Of global warming deniers, Iraq and WMD's at the Media Research Center

Mon, 2007-08-20 16:29Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Of global warming deniers, Iraq and WMD's at the Media Research Center

When the oil-industry friendly Brett Bozell Media Research Center echo chamber isn't spreading misinformation about the state of climate change science, it has other interests such as the war in Iraq.

Here's some archived quotes from the MRC concerning the Iraq war: (added emphasis in italics)

Media Research Center, April 15, 2003:

“War is hell, but a short, successful war that ends with the natives dancing in the streets presents a particular hell for the 'peace' movement.”

Media Research Center, Feb. 5, 2003:

“All the evidence of the last 12 years points to the fact that Saddam Hussein and his regime have continuously lied to the world about his manufacturing and concealment of weapons of mass destruction.”

Media Research Center, April 15, 2003:

“Now it's time for the conservative media critics to get our due. Now that the war is over and Iraqis are cheering in the streets, isn't it high time to assess how all of the press's negativity – especially before the war, if not just during – has made the Fourth Estate look positively goofy?”

Media Research Center, April 17, 2003:

“Gulf War II will be remembered for many things, not the least of them being another American victory that left the world in awe, just as America's commanders predicted it would. It will also be remembered as having triggered another exercise in leftwing press agitation, with media armchair generalissimos making fools of themselves with one ridiculous pronouncement after another.”

Okay, so maybe Brett Bozell and the MRC team got a few things wrong on the outcome of the Iraq war, but hey, shouldn't we trust them on climate science?

Here's some other like minded (and like-funded) global warming denying “think” tanks and their thoughts on the Iraq war:

American Enterprise Institute, May 2, 2003:

“From start to finish, President Bush has led the United States and its coalition partners to the most important military victory since World War II… This was a war worth fighting. It ended quickly with few civilian casualties and with little damage to Iraq's cities, towns or infrastructure. It ended without the Arab world rising up against us, as the war's critics feared, without the quagmire they predicted, without the heavy losses in house-to-house fighting they warned us to expect.”

Frontiers of Freedom, Feb 24, 2003:

“It's about the oil that pumps out of Iraq's oil wells and into Saddam Hussein's pockets in the amount of $20B plus per year. It because of this estimated $20 - 25B that Saddam can develop and hide his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and continue to advance his plans to develop first-strike nuclear capabilities.”

The Heritage Foundation, March 19, 2003:

“Iraq's ongoing development of weapons of mass destruction means that the United States or its interests could be the targets of an attack with little or no warning.”

But let's just forget about all this. Surely, they've learned their lesson and are dead on when it comes to their interpretation of climate science.

Comments

Naturally, it’s all Bush (senior’s) fault.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

Well, we know how that panned out for Gore. Fortunately these days he’s having a bit more luck promoting Global Warming.

Here is a thought:
Since the business community has raised the idea that addressing solutions to global warming might be a waste of money because the facts are not yet verified, and therefore we might needlessly collapse our economy, why not apply that same standard to the war on terrorism?

to wit: We have yet to see any positive results from military actions on the ‘war on terror’, maybe it is a useless exersize. Also, we do not yet understand what it means that most of the 9/11 highjackers came from Saudia Arabia, or why Building 7 fell down, or why there were pre-9/11 plans to invade Iraq, etc etc.

I postulate that the ‘war on terror’ is less well understood than global warming is, considering all the facts at hand about carbon levels and concurrent temperature rise, melting glaciers, etc etc.

That was one of the points of this piece. Thanks for pointing it out!!

At least we agree. I can see that it looks like I might have plaguarised that.

The thought actually hit me when I was listening to the press conferance after the SPP meeting in Montebello, where leaders were spouting off about security of our borders, and how that would make us all prosperous. Goofy buggers eh?

Kevin G. and Kevin [Me] do agree - if only half that ‘security’ money was spent on solar panels and electric cars [or any of the solutions for global warming] , we could have had it beat in time to do some good, avoid the worst of climate change.

9/11 Truther, meet Global Warming Cultist.

I’m sure you’ll hit it off.

[x]

This is a guest post by David Suzuki

What if we could reduce worldwide deaths from disease, starvation and disaster while improving the health of people everywhere? According to the World Health Organization, we can.

Previously unrecognized health benefits could be realized from fast action to reduce climate change and its consequences,” says a news release about WHO’s first global conference on health and climate in...

read more