"What is the scope of your site?" That's an e-mail in the public account. I can understand the confusion. We've always focused on Iraq. We increased our focus on Iraq as 'independent' media (Democracy Now!, The Nation, et al) dropped their (already limited) coverage following the 2006 mid-terms. See Iraq was only an election issue to so-called 'independent' media. When they could use it to beat up on Republicans, they cared about it. When Dems were given control of both houses of Congress (November 2006 mid-term elections would result in that which would take place January 2007 as the new Congress was sworn in), it was time for them to try new tactics. Couldn't be calling out that mean old Congress now that Dems -- who controlled neither house in 2006 -- controlled both houses. There was still mainstream US media coverage of Iraq at that point. Then came Barack's election and the only real US withdrawal took place -- the withdrawal of the US press. They've never really paid attention to Iraq since. We had to beef up our coverage then.
What we've done really isn't that surprising or wonderful. I was apart of the protests against Vietnam, for example. I can remember Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda calling attention to Vietnam long after it was supposedly 'over.' Tom, to his credit, has at least written of Barack's intent to send more US troops back to Iraq. He missed the part -- in Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report -- about how Barack had already started sending more back in with a special ops unit. But, to his credit, he did sound alarms. He did a lot more than one article back in the day, but he's older. (Aren't we all?)
Tom's still not weighed in on the treaty that Iraq and the US signed -- military treaty -- last December. Dropping back to the April 30th Iraq snapshot:
December 6, 2012, the Memorandum
of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of
Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United
States of America was signed. We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th
snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media
outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone
would look the other way. It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted,
"Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could
result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on
training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to
[US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations
soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and
help with intelligence."
Maybe Tom will weigh in soon. Especially with CENTCOM Commander General Lloyd Austin visiting Iraq this week. But Iraq was destroyed by the illegal war. As long as we're here, I guess we cover it.
Benghazi. We cover Benghazi for two reasons. When four Americans are killed, it's news. I find it offensive that so many of my peers on the left would rather resort to talking points or attacking Chris Stevens. (They'd attack Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods as well if they'd ever bothered to learn their names.) The Benghazi attack is also most likely related to the Libyan War (which we covered). We covered the Libyan War because the US government armed the same 'al Qaeda in Iraq' fighters that they insisted (and still insist) are destabilizing Iraq. It's Iraq related.
Isn't Syria? Yes. We cover Syria sparingly though. The US doesn't need another war. I am not going to devote analysis to Syria that could be used to argue "Let's go to war!" So we note Syria sparingly. (I'm referring to the fact that we note it via others. I am not using my analytical skills on Syria.)
The IRS? It appears criminal. And it appears political. We've always covered political targeting. In terms of criminal? I didn't cover Fast and Furious. I didn't see the story. I never saw the story there. You may. If so, go for it. Write about it. But I never saw it as a story. So when I was accused of giving Attorney General a pass on Fast and Furious -- and I was accused of that in e-mails -- it was fine, I didn't see it as a story. I do see the IRS as a story. And I do believe that when the complaints started being aired by Congress, the Justice Dept should have looked into it.
Let's note US House Rep David Scott. The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing Wednesday and we covered it in Wednesday's snapshot and "Eric Holder's childish tantrum," Marcia covered it with "The shameful Eric Holder," Kat with "Outstanding participant in the House Judiciary hearing?," Wally with "Competency tests for Congress? (Wally)" and Ava with "Biggest embarrassment at House Judiciary hearing." From the hearing, this is an exchange between Scott and Holder:
US House Rep David Scott: On the Internal Revenue situation, I think
we can all agree that the published reports which suggest that IRS
agents were denying people their proper consideration based on politics,
that's the allegation. I assume you haven't completed your
investigation but I think there's bi-partisan agreement that you
shouldn't be able to do that. Now you've publicly said that you're
having a criminal investigation. There are obviously criminal laws
against denial of Civil Rights under 1983. There's also a specific IRS
code that's says, "Any officer or employee of the United States acting
in connection with any revenue law of the United States who with the
intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title files to
perform any of the duties of his office or employment" -- and then goes
on to show that's -- if you violate that -- that's a five year felony.
Are there any gaps in the criminal code that would make it difficult for
you to pursue criminal sanctions if you find that IRS agents were
denying benefits under the Internal Revenue Code based on politics?
Attorney General Eric Holder: That actually is a good question and
I'm not sure what the answer is. I think the provisions that you have
noted are the ones that we are looking at. There are Civil Rights
provisions, IRS provisions, potentially The Hatch Act. And I think
we're going to have to get into the investigation before I can answer
that question more intelligently. But to the extent that there are
enforcement gaps that we find, we will let this Committee know and
hopefully work with this Committee to make sure that what happened and
was outrageous -- as I've said -- and if we have to bring criminal
actions so that that kind of action that kind of activity doesn't happen
again.
US House Rep David Scott: I understand that certain individuals in
the IRS have apologized. Does an apology immunize you from criminal
prosecution?
Attorney General Eric Holder: Uh, no.
It's political and it's criminal. And I like Eric Holder who I know from the Clinton era. If I didn't cover it, I would probably be ignoring it to spare Eric. That's why I have the rule about Joe Biden's wife. Her name is mentioned by me once here and that was because she co-wrote a column with Michelle Obama on veterans and we needed to demonstrate the proper terms -- the column used the proper terms, reporting that day didn't. But other than that one time, her name hasn't appeared here. And the plan is for it never to. Spouses of politicians are caught in a fish bowl and even the smartest can mispeak or make a mistake and it can get blown up. I never want to be in the position of writing a negative word about her. She's smart, nice and wonderful. If she were the Vice President, I would have to cover what she did. I love Joe but I don't go easy on him here. We've called him out and I've tried to treat him the same way I do anyone else.
If I ignored the IRS scandal, I'd be doing it to cover for Eric. So we're not ignoring it.
The attack on the AP?
I grew up with the press. I have a complicated relationship with it. I love the idea of it, even if I don't like the reality of it. I learned to manipulate the press immediately. There's no story you can't get killed. Especially in the age of conglomerations when everything owns everything else. About the only independence in the press in the US is the tabloids and you can control that by giving them an interview that they'll run as an interview or as an article where 'other people' told them things about you.
I think the country is suffering from the lack of a real press. I think that is one of the biggest US problems in the 21st century. I did, at one point in the last decade, think a Guardian type paper was the answer. (The British Guardian, not the weekly paper that went under in the 80s.) But they're not really independent. They whore for the Labour Party. That's why it was Murdoch's Times of London that exposed the Downing Street Memos about the Iraq War. That's why it was the Times of London that reported on them. The Guardian ignored them. And got away with it. Even in this country among the people who presented themselves as Downing St. experts -- David Swanson, for example -- those people never called out the Guardian which got to slink away.
Is the answer Congressional funding?
Have you watched The NewsHour?
To its credit, it's not as dumbed down as NPR has become. NPR is becoming a national disgrace and I cannot believe the lack of criticism of it. They're axeing Talk of the Nation which presents a full program of science every Friday. But they're keeping the other junk? And making it even junkier? The frat boy stylings of Steve and David on Morning Edition? The new cooking segment on Morning Edition? Can you even call that cooking? If I'm not mistaken, there was a listener with three ingredients where the cook or chef couldn't help them. So that was nothing but a comedy segment.
How much dumber are these programs -- paid for with our taxes -- going to be allowed to get?
(And don't give me the crap about most of NPR's money comes from affiliates. Where do the affiliates get their money? Not just from listeners. And they use that money to pay NPR or PRI for programming.)
And there's the revolving door issue that needs to be dealt with. If you leave journalism to work for an administration -- Republican, Democrat or what have you -- you shouldn't be able to come back to journalism. And Chelsea Clinton got savaged by many people. In some ways, she deserved it because she doesn't have a natural instinct for journalism. To her credit, let's note that, unlike another First Daughter, she had the tact and grace not to use her name to go to a funeral as a mourner while secretly reporting on it. (Caroline Kennedy crashed Elvis' funeral for Rolling Stone magazine -- "tacky" doesn't begin to describe Caroline.) To her credit, Chelsea tried to report. She didn't try to do opinion 'journalism' on air. The way so many who serve in administration and then try to have a press career do.
But the revolving door should stop. There need to be real ethics and there aren't anymore.
CJR is supposed to be a watchdog. Yet when it came out that Gina Chon, reporting from Iraq, had allowed a government official (Brett McGurk) to read her copy and comment before she'd submit it to her editor (that's why she was fired -- and yes, the Wall St. Journal did fire her) and that she was sleeping with the official? CJR ignored it. It took our own Martha to shame them into weighing in. And what did they say? No, big deal.
They said that because, at the time, Brett was a Barack Obama nominee.
They have no ethics, they have no standards. And they want to present as a media watchdog?
The dumbest thing they did -- I won't even go there. Let's ignore rapists.
So what saves journalism? When Media Matters floats talking points to justify the government targeting the Associated Press, how does journalism survive?
I don't know. I really think it's one of the most serious issues of the 21st century in this country.
I was raised to defend the press and I do that when the government comes calling. We defended Judith Miller's right not to give up her source. We may have been one of the only left sites that did. Back then, there were attack e-mails and it didn't matter. If a journalist decides not to reveal a source -- a trusted source -- to the government, I will defend them on it.
And I will defend AP. I didn't know what was coming, but I knew something was coming because I have friends who work with AP. Even knowing something was about to blow (I heard about it last weekend), I was still surprised on Monday to find out what it was.
We led with AP Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday in the snapshots. Because I do believe we defend the press against the government.
We probably won't lead with it next week and may not even cover it. If there's news there, we will. But by Friday's snapshot, to lead with AP, I had to mock Danny Schechter. Which was fine. And openings like that attract a different audience which is good because on the AP issue -- on any attack on journalism by the government -- I will try a variety of styles to get the message out.
We also cover veterans. You can't cover the war and not cover what happens to those who serve. I should do more with the issue of contractors but when there is something there, it always seems to be a day when everything else is breaking. Monday, for example, there was some contractor news we would have included (about former contractors in Iraq) but we had AP and the IRS and Benghazi on top of Iraq.
We cover feminist issues because I am a feminist. If Feminist Majority Foundation has a press release that's not "I Pledge My Love To Barack," it will always get included here.
That's our scope. Did Iraq suffer this week? It got less attention from us. It still got attention but it got less. We reported on two Congressional hearings and, again, we led with AP every day.
There was a lot to juggle. I think Friday finished strong in terms of Iraq (the snapshot). But if you're looking for me to say, "You're wrong, I did a great job!"? Sorry. I don't think I've ever done a great job here with the possible exception of managing to regularly churn out new content.
It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)
The number of US service members the Dept of Defense states died in the Iraq War is [PDF format warning] 4488.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
