In this US video, Robert Greenwald and Steven Connell join forces to remember May 1st, 2003: George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” day.
From Associated Press:
Fox News Gives Iraq War Less Attention
By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer
NEW YORK — On a winter day when bomb blasts at an Iraqi university killed dozens and the United Nations estimated that 34,000 civilians in Iraq had died in 2006, MSNBC spent nearly nine minutes on the stories during the 1 p.m. hour.
A CNN correspondent in Iraq did a three-minute report about the bombings.
Neither story merited a mention on Fox News Channel that hour.
That wasn’t unusual.
Fox spent half as much time covering the Iraq war than MSNBC during the first three months of the year, and considerably less than CNN, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
The difference was more stark during daytime news hours than in prime-time opinion shows.
The Iraq war occupied 20 percent of CNN’s daytime news hole and 18 percent of MSNBC’s.
On Fox, the war was talked about only 6 percent of the time.
The independent think tank’s report freshens a debate over whether ideology drives news agendas, and it comes at a delicate time for Fox.
Top Democratic presidential candidates have refused to appear at debates sponsored by Fox.
Liberals find attacking Fox is a way to fire up their base.
“It illustrates the danger of cheerleading for one particular point or another because they were obviously cheerleaders for the war,” said Jon Klein, CNN U.S. president.
“When the war went badly they had to dial back coverage because it didn’t fit their preconceived story lines.”
What a contrast to the times of George W. Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished‘ propaganda on the Iraq war, when Rupert Murdoch’s media strongly supported that …
The weekly Fox network television series entitled 24 is an extreme example of this genre. Its propaganda value is revealed in story lines that promote racist stereotypes of Arab Americans and other ethnic groups. Even more politically insidious, this year’s season is replete with scenes of torture administered to various suspected terrorists or their associates by US government operatives: here.
Fox against feminism: here.
Dear Kitty. Some blog 
The US plans permanent military bases in Iraq, confirming to many
that it really was all about oil
Patrick Seale
Saturday June 9, 2007
The Guardian
Almost unnoticed, the war in Iraq entered a new phase last week.
Laconic statements from the White House and the Pentagon confirmed
what had long been suspected – the US is planning a long-term
military presence in Iraq. This is a geopolitical development of the
first importance. In spite of current difficulties – May was the most
lethal month for American soldiers since 2004, with 119 killed – the
United States firmly intends to maintain control of Iraq and its vast
oil reserves. Iraq’s neighbours, and energy-hungry states and oil
companies, will take note.
On a visit to Honolulu on May 31, Robert Gates, the defence
secretary, said that the United States was looking for a “long and
enduring presence”, under an arrangement with the Iraq government.
“The Korea model is one, the security relationship we have with Japan
is another,” he said. US troops have been in South Korea since the
end of the Korean war and in Japan since 1945. Last week the White
House spokesman Tony Snow confirmed that President Bush wanted a
lengthy troop presence in Iraq. “The situation in Iraq, and indeed,
the larger war on terror, are things that are going to take a long
time,” he said.
Such statements, and the planning that goes with them, make nonsense
of the current debate – in Congress, the press and the public – about
a date for withdrawal from Iraq, and whether the surge is producing
results. The administration is looking way beyond that.
What are the motives driving such long-term ambitions? The wish to
retain control of energy resources, bearing in mind potential rivals
such as China, is clearly one. If there were no oil in Iraq, the US
would not be there. Another is the ability to project US power over
the whole of the oil-rich Gulf and beyond, a vast area from central
Asia to east Africa. Other motives include confronting hostile Iran
and Syria; making up in Iraq for the loss of bases in Saudi Arabia;
and, not least, being on hand to protect Israel. Indeed, these were
the main reasons for the invasion four years ago.
Seen in this light, the US enterprise – for all the talk of democracy
– is an unmistakable neo-colonial or imperial project such as the
region suffered at the hands of Britain and France in an earlier age.
Jimmy Carter was prescient when he declared last year: “There are
people in Washington … who never intend to withdraw military forces
from Iraq … the reason that we went into Iraq was to establish a
permanent military base in the Gulf region.”
Are these ambitions realistic? Or will they simply pile up problems
for the US’s already deplorable relations with much of the Arab and
Muslim world? General Anthony Zinni, formerly in charge at US central
command, has described permanent bases as “a stupid idea and clearly
politically unacceptable. It would damage our image in the region
where people would decide that this was our original intent.”
As early as 2004, Jessica Mathews, the president of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, in Washington, said permanent
bases would reinforce Iraqi suspicions that the US launched the war
to get a hand on Iraqi oil, with a puppet government in Baghdad.
Yet the building of US military bases in Iraq continues apace, at a
cost of over $1bn a year. Shortly after the invasion, the US
established 110 bases in Iraq. The present plan appears to
consolidate these into 14 “enduring bases” in Iraqi Kurdistan, at
Baghdad airport, in Anbar province, and in the southern approaches to
Baghdad. This does not point to an early US disengagement. And nor
does the construction of a US embassy able to house 1,000 staff on a
100-acre site on the banks of the Tigris – the biggest US embassy in
the world.
· Patrick Seale is the author of The Struggle for Syria
LikeLike
Hillary Clinton Shuns Fox Debates, But Pockets Murdochs’ Money
Posted by: “G. Myrick” garymyrick@sbcglobal.net garymyrick
Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:12 pm (PST)
I have to say that, to the extent that ANY political candidate, be they Democrat or Republican (and Republicans are drastically WORSE), is “disingenuous” about their funding or it’s sources, they have my approbation. It concerns me very deeply about WHO or WHAT they will actually represent. Hillary worries me very deeply in that area – and so does any other candidate who shows signs of serving financial interests to the detriment of transparency.
Rupert Murdoch has built his very evil empire by lining the pockets of whatever candidate he judged to have the best chances. That tactic enabled him to even win very damaging, important concessions from Britain’s Tony Blair and the Clinton administration. Now, it’s Hillary’s turn (and, to a lesser degree, Obama’s and Edwards’).
It all underscores what is REALLY wrong with our whole blasted system: It’s been BOUGHT. Our most basic hope for actually restoring government of, by and for the PEOPLE is to VOTE for and financially support those who are the most interested in doing something about that and representing US.
Like many, I have not decided which Democrat I will be voting for, but that is the elephant in the room. It is an ISSUE. We will not get our democracy back until it is addressed.
———————————————————-
Hillary Clinton Shuns Fox Debates, But Pockets Murdochs’ Money
by Thomas B. Edsall
Huffington Post
July 16, 2007
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards may not want to participate in debates sponsored by FOX News, but they like taking cash from officials of the company considered an arm of the conservative movement by many liberal Democrats.
In April, Edwards led the charge in refusing to participate in a Fox-sponsored debate. His deputy campaign manager, Jonathan Prince, told AP: “We believe there’s just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they’re objective.”
Within days, Clinton followed suit. Unlike Edwards, Clinton did not directly attack Fox in announcing her decision.
“We’re going to participate in the D.N.C. [Democratic National Committee]-sanctioned debates only. We’ve previously committed to participating in the South Carolina and Tavis Smiley debates,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said. The Fox debate was not DNC-approved.
Obama joined in with Clinton. Bill Burton, Obama’s spokesman, said a CNN-sponsored debate would be a more “appropriate venue.”
But in her most recent filing at the FEC, Hillary Clinton reported two large donations from the very top of the Fox corporate structure.
On June 5, Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the News Corporation, gave her presidential bid $2,300. A few weeks later, his son, James R. Murdoch, chief executive of British Sky Broadcasting in London, gave $3,400. Altogether, NewsCorp/Fox executives gave at least $40,000 to the Clinton campaign.
In July 2006, the elder Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for Clinton’s Senate re-election campaign, raising many eyebrows among Democrats. The Financial Times, which first disclosed the event, noted that Murdoch was a part of the “vast right wing conspiracy” named by Hillary Clinton as determined to destroy her husband’s presidency.
She explained her willingness then to accept Murdoch’s support to the FT: “He’s my constituent and I’m very gratified that he thinks I’m doing a good job.”
Asked about the Murdoch contributions to Clinton’s presidential bid, Howard Wolfson, director of communications, said he had no comment.
Obama has taken more $14,000 from NewsCorp/Fox executives, although none came from the Murdochs themselves. In the broad network of NewsCorp/Fox holdings, with many Hollywood and entertainment entities, there are a substantial number of Democrats on the payroll.
Obama’s contributions from NewsCorp/Fox executives included $2,300 each from Daniel Fawcett and Donna Isaacson; $1,000 each from Carla Hacken and Jospeh Hartwick; and a number of donations from other NewsCorp/Fox officials and employees. No comment from the campaign was immediately available.
Edwards received substantially less than Clinton or Obama. His contributions from NewsCorp/Fox executives Louis Supowitz, Jonathan Sarrow, Sean A. Riley, and Jonathan Sarrow total just under $1,000. There was no immediate comment from the Edwards campaign.
———————————————————-
Read this at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/16/hillary-clinton-shuns-fox_n_56495.html
LikeLike
Pingback: The Iraq war, more blood for more expensive oil | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Murdoch’s Fox News discriminates against women | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Michael Ignatieff says I was wrong to support the Iraq war | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: George W Bush godfather of ISIS, United States general says | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: After Murdoch-Blair quarrel, Murdoch-Trump quarrel | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Donald Trump-Rupert Murdoch media update | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Murdoch’s Fox News Ailes’ warmongering and sexual abuse | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Murdoch’s Fox News, another sexual harassment scandal | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: The worse the Iraq war gets, the less US media attention | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Bernie Sanders about the USA | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Iraqi refugee’s play against Iraq occupation | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News sexual harassment again | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Fox censors anti war remark by actress Sally Field | Dear Kitty. Some blog