Scott Horton Interviews Jason Ditz

Scott Horton, May 14, 2011

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Jason Ditz, managing news editor at Antiwar.com, discusses the latest news with Scott, who’s been on the road this week and missed that whole bin Laden story; the changing US government narrative on events before, during and after the bin Laden raid; the already-forgotten euphoria that gave Obama’s approval rating a temporary boost and had crowds chanting USA! USA!; the White House’s confident assertion that the raid sets a “precedent” that may well be repeated; renewed drone strikes and attention on the tribal areas even though bin Laden was caught in Pakistan proper, nearer India than Afghanistan; and why the US may be jumping the shark on Syria regime change.

MP3 here. (18:13)

Jason Ditz is the managing news editor at Antiwar.com. His op-ed pieces have been published in newspapers and other media around the world.

17 Responses to “Jason Ditz”

  1. You guys aren't really buying this are you? The US Govt hasn't given a shred of proof that they killed bin Laden and yet you seem to be willing to give them a free pass on this one. Sure, they say they did a DNA test, but can you really test DNA in 12 hours? That's not what I'm hearing. Why no pictures? Why dump his body into the ocean? None of this is making you suspicious? I don't get it. Normally you two would be all over a flimsy story like this. You're willingness to give the US Govt and the military the benefit of the doubt on this story is truly baffling.

  2. Scott believes almost every thing the government and media tell him. He is a tool and a douchebag.

  3. He doesnt even question it. He just spews the same shit the media vomiting.
    He'll question the OKC bombing, but nothing else.
    I have been donating to Antiwar.com for years and now they toting the establishment line.
    I am done with them.

  4. i'm not terribly sad either, but we must admit his cause was just, relatively, at least as compared to that of the fine-haired sons-of-bitches who killed him.

  5. What do you expect him to do , fly to the compound in Pakistan, and start investigating? If credible conflicts in the story come out. I believe antiwar.com will cover them. If your mad that 'the media' is not investigating, why wouldn't they investigate the story. There are thousands of different outlets covering this story. Google news had so many stories on it alone. Then you have the conspiracy friendly websights in addition.

  6. What do you expect him to do , fly to the compound in Pakistan, and start investigating? If credible conflicts in the story come out. I believe antiwar.com will cover them. If your mad that 'the media' is not investigating, why wouldn't they investigate the story. There are thousands of different outlets covering this story. Google news had so many stories on it alone. Then you have the conspiracy friendly websites in addition.

  7. Start here, start investigating yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_L

  8. "Scott believes almost everything the government and media tell him"? What a JOKE. Move your mouse over 8 inches and click the hundreds of radio shows. Beyond laughable. If you want to put in the work, more than your couple sentences of a comment, I would love to be proven wrong.

  9. I think Scott made it clear several times over the course of the interview that he was on the road and unable to stay on top of the rapidly changing Bin Laden story. Jason did tell him that the White House story regarding the raid had changed a few times and that Bin laden was unarmed. I'm sure he's not surprised by OBL's extrajudicial killing since Obama was already knee-deep in this travesty with the targeted drone attacks – including an American. I could be wrong, but the perception I'm getting from Scott is that it won't really matter all that much since the wars will continue in ernest. I'm sure as he learns more about the ever-changing story, we'll hear more from him on this in the days ahead.

  10. So if they shot someone in the face, threw him in the drink, and then called him Elvis…. did anyone confirm that he was between 6'3" and 6'5"?

  11. Yea, that should tell you something. Start your investigation from a website that pukes out the establishment line. Give me a break!

  12. >What do you expect him to do , fly to the compound in Pakistan, and start investigating?
    No, but I would AT LEAST be a little more apprehensive about puking out the "official" story that has so many contradictions and questionable holes in it and a bullshit story that changes by the hour. Give me a break!

  13. That is why I said almost everything. Go over an listen to his radio show and tell me how many times he totes the establishment story.
    Many times!

  14. Gern, you suffer reflexive trutherphobia. As long as someone doesn’t loudly pronounce declare everything the government says a ‘lie’ from morning to night, you think they’re on the take.

    With a little more experience, you’ll learn to get a ‘feel’ for these things. Obama *probably* got OBL – the timing and story is too politically inept to be made up out of whole cloth. It has the feel of typical govt reporting an act they committed.

    If you start out with a bias “this can’t be true”, then almost nothing will convince you besides actually witnessing the event.

  15. Let's hope…
    Check out Israel Shamir's article on Counterpunch regarding Wikileaks.
    He contends that the US knew of bin Laden's whereabouts since 2005. It would be very interesting to hear more about this.
    Here's the link: http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir05042011.html

  16. I second that.
    But what about 2001? I heard he has been dead since then.

  17. It does seem strange that people who know the government lies about Oklahoma City, lies about Waco, and lies about nearly everything else, and has already been caught in a dozen lies about this particular action, still take the default position of "they're telling the truth until proven otherwise" when it comes to anything 9/11 related, such as bin Laden.

    How can anyone seriously believe that, if this was part of a real War on Terror, they would kill the leader of the opposing army, without questioning him? It's just one more publicity stunt in a long chain of psyops directed against the American people. Stop falling for it!

Leave a Reply