you know, ever since the media got duped by Vietnam they have antagonized the government consisently. And when the entire culture of media can't intuitively sense the change occuring in Iraq (which, fair to say, they've missed the mark on the change with their "get Bush" pathology instilled at birth...o.k. maybe not birth... journalism school)

what good are they?

It's not Vietnam. Every journalist watches "l the President's Men" every night with a bottle of vaseline and a box of Kleenex.

Not much to say about it, except that it went better than expected. Several Dems got hung out to dry because they made pre-election quips in the anticipation of disaster. They are paying for it now.

The administration, and Republicans in general, will get a slight boost from the positive coverage. Which really doesn't make a lot of sense, becuase the success or failure of mass elections does not vindicate the war itself -- especially if you're one to believe that governments have no right pre-emptively invading soveriegn nations, all the while costing billions of dollars and countless lives. But the politics side of public policy rarely does.

Originally posted by The Omega Concern
you know, ever since the media got duped by Vietnam they have antagonized the government consisently. And when the entire culture of media can't intuitively sense the change occuring in Iraq (which, fair to say, they've missed the mark on the change with their "get Bush" pathology instilled at birth...o.k. maybe not birth... journalism school)

what good are they?

The media said election day would be bloody because the government said it would be. How have they missed the mark? I also don't see the "get Bush" pathology your describing, then again I don't watch local or nightly news. Care to give some examples (that arn't editorials)?

Originally posted by dreamsofdali


The media said election day would be bloody because the government said it would be. Link? Who specifically in "the government"? Or was it every elected and appointed official speaking at once, in unison?

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Link? Who specifically in "the government"? Or was it every elected and appointed official speaking at once, in unison?

Oh, sorry:

"In the face of assassination, brutal violence and calculated intimidation, Iraqis continue to prepare for the elections and to campaign for their candidates," -george bush
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.radio/

"The terrorists will stop at nothing to try to disrupt this election, yet, in the face of intimidation, the Iraqi people are standing firm,"- White House spokesman Claire Buchan
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1107049789289_24/?hub=World

U.S. warns of possible 'spectacular' attack
-Air Force Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-01-07-iraq_x.htm

There are tons of other articles but I think you get the point.....Plus, if the government didn't think there was going to be some "spectacular" attack then why did they order a curfew and such heavy security?

originally posted by dreamsofdali:

Care to give some examples (that arn't editorials)


Sure. Every time I read the front page of a paper I see the pathology. Here's a classic example of an article from today's front page of the San Jose Mercury News:

Low Sunni turnout fuels fears of Iraq strife

By TOM LASSETER

Knight Ridder Newspapers


BAGHDAD, Iraq - With the first phase of ballot counting in Iraq finished, concerns were growing Monday that many of the country's Sunni Muslims may not have voted, raising the possibility that the election could aggravate the rift between Iraq's Sunni minority and a Shiite Muslim majority that appears poised to take power.



I put in italics the word "could". The use of the word puts the paragraph in question, which, since this is the first paragraph of the article, immediately puts into question the legitimacy of the whole report.


A bit later in the article, he mentions that the Sunni's did not vote in large numbers and "That could provide new fuel for the mostly Sunni insurgency."

or it could not, if say, we kill all of them before they kill some of us.

but, that would be rooting for a side. Which, from the article in question, I'll be damned if he isn't pulling for the insurgents a bit.

If it represents huge turnouts among the Shiite and Kurdish populations - which together make up 80 percent of the nation - and a paltry showing by the Sunnis, trouble may follow.

But trouble may not follow. Mr. Lasseter here should not use such guesswork in a report. What do you think this armchair Nostrodamus wants to see? I got my ideas.

Here's the rest of it, tell me what you think:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/10781211.htm?1c



so...the relativist came in the wave of Marxist and Commies who blanketed the education system and the courts since the 50's...couple generational cycles later, and this Lasseter guy and thousands like him are ill-equipped to deeply think through the historical importance of the events of Iraq and instead choose to view the process with an overly cynical view from their instinctual reflex to distrust the government and in particular Republicans (since Nixon).

They just continually play "gotcha" all the time with the military mistakes and fail to see the entire canvas of the history that is being made. They suck. seriously. Once I came to this enlightment I dont really need to sift it out anymore...and yet, one glance at a bottom of the fold front page report from a Newspaper today and I see the anti-U.S. pathos just keeps on trucking.

Originally posted by carter

The administration, and Republicans in general, will get a slight boost from the positive coverage. Which really doesn't make a lot of sense, becuase the success or failure of mass elections does not vindicate the war itself -- especially if you're one to believe that governments have no right pre-emptively invading soveriegn nations, all the while costing billions of dollars and countless lives. But the politics side of public policy rarely does.

yeah, pretty much.

Originally posted by The Omega Concern

They just continually play "gotcha" all the time with the military mistakes and fail to see the entire canvas of the history that is being made. They suck. seriously. Once I came to this enlightment I dont really need to sift it out anymore...and yet, one glance at a bottom of the fold front page report from a Newspaper today and I see the anti-U.S. pathos just keeps on trucking.

the canvas of history that is being made: USA is going bankrupt trying to nationbuild and feed corporate interests, dollar sliding continually as deficits run out of control, losing its position as the single leading superpower in the world within 10 years to the EU.

Originally posted by The Omega Concern
Sure. Every time I read the front page of a paper I see the pathology. Here's a classic example of an article from today's front page of the San Jose Mercury News:

First, your link sent me to an application page, I have to pay to view the article. Now on to the tidbits you put in your response.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - With the first phase of ballot counting in Iraq finished, concerns were growing Monday that many of the country's Sunni Muslims may not have voted, raising the possibility that the election could aggravate the rift between Iraq's Sunni minority and a Shiite Muslim majority that appears poised to take power.

How is this obvious Bush doctrine bashing? It is a legitimate concern that the Sunni minority might be pissed about the vote...they are, after all, the ones causing all the trouble now. There is a rift between the Sunnis and Shiites, and the vote could aggravate that rift. They did bomb some polling places after all. This is hardly an example of "Marxist" and "Commie" thinking.

Do you think it's that far fetched that the Sunnis might be pissed about the election? Do you think that some Sunnis might even go so far as to blow some crap up? They promised to kill whoever voted. I still don't see how this is Bush bashing in the media.....It's reporting news, most of which has been given to us by our own government or the presidents own advisors.

Here's what the chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Brent Scowcroft, had to say about the issue:

Iraqi elections "have the great potential for deepening the conflict and that divisions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims are likely to be increased."

Where do these media hippies get this crap from?! Sorry but I'm going to need more than some reporter using the word "could" properly.

Too be honest I wouldn't really consider this a real election. Until the U.S. leaves Iraq I don't think any election in Iraq will be seen as fully legimite.

If Iraq gets to a point where they can run, administer an non-corrupt election on their own without U.S. or foriegn influence then that I would consider more of a legite election.

Remember the Soviets had "elections" in Afghanistan too when they occupided it.

Hell, the Ukranian elections weren't even legit

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Hell, the Ukranian elections weren't even legit The recall was - that's why Putin's boys didn't win.

Originally posted by sppunk
The recall was - that's why Putin's boys didn't win. Now who's being naive?

If Iraq gets to a point where they can run, administer an non-corrupt election on their own without U.S. or foriegn influence then that I would consider more of a legite election.

In regards to corrupt elections, let's not forget the good ol' US of A.

damnit i had this whole reply written up a few hours ago that i tried to post but then the server went down and it must have gotten lost.



point of it was, holding elections is the easiest part of a liberal democracy. the Iraqis have a whole political culture to change before it can really work. They seem willing to give it shot though right now, I just hope they realize it takes more than a vote.

Originally posted by ryan patrick


yeah, pretty much.

Originally posted by The Omega Concern

I put in italics the word "could". The use of the word puts the paragraph in question, which, since this is the first paragraph of the article, immediately puts into question the legitimacy of the whole report.


A bit later in the article, he mentions that the Sunni's did not vote in large numbers and "That could provide new fuel for the mostly Sunni insurgency."

or it could not, if say, we kill all of them before they kill some of us.

Oh come on, that's it? Someone states the possibility of something occurring in the future, and the fact that it may *not* happen is an indication of intense bias? The whole point is that it's a real possibility, a concern voiced by many experts on the situation given the current climate and activities, and a sense of history which you seem to think everyone is missing. I mean, if someone says 'continued war efforts could further weaken the economy' is that Bush bashing because hey, the economy could be strengthened if the US invades Switzerland and steals all their sweet sweet gold?

You know, arguing for the sake of it is fun and all, but when it's just attempts to find anything at all (no matter how tenuous) to support some partisan agenda it's hard to take anything else you say seriously

Originally posted by DeviousJ

Oh come on, that's it? Someone states the possibility of something occurring in the future, and the fact that it may *not* happen is an indication of intense bias? The whole point is that it's a real possibility, a concern voiced by many experts on the situation given the current climate and activities, and a sense of history which you seem to think everyone is missing.
Then why not write an article on the real possibility that the elections were a good thing for the Iraqi people? Why come off the heels of such a step forward with talk of how its going to fail?

The problem is that no one can step back for even a moment and say that things might be better than they've been guessing. I went back and read some of this Lasseter person's articles, and he was predicting doom and gloom all the way up to the election. Then the election happens, relatively without incident, and all he can spit out is something to the effect of "This can be called a US victory I suppose, but maybe the insurgents are just waiting for better targets." Its never just plain "Today was a good day." There's always a "but". (Except on the bad days.)

I have no problem with people pointing out bumps on the road ahead. Thats good journalism. But you've got to question all this reservation on the behalf of the media to stop for a moment and say "This was a good thing that happened." Instead, they just move on to dwelling on the next disaster they foresee. It makes you wonder if they're more concerned about reporting what actually happens...or being proven right in their negativity.

Originally posted by Corganist
I have no problem with people pointing out bumps on the road ahead. Thats good journalism. But you've got to question all this reservation on the behalf of the media to stop for a moment and say "This was a good thing that happened." Instead, they just move on to dwelling on the next disaster they foresee. It makes you wonder if they're more concerned about reporting what actually happens...or being proven right in their negativity.

The whole thing's been a clusterfuck from start to finish, beginning with all the threats towards Saddam and ending with voting taking place under threat of attacks on civilians by armed insurgents (their own countrymen) who oppose the elections. Given the current climate, it would be fairly unrealistic to paint a picture of sunshine and rainbows without mentioning how things went with the election, and that there is likely to be further trouble ahead as a result. This isn't fixed, there's still a huge amount of work to be done if the country is to be united, and this election is not a magic wand which will make everybody happy. Look at Afghanistan, and how well democracy took root there. If experts are saying 'X could very well happen' then what's wrong with reporting this fact, to keep people informed?

Any decent journalism is able to point out both sides of the situation, allowing people to stay informed as to the possibilities of what may arise as a result. This article, for example (www.bugmenot.com for all your 'I don't want to register' needs) , says:


Homam al Hamoodi, an official with the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite group that's expected to do well in the elections, said he didn't foresee any major sectarian difficulties ahead.

"We don't think that there will be problems with the Sunni people because of low participation in the elections," he said. "We have plans to inc<hi>lude the Sunnis in the coming government ... because we believe that the political structure of Iraq will not be completed unless all the spectrums are inc<hey>luded"

Well there's another side, right? That guy sounds pretty positive about the whole thing. Or are we going to get into an argument about the structuring of the article and the order these things are mentioned?

Originally posted by DeviousJ


The whole thing's been a clusterfuck from start to finish, beginning with all the threats towards Saddam and ending with voting taking place under threat of attacks on civilians by armed insurgents (their own countrymen) who oppose the elections. Given the current climate, it would be fairly unrealistic to paint a picture of sunshine and rainbows without mentioning how things went with the election, and that there is likely to be further trouble ahead as a result. This isn't fixed, there's still a huge amount of work to be done if the country is to be united, and this election is not a magic wand which will make everybody happy. Look at Afghanistan, and how well democracy took root there. If experts are saying 'X could very well happen' then what's wrong with reporting this fact, to keep people informed?
I'm not advocating that somehow the bad news get shoveled under the rug. All I want is a little bit of balance. You never see many stories that use positive news to balance out bad news. (ie. '12 soldiers killed in firefight, but a school was opened in ____'), but you always hear about negative news to balance the positive ('Elections held in Iraq, but the Sunnis might be mad'). Why can't there be as many stories that are mostly positive as there are mostly negative?

Maybe there just aren't as many good things going on in Iraq as there are bad, and that's the reason the coverage seems so skewed. But even when great things like the elections happen, there's always this veil of pessimism that you have to get through. What does it take for people to at least admit that there may be a silver lining to all this stuff? The way things have been going with the post-election coverage, it almost seems like a weatherman who's given the wrong prediction. "Well folks, those storms we predicted didn't materialize today...but it was partly cloudy, and it probably will rain at some point in time, so keep your umbrellas handy."

A bit of election-propaganda framework from Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman’s Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of Mass Media:

“The U.S. government has employed a number of devices in its sponsored elections to put them in a favorable light. It has also had an identifiable agenda of issues that it wants stressed, as well as others it wants ignored or downplayed. Central to demonstration-election management has been the manipulation of symbols and agenda to give the favored election a positive image. The sponsor government tries to associate the election with the happy word “democracy” and the military regime it backs with support of the elections (and hence democracy). It emphasizes what a wonderful thing it is to be able to hold any election at all under conditions of internal conflict, and it makes it appear a moral triumph that the army has agreed to support the election (albeit reluctantly) and abide by its results.

“The refusal of the rebel opposition to participate in the election is portrayed as a rejection of democracy and proof of its antidemocratic tendencies, although the very plan of the election involves the rebels’ exclusion from the ballot. The sponsor government also seizes upon any rebel statements urging nonparticipation or threatening to disrupt the election. These are used to transform the election into a dramatic struggle between, on the one side, the “born-again” democratic army and the people struggling to vote for “peace,” and, on the other, the rebels opposing democracy, peace, and the right to vote. Thus the dramatic denouement of the election is voter turnout, which measures the ability of the forces of democracy and peace (the army) to overcome rebel threats.”

And further down…

“Another issue off the government agenda is the purpose of the election. If its role is to influence the home population, spelling this out might arouse suspicions concerning its authenticity. In the case of the Vietnam election of 1967 and the El Salvador elections of 1982 and 1984, the purpose of the elections was not merely to placate the home public but also to mislead them on the ends sought. In both instances it was intimated that an election would contribute to a peaceable resolution to the conflict, whereas the intent was to clear the ground for intensified warfare. Nobody who proposed a peace option could appear as a serious candidate at all in El Salvador in either 1982 or 1984, although the polls and reporters kept saying that peace was the primary concern of the electorate. This highlights both the fraudulence of these elections and the urgency that the intentions of the sponsor be kept under wraps.”

I think you can make some connections between what Chomsky and Herman are saying about elections when this book was written and the Iraq election.

i have no partisan agenda.

never once do any of these reporters speculate what scenario of reality we would be in had Saddam been left alone.

I suppose they don't because all signs signaled he was going to become a threat again and everyone agreed on that (i.e. We would have had to remove him at some point).

so for any of them to continue to only state what worst case scenario's may or may not develop going foreward is a bias unto itself...generally speaking, they've been pretty damn negative on the election but morever the media's entire focus of the neo-cons middle east agenda.

The NEO-CONS biggest mistake:

thinking Islam might fold like Russian communism. I recall quite clearly that no one, NO ONE, during the fall of the The Wall in Berlin and soon after the implosion of the U.S.S.R. ever suspected such things could manifest...

IN Fact, I recall the media generally painting Reagan as completely lost and whose saber-rattling posture against Communism was going to lead us all to hell.

Maybe Bush the Christain believed Islam may go that way as well...I mean, it could.

Guess that makes me a reporter.

Originally posted by DeviousJ
it would be fairly unrealistic to paint a picture of sunshine and rainbows
http://www.artshole.co.uk/arts/artists/Gautam%20Narang/six-rainbow-turban-copy.jpg
Iraq is a land of diversity

lol.



we're so fucked. Bush is totally bought out but you will never get me to believe we'd be in 'safer' times had either Al Gore or Kerry beat him.

Originally posted by The Omega Concern
but you will never get me to believe we'd be in 'safer' times had either Al Gore or Kerry beat him.

If you ever realize you arent safer with Bush in office, that would be enough.

Originally posted by Future Boy


If you ever realize you arent safer with Bush in office, that would be enough. IMO there wouldn't be much difference.

Yeah, thats...what I said. Or meant to, I guess.

Men like this teach 18-22 year-olds around the western world...and they have tenure (probably why this guy is like this).

...

By Keith Coffman

BOULDER, Colo. (Reuters) - A University of Colorado professor under fire for comparing World Trade Center victims to a Nazi war criminal on Tuesday refused to apologize for his remarks.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050209/2005-02-09T065017Z_01_N09331273_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-LIFE-UNIVERSITY-DC.html

Perhaps I spoke too soon? Here is Chomsky's current impression of the Iraq election. I still think elements from Manufacturing Consent are applicable.

Iraq's Election
Posted by Noam Chomsky at 12:40 PM

In many respects, the elections were successful. The main success, however, is being mentioned only marginally, by a few reporters: the US was compelled to allow them to take place.

That is a real triumph of non-violent resistance, for which Sistani has been the symbol. The US sought in every possible way to avoid elections, but has been compelled to back down, step-by-step. First, it tried to ram through a US-written constitution. That was barred by a Sistani fatwa. Then it tried to impose one or another device (caucuses, etc.) that could be controlled completely. Also blocked by non-violent resistance. It continued until finally the US (and UK, trailing obediently behind) had no recourse but to allow an election—and of course, the doctrinal system went into high gear to present it as a US initiative, once it could no longer be avoided. The US also sought to undermine it as much as possible, e.g., by driving independent media out of the country (notably al-Jazeera, the most important), by ensuring that its own candidates, particularly Allawi, would be the only ones to have access to state resources to reach the public (most candidates had to remain unidentified), etc. But the US-UK couldn’t block the elections, greatly to the distress of Washington and London. The question now is whether they can be compelled to accept the outcome. There’s little doubt, even from the more serious mainstream press as well as from polls and from properly hawkish experts (like Anthony Cordesman) that people voted with the hope that it would end the occupation. Blair announced at once, loud and clear, that the prospect is not even being contemplated, clearly articulating his usual contempt for democracy.

Washington also announced that the US military forces would stay at least into 2007, whatever Iraqis want. The more serious press, like the Wall St Journal, is reporting that the US is attempting to secure some kind of agreement on a “vague promise” to withdraw eventually.

Other issues will be whether the US can pressure the elected officials to keep to the occupation-imposed legal structure to open up the economy to US takeover. The oil minister of the interim (effectively,
US-appointed) government has already announced his intention to open up the oil industry to foreign (meaning primarily US) takeover. And so on.

There are sure to be continuing struggles over these matters, and what happens here can have a significant outcome. There will be a major effort to project the required imagery about how the “free” and “sovereign” government wants the US to keep a long-term military presence, to take over a commanding role in the economy, etc. But that’s normal, as in Indochina, Central America, etc. It’s routine, not just in the US, of course.

I don’t think comparisons to 1984 in ES [El Salvador] or 1990 in NIcaragua are very useful. In those cases, the US was eager to have an election in the hope that it would ratify Washington’s resort to violence to undermine any prospect of democracy. This case is different. Whether it will be good for the people of Iraq is, in large measure, up to us.

Originally posted by Future Boy
Yeah, thats...what I said. Or meant to, I guess. Yes, I was agreeing with you.

On another note, Noam Chomsky is not only incredibly biased, he's also mentally retarded

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Yes, I was agreeing with you.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Futureboy/doh00smiley.gif

There should be a "d'oh" smiley.

Here's a great piece on the election by Naomi Klein.

source: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0211-24.htm

Published on Friday, February 11, 2005 by The Nation

Getting the Purple Finger

by Naomi Klein


"The Iraqi people gave America the biggest 'thank you' in the best way we could have hoped for." Reading this election analysis from Betsy Hart, a columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service, I found myself thinking about my late grandmother. Half blind and a menace behind the wheel of her Chevrolet, she adamantly refused to surrender her car keys. She was convinced that everywhere she drove (flattening the house pets of Philadelphia along the way) people were waving and smiling at her. "They are so friendly!" We had to break the bad news. "They aren't waving with their whole hand, Grandma--just with their middle finger."

So it is with Betsy Hart and the other near-sighted election observers: They think the Iraqi people have finally sent America those long-awaited flowers and candies, when Iraq's voters just gave them the (purple) finger.

The election results are in: Iraqis voted overwhelmingly to throw out the US-installed government of Iyad Allawi, who refused to ask the United States to leave. A decisive majority voted for the United Iraqi Alliance; the second plank in the UIA platform calls for "a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq."

There are more single-digit messages embedded in the winning coalition's platform. Some highlights: "Adopting a social security system under which the state guarantees a job for every fit Iraqi...and offers facilities to citizens to build homes." The UIA also pledges "to write off Iraq's debts, cancel reparations and use the oil wealth for economic development projects." In short, Iraqis voted to repudiate the radical free-market policies imposed by former chief US envoy Paul Bremer and locked in by a recent agreement with the International Monetary Fund.

So will the people who got all choked up watching Iraqis flock to the polls support these democratically chosen demands? Please. "You don't set timetables," George W. Bush said four days after Iraqis voted for exactly that. Likewise, British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the elections "magnificent" but dismissed a firm timetable out of hand. The UIA's pledges to expand the public sector, keep the oil and drop the debt will likely suffer similar fates. At least if Adel Abd al-Mahdi gets his way--he's Iraq's finance minister and the man suddenly being touted as leader of Iraq's next government.

Al-Mahdi is the Bush Administration's Trojan horse in the UIA. (You didn't think they were going to put all their money on Allawi, did you?) In October he told a gathering of the American Enterprise Institute that he planned to "restructure and privatize state-owned enterprises," and in December he made another trip to Washington to unveil plans for a new oil law "very promising to the American investors." It was al-Mahdi himself who oversaw the signing of a flurry of deals with Shell, BP and ChevronTexaco in the weeks before the elections, and it is he who negotiated the recent austerity deal with the IMF. On troop withdrawal, al-Mahdi sounds nothing like his party's platform and instead appears to be channeling Dick Cheney on Fox News: "When the Americans go will depend on when our own forces are ready and on how the resistance responds after the elections." But on Sharia law, we are told, he is very close to the clerics.

Iraq's elections were delayed time and time again, while the occupation and resistance grew ever more deadly. Now it seems that two years of bloodshed, bribery and backroom arm-twisting were leading up to this: a deal in which the ayatollahs get control over the family, Texaco gets the oil, and Washington gets its enduring military bases (call it the "oil for women program"). Everyone wins except the voters, who risked their lives to cast their ballots for a very different set of policies.

But never mind that. January 30, we are told, was not about what Iraqis were voting for--it was about the fact of their voting and, more important, how their plucky courage made Americans feel about their war. Apparently, the elections' true purpose was to prove to Americans that, as George Bush put it, "the Iraqi people value their own liberty." Stunningly, this appears to come as news. Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown said the vote was "the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people." On The Daily Show, CNN's Anderson Cooper described it as "the first time we've sort of had a gauge of whether or not they're willing to sort of step forward and do stuff."

This is some tough crowd. The Shiite uprising against Saddam in 1991 was clearly not enough to convince them that Iraqis were willing to "do stuff" to be free. Nor was the demonstration of 100,000 people held one year ago demanding immediate elections, or the spontaneous local elections organized by Iraqis in the early months of the occupation--both summarily shot down by Bremer. It turns out that on American TV, the entire occupation has been one long episode of Fear Factor, in which Iraqis overcome ever-more-challenging obstacles to demonstrate the depths of their desire to win their country back. Having their cities leveled, being tortured in Abu Ghraib, getting shot at checkpoints, having their journalists censored and their water and electricity cut off--all of it was just a prelude to the ultimate endurance test: dodging bombs and bullets to get to the polling station. At last, Americans were persuaded that Iraqis really, really want to be free.

So what's the prize? An end to occupation, as the voters demanded? Don't be silly--the US government won't submit to any "artificial timetable." Jobs for everyone, as the UIA promised? You can't vote for socialist nonsense like that. No, they get Geraldo Rivera's tears ("I felt like such a sap"), Laura Bush's motherly pride ("It was so moving for the President and me to watch people come out with purple fingers") and Betsy Hart's sincere apology for ever doubting them ("Wow--do I stand corrected").

And that should be enough. Because if it weren't for the invasion, Iraqis would not even have the freedom to vote for their liberation, and then to have that vote completely ignored. And that's the real prize: the freedom to be occupied. Wow--do I stand corrected.

[i]Naomi Klein is the author of No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies (Picador) and, most recently, Fences and Windows: Dispatches From the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate (Picador).

© 2005 The Nation

Originally posted by Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein

ah, the ivory tower. comfy, isn't it?

I hear the Shiites won the election. I wonder have we spawned another Iran.

ah, the ivory tower. comfy, isn't it?

So... what are you saying?

Klein is a journalist/author

Chomsky is at MIT for linguistics... not political science...

I mean, I get the dig at Chomsky about the "ivory tower" cause all the r-wing pundits love to use that phrase... but... how does your comment add to the dialogue? :Skeptical