Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Al Franken interviewing Fiasco author perpetuates disinformation

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 01:04 PM
Original message
Al Franken interviewing Fiasco author perpetuates disinformation
I love Al and I think his show on Air America does even more for the progressive cause than he could in the Senate. But that's not why I am writing.

I heard him interview the author of Fiasco, and the guy actually said that the Bushies believed their own propaganda that Saddam was a threat.

Frankly, I am getting sick of this incompetence & ideologues angle that obscures the real reason we went into Iraq: oil.

Treating the Bushies as an aberration acting on their own let's the businesses that pushed for the war off the hook.

It is also repugnant to give these guys any credit for having the interests or welfare of other people or concern for democracy. We have seen how little they care for AMERICANS during Katrina, and how little they care for our democracy in the last three elections.

We cannot end the war unless we are honest about the causes. These guys want hegemony on Middle East oil so they can set the price and collect the profits--not for America, but for those oil companies that Bush gave the Iraq concessions to.


These guys are not ideologues as much as they are just like most congressmen, state legislators, or even schoolboard members. They provide a service to their patrons in the business community, and put an ideological bow on the pig so the rest of us approve or at least don't pay attention.

I can see why Democrats don't say this--they have some overlapping patrons with the GOP, want to, or at least fear them. I am a bit mystified why someone like Al sidesteps this issue on a regular basis and instead talks about how the war is a failure in the propaganda terms established by the Bushies.

It is like having a exorcist just about kill a schizophrenic kid, and instead of saying he needs psychiatric help, you say the exorcist didn't do his job correctly. "You can just wave the chicken leg over him, you don't have to stab him with it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. Heard the interview, too
I thought that I heard Al challenge the assertion about the administration believing Saddam had wmd. So, I think that the author, not Al, perpetuated the disinformation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. right on WMD, but omitted why they would intentionally lie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I got that it was to redesign the Middle East
At least Al pointed that out. Remember when they started talking about how the ME is so different with two wars going on and now the Turks may squelch the Kurds? But I do agree that the author was a disappointment with his buying into letting the administration off the hook about the wmd issue. Seems like there aren't many people who get the whole picture of lies and deceit. That's why losing Malloy is so difficult. He always directed his laser in ways that expanded my thinking.

Btw, I liked how Al's guest illustrated what a lying weasel Wolfowitz has been. He never takes responsibility and that needs to be recalled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. they weren't redesigning it because the colors clashed.
Yeah, Malloy, Randi Rhodes, and Janeane Garafalo are good on these issues.

When Thom Hartmann subbed for Al, he had Greg Palast on to talk about the oil machinations that drove the Iraq War--and I think that was the only time it's been discussed in Al's slot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Isn't that the truth!
I wonder if Thom was giving Al the big nudge with that choice of guest. I hope so. Al needs to quit darting in between the rain drops and get wet if that's what it takes to be honest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. that kind of dodging is merely annoying in pols but in talk show hosts....
it's just wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. What's most annoying is that I'd vote for Al if I was in MN
No matter what - because he's a Dem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-05-06 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. I would too, and he'd probably be better than average but that doesn't
excuse dodging such an important issue and for most of the war taking the "we can do better" position.

Like the Iraqis wouldn't notice we were stealing their oil and giving it to American companies if we didn't kill quite so many of them and gave them an after dinner mint when we did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-05-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Since Al goes on the USO tours, you would think he'd feel compelled...
.... to make sure he never wears blinders or sugar coats anything. The troops are owed the truth. If he can't walk that line having been there with them and then reporting back on the radio, he needs to give up any thoughts of being in elected office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freesqueeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. They're Either
delusional or deceptive. Either way, they deserve skewering.



Thank God for Al Franken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. if they were truly delusional, powerful in this country wouldn't let them
get as far as they have.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
7. Opportunists in Power
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
11. I've heard a number of reason why Bush went to war in Iraq
I don't know why he went (assuming he was the one who made the decision and not Cheney and/or Rummy).

Do you think it was Iraq's oil he was after? If so, did he intend to occupy the country or put in a puppet government? Why didn't he?

Or, did he go in to scarfe the ME so they would mind us and sell us oil. (I can buy that he wanted to scare them, but not that scaring them would result in more oil.)

I just don't see oil as the reason.

I've read Fiasco, Assassin's Gate, Cobra II. The authors make a good case it wasn't oil. What part of Fiasco's argument do you disagree with? I wonder if you are taking Palast's word for it and if so, why would you believe him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-05-06 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Palast has documentation and those who were at the meetings on film
including Grover Norquist who wrote part of the privatization plan. Jay Garner said on film that he objected to privatizing the oil and putting off elections to make that easier since it would incite an insurgency and he was fired.
.

Palast said the oil execs DID want to just replace Saddam with a different dictator, which may or may not have worked, but the Bushies wanted hegemony too--to be in a position to seize more oil and even if they didn't to coerce other countries to follow their lead on pricing--which is higher than it would probably have been if Saddam was left in power.


You can go watch the stuff yourself at his website:
http://www.gregpalast.com/iraqmeetingstimeline.html

For a more extensive background on the oil issue in the Iraq War:
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/04/on-iraq-bush-agenda-invading-world-one.html


While those reporters at the New York Times and Washington Post were calling vote rigging and black voter purges in Florida a conspiracy theory or flat out ignoring it, Greg Palast covered it and when the mainstream press finally grew a pair and did their job (six months too late in the case of the LA Times) they confirmed for American audiences what the rest of the world saw as it was happening.

Probably the only semi-mainstream American journalist with near the credibility of Palast is Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker.

Which other motives do you think would cow the Congress into spending over half a trillion dollars and starting a war that will ultimately piss off their constituents? If it was just a PR stunt as part of their bullshit war on terror, Democrats would have come out a lot sooner against it, when public opinion turned against the war. Instead, they are painfully out of step with the public. If they are ignoring their own constituents, there has to be some counterweight, something they fear more than voters, and it is not just Karl Rove.

Do you think those asswipes in the White House wouldn't put an asset worth tens of trillions of dollars at the top of their list of reasons to invade? Hasn't everything else they've done been about stuffing the pockets of their corporate friends? Why do you suppose they are so bent out of shape about Hugo Chavez mildly leftist government?


Read your history. Nearly all our military involvements have had a primary economic motive with the possible exceptions of Korea and more ambiguously, Vietnam.

Steve Kinzer wrote a great book called OVERTHROW about the governments we have overthrown since the 19th century, and every one was at the behest of some business interest and often to the detriment of the locals.

In 20 years, Americans will see that this is no different than knocking off Mossadegh for the oil companies, Arbenz for United Fruit, or the queen of Hawaii for sugar plantation owners. Or do you want to say that our government thought Hawaiians were going to come over in their outriggers and attack us with pineapples of mass destruction.

Or if you think I'm only citing lefties, read the Pulitzer Prize winning book by Daniel Yergin, THE PRIZE, a history of oil. That guy is such a far out lefty that he went to work with Papa Bush at the Carlyle Group. His book made it clear that when oil company execs call presidents and senators, they don't ask for favors, they give orders. In one of his later stories, Palast recounts how the oil companies began to get a whiff of what a shitty job the Bushies were doing of the occupation and sent their own guy over to work on oil deals who ignored and over-ruled Bremer.

Those other authors sidestep the issue and essentially deal with variations of the public argument. They simply don't address oil well if at all. They essentially take Al's tactical approach (how could we have done this better?) rather than looking at the underlying motives. And just as fighting terrorism without examining the causes will make it worse, trying to stop the war without being honest about the causes means we either won't stop it or if we do, we won't create a mechanism to prevent the next one.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC