posted on December 26, 2005 12:57:56 PM
by Molly Ivins
FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2005, AND THEREAFTER
AUSTIN, Texas -- It is clear we will need to practice hard on our credulity in the future just to get a grasp on how dumbfounding the entire Iraq War is. We need credulity up to the Wonderland White Queen's standards, believing as many as six impossible things before breakfast every day -- practice, practice, practice.
For starters, we find the Pentagon investigating itself over the secret military practice of paying to plant news stories in Iraqi papers. Now, since it's a secret practice, I don't know if the Pentagon will be able to find out much, but the way it works is U.S. military personnel, also known as soldiers, write "news" stories full of reassuring news.
National Public Radio reports that stories are filled with hyperbole and pro-U.S. rhetoric. One story written by the military and obtained by NPR dated Nov. 22 says military leaders are succeeding in stopping terrorists. It continues, "They have proven this as quiet slowly begins again to settle on the streets of western Iraq. " At the time, insurgents were staging over 700 attacks per week -- up from 150 a week the previous year.
That this might not be the shrewdest move ever seems to have occurred to some. Retired Rear Adm. Stephen Pietropaoli, who was head of the navy's public affairs department, told NPR, "When people find out that what they've been peddled isn't what they thought it was, they tend to take a dim view of every other thing that that government says."
The stories written by the U.S. military are then handed over to a defense contractor called the Lincoln Group, run by young Republican political operatives. They, in turn, pay local Iraqi newspapers and television stations to run the stories.
In an attempt to justify this, former Army spokesman Charles Krohn told NPR: "I don't think there's any need for secrecy, but I think it's pretty well understood that it's the custom in that country to pay journalists and to pay newspapers. And certainly, I think the record that Saddam has done this and others do it is pretty well established."
Isn't it nice that we're following in Saddam's footsteps? The problem is one of credibility, in a nutshell. Bruce McCall has performed a great public service in the New Yorker by imagining headlines for U.S.-created stories in the Baghdad Daily Bugle:
"26 million Iraqis Unhurt in Latest Terror Blast."
"Few Changes Needed to Turn Abu Ghraib Into an Applebee's."
"Voting Machines in Upcoming Elections Donated by Florida."
"New Automatic Citizenship Law Turns U.S. forces Into Crack Iraqi Army Overnight."
This should immediately fire your imagination so that you, too, begin spinning off ideas for terrific stories about how well things are going in Iraq. Haven't the conservatives been saying all along what we needed was the media to report the good, dandy, better, best news from Iraq? Turns out we've actually been paying for it, and look what a difference it has made: "Good News Stories Stop 750 Attacks a Day!"
If you still can't think of any good news to create, study the recent work of the American news media, particularly cable TV, on the subject of the Iraqi elections. Just like Charlie Brown and the football, they fall for it every time. Those heroic purple thumbs, "70 percent of Iraqis Vote." How would anyone know? Well, there were long lines. There were long lines in Ohio last year, too. It meant there weren't enough polling places. Does anyone know what the Iraqis were voting for? Does three separate little statelets seem a likely answer? (Some analysts actually think this may be the optimum outcome.)
Meanwhile, we are further tested by the president's improbable proclamation that he has the right to ignore the laws and Constitution of this country because he is a wartime president. Actually, that's a real problem. We can't declare war because we haven't been attacked by any government, territory or military. The War on Terrorism is like those other odd wars on nouns -- the wars on drugs, the war on cancer, etc.
Dick Cheney, it turns out, has been fretting about this since the Nixon administration, when we used to talk about the imperial presidency. Trouble is, none of the administration's actions have ever been discussed -- Bush and Cheney just usurped the authority.
If Bush were a different kind of president, they might have gotten away with it right after 9-11. People were genuinely frightened, and there's always that old fantasy that somehow Daddy Will Take Care of Us If We Do Exactly What He Tells Us to Do.
But George W. Bush is not a daddy president, he's the Testy Kid -- Mr. Snippy. Every question is lese-majeste to the Snappy Prince, and a follow-up question is outright treason. He sees no reason why he should answer to us.
Attention Americans: We have, under the Constitution, a strong executive, noticeably more so than in other democracies. The whole history of the struggle for freedom is about how to curb and balance the powers of the executive.
The United States of America has over 200 years of experience with these questions, and you know what? George W. Bush is not the smartest guy to come along in over 200 years. Be cautious. Be very cautious. Do not endorse authoritarianism out of knee-jerk partisan impulse -- this shoe will be on the other foot eventually.
To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
posted on December 26, 2005 05:41:13 PM
Molly who? "“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on December 26, 2005 11:54:29 PM
For the not-so-literate:
""""The best way to get the sons of bit---- is to make people laugh at them." Molly Ivins
Mary Tyler Ivins was born in Monterey, California and grew up in Houston, Texas. She graduated from Smith College in 1966, from Columbia School of Journalism and studied for one year at the Institute of Political Sciences in Paris.
She began her newspaper career with the Houston Chronicle and then moved to the Minneapolis Tribune where she became the city’s first female police reporter. Returning to her home state as co-editor of the Texas Observer, she concentrated on politics and social justice issues. In 1976 Ivins became a political reporter for the New York Times, working first in New York then in Albany and, for three years, covering nine mountain states as Rocky Mountain Bureau Chief. She returned to Texas in 1982 as a columnist for the now-defunct Dallas Times-Herald and then, for nine years, with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. In 2001 Molly Ivins became an independent journalist.
Her awards include the William Allen White Award from the University of Kansas, the Smith Medal from her alma mater, the Ivan Allen, Jr. Prize for Progress and Service and the Pringle Prize for Washington Journalism from Columbia University. She was elected to membership in the National Academy of Arts and Sciences. Her freelance work appears in many national magazines, and she contributes essays to both the Lehrer News Hour and National Public Radio. She has written several books, most recently, Shrub; the Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush. She is an active participant in the journalism network of Amnesty International and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
To honor a journalist as a truth teller is implicitly to comment on the scarcity of courage and candor in a profession ostensibly dedicated to writing and speaking the truth. Molly Ivins is singular in her profession not only for her willingness to speak truth to power but for her use of humor to lampoon the self-seeking, the corrupt and the incompetent in positions of public trust. Her wit and insight place her squarely in the tradition of America’s great political humorists like Mark Twain."""
posted on December 26, 2005 11:57:51 PM
Bear, Duhsquirrel, ron, match your resume'
Molly Ivins
Political Columnist
Molly Ivins, best-selling author and widely syndicated political columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, says politics, particularly in Texas, is great entertainment -- "better than the zoo, better than the circus, rougher than football, and even more aesthetically satisfying than baseball."
One of the nation's wittiest and best-known political pundits, Mary Tyler Ivins, better known as Molly, was born August 30, 1944 in Monterey, Calif., but grew up in Houston.
Molly Ivins began her career in journalism as the Complaint Department of the Houston Chronicle. She rapidly worked her way up to the position of sewer editor, from whence she wrote a number of gripping articles about street closings. She next went to work for the Minneapolis Tribune, first as a police reporter and later on a beat called Movements for Social Change. She covered "militant blacks, angry
Indians, radical students, uppity women and a motley assortment of other misfits and troublemakers."
In 1970, Ivins returned to Texas as co-editor of The Texas Observer, a sprightly, muck-raking publication devoted to the coverage of Texas political and social events. Her specialty was covering the Texas Legislature, which doubtlessly accounts for her frequent fits of hysterical laughter in those years. When the Lege was not in session, Ivins roamed the state in search of truth, justice and good lead
stories for the magazine.
In 1976, Ivins joined The New York Times as a political reporter, first at City Hall and then at the statehouse in Albany. In 1977, she was named Rocky Mountain Bureau Chief, chiefly because there was no one else in the bureau. For three years, she covered nine mountain states by herself and was often tired.
In February 1982, she returned once more to Texas, which may indicate a masochistic streak, and has had plenty to write about ever since.
She is author of two best-selling books, Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She? and Nothin' But Good Times Ahead, both collections of essays on politics and journalism. She has been a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize three times and was the inner of the 1992 Headliners Award for best column in Texas.
Ivins' freelance work has appeared in Esquire, Atlantic, The Nation, Harper's, the Progressive, Mother Jones, TV Guide and numerous other publications. She is a frequent guest on network radio and television shows.
Ivins has a B.A. from Smith College, a master's in journalism from Columbia University and studied for a year at the Institute of Political Science in Paris.
She served for three years on the board of the National News Council, is active in the Amnesty International's Journalism Network and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. She writes about press issues for the American Civil Liberties Union and several journalism reviews.
She speaks both French and Spanish and has a love of the outdoors, and counts as her two greatest honors that the Minneapolis police force named its mascot pig after her and that she was once banned from the campus of Texas A&M.
Her column appears in 113 newspaper besides the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
posted on December 27, 2005 05:50:22 AM
Oh I see the lefts Anne Coulter. Now makes sense, they couldn't stand not having their own woman columnist.
Ron
"Better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not."
posted on December 27, 2005 06:58:54 AM
Yes, Ron, except Ann is was a Constitutional lawyer....with MUCH higher qualifications than their old 'molly'. Plus she's a book author whose books all made the nyt best sellers list.
Half the time their molly makes statements that just aren't factual at all.
AND most importantly to me....Ann Coulter is on OUR Nation's side....pro-American....so unlike their 'molly'.
posted on December 27, 2005 08:39:46 AM
Yes...Ann Coulter - the one that insisted Canada had troops in Vietnam helping America. Brilliant - that woman.
posted on December 27, 2005 09:00:56 AM
Yes, Anne-ho Coulter, who writing is filled with hate, NAME CALLING, and few facts.
I see the neoconjobs have avoided the OP altogether....not surprising.
Would be interesting if the neoconjobs could point out lies in Molly's column but since they believe every lie bush told them I know for a fact they can't tell what truth IS!
mingotree/crowfarm - posted on December 20, 2005 "Ya but linda, I'M the nasty atheist, scummy LIBERAL and YOU are the enlightened "christian"?? How quickly you lower yourself to my level.
posted on December 27, 2005 09:10:47 AM
LOL nerf - Perhaps you'd do better discussing that:
[the one that insisted Canada had troops in Vietnam helping America] with one of our own Canadians....kiara....who has said the same thing here on these boards.
mingotree/crowfarm - posted on December 20, 2005 "Ya but linda, I'M the nasty atheist, scummy LIBERAL and YOU are the enlightened "christian"?? How quickly you lower yourself to my level.
posted on December 27, 2005 09:41:24 AM
Last I checked, Kiara (or anyone else on these boards) isn't an icon of the Republican establishment with an audience of millions to mislead.
posted on December 27, 2005 10:04:50 AM[the one that insisted Canada had troops in Vietnam helping America] with one of our own Canadians....kiara....who has said the same thing here on these boards.
Once again, LINDAK IS A LIAR.
I never ever said that. I said that thousands from Canada volunteered to serve in Vietnam during the war. I certainly never said that Canada sent troops there.
Lindak, is there a reason why you continue to post lies about what I've said here?
You've never been able to ever post a link to back up your claims so who do you think you're trying to fool?
posted on December 27, 2005 10:23:24 AM
Oh yes you did, kiara. When we were discussing the fact that Canada didn't send troops to Iraq, but had sent them to Afghanistan....YOU also menioned, when TRYING to point out that your country DOES support the US WHEN they believe what we are doing is right....but NOT when Bush sent troops into Iraq. That is when you also mentioned Canada HAD sent troops into vietnam.
posted on December 27, 2005 10:41:30 AM
LINDAK IS A LIAR
I never ever said that Canada sent troops to Vietnam and she knows it otherwise she would post a link to back up her claims.
lindak, instead of making up complete lies about what I've posted here, I think your talents would be better spent on making a decision on what color purple hair dye will get you the most action so you can again discuss bjs with those willing to share.
posted on December 27, 2005 10:43:57 AM
Matter of FACT, kiara, you mentioned it MORE THAN ONCE....but this time you even provided a LINK PROVING your position.
Who's lying?
KIARA posted on May 30, 2004 09:18:22 AM
For Linda:
In the summer of 1968, Les Brown walked the leafy streets of Wakefield, Que., pondering a tough question: to fight in Vietnam or remain in the security of Canada. Only months earlier, he had been living in suburban Los Angeles and, like many other children of Canadians working in the United States, facing the possibility of being drafted. His mother, Joy, wanted him to stay in Canada, where he was working on a farm, but he missed his friends and returned. A year later, Brown was slogging through the jungles of Vietnam with an M-16 assault rifle.
Thousands of Canadians fought in Vietnam between 1964 and 1973, and some never returned. Those that did often still wake up in a cold sweat. "I am seeing a psychiatrist to help me work through my memories,' says Brown, 51, who now lives near Ottawa and has just published a book, There It Is: A Canadian in the Vietnam War.
Many other Canadians served willingly. Lee Hitchins, 55, and two high-school buddies in Smiths Falls, Ont, travelled to Buffalo, N.Y., in 1963 and enlisted in the U.S. navy. "The Communists were bad and we good," recalls Hitchins. In 1965, Hitchins was assigned to a destroyer off the Vietnam coast for an eight- month tour. He returned to Smiths Falls in 1972-reluctant to talk much about his experiences. "It was worse coming back to Canada," says Hitchins. "All we heard about were the draft dodgers who came up here".
Exactly how many Canadians served in Vietnam is difficult to determine. Hitchins, who is president of the Canadian Vietnam Veterans-Ottawa, estimates the number at 30,000 to 40,000. The confusion exists because Canadians drafted while they were living in the United States show up in records as Americans. But Hitchins says that, so far, [bmore than 100 dead soldiers listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington have officially been confirmed as Canadian[/b]. Their names also appear on a Canadian memorial in a park in Windsor-just across the Detroit River from the United States.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca5/canadianvietnamvets/press2.html
It was YOU kiara....that continued to say Canadians fought in Vietnam.
---------------
KIARA posted on December 27, 2005 10:04:50 AM
[the one that insisted Canada had troops in Vietnam helping America] with one of our own Canadians....kiara....who has said the same thing here on these boards.
--
Once again, LINDAK IS A LIAR.
I never ever said that. I said that thousands from Canada volunteered to serve in Vietnam during the war. I certainly never said that Canada sent troops there.
Lindak, is there a reason why you continue to post lies about what I've said here?
You've never been able to ever post a link to back up your claims so who do you think you're trying to fool?
Or are you just permanently screwed in the head?
-----------------
KIARA posted on December 27, 2005 10:41:30 AM
LINDAK IS A LIAR
I never ever said that Canada sent troops to Vietnam and she knows it otherwise she would post a link to back up her claims.
lindak, instead of making up complete lies about what I've posted here, I think your talents would be better spent on making a decision on what color purple hair dye will get you the most action so you can again discuss bjs with those willing to share.
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 27, 2005 10:49 AM ]
posted on December 27, 2005 10:57:52 AM
February 05, 2005
ANN COULTER STICKS HER ENTIRE LEG IN HER MOUTH
Ann Coulter is a loudmouth ignoramus who spouts her outrageous nationalist inaccuracies on American television with little challenge from the empty talking heads who interview her. But she finally found someone to stand up to her, in Canada--and she was exposed for the arrogant fool she is. Interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Company's Bob McKeown for the investigative TV broadcast "The Fifth Estate," which devoted an hour-long January 26 special to how U.S. media have been highjacked by conservative bullies, Coulter was berating Canada for not sending troops to Iraq when she displayed her empty-headedness in the following exchange:
Coulter: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"
McKeown interrupts: "Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam."
Coulter: "I don't think that's right."
McKeown: "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam."
Coulter (looking desperate): "Indochina?"
McKeown: "Uh no. Canada ...second World War of course. Korea. Yes. Vietnam No."
Coulter: "I think you're wrong."
McKeown: "No, took a pass on Vietnam."
Coulter: "I think you're wrong."
McKeown: "No, Australia was there, not Canada."
Coulter: "I think Canada sent troops."
McKeown: "No."
Coulter: "Well. I'll get back to you on that."
McKeown tags out in script:
"Coulter never got back to us -- but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam."
mingotree/crowfarm - posted on December 20, 2005 "Ya but linda, I'M the nasty atheist, scummy LIBERAL and YOU are the enlightened "christian"?? How quickly you lower yourself to my level
posted on December 27, 2005 11:09:07 AM
Might I just add that "The Fifth Estate" is one of the 3 or 4 best shows on television - one of the only true investigative journalism shows (i.e. NOT 60 Minutes with all of their fluff), right up there with "Frontline" and "NOW" (Before Bill Moyers left).
Anybody on any side of the political spectrum would do well to take time to watch these shows and inform themselves on what their government is doing.
posted on December 27, 2005 11:28:02 AM
lindak, there is no need to copy and paste my previous posts to this thread as I'm not about to edit anything that you in fact posted here yourself in the last month or so about hair dye and bjs.
lindak, why not post the original thread where skylite was discussing Vietnam instead of something I copied from an angelfire link about Vietnam there?
posted on December 27, 2005 11:37:49 AMlindak, why not post the original thread where skylite was discussing Vietnam instead of something I copied from an angelfire link about Vietnam there?
LOL....bother you so much that I provide a link YOU POSTED in support of YOUR position, kiara. LOL too bad. I'm just sure everyone here is going to think YOU posted that LINK yourself because you disagreed with what it said.
Is it because you realize that I never said that Canada sent troops to Vietnam because I know that they didn't?
No, I KNOW and READ your statement myself....finding the exact one isn't easy....unless your 'friend' in anti-warism, anti-Bushism and anti-Americanism, helen, would like to find it for you. I seriously doubt she'll do that though....won't want to point out you're lying again.
I believe the post of YOURS I have proved will be enough support for my true claim about your wanting to be sure I knew Canada did fight in VN.
posted on December 27, 2005 11:44:03 AM
Some can't understand the difference between "send to" and "volunteered".
linda, your idol was wrongand so are you.
Don't speak for others linda!:
"I'm just sure everyone here is going to .."
mingotree/crowfarm - posted on December 20, 2005 "Ya but linda, I'M the nasty atheist, scummy LIBERAL and YOU are the enlightened "christian"?? How quickly you lower yourself to my level.
STICKS AND STONES
The United States is in the midst of a very un-civil war. It's a war of words that's pitting conservative against liberal, that's already divided the country into red and blue. The new gladiators are commentators like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter and their forum is the television studios of networks like Fox. It's loud, it's raucous, but does it have anything to do with the truth?
Watch the video
posted on December 27, 2005 11:53:19 AM
lindak, I already posted the correct link to that discussion because it shows that I never said what you claimed I did.
....finding the exact one isn't easy
Well, duh... lindak, of course it isn't easy when it doesn't exist because it never happened.
Now I realize this may be very difficult for you but how about getting on with your day without trying to think up more lies about me?
Plus she's a book author whose books all made the nyt best sellers list.
