Behind the Misty Scrim
Jeff Alworth
I'd like to draw your attention to a passage from the lead editorial in yesterday's Oregonian:
Two years later, though, the U.S. death toll is nearing 1,900. The misty scrim that obscured our view of the war -- wishful thinking, distortions, outright lies -- is rapidly dissolving. Americans increasingly see the war as it is, and know it's going badly. Little wonder that when a gold-star mother parks herself inconsolably in Crawford, Texas, asking hard questions and spurning glib answers, she strikes a nerve.
I've highlighted the bit that particularly attracted my eye. Here we are 28 months into an ill-conceived war, and the Oregonian appears to be using Cindy Sheehan as cover to mention the lies upon which the war was justified. And now the editors are sufficiently emboldened to actually call the administration's justifications "lies."
Yet there was never a misty scrim* obscuring our view. Like other transparent fabrics, Bush's rationales concealed nothing. While it was impossible to know the full extent of US intelligence at the time, some of what they offered were clearly lies: the 2003 State of the Union (which they did cop to, redfaced, eventually), the bogus aluminum tubes, and the mushroom clouds, to name just a few.
What's interesting isn't that the Oregonian is finally identifying the administration's pre-war rhetoric as lies; rather, it's the timing. Whether because of Cindy Sheehan or the majority of Americans who now think Bush lied, The Oregonian has found it's courage. (All right, I don't have LexisNexis, but I don't recall seeing a lot of "lying" language. You'll correct me if I'm wrong.)
It was shocking to think that a President might mislead a country to justify an invasion. Yet that's the role of the press. If a President does lie to the country and our independent media don't call him on it, who will? The mainstream press takes a lot of crap now about covering things like the "runaway bride," the Michael Jackson trial, et. al. It's clear that in an ever more competitive--and unsubsidized--market, the media have to give the people what they want. I can overlook some pandering.
The press must also take unpopular stands and report what they find, however--not what the President's press office feeds them. It's great to see The Oregonian finally holding Bush to account for his lies and incompetence. But it's hardly a bold position, given the protection a grieving mother has afforded. The reason amateurs set up shop on blogspot is because they want to say the things the press doesn't appear to have the courage to report. The only misty scrim is the one The Oregonian is using to try to cover their impotent reportage two and a half years ago. Let's hope this editorial signals a new direction.
_______________________
scrim: (n) A transparent fabric used as a drop in the theater to create special effects of lights or atmosphere
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Aug 21, '05
Bravo, great post.
"obscured our view"--so does "our" mean the journalists at the Oregonian, or the public? Or both? They had no way to see past the lies? The lack of professional accountability is stunning. Well, sadly familiar, and pervasive--but still stunning.
Shameless self-promotion, but I've posted a Rapid Response alert on today's O. coverage over at Blog for Oregon.
Thanks for this excellent analysis!
Aug 21, '05
On ABC This Week today, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) said in a debate with George Allen "some of us said 3 years ago there were problems with this war from the beginning..." and mentioned Gen. Shinseki among other things.
The Bush folks are starting to sound like WWI--it is a noble cause, people shouldn't grieve their casualties (while they don't urge anyone in their family or social circle to enlist).
2:37 p.m.
Aug 21, '05
Another press question that has been running through my brain since Cindy Sheehan said that she would like to ask Bush why he hasn't asked his daughters to go in the service is; after three years, why has the press never asked him that question? I realize that he doesn't allow many unscripted interviews, but he has had several over the years, but as far as I know he has never been asked the question or a dozen variants on this theme.
Has he had a conversation with them about military service? If they said they were interested, how would he answer? When the mail came to them from the military recruiters that goes to all high school grads and college grads did they see it? Did W. or Laura throw it away? Did they have a conversation about it? As the father of kids in high school or college I know that they get lots of recruiting mail. Every family in the country has a conversation in some form on the subject. What happened in the Bush family?
Aug 21, '05
"why has the press never asked him that question?" What "press"? Are you talking about the stenographers' pool in the White House - aka the White House press corps?
5:35 p.m.
Aug 21, '05
John Stewart had a bit about the twins joining. He said, "Oh right, because we're actually trying to win this thing." Funny stuff.
Aug 21, '05
I helped cover the White House as a producer for CNN/Washington when 41 was running things.
Not all that proud of it, looking back.
The post above, by Bill Bodden, could not be truer had Chris Matthews written it himself.
MSM is really "Lapdog Media".
I know. I was part of it.
Woof!
6:11 p.m.
Aug 21, '05
John,
Do you really want that kind of question? Why? What would it accomplish? Isn't it just the kind of "gotcha" moment that Michael Dukakis had to endure in 1988? What would we gain from the answer?
Bush should be asked a lot of questions about Iraq, but asking him about his daughters is not one of them.
Aug 21, '05
Bush would actually probably squirm more (as would Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc) if asked to comment on what Chuck Hagel said today on ABC, esp. "Some of us said 3 years ago what was wrong with the way this Administration was running this war", quoting Shinseki, etc. After all, Hagel is a Republican--hard to call him a flamin' liberal.
Aug 21, '05
Before we get on the Hagel-is-a-great-guy bandwagon, remember he voted for this war in October 2002. Like Hillary, Kerry, Biden, etc. Hagel is following the polls which means he will always go with the mob. No profiles in courage here.
9:02 p.m.
Aug 21, '05
I remain a pacifist, but I forgive the lapses our leaders had following 9/11. Some of them (perhaps foolishly) imagined that war conducted under the stars and stripes would take into account the lessons learned in Vietnam, would be guided by--rather than trying to guide--CIA and State Department intelligence, and would have a clear plan of invasion, occupation, and exit. Politicians are people too, and I'm not surprised that they assume competence.
But the press is under no such illusions. While Chuck Hagel and Joe Biden might be given a pass for trusting the judgment of a sitting presdident, the press should not. It was clear from the start that this White House was going to conceal information, misdirect, and in all ways try to keep the press guessing. They damn sure weren't going to feed reporters anything in the briefing room. But that shouldn't have daunted the newspapers covering the WH--it's just their job, after all, to distrust power.
I don't even blame reporters, because it's not clear how many stories were killed, and how many reporters were called off the President's trail. I blame the owners and publishers--the same folks who pontificated Friday in the O's editorial page about WH lies. It's not really good enough now to acknowledge them.
You want a Pulitzer, report that stuff when it's happening, not 2 1/2 years later, when a bereaved mother is demanding a response.
Aug 21, '05
As I recall (and yes it was years ago) there wasn't a whole lot of difference between Kerry's speech and Hagel's speech on the war (Vietnam vet deciding to come down on the side of the war resolution but with an "I'll be watching how the troops are treated" warning.
Why those who went after Kerry didn't go after Hagel always surprised me. If the war is still a mess and he runs for president (whatever else he has in his background is secondary in this regard)we are going to have some interesting times because he is younger than McCain and I don't think he'd be as polite as McCain was when attacked.
8:25 a.m.
Aug 22, '05
Yes I know that the press has not done their job. That was my point. However, at least for the past year the question about the daughters has become so obvious that I expect it will be asked soon.
Paul, the issue is not a gotcha question, it goes to the heart of why we are there and why we are fighting. War is one thing in the abstract and very different when personal. This has been the problem with the Bushies from the begining. None of the ardent proponents of this war in the administration ever experienced it themselves (Powell went along, but did not push it internally), nor did their families. I was told recently that when President Johnson's son in laws went to Vietnam, it affected his thinking on the war. As for Hagel, he like the other Vietnam vets in the Senate, has been critical of the way this war has been run and more vocally skeptical than most Senators about the White House and Pentagon pronouncements.
Aug 22, '05
I just want to join the "amen chorus." Very thorough, very good post, Mr. Alworth. Though I have to agree with the dissenters on the "Bush daughter" question. That's the essence of silly politics crammed into one question. That this was never an existential war, even on the narrow terms of a response to al Qaeda, was clear from the start. 9/11 requires a very patient, almost excruciatingly long-term response. While I'm not a pacifist and believe this situation demanded the use of force, it's crucial that we have leaders who truly believe in force as a last resort.
11:31 a.m.
Aug 22, '05
John,
I don't think personalizing the issue in that way will get us anything. Bush has a scripted response that will satisfy no one. And, as Jeff A and Jeff B and LT point out, there are far more policy relevant squirmers that the press could ask.
If you're concerned that the "Bushies" don't have previous military experience, you'd better face the reality of an all-volunteer military. There has been a dramatic decline in military experience among policy makers and politicians of all partisan stripes. The Bush White House has no monopoly on non-military experience (my impressions at least when I was more involved in this research a few years ago was that the Clinton administration was worse, both in the lack of military experience among top policy makers and its willingness to consider the use of the military for new types of missions).
Your intuition is correct, by the way: lack of prior military experience makes policy makers more likely to support the use of military force and more aggressive in their use of the military for non-traditional purposes (e.g. "nation building", peace keeping, guaranteeing the safe transport of medical and food supplies, etc). (The nightmare scenario most commonly cited by military types is the US involvement in Somalia.) Folks in the Pentagon aren't the war mongers--it's the policy makers in the White House and Congress (from both parties).
There is a rapidly developing literature on the subject. But the implications are what is interesting. What is the solution? Reinstitute the draft? Require national service?
The lit if you are interested:
Feaver and Gelpi book on casualty sensitivity. Bianco article on vet experience among members of Congress.
11:31 a.m.
Aug 22, '05
John,
I don't think personalizing the issue in that way will get us anything. Bush has a scripted response that will satisfy no one. And, as Jeff A and Jeff B and LT point out, there are far more policy relevant squirmers that the press could ask.
If you're concerned that the "Bushies" don't have previous military experience, you'd better face the reality of an all-volunteer military. There has been a dramatic decline in military experience among policy makers and politicians of all partisan stripes. The Bush White House has no monopoly on non-military experience (my impressions at least when I was more involved in this research a few years ago was that the Clinton administration was worse, both in the lack of military experience among top policy makers and its willingness to consider the use of the military for new types of missions).
Your intuition is correct, by the way: lack of prior military experience makes policy makers more likely to support the use of military force and more aggressive in their use of the military for non-traditional purposes (e.g. "nation building", peace keeping, guaranteeing the safe transport of medical and food supplies, etc). (The nightmare scenario most commonly cited by military types is the US involvement in Somalia.) Folks in the Pentagon aren't the war mongers--it's the policy makers in the White House and Congress (from both parties).
There is a rapidly developing literature on the subject. But the implications are what is interesting. What is the solution? Reinstitute the draft? Require national service?
The lit if you are interested:
Feaver and Gelpi book on casualty sensitivity. Bianco article on vet experience among members of Congress.
11:40 a.m.
Aug 22, '05
CNN did a story this weekend, very similar to the one in the Oregonian. As Atrios points out it's a change from "stupid CIA is trying to stop Bush from going to war" to "poor Bush misled by an evil CIA intent on going to war", but having watched it, I thought that there were a few good points made......
Frustrating isn't it?
Aug 22, '05
I think this group might find it interesting to read the sorts of emails circulating amongst right-wingers these days. I got this one this morning - it's kind of reminiscent of a kid who gets caught doing something wrong and points his finger at another kid and says, "well, he did it, too!" Then, of course, you have to recognize the spin. Still, it's an interesting look at how the right keeps their base loyal. Here's the email:
Things that make you think a little........
1 There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city..........about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam "conflict" in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick killing a woman.
Aug 22, '05
The key question for the United States is no longer Cindy Sheehan's "why did my son die for?" but "what is to be done now?" With rising U.S. casualties, an emboldened insurgency, American credibility in tatters and no end in sight, any plan forward must define what, at this late date, can be said to constitute "success" in Iraq and whether or not success so defined is still be possible. If not, and if American defeat is inevitable, we should cut our losses begin to withdraw now.
Salvaging Iraq, I believe, will be difficult, but not impossible. To win back the confidence both of the American people and the international community, we must be frank about past mistakes. More importantly, to have any hope of "winning" in Iraq, the United States must be crystal clear about the conflict's objectives and brutally honest about the sacrifices required. Short of that, the American effort in Iraq is doomed - it will only be a question of when.
Here, then, is Perrspectives' 10-Point Plan for Iraq:
For the details, see:
"What Is to Be Done: A 10-Point Plan for Iraq."
Aug 23, '05
It was a typo; it meant "misdeeds, crime." This is so funny: Some liar made up a letter to public employees -- our workers -- in Washington County about a totally false character doing make-believe things which, if it wasn't a lie to begin with, would perhaps warrant looking up the law on the subject. Which the liar already had looked up, and knew -- knew enough and fully that it makes his false representation malicious and insubordinating to working civil servants.
Taking it honestly, the targetted public employee responded responsibly and promptly to the defrauding letter.
So the little liar took his prize to Chief Liars Larson, who then (8/23/noon) spends a $10,000-hour of Paul Allen airtime harrassing and berating the Manager of public employee, at Manager's publicly-paid duties and desk, interrupted and delayed, while Liars tried to get him to: a.) fire the public employee, b.) stop providing medical care in emergency situations, c.) pledge allegiance to Liars racism, d.) insult Cindy Sheehan, e.) vote for Atkinson, f.) work for nothing, g.) donate blood and send Liars the money, h.) confess sin, or all of the above. In the end, Liars told Manager he was free to go and reminded him Liars was stalking ... uh, watching him.
So make up a letter of lies, kids, a fictional public matter and see if you can waste several thousands of public dollars provoking a public employee through their paces -- 'just to see how they work' -- responding to your fraud from your antisocial bunker. Send it to Liars Larson.
Of course, this is only a private vigilante "sting" operation on public works. A sting. An undercover sting. It is nothing at all like setting off a false fire alarm .. just to see the fire engines show up that my tax dollars paid for. Besides, no one actually gets injured, what's the harm in it?, no blood, no foul.
See: "misdeeds, crimes." Of which misty scrims are made. It's just a phenomenon in life, there's no lesson to be learned by anyone, like crime pays or crime doesn't pay or whatever. The editorial board can only think it is a dead-end waste of time to go behind the misdeeds, crime, and ask when they and their readers have believed the lies of BusHitler for 200,000 National Guard lives and $800 billion taxpayer dollars, whether, whether not, or how foolishly how long, they could be believing other BusHitler lies for 3,000 Nine Eleven Op (n.e.o.) -conned lives and $50 billion n.e.o.-conned dollars.
No, no, there's no lesson for insight in BusHitler lying Oregonians to invade Iraq, or in Liars Larson's copycats lying Oregonians to racist civil sedition and insurrection.
<h1></h1>