R. Bob Pearson,

A few Google searches would provide you with the answers you are looking for. I'm sure you can find other material to support yoiur poiint of view as well...but here's a quick reply to your challenge:

Were the American people mislead into the war?
Yes:

Nukes
Any former nuclear program was dead or non-existant. The cited evidence was all false and the BUSH ADMIN KNEW it was weak and likely wrong at the time (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml).

WMD
US officials also knew that they had no idea if Hussein had a continuing WMD program or where they were possibly stored, and they continued to claim that they did know what and where. Of course, everyone from hans Blix to Scott Ritter to David Kay will tell you this was complete nonsense.

Ties to Al Qaeda were also known to be non-existent.

WMany intelligence folks (Tyler Drumheller, Greg Thielman), a few reporters (Walter Pincus, Knight-Ridder papers) and others, including even Colin Powell, KNEW the case for war was weak, but the Administration pushed it 100% anyway.

The only smoking gun, so to speak, is the Downing Street Memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo).

But I would suggest that this is just more corroborating evidence that very early on the Bush Administration was bent for an invasion. In Rumsfeld's words, 9/11 would be used to achieve a broader objective in the Middle East, and number 1 on the priority list was Iraq: "sweep it all up, things related and not."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

The real question is WHY were the overwhelming majority of reporters and the UN unwilling to demand better proof than a few serious-looking aerial photos, ominous artistic renderings, nifty dangerous-looking props and dubious sources.

At any rate, there's lots of material available to demonstrate that there was no consensus among the world intel community and that many of the best intel experts had grave doubts about the case for war -- only if you are willing to look for it.

War justified? Not by the UN. None of the resolutions passed by the UN authorized the use of force against Iraq. That's why the US and UK formed a coalition of the willing (or threatened or bribed, take your pick).

The war/invasion was illegal (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war

Was it illegal but still justified? Not if Hussein was no threat to any neighboring country, which he wasn't. He had no Nuke program, no WMD program. The only possible case for justified intervention would be in order to prevent an existing genocide or other ongoing systematic mass murder. And even then, the practicality of an occupation so will always suggest against the wisdom of a war.

War a disaster? Your unit of measure (US Casualties) is a bit narrow, no? It's a disaster because the objectives of the war were based on a FALSE threat. It's a disaster because the country has been plunged into a pit of disarray and civil war far deadlier than Saddam Hussein. There's no precise way to estimate the human price of the ongoing occupation and civil war but even the most conservative estimates are staggering.

The war is a disaster because it has harmed the reputation of the US around the world, become an organizing tool for anti-American extremism, and failed to bring stability to Iraq or to the region.

By all of the stated objectives (and WMDs was the only one used to justify the war in the beginning), the war and occupation is a disaster. However, the one unstated objective, building permanent bases in Iraq, is going ahead full steam (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0612/p01s01-woiq.html).

Here's to hoping that someone comes up with a better plan to save Iraq AND get the US out of there.

Ah, more widsom from that beady eyed wee man called Paul Krugman. Thanks to his column, I now know the real TRUTH about the Iraq war.

1. We were mislead into it. By whom? The world intelligence community? They were more certain of their opinion that Saddam had WMD's than today's climate scientists are that humans are responsible for global warming! In 2001-2003 there were no Saddam-WMD deniers.

2. The war was unjustified. 17 United Nations resolutions, 2 sadistic sons waiting in the wings, thousands of gassed Kurds, thousands more raped women and untold numbers of mass graves say otherwise. Were we not there already, you "good people" would be marching in the streets demanding that Bush "do something" about the suffering in Iraq.

3. The war is a disaster. By what measure? Certainly not on the basis of casualties per day spent at war (less than 2.5) or number of terror attacks carried out on U.S. soil since the war began (0). Hell, we lost 29,000 soldiers during the Normandy invasion and 19,000 during the Battle of the Bulge - both mere "battles" in a larger war. By any reasoned, historical measure (I know, not a strong suit among lefties), this "war" would more accurately be described as a prolonged skirmish. And don't even get me started on the gang wars that play out on the streets of our inner cities every day. I challenge any of you to convince me that since the Iraq war began we have lost more soldiers to Iraq than we have young black males to gang wars, but I don't hear or see anyone covering that true "disaster."

So, I'll continue to get my news from a variety of sources including Fox. They may put their own slant on things, but no more so than Mr. Krugman did in this very column.

R. Bob Pearson

gimmeshelter

nice analysis :)

Stop buying, listening, and watching everything that Murdock owns, and Murdock will become irrelevant. It is a sad time when the public must come together to do something so drastic as completely alter their news and entertainment habits in order to rid themselves of an informational plague. After all, it is journalism that is supposed to save us from having to do that. Alas, we are there. We cannot depend upon government to do this for us. We MUST alter the way in which we live our lives, so that we get the information that is necessary. We can and should still lobby our elected leaders on this very important issue, but we cannot and should not fool ourselves into believing that Congress is going to suddenly grow a backbone on this issue. However, they will when they here that there is a massive movement on behalf of the American people to boycott all things Murdock. That is a real vote-getter at that point.

Down with News Corp! Down with the stock market!

Re Television News Netwrok Ratings.

It's a misleading comparison to look at the raw ratings of Fox News Channel versus CNN, CNN-HN, and MSNBC head-to-head, individually.

Conservatives love to cite Fox's success as proof of the triumph of conservative ideology, but the Nielsen data prove nothing of the sort.

FNC is an unabashedly right-wing network that caters to their audience without any pretense to fairness or balance (slogan notwithstanding). Their core audience is extremely conservative and they face no real competition for that audience.

CNN, CNN-HN, CNBC and MSNBC, on the other hand, are not blatantly anything but Mainstream. Each of these networks, with the exception of CNBC (IMO), strive to reach basically the same core audience(s) and are probably more interested in commercial success as they are in pushing a centrist political agenda.

MSNBC has an array of opinionated programs that do target a modestly wide political spectrum (Olbermann | Matthews | Scarborough/Carlson).

CNN is about as milquetoast network news can get, with the exception of Lou Dobbs.

The result is that Fox takes almost the entire right-wing audience (35-40%) whereas all the other networks have to carve up the remaining audience. And the numbers from the PDF mentioned above match this quite precisely. Fox has about 35-40% of the viewers, which are mostly loyal conservatives. The other 60% are *not* watching Fox news.

Throw in the large minority of folks who refuse to watch anything but Comedy Central (or so-called independent media)and the data make a good case against the triumph of conservativism among news consumers.

All of this raises the inevitable debate question: Why not a liberal television network? Well, just look at the buffoons at Air America Radio and you'll see an example of why it doesn't work -- and it has nothing to do with the popularity of liberal *ideas* as the chatterboxes of right-wing talk radio would have you believe.

I suspect it is a consequence of two related issues: Liberals tend to be less ideologically united than conservatives (lately anyway) AND there's a general aversion on the part of many progressives/liberals to support any news outlet that relies too heavily (or at all!) on commercial support or toes the DNC line.

I know many folks on the left that have little love for Air America because they think it is just a shill for the DNC. These folks tend to listen to Democracy Now, tune into LinkTV, read Common Dreams, Counterpunch and the like.

Imagine hearing a conservative say they hate Fox News because it's just a shill for the RNC. Maybe you have heard this. I've not.

mrraven

This is the summary from the article about Hillary Clinton by Ari Berman. She goes where the power and the money is. What Hillary believes? who knows.

"There's no evidence that she has taken a position specifically to benefit one of her advisers' clients or a top supporter." quote from Ari Berman

She shifts to gain votes and money. She is not my first choice by far but the US is not a very moral nation imo. Its fast becoming a third world nation with a wealthy and a poor. The future does not look good to me.

The rest is from Ari Berman's article in the Nation:

"It's hard to see how her advisers' corporate work doesn't reflect poorly on Clinton's progressive claims or create a liability for her with Democratic voters. There's no evidence that she has taken a position specifically to benefit one of her advisers' clients or a top supporter. More likely, the ties to corporate America, along with the bruises of past defeats, have limited what she believes is possible and will fight to achieve. "If you surround yourself by people who live off of big corporations, that's going to affect the advice they give you and your own worldview," says a former Clinton adviser."

"Clinton has a consistently liberal Senate voting record, earning near-perfect scores from Americans for Democratic Action. She's fought to get New York its fair share of federal money after 9/11 and has advocated for long-neglected, though politically safe, issues like children's health and veterans care. Yet voting records capture only so much. Since the healthcare reform disaster of 1993-94, she has rarely stuck her neck out on contentious issues. "She votes the issues that come up, rather than take the leadership role," says Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. "We tried to do too much, too fast twelve years ago," Clinton told the Federation of American Hospitals last year, "and I still have the scars to show for it." She's now the number-one Congressional recipient of donations from the healthcare industry."

"Clinton's rarely been the threat to the business community that many on the right typically allege. She's often partnered with Republicans like Newt Gingrich and Bill Frist. In 2002 she backed a harsh position on welfare reform reauthorization that put her at odds even with conservative Republicans like Orrin Hatch. She persuaded her husband to veto the bankruptcy bill in 1997, voted for a similar version in 2001 and missed the vote in 2005, when Bill was in the hospital. She advocated weakening the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, telling Feingold to "live in the real world." Unlike Edwards and Obama, she accepts campaign contributions from lobbyists and corporate PACs. "Ask them why they don't take money from lobbyists," Wolfson retorts. "We're proud of our support."

"The conservative caricature that Hillary is to the left of her husband is a myth. She, like Bill, talks a good game. She's aggressively courted organized labor and distanced herself from policies like NAFTA. She privately tells public-interest groups and liberal commentators that she's on their side. At the same time, she's premised her presidential campaign on a restoration of the Clinton era, frequently invoking "Bill and I" on the stump as a way of claiming credit for the perceived successes of the 1990s. She's expressed no qualms about her closest advisers' forays into the corporate world. Courting elements of the Democratic base while signaling to the corporate right that she won't shake up the system is a tricky juggling act. Even the First Lady of triangulation may not be able to pull it off."

This will make you all upset.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/may07vs06.pdf

It's the tv ratings for May 2007 and Fox is doing very well.

Hilary Clinton is no mole for the American people she is a corporate suckup and a shill for AIPAC, period, end of story. Did you read that Nation article to see who EAXCTLY she has in her court? She is in fact worse even than Bush in many ways because she is a competent articulate manager of empire that many "feminists" will vote for because of stupid identity politics. Did Alberto Gonzales, Clarance Thomas and Margret Thatcher teach us nothing about the dangers of identity politics? And yes I would like to see a qualified radical woman as president like Cynthia McKinney but I will NEVER vote for Hilary. Anyway sorry to get off topic and back to giving Murdoch the basing he so richly deserves.

mrraven

"Now is not the time to be naive!" quoth the mrraven

Thats funny. Thats what I was thinking about you.

Let me explain.

You have no power.

None .

Whatever you think or say counts for almost nothing. You have been lied to and are niave if you think you do have power.

The only way you will have power is if you are wealthy, or have powerful friends or have some sort of powerful position, or if you are part of a group that is taking power in some way. And you must take power, it is not given to you.

No one knows what the candidates stand for. They will lie to get money and they will lie to get votes. They will change positions to try to get power. Most of them owe their allegiance to people or groups or corporations who have given them money. They are bought.

We have a political system based upon bribery.

And on top of all this you should realize that the US government is probably filled with all kinds of people with hidden agendas, some who are moles for other governments and corporations. A war has been fought not for the benefit of the American people. The power of the US military was used to gain profits for corporations and probably in a misguided attempt to protect Israel.

Why do you think someone like Rupert Murdoch is involved with the US at all? He is interested in the power the US has. That power is attracting all kinds of people from around the world to the US. And these are not "nice" people

The whole thing is bad.

Now in a system like that, you read one article by someone named Ari Berman and assume that you know what is occuring. Who is Ari Berman? What is his backround and why should you listen to him in particular?

My choice for president is Barak Obama and I have donated money to his campaign. I like it that he has a muslim backround because we need to build up relations with people in the ME.

And I am hoping he can withstand all of the pressures and lies he will experience, if he becomes president.

My hope is that Hillary is also a mole and that her interests lie with the American people and once in power she will protect the people and not the corporations.

But we won't know who these people really are until they gain power and we see how they use that power.

I have to say I've lost some respect for Krugman over the past couple of years. He often seems to have some difficulty connecting the dots and focusing in on the big picture.

Here's a little squib from the Media Reform Information Center (link below) that I believe is pertinent:

"In 2004, [Ben] Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth."

http://www.corporations.org/media/

We've basically got a half-dozen mega-conglomerates -- whose economic self-interest is manifestly served by the perpetuation of the status quo -- spoon-feeding their corporatist propaganda to the gullible masses. Murdoch's brand of mis-information may be more crude and blatant than the other members of this de facto media oligarchy, but the difference is merely a matter of degree as opposed to fundamental orientation.

"Our danger is that the virtual monopolization of the media of mass expression by big capital will distort and finally abort the democratic process." -- John Strachey

Collen get a clue Murdoch is NOT Hilary's "enemy" read Hilary Inc. in the lefty Nation and weep:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman

Now is not the time to be naive!

I regret to say, that if you're dumb enough to watch Fox News and believe its reporting, then I don't doubt you'd believe anything the Bush gang spouts. The problem is Murdoch, Fox News, and their ilk, to be sure, but also the stunning ignorance of U.S. citizens. My experience of them is that most don't know how to think, don't want to, and aren't interested in thinking. That an imbecile such as Romney, who wants to double the size of the Guantanamo prison, now leads many polls, tells us that too many in the U. S. will welcome the next fascist who will go farther than Bush (who went farther than Nixon). There's very little reason for hope.

It's hard--as other posters have pointed out--to get your underpants in a bundle over the question of the WSJ becoming part of Murdoch's disinfotainment network. They are halfway there already, after all.

The kind of news distortion that Murdoch will bring to the WSJ will affect the abilities of WSJ readers in the US to understand business news around the world.

This misinformation will lead to errors in judgement by investors and business people and hurt the US economically.

I did read that Hillary invited Murdoch to her little party/fundraiser. I think she was trying to keep her enemies close where she could see them. She's a smart realist. Murdoch is not motivated by money. He will lose money to gain power and influence. Imo he has a right wing agenda but power is what motivates him.

The people on the editorial pages of the WSJ are truely evil, imho, but I hear that the news section is honest. I don't subscribe because I am in such opposition to the people on the editorial pages. Hearing their views on tv has led me to greater opposition to US corporations. They are so inbred in their thinking that they have no idea of how repulsive they are to people like me.(like they care)

Evanj writes: "The 'Dirty Digger' makes Hearst, Beaverbook, et. al., look like lightweights by comparison. He is evil incarnate... Murdoch debauches everything he touches."

I couldn't agree more Evanj.

I have come to believe that R. Murdoch is a true enemy of mankind, -one of the worst of the worst.

We ought rejoice loudly when this vile old scourge finally falls off his perch, for he has been wholly instrumental in causing death and misery to countless millions of people on this poor wee planet.

I hope the denizens of Saturn will deal better with him than we have, when he soon begins his eternal sojourn in hell...

The 'Dirty Digger' makes Hearst, Beaverbook, et. al., look like lightweights by comparison. He is evil incarnate.
He should be prevented from acquiring the WSJ on principle, regardless of the fact that the WSJ is already venal, and that the NYT, from which Krugman launches his stand on media integrity, is a joke.
Murdoch debauches everything he touches.

And don't forget an aggressive pro-Israel stance. Still, no difference there to the current regime at the WSJ.

The Wall Street Journal has always been fraught with poor reporting. Is News Corp any worse than The Wall street Journal?

If you work for a living it does not make a dimes worth of difference what happens to The Wall Street Journal.

We are taught to forget that the interests of capital have nothing in common with the interests of labor.

Let's look at how we can make all production local. Jobs, middle class wages, good low cost food and housing, free universal healthcare for all, and free education for all is what we ought to be talking about.

The misleading & inaccurate slant of news coverage by FOX et al, is not the prime concern.
Instead it is the alarming number of Americans that allow themselves to be manipulated (and entertained) by such misrepresented information and slander, while ignoring or just too lazy to pursue other news sources, albeit less entertaining to them.
These people can take credit for the tragic consequences of the most abusive and dangerous administration in our history, along with our legislators who have defaulted their duties by allowing these outrages, and the five supreme court justices who placed politics over honor, and planted this person in office.

simonhhh, you are right to use Australian examples of the Dirty Diggers work.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/

The Australian newspaper is forefront in pushing the right wing views of the federal government here. Their total support for the Prime Minister's plan to remove land rights from aborigines under the guise of preventing child abuse, when the move is totally unnecessary to improve conditions is proof. When 3 bedroom houses have an average 20 people living in them the conditions for abuse are rife. Instead of sending in the builders they send in the army.

The Australian is very good at selecting voices to be aired. They choose one or two favourites who support their view and ignore thousands of others who disagree.

may i quote this botch RE murdoch?: "What he is, rather, is an opportunist who exploits a rule-free media environment". oh, i get it...the NYT is retarded now. ummm, ya, murdoch doesnt kiss political ass through inside connects, he kisses political ass as a marketing ploy in a "rule free" environment", only that. so therefore, we can assume, his political stance stands alone. either that, or the NYT is retarded, and a poor rep for liberal truth. darn, i need a new handle. call me fkntruth. here be da fkn truth mudafkrs, murdoch moves down traveled trails with his peers. "rule-free" media? who da fruk do u think sets the media "RULES", you? hahahahahahahahahaahahahahha. NYT, stand up next time.

The Financial Times is now printed in North America so who cares what the WSJ says?

you have to distinguish b/n the WSJ's general reporting, and the editorial page. the editorial page is a very good gauge for what fascist corporate america is thinking, and that's no joke, but the rest of the paper is as mainstream as the NYTimes, WaPo, etc.

it is funny though to see parts of corporate america (including, in this case, krugman) up in arms about the kind of crap they've been shoveling down the non-bizness world's throat for a long time. don't f*** w/our bizness news!

I'm with alamac on this. I've never been particularly blown away by the WSJ's 'impartial' advocacy for the corporate/fascist free-for-all that captitalism is.

That another 'pillar of journalistic integrity' would fall into the Murdoch's clutches is a Krugman crisis I fail to see. The Journal has always been a joke, with a mamouth corporatist axe to grind, and the integrity of a temple money-changer.

Paul Krugman is Professor of Economics is absolutely correct.....

Murdoch was a money grubbing 'right winger' right from the beginning in Southern TV (Adelaide, Channel 9), 1959–, owner; Sydney Daily and Sunday Mirror, 1960–, publisher; Australian, 1964–, founder and publisher....

Nothing has changed except this specious scion and adjunct to America's Kleptocracy has become extremely dangerous...

I dont read the WSJ but in the past the Journal had the reputation of, if not honesty at least both sides of the story. If Mudock buys the Journal and investors can not trust it to make finacial decisions it will dry-up and blow away. There are other financial rags that the investor can currently turn to for uptodate financial information-that is if Murcoch dosent buy them and who's to stop him?

"...precious national informational assets"?? The Pig Street Journal???

I think it's a good thing if the fascist Murdoch buys the equally-fascist Wall Street Journal. Not a thing will be lost--both are inveterate, compulsive liars--and the joining of the two will at least be further evidence that capital is consolidating on a scale not seen since the 1920's, and that may serve to raise consciousness amongst their victims (i.e., everybody else).

A pox on both of them. They deserve each other.

Corruption pays, right Hillary?

Mr. Krugman writes "the problem with Mr. Murdoch isn't that he's a right-wing ideologue"...but "rather...an opportunist who exploits a rule-free media environment".

Perhaps Mr. Krugman's repetition of this tired falsehood might have carried more weight had he provided examples of anti-business, anti-globalization, pro-democracy biases anywhere in Murdoch's endless media holdings. May I suggest that Mr. Murdoch is BOTH a radical right-wing ideologue AND a shameless opportunist. After all, America is full of people who are both.