portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article global

media criticism


THOUGH MANY had anticipated a cakewalk for the media in undermining the war on terrorism, instead liberals are caught in a quagmire of good news about the war. Predictions that liberals would have an easy time embarrassing President Bush have met unexpected resistance. They're still looking for the bad news they said was there.
It's been a tough few weeks all around for the anti-war crowd. Three weeks ago, the London Telegraph reported that documents had been discovered in Baghdad linking Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden. Hussein and bin Laden had a working relationship as far back as 1998, based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. As we go to print, it's Day Twenty-Four of the New York Times' refusal to mention these documents.

Government documents have also been found in Iraq showing that a leading anti-war spokesman in Britain, Member of Parliament George Galloway, was in Saddam Hussein's pay. Scott Ritter, former U.N. arms inspector turned peacenik turned suspected pederast, immediately defended Galloway in a column in the London Guardian. With any luck, Tariq Aziz will now step in to defend Ritter.

At least Tariq Aziz knows he lost the war. American liberals are still hoping for a comeback. But the war was so successful, they don't have any arguments left. They can't even sound busy. In their usual parody of patriotism, liberals are masters of the long-winded statement that amounts to nothing. They can't go on TV and say nothing. But all they have are some broken figurines to complain about.

They said chemical weapons would be used against our troops. That didn't happen. They predicted huge civilian casualties. That didn't happen. They said Americans would turn against the war as our troops came home in body bags. That didn't happen. They warned of a mammoth terrorist attack in America if we invaded Iraq. That didn't happen. Just two weeks ago, they claimed American troops were caught in another Vietnam quagmire. That didn't happen.

Now the biggest mishap liberals can seize on is that some figurines from an Iraqi museum were broken - a relief to college students everywhere who have ever been forced to gaze upon Mesopotamian pottery. We're not talking about Rodins here. So the Iraqis looted. Oh well. Wars are messy. Liberalism is part of a religious disorder that demands a belief that life is controllable.

At least we finally got liberals on the record against looting. It seems the looting in Iraq compared unfavorably with the "rebellion" in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict. When "rebels" in Los Angeles began looting, liberals said it was a sign of frustration - they were poor and hungry. As someone noted at the time, apparently they were thirsty as well, since they hit a lot of liquor stores. Meanwhile, the Iraqis were pretty careful about targeting the precise source of their oppression. Their looting concentrated on Saddam's palace, official government buildings - and the French cultural center.

However many precious pots were stolen, it has to be said: The Iraqi people behaved considerably better than the French did after Americans liberated Paris. Thousands of Frenchmen were killed by other Frenchmen on allegations of collaboration with the Nazis. Subsequent scholarship has shown that charges of "collaboration" were often nothing more than a settling of personal grudges and family feuds. This was made simple by the fact that so many Frenchmen really did collaborate with the Nazis. The French didn't seem to resent the Nazi occupation very much. Nazi occupation is their default position. They began squirming only after Americans came in and imposed democracy on them.

Despondent over the success of the war in Iraq, liberals tried to cheer themselves up with the politics of personal destruction - their second favorite hobby after defending Saddam Hussein. Responding to the question of whether the Supreme Court should hold sodomy to be a fundamental constitutional right, Republican Sen. Rick Santorum made the blindingly obvious point that a general right to engage in consensual sex would logically include adultery, polygamy and any number of sex acts prohibited by the states.

For the limited purpose of attacking Santorum, liberals agreed to stipulate that adultery is bad. After spending all of 1998 ferociously defending adultery as something "everyone" does and "everyone" lies about, liberals claimed to be shocked to the core that anyone would compare homosexuality to such a morally black sin as adultery. (While we're in a sensitive mood, how about the name "the DIXIE Chicks"? Isn't that name provocative to African-Americans?)

When you get liberals to come out against both looting and adultery in the same week, you know the left is in a state of total disarray. They shouldn't feel so bad. Their boys put up a good fight in Iraq for 17 days.
Im am so tired 22.May.2003 06:50


having obtuse minded people using the terms such as conservative and liberal in order to achive some kind of rationale for peoples behavior....i understand, at times, the need for sweeping generalizations in order to make a point, but you really begin to undermind the capacity of humans when you attempt such a narrow and micro focused "understanding" of we are as species....tho this may seem a bit too exitstential perhaps this is what we need to do---wake up and figure out that it goes much deeper than just some fucked political spectrum---arielle

hey ann... 22.May.2003 07:19

this thing here

where's them tons of WMD's?

where's the free, independent, and democtratic iraqi government?

where's the destruction of al-qaeda?

where the reduction or wiping out of terrorism?

yes? where's all the big, big promises ann...

and 22.May.2003 07:31


the only thing thats fucking humiliating is that people like you vote and are actually considered to have some sense of what realities billions of people are currently living in---which judging by your ability to write and construct a half-truth---you are no where near that thresh-hold.....

Pot calling Kettle black 22.May.2003 07:37


" ---which judging by your ability to write and construct a half-truth---you are no where near that thresh-hold..... "

Ability to write?? Would you recognize such a thing if you saw it??

bah humbug 22.May.2003 07:57

Proud Antiwar protester

Hmmm......how about the 5-10,000 Iraqi civilians killed....Is that a problem?

How about the entire justification for the war being to get those WMDs? Where are they?

Iraq sheltering Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists? The US harbored Mohomed Atta and the 18 others for years....maybe someone should bomb the hell out of us? Oh wait, the Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq were based in part of the country run by our 'allies,' the Kurds.

How about cholera and typhoid outbreaks? The war has been over for six weeks and a substantial portion of the population has no clean drinking water and the hospitals have been looted so treatment is near impossible.......

How about the Kurds emptying Arab villages of their populations? How about US troops firing on civilians even after the war ended, including several cases of firing into crowds of peaceful protesters? How about armed clashes between Kurds and Arabs in Mosul this past weekend?

How about the threat of an Islamic fundamentalist government?

Why did we have enough troops to defend oil installations but not libraries, museums, water treatment plants, hospitals, government office buildings? How about the war crimes indictment of Tommy Franks et al in Belgium?

Seems like there are lots of niggling little problems that were predicted. (BTW, the word niggling has no relationship to that other N word so dont accuse me of being racist).

Peace, y'all.

the list of lies grows 22.May.2003 08:03

jest thinkin'

Quick responses to the list of lies.

>>They said chemical weapons would be used against our troops. That didn't happen.
Actually, it was the war-mongers who, using falsified data and plagarised reports, who claimed weapons of mass destruction in enormous quantities were aimed at America. No chemical or any other weapons have been found. That was the reason Bush gave for the war, remember, Ann?

>>They predicted huge civilian casualties. That didn't happen.
4000 dead civilians is plenty. 4000 dead civilians is huge. 4000 dead civilians is a war crime, a crime against humanity, an outrage, a fucking Satanic sacrifice only a truly evil, inhuman Devil-worshipper could claim was no big deal. What if one of those 4000 was your child, Ann, your mother, or your lover?

>>They said Americans would turn against the war as our troops came home in body bags. That didn't happen.
Americans, that is real Americans, are against this imperialistic, murderous war, which both shames and endangers America.

They warned of a mammoth terrorist attack in America if we invaded Iraq. That didn't happen.
>> Yet. But there have been mammoth terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, killing Americans, and in Morocco. We are closing embassies, and pulling our troops out of Saudi. And there is that orange terror alert thing, one step below complete martial law.

Just two weeks ago, they claimed American troops were caught in another Vietnam quagmire. That didn't happen.
>> Just this morning, American troops engaged in a firefight, small arms and RPGs, in Fallujah. 8 American soldiers have died in the last week. No plans have been made to pull the troops out yet. The occupation continues to cost American taxpayers over 1 billion dollars a month. Sound like a quagmire to me, Ann.

I vote this author as a new part of the true Axis of evil.

Who ME? 22.May.2003 08:32


Personally I don't feel humililiated at all.What I do feel is outrage that the US government is still invading the country of Iraq and still in the killing mode.Because of "our" foreign policies and "our" arrogant attitudes the government of this country is placing all of our lives in danger by creating such hatred towards the American people that we "need" orange alerts.I am outraged that in this country cops are given an unconditional license to kill innocent men,women and children and then are found not guility by impostures of freedom called the grand juries.We need to be tuned into our own surroundings and decide we are not going to take this government's bullshit anymore.We need to reclaim our civil liberties and freedoms that this government has taken from us and which in part we have handed over to them.We need to take responsibility for what we have allowed to happen.We need to take action now.

latest update on Iraqi civilian death toll...on mainstream media 22.May.2003 08:34


The latest numbers on mainstream media is 10000. That's 10000 women and children dead in Iraq paid by your tax dollars and mine.

Humiliating....is the fact that democracy and weapons of mass destruction have yet to be found in Iraq. Yet, people like Ann still don't get it. Mainstream media can report this stuff and people like Ann still don't get it.

It's humiliating to live in a country where...
- The government spends 100+ billion dollars on a war to end terrorism.
- Even more humiliating is the notion that we're at orange alert and terrorism is still happening with as much, if not more, frequency than before the U.S. invasion into Iraq.
- People don't remember the history of fascism. Ann, I urge you to do some research. If you have a thinking mind, you might start to feel differently about the sweep of nationalism gripping the U.S. If you don't start feeling uncomfortable about all those US flags flying all over the place, perhaps you should be looking for your dog Toto and change your name to Dorothy.
- Police can violate the Bill of Rights over and over again by illegally siezing property (perhaps even Ann's property one day when she isn't looking), unjustly incarcerating people like we did in the days of McCarthy, and killing unarmed citizens (Kendra James) without any retribution.
- The government gives large sums of money to Israel and endorses the Israel government's attempt to put Palestinians into what amounts to the concentration camps of Hitler's era.
- and there's so much more...

Yes indeed. Humiliating is a good word for how it feels to be a U.S. citizen these days and it has little to do with marching in anti-war demonstrations. If I can get rid of my Boston accent, perhaps I can say I'm from Canada eh?

Ms. Guided 22.May.2003 08:49

A Merry Con

Poor deluded Ann. We should pity her.

Humiliated? No... 22.May.2003 09:07


Am I humiliated because my government once again bombed the crap out of a defenseless country?

No. I am ashamed of my country.

It's easy to hit those who can't hit back. It's easy to take candy from a baby. And that candy sure looked good to Cheney and his pals.
It must be nice to be a despot with the world's strongest army at your command.

A great example of doublethink 22.May.2003 09:10

jaded masses

does anyone remember the day "the war started" When the Resident made the anouncement that there was chatter about iraqi's giving orders to use the wmd's .. that was what pulled the trigger... what ever happened to the wmd's that they were odered to use... . how did the public become amnesiacs so quickly ???? wait it's the press they control the past and the future , and the present., the mental coup

I'd say we've been vindicated 22.May.2003 10:44

Lt. Slothrop

I thought the invasion far worse than the alleged pundits assured us it would go, and the occupation is a fiasco. Cholera, firefights, the rising crime, chaos, drug trade, and anti-Americanism in Iraq are hardly causes for jubilation.

It must be nice just to see the world in terms of Fox propaganda, Ann...

Compost 22.May.2003 10:47


Why are we allowing Ann Coulter's columns to be republished here? She gets plenty of air time all over, including on yahoo news. Trash this.

Re-writing History 22.May.2003 10:50

A Merry Con

From today (May 22)

WASHINGTON - (Bush is given the Byrd)

Sen. Robert Byrd accused the Bush administration of using "false premises" to get Americans to accept what he said was an illegal and unprovoked attack on Saddam Hussein's government. "It appears to this senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing international law, under false premises," Byrd said.

"There is ample evidence that the horrific events of Sept. 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, who masterminded the Sept. 11th attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not."

He accused the administration of brushing aside revelations that seemed to refute its case against Saddam. "Instead of addressing the contradictory evidence, the White House deftly changes the subject," he said. "No weapons of mass destruction have yet turned up, but we are told that they will in time."

He said the administration's talk of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the war "has become more than embarrassing."

"It has raised serious questions about prevarication and the reckless use of power," he said. "Were our troops needlessly put at risk? Were countless Iraqi civilians killed and maimed when war was not really necessary? Was the American public deliberately misled? Was the world?"


"It was widely known before the conflict began that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, as was determined by the United Nations," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said. "In fact, we have already found at least two mobile labs" suspected of being capable of producing biological weapons, she said.




It's a good "humiliation"... 22.May.2003 13:12

I. Protest

I don't know that anyone should feel humiliated by some of the worst worst-case scenarios not coming to pass in war where our leaders can stand and proudly say the don't know what happens next, and were suprised by this that and the other. If that's humilation, it's being served on everyone's plate.

What would have been humiliating in reality, is if this had gone on and I'd said nothing or done nothing to express my disagreement. Then I'd have to suffer the humilation of hearing from my conscience that I was a silent partner in it this revolting, barbaric farce -- or even worse, an active accomplice, if I'd been cheering it on and beating pacifistic little old ladies about the head and shoulders with the Almighty Flag.

In spite of all that's been leveled against us to silence dissent, we stood up and said, "THIS IS WRONG". Humiliated? I hope we're all plenty proud of ourselves. We should be...

Maybe Ann Could Help Shrub With Some Answers 22.May.2003 14:23

Ann Coulter Grasping at Straws of MASS DESTRUCTION

Throughout the buildup to the Iraq war, Dennis J. Kucinich led Congressional
antiwar forces and stood firm in asking the tough questions of the Bush
administration. He is still asking them. Indeed, he stands above the other
presidential candidates in demanding answers.

Yesterday, Kucinich took to the House floor to again challenge the
Administration's deceptions on Iraq:

"This Administration led this nation into a war based on a pretext that Iraq
was an imminent threat, which it was not. The Secretary of State presented
pictures to the world he said were proof. Today, despite having total control
in Iraq, none of the very serious claims that the Administration made to this
Congress, to this nation, and to the world have been substantiated.

"Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Indeed, what was the basis for the
war? We spend $400 billion for defense. Will we spend a minute to defend truth?
The American people gave up their health care, education and veterans benefits
to pay for this war. And for what? Answer the questions, Mr. President."

The Washington Post: The War Isn't Over 22.May.2003 15:04

Hard to Say

The War Isn't Over

By Jim Hoagland
Thursday, May 22, 2003; Page A35

Saddam Hussein is alive and well and inside Iraq in the minds of his most dedicated followers.

In the dictator's name, they have launched guerrilla attacks on U.S. forces and aid shipments. They have reorganized into secret cells. They draw strength from the reluctance of the Bush administration to run a full-scale military occupation to deal with the jarring reality that the Second Gulf War is not yet over.

The swift U.S. battlefield victory over an Iraqi army that melted away is now being described by administration insiders as a "catastrophic success." As the phrase suggests, the speed of the Iraqi collapse helped create an appalling aftermath, in which a capable and compact U.S. war-fighting force has not been able to establish a credible pacification program.

That description is accurate -- as far as it goes. Getting more U.S. troops into Iraq and on city streets will help. But resolving the problems of postwar Iraq will require the Bush administration to cross a psychological Rubicon. It will have to admit that it has not yet destroyed the Baathist network that brutalized Iraqis for three decades and that continues to terrify them. President Bush will have to concentrate urgently on a task that too many Americans believe he has already accomplished.

Whether Hussein is actually alive and hiding or dead and gone is still debated within the administration. At least one of two bombing attacks aimed at him on the basis of CIA-supplied information did bodily harm to the dictator, non-agency sources say. But one official adds: "Having killed Saddam off twice in their reports, the agency may not have been as meticulous in picking up signs that he actually survived as you would have wanted."

U.S. intelligence initially tended to portray a wave of postwar attacks on coalition forces and civil disturbances as ad hoc, spontaneous events. But on May 16 a secret CIA memorandum pulled together a number of incidents involving former leaders in Hussein's Baathist Party and analyzed them in the same way that many Iraqis see them: as an organized, systematic guerrilla campaign to drive out U.S. forces.

That analytical delay compounded the problems created by the failure of the administration to train and deploy with the invasion force enough U.S. civil affairs officers and Iraqi exiles to act as guides and interpreters. This prewar political decision -- not to put exile forces on a par with renegade Baathist politicians and generals whom the CIA expected to be able to install in power -- has undermined postwar operations.

"The Iraqis saw that we were not prepared to be ruthless in dealing with their jailers and killers, who were reorganizing before their eyes. So, many of the people who could have helped us kept their heads down," said one senior U.S. official. "It is hard to blame them. Threats that Saddam will come back can be dismissed easily in Washington, but not if you live in Baghdad."

Another senior Bush aide would acknowledge only that "there may have been too much desire on our part not to look like an occupation force. We are meeting that problem by reconfiguring our military units there."

But the war is not over, as even the CIA now reports: Ex-Baathists declared the formation of a new national secret movement on May 1. In Mosul on May 12, the Iraqi Vanguard Organization established a network of cells for northern Iraq. The agency has also turned up evidence of a Baathist plot to force a halt to aid shipments by attacking Western and Iraqi relief workers. And so it goes.

The United States must now dedicate itself to a larger and more aggressive effort to root out the Baathist remnants as part of a military occupation that cannot be conducted on the cheap or the quick. The stronger the effort now, the shorter the time of occupation may eventually be.

This will require the White House to work more closely than it has with Congress, which must be involved in designing and funding a large effective occupation force. Sen. Richard Lugar's Foreign Relations Committee is the place to start that effort.

And in Iraq, the Bush team must now put into place a political process that transfers authority and responsibility to democratic Iraqi hands. That must be done sooner rather than later, and with a new clarity and discipline. Infighting continues: No sooner had Bush's new envoy, Paul Bremer, banned prominent Baathists from holding office than a State Department officer in Baghdad labeled his move "fascistic" to her colleagues. That's no way to run an occupation.

2003 The Washington Post Company

Ann 22.May.2003 18:49


Ann is a fiction writer, and mentally ill.

DOCUMENTS proving there were WMD? 24.May.2003 17:16


Well, uh, gee, I remember A LOT of documents "proving" WMD were paraded before the UN. All of which proved to be fake or from some silly college kid writing a thesis on what might be happening.....years ago.

The US found DOCUMENTS in Iraq proving a connection between Osama and Saddam and that there were TONS of WMD in Iraq. Oh, that would be REALLY hard to plant. And really hard to take out of context by removing other papers.

What I do know is.......no WMD were found. US military inspectors, totally exasperated, packed up and left Iraq recently.

The only documents that should be revealed to the world are the ones showing the US support of Saddam in the 80's. Specifically.....identifying all the chemicals, weapons, money and intelligence we gave to ensure Saddam reined supreme in the Iran-Iraq war.