Even then, I was skeptical of the rationales for the
invasion. I remember getting into heated debates with fellow students over the
war. And I will never forget how even many of the campus liberals bought, hook,
line and sinker, the bogus allegations of Iraq’s stockpiles of WMDs—how they
too, waved the American flag in favor of war. Many of those same liberals have,
in the years since the war’s start, naturally changed their tune. Some will
even claim that they too, opposed the war from the start. But I was there. I
know better.
In the ten years since the start of the Iraq War—an
illegal, unjustified invasion based entirely on lies and deliberate
fabrications of evidence—it is frustrating to watch the U.S. media repeat the
same uncritical, stenographic reporting that helped launch the war. Indeed,
recent news coverage of Iran and Syria—replete with renewed claims of both
countries’ alleged nuclear and chemical weapons—suggest the corporate media
have learned quite little.
The press’s failure to debunk—or even offer the
remotest of skepticism—to the Bush administration’s bogus war rationales has been well documented.
In fact, it was the supposedly “liberal” outlets (The New York Times, MSNBC, CBS News)
that campaigned the hardest for the war. (And yet the baseless “liberal media”
myth nonetheless persists.)
Even the celebrated Bill Moyers was reprimanded by
PBS (that’s right: the “non-commercial,” Public Broadcasting Network) for his
critical coverage in the lead-up to the invasion. And MSNBC famously pulled the plug on Phil Donahue’s popular news show when he dared to feature critics of
the impending war. As Donahue explained in a recent appearance on Democracy Now!, “I had to have two
conservatives for every liberal on the show. I could have [neoconservative Bush
consultant] Richard Perle on alone but not Dennis Kucinich.”
Now the saber-rattling media have turned their
sights on Syria and Iran.
Reports of Syria’s government using chemical weapons
on rebel fighters in the country’s ongoing civil war could lead to a more
pronounced U.S. involvement in the conflict. Speaking in Israel last month,
President Obama called the use of chemical weapons a “game changer,” according
to The New York Times (03/21/13).
With Israel now expressing concerns over Syria’s alleged chemical weapons, some
fear a broader American commitment in Syria may be on the horizon.
Anybody else feeling a sense of deja vu, here?
As with Iraq, there is reason to doubt the media’s claims
of chemical weapons in Syria—as indicated, perhaps inadvertently, by the NYT story itself. Reporters Mark Landler
and Rick Gladstone make clear two paragraphs into the front-page article:
“American officials reiterated that they did not
have independent evidence that chemical weapons had been used…”
Any logical person, after reading this sentence
would, one imagines, wonder what accounts for the article’s remaining 23
paragraphs. If there is no actual evidence of chemical weapons use, then what
is the story, here…? Well, in typical both-sides-are-valid-facts-be-damned, “objective”
reporting, the story is that Israeli government officials, despite the complete
lack of tangible, verifiable evidence, nonetheless
contend Syria possesses chemical weapons.
The report goes on:
“Two senior Israeli officials, speaking on the
condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak, said that
Israel was sure that chemicals were used, but did not have details about what
type of weapons were used, where they came from, when they were deployed, or by
whom.”
Well, that pretty much satisfies the five reporting “W”s.
What is most curious about these anonymous “senior Israeli officials,” is their
remarks seem to contradict those of Israeli cabinet ministers, Tzipi Livni and
Yuval Steinetz. The story notes how both leaders have taken to the airwaves
recently, claiming to have “credible evidence” of Syria’s use of chemical
weapons.
“Ms. Livni, the new Israeli justice minister, said
in an interview with CNN, ‘It’s clear for us here in Israel that it’s [chemical
weapons] being used,’ adding, ‘This, I believe, should be on the table in the
discussions.’”
This sort of “he-said-she-said” reporting
essentially leaves it up to the reader to decide what the truth is. Regardless,
it is pretty clear which side is really gunning for a U.S. invasion, here.
Israel already launched an air attack on Syria earlier this year. According to
Jason Ditz of Antiwar.com (03/17/2013),
Israel’s government is
keen to move from the air strikes against Syria to a more full-scale offensive,
with the possibility of seizing more Syrian territory as a “buffer zone” being
raised, even though Israel already took a buffer zone in 1973 and never gave it
back.
It is worth reminding readers of Israel’s role in
pressuring the Bush administration to invade Iraq—an often overlooked aspect to
the run-up to the war. In fact, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even wrote an
op-ed for The Wall Street Journal in
September, 2002 titled, “The Case for Toppling Saddam.”
As for the U.S. and Israel’s next potential target,
Iran, again the media seems determined to repeat the mistakes of Iraq. Despite
what you may have heard on mainstream television news, there is actually zero
evidence that Iran is currently developing a nuclear weapon. Last year,
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta publicly admitted as much. The Israeli
newspaper, Haaretz even conceded the
lack of evidence in a 2012 story. The article states: “The intelligence
assessment Israeli officials will present later this week… indicates that Iran
has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb” (01/18/2012). And a 2011 report
issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) offered the same
conclusions.
Have the U.S. media learned nothing from the last
ten years? Sad to say, but drumming up support for unnecessary, immoral and
illegal wars seems to be one of the few things the corporate media can be
counted on for.
No comments:
Post a Comment