How the Right Still Frames Iraq

Dear Ronald Reagan: Thanks for Wrecking America

Bill Moyers Makes Newt Gingrich Look Like an Idiot

Right's Stupidity Spreads, Enabled by Too-Polite Left

FOCUS | Madonna, Like a Man, and Hated for It

FOCUS: The Cancer in Occupy

Robert Parry writes: "President Barack Obama's instruction to 'turn the page' on the Iraq War has set off a new wave of frustration on the American Left, which believes that the architects of this war of aggression should face some accountability for the death and destruction."

An Iraqi man watches Obama's 'Turn the Page' speech in Baghdad, 09/01/10. (photo: AP)

Comments

+6 # Guest 2010-09-03 07:10

Excellent article. Reminds me of the total control exercised by the various "Ministries" in Orwell's 1984. The "right", as this article points out, really does control the context of the dialogue in this country to an increasingly greater degree as each day passes. War, taxes, religion, education, social safety net programs, immigration to name a few are all being, or have been, hijacked by a corporate controlled right wing media. I suspect MSNBC's evening lineup, whom I watch regularly, are something akin to having to provide an opponent in a sporting match. Without that opponent to play off of, the competition becomes non-existent and the "fans" lose interest. MSNBC "must" be making a profit out of this arrangement or it would have pulled the plug long ago. Their ratings consistently fail to match their right wing counterparts at Fox but both use the other for "talking points." Fascism's rise in 1930's Germany paralleled many of the aspects of modern American society. We all know the results.

+3 # Guest 2010-09-03 15:54

Their time has come. They are now making excuses for a disastrous moment in History. They sent an army, the best, they said, in the world, They conned the best military Europe had and guess what. they all were holed up in Fortress Baghdad and defeated in the field by a rag-tag Army of Iraqi insurgents. Now this same Army is being holed up and most likely will be defeated by a bunch of rag-tag sandled goatherders in Afghanistan.

The right never learn, do they?

+2 # Guest 2010-09-03 17:44

Iraq war should never have started. Bush II probably had it in his mind that Daddy backed down and should have pursued in the desert war. He definitely wanted to outdo Daddy. Royal progressions should not exist in this country. And the vice president in that realm probably didn't want Bush I to stop when he did. Had a new baby he could more solidly control.

Afghanistan had a chance to turn over Ben Laden and refused.
However the need to train Afghanistani warriors is not real. Afghanistani warriors have driven off invasions of many mighty armys. And that is why we are having such problems in Afghanistan. We are the invaders.

The Afghanistani government is a bad joke.

Margaret Park

+4 # Guest 2010-09-03 18:04

Based on George Bush’s objectives, the US lost the Iraq war on at least three counts:

He wanted Iraq’s oil. But earlier this year, China bought the right to much of it. US and western companies underbid and were hesitant to enter Iraq fearing terrorist attacks.

Bush wanted Middle East stability. But by weakening Iraq, he allowed Iran to gain power, influence and probably nuclear abilities. Plus, this war also helped motivate many more would-be terrorists.

He secretly wanted to convert Iraq to Christianity. Recall Christian missionaries were allowed to enter Iraq in mass only days after the invasion. Now, even the original Iraqi Christians are under pressure from a more fundamentalist Islamic government.

Hopefully, the US has re-learned something about greed, arrogance, misinformation and other bad reasons to go to war.

+2 # Guest 2010-09-04 00:10

Frank, I doubt the capacity of our nation to learn from its' mistakes. Our history reveals no such proclivity. I used to ask: "What would winning (so called) look like in Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter?". To my horror I have an answer. Winning in Iraq has meant destroying its' infrastructure so completely that it may take decades to rebuild; so destabilizing the region that any hope for durable peace in the middle east has been destroyed; that terrorism and rising Islamic fundamentalism is a certainty; that we have become reviled to the point that we are beyond redemption; that we toppled a tyrant at the expense of leaving the country we occupied in far worse shape than before we attacked. See? This is what "winning" looks like. We get to be the baddest sob's on earth; get to wear our arrogance like a medal; get to shield ourselves with the lie of exceptionalism; lose any capacity for shame and get to inflict our friends with DU poisoning forever. And we call it patriotism. Gotta love it!

+2 # Guest 2010-09-04 15:39

Underneath the question of whether America won or not, or if the surge was successful or not, lies the fact that the invasion was illegal. If I cause the death of a person then I will be severely punished in some way. Saddam killed people and was executed. But Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice etc, aided and abetted by Blair, Howard etc, went to war based on lies, causing the deaths of over a million people. Not one of them has been punished in any way. None has faced a court of law. On the contrary they are lionized and paid millions of dollars. Justice, anyone?

+1 # Guest 2010-09-04 19:18

"a new wave of frustration on the American Left, which believes that the architects of this war of aggression should face some accountability for the death and destruction."

Indeed they should face censure for their maladministrati on, but it won't happen--even though it should--because too many Democrats (such as Hillary Clinton) voted to allow Bush to operate his agenda undeterred by truth and reason. No one wanted to appear "soft". But that is exactly what they are.

0 # Guest 2010-09-05 12:50

Quoting

"a new wave of frustration on the American Left, which believes that the architects of this war of aggression should face some accountability for the death and destruction."

Indeed they should face censure for their maladministrati on, but it won't happen--even though it should--because too many Democrats (such as Hillary Clinton) voted to allow Bush to operate his agenda undeterred by truth and reason. No one wanted to appear "soft". But that is exactly what they are.

Very aptly put. The problem with prosecution for past crimes against the prior administration would require punishing a great number in the current administration. Still, it's too bad we can't try the whole of the establishment that caused this vicious violation of law, humanity and decency. So much for our being a city on the hill rather than a ghetto along the sewers of tyranny.

0 # Guest 2010-09-15 17:52

"Obama's realistic assessment that the balance of national political/media power still tilts sharply to the neocon and right-wing side."

Of course! There is no "liberal media" despite the hand-painted signs of the Tea Partiers. There should be, of course, but there isn't. There should be a neutral media, as there used to be.

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

rsn

Name:	*
Username:	*
E-mail:	*
Password:	*
Confirm password:	*
Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.