With power cleaner than coal and cheaper than natural gas, the nuclear industry, 20 years past its last meltdown, thinks it is ready for its second act: its first new reactor orders since the 1970's.
But there is a catch. The public's acceptance of new reactors depends in part on the performance of the old ones, and lately several of those have been discovered to be leaking radioactive water into the ground.
In a survey of all 10 of its nuclear plants, Exelon found tritium in the ground at two others. On Tuesday, it said it had had another spill at Braidwood, about 60 miles southwest of Chicago, and on Thursday, the attorney general of Illinois announced she was filing a lawsuit against the company over that leak and five earlier ones, dating to 1996. The suit demands among other things that the utility provide substitute water supplies to residents.
The above is from Matthew L. Wald's "Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water" in this morning's New York Times. As nuclear power plants have licenses about to expire this year or next, and while Bully Boy pushes this "clean, safe" "alternative," this is an issue to watch.
You may not be able to watch the reality of the discussions between Bully Boy and Blair. Cindy notes Richard Norton-Taylor's "Legal Gag on Bush-Blair War Row" (The Guardian of London via Common Dreams):
The attorney general last night threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed the contents of a document allegedly relating to a dispute between Tony Blair and George Bush over the conduct of military operations in Iraq.
It is believed to be the first time the Blair government has threatened newspapers in this way. Though it has obtained court injunctions against newspapers, the government has never prosecuted editors for publishing the contents of leaked documents, including highly sensitive ones about the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, last night referred editors to newspaper reports yesterday that described the contents of a memo purporting to be at the centre of charges against two men under the secrets act.
Under the front-page headline "Bush plot to bomb his ally", the Daily Mirror reported that the US president last year planned to attack the Arabic television station al-Jazeera, which has its headquarters in Doha, the capital of Qatar, where US and British bombers were based.
Richard Wallace, editor of the Daily Mirror, said last night: "We made No 10 fully aware of the intention to publish and were given 'no comment' officially or unofficially. Suddenly 24 hours later we are threatened under section 5 [of the secrets act]".
Under section 5 it is an offence to have come into the possession of government information, or a document from a crown servant, if that person discloses it without lawful authority. The prosecution has to prove the disclosure was damaging.
The things we hide out come back to haunt us. On that topic, Keesha notes Margret Kimberly's "Civil War in America" (Freedom Rider, The Black Commentator):
Every year the Sons of Confederate Veterans use the North Carolina statehouse to celebrate their annual confederate flag day ceremony. It has become more common in recent years for some white southerners to openly wax nostalgic for the days when their ancestors fought and died to preserve slavery.
It is easy to see a connection between present day yearnings for a return to Dixieland and renewed efforts to threaten voting rights. It is less obvious to see similar connections with trends elsewhere in the country. South Dakota is a long way from South Carolina, but that state recently joined the battle to turn back the clock on civil rights and return to the bad old days when white men ruled and everyone else was subservient.
The legislature in South Dakota voted to outlaw abortion except in cases where the mother’s life was endangered. Even rape, incest, and fetal abnormality will no longer be legally justified reasons for abortion. Republican State Senator Bill Napoli described the only instance when he thought abortion would be justifiable.
"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."
Napoli has some very strange fantasies. Hide your daughter if you see him coming. In South Dakota, rape victims who aren’t pious or saving themselves for marriage are just out of luck.
Lastly, Brady notes Norman Solomons' "War-Loving Pundits" (Common Dreams) which Brady thinks should be called "Remembering the Gas Bag Dupes." From the column:
The third anniversary of the Iraq invasion is bound to attract a lot of media coverage, but scant recognition will go to the pundits who helped to make it all possible.
Continuing with long service to the Bush administration’s agenda-setting for war, prominent media commentators were very busy in the weeks before the invasion. At the Washington Post, the op-ed page's fervor hit a new peak on Feb. 6, 2003, the day after Colin Powell’s mendacious speech to the U.N. Security Council.
Post columnist Richard Cohen explained that Powell was utterly convincing. "The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them," Cohen wrote. "Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise."
Meanwhile, another one of the Post's syndicated savants, Jim Hoagland, led with this declaration: "Colin Powell did more than present the world with a convincing and detailed X-ray of Iraq's secret weapons and terrorism programs yesterday. He also exposed the enduring bad faith of several key members of the U.N. Security Council when it comes to Iraq and its 'web of lies,' in Powell's phrase." Hoagland's closing words banished doubt: "To continue to say that the Bush administration has not made its case, you must now believe that Colin Powell lied in the most serious statement he will ever make, or was taken in by manufactured evidence. I don't believe that. Today, neither should you."
Impatience grew among pundits who depicted the U.N.'s inspection process as a charade because Saddam Hussein's regime obviously possessed weapons of mass destruction. In an essay appearing on Feb. 13, 2003, Christopher Hitchens wrote: "Those who are calling for more time in this process should be aware that they are calling for more time for Saddam's people to complete their humiliation and subversion of the inspectors."
Remember the scheduled topic for today's Democracy Now! is:
Michael Gordon, chief military correspondent for The New York Times, and Bernard Trainor, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general, join us to talk about their new book "Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq."
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
matthew l. wald
richard norton-taylor
margaret kimberley
norman solomon
michael r. gordon
bernard e. trainor
Friday, March 17, 2006
NYT: "Police Files Say Arrest Tactics Calmed Protest" (Jim Dwyer)
Among the most effective strategies, one police captain wrote, was the seizure of demonstrators on Fifth Avenue who were described as "obviously potential rioters."
The reports provide a rare glimpse of internal police evaluations and strategies on security and free speech issues that have provoked sharp debate between city officials and political demonstrators since the Sept. 11 attack.
The reports also made clear what the police have yet to discuss publicly: that the department uses undercover officers to infiltrate political gatherings and monitor behavior.
The above is from Jim Dwyer's "Police Files Say Arrest Tactics Calmed Protest" in this morning's New York Times. It also notes that the documents contain a proposal to have undercover officers passing on "misinformation" and Paul J. Browne, spokesperson for NYPD, is quoted as saying, "The N.Y.P.D. does not use police officers in any capacity to distribute misinformation."
Is that true? Is it false? Coming from Browne, who danced "semantics" on a December 27, 2005 broadcast of Democracy Now! (Dwyer was also a guest), who knows? Excerpt:
AMY GOODMAN: And that issue, Paul Browne of undercover versus plain clothes, that Jim Dwyer just raised.
PAUL J. BROWNE: Well, there's two distinct functions here, what I’m talking about. Regardless of how he described them, that may not be important to your listeners, police officers who go to demonstrations in plain clothes are what we call anti-crime cops. They’re there for one purpose and that only. It has nothing to do with political surveillance. And that's the misleading part of that story. They're there to either intervene or to direct police intervention on some kind of lawbreaking that breaks out at that particular event.
AMY GOODMAN: Why do they get arrested?
PAUL J. BROWNE: They may get arrested or appear to be arrested just to keep functioning. I’m not certain that they did get arrested. I don't know who these individuals are, but assuming if some of them are police officers, they may be led away, as if they're under arrest, and then they continue to function.
[. . .]
AMY GOODMAN: Commissioner Browne?
PAUL J. BROWNE: Well, they are identified. They wear -- the officers who do videotaping are in -- are either in uniform or are wearing jackets that --
EILEEN CLANCY: That's absolutely not true, Commissioner Browne. I'm sorry, that's just absolutely not true. It's plainly visible. I mean, what comes to mind right away is a police officer wearing a black leather jacket and a Che Guevara t-shirt, that’s seen at many of these Critical Mass events, without any police identification whatsoever. This is typical.
PAUL J. BROWNE: Well, I can tell you, they wear wind jackets that say TARU on the back. It's a technical --
AMY GOODMAN: Some do. I think it's quite clear some do, some don't. We have been showing videotape of people who are, whatever you call, undercover or plainclothes.
PAUL J. BROWNE: Well, I don’t know. You’re saying they’re undercover. I explained, I know it may not be an important difference to you, but it’s a very important difference --
AMY GOODMAN: I said undercover or plainclothes.
So, with Browne for a source, who knows what's going on?
But the big point appears to be that the police reports are maintaining that arrests of "potential rioters" is 'effective.' What constitutes effective?
If we throw out the Constitution, we could probably imprison a great many more people (probably quite a few who were guilty as charged). That could be dubbed 'effective' as well.
Would it be effective to democracy? No.
Dwyer notes that some of the arrests are seen as "proactive" -- think of it as the police department adopting Bully Boy's pre-emptive war argument. You don't need a crime to be committed, you just book 'em.
Browne and the department are sure that this maintains public order.
What is public order? An orderly public is one that has faith in the laws in the land. If there's no faith in any of the laws, then you will have chaos. When you trample upon the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, you're trample on the laws -- whether you carry a badge or not. When you spit on Constitutional rights, you're inviting chaos. Not a moment of chaos, the kind that Browne would argue he fears, but long term chaos, the sort that we're more used to seeing in other countries.
In the United States, we're taught to believe that the Bill of Rights applies. If it stops applying, you're inviting anarchy and, some would argue, any anarchist would only be aping the police that elected to disregard the Constitution.
The flag waving nonsense and the nonsense over amendments not to burn the flag always seem to be made by people who don't grasp that the flag is a symbol while the Constitution is the foundation this country exists upon. (By those people and recently by Hillary Clinton as well, she knows better.) I've said it before, but it's worth noting again, instead of handing out flags, hand out copies of Constitution.
"Proactive" arrests seem to exist outside the Constitution. Possibly the NYPD might want to invest in some Constitutional training for their department?
Remember that today on Democracy Now! the Times' Michael R. Gordon and the retired Lt. General are among the guests.
Brandon noted Danny Schechter's "We Took It To The Streets" (News Dissector):
There were three quotes that buzzed in my head as I joined the media march that we had been promoting yesterday. The first came from my pal, the film maker and "visual poet" Geo Geller, who chose to tag along with me and record my meditations and kvetching (especially about my healing foot which I should have stayed off of, and was not ready for walking, much less marching.) Someone called me "Hopalong."
Geo said: "The power of one is better than the power of none."
And so it was, and more than one but not as many as we hoped, alas. It wasn't major by any means in size and was quite overshadowed by a march to save the Seals in Canada, an issue that seems to have generated more excitement than saving democracy in America. That fact was pointed out to me by a reporter from the Globe and Mail of Toronto who came along with us whilst the mighty NY press ignored us to a fault. I explained to him this was a first attempt to join the media issue with the issues of the war in Iraq and is not yet an obvious enough connection to the anti-war crowd that seems happy to just bash Bush over and over and blame it all on the Republicans.
To my surprise it was a Republican who mouthed the next phrase that snuck into my mind--a formulation from none other then the phrase-making war-maker in chief Donald Rumsfeld who remarked famously: "You fight a war with the army you got."
WHO WAS THERE
That applied to us to--we were fighting our little media war for media rights against media wrongs with the only ragtag "army" we had. It was small but passionate, racially mixed, alive and drawn from the anti-war activism and media reform work. Some Grannys for Peace were there as well as a Code Pinker, Free Press and Deep Dish were with as well as Globalvisioneer who told me this was her first demonstration ever. Wow.
We would have been more disappointed by the size of the turnout if we didn't know that this campaign has already generated more than 100,000 emails of protest against media complicity in the war. Our best online campaign ever.
Mediachannel was there but many of the colleagues we respect couldn't make time for it including our friends at FAIR, MoveOn and even United For Peace and Justice who embraced the idea but didn't or couldn't help mobilize for it. Too busy, I guess to be charitable. It was easy to recognize that big protests take time and organizing efforts (including resources and experience) of the kind we lack. We gave it a try anyway.
Unlike Mussolini who allegedly had the trains run on time, we were late to the first stop at CBS "Black Rock" headquarters which was surrounded by a construction fence. I got there before the other organizers and posters did and ran into some of the acrimony some activists are famous for: rushing to judgment without any facts. At least one person immediately assumed the worst about my intentions, and then, without listening, stormed off to preserve a sense of self-righteousness. That was not a good start, but it did get better.
We had tried to meet with media executives on the inside before we arrived but no one was willing to hear from us then or when we were in their faces. To them, critical media consumers must be rendered invisible. Hence, there was no there there as I looked up at the building that still houses Walter Cronkite's offices (Recall that the "most trusted man in America" was forcibly retired years ago, when they made a big deal of enforcing their official 65 retirement age policy.) I then thought of CBS vet Mike Wallace whose retirement at age 88 made the front page of the NY Times that morning. When asked why he stayed so long, he said "I didn't know what else to do." That's a sentiment I can share.
When the sound system arrived, we explained why were there. Robert Jenson who teaches journalism at the University of Texas supported the march and told us that he discourages students from going into journalism because in the corporate media today, the values he champions--crusading against injustice and exposing government abuse--are hard to come by. We noticed former Mayor Ed Koch getting into a limo out in the street and asked him how we were doing. There was no response.
From there we marched down to NBC, Fox and ABC where Free Press's Tim Karr and my partner Rory O'Connor waxed eloquently about the sins of big media and the way it served--and serves the war effort. There was some debates with passersby at Fox who vehemently denied that the fair and balanced network is anything but--you got it--fair and balanced.
With more people watching in Times Square there was more energy and visible support for the message. Many in the crowds cheered us on. Reuters had used the occasion to list the names of all the journalists killed in Iraq and call for safety for media workers on the big screen at the corner of Broadway and 43rd. What a great example they are on the issue and I have nothing but respect for the way their executives express solidarity for media workers and demand independent investigations of incidents in which US and British soldiers have killed or maimed journalists.
Elaine noted MoveOn in an entry on Wednesday and two visitors had apparent heart attacks over it. They seemed to think their e-mails (and I've never heard from either before) would make me say, "A lifelong friend or an organization? Which will I choose!" It's obvious, I choose Elaine. Her points are solid. If you don't like her opinion, then you don't like it and won't like mine either. One of them felt the need to note that she didn't write that she was there. Elaine doesn't live in NYC and she can't (or won't) cancel sessions. (For someone who has always lectured me about taking time for myself, she goes into work sick, she goes into work well. For her to cancel a session, let alone a day's worth, takes over a month of planning.)
I didn't go either. I wasn't in the area (not even in a bordering state.) My plans were carved in stone by the first week of February. I've been all over the place this week, but I haven't been in New York, let alone NYC.
I wish I had been. Or that the event was announced earlier. With the original date, I thought I might be able to swing it. Then the date changed. It really did have to be during the week. To have a display in front of news organizations that would be noticed, it had to be during the week. But by being during the week, it limited the amount of people that could attend. It's also true that this March, like last March, is more of a diviersified series of protests as opposed to everyone going to a central location.
I don't think I did enough to support the event, I didn't even start making phone calls to ask why people wouldn't meet with Danny and the others until this week. I can try to weasel out of that by noting that everything was planned for this week over a month ago. (The things I'm doing.) So I'll own that and feel bad about it.
But it's also true, as Danny points out, that this was a first step. It took a lot of guts for him to do this and he deserves to be proud of what was accomplished. (And something was accomplished. It's about planting seeds. Nothing changes over night.) When he does the next protest, I'll call back all the ones who said, "It's not time" and again ask them, "When is the time?" and I'll try to devote more time to that.
MoveOn failed by not trying. I tried but not hard enough. Maybe next time MoveOn will take part? I don't know. But I have no problem with what Elaine wrote and I agree with it. I wouldn't have written it because I don't feel I'm in any position to point fingers at others on their lack of strong help to his campaign.
Since 2003 when I started speaking out, the deal has always been (with individuals and groups), you do this and I will do that. This week was a week that people called in markers (that they had a right to call in) and they did that back in February.
Danny had a brilliant idea and he pulled it off and the credit for that goes to him, MediaChannel.org, WBAI and a few others. For groups that were actually doing something this week (that doesn't include MoveOn, as Elaine noted), they may have had the same problem of prior committments, I don't know. But he pulled it off and, hopefully, next time, he'll get the support he deserves and the support he should have gotten this time. (I include myself in those that didn't give the support needed.)
But he pulled it off and he deserves praise for it. He should be proud and so should everyone who participated in it. His argument is solid and, if it was new to anyone (the media's hand in the selling the war, the importance of a media that serves the people, et al) this go round, hopefully they'll think about it between now and next time. Obviously, he got the word out because the e-mail campaign had an astonishing number of participants. That demonstrates that an audience, a large one, already exists for the argument he's making. He's planted seeds and the next event he stages will gather more people (and plant additional seeds).
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
jim dwyer
amy goodman
danny schechter
like maria said paz
michael r. gordon
bernard e. trainor
The reports provide a rare glimpse of internal police evaluations and strategies on security and free speech issues that have provoked sharp debate between city officials and political demonstrators since the Sept. 11 attack.
The reports also made clear what the police have yet to discuss publicly: that the department uses undercover officers to infiltrate political gatherings and monitor behavior.
The above is from Jim Dwyer's "Police Files Say Arrest Tactics Calmed Protest" in this morning's New York Times. It also notes that the documents contain a proposal to have undercover officers passing on "misinformation" and Paul J. Browne, spokesperson for NYPD, is quoted as saying, "The N.Y.P.D. does not use police officers in any capacity to distribute misinformation."
Is that true? Is it false? Coming from Browne, who danced "semantics" on a December 27, 2005 broadcast of Democracy Now! (Dwyer was also a guest), who knows? Excerpt:
AMY GOODMAN: And that issue, Paul Browne of undercover versus plain clothes, that Jim Dwyer just raised.
PAUL J. BROWNE: Well, there's two distinct functions here, what I’m talking about. Regardless of how he described them, that may not be important to your listeners, police officers who go to demonstrations in plain clothes are what we call anti-crime cops. They’re there for one purpose and that only. It has nothing to do with political surveillance. And that's the misleading part of that story. They're there to either intervene or to direct police intervention on some kind of lawbreaking that breaks out at that particular event.
AMY GOODMAN: Why do they get arrested?
PAUL J. BROWNE: They may get arrested or appear to be arrested just to keep functioning. I’m not certain that they did get arrested. I don't know who these individuals are, but assuming if some of them are police officers, they may be led away, as if they're under arrest, and then they continue to function.
[. . .]
AMY GOODMAN: Commissioner Browne?
PAUL J. BROWNE: Well, they are identified. They wear -- the officers who do videotaping are in -- are either in uniform or are wearing jackets that --
EILEEN CLANCY: That's absolutely not true, Commissioner Browne. I'm sorry, that's just absolutely not true. It's plainly visible. I mean, what comes to mind right away is a police officer wearing a black leather jacket and a Che Guevara t-shirt, that’s seen at many of these Critical Mass events, without any police identification whatsoever. This is typical.
PAUL J. BROWNE: Well, I can tell you, they wear wind jackets that say TARU on the back. It's a technical --
AMY GOODMAN: Some do. I think it's quite clear some do, some don't. We have been showing videotape of people who are, whatever you call, undercover or plainclothes.
PAUL J. BROWNE: Well, I don’t know. You’re saying they’re undercover. I explained, I know it may not be an important difference to you, but it’s a very important difference --
AMY GOODMAN: I said undercover or plainclothes.
So, with Browne for a source, who knows what's going on?
But the big point appears to be that the police reports are maintaining that arrests of "potential rioters" is 'effective.' What constitutes effective?
If we throw out the Constitution, we could probably imprison a great many more people (probably quite a few who were guilty as charged). That could be dubbed 'effective' as well.
Would it be effective to democracy? No.
Dwyer notes that some of the arrests are seen as "proactive" -- think of it as the police department adopting Bully Boy's pre-emptive war argument. You don't need a crime to be committed, you just book 'em.
Browne and the department are sure that this maintains public order.
What is public order? An orderly public is one that has faith in the laws in the land. If there's no faith in any of the laws, then you will have chaos. When you trample upon the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, you're trample on the laws -- whether you carry a badge or not. When you spit on Constitutional rights, you're inviting chaos. Not a moment of chaos, the kind that Browne would argue he fears, but long term chaos, the sort that we're more used to seeing in other countries.
In the United States, we're taught to believe that the Bill of Rights applies. If it stops applying, you're inviting anarchy and, some would argue, any anarchist would only be aping the police that elected to disregard the Constitution.
The flag waving nonsense and the nonsense over amendments not to burn the flag always seem to be made by people who don't grasp that the flag is a symbol while the Constitution is the foundation this country exists upon. (By those people and recently by Hillary Clinton as well, she knows better.) I've said it before, but it's worth noting again, instead of handing out flags, hand out copies of Constitution.
"Proactive" arrests seem to exist outside the Constitution. Possibly the NYPD might want to invest in some Constitutional training for their department?
Remember that today on Democracy Now! the Times' Michael R. Gordon and the retired Lt. General are among the guests.
Brandon noted Danny Schechter's "We Took It To The Streets" (News Dissector):
There were three quotes that buzzed in my head as I joined the media march that we had been promoting yesterday. The first came from my pal, the film maker and "visual poet" Geo Geller, who chose to tag along with me and record my meditations and kvetching (especially about my healing foot which I should have stayed off of, and was not ready for walking, much less marching.) Someone called me "Hopalong."
Geo said: "The power of one is better than the power of none."
And so it was, and more than one but not as many as we hoped, alas. It wasn't major by any means in size and was quite overshadowed by a march to save the Seals in Canada, an issue that seems to have generated more excitement than saving democracy in America. That fact was pointed out to me by a reporter from the Globe and Mail of Toronto who came along with us whilst the mighty NY press ignored us to a fault. I explained to him this was a first attempt to join the media issue with the issues of the war in Iraq and is not yet an obvious enough connection to the anti-war crowd that seems happy to just bash Bush over and over and blame it all on the Republicans.
To my surprise it was a Republican who mouthed the next phrase that snuck into my mind--a formulation from none other then the phrase-making war-maker in chief Donald Rumsfeld who remarked famously: "You fight a war with the army you got."
WHO WAS THERE
That applied to us to--we were fighting our little media war for media rights against media wrongs with the only ragtag "army" we had. It was small but passionate, racially mixed, alive and drawn from the anti-war activism and media reform work. Some Grannys for Peace were there as well as a Code Pinker, Free Press and Deep Dish were with as well as Globalvisioneer who told me this was her first demonstration ever. Wow.
We would have been more disappointed by the size of the turnout if we didn't know that this campaign has already generated more than 100,000 emails of protest against media complicity in the war. Our best online campaign ever.
Mediachannel was there but many of the colleagues we respect couldn't make time for it including our friends at FAIR, MoveOn and even United For Peace and Justice who embraced the idea but didn't or couldn't help mobilize for it. Too busy, I guess to be charitable. It was easy to recognize that big protests take time and organizing efforts (including resources and experience) of the kind we lack. We gave it a try anyway.
Unlike Mussolini who allegedly had the trains run on time, we were late to the first stop at CBS "Black Rock" headquarters which was surrounded by a construction fence. I got there before the other organizers and posters did and ran into some of the acrimony some activists are famous for: rushing to judgment without any facts. At least one person immediately assumed the worst about my intentions, and then, without listening, stormed off to preserve a sense of self-righteousness. That was not a good start, but it did get better.
We had tried to meet with media executives on the inside before we arrived but no one was willing to hear from us then or when we were in their faces. To them, critical media consumers must be rendered invisible. Hence, there was no there there as I looked up at the building that still houses Walter Cronkite's offices (Recall that the "most trusted man in America" was forcibly retired years ago, when they made a big deal of enforcing their official 65 retirement age policy.) I then thought of CBS vet Mike Wallace whose retirement at age 88 made the front page of the NY Times that morning. When asked why he stayed so long, he said "I didn't know what else to do." That's a sentiment I can share.
When the sound system arrived, we explained why were there. Robert Jenson who teaches journalism at the University of Texas supported the march and told us that he discourages students from going into journalism because in the corporate media today, the values he champions--crusading against injustice and exposing government abuse--are hard to come by. We noticed former Mayor Ed Koch getting into a limo out in the street and asked him how we were doing. There was no response.
From there we marched down to NBC, Fox and ABC where Free Press's Tim Karr and my partner Rory O'Connor waxed eloquently about the sins of big media and the way it served--and serves the war effort. There was some debates with passersby at Fox who vehemently denied that the fair and balanced network is anything but--you got it--fair and balanced.
With more people watching in Times Square there was more energy and visible support for the message. Many in the crowds cheered us on. Reuters had used the occasion to list the names of all the journalists killed in Iraq and call for safety for media workers on the big screen at the corner of Broadway and 43rd. What a great example they are on the issue and I have nothing but respect for the way their executives express solidarity for media workers and demand independent investigations of incidents in which US and British soldiers have killed or maimed journalists.
Elaine noted MoveOn in an entry on Wednesday and two visitors had apparent heart attacks over it. They seemed to think their e-mails (and I've never heard from either before) would make me say, "A lifelong friend or an organization? Which will I choose!" It's obvious, I choose Elaine. Her points are solid. If you don't like her opinion, then you don't like it and won't like mine either. One of them felt the need to note that she didn't write that she was there. Elaine doesn't live in NYC and she can't (or won't) cancel sessions. (For someone who has always lectured me about taking time for myself, she goes into work sick, she goes into work well. For her to cancel a session, let alone a day's worth, takes over a month of planning.)
I didn't go either. I wasn't in the area (not even in a bordering state.) My plans were carved in stone by the first week of February. I've been all over the place this week, but I haven't been in New York, let alone NYC.
I wish I had been. Or that the event was announced earlier. With the original date, I thought I might be able to swing it. Then the date changed. It really did have to be during the week. To have a display in front of news organizations that would be noticed, it had to be during the week. But by being during the week, it limited the amount of people that could attend. It's also true that this March, like last March, is more of a diviersified series of protests as opposed to everyone going to a central location.
I don't think I did enough to support the event, I didn't even start making phone calls to ask why people wouldn't meet with Danny and the others until this week. I can try to weasel out of that by noting that everything was planned for this week over a month ago. (The things I'm doing.) So I'll own that and feel bad about it.
But it's also true, as Danny points out, that this was a first step. It took a lot of guts for him to do this and he deserves to be proud of what was accomplished. (And something was accomplished. It's about planting seeds. Nothing changes over night.) When he does the next protest, I'll call back all the ones who said, "It's not time" and again ask them, "When is the time?" and I'll try to devote more time to that.
MoveOn failed by not trying. I tried but not hard enough. Maybe next time MoveOn will take part? I don't know. But I have no problem with what Elaine wrote and I agree with it. I wouldn't have written it because I don't feel I'm in any position to point fingers at others on their lack of strong help to his campaign.
Since 2003 when I started speaking out, the deal has always been (with individuals and groups), you do this and I will do that. This week was a week that people called in markers (that they had a right to call in) and they did that back in February.
Danny had a brilliant idea and he pulled it off and the credit for that goes to him, MediaChannel.org, WBAI and a few others. For groups that were actually doing something this week (that doesn't include MoveOn, as Elaine noted), they may have had the same problem of prior committments, I don't know. But he pulled it off and, hopefully, next time, he'll get the support he deserves and the support he should have gotten this time. (I include myself in those that didn't give the support needed.)
But he pulled it off and he deserves praise for it. He should be proud and so should everyone who participated in it. His argument is solid and, if it was new to anyone (the media's hand in the selling the war, the importance of a media that serves the people, et al) this go round, hopefully they'll think about it between now and next time. Obviously, he got the word out because the e-mail campaign had an astonishing number of participants. That demonstrates that an audience, a large one, already exists for the argument he's making. He's planted seeds and the next event he stages will gather more people (and plant additional seeds).
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
jim dwyer
amy goodman
danny schechter
like maria said paz
michael r. gordon
bernard e. trainor
Thursday, March 16, 2006
And the war drags on . . . (Indymedia Roundup)
When the media watch group FAIR conducted a survey of network news sources during the Gulf War's first two weeks, the most frequent repeat analyst was ABC's Anthony Cordesman. Not surprisingly, the former high-ranking official at the Defense Department and National Security Council gave the war-makers high marks for being trustworthy.
"I think the Pentagon is giving it to you absolutely straight," Cordesman said (Newsday, 1/23/91).
The standard media coverage boosted the war. "Usually missing from the news was analysis from a perspective critical of U.S. policy," FAIR reported (Extra!, Winter/91). "The media's rule of thumb seemed to be that to support the war was to be objective, while to be anti-war was to carry a bias." Eased along by that media rule of thumb was the sanitized language of Pentagonspeak as mediaspeak: "Again and again, the mantra of 'surgical strikes against military targets' was repeated by journalists, even though Pentagon briefers acknowledged that they were aiming at civilian roads, bridges and public utilities vital to the survival of the civilian population."
As the Gulf War came to an end, people watching CBS saw Dan Rather close an interview with the 1st Marine Division commander by shaking his hand and exclaiming (2/27/91): "Again, general, congratulations on a job wonderfully done!"
Chris Hedges covered the Gulf War for the New York Times. More than a decade later, he wrote in a book (War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning):
"The notion that the press was used in the war is incorrect. The press wanted to be used. It saw itself as part of the war effort." Truth-seeking independence was far from the media agenda. "The press was as eager to be of service to the state during the war as most everyone else. Such docility on the part of the press made it easier to do what governments do in wartime, indeed what governments do much of the time, and that is lie."
Variations in news coverage did not change the overwhelming sameness of outlook:
"I boycotted the pool system, but my reports did not puncture the myth or question the grand crusade to free Kuwait. I allowed soldiers to grumble. I shed a little light on the lies spread to make the war look like a coalition, but I did not challenge in any real way the patriotism and jingoism that enthused the crowds back home. We all used the same phrases. We all looked at Iraq through the same lens."
The above, noted by Ryan, is from Norman Solomon's "The Military-Industrial-Media Complex: Why war is covered from the warriors’ perspective" (FAIR). It's always worth noting but especially on the third anniversary of the invasion, at a time when the new effort appears to be "Only we can bring peace" (when the occupation had done anything but that in Iraq). And to get the public behind the latest efforts, what better to do than to spotlight generals who grumble about strategy? Generals who explain that someone was tying their hands.
It's the old argument, you heard it for years in the revisionary Vietnam histories, "We could have won! We could have! But our hands were tied, we weren't given what we needed, we . . ."
Blah, blah, f-ing blah. On the Times' dopey article (actually a two-parter) this week, we already noted that the authors (who will be on Democracy Now! tomorrow) weren't historians, weren't anything. They're part of the roll out (knowingly or not) for the, "Okay, we screwed up the occupation before, but now we're going to do things right!" b.s.
That the administration screwed up is not a surprise -- in any area. That they screwed up in Iraq is not news. Naomi Klein charted the intentional screw ups in Iraq back in September of 2004 with "Baghdad Year Zero" (Harper's magazine). Let's quote Klein to be sure no one's forgotten:
Looking at the honey billboard, I was also reminded of the most common explanation for what has gone wrong in Iraq, a complaint echoed by everyone from John Kerry to Pat Buchanan: Iraq is mired in blood and deprivation because George W. Bush didn't have "a postwar plan." The only problem with this theory is that it isn't true. The Bush Administration did have a plan for what it would do after the war; put simply, it was to lay out as much honey as possible, then sit back and wait for the flies.
They did have a postwar plan. It was to shut the Iraqis out of the process, privatize as much as they could, and haul off as much money as they were able to. Learning that the British were shocked that Bully Boy didn't do this or that military is besides the point.
That wasn't his aim. His aim was to lie us over there and then create, from the ground -- hence Baghdad Year Zero, the free market -- from scratch and a gun barrel.
Talking military strategy is b.s. That's all it is, that's all it ever will be.
Talk about what was done in Iraq. Talk about how we got over there. Hearing tales from high ranking military officials about how they wished they had more whatever (bombs? troops?) is nonsense. We shouldn't have been over there and trying to sell the hogwash that there could have been a "win" is nonsense, it's jerking off, it's fantasizing and it's attempting to tack on even more days to the occupation as Americans are told if-only's and led to believe that Rumsfeld can carry it off this time.
It doesn't need to be 'carried off.' It needs to be ended. It never should have started. For three years a lot of people have deluded themselves about the tensions (against the occupiers) in Iraq. As though we could trample around their country and impose our concept of "order" upon a people -- an intelligent people, not a group of ignorant children. We can't. If that's not obvious to people now, it never will be.
Fortunately for those who practice the religion of denail, the likes of Michael Gordon scribble badly written articles that let them think, "If only we'd fought this way or that way, we'd have peace now!" No, we wouldn't. When one country occupies another, you don't get peace. When the host country wants the occupiers to leave, you don't get peace. When you import workers from out of the country and deny jobs to Iraqis, you don't get peace. When you have a tag sale on their public goods, you don't get peace. When you make noises about taking away their food subsidies, you don't get peace.
Why take away their food subsidies? Especially if they don't want them taken away? Because it doesn't fit the "free market" model we've attempted to impose upon Iraq, that we've attempted to force onto the people.
That's not democracy. That's occupation. We're calling the shots, and Iraqis don't like it. That's not a surprise to anyone awake. And hearing about the grumbles from the leadership of the military doesn't begin to address reality.
To note Naomi Klein again:
At first, the shock-therapy theory seemed to hold: Iraqis, reeling from violence both military and economic, were far too busy staying alive to mount a political response to Bremer’s campaign. Worrying about the privatization of the sewage system was an unimaginable luxury with half the population lacking access to clean drinking water; the debate over the flat tax would have to wait until the lights were back on. Even in the international press, Bremer's new laws, though radical, were easily upstaged by more dramatic news of political chaos and rising crime.
Some people were paying attention, of course. That autumn was awash in "rebuilding Iraq" trade shows, in Washington, London, Madrid, and Amman. The Economist described Iraq under Bremer as "a capitalist dream," and a flurry of new consulting firms were launched promising to help companies get access to the Iraqi market, their boards of directors stacked with well-connected Republicans. The most prominent was New Bridge Strategies, started by Joe Allbaugh, former Bush-Cheney campaign manager. "Getting the rights to distribute Procter & Gamble products can be a gold mine," one of the company's partners enthused. "One well-stocked 7-Eleven could knock out thirty Iraqi stores; a Wal-Mart could take over the country."
That was the plan, that is the plan. The military were used as rent-a-cops to protect the tag sales and the corporations. They were dispensible. That's why there was no guilt on the part of the Bully Boy about hiding coffins, about not attending funerals, go down the list. They weren't his "base." They were the servants sent in to do the chores. That some generals want to whine about the feather duster they were given or not given is beside the point.
The only plan is, and was always, to take over Iraq. Not to spread democracy. Not to help the Iraqis. It wasn't just creating a "free market," it was about opening a "new market." One created with rules by the United States for the United States.
Which is why this isn't surprising (from Democracy Now!):
Top US General in Iraq Says Bases May Be Permanent
In other news, the top US military commander in Iraq has indicated the US may want to hold on to the several military bases it has built in the country. Appearing before a Congressional subcommittee Tuesday, General John Abizaid said the US may want to keep a foothold in Iraq to support regional "moderates" and protect oil supplies.
Rachel asked that we note it again. It's worth noting again.
Bring the troops home? Not when people are pushing the nonsense that we could have "won" if only we'd utilized this military option or that military option. It's the same nonsense, the same sell war b.s. we've gotten in the post-Vietnam era as the likes of Rumsfeld, et al, have committed themselves to overcoming the "Vietnam syndrome."
What was that "syndrome"? A realization that war has costs, that leaders lie (from both of the dominant parties in the United States), a realization that Americans should not be sacrificed at the whim of a leader. This wasn't a "syndrome," it was an awakening.
Brenda wanted us to highlight "Lessons of Iraq War start with U.S. history" (The Progressive Media Project, The Progressive) again:
On the third anniversary of President Bush's Iraq debacle, it's important to consider why the administration so easily fooled so many people into supporting the war.I believe there are two reasons, which go deep into our national culture.
One is an absence of historical perspective. The other is an inability to think outside the boundaries of nationalism.
If we don't know history, then we are ready meat for carnivorous politicians and the intellectuals and journalists who supply the carving knives. But if we know some history, if we know how many times presidents have lied to us, we will not be fooled again.
[. . .]
Our leaders have taken it for granted, and planted the belief in the minds of many people that we are entitled, because of our moral superiority, to dominate the world. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties have embraced this notion.
It's that superiority that leads us to debate military strategies instead of the actual realities of how we got over there and of what we're doing over there.
Military porn, war lust, won't get to the heart of the problem. It's not even telling us anything useful. So some generals are unhappy that they couldn't do this or that, or some Brits were shocked by how we occupied -- so what? The issue is the occupation. The issue is why we are occupying.
But instead, we're encouraged to focus on the military 'strategy.' Why? Are we going to invade our own occupation? Hardly. But give people something to focus on other than reality and they'll go all dreamy-eyed. Many years ago, in a poli sci class, we had an assignment where we would be divided into five (or more) countries. Some would have the nuclear bomb and some wouldn't. If I'm vague on the assignment, there's a reason. I didn't participate. As the time for this major assignment (that would last two weeks) approached, you could just see people getting excited about having the 'bomb.' You could hear the jokes and see that the whole excercise was nothing but a war game and people were getting off on it. So I went to the professor and said that I couldn't participate. I was told my 'moral stance' was admirable but I might want to rethink it since I'd be getting a zero on that project. I took the zero. But before I left the office, I did ask what the objectives were? Not because I was on the fence, I'd already announced that I would be absent from two weeks worth of classes, but because I wanted to know exactly what was supposed to happen with the lesson. To raise awareness about the way nations relate, that was the goal.
Thing is, that's not what anyone got out of it. Not then, not since. (I spoke to ten classmates last weekend.) (The whole class participated, except for me.) What they got was how 'cool' it was to have 'power.' The ones with 'power' didn't have an understanding of the ones representing countries without 'power.' The ones in the latter category didn't come out with an understanding of how important diplomacy was or any sense of fairness/unfairness in the system. They just knew they needed to get the 'bomb' or represent another country the next time.
One of the people I spoke to was the strongest supporter (prior to and during) of the excercise. He said last weekend, looking back, the whole course seemed to exist just to "justify imperialism." It did that quite well.
And that's what military strategy discussions will do. If only we'd . . . Why didn't we . . . Never questions as to the actual right or wrong of the war itself. Just 'strategies.' And the administration's hope is that we'll get caught up in that 'game' and we'll lose sight of the fact that the occupation is as illegal as was the invasion, that Iraqis are dying, that troops in the so-called coaltion are dying. And maybe as we gear up for some sort of NFL fantasy war, we'll stop focusing on reality.
The invasion that was sold as a video game could become a game again! That's the hope.
The reality? That we're three years into the "cakewalk" that wasn't. That democracy wasn't the goal. That there was no interest in the Iraqi people as evidenced by the lack of interest the occupation has had in providing basics like running electricity and running water.
Here's some more reality, noted by In Dallas, "Rally and March, Downtown Dallas, March 19, 2006" (North Texas Indymedia):
On the third anniversary of the war, Sunday, March 19, 2006 a rally and march to Stop the War Now and Bring Our Troops Home will take place in Dallas at 2:00 p.m.
For those interested in bringing this war to an end, the rallying point will be:St. Paul United Methodist Church1816 Routh St. (downtown Dallas)
Participants will begin gathering outside the church at 1:30 p.m., and a rally consisting of speakers and music will start at 2:00 p.m.
The march immediately following will be to the Earle Cabell Federal Building.
People of all faiths are encouraged to show their support for Rev. L. Charles Stovall and his call for peace at St. Paul United Methodist Church. Morning services begining at 10:45 a.m.
For more information:
Walt Harrison, Camp Casey Dallas, (800) 490-8161 ext. 103, baldeagle152@hotmail.com
Trish Major, Dallas Peace Center Communications Director, (214) 823-7793
http://www.MeetWithCongress.org
Why is it important to be heard this weekend? Because the war drags on, within you, without you. Sing the song:
They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)
It's Thursday, indymedia roundup with a focus on Iraq. The third annivesary of the invasion is upon us. Three years. Make yourself heard or accept that the war will continue to drag on. Accept, embrace it and make yourself useless.
Ben notes Mark Jurkowitz's "Numbing carnage: Once an upbeat hit, Bush's Iraq show has jumped the shark" (The Boston Phoenix):
As the brutal onslaught of chaos and bloodshed in Iraq steadily erodes Americans’ patience, a number of pollsters and analysts assert that those blaming the media for instilling defeatism in the American public -- in a reprise of the so-called Vietnam syndrome -- are wrong on two key counts.
For one thing, they say, the track of the media's performance in Iraq suggests that coverage, rather than being inalterably negative, has focused on both the upbeat (such as elections) and the downbeat (such as violence), as events have dictated. And second, the evidence suggests that the American vox populi is genuinely responsive to actual events as they unfold on the ground.
On Monday, in another of his repeated attempts to reverse the slide of support for his policy, George Bush gave a speech that discussed a "hopeful future" in Iraq and told Americans that despite "images of violence and anger and despair," the Iraqi people have opted for "a future of freedom and peace."
But Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup poll, suggests that at this point the president is in the position of basically asking the public not to believe its eyes.
"Obviously, what Americans know about the war comes from the media, so their attitudes are crystallized by that, [and] their attitude toward the war reacts to what really happens."
"If I would talk to the administration," Newport adds, "I would say, 'Speeches don't do much anymore.' "
Durham Gal notes two items. First up, Patrick O'Neill's "Protests this weekend: March part of larger anti-war process" (Raleigh-Durham Independent):
Liz Seymour, a spokeswoman for the interim steering committee of the N.C. Peace and Justice Coalition, the main sponsor of the march, said this year more of the people working on the march are newcomers who became active because they were inspired after attending previous Fayetteville events.
Seymour said she knows Saturday's event will not make an impact on George Bush, but it will likely be part of an effort to build a comprehensive, long-range movement that goes beyond stopping the Iraq war.
"It's not about the right combination of programs and words to change the minds of the people elected to higher office," Seymour says. "The point is to broaden the movement, to give people direction toward their political goals. It's more about being in it for the long haul. It's more a demonstration of the way people are feeling the world could work."
Seymour says this year's gathering may be smaller than last year's crowd of more than 4,000 because several national groups, such as Iraq Veterans Against the War and Military Families Speak Out, will skip Fayetteville to be involved in a march from Mobile, Ala., to New Orleans, linking Iraqi war victims with victims displaced by Hurricane Katrina. It was those families and veterans who gave last year's event a national focus.
The steady decline in Bush's approval rating is an indication that more and more people are linking objections to the war with objections to Bush's overall policies, such as the PATRIOT Act, illegal domestic spying and allegations of torture at U.S.-operated prisons, Seymour says.
"It's all part of a larger mess," Seymour says. "The movement is growing in people who are working on social justice issues and linking them to the anti-war movement."
Second item, same source and also same reporter, Patrick O'Neill's "Ray McGovern to speak at protest: Ex-CIA analyst leads charge against Iraq war:"
In his career as a CIA analyst, Ray McGovern was responsible for preparing the President's Daily Brief for Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. He was about as far from being an anti-war activist as you could get .
But this weekend he'll be in North Carolina speaking against the war in Iraq. And part of the former White House insider's message will be: George W. Bush is taking the United States toward fascism, and he must be stopped.
Impeachment will be a big part of McGovern's theme when he's the featured speaker at Saturday's anti-war march and rally in Fayetteville. He then speaks Sunday at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Raleigh.
"My general effort lately has been to challenge people to wake up and watch what's happening," McGovern said in a telephone interview.
[. . .]
Ray McGovern speaks Sunday at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Raleigh (3313 Wade Ave.) at 7:30 p.m. Info, 828-3499 or 942-2535.
Needing to hear some truth from Iraqis? Remember the CODEPINK tour is ongoing. Portland notes "News" from the Eugene Weekly which addresses one stop on the tour:
A member of a delegation of Iraqi women will be in Eugene next week speaking about daily life in Iraq and the possibility of an impending civil war. Eman Ahmed Khamas will speak at 7:30 pm Tuesday, March 21 at the Campbell Senior Center, 3rd and High. Suggested donation is $5-$10.
Khamas will talk first-hand about the escalation of violence that's occurred since the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra Feb. 22. Khamas arrived in the U.S. March 5 with a delegation of Iraqi women seeking to tell their stories to the American public and urge U.S. and U.N. officials to create a peace plan to end the escalating cycle of violence.
The delegation has been traveling throughout the U.S. promoting a Women's Call for Peace that was signed by 100,000 women around the globe. The peace petition was delivered to the White House March 8, International Women's Day, by a large group of women wearing pink and marching with the Iraqi delegation. The group met at the Iraq Embassy and walked to the White House, chanting "Money for heath and education, not for war and occupation."
The call urges a shift in strategy in Iraq, from a military model to a conflict resolution model. It requests the withdrawal of all foreign troops and foreign fighters from Iraq, negotiations to reincorporate disenfranchised Iraqis, full representation of women in the peacemaking process, and a commitment to women's equality in the post-war Iraq. The full text is available at www.womensaynotowar.org.
Khamas is a journalist, translator and human rights activist who lives in Baghdad with her husband and two daughters. She is a member of the Women's Will organization, which focuses on defining and defending women's rights outside of political party interests and opposing incarceration of women as hostages. Khamas regularly publishes articles on women's conditions in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion, and has documented human rights violations committed by U.S. and Iraqi forces. She is also involved in mobilizing emergency relief (medicines, food and clothing) for victims of the war, especially women and children living in refugee camps.
Khamas is being hosted by Eugene CODEPINK, a small band of women from a variety of peace groups who believe the time is right for a new attitude to Eugene's traditional peace activist approach. Eugene CODEPINK founders Karla Cohen (Justice Not War Coalition), Pam Garrison (Justice Not War, Women in Black, WAND) and Aria Seligmann (WAND, Nonviolent Peaceforce) marched together in the Sept. 24 Peace Parade in Washington, D.C.
Need more reality? Not surprising if so. It's hard to come by in the big media. In full, here's an announcement of a new feature at Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches, "Translated Daily News Feeds from the Middle East:"
Dahr Jamail Iraq is happy to announce new daily video streams of translated Middle East News on line. The daily Mosaic streams, produced by LinkTV, features selections from daily TV news programs produced by national broadcasters throughout the Middle East. The news reports are presented unedited and translated, when necessary, into English. Mosaic includes television news broadcasts from selected national and regional entities listed on the right. These news reports are regularly watched by 280 million people in 22 countries all over the Middle East.
Thus, people unable to speak or understand Arabic or Persian are now able to get news directly from the Middle East. You are no longer forced to rely on people who can read Arabic to give you the information, as you can watch or read the news yourself and make up your own mind. Between the Mosaic and MidEastWire daily Iraq news feeds, www.dahrjamailiraq.com is now a daily source of fresh news directly from major Middle Eastern news agencies, all translated into English.
How to watch Mosaic: Please watch the quicktime stream while reviewing the information about the broadcasters linked to from the Dahr Jamail Iraq website. Mosaic represents a diversity of media sources from state controlled to US funded to private networks affiliated with political factions. Mosaic is best understood, appreciated and digested within the context of the specific news outlets being watched.
You can see the News Broadcasts here
And subscribe to our Mosiac RSS feed here
From reality to denial -- John Burns (New York Times) continues to disgrace his own reputation without even noticing. Candice notes Bonnie Azab Powell's "Top Iraq war correspondents discuss risking their lives to tell a truth that few want to hear -- or believe" (UC Berkeley News). We'll start by noting Jackie Spinner of the Washington Post:
"I went to Iraq not because I was for or against it, but because there was a war," Spinner said, adding she believes it is inappropriate for journalists to take sides publicly, as they are supposed to write from a neutral stance.
Burns, of course, continues to betray that "neutral stance" in all public remarks. (See this entry.) He tops himself. From the article:
The torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib by U.S. soldiers was unarguably the biggest single story of the war today, Burns said, calling it "an arrow in the back of every American soldier who goes to Iraq."
Burns goes on to talk feel-good stories, but focus on the above. It's a story that Burns and Dexter Filkins missed. (The article mentions a caller to a radio station noting the story was known for over a year before it broke. That is true.) And here's Burns, "international war correspondent" speaking. What does he say about Abu Ghraib? "Unarguably the biggest single story of the war today." And why is that? Burns puts it through the filter of "every American solider." The provencial "international correspondent" John F. Burns. There is your answer as to why Iraqis are reduced to bit players in their own drama when the Times manages to mention them at all. The prison scandal, the treatment of Iraqi's? Even when speaking of it, Burns renders the Iraqis invisible (while they hold their "bows" which may or may not be a slur against both Iraqis and Native Americans).
Need some reality to wash Burns' delusions down? How about this? Last Thursday, the American military fatality count was 2306. This Thursday? 2314. Toral for March? 17.
And while Tony Blair whistles "Let's Do It Again:"
His own anti-war Labour MPs will be joining a mass demonstration against the continued occupation of Iraq in London on Saturday. They will be calling for the troops to be brought home, but Mr Blair ruled out, "leaving a small minority who want terror and violence to overwhelm the majority who show they are prepared for democracy".
That was noted by James in Brighton and it's from "Blair on Iraq: 'I'd do it all again'" written by Colin Brown, Patrick Cockburn and Rupert Cornwell. While Blair can't stop cheerleading, Gareth notes one who is saying no more. From Richard Norton-Taylor's "RAF doctor refused Iraq return because 'invasion was unlawful'" (The Guardian of London):
The continuing presence of British troops in Iraq is as unlawful as the initial invasion, a military court hearing into the first British officer charged with refusing to serve in Iraq was told yesterday.
Moreover, members of the armed forces individually shared responsibility for complicity in these unlawful actions, the court heard.
The claims were made by counsel for Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, 37, an RAF doctor facing a court martial for refusing to return to the war-torn country.
"The flight lieutenant's case is that Iraq is and remains under occupation," defence counsel Philip Sapsford QC told an open pre-trial hearing at the court martial centre in Aldershot barracks, Hampshire.
Flt Lt Kendal-Smith, based at RAF Kinloss in Scotland, is charged with five counts of disobeying lawful commands in 2005 when he was asked to return to Iraq. Though he has served there before, he only later came to the view that the war was illegal, partly after reading the attorney-general's advice which raised doubts about the lawfulness of the invasion.
Malcolm Kendall-Smith's standing up. Will you? As the Bully Boy launches as massive air raid on Iraq (dubbed "Operation Swarmer"), will you be silent?
This week's song pick:
but what if the enemy
isn't in a distant land
what if the enemy lies behind
the voice of command
the sound of war
is a childs cry
behind tinted windows
they just drive by
and all I know is that those
that are going to be killed
aren't those that preside
on capital hill
-- "Roll With It," words and music by Ani DiFranco, available on the DiFranco CD Not So Soft as well as on Like I Said (Songs 1990-1991).
If you missed it (I did, I was on the phone participating in Gina and Krista's discussion for tomorrow's round-robin), tonight on ER, Parminder Nagra's Dr. Neela Rasgotra spoke out against the war. She was in a gathering with other people whose spouses are in Iraq and she refused to play rah-rah-rah. (One of her lines was supposed to be something like, she refused "to be brainwashed into falling in line with some psuedo patrictic vision.") That was one of two messages for peace onscreen this week. When even TV characters can speak out, don't you think you need to do your part as well?
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. (And I clearly loathe Gordon and Lt. General retired's New York Times reporting. I haven't read their book. If anyone can get a good interview out of the two it would be Amy Goodman. So make a point to check out Democracy Now! tomorrow as always.)
iraq
donovan
and the war drags on
indymedia
iraq
norman solomon
democracy now
naomi klein
howard zinn
mark jurkowitz
patrick oneill
eugene weekly
the new york times
john f. burns
dexter filkins
michael r. gordon
bernard e. trainor
rupert cornwell
colin brown
patrick cockburn
richard norton-taylor
bonnie azab powell
malcolm kendall-smith
ani difranco
roll with it
"I think the Pentagon is giving it to you absolutely straight," Cordesman said (Newsday, 1/23/91).
The standard media coverage boosted the war. "Usually missing from the news was analysis from a perspective critical of U.S. policy," FAIR reported (Extra!, Winter/91). "The media's rule of thumb seemed to be that to support the war was to be objective, while to be anti-war was to carry a bias." Eased along by that media rule of thumb was the sanitized language of Pentagonspeak as mediaspeak: "Again and again, the mantra of 'surgical strikes against military targets' was repeated by journalists, even though Pentagon briefers acknowledged that they were aiming at civilian roads, bridges and public utilities vital to the survival of the civilian population."
As the Gulf War came to an end, people watching CBS saw Dan Rather close an interview with the 1st Marine Division commander by shaking his hand and exclaiming (2/27/91): "Again, general, congratulations on a job wonderfully done!"
Chris Hedges covered the Gulf War for the New York Times. More than a decade later, he wrote in a book (War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning):
"The notion that the press was used in the war is incorrect. The press wanted to be used. It saw itself as part of the war effort." Truth-seeking independence was far from the media agenda. "The press was as eager to be of service to the state during the war as most everyone else. Such docility on the part of the press made it easier to do what governments do in wartime, indeed what governments do much of the time, and that is lie."
Variations in news coverage did not change the overwhelming sameness of outlook:
"I boycotted the pool system, but my reports did not puncture the myth or question the grand crusade to free Kuwait. I allowed soldiers to grumble. I shed a little light on the lies spread to make the war look like a coalition, but I did not challenge in any real way the patriotism and jingoism that enthused the crowds back home. We all used the same phrases. We all looked at Iraq through the same lens."
The above, noted by Ryan, is from Norman Solomon's "The Military-Industrial-Media Complex: Why war is covered from the warriors’ perspective" (FAIR). It's always worth noting but especially on the third anniversary of the invasion, at a time when the new effort appears to be "Only we can bring peace" (when the occupation had done anything but that in Iraq). And to get the public behind the latest efforts, what better to do than to spotlight generals who grumble about strategy? Generals who explain that someone was tying their hands.
It's the old argument, you heard it for years in the revisionary Vietnam histories, "We could have won! We could have! But our hands were tied, we weren't given what we needed, we . . ."
Blah, blah, f-ing blah. On the Times' dopey article (actually a two-parter) this week, we already noted that the authors (who will be on Democracy Now! tomorrow) weren't historians, weren't anything. They're part of the roll out (knowingly or not) for the, "Okay, we screwed up the occupation before, but now we're going to do things right!" b.s.
That the administration screwed up is not a surprise -- in any area. That they screwed up in Iraq is not news. Naomi Klein charted the intentional screw ups in Iraq back in September of 2004 with "Baghdad Year Zero" (Harper's magazine). Let's quote Klein to be sure no one's forgotten:
Looking at the honey billboard, I was also reminded of the most common explanation for what has gone wrong in Iraq, a complaint echoed by everyone from John Kerry to Pat Buchanan: Iraq is mired in blood and deprivation because George W. Bush didn't have "a postwar plan." The only problem with this theory is that it isn't true. The Bush Administration did have a plan for what it would do after the war; put simply, it was to lay out as much honey as possible, then sit back and wait for the flies.
They did have a postwar plan. It was to shut the Iraqis out of the process, privatize as much as they could, and haul off as much money as they were able to. Learning that the British were shocked that Bully Boy didn't do this or that military is besides the point.
That wasn't his aim. His aim was to lie us over there and then create, from the ground -- hence Baghdad Year Zero, the free market -- from scratch and a gun barrel.
Talking military strategy is b.s. That's all it is, that's all it ever will be.
Talk about what was done in Iraq. Talk about how we got over there. Hearing tales from high ranking military officials about how they wished they had more whatever (bombs? troops?) is nonsense. We shouldn't have been over there and trying to sell the hogwash that there could have been a "win" is nonsense, it's jerking off, it's fantasizing and it's attempting to tack on even more days to the occupation as Americans are told if-only's and led to believe that Rumsfeld can carry it off this time.
It doesn't need to be 'carried off.' It needs to be ended. It never should have started. For three years a lot of people have deluded themselves about the tensions (against the occupiers) in Iraq. As though we could trample around their country and impose our concept of "order" upon a people -- an intelligent people, not a group of ignorant children. We can't. If that's not obvious to people now, it never will be.
Fortunately for those who practice the religion of denail, the likes of Michael Gordon scribble badly written articles that let them think, "If only we'd fought this way or that way, we'd have peace now!" No, we wouldn't. When one country occupies another, you don't get peace. When the host country wants the occupiers to leave, you don't get peace. When you import workers from out of the country and deny jobs to Iraqis, you don't get peace. When you have a tag sale on their public goods, you don't get peace. When you make noises about taking away their food subsidies, you don't get peace.
Why take away their food subsidies? Especially if they don't want them taken away? Because it doesn't fit the "free market" model we've attempted to impose upon Iraq, that we've attempted to force onto the people.
That's not democracy. That's occupation. We're calling the shots, and Iraqis don't like it. That's not a surprise to anyone awake. And hearing about the grumbles from the leadership of the military doesn't begin to address reality.
To note Naomi Klein again:
At first, the shock-therapy theory seemed to hold: Iraqis, reeling from violence both military and economic, were far too busy staying alive to mount a political response to Bremer’s campaign. Worrying about the privatization of the sewage system was an unimaginable luxury with half the population lacking access to clean drinking water; the debate over the flat tax would have to wait until the lights were back on. Even in the international press, Bremer's new laws, though radical, were easily upstaged by more dramatic news of political chaos and rising crime.
Some people were paying attention, of course. That autumn was awash in "rebuilding Iraq" trade shows, in Washington, London, Madrid, and Amman. The Economist described Iraq under Bremer as "a capitalist dream," and a flurry of new consulting firms were launched promising to help companies get access to the Iraqi market, their boards of directors stacked with well-connected Republicans. The most prominent was New Bridge Strategies, started by Joe Allbaugh, former Bush-Cheney campaign manager. "Getting the rights to distribute Procter & Gamble products can be a gold mine," one of the company's partners enthused. "One well-stocked 7-Eleven could knock out thirty Iraqi stores; a Wal-Mart could take over the country."
That was the plan, that is the plan. The military were used as rent-a-cops to protect the tag sales and the corporations. They were dispensible. That's why there was no guilt on the part of the Bully Boy about hiding coffins, about not attending funerals, go down the list. They weren't his "base." They were the servants sent in to do the chores. That some generals want to whine about the feather duster they were given or not given is beside the point.
The only plan is, and was always, to take over Iraq. Not to spread democracy. Not to help the Iraqis. It wasn't just creating a "free market," it was about opening a "new market." One created with rules by the United States for the United States.
Which is why this isn't surprising (from Democracy Now!):
Top US General in Iraq Says Bases May Be Permanent
In other news, the top US military commander in Iraq has indicated the US may want to hold on to the several military bases it has built in the country. Appearing before a Congressional subcommittee Tuesday, General John Abizaid said the US may want to keep a foothold in Iraq to support regional "moderates" and protect oil supplies.
Rachel asked that we note it again. It's worth noting again.
Bring the troops home? Not when people are pushing the nonsense that we could have "won" if only we'd utilized this military option or that military option. It's the same nonsense, the same sell war b.s. we've gotten in the post-Vietnam era as the likes of Rumsfeld, et al, have committed themselves to overcoming the "Vietnam syndrome."
What was that "syndrome"? A realization that war has costs, that leaders lie (from both of the dominant parties in the United States), a realization that Americans should not be sacrificed at the whim of a leader. This wasn't a "syndrome," it was an awakening.
Brenda wanted us to highlight "Lessons of Iraq War start with U.S. history" (The Progressive Media Project, The Progressive) again:
On the third anniversary of President Bush's Iraq debacle, it's important to consider why the administration so easily fooled so many people into supporting the war.I believe there are two reasons, which go deep into our national culture.
One is an absence of historical perspective. The other is an inability to think outside the boundaries of nationalism.
If we don't know history, then we are ready meat for carnivorous politicians and the intellectuals and journalists who supply the carving knives. But if we know some history, if we know how many times presidents have lied to us, we will not be fooled again.
[. . .]
Our leaders have taken it for granted, and planted the belief in the minds of many people that we are entitled, because of our moral superiority, to dominate the world. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties have embraced this notion.
It's that superiority that leads us to debate military strategies instead of the actual realities of how we got over there and of what we're doing over there.
Military porn, war lust, won't get to the heart of the problem. It's not even telling us anything useful. So some generals are unhappy that they couldn't do this or that, or some Brits were shocked by how we occupied -- so what? The issue is the occupation. The issue is why we are occupying.
But instead, we're encouraged to focus on the military 'strategy.' Why? Are we going to invade our own occupation? Hardly. But give people something to focus on other than reality and they'll go all dreamy-eyed. Many years ago, in a poli sci class, we had an assignment where we would be divided into five (or more) countries. Some would have the nuclear bomb and some wouldn't. If I'm vague on the assignment, there's a reason. I didn't participate. As the time for this major assignment (that would last two weeks) approached, you could just see people getting excited about having the 'bomb.' You could hear the jokes and see that the whole excercise was nothing but a war game and people were getting off on it. So I went to the professor and said that I couldn't participate. I was told my 'moral stance' was admirable but I might want to rethink it since I'd be getting a zero on that project. I took the zero. But before I left the office, I did ask what the objectives were? Not because I was on the fence, I'd already announced that I would be absent from two weeks worth of classes, but because I wanted to know exactly what was supposed to happen with the lesson. To raise awareness about the way nations relate, that was the goal.
Thing is, that's not what anyone got out of it. Not then, not since. (I spoke to ten classmates last weekend.) (The whole class participated, except for me.) What they got was how 'cool' it was to have 'power.' The ones with 'power' didn't have an understanding of the ones representing countries without 'power.' The ones in the latter category didn't come out with an understanding of how important diplomacy was or any sense of fairness/unfairness in the system. They just knew they needed to get the 'bomb' or represent another country the next time.
One of the people I spoke to was the strongest supporter (prior to and during) of the excercise. He said last weekend, looking back, the whole course seemed to exist just to "justify imperialism." It did that quite well.
And that's what military strategy discussions will do. If only we'd . . . Why didn't we . . . Never questions as to the actual right or wrong of the war itself. Just 'strategies.' And the administration's hope is that we'll get caught up in that 'game' and we'll lose sight of the fact that the occupation is as illegal as was the invasion, that Iraqis are dying, that troops in the so-called coaltion are dying. And maybe as we gear up for some sort of NFL fantasy war, we'll stop focusing on reality.
The invasion that was sold as a video game could become a game again! That's the hope.
The reality? That we're three years into the "cakewalk" that wasn't. That democracy wasn't the goal. That there was no interest in the Iraqi people as evidenced by the lack of interest the occupation has had in providing basics like running electricity and running water.
Here's some more reality, noted by In Dallas, "Rally and March, Downtown Dallas, March 19, 2006" (North Texas Indymedia):
On the third anniversary of the war, Sunday, March 19, 2006 a rally and march to Stop the War Now and Bring Our Troops Home will take place in Dallas at 2:00 p.m.
For those interested in bringing this war to an end, the rallying point will be:St. Paul United Methodist Church1816 Routh St. (downtown Dallas)
Participants will begin gathering outside the church at 1:30 p.m., and a rally consisting of speakers and music will start at 2:00 p.m.
The march immediately following will be to the Earle Cabell Federal Building.
People of all faiths are encouraged to show their support for Rev. L. Charles Stovall and his call for peace at St. Paul United Methodist Church. Morning services begining at 10:45 a.m.
For more information:
Walt Harrison, Camp Casey Dallas, (800) 490-8161 ext. 103, baldeagle152@hotmail.com
Trish Major, Dallas Peace Center Communications Director, (214) 823-7793
http://www.MeetWithCongress.org
Why is it important to be heard this weekend? Because the war drags on, within you, without you. Sing the song:
They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)
It's Thursday, indymedia roundup with a focus on Iraq. The third annivesary of the invasion is upon us. Three years. Make yourself heard or accept that the war will continue to drag on. Accept, embrace it and make yourself useless.
Ben notes Mark Jurkowitz's "Numbing carnage: Once an upbeat hit, Bush's Iraq show has jumped the shark" (The Boston Phoenix):
As the brutal onslaught of chaos and bloodshed in Iraq steadily erodes Americans’ patience, a number of pollsters and analysts assert that those blaming the media for instilling defeatism in the American public -- in a reprise of the so-called Vietnam syndrome -- are wrong on two key counts.
For one thing, they say, the track of the media's performance in Iraq suggests that coverage, rather than being inalterably negative, has focused on both the upbeat (such as elections) and the downbeat (such as violence), as events have dictated. And second, the evidence suggests that the American vox populi is genuinely responsive to actual events as they unfold on the ground.
On Monday, in another of his repeated attempts to reverse the slide of support for his policy, George Bush gave a speech that discussed a "hopeful future" in Iraq and told Americans that despite "images of violence and anger and despair," the Iraqi people have opted for "a future of freedom and peace."
But Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup poll, suggests that at this point the president is in the position of basically asking the public not to believe its eyes.
"Obviously, what Americans know about the war comes from the media, so their attitudes are crystallized by that, [and] their attitude toward the war reacts to what really happens."
"If I would talk to the administration," Newport adds, "I would say, 'Speeches don't do much anymore.' "
Durham Gal notes two items. First up, Patrick O'Neill's "Protests this weekend: March part of larger anti-war process" (Raleigh-Durham Independent):
Liz Seymour, a spokeswoman for the interim steering committee of the N.C. Peace and Justice Coalition, the main sponsor of the march, said this year more of the people working on the march are newcomers who became active because they were inspired after attending previous Fayetteville events.
Seymour said she knows Saturday's event will not make an impact on George Bush, but it will likely be part of an effort to build a comprehensive, long-range movement that goes beyond stopping the Iraq war.
"It's not about the right combination of programs and words to change the minds of the people elected to higher office," Seymour says. "The point is to broaden the movement, to give people direction toward their political goals. It's more about being in it for the long haul. It's more a demonstration of the way people are feeling the world could work."
Seymour says this year's gathering may be smaller than last year's crowd of more than 4,000 because several national groups, such as Iraq Veterans Against the War and Military Families Speak Out, will skip Fayetteville to be involved in a march from Mobile, Ala., to New Orleans, linking Iraqi war victims with victims displaced by Hurricane Katrina. It was those families and veterans who gave last year's event a national focus.
The steady decline in Bush's approval rating is an indication that more and more people are linking objections to the war with objections to Bush's overall policies, such as the PATRIOT Act, illegal domestic spying and allegations of torture at U.S.-operated prisons, Seymour says.
"It's all part of a larger mess," Seymour says. "The movement is growing in people who are working on social justice issues and linking them to the anti-war movement."
Second item, same source and also same reporter, Patrick O'Neill's "Ray McGovern to speak at protest: Ex-CIA analyst leads charge against Iraq war:"
In his career as a CIA analyst, Ray McGovern was responsible for preparing the President's Daily Brief for Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. He was about as far from being an anti-war activist as you could get .
But this weekend he'll be in North Carolina speaking against the war in Iraq. And part of the former White House insider's message will be: George W. Bush is taking the United States toward fascism, and he must be stopped.
Impeachment will be a big part of McGovern's theme when he's the featured speaker at Saturday's anti-war march and rally in Fayetteville. He then speaks Sunday at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Raleigh.
"My general effort lately has been to challenge people to wake up and watch what's happening," McGovern said in a telephone interview.
[. . .]
Ray McGovern speaks Sunday at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Raleigh (3313 Wade Ave.) at 7:30 p.m. Info, 828-3499 or 942-2535.
Needing to hear some truth from Iraqis? Remember the CODEPINK tour is ongoing. Portland notes "News" from the Eugene Weekly which addresses one stop on the tour:
A member of a delegation of Iraqi women will be in Eugene next week speaking about daily life in Iraq and the possibility of an impending civil war. Eman Ahmed Khamas will speak at 7:30 pm Tuesday, March 21 at the Campbell Senior Center, 3rd and High. Suggested donation is $5-$10.
Khamas will talk first-hand about the escalation of violence that's occurred since the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra Feb. 22. Khamas arrived in the U.S. March 5 with a delegation of Iraqi women seeking to tell their stories to the American public and urge U.S. and U.N. officials to create a peace plan to end the escalating cycle of violence.
The delegation has been traveling throughout the U.S. promoting a Women's Call for Peace that was signed by 100,000 women around the globe. The peace petition was delivered to the White House March 8, International Women's Day, by a large group of women wearing pink and marching with the Iraqi delegation. The group met at the Iraq Embassy and walked to the White House, chanting "Money for heath and education, not for war and occupation."
The call urges a shift in strategy in Iraq, from a military model to a conflict resolution model. It requests the withdrawal of all foreign troops and foreign fighters from Iraq, negotiations to reincorporate disenfranchised Iraqis, full representation of women in the peacemaking process, and a commitment to women's equality in the post-war Iraq. The full text is available at www.womensaynotowar.org.
Khamas is a journalist, translator and human rights activist who lives in Baghdad with her husband and two daughters. She is a member of the Women's Will organization, which focuses on defining and defending women's rights outside of political party interests and opposing incarceration of women as hostages. Khamas regularly publishes articles on women's conditions in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion, and has documented human rights violations committed by U.S. and Iraqi forces. She is also involved in mobilizing emergency relief (medicines, food and clothing) for victims of the war, especially women and children living in refugee camps.
Khamas is being hosted by Eugene CODEPINK, a small band of women from a variety of peace groups who believe the time is right for a new attitude to Eugene's traditional peace activist approach. Eugene CODEPINK founders Karla Cohen (Justice Not War Coalition), Pam Garrison (Justice Not War, Women in Black, WAND) and Aria Seligmann (WAND, Nonviolent Peaceforce) marched together in the Sept. 24 Peace Parade in Washington, D.C.
Need more reality? Not surprising if so. It's hard to come by in the big media. In full, here's an announcement of a new feature at Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches, "Translated Daily News Feeds from the Middle East:"
Dahr Jamail Iraq is happy to announce new daily video streams of translated Middle East News on line. The daily Mosaic streams, produced by LinkTV, features selections from daily TV news programs produced by national broadcasters throughout the Middle East. The news reports are presented unedited and translated, when necessary, into English. Mosaic includes television news broadcasts from selected national and regional entities listed on the right. These news reports are regularly watched by 280 million people in 22 countries all over the Middle East.
Thus, people unable to speak or understand Arabic or Persian are now able to get news directly from the Middle East. You are no longer forced to rely on people who can read Arabic to give you the information, as you can watch or read the news yourself and make up your own mind. Between the Mosaic and MidEastWire daily Iraq news feeds, www.dahrjamailiraq.com is now a daily source of fresh news directly from major Middle Eastern news agencies, all translated into English.
How to watch Mosaic: Please watch the quicktime stream while reviewing the information about the broadcasters linked to from the Dahr Jamail Iraq website. Mosaic represents a diversity of media sources from state controlled to US funded to private networks affiliated with political factions. Mosaic is best understood, appreciated and digested within the context of the specific news outlets being watched.
You can see the News Broadcasts here
And subscribe to our Mosiac RSS feed here
From reality to denial -- John Burns (New York Times) continues to disgrace his own reputation without even noticing. Candice notes Bonnie Azab Powell's "Top Iraq war correspondents discuss risking their lives to tell a truth that few want to hear -- or believe" (UC Berkeley News). We'll start by noting Jackie Spinner of the Washington Post:
"I went to Iraq not because I was for or against it, but because there was a war," Spinner said, adding she believes it is inappropriate for journalists to take sides publicly, as they are supposed to write from a neutral stance.
Burns, of course, continues to betray that "neutral stance" in all public remarks. (See this entry.) He tops himself. From the article:
The torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib by U.S. soldiers was unarguably the biggest single story of the war today, Burns said, calling it "an arrow in the back of every American soldier who goes to Iraq."
Burns goes on to talk feel-good stories, but focus on the above. It's a story that Burns and Dexter Filkins missed. (The article mentions a caller to a radio station noting the story was known for over a year before it broke. That is true.) And here's Burns, "international war correspondent" speaking. What does he say about Abu Ghraib? "Unarguably the biggest single story of the war today." And why is that? Burns puts it through the filter of "every American solider." The provencial "international correspondent" John F. Burns. There is your answer as to why Iraqis are reduced to bit players in their own drama when the Times manages to mention them at all. The prison scandal, the treatment of Iraqi's? Even when speaking of it, Burns renders the Iraqis invisible (while they hold their "bows" which may or may not be a slur against both Iraqis and Native Americans).
Need some reality to wash Burns' delusions down? How about this? Last Thursday, the American military fatality count was 2306. This Thursday? 2314. Toral for March? 17.
And while Tony Blair whistles "Let's Do It Again:"
His own anti-war Labour MPs will be joining a mass demonstration against the continued occupation of Iraq in London on Saturday. They will be calling for the troops to be brought home, but Mr Blair ruled out, "leaving a small minority who want terror and violence to overwhelm the majority who show they are prepared for democracy".
That was noted by James in Brighton and it's from "Blair on Iraq: 'I'd do it all again'" written by Colin Brown, Patrick Cockburn and Rupert Cornwell. While Blair can't stop cheerleading, Gareth notes one who is saying no more. From Richard Norton-Taylor's "RAF doctor refused Iraq return because 'invasion was unlawful'" (The Guardian of London):
The continuing presence of British troops in Iraq is as unlawful as the initial invasion, a military court hearing into the first British officer charged with refusing to serve in Iraq was told yesterday.
Moreover, members of the armed forces individually shared responsibility for complicity in these unlawful actions, the court heard.
The claims were made by counsel for Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, 37, an RAF doctor facing a court martial for refusing to return to the war-torn country.
"The flight lieutenant's case is that Iraq is and remains under occupation," defence counsel Philip Sapsford QC told an open pre-trial hearing at the court martial centre in Aldershot barracks, Hampshire.
Flt Lt Kendal-Smith, based at RAF Kinloss in Scotland, is charged with five counts of disobeying lawful commands in 2005 when he was asked to return to Iraq. Though he has served there before, he only later came to the view that the war was illegal, partly after reading the attorney-general's advice which raised doubts about the lawfulness of the invasion.
Malcolm Kendall-Smith's standing up. Will you? As the Bully Boy launches as massive air raid on Iraq (dubbed "Operation Swarmer"), will you be silent?
This week's song pick:
but what if the enemy
isn't in a distant land
what if the enemy lies behind
the voice of command
the sound of war
is a childs cry
behind tinted windows
they just drive by
and all I know is that those
that are going to be killed
aren't those that preside
on capital hill
-- "Roll With It," words and music by Ani DiFranco, available on the DiFranco CD Not So Soft as well as on Like I Said (Songs 1990-1991).
If you missed it (I did, I was on the phone participating in Gina and Krista's discussion for tomorrow's round-robin), tonight on ER, Parminder Nagra's Dr. Neela Rasgotra spoke out against the war. She was in a gathering with other people whose spouses are in Iraq and she refused to play rah-rah-rah. (One of her lines was supposed to be something like, she refused "to be brainwashed into falling in line with some psuedo patrictic vision.") That was one of two messages for peace onscreen this week. When even TV characters can speak out, don't you think you need to do your part as well?
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. (And I clearly loathe Gordon and Lt. General retired's New York Times reporting. I haven't read their book. If anyone can get a good interview out of the two it would be Amy Goodman. So make a point to check out Democracy Now! tomorrow as always.)
iraq
donovan
and the war drags on
indymedia
iraq
norman solomon
democracy now
naomi klein
howard zinn
mark jurkowitz
patrick oneill
eugene weekly
the new york times
john f. burns
dexter filkins
michael r. gordon
bernard e. trainor
rupert cornwell
colin brown
patrick cockburn
richard norton-taylor
bonnie azab powell
malcolm kendall-smith
ani difranco
roll with it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)