MetaFilter posts tagged with iraqwar and USPolitics

Murray Waas is the new Bob Woodward

spock — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:52:24 -0800

Murray Waas is the new Bob Woodward. An opposing view. Wuh-duh-yuh-bet most Americans will be much more interested in this story?

It turns out it wasn't Joe Klein

sixpack — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 09:40:21 -0800

The anonymous author of Imperial Hubris has been revealed.

The Moral Case Against the Iraq War

y2karl — Tue, 18 May 2004 20:59:03 -0800

The Moral Case Against the Iraq War
Also on the moral tip, Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings
internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales (PDF)

Making A Killing - The Business of War

y2karl — Thu, 30 Oct 2003 04:50:16 -0800

A Private Army Grows Around the U.S. Mission in Iraq and Around the World As Report Shows Iraq Contractors Politically Active
--see also Making A Killing - The Business of War, and on the inside...

DeanFilter

CrazyJub — Sat, 19 Apr 2003 06:08:52 -0800

Howard Dean writes about the Bush doctrine (and more) for Common Dreams.

"I am what is commonly referred to as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative."

In other words, he's not only about the war, it's the economy stupid.

Invasion Explained

nofundy — Mon, 07 Apr 2003 11:58:08 -0800

Iraq in a Nutshell
by O'Reilly Books (not really)

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK

A light hearted look at the oft repeated justifications for war in Iraq and their counter arguments.

Stewart For America!

adrober — Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:43:55 -0800

The Stewart For America Petition. "We, the undersigned, hereby request that French Stewart immediately change his name to 'Freedom' Stewart." Long live America.

The tide is turning.

insomnia_lj — Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:14:45 -0800

The tide is turning. A new poll from the Pew Research Center indicates that the Bush Administration is losing support for a war against Iraq, with only 29% favoring war if U.N. inspectors fail to find weapons of mass destruction. Polls are looking considerably worse in Great Britain, where 47% of the public disapprove of an attack on Iraq, compared to just 30% in favor of such an attack. Blair is certain that he can get the British public to support war, however, even if Britain goes to war without U.N. support. "When and if that time came, people would find the reasons acceptable and satisfactory because there is no other route available to us."

Welcome your new (numerically challenged) liberal media overlords!

troutfishing — Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:49:52 -0800

Media covers massive D.C. (and world) Anti-War protests, discounts numbers - Backflash: NPR and the NYT later issued apologies for their drastic undercounting of the Oct. 26 D.C. Anti-War protest - later admitted to be between 100,000 and 200,000 in size "...It was not as large as the organizers of the protest had predicted. They had said there would be 100,000 people here. I'd say there are fewer than 10,000"(NPR's Nancy Marshall) Last saturday's D.C. AntiWar protest received far more media coverage but a similar discounting of the numbers. IndyMedia (above link) provided numbers more in line with D.C. Police statements. Many media outlets ran the same AP news feed. [NYT, NPR , CNN, ABC, AP] and claimed..."Thousands" or "tens of thousands" of protesters. But in the words of those who witnessed it (as I did - 2.5 times size of Oct. 26 protest, from what I saw): 'D.C. police chief Charles Ramsey said, "It's one of the biggest ones we've had, certainly in recent times." U.S. Capitol Police chief Terrance Gainer said, "I know everyone is skittish about saying a number, but this was big. An impressive number." A C-SPAN cameraman I spoke to spent the entire protest on the roof of a cargo truck just to the side of the stage. He told me that he had covered dozens of protests in his time, and that the crowd on Saturday was the biggest he had ever seen.' (story) and organizers claimed 500,000 marched in DC meanwhile, a new poll shows support for a war on Iraq is slipping in the US and also dropping at the UN

NYTimes Mag: The Liberal Quandry on Iraq

rshah21 — Mon, 09 Dec 2002 12:55:23 -0800

The Liberaral Quandry on Iraq [nytimes reg req'd]. [warning : iraq political story]. As a "liberal hawk", I have had some issues regarding whether to support a war with Iraq or not. In this article, George Packer talks to four liberals (David Rieff, Leon Wieseltier, Michael Walzer and Paul Berman) about what they think, and presents a sort of top ten list of reasons for or not. After reading the article, I'm a little less confused about where I stand, and a little closer to coming to grips with it

jbou — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:14:42 -0800

Not standing up to Bush on Iraq is costing the Democrasts money. I work fund raising for the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC, and all three have seen a drop in fund raising dollars over the last two months. The Dems claim it's a good year no matter what the numbers say, but I beg to differ, as a person working the frontline of their telemarketing campaigns the callers are hearing serious complaints from the donors, and we in middle management are getting no response on what to tell the donors. With the House having voted for Bush's resolution, and the Senate set to pass it, is it too late to save face with their donors?

nofundy — Fri, 26 Jul 2002 11:16:29 -0800

Gore questions timing of Iraq concern Is it proper to invade Iraq? This would be an unprecedented move for the US military as Iraq has not attacked the US anyone the US has defense treaties with. "Republican National Committee spokesman Jim Dyke called Gore's comments "irresponsible." "This is no time to attack the president or Republicans for their handling of the war for political gain," he said." Hmmm..so he admits the Iraqi attack IS for partisan political gain, eh? I would have never suspected it.