As Isaiah notes, Barack's soaking in it. He owns the Iraq War, it's his.
Last week, Scott Horton spoke with Antiwar.com's Jeremy Sapienza on Horton's Antiwar Radio.
Scott Horton: So let's talk about Iraq, man. Obviously, I walk around with a chip on my shoulder all day and all night over this but just this week it's driven me to the edge of sanity. After all of this, the American people have deemed the Iraq War a success and they're proud of themselves for mongering it and it's great. Well tell us about the American involvement in this because it's very interesting to me in its own silly little small or -- context that they really seem to have said, across the propaganda, it was honest at the same time it was lying, all week, last week: We're leaving 50,000 troops, war's over. They didn't lie about the 50,000 troops at all.
Jeremy Sapienza: No.
Scott Horton: Even on TV, they're like, 'Yeah, 50,000 troops, but the war's over.'
Jeremy Sapienza: Well, yeah, you just call them 'advise-and-assist' and not 'combat troops.' The same troops are holding guns. They're still walking around, they're still -- As I recently said in a piece I wrote because Wikipedia declared the war over, that just because they're redefined doesn't mean that they're not -- They may nominally being backing up Iraqi troops but, come on, who are we kidding? Iraqi troops are going to take the lead in anything?
If there was an increase in the number of people calling the Iraq War a 'success,' why would we be surprised by that? Every time the previous administration publicly sold a false link between 9-11 and Iraq, the lie was accepted by a number of people.
The people weren't the problem then and they aren't now. The problem remains the news media which, with the exception of The Associated Press, has largely accepted the administration's spin as fact and refused to question it. And any hope that our 'independent' media would step forward? Well relinquish the fantasy.
The Nation worked overtime to ignore the speech (Laura Flanders and Robert Dreyfuss were the exceptions) or else get giddy over it (John Nichols raved it was "graceful"). At The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild semi-called it out. Semi? If you're going to counter Barack's false claim that US service members always conducted themselves in an exemplary fashion in Iraq, you probably need to mention what the US government has admitted was the worst crime by US soldiers was the gang-rape of Abeer, 14-year-old Abeer, the gang-rape that began while she heard her parents and five-year-old sister murdered in the other room. The gang rape which began as a criminal conspiracy and which ended with convictions or plea agreements. Matthew Rothchild semi called it out. Semi for that reason (Abeer remains the biggest Iraq story 'independent' media never told you about) and semi because a few days of bravery and then Matty was back on the Bambi train writing two pro-Bambi pieces -- as if a War Hawk that says a few pretty words suddenly wipes away his War Crimes.
So exactly how do we expect most people to know that these statements by Barack and by Joe and by others are false? How?
When Bush falsely linked 9-11 to Iraq, it took years of 'independent' media calling the lie out before the MSM began to show some bravery.
The problem's not the people, the problem's a pathetic, 'independent' media which wants to pay lip service to Izzy Stone but doesn't have the spine to stand up to Democratic Party propaganda. That's the problem.
