G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
The Right Was Wrong On Iraq. So Why Are They Still Being Taken Seriously?
By Randolph T Holhut
Created Aug 22 2007 - 9:32pm
DUMMERSTON, Vt. - It still amazes me that newspapers still publish pieces by
William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks and Thomas Friedman.
It still amazes me that people such as Fred Barnes, Rich Lowry, Michael
Barone, the Kagan brothers, Dick Morris and Joe Klein still get taken
seriously as pundits.
It still amazes me that people still think David Broder is relevant, that
Joe Lieberman is still a Democrat or that we're winning the war in Iraq.
It amazes me because the right-wing pundits who have been wrong every step
of the way for the last five years still have steady gigs. The people who
didn't drink the conservative Kool-Aid are still on the outside looking in.
I'm fairly low on the media food chain and was not privy to the high-level
discussions going on in Washington back in 2002, when the Bush
administration starting ginning up support for an invasion of Iraq.
Despite my absence from the official circles, I knew that Iraq did not have
chemical, nuclear or biological weapons - and if there still were some
chemical weapons hanging around, they were not in a usable form.
I knew that after more than a decade of economic sanctions and periodic
bombing by U.S. and U.K. warplanes, Iraq was not a threat to its neighbors,
let alone the United States.
I knew that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks and had no relationship with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
I knew that, aside from trying to seize control of Iraq's oil reserves,
there was no reason whatsoever to invade Iraq.
I knew that, far from stabilizing the Middle East, a U.S. invasion of Iraq
would be a disaster on every level.
How did I know this? Because I was reading The Nation and The Progressive
instead of The Weekly Standard or National Review. I was reading Truthout
and Common Dreams on-line instead of Town Hall or WorldNetDaily. I was
listening to the BBC or Democracy Now! instead of watching Fox News or CNN.
My editorial voice in 2002 and 2003 didn't carry as far as those of Molly
Ivins, Paul Krugman, Amy Goodman, Howard Zinn, Robert Fisk, James Carroll or
John Pilger. I wrote off their reporting and others in an effort to add my
voice to the anti-war chorus and to support their work.
Yes, we were outnumbered and outshouted by the right-wingers. We were called
traitors and un-American. In the glow of victory after the fall of Baghdad
in April 2003, the right-wingers gloated and gleefully attacked all of us
who were "wrong" about the war.
Except that we weren't.
Everything we knew and said before the invasion, came to pass. No "weapons
of mass destruction" were found. U.S. soldiers were not greeted as
liberators by wildly cheering throngs of Iraqis. The occupation turned out
to be longer and deadlier than the invasion. Iraq became a new training
ground for terrorists. The Middle East is more unstable than ever before.
Our reward for being right is continued obscurity. The left is still
marginalized and still outshouted by the right in the media. We're still
considered kooks by the so-called "respectable" people in the media.
Instead of seeing right-wingers hang their heads in shame for being utterly
and totally wrong about the war, they keep popping up on the television and
the op-ed pages, spouting off more misinformation about Iraq.
Granted, the ground has shifted considerably since 2002. Now, a majority of
Americans think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. There is considerable
support for withdrawal. President Bush's approval ratings are at historic
lows. Yet the same people who were wrong about Iraq still command an
audience and are still taken seriously.
There is no grand conspiracy behind this. The managers at most media outlets
are cautious by nature. They aren't creative and are deathly afraid of being
seen as different or out of the mainstream. The conventional wisdom is all
that matters, and in 2002, the thought that our president and all his men
would deceive our nation into a war of choice was not conventional wisdom.
The late I.F. Stone once said, "Every government is run by liars and nothing
they say should be believed." Those words should be hung on the wall of
every newsroom in America, because they have been shown to be true time and
time again.
The problem is that they aren't. Too many journalists and pundits believe
what they are told and stick with the conventional wisdom because people who
don't do so usually don't have long careers in the corporate media. So the
people who were wrong about Iraq continue to have high-profile gigs while
the people who challenged the conventional wisdom are still on the fringes
of public debate.
Now, the same people who gave us the Iraq war are trying to gin up a war
with Iran. The same arguments and the same tall tales are being trotted out
again. And the people who were called loons and traitors in 2002 are again
saying that attacking Iran would be an even bigger mistake. So, who is being
listened to? The people who were wrong about Iraq, of course.
I'm not expecting to be on any Sunday news shows any time soon. I'm not
expecting to be invited to pen an op-ed piece for The New York Times or The
Washington Post. I'm not expecting anyone beyond the few thousand people who
read this to even care about the media's track record since 9/11.
But when someone gets around to writing a history of our time, let the
record show that I didn't drink the Kool-Aid. I didn't blindly wave the flag
and support a war that was so blatantly wrong. I proudly stood with those
who didn't believe the lies and tried my best to warn others.
During the McCarthy era, the Americans who went to fight in the Spanish
Civil War - the people who opposed Franco and his German and Italian allies
in what ultimately was the dress rehearsal for World War II - were labeled
"premature anti-fascists." Even though they correctly anticipated the
dangers of fascism years before other Americans, they were considered
un-American because of their foresight.
Will we be labeled "prematurely anti-Iraq" because we correctly anticipated
the kind of disaster the U.S. invasion and occupation would be? If those
labels are being handed out, please send one my way.
_______
About author Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for
more than 25 years. He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books).
He can be reached at randyholhut@yahoo.com [1].
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Randolph T Holhut
Created Aug 22 2007 - 9:32pm
DUMMERSTON, Vt. - It still amazes me that newspapers still publish pieces by
William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks and Thomas Friedman.
It still amazes me that people such as Fred Barnes, Rich Lowry, Michael
Barone, the Kagan brothers, Dick Morris and Joe Klein still get taken
seriously as pundits.
It still amazes me that people still think David Broder is relevant, that
Joe Lieberman is still a Democrat or that we're winning the war in Iraq.
It amazes me because the right-wing pundits who have been wrong every step
of the way for the last five years still have steady gigs. The people who
didn't drink the conservative Kool-Aid are still on the outside looking in.
I'm fairly low on the media food chain and was not privy to the high-level
discussions going on in Washington back in 2002, when the Bush
administration starting ginning up support for an invasion of Iraq.
Despite my absence from the official circles, I knew that Iraq did not have
chemical, nuclear or biological weapons - and if there still were some
chemical weapons hanging around, they were not in a usable form.
I knew that after more than a decade of economic sanctions and periodic
bombing by U.S. and U.K. warplanes, Iraq was not a threat to its neighbors,
let alone the United States.
I knew that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks and had no relationship with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
I knew that, aside from trying to seize control of Iraq's oil reserves,
there was no reason whatsoever to invade Iraq.
I knew that, far from stabilizing the Middle East, a U.S. invasion of Iraq
would be a disaster on every level.
How did I know this? Because I was reading The Nation and The Progressive
instead of The Weekly Standard or National Review. I was reading Truthout
and Common Dreams on-line instead of Town Hall or WorldNetDaily. I was
listening to the BBC or Democracy Now! instead of watching Fox News or CNN.
My editorial voice in 2002 and 2003 didn't carry as far as those of Molly
Ivins, Paul Krugman, Amy Goodman, Howard Zinn, Robert Fisk, James Carroll or
John Pilger. I wrote off their reporting and others in an effort to add my
voice to the anti-war chorus and to support their work.
Yes, we were outnumbered and outshouted by the right-wingers. We were called
traitors and un-American. In the glow of victory after the fall of Baghdad
in April 2003, the right-wingers gloated and gleefully attacked all of us
who were "wrong" about the war.
Except that we weren't.
Everything we knew and said before the invasion, came to pass. No "weapons
of mass destruction" were found. U.S. soldiers were not greeted as
liberators by wildly cheering throngs of Iraqis. The occupation turned out
to be longer and deadlier than the invasion. Iraq became a new training
ground for terrorists. The Middle East is more unstable than ever before.
Our reward for being right is continued obscurity. The left is still
marginalized and still outshouted by the right in the media. We're still
considered kooks by the so-called "respectable" people in the media.
Instead of seeing right-wingers hang their heads in shame for being utterly
and totally wrong about the war, they keep popping up on the television and
the op-ed pages, spouting off more misinformation about Iraq.
Granted, the ground has shifted considerably since 2002. Now, a majority of
Americans think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. There is considerable
support for withdrawal. President Bush's approval ratings are at historic
lows. Yet the same people who were wrong about Iraq still command an
audience and are still taken seriously.
There is no grand conspiracy behind this. The managers at most media outlets
are cautious by nature. They aren't creative and are deathly afraid of being
seen as different or out of the mainstream. The conventional wisdom is all
that matters, and in 2002, the thought that our president and all his men
would deceive our nation into a war of choice was not conventional wisdom.
The late I.F. Stone once said, "Every government is run by liars and nothing
they say should be believed." Those words should be hung on the wall of
every newsroom in America, because they have been shown to be true time and
time again.
The problem is that they aren't. Too many journalists and pundits believe
what they are told and stick with the conventional wisdom because people who
don't do so usually don't have long careers in the corporate media. So the
people who were wrong about Iraq continue to have high-profile gigs while
the people who challenged the conventional wisdom are still on the fringes
of public debate.
Now, the same people who gave us the Iraq war are trying to gin up a war
with Iran. The same arguments and the same tall tales are being trotted out
again. And the people who were called loons and traitors in 2002 are again
saying that attacking Iran would be an even bigger mistake. So, who is being
listened to? The people who were wrong about Iraq, of course.
I'm not expecting to be on any Sunday news shows any time soon. I'm not
expecting to be invited to pen an op-ed piece for The New York Times or The
Washington Post. I'm not expecting anyone beyond the few thousand people who
read this to even care about the media's track record since 9/11.
But when someone gets around to writing a history of our time, let the
record show that I didn't drink the Kool-Aid. I didn't blindly wave the flag
and support a war that was so blatantly wrong. I proudly stood with those
who didn't believe the lies and tried my best to warn others.
During the McCarthy era, the Americans who went to fight in the Spanish
Civil War - the people who opposed Franco and his German and Italian allies
in what ultimately was the dress rehearsal for World War II - were labeled
"premature anti-fascists." Even though they correctly anticipated the
dangers of fascism years before other Americans, they were considered
un-American because of their foresight.
Will we be labeled "prematurely anti-Iraq" because we correctly anticipated
the kind of disaster the U.S. invasion and occupation would be? If those
labels are being handed out, please send one my way.
_______
About author Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for
more than 25 years. He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books).
He can be reached at randyholhut@yahoo.com [1].
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
