved with 9/11, which 85% of our troops believe was true, along with the canard that Saddam was linked to al Qaeda. Truth doesn't matter as long as the storyline works for Terror Guy. The shallow press follows in tow.
But after all, with the president's numbers at its lowest ebb you've
got to do something. Enter Operation Photo Op, with Terror Guy front and center.
Will the press confront the image, saying Terror Guy's in trouble so it's just another photo op to distract from the truth? Or will they trumpet Terror Guy's image? Take a guess.
UPDATE: Maybe someone in the press can ask President Bush about this story: Growing Threat Seen In Afghan Insurgency – DIA Chief Cites Surging Violence in Homeland
