Left-wing media? Not with Bush

[MsRay]

Either the media isn't as liberal as the likes of Fox & Co. insist or the media assumes Bush's dim bulb and acts in such a manner best described by SNL: "Lowered Expectations."

Goofus Al and Gallant George (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/01/bush_press/index.html)

In 2000, the media hounded Al Gore over alleged minor exaggerations. So why does it give Bush a pass when he doesn't tell the truth about life-and-death matters like Iraq and tax policies?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert

July 1, 2003 | What a difference a few years makes for the Beltway press.

Today, as the fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq continues and the White House claim that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to America seems more dubious by the day, more questions are being raised in Congress about President Bush's tendency to mislead and deceive. Many journalists, though, seem less interested in being the watchdog than in assuring Americans that Bush hasn't lied about central issues like war and peace. Instead, he's simply exaggerated.

It is a curious position. During the 2000 presidential campaign, the press couldn't stop writing, investigating and carrying on about Al Gore's alleged exaggerations regarding old movies, canoe trips, and classroom seating inside a Sarasota school.

As detailed at Daily Howler, journalists turned exaggerations into the pressing issue during the closing weeks of the campaign, as pundits argued that Gore's embellishments all but disqualified him from serving as president. Hooked on the story, reporters spent an extraordinary amount of time checking in with experts -- psychoanalysts, academics, political scientists -- trying desperately to figure out what all the exaggerations meant.

By dwelling on, and often falsely reporting, Gore's so-called exaggerations, the press became the Bush campaign's best ally and helped drive down Gore's poll numbers, particularly when voters were asked which candidate was more trustworthy. As veteran political analyst Charlie Cook noted last year in a National Journal column, it was Gore's "exaggerations that cost him his post-Democratic convention lead."

But Bush's current-day exaggerations about Iraq's nuclear weapons program, Saddam's fictional alliance with al-Qaida, or the reasons for flying in a jet fighter to a photo-op on the USS Lincoln? Or the deceptive White House spin on Bush's radical tax policy? Much of the press gives him a pass. Chattering cable pundits have no interest in chewing up TV time to examine what's behind Bush's conflicts with truth and reality, or what those say about Bush the man and how he's leading the country. In just two and a half years, the Beltway press has come to the hasty conclusion that presidential exaggerations are no longer considered deal breakers. Everybody does it, the reasoning seems to go; what really matters most are outright lies.

With the Bush administration leading an ongoing war on terror, it's possible that journalists, at least subconsciously, do not want to publicly question the president's character. "There's a huge psychological need to believe and trust your president when we're being told every day we may be attacked by terrorists," says Emmy Award-winning journalist James Moore, a coauthor of "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential." "But I think there's a dangerous mentality among the press that says, Well, yeah, he needed to exaggerate to go after Saddam Hussein, but that's OK because it's for the good of the country and we shouldn't hold him accountable."

"I believe the press is in awe of the Bush juggernaut," adds Jay Rosen, chairman of New York University's journalism department. "Journalists respect a winner and those they think of as savvy and effective. Besides, what's a worse crime according to journalists, shading the truth or being naive about the way the world really works? It's definitely the latter."

Or maybe some journalists who covered the 2000 race don't want to concede they made a mistake. "They would have to admit they were duped by an exaggerator," says Moore. Either way, today's blatant double standard over exaggerations is not reserved for Gore's hard-luck campaign. It's part of a larger pattern in how the press treats Democratic candidates tougher than it treats Republicans. Examples from the current campaign trail abound.

Bush backers in the conservative press have been out front defending the president's shaky grasp of the truth. Blogger Andrew Sullivan last week wrote that charges against Bush and his crusade against still-missing WMD "ultimately amounts to an argument that the administration exaggerated." The clear implication is that exaggerations are not serious matters that warrant serious attention. Which is odd, because during the closing days of the 2000 run, Sullivan, writing in the Sunday Times of London, listed "exaggerations" to be among Gore's most damning traits. But the it's-only-exaggeration spin has now become the mainstream mantra as well. A recent Washington Post editorial addressing the fruitless hunt for WMD noted matter-of-factly, "While the Bush administration may have publicly exaggerated or distorted parts of its case, much of what it said reflected a broad international consensus."

Note how presidential exaggerations are an accepted part of today's political landscape and should not raise doubts. Is this the same Washington Post that, one month before the 2000 election, ran a Page One piece exploring Gore's exaggerations? In the article, two Post reporters combed through decades of public statements; as proof of Gore's exaggerations they pointed to a boast he had made years ago that while a journalist in the 1970s he "got a bunch of people indicted and sent to jail." The truth, harrumphed the Post, was that "two were indicted, and in fact, no one went to jail." It was an example, the Post intoned, of Gore's "casual lying." Yet Bush routinely misleading Americans on the reasons to wage war? That's just exaggerating.

Or look at the June 22 New York Times Week in Review essay, "Bush May Have Exaggerated, but Did He Lie?" Again, note the assumption of the headline, that exaggerations matter less than lies. In that piece the Times assured readers: "A review of the president's public statements found little that could lead to a conclusion that the president actually lied" about WMD or his tax plan. And in a strange defensive burst on behalf of Bush, the Times announced categorically: "There is no evidence the president did not believe what he was saying."

Yet a few paragraphs later, the newspaper reported that Bush had claimed his tax-cut package would mean "relief for everyone who pays income taxes." That's patently false; nearly 10 million income tax payers will get no relief. Was that a lie, something intended to create a falsehood? The Times makes no judgment but offers a generous observation instead: "If [Bush] had said 'almost all,' it would have been accurate."

Is this the same New York Times that relentlessly, and often erroneously, documented Gore's trivial embellishments in 2000 and treated them with utmost seriousness? The same paper that devoted nearly 30 paragraphs to determine whether Gore was the inspiration for the main character in the 1970 novel "Love Story," as Gore had claimed in a offhand, off-the-record comment? (The facts are that Gore went to college with "Love Story" author Erich Segal, who patiently explained to the Times that the novel's main character was based on both Gore and Gore's college roommate.)

What's so remarkable about the Times and Post rushing to Bush's aid over the question of exaggerations today is that during the last presidential campaign, both papers were so anxious to snare Gore in embellishment that their overeager reporters often helped concoct Gore's alleged missteps.

For instance, there's the infamous Love Canal incident. When Gore spoke at Concord High School in New Hampshire on November 30, 1999, he urged students to take an active role in politics, and he recalled it was a letter written to him in the '70s from a student in Toone, Tenn., that got then-U.S. Rep. Gore interested in the topic of toxic waste. "I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing," Gore told the students. "I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. I had the first hearing on that issue -- and Toone, Tenn., that was the one that you didn't hear of. But that was the one that started it all."

The next day, both the Washington Post and the New York Times botched the quote, erroneously reporting that Gore had bragged, "I was the one that started it all." [Emphasis added.]

That set off the TV talkers, with MSNBC's Chris Matthews mocking Gore for being delusional, while ABC's George Stephanopoulos lamented that the vice president had "revealed his Pinocchio problem." It took both the Times and the Post a week to publish mangled corrections, thereby ensuring that the Love Canal story would hound Gore for years.

But today, if Bush lays out eye-popping "exaggerations" all by himself -- "We've found the weapons of mass destruction," Bush declared on Polish TV after the war-- the Times and Post assure their readers it's just rhetorical flair.

Unfortunately for the Democrats running in 2004, it doesn't appear the press's double standard was unique to Gore's run. A more recent example was on display two Sundays ago when Vermont Gov. Howard Dean appeared on "Meet the Press." The telecast started a Beltway buzz in part because Tim Russert created a combative atmosphere from the outset: Question No. 2 was, "Can you honestly go across the country and say, "I'm going to raise your taxes 4,000 percent or 107 percent" and be elected?" (Russert was figuring Dean's tax plan based on Bush administration calculations.)

Russert continued to press Dean hard, including a pop quiz question about how many men and women currently serve in the military. When Dean said he did not now the exact number, Russert shot back: "As commander in chief, you should know that." Dean estimated there were between 1 and 2 million men and women in active duty; according to the Pentagon, there are 1.4 million.

The D.C. conventional wisdom was clear: Dean had failed the "Russert primary," a sort of 60-minute, on-air boot camp all candidates must go through as the NBC host puts them through rigorous paces and hits them with pointed follow-ups. Russert, the C.W. went, had cleaned Dean's clock and showed how unprepared the candidate was to go toe-to-toe with Bush. "Mr. Dean's "Meet the Press" performance was, to put it charitably, less than impressive," tsk-tsked a condescending Post editorial.

But travel back in time to 1999 when Russert had a far more civil sit-down with then-candidate Bush. (Russert: "Can kids avoid sex?" Bush: "I hope so. I think so.") Russert even agreed to leave his NBC studio and to travel to Bush's home in Austin to conduct the interview, thereby giving the Texas governor a sort of home-field advantage. For nearly 60 minutes the two men talked about key issues, but Russert never tried to pin him down the way he did Dean. For instance, the host let pass candidate Bush's implausible notion that he had no opinion on the politically sensitive topic of whether South Carolina should fly the Confederate flag.

Thanks to Russert, Bush came off looking strong when the host dwelled on the fact Bush had picked selective fights with right-wing Republicans, with Russert even repeating Bush's carefully crafted sound bites: "I don't think they ought to balance their budget on the backs of the poor." Of course, at the time Russert must have understood those "fights" with the GOP were clearly stage-managed to give mainstream voters the impression that Bush was closer to the middle politically, a true compassionate conservative, but Russert dwelled on them just the same. By comparison, in his recent interview with Dean, Russert seemed to be trying to paint the Democrat as being too far to the left by dwelling on topics such as gay marriages.

And when Russert did spring a specific question on Bush in '99 about how many missiles would still be in place if a new START II nuclear weapons treaty were signed, Bush answered: "I can't remember the exact number." But unlike his session with Dean, Russert dropped the topic without lecturing Bush that "as commander in chief, you should know that."

Incredibly, two weeks ago Russert pressed Dean about the details of the medical deferment that kept him out of Vietnam. Back in 1999, though, Russert never thought to ask Bush about how he was able to finagle his way into the Texas National Guard during the height of Vietnam War and why, according to most accounts, he failed to show up for his final two years of duty.

Going into the 2004 campaign, Bush already enjoys an enormous fundraising advantage over the Democrats, as well as a poll bounce from being a "wartime" president. It appears Bush will again profit from kinder, gentler press coverage, too.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Eric Boehlert is a senior writer at Salon.

[wheelsofsteel]

i'm a big supporter of bush and the reason why the media attacks have gone done compared to gore are----well lets see when the press were going after gore(pre-9/11--pre war)..president bush has had the hardest job since johnson and i think they should let some things go... i feel alot better knowing bush is in office instead of gore...

[Capt'nAmerica]

Liberals have always been soft on the militarey and foreign policy. Look when the towers fell we needed a cowboy to take it to those muthfuckers hardcore, american style with gunz a blazin... I will give ya some history... when the Cole was bombed and 18 U.S soldiers died it took Clinton & Gore 3 weeks to meet with Woosley who was the head of the CIA, 3 WEEKS thats insane!!!

See dating back to Carter who was another liberal the left has always favored less military and defense spending from hardware to intelligence that's where we fucked up... The U.S was offered Bin Laden 3 times but Bubba thought there wasn't any legal grounds to arrest him because of the intelligence failure of the first WTC bombing it took till 96 to figure out Bin Laden was behind the attacks...

Foreign countries are also afraid of Republicans in office... Here is another peice of history when Carter was in office in the late 70's we had americans captive in Iran for a full year but when Raegen was elected theye were released that day!!!! why? because Reagen would have steamrolled that fucking cess pool country quicker then his first dump in the white house.

:USA

[MsRay]

Originally posted by Capt'nAmerica
Liberals have always been soft on the militarey and foreign policy. Look when the towers fell we needed a cowboy to take it to those muthfuckers hardcore, american style with gunz a blazin...Take it to whom? I don't see the connection between the towers and Iraq.

Before you say it's obvious: there is no evidence.

Before you say some "national security"-lazy reason for why there is no public evidence: the people in charge of national security are saying there is no evidence.

[Capt'nAmerica]

Originally posted by MsRay
Take it to whom? I don't see the connection between the towers and Iraq.

Before you say it's obvious: there is no evidence.

Before you say some "national security"-lazy reason for why there is no public evidence: the people in charge of national security are saying there is no evidence.

The BIG picture with Iraq was changing the region geopolitically.

Theye are attacking what is fuelling the hate for the U.S
1) The leadership of these countries who are oppressing their own people & threatning the free world
2) The Isreali Palestinian conflict.... with the implementation of the road map

If you review the speech of Bush in October 2001 the country adopted a pre-emptive stance on global threats... Noone would argue that Sadam has the weapons but the urgency of the threat is what is in question but after 911 can we sit and wait to be hit again??

The facts are that we have to do something about despot regimes using the American scapegoat for all of it's countries promblems when it is the countries leadership that is to blame... By removing the Iraqi dictator and installing a beacon of democracy maybe the future will be bright and the ant-american sentiment will diminsh.

Did you agree with us going to war??

[MsRay]

Originally posted by Capt'nAmerica
The BIG picture with Iraq was changing the region geopolitically.

If you review the speech of Bush in October 2001 the country adopted a pre-emptive stance on global threats... Noone would argue that Sadam has the weapons but the urgency of the threat is what is in question but after 911 can we sit and wait to be hit again??

The facts are that we have to do something about despot regimes using the American scapegoat for all of it's countries promblems when it is the countries leadership that is to blame... By removing the Iraqi dictator and installing a beacon of democracy maybe the future will be bright and the ant-american sentiment will diminsh.

Did you agree with us going to war?? The threat it would seem was further into the future than what we were told which is the point here. The gap between the "evidence" for war and the reality seems to me a rather important issue regardless of the geopolitical aims of this administration.

Did Saddam have to go? Most would agree yes. Did he have to go now? Probably not. Did he have weapons? No. Was he a major threat as this time? No. Have we installed a democratic beacon? Far from it at this time. Were our leaders prepared for the post-war situation? Most certainly not. Will anti-American sentiment diminish with threats of invasion? No.

Do I agree with us going to war? No. And the fact that troops over there are still killed while trying to perform a duty they were not trained for nor should they be expected to perform gives weight to my feeling that this war at this time was wrong. It was sold to us with lies and/or exaggerations of a gross kind, but what really disturbs me is that we gladly ate it up and probably still would even if we knew otherwise.

The question of whether we should have gone to war, though, is now only hypothetical musing. We did and now we have to deal with it. My concern is making sure we hold this administration accountable and that we do what we need to do in Iraq so that we establish that beacon and get our forces out of there.

[Capt'nAmerica]

Originally posted by MsRay

Did Saddam have to go? Most would agree yes. Did he have to go now? Probably not. Did he have weapons? No. Was he a major threat as this time? No. Have we installed a democratic beacon? Far from it at this time. Were our leaders prepared for the post-war situation? Most certainly not. Will anti-American sentiment diminish with threats of invasion? No.


If we are fighting a GLOBAL war on terror and are confronting regimes that we feel are a threat to our national security why wouldn't we confront a country like Iraq that has blatantly thumbed it's nose at the rest of the world 12 years???? Diplomacy failed in Iraq first, the war was the end result of a dictator ignoring the worlds demand for him to disarm....

The whole world agreed that he has the weapons, the argument was how to disarm him??? do we appease and hope he changes his ways???? or do we grab our manhood and remove him... The only threat of invasion was towards Iraq where else have we threaten to invade????

Now it is a shame and my heart goes out to every serviceman family that lost a love one but don't dicount the progress made in the country by random attacks in a area still at war...
Give it a chance a democracy isn't born overnight look at us we have been at it for over 200 years and it's still not perfect...

[MsRay]

Originally posted by Capt'nAmerica
If we are fighting a GLOBAL war on terror and are confronting regimes that we feel are a threat to our national security why wouldn't we confront a country like Iraq that has blatantly thumbed it's nose at the rest of the world 12 years???? Diplomacy failed in Iraq first, the war was the end result of a dictator ignoring the worlds demand for him to disarm....

The whole world agreed that he has the weapons, the argument was how to disarm him??? do we appease and hope he changes his ways???? or do we grab our manhood and remove him... The only threat of invasion was towards Iraq where else have we threaten to invade????

Now it is a shame and my heart goes out to every serviceman family that lost a love one but don't dicount the progress made in the country by random attacks in a area still at war...
Give it a chance a democracy isn't born overnight look at us we have been at it for over 200 years and it's still not perfect... We are reaching that point where we agree to disagree.

I would agree that given our stated "war on terror," then confronting regimes we feel are threats is logically consistent. I argue, though, with regards to Iraq, that the threat was non-existent as demonstrated by the lack of any weapons. One cannot disarm what one does not have. The whole world did not agree and those that agreed relied on evidence that seem to have been exaggerations and/or falsehoods.

Syria and Iran have most certainly received the indirect overtures whispering "you might be next." Whether we have any real intention of follow through is still in question, but the very idea that we may go somewhere else makes me pause.

I'm fully aware of the time it will take time and effort to create a democracy, but that it was seems to have been lost on the designers of this campaign. We aren't at war anymore or so our administration says, yet you feel we are and I am inclined to agree with you.

Basically, what's done is done. We can only continue from where we are now, but we must hold everyone accountable.

[wheelsofsteel]

ms ray your way of thinking is what allowed 9/11 to happen...you think everything the govt says is a lie-----and you believe reps.. think everything is the truth.....the truth is we needed to go to war...we should have finshed the job the first time....saddam didn't order the hit, but he allows people to make those plans living a free life in his country....

[MsRay]

Originally posted by wheelsofsteel
ms ray your way of thinking is what allowed 9/11 to happen...you think everything the govt says is a lie-----and you believe reps.. think everything is the truth.....the truth is we needed to go to war...we should have finshed the job the first time....saddam didn't order the hit, but he allows people to make those plans living a free life in his country.... Do not presume to know how I think. You only demonstrate your inability to understand what I write.

With the said, I believe the country harboring those who harmed us was a place called Afghanistan and the leaders there were called the Taliban.

[Frankie Spano]

Originally posted by wheelsofsteel
ms ray your way of thinking is what allowed 9/11 to happen...you think everything the govt says is a lie-----and you believe reps.. think everything is the truth.....the truth is we needed to go to war...we should have finshed the job the first time....saddam didn't order the hit, but he allows people to make those plans living a free life in his country....


I was reading this thread and i found it to be quite good. A very educated and informative debate. The I came to your idiotic statement and rather than continuing I felt like commenting. How is Rays way of thinking what allowed 9/11 to occur? How do you know what he is thinking?

[Capt'nAmerica]

Originally posted by MsRay
Do not presume to know how I think. You only demonstrate your inability to understand what I write.

With the said, I believe the country harboring those who harmed us was a place called Afghanistan and the leaders there were called the Taliban.


MsRay,
If we look back to October 2001 when the President, with the support of the world informed our enemies that a pre-emptive strategy will be followed from now on.... "With us or against us" ALL terrorist groups and the country that harbors them will be held accountable...

With Iraq it is/was a multi-purpose operation that was explained in the 1 year anniversary of 911 address to the United Nations, where the President challenged the U.N's relevenace and demanded they enforce the 17 resolutions against Iraq... Those 17 resolutions were the direct result of a dictator and his country not abiding by the cease fire in 91.... The humanitarian situation was also addressed the man diverted funding from a oil for food program to feed his thirst for world dominace... Why is it that Kuwait is part of the same land but the people live entirely diffrent?? Kuwait should be held up as a model where democracy and capitalism have brought prosperity to it's people, sure it might have some extremists but is night and day cpompared to the living conditions in Iraq.. That's my point half the middle eastern countries control the wealthiest commodity but the people are the poorest! wealth is not distributed to it's society and in a sick, twisted dellusional way America is to blame for it not the leadership :rolleyes:

Now if Sadam never gassed his own people or the Iranians and the U.N never documented the WMD stock pile then maybe I can see no grounds for invasion but we all know that isn't the case the real promblem I am afraid is, where?? Where are these weapons? my geuss in one of the bunkers or in a neighboring country.... time will tell.

[MsRay]

Originally posted by Capt'nAmerica
Now if Sadam never gassed his own people or the Iranians and the U.N never documented the WMD stock pile then maybe I can see no grounds for invasion but we all know that isn't the case the real promblem I am afraid is, where?? Where are these weapons? my geuss in one of the bunkers or in a neighboring country.... time will tell. Indeed, time will tell.

[KIP]

hey didnt you guys know the US gave mabus all his weapons? Here is a picture of mabus and old rumbsfeld shaking hands after the USA gave him all the nerve gas to use against IRAN, during the iran / iraq war the lasted for 10 years. Remeber it was iran who took the 200 hostages....

[Capt'nAmerica]

What does that mean?? we should ignore a promblem because we were allies against a common enemy? If you are going to go their why did we go to war to defeat Hitler if the U.S did buisness with him before he came into power??Noone knew what the future would hold and the atrocities he would commit... The bottomline is if today your freind, tommorrow they can be your enemy.

[KIP]

maybe you should check out this link

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/CIAtimeline.html

here is some clips

1961

The Bay of Pigs — The CIA sends 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Castro’s Cuba. But "Operation Mongoose" fails, due to poor planning, security and backing. The planners had imagined that the invasion will spark a popular uprising against Castro -– which never happens. A promised American air strike also never occurs. This is the CIA’s first public setback, causing President Kennedy to fire CIA Director Allen Dulles.

Dominican Republic — The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington has supported since 1930. Trujillo’s business interests have grown so large (about 60 percent of the economy) that they have begun competing with American business interests.

Ecuador — The CIA-backed military forces the democratically elected President Jose Velasco to resign. Vice President Carlos Arosemana replaces him; the CIA fills the now vacant vice presidency with its own man.

Congo (Zaire) — The CIA assassinates the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. However, public support for Lumumba’s politics runs so high that the CIA cannot clearly install his opponents in power. Four years of political turmoil follow.

1963

Dominican Republic — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta.

Ecuador — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.

1964

Brazil — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty in history. General Castelo Branco will create Latin America’s first death squads, or bands of secret police who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these "communists" are no more than Branco’s political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death squads.

1965

Indonesia — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor, General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being "communist." The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects.

Dominican Republic — A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country’s elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.

Greece — With the CIA’s backing, the king removes George Papandreous as prime minister. Papandreous has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece.

Congo (Zaire) — A CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator. The hated and repressive Mobutu exploits his desperately poor country for billions.

1966

The Ramparts Affair — The radical magazine Ramparts begins a series of unprecedented anti-CIA articles. Among their scoops: the CIA has paid the University of Michigan $25 million dollars to hire "professors" to train South Vietnamese students in covert police methods. MIT and other universities have received similar payments. Ramparts also reveals that the National Students’ Association is a CIA front. Students are sometimes recruited through blackmail and bribery, including draft deferments.

1967

Greece — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government two days before the elections. The favorite to win was George Papandreous, the liberal candidate. During the next six years, the "reign of the colonels" — backed by the CIA — will usher in the widespread use of torture and murder against political opponents. When a Greek ambassador objects to President Johnson about U.S. plans for Cypress, Johnson tells him: "Fuck your parliament and your constitution."

Operation PHEONIX — The CIA helps South Vietnamese agents identify and then murder alleged Viet Cong leaders operating in South Vietnamese villages. According to a 1971 congressional report, this operation killed about 20,000 "Viet Cong."

1968

Operation CHAOS — The CIA has been illegally spying on American citizens since 1959, but with Operation CHAOS, President Johnson dramatically boosts the effort. CIA agents go undercover as student radicals to spy on and disrupt campus organizations protesting the Vietnam War. They are searching for Russian instigators, which they never find. CHAOS will eventually spy on 7,000 individuals and 1,000 organizations.

Bolivia — A CIA-organized military operation captures legendary guerilla Che Guevara. The CIA wants to keep him alive for interrogation, but the Bolivian government executes him to prevent worldwide calls for clemency.

1969

Uruguay — The notorious CIA torturer Dan Mitrione arrives in Uruguay, a country torn with political strife. Whereas right-wing forces previously used torture only as a last resort, Mitrione convinces them to use it as a routine, widespread practice. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect," is his motto. The torture techniques he teaches to the death squads rival the Nazis’. He eventually becomes so feared that revolutionaries will kidnap and murder him a year later.

1970

Cambodia — The CIA overthrows Prince Sahounek, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people.

1971

Bolivia — After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.

Haiti — "Papa Doc" Duvalier dies, leaving his 19-year old son "Baby Doc" Duvalier the dictator of Haiti. His son continues his bloody reign with full knowledge of the CIA.

1972

The Case-Zablocki Act — Congress passes an act requiring congressional review of executive agreements. In theory, this should make CIA operations more accountable. In fact, it is only marginally effective.

Cambodia — Congress votes to cut off CIA funds for its secret war in Cambodia.

Wagergate Break-in — President Nixon sends in a team of burglars to wiretap Democratic offices at Watergate. The team members have extensive CIA histories, including James McCord, E. Howard Hunt and five of the Cuban burglars. They work for the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), which does dirty work like disrupting Democratic campaigns and laundering Nixon’s illegal campaign contributions. CREEP’s activities are funded and organized by another CIA front, the Mullen Company.

1973

Chile — The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America’s first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.

CIA begins internal investigations — William Colby, the Deputy Director for Operations, orders all CIA personnel to report any and all illegal activities they know about. This information is later reported to Congress.

Watergate Scandal — The CIA’s main collaborating newspaper in America, The Washington Post, reports Nixon’s crimes long before any other newspaper takes up the subject. The two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, make almost no mention of the CIA’s many fingerprints all over the scandal. It is later revealed that Woodward was a Naval intelligence briefer to the White House, and knows many important intelligence figures, including General Alexander Haig. His main source, "Deep Throat," is probably one of those.

CIA Director Helms Fired — President Nixon fires CIA Director Richard Helms for failing to help cover up the Watergate scandal. Helms and Nixon have always disliked each other. The new CIA director is William Colby, who is relatively more open to CIA reform.

1974

CHAOS exposed — Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh publishes a story about Operation CHAOS, the domestic surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and civil rights groups in the U.S. The story sparks national outrage.

Angleton fired — Congress holds hearings on the illegal domestic spying efforts of James Jesus Angleton, the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence. His efforts included mail-opening campaigns and secret surveillance of war protesters. The hearings result in his dismissal from the CIA.

House clears CIA in Watergate — The House of Representatives clears the CIA of any complicity in Nixon’s Watergate break-in.

The Hughes Ryan Act — Congress passes an amendment requiring the president to report nonintelligence CIA operations to the relevant congressional committees in a timely fashion.

1975

Australia — The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the nation.

Angola — Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger’s assertions, Angola is a country of little strategic importance and not seriously threatened by communism. The CIA backs the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976, but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again. This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.

"The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" — Victor Marchetti and John Marks publish this whistle-blowing history of CIA crimes and abuses. Marchetti has spent 14 years in the CIA, eventually becoming an executive assistant to the Deputy Director of Intelligence. Marks has spent five years as an intelligence official in the State Department.

"Inside the Company" — Philip Agee publishes a diary of his life inside the CIA. Agee has worked in covert operations in Latin America during the 60s, and details the crimes in which he took part.

Congress investigates CIA wrong-doing — Public outrage compels Congress to hold hearings on CIA crimes. Senator Frank Church heads the Senate investigation ("The Church Committee"), and Representative Otis Pike heads the House investigation. (Despite a 98 percent incumbency reelection rate, both Church and Pike are defeated in the next elections.) The investigations lead to a number of reforms intended to increase the CIA’s accountability to Congress, including the creation of a standing Senate committee on intelligence. However, the reforms prove ineffective, as the Iran/Contra scandal will show. It turns out the CIA can control, deal with or sidestep Congress with ease.

The Rockefeller Commission — In an attempt to reduce the damage done by the Church Committee, President Ford creates the "Rockefeller Commission" to whitewash CIA history and propose toothless reforms. The commission’s namesake, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, is himself a major CIA figure. Five of the commission’s eight members are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a CIA-dominated organization.

1979

Iran — The CIA fails to predict the fall of the Shah of Iran, a longtime CIA puppet, and the rise of Muslim fundamentalists who are furious at the CIA’s backing of SAVAK, the Shah’s bloodthirsty secret police. In revenge, the Muslims take 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

Afghanistan — The Soviets invade Afghanistan. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to any faction willing to fight the occupying Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the World Trade Center bombing in New York.

El Salvador — An idealistic group of young military officers, repulsed by the massacre of the poor, overthrows the right-wing government. However, the U.S. compels the inexperienced officers to include many of the old guard in key positions in their new government. Soon, things are back to "normal" — the military government is repressing and killing poor civilian protesters. Many of the young military and civilian reformers, finding themselves powerless, resign in disgust.

Nicaragua — Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. Remnants of the Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista government throughout the 1980s.

[MsRay]

Originally posted by KIP
maybe you should check out this link

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/CIAtimeline.htmlWhat is your point?

[Capt'nAmerica]

So what every country is shady show me one country that isn't.
The good of the country was always put first!

Stop switching the subject we were talking about Japan and Nukes.

[twilightbee]

Originally posted by MsRay
What is your point?

He has no point. He never does. Every one of his posts is filled with useless banter.

[wheelsofsteel]

ms ray--thinking is expressed thru writing---opions reflect what we are underneath...allowing people to many freedoms and trying to make peace with everyone is the dem.. way to do things..the rep... way make you work for your freedoms and warns every country not to mes with them...i believe if bush was in office 9/11 would not have happened...i believe(my opinion) the cuts to defense that clinton made weakend our country and made us ripe for an attack

[MsRay]

Originally posted by wheelsofsteel
ms ray--thinking is expressed thru writing---opions reflect what we are underneathI agree with this.
i believe if bush was in office 9/11 would not have happened...i believe(my opinion) the cuts to defense that clinton made weakend our country and made us ripe for an attack How would you explain the 1993 bombing?

[darius]

Originally posted by Capt'nAmerica
Here is another peice of history when Carter was in office in the late 70's we had americans captive in Iran for a full year but when Raegen was elected theye were released that day!!!! why? because Reagen would have steamrolled that fucking cess pool country quicker then his first dump in the white house.

:USA


actually, iran intentionally held the hostages to fuck jimmy carter. the democrats were unwilling to strike up a deal, and furthermore, there was a lot of bad blood and animosity that had built up in the roots of the new regime in iran during the carter administration. but the reality of it is that it had nothing to do any kind of reagan steamroll (if you recall, the US tried getting iraq to do its dirty work during the iran-iraq war), and everything to do with the fact that the republicans were willing to strike up a deal (Iran-Contra). and please don't refer to iran as a cess pool country . . . a cess pool regime, yes, but not a cess pool country. thanx.

[wheelsofsteel]

bombing is one thing-----losing two towers and half the pentagon is another.......the defense budget and importance of it were cut by the dem....

[MsRay]

Originally posted by wheelsofsteel
bombing is one thing-----losing two towers and half the pentagon is another.......the defense budget and importance of it were cut by the dem.... A difference exists depending on what was lacking in the defense budget that allowed 9/11 to happen?

Intelligence? Anti-aircraft guns?

From what I understand, 9/11 could have been prevented from a number of different directions. The FBI could have followed up on several tips, for example. I do not see how a huge defense budget could have prevented determined terrorists from carrying out their plans.

[Capt'nAmerica]

Originally posted by MsRay
A difference exists depending on what was lacking in the defense budget that allowed 9/11 to happen?

Intelligence? Anti-aircraft guns?

From what I understand, 9/11 could have been prevented from a number of different directions. The FBI could have followed up on several tips, for example. I do not see how a huge defense budget could have prevented determined terrorists from carrying out their plans.

Clinton tied the hands of the FBI & CIA. They cut funding and personel for the intelligence group drastically reducing their ability to infiltrate and track terrorist organizations. They weren't aloud to tap phones or check e-mail of suspected extremists that would offend the international community, a no-no in liberals eyes.

To the left international terrorism is non existent.. domestic environmental issues and homosexualls in the military were more important then national security.. Clinton couldn't be bothered with terrorism that was evident in the refusal of Bin-Laden 5x from diffrent international middle eastern countries like stated before 3weeks to meet with Woosly after the Cole bombing..

[KIP]

Originally posted by darius
actually, iran intentionally held the hostages to fuck jimmy carter. the democrats were unwilling to strike up a deal, and furthermore, there was a lot of bad blood and animosity that had built up in the roots of the new regime in iran during the carter administration. but the reality of it is that it had nothing to do any kind of reagan steamroll (if you recall, the US tried getting iraq to do its dirty work during the iran-iraq war), and everything to do with the fact that the republicans were willing to strike up a deal (Iran-Contra). and please don't refer to iran as a cess pool country . . . a cess pool regime, yes, but not a cess pool country. thanx.

well, what really happend was the presient regan lied to the american people. the whole IRAN CONTRA AFFIAR which you can read about by doing a search on any search engine

http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/aae/side/irancont.html

The tangled U.S. foreign-policy scandal known as the Iran-contra affair came to light in November 1986 when President Ronald REAGAN confirmed reports that the United States had secretly sold arms to Iran. He stated that the goal was to improve relations with Iran, not to obtain release of U.S. hostages held in the Middle East by terrorists (although he later acknowledged that the arrangement had in fact turned into an arms-for-hostages swap). Outcry against dealings with a hostile Iran was widespread. Later in November, Att. Gen. Edwin Meese discovered that some of the arms profits had been diverted to aid the Nicaraguan "contra" rebels--at a time when Congress had prohibited such aid. An independent special prosecutor, former federal judge Lawrence E. Walsh, was appointed to probe the activities of persons involved in the arms sale or contra aid or both, including marine Lt. Col. Oliver North of the National Security Council (NSC) staff.




as you see here, the devil empire of the united states created the wars and world problems in the world today. While the un-educated and brainwash claim that it was ragan who was the great white father who set them hostages free, this was not the case.

And everyone blames clinton, but I am here to say america will soon die, because god will not allow this go on anymore. America is the enemy of GOD. This I know for sure. you can not extermintae a race, then commit mopre genocide, rape the world of its resources, while everyone else starves...yes, america is the ememy of god, and soon, america will be deep in the ocean.

[MsRay]

Originally posted by Capt'nAmerica
Clinton couldn't be bothered with terrorism that was evident in the refusal of Bin-Laden 5x from diffrent international middle eastern countries like stated before 3weeks to meet with Woosly after the Cole bombing.. If you could elaborate on this point, I would appreciate it.

[MsRay]

Originally posted by KIP
as you see here, the devil empire of the united states created the wars and world problems in the world today. While the un-educated and brainwash claim that it was ragan who was the great white father who set them hostages free, this was not the case.

And everyone blames clinton, but I am here to say america will soon die, because god will not allow this go on anymore. America is the enemy of GOD. This I know for sure. you can not extermintae a race, then commit mopre genocide, rape the world of its resources, while everyone else starves...yes, america is the ememy of god, and soon, america will be deep in the ocean. Stick with current events and history, please. Religious/fanatical dogma is best reserved for the Drama forum.

[Capt'nAmerica]

Originally posted by MsRay
If you could elaborate on this point, I would appreciate it.

I read Sean Hannity's let feedom ring and he focused a good part on how Bill dropped the ball with terrorism. Sudan offered the U.S. Bin Laden in 96 as well as other times but Clinton refused stating their wasn't enough legal ground. The country was in la-la land and the cheif was pre-occupied to say the least. I highly recommend Hannity's book, really good read opened my eyes about liberals and their pacifist attitude towards national security and terrorism.

[KIP]

Originally posted by Capt'nAmerica
I read Sean Hannity's let feedom ring and he focused a good part on how Bill dropped the ball with terrorism. Sudan offered the U.S. Bin Laden in 96 as well as other times but Clinton refused stating their wasn't enough legal ground. The country was in la-la land and the cheif was pre-occupied to say the least. I highly recommend Hannity's book, really good read opened my eyes about liberals and their pacifist attitude towards national security and terrorism.

Well, the thing that people fail to see, is that no matter what, this country will be destoryed. You cant destory the world, and expect nothing to happen.

People cry and cry about sept 11, and say it was clintons fault. Well, 19 men did that. 19 men with knives and box cutters. 19 men without guns, just weapons that you find in your local jail. 19 men did that on sept 11.... 19 men who thought what they were doing was fighting a empire that has rapped the world. 19 men. Dont sit here and cry about clinton, just because 19 men attacked america. Think of it as a modern DAVID and GOLIETH story. Point the fingure at clinton all you want, all it took was 19 men to bring america to its kness.

Doesnt matter whos president anymore. Its easy for the right wing racist to point fingers at clinton. But it was clinton who launched a strike against bin laden in afganistan around the time of the monica scandal, and it was the republicans who critized the timing of the attack.

Remember it was under the clinton admin, that they FOILD and STOPPED the milinium bomber in seattle.

Its funny because people really think that a president is to blame. Nothing changes really, the only thing clinton did, was he looked out for the american people. But Bush, now thats a guy who is evil. A man who lies to america, and not about a simple harmless blow job, no no, this man lies about mabus haiving weapons, plagerized a report to the world, a man who doesnt care about the enviornment. These are the people that need to be erased from the world. people , who IMHO are not even human in my eyes. Anyone who doesnt work to somehow protect the world they live in, need to be in sea, watching boats go by.

god willing, america will soon die.

[Capt'nAmerica]

OK... boys and girls we have the official LOON on the board...

Where do I begin with your lunacy??
19 men alone didn't destroy the WTC it was a terrorist orginization that exploited our liberties and caqught us off guard.
Brought to our knee I don't think so, shock yes but what I saw was a country stronger then ever rallying around each other and our president.

Now from your rants and defense of Clinton I take it you are a left wing nut who can't see the retraints you liberals love to place on our countries defenses from intelligence to military you guys would rather spend money on the rain forest then protect your own people... Clinton launched missiles at a deserted camp to divert attention from his impeachment trial not for a simple bj but for going on Camera and saying he didn't have sexual relations with a intern..