Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
According to the Associated Press, Iraq's deadliest bombing in more than two years killed at least 155 and wounded more than 500 Sunday. Two suicide car bombs blew up almost simultaneously outside the Justice Ministry in downtown Baghdad having passed through multiple check points. At least 25 staff members of the Baghdad Provincial Council, which runs the city, are among the dead.
Security issue? Not for those watching US TV.
The deadliest coordinated attack in Iraq in two years merited no mention on the Sunday TV shows. Except for CNN, they've moved on to Afghanistan, the so-called "Right War." There, 14 Americans and three civilians were reported dead, victims of two helicopter crashes. By Monday, that was dominating the news.
Too much attention to what's actually going on in Baghdad -- 155 dead and 500 wounded and all the rest--might unsettle a very convenient consensus.
It's a security issue indeed, but the priority in US media isn't the life and death of Iraqi people; it's the security of the war consensus in Washington.
Laura Flanders is the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on satellite TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415 Free Speech TV) on cable, and online at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com. Follow GRITtv or GRITlaura on Twitter.com.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
'According to the Associated Press, Iraq's deadliest bombing in more than two years killed at least 155 and wounded more than 500 Sunday. Two suicide car bombs blew up almost simultaneously outside the Justice Ministry in downtown Baghdad having passed through multiple check points. At least 25 staff members of the Baghdad Provincial Council, which runs the city, are among the dead.'
I read Associated Press' account with disbelief - they are reporting this in the "propaganda context" that the violence has been going down for months (i.e., the surge worked).
We are in trouble. Iraq is in trouble.
Bama's Afghan surge is in trouble.
Posted by OneVote at 10/26/2009 @ 2:39pm
Nobody much cares about Iraq, now, Ms Flanders. The Left and most of the country just wants us out of there and leave it to itself.
And the Right certainly doesn't care about Iraq.
They think "Dubya won it"...so anything that happens after January 20th, high noon, 2009 is Obama's fault.
They don't really care about Afghanistan (much as they didn't during Dubya's term)...again, just a hammer against Obama.
Truth is, even they know, that should the worst happen and a Republican win in 2012....they'd pull out of Afghanistan even faster and pull a "Nixon '73" and blame the whole thing on Obama, even Bush too.
Neo-conservatism is dead...like flouridated water paranoia. Not likely to be resurrected.
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2009 @ 2:41pm
Pathetic. Same old "reasoning," same old rhetoric only slightly updated, that we heard in the 60s on Nam from the Rostow & Bundy Bros et al.
Rather notable ... strategic hamlets have now become, in McChrystal speak, gated communities.
Barack, we hardly knew you.
Posted by sloper at 10/26/2009 @ 2:42pm
FLANDERS: "......the priority in US media isn't the life and death of Iraqi people; it's the security of the war consensus in Washington."
No, it's not! You and The Nation know that the current priority is the Magic War on Fox and of course, Palin's forthcoming book.
Proof: Just look at TN's blog posts of the past few days! Multiple posts on each Hot Topic.....Fox is hot, Palin is Foxier......LOL!
Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 2:47pm
Nobody much cares about Iraq,..... And the Right certainly doesn't care about Iraq.
They think "Dubya won it"...so anything that happens after January 20th, high noon, 2009 is Obama's fault.
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2009 @ 2:41pm
You're wrong there, MASKy! The Right and all the hundreds of thousands of the American military, and contractors, that sacrificed in Iraq, along with the Coalition of the Willing, DO care about Iraq. Why? IT STILL HAS OIL which can fund anything!
Another correction, we don't "think" Bush won it, it's a historical fact.....I know, I know, another Inconvenient Truth!
Not to be cruel, you're right on the final point, if Iraq gets `lost' post Jan., `09, it will be the failure of Magic!
Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 2:54pm
Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 2:54pm
If Bush won it, Happy....then you'll have nothing to complain about as Obama gets us out of it?
Or do we have to stay there for 100 years to "keep it won"?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2009 @ 2:57pm
Hey, Ms. Flanders, check out Nichol's latest on the hot topic of......Fox War!
Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 3:02pm
....then you'll have nothing to complain about as Obama gets us out of it?
Or do we have to stay there for 100 years to "keep it won"?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2009 @ 2:57pm
It's his call! I support the CIC.......results is all I care....so long as Iraq is no worse than it was on Jan. 20th, 2009. Magic can pull out ALL troops if that's what he wants to do and is confident that Iraq, stays WON!
Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 3:21pm
Ms. Flanders, perhaps you will recall that GWB and VP Cheney both cautioned that despite the success of the 'surge', that there would always be violence in the area. Always has. Once in awhile we will read about some nutcase successfully detonating a bomb that kills and injures hundreds. We should be thankful that it is happening over there and not in Mid-town NY. That's why a similar strategy is being proposed by General McChrystal in Afghanistan. Now, if only the President could grow a pair and get up to speed, the process can begin.
Oh, and I wouldn't withdraw anymore troops from Iraq just yet either. That would be another sign of weakness, comparable to the President's current dithering and will only encourage more violence.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/26/2009 @ 3:45pm
my lord.....
SAVE FLINT!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 5:07pm
frosty, the only kind of flint gun wants to save is the flint to light his fire, what a neanderthal.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/26/2009 @ 5:19pm
Sooner or later, a new reality is going to sink in whether Washington likes it or not. We aint the superpower we thought we were.
tinyurl.com/yl27jg2
Excerpt:
"These are only a few examples of recent developments which indicate, to this author, that the day of America's global preeminence has already come to an end, years before the American intelligence community expected. It's increasingly clear that other powers -- even our closest allies -- are increasingly pursuing independent foreign policies, no matter what pressure Washington tries to bring to bear.
Of course, none of this means that, for some time to come, the U.S. won't retain the world's largest economy and, in terms of sheer destructiveness, its most potent military force. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the strategic environment in which American leaders must make critical decisions, when it comes to the nation's vital national interests, has changed dramatically since the onset of the global economic crisis...
It is too early to predict how the president's review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan will play out, but the fact that he did not immediately embrace the McChrystal plan and has allowed Biden such free rein to argue his case suggests that he may be coming to recognize the folly of expanding America's military commitments abroad at a time when its global preeminence is waning.
One senses Obama's caution in other recent moves. Although he continues to insist that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is impermissible and that the use of force to prevent this remains an option, he has clearly moved to minimize the likelihood that this option -- which would also be plagued by recalcitrant "allies" -- will ever be employed..."
That's SOME "hope and change".
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/26/2009 @ 5:24pm
Or do we have to stay there for 100 years to "keep it won"?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2009 @ 2:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So get roused up about pulling out of germany, japan, korea, and all europeon nations, you remember the one Clinton said we would be out of in a year?! Get a grip.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 5:46pm
Another correction, we don't "think" Bush won it, it's a historical fact.....I know, I know, another Inconvenient Truth!
Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 2:54pm
Thats right I remember back in May of 2003. Mission Accomplished.
If Bush won the war why did he not start withdrawing our troops? Seems logical to me that if you have won a war you should be able to bring the troops home. Futhermore, if the war has been 'won' it can't be lost later. So the only way for Obama to lose the war is if the war is not over (ie. Bush did not win it).
Posted by Extraneous at 10/26/2009 @ 5:56pm
If Bush won the war why did he not start withdrawing our troops? Seems logical to me that if you have won a war you should be able to bring the troops home. Futhermore, if the war has been 'won' it can't be lost later. So the only way for Obama to lose the war is if the war is not over (ie. Bush did not win it).
Posted by Extraneous at 10/26/2009 @ 5:56pm
I'll answer that after you tell us why we stayed in Japan, Germany, Korea......still there in fact....ANOTHER Inconvenient Truth, ain't it?
Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 6:32pm
I'll answer that after you tell us why we stayed in Japan, Germany, Korea......still there in fact....ANOTHER Inconvenient Truth, ain't it?
Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 6:32pm
Not really. There is a logic to keep some forces in the country, there are a number of reasons to do so. But after winning in Germany or Japan, the VAST majority of our troops came home. Excluding Korea of course, but you realize that ended in a ceasefire, not a victory.
Now you tell me how many service men and women were lost to continuing hostilities after we won in Japan and Germany? For primer we have lost 130 US Service men and women and 580 wounded THIS YEAR in Iraq. Or is that an Inconvenient truth?
Posted by Extraneous at 10/26/2009 @ 7:31pm
For primer we have lost 130 US Service men and women and 580 wounded THIS YEAR in Iraq. Or is that an Inconvenient truth?
Posted by Extraneous at 10/26/2009 @ 7:31pm
We lose more than that every year in training exercises right here at home.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 7:52pm
There is a logic to keep some forces in the country, there are a number of reasons to do so. But after winning in Germany or Japan, the VAST majority of our troops came home.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/26/2009 @ 7:31pm
You are aware that NOT all our deployed soldiers at the end of WWII were physically in Germany or Japan, right? In fact, other than a few outlying islands, we never had a J-Day for Japan.
Now that you've admitted "there are a number of reasons to do so" to maintain a military presence, then perhaps, you can think of some for the same in Iraq?
I'll give you a big one: Iraq has some nasty neighbors who like to meddle even more than us since, hey, they live in the neighborhood....they also like oil, you think?
Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 8:46pm
We lose more than that every year in training exercises right here at home.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 7:52pm
hooray!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 9:43pm
sarcasm, larry.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 9:43pm
We lose more than that every year in training exercises right here at home.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 7:52pm
hooray!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 9:43pm
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election for Lord Mayor of Dublin, 1790. (Speeches. Dublin, 1808.)
Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 11:11pm
How many troops have we lost in Germany in the past 60 years to "Nazi insurgents"!??!?!??
I mean, if it's "just like that" in Iraq???
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 07:12am
comparisons between WW2 and the Iraq debacle are specious.
Germany and Japan were both economic and military giants, something that cannot be said of Iraq, a fifth rate military, already defeated, on their knees so to speak, no air force, etc.
the reason we kept troops in Germany was not because the Germans, but because of the soviets.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/27/2009 @ 07:55am
I'll answer that after you tell us why we stayed in Japan, Germany, Korea......still there in fact....ANOTHER Inconvenient Truth, ain't it?
Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 6:32pm
So, HAPPY would be HAPPY to have govt price controls, rationing of fuel, metal and other goods needed to fight the wars in the M.E.?
I mean really, if this is JUST LIKE WWII, why no sacrifice on the home front?
I have to assume that Larry was also comfortable with those govt controls in the 30's and 40's as it was instrumental in defeating the Axis?
Brings to mind another "hoax"... Rumsfeld telling us about the "wolf" brigades hunting down US servicemen post VE Day, and how Iraq was just like that...in 2003, right when the war in Iraq was won, for the first time.
I wonder how many time the war in Iraq has been "won"?
A little tip for GUNSLINGER (who claims the right does not stick to their guns and god!), weakness is torturing innocent people to make you "feel" safer, weakness is invading a tin pot toothless dictator to make you "feel" safer, weakness is being willing to send 1/2 a million men and women to Iraq, while you sit at home and post anti-left diatribes on lefty news sites.
IMHO.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2009 @ 08:01am
Posted by emile duBois at 10/27/2009 @ 07:55am
the reason for the largest embassy ever built, and for "temporary" military bases is to "watch" Iran, the country that has been strengthened by our little adventures in their neighborhood.
If the neo-cons had any intellectual honesty they would notice that under their reign of errors Iran has come closer to nuclear weapons production, Korea achieved it, Islamo/fascist terrorism has grown and spread and not a single new functioning democracy has sprouted. All for less than a trillion US.
Now, if only ACORN!!! had been the contractor on that embassy, maybe the Finger Fighters for Freedom would be outraged at the theft of their children's money via graft and shoddy construction.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2009 @ 08:09am
I even took HAPPY off ignore to see if he has a response...
IF Iraq war is like WWII, ...
"During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose from pre-war levels. In 1939, the top rate was 75% applied to incomes above $5,000,000 ($75 million 2007 dollars). During 1944 and 1945, the top rate was its all-time high at 94% applied to income above $200,000."
We also had conscription, govt price controls (as mentioned above) FORCED rationing and other socialized govt programs. Can you imagine the outcry if Obama tried to institute a draft? The cons (and the left) would go apeshit over the "police state"!
Why then, but not now, if the parallels are so appropriate? After all, we are fighting war on at least two fronts and are in a global economic down turn.
Or, is your analogy to WWII just so much hot air?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2009 @ 08:19am
I even took HAPPY off ignore to see if he has a response...
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2009 @ 08:19am
i didn't.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 08:45am
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2009 @ 08:19am
Neo-cons and the Right wanted a "World War-II on the cheap". Lazy and greedy, they wanted "all the glory" of being "the NEXT 'Greatest Generation'"...
but none of the sacrifice.
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 08:47am
"the NEXT 'Greatest Generation'".
With Admiral Wesley Crusher, age 14, leading the way.
HAPPY saying, "Right behind you Admiral, you go get 'Em!"
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2009 @ 09:28am
Now you tell me how many service men and women were lost to continuing hostilities after we won in Japan and Germany? For primer we have lost 130 US Service men and women and 580 wounded THIS YEAR in Iraq. Or is that an Inconvenient truth?
Posted by Extraneous at 10/26/2009 @ 7:31pm
Now that you've admitted "there are a number of reasons to do so" to maintain a military presence, then perhaps, you can think of some for the same in Iraq?
Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 8:46pm
Irrelevant Happy, the question I pose is how many troops did we lose after we won the war in Japan and Germany to hostilities? Since you are either avoiding adressing it or slow, I will spell it out again. If we have WON the war in Iraq as you claim is a inconvenient truth, then why are soldiers still dying there? Did someone surrender? Did we officially declare victory? Did I miss the ceremony?
Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 11:13am
WHO MINDS THE IRAQI LIVES? OVER 1.3 MILLION IRAQIS SLAUGHTERED THERE.THIS WAR IS ILLEGAL. VISIT.WWW.LEADINGTOWAR.COM.
Posted by Dastu11 at 10/27/2009 @ 11:25am
that charade on the aircraft carrier was the victory celebration. just a mite premature. it was in other words a lie. only fitting, since the war was based on a lie.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/27/2009 @ 2:55pm
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2009 @ 08:09am
Crab, I think the Obama administration (just like Bush) is doing everything possible to ensure Iran obtains the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons.
What better way to control your opposition than to create it yourself? And with a credible opposition you can leverage fear, control your own people and grow your own government's power domestically. Want to bet that's not a news flash to Obama? LOL!
Our system requires an enemy and has since 1913. The recent creation of Bin Laden was a stepping stone. The New World Order now requires a state boogy man in the middle east, not a cave-dwelling terrorist. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is right out of central casting.
Gee, I wonder why Obama didn't support Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's opposition following the failed elections in Iran?...
Haha, just kidding, we know why.
"There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men." --Edmund Burke
And I'm not posting that quote in reference to Ahmadinejad. It is in reference to our own shadow government.
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/27/2009 @ 3:05pm
THIS IS THE BEGINNING.
Now the downward spiral begins just as it did in VIETNAM. How ANYONE could think that it could end any differently than this is beyond me. IT WILL BE WORSE IN AFGHANISTAN.
My only question is... will the United States wait until WE ARE LIFTING PEOPLE OFF THE TOP OF BUILDINGS? Or will we exit in a dignified manner? If there is any such thing left to us.
This is a FAILED invasion in both countries JUST LIKE VIETNAM. If worse elements come after us, it is our fault, just like Vietnam.
Then, all that we will have left are myriads of injured, destroyed, depressed, drug-addicted former soldiers, future homeless Americans.
Nice going.
Posted by acupuncturegirl at 10/29/2009 @ 10:25am