Jonah writes, "I don't have time to open the Times today. I'll check later tonight or first thing Tues. morning and if there's no 'must read,' I'll just toss it and focus on Tuesday's paper."
There are few other e-mails like Jonah's and if you're going to skip a day of the Times, Monday's is the easiest to skip in any week. It's a skimpy paper that's usually got very little national coverage and even less coverage from D.C. and, in terms of international coverage, unless the paper's your only source for news, you've already heard of and/or read of what's covered on Monday.
That said, today's paper is the strongest Monday they've seen in some time.
If you have time for one international article in the Times, it should be (my opinion) Carlotta Gall's "Return of Former Communists Stirs Up Afghan Elections:"
President Hamid Karzai has encouraged many of the rogues of Afghanistan's recent history to take part in the elections in an effort to unite the country and foster political stability. A senior security official, who asked not to be identified to avodi angering the political factions, said that he saw little threat from the former Communists because they had no military power, but that the jihadi leaders were still a menace. Yet the return of the Communists to public life is reopening the violent struggle between Communists and Islamists that tore this country apart in the 1980's and made it the arena for the last proxy conflict of the cold war.
The mujahedeen, who were backed by the United States in their struggle against the Communists, are watching with anger and some confusion as their enemies regain positions in the government and may win a sizable bloc in Parliament in American-supported elections.
D.C. wise, the paper offers coverage, including 3 and 5/6 pages of Rehnquist. (If you're interested, feel free to search it out. Certainly all the clip-job bios -- high and low brow -- will be recycling the points made.) On the subject of the court, Brady e-mails to note Jennifer Loven's
"Bush Nominates Roberts as Chief Justice" (Associated Press) story that he found on the AOL home page. Not even a Supreme Court Justice yet, and Bully Boy wants him elevated to Supreme Court Justice (take that, Scalia!). The sense of entitlement that is the hallmark of the Bully Boy flaunts itself yet again.
This is not a Constitutional crisis, this is not a crisis for the Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor has not mooned her colleagues nor pulled a Linda Lavin and loaded up the station wagon to head to Arizona. She's staying where she is until her vacancy is filled. We have eight sitting Justices currently. (Eight Supremes if you prefer, which is five more than needed for a Motown recording.) We've had eight before.
Roberts has yet to be confirmed (hearings start tomorrow -- and as Ruth noted Saturday, they will be carried live on Pacifica radio). Only a Bully Boy would think that Roberts is entitled to be elevated to Supreme Court Justice when he's yet to serve on the Court. It's the sort of thinking that allows a weak governor of a state where the governor's of little importance to think he's got the know how to run the nation -- and haven't we all seen how that's turned out?
If we haven't, start by checking out Jodi Wilgoren's "In Tale of Two Families, a Chasm Between Haves and Have-Nots" in the Times. Brenda says it's the sort of reporting the paper should have been doing all week and Lloyd also rates it as his favorite story on the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina thus far. From Wilgoren's article:
It was moving day for the families of Gaynell Porretto and Tracy Jackson, the first page of the next chapter in their Hurricane Katrina horror stroies.
Mrs. Porretto's four-car caravan crammed with a lifetime of photo albums, a few changes of clothes and coolers of drink pulled up to a yellow house with a wide front porch that she had just rented for $600 in the humble hamlet of Arnaudville, La.
It is 125 miles from the storm-sacked home in the New Orleans suburb of Metairie, half the size for twice as many people, but she can see the church steeple from the yard, and her son is signed up for football at the nearby high school.
"I have a ZIP code!" she said, exulting. "It's the happiest I've ever been."
Outside the New Orleans airport, Ms. Jackson's four sickly and starving children, ages 1,3, 5, and 7, were sprawled on a skycap's cart as she slogged through the sweaty, snail-like line, the baby atop a blue plastic bin filled with what they had scrounged from strangers.
It is all they have, their 2,000 cash savings burned up with their belongings -- including birth certificates -- in a post-flood fire at their apartment in uptown New Orleans. Even as they waited to board a plane, they did not know where they were taking it.
"I'm just hoping it's a better place," she whispered. "I've never been on an airplane before, I'm afriad of heights."
Two families displaced by the same disaster, both facing uncertain futures as they moved forward on Saturday, but in completely divergent circumstances.
That's the opening of the story. Sorry for the length but the excerpt gives you a feel and, if you're too busy this Monday for the paper, it'll let you know whether you should seek the article out or not. It's also true that in addition to Brenda & Lloyd's high rating, other members are noting it as "strong" in their e-mails this morning. Including DK, our newest member, who's in Germany and feels that the coverage from America on this "very American story" has been weak in all the outlets he has access to. (Note: Pru will be interviewing DK for a feature to run in the gina & krista round-robin on Friday. If you're running behind in checking your e-mails, be sure to read Gareth's interview with Skip from this past Friday's gina & krista round-robin.)
Keesha e-mails to note John M. Broder's "Amid Criticisms of Federal Efforts, Charges of Racism Are Lodged:"
Interviews with African-American church leaders, local politicians and residents here made clear the damage that the faltering relief efforts has had on their perceptions of the Bush administration. Mr. Bush and his chief political advisers have mounted an effort to try to court more conservative black voters, particularly since the 2004 election, by encouraging black Republican candidacies and reaching out to black churches.*
But their outreach efforts appear to have been significantly set back. Criticism of the response is coming not only from the black members of Congress and national civil rights leaders, but also from prominent local officials and ordinary residents here.
"There is a lot of anger here in Texas," said the Rev. William A. Lawson, retired pastor of the Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church in Houston. "Even a lot of conservative whites are angry. This was not the reaction people expected to a disaster of this magnitude. We wanted to see them get off their butts and get over there."
Rodney Ellis, an African-American Democratic state senator who represents a district in Houston, said he was trying to focus on the needs of the evacuees, thousands of whom are in Houston. Mr. Ellis said that the initial federal response was clearly inadequate and that many in the administration bore responsibility, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is black and from Alabama.
"This problem is so mammoth it's not going to go away any time soon," Mr. Ellis said. "There will be ample time for Condi Rice and others in the federal government to redeem themselves and I'm hoping they do that."
Catch the asterick? There's a bit that's left out of the efforts by the GOP to reach African-Americans. I'll steer you towards two columns by Salim Muwakkil that we highlighted earlier this year.
From his "Black Clergy Rebuff Bush" (In These Times):
As I noted in my last column, the GOP is trying to hitch a ride on Christian piety into the black community. But that ride is getting rather bumpy. In January, an unprecedented gathering of the nation’s four largest black Baptist groups issued a joint statement that basically repudiated the thrust of the GOP's outreach efforts. The group gave short shrift to issues like same-sex marriage and abortion, heavily pushed by Bush’s evangelical supporters.
And that was intentional. The Baptists sought to convey their irritation with the GOP's focus on such peripheral issues rather than on the real concerns of black Americans. The joint statement represented the National Baptist Convention (NBUSA), the National Baptist Convention of America Inc., the Progressive National Baptist Convention Inc. and the National Missionary Baptist Convention of America. The NBUSA is the largest black religious group in the nation, with 7 million members. Together the four groups represent about 15 million black Baptists.
"My position on same-sex marriage is not that it is the sole determinant on moral issues," NBUSA President William Shaw told the New York Times. "Marriage is threatened more by adultery, and we don’t have a constitutional ban on that."
The Rev. Jesse Jackson, himself a Baptist minister, was a special speaker at the January convention. In a recent interview, he explained to In These Times how he helped unmask the GOP’s distracting tactics. "I asked them [the thousands of delegates] how many wanted a higher minimum wage, a stable Social Security system, more effective affirmative action and an end to the war in Iraq, and thousands of hands were raised," he said. "Then I asked them how many of them were in churches that blessed same-sex unions, and no hands went up. 'Now,' I asked them, 'how did that get in the middle of our agenda?'"
From his "The GOP's Quest for Color" (In These Times):
Insistent complaints from right-wing pundits about the media's liberal bias have been effective. Now even the most extreme right-wing notions receive a hearing in the corporate mainstream media.
This tactic has been so successful that the right is now using it to gain more exposure in the black media--a venue they've long criticized as left-leaning. The strategy coincides with the GOP’s aggressive attempts to gain more black votes for elections in 2006 and 2008.
The scope of this new outreach was hinted at by news that Armstrong Williams, a conservative black pundit, was paid $240,000 to promote the Bush administration's "No Child Left Behind" education scheme. Republicans have talked of seeking black votes, but seldom have they devoted resources to the effort.
Because of the right's effective pitch, African-American publications and black-oriented broadcast media now feel an obligation to showcase conservative voices.The Williams fiasco not only revealed the GOP's attempt to exploit this opportunity, but also how out of touch the GOP is with the black community. Williams is dismissed as a political huckster in much of black America.
When choosing its black standard-bearers, the GOP seems to be clueless. Remember when the Republican National Committee’s Ed Gillespie hooked up with boxing promoter Don King during the 2004 campaign? "What's next for the GOP?" asked one Republican blogger, "A photo-op with O.J.?"
Sharon e-mails to note Matthew Rothschild's "The Sickly Bush Recovery" (The Progressive):
So here we are in the third year of what they call an economic recovery, and it doesn't feel like recovery for most Americans.
The latest figures from the Census Bureau tell why.
Most of us are making less, in real terms, than we were last year.
Full-time male workers lost almost $1,000.
Full-time female workers lost $300.
And the poverty rate increased to 12.7 percent. Among those in poverty are an additional 563,000 members of the working poor, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Remember in Fahrenheit 9/11 when Bush addressed a gathering of fat cats and said, "Some people call you the elite. I call you my base"?
He wasn't kidding.
His economic policies have done nothing to help those who need it the most. Four million more people are poor today than in 2001, when the economy hit bottom.
We may have noted that already. But Rothschild's also worth noting so we can note it again (if this is an "again").
Lastly, here's Ava and my review, "TV Review: Dateline New York ... Warm Fuzzy" (The Third Estate Sunday Review):
Ever wonder why the compartive nobody Brian Williams was picked over Stone Phillips to sit in the anchor chair at Nightly News? We can't be sure but we think it might have to do with the fact that Williams, unlike Phillips, isn't prone to wearing bulky sweaters, with busy patterns, on camera which make him look like Angela Landsbury gearing up for Murder She Wrote: The Reunion!
Maybe they thought it would make him come off like the Mr. Rogers of the news crowd? The show wants nothing more than to give you a case of the warm fuzzies.
Phillips still posseses the best (and sharpest) set of cheek bones of anyone in the "news" set on TV (eat your heart out, Diane Sawyer) but his work on Dateline is all "soft focus." Fuzzy little bits of footage with Phillips doing the Oprah glum-nod, the Oprah dazzling-smile while the voice overs soak every moment in total cheese.
Dateline's a strange sort of "news" program. It's as though, in topic choice and delivery, you're at the kitchen table, sharing a cup of coffee with Ethel Mertz who's catching you up on the goings on in the building.
Crime's a big topic on Dateline, old crime. Nothing too fresh when possible. Which is why Katie Couric interviews the woman raped in Central Park years after the fact (when the woman's on a book tour). It's why this coming Friday's Dateline takes a, we're sure "hard hitting," look at the O.J. trial ten years later. Anything too close to the present might spoil the warm fuzzies.
Watching Stone Phillips, once considered a serious journalist, coo, nod, frown, pout and (most of all) beam, we honestly wouldn't be surprised if they traded in the opening theme music (please do), handed Phillips a guitar and let him open each show strumming while singing "Deep in the Hundred Acre Wood . . ."
So the program that aired Friday was titled "The Long Road Home." And it lasted two hours but it felt more like four. To nutshell it, an American soldier is ordered to return to America from Vietnam and finish his service in America. Rather than do that, he disappears. In the nineties, his wife and two kids finally learn that he's alive as does the military. Sound familiar? Well Dateline reported on it in the nineties. This is an "update."
Watching, we decided "update" stands for "filler." Like the way Stone Phillip's voice over repeats a comment that someone being interviewed just made. Repeatedly. Or the way they tease out details mistaking them for conflict, "When we return . . . you'll find out that we wasted more time with a segment that went nowhere."
"Wait, wait, Ava, C.I., what happened to the soldier?"
After soft, fuzzy footage of him introducing his girlfriend of ten years to his family, we get more of the same with shots of his mother's cooking him breakfast while he promises to come back and visit here for her 80th birthday -- in two years! For over two decades she thought her son was dead. Now, as she heads towards 80 the best he can do is say, "I'll visit you again in two years?" We didn't think all the warm, fuzzy pieces fit well together. But damned if Dateline didn't try their best to soak the whole episode in soft hues and clothe it in the skins of stuffed teddy bears.
In terms of the military, they're not pressing charges. He won't get his military pension, he does get other benefits. We're told all of that when Phillip's does a classic (and standard for Dateline) wrap up that plays like Ward sitting the Beave down, at the end of Leave It To Beaver, to drop some wisdom on the frivolity the episode revolved around. Which, if you think about it, is the perfect point of reference for Dateline.
Hard hitting news comes out of 60 Minutes. Uncomfortable realities, on the rare occassions they emerge on Dateline, tend to come in the form of a sit down interview with the author of a book which allows reality to be several times removed and in the past (usually the deep past). That's rather distrubing when you think about the commercial they always play during Dateline, the one that boasts more people get their news from NBC than any other network. Exactly what are they getting?
We both know people who work for Dateline and the only thing more amusing than watching the program pass itself off as a "news" show is hearing their excuses. "Well have you watched 20/20 lately!" is a popular refrain. But for our tastes, the best excuse (meaning most laughable) came when one was questioned about the "in depth" reporting on the Bennifer phenomenon.
Maybe we're too jaded but the breathless 'news' that "She's still Jenny from the Block!" was matched only by the defense of the 'report:' which went, we're paraphrasing, "Well 60 Minutes just did a report on an opera star!"
We laugh, we kid, we mock our pals at Dateline. (Openly.) But we think that "defense" was telling and basically sums up the show. They're not going for the gutter ball that is ABC's 20/20. But, at the same time, they aren't reaching for the highs of CBS' 60 Minutes either. In fact, they're aspiring to be a teen beat version of 60 Minutes. "They've got an opera star over at the grown ups table? We'll get a pop star!"
We're not sure whether they're content at the kiddies' table (wouldn't they at least prefer more leg room?) or if they truly believe that they have to dumb down to reach the audiences. (They're very proud of their ratings on Fridays and they do usually manage to lead in their time slot -- on a night when most people aren't watching TV, as we like to remind them.)
Look, the folks at Dateline are a great group of people. At a party, we'd rather be at the kiddie table with them, laughing at everyone else in the room. They're intentionally funny (unlike John Stossel attempting to eat corn on the cob . . . at least we don't think that's intended to be humorous.). They play hard. We just wish they'd aim a little higher in their broadcasts.
In the end, the grade we have to give is one that they're quite familiar with, "Does not live up to potential." If you want to live in the house on Pooh corner, Dateline is the show for you. If you're expecting news in what's billed as a news program, you're going to have look elsewhere.
And Marcia guessed correctly, I was attempting to hold it for what would hopefully be the least read day of the site.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Monday, September 05, 2005
Sunday, September 04, 2005
General note
We're not on "holiday" as some members worried in e-mails. There will be posts tomorrow. (And our usual Sunday posts are now up.) I did take time this evening to do replies to members e-mails like I usually attempt on holiday weekends. I know (from the gina & krista round-robin) that members understood why it's impossible to do personal replies to e-mails but I will still say I'm sorry.
Another reason for the delay was attempting to help Jim and Ty get the posts up over at The Third Estate Sunday Review. All posts are now up except for a roundtable that's lost for good and a piece Ava and I did that we'll try to find time to redo (maybe next weekend). That piece wasn't the TV review. We did lose that this morning in posting but we redid it. Ava and I aren't crazy about it but, as Jim's noted before, we rarely are when they go up. Maybe our opinion will change when we're not remembering just wanting to get some sleep but having to recreate a review? Who knows.
Tomorrow we are not on holiday. We will, however, be starting late. So consider that a head's up.
Ruth's Morning Edition Report from Saturday will not be reprinted tomorrow. It will be reprinted Tuesday. Pru, in her e-mail today, pointed out that members in the US are probably on vacations and they'll miss it on Monday but will catch it on Tuesday. Pru's correct (the majority of the e-mails coming in this weekend were from members outside the US) and we'll follow her advice. (Thank you, Pru.)
One Sunday night, I attempted to make a point for a visitor in an entry but the entry got lost and it was one of those "outside the US . . ." lengthy posts so I didn't even bother to attempt to recreate it in the entry that went up. However, I'll go ahead and note it here.
We're looking at articles that appear outside the US mainstream. If you found an article from The Nation, for instance by Naomi Klein, in a non US periodical, we would highlight it if you mailed it in. If you find a New York Times article carried somewhere else, we're really not interested in that. With AP, you may have a version of it that differs from the one being published in the US so feel free to send something from them in. We can also cover non-mainstream US news orgs.
There is always the risk of an article being noted here that's not true. That's true of any journalism. However, in terms of domestic members of the United States, you should be aware that stories planted by our government overseas can "drift back."
The visitor had a problem with the fact that we weren't noting anything from The Economist. He alleged that we never did. That's not true. We've noted them before even though politically I disagree with the majority of articles they print. (I know we noted an article a member, probably Gareth, e-mailed about the greenhouse effect from The Economist.) When that visitor wrote in, I did ask Gareth to check from time if he had time and see if there was anything we might find useful. His summaries over the last weeks have included that the weekly ran a story slamming the voting rights and other "assorted poison soaked goodies."
We'll take a pass on those, thank you.
If you feel that you're not being noted, that's due to the fact that we have a number of highlights and there's not room for everyone to go up. If it happens with you repeatedly, please note that at the top of your e-mail and I'll be sure to include something because there's no attempt to ignore your selections. I am trying to pull the ones that make a strong point or won't be noted elsewhere. And if you include a link, it's better. If you pick your own pull quote, even better.
As Ava pointed out the night she helped me and we tried to track down an article that a member felt was very important (I think on Afghanistan, but I may be remembering wrong now), there's really not time for that. We went to every source that I could think of that we'd ever highlighted in the Sunday entries and couldn't find the Afghanistan article.
The more information you include, the more likely it will go up. This go round, three things didn't get posted (the smallest number). One was a piece from Canada that was about Ann Rice's op-ed in the New York Times. It's the Times. It's an op-ed. We're not going to note it.
(We will highlight a member noting an op-ed in the Times so anytime someone wants one noted, they just have to write something -- a two sentence paragraph -- about it.) The second thing not noted was also an op-ed. If it was humorous, I missed it. The third thing was an article that was a month old on a topic that we'd noted prior. Any of those items might have been noted if the person involved (all were visitors) had included some comments of their own (and noted that they could be quoted here).
Normally, the things highlighted are coming from members and members have the non-public e-mail address. Since things are a little slower, I did check the public address as well. (Which is where the three that didn't make it were e-mailed.)
Some members have e-mailed items in and noted that Murdoch owned (or might own) the paper. That's not a concern here for the Sunday evening areas. Murdoch owns quite a many things across the globe. It's not required that you research the stockholders of a paper or magazine before suggesting a highlight. If it's something you think is worth noting, send it in.
Hope that helps. And thank you to the international members who participated in Gina & Krista's poll. Following the results, I have taken a day off from posting at the mirror site. I know that it was suggested the entire weekend be taken off from cross posting but I did cross post Saturday and I'll probably do something over there at some point tomorrow. (Ideally, that would include an original post.)
Also, I'm helping Cedric with a computer issue tomorrow so posts will not only be delayed but may be erratic. (And how is that different from anything else about this site? It's not.)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Another reason for the delay was attempting to help Jim and Ty get the posts up over at The Third Estate Sunday Review. All posts are now up except for a roundtable that's lost for good and a piece Ava and I did that we'll try to find time to redo (maybe next weekend). That piece wasn't the TV review. We did lose that this morning in posting but we redid it. Ava and I aren't crazy about it but, as Jim's noted before, we rarely are when they go up. Maybe our opinion will change when we're not remembering just wanting to get some sleep but having to recreate a review? Who knows.
Tomorrow we are not on holiday. We will, however, be starting late. So consider that a head's up.
Ruth's Morning Edition Report from Saturday will not be reprinted tomorrow. It will be reprinted Tuesday. Pru, in her e-mail today, pointed out that members in the US are probably on vacations and they'll miss it on Monday but will catch it on Tuesday. Pru's correct (the majority of the e-mails coming in this weekend were from members outside the US) and we'll follow her advice. (Thank you, Pru.)
One Sunday night, I attempted to make a point for a visitor in an entry but the entry got lost and it was one of those "outside the US . . ." lengthy posts so I didn't even bother to attempt to recreate it in the entry that went up. However, I'll go ahead and note it here.
We're looking at articles that appear outside the US mainstream. If you found an article from The Nation, for instance by Naomi Klein, in a non US periodical, we would highlight it if you mailed it in. If you find a New York Times article carried somewhere else, we're really not interested in that. With AP, you may have a version of it that differs from the one being published in the US so feel free to send something from them in. We can also cover non-mainstream US news orgs.
There is always the risk of an article being noted here that's not true. That's true of any journalism. However, in terms of domestic members of the United States, you should be aware that stories planted by our government overseas can "drift back."
The visitor had a problem with the fact that we weren't noting anything from The Economist. He alleged that we never did. That's not true. We've noted them before even though politically I disagree with the majority of articles they print. (I know we noted an article a member, probably Gareth, e-mailed about the greenhouse effect from The Economist.) When that visitor wrote in, I did ask Gareth to check from time if he had time and see if there was anything we might find useful. His summaries over the last weeks have included that the weekly ran a story slamming the voting rights and other "assorted poison soaked goodies."
We'll take a pass on those, thank you.
If you feel that you're not being noted, that's due to the fact that we have a number of highlights and there's not room for everyone to go up. If it happens with you repeatedly, please note that at the top of your e-mail and I'll be sure to include something because there's no attempt to ignore your selections. I am trying to pull the ones that make a strong point or won't be noted elsewhere. And if you include a link, it's better. If you pick your own pull quote, even better.
As Ava pointed out the night she helped me and we tried to track down an article that a member felt was very important (I think on Afghanistan, but I may be remembering wrong now), there's really not time for that. We went to every source that I could think of that we'd ever highlighted in the Sunday entries and couldn't find the Afghanistan article.
The more information you include, the more likely it will go up. This go round, three things didn't get posted (the smallest number). One was a piece from Canada that was about Ann Rice's op-ed in the New York Times. It's the Times. It's an op-ed. We're not going to note it.
(We will highlight a member noting an op-ed in the Times so anytime someone wants one noted, they just have to write something -- a two sentence paragraph -- about it.) The second thing not noted was also an op-ed. If it was humorous, I missed it. The third thing was an article that was a month old on a topic that we'd noted prior. Any of those items might have been noted if the person involved (all were visitors) had included some comments of their own (and noted that they could be quoted here).
Normally, the things highlighted are coming from members and members have the non-public e-mail address. Since things are a little slower, I did check the public address as well. (Which is where the three that didn't make it were e-mailed.)
Some members have e-mailed items in and noted that Murdoch owned (or might own) the paper. That's not a concern here for the Sunday evening areas. Murdoch owns quite a many things across the globe. It's not required that you research the stockholders of a paper or magazine before suggesting a highlight. If it's something you think is worth noting, send it in.
Hope that helps. And thank you to the international members who participated in Gina & Krista's poll. Following the results, I have taken a day off from posting at the mirror site. I know that it was suggested the entire weekend be taken off from cross posting but I did cross post Saturday and I'll probably do something over there at some point tomorrow. (Ideally, that would include an original post.)
Also, I'm helping Cedric with a computer issue tomorrow so posts will not only be delayed but may be erratic. (And how is that different from anything else about this site? It's not.)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Reporting from outside the US mainstream media focused on Iraq
American journalist and writer Mark Danner explains to Peter Morgan why support for the Bush administration is slipping.
You've recently written about the minutes of the meeting that took place between Tony Blair and his foreign policy and security advisers in the run-up to the war in Iraq, now known as the 'Downing Street memo'. How significant have these revelations been in the US?
The Downing Street memo has fit in with a general perception on the part of the US public that the war was begun on false pretences and the Bush administration was not honest about the reasons they were taking the country to war in Iraq. All of this results from the fact that the war is going badly.
Within the memo itself it is interesting that Blair at one point says, 'We need a political strategy that will function well at least until the military strategy is successful', meaning that the war, once it was successful, would essentially have justified itself. The fact is the war has not been successful and it has not justified itself, so there is more and more pressure being put on the original rationale. Although probably 80 percent of the US public has only a very vague idea about the specifics of the memo, it does dovetail with a general perception, and intensifies a general perception, that the rationale of the war is becoming cloudier and more difficult to discern.
The rationale for going to war which was stated by Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and other public officials has gone away. We have this misty, murky indistinct reason for being there. So the US public is left only with this awful 'present' in which Americans are being killed every day without any rationale and without any sign of an ending. And I think that the Downing Street memo fits into the general notion that we shouldn't be in Iraq, something is not right and we've been misled. So I think in that sense the Downing Street memo has been important.
How has this created problems for the Bush administration generally and are you beginning to see splits and ruptures emerge within official US politics and the Bush administration?
Well, at this point barely a third of the US public tells pollsters that the war was worth fighting. And so nearly two thirds say it was a bad idea. Similar numbers think that the president's performance on Iraq has been inadequate, and the president's general popularity ratings have plummeted - they are now in the low 40s, which is about what they were for President Lyndon Johnson around the time of the Tet offensive in 1968.
This plummeting in popularity has not been noticed that broadly in the press, so there's still an interesting divorce in a funny way between the press treatment of the administration, although it's become somewhat harsher, and the general lack of popularity with the public.
The above, sent in by Polly, is from Peter Morgan's "The Thrashing Around of the Beast" (England's Socialist Review). It's Sunday and we're in the midst of our "What's being reported outside the US mainstream media." This entry focuses on Iraq.
Olive e-mails to note Reuters' "Iraqi police, soldiers killed in Baquba attacks" (Australia's ABC):
Unknown gunmen killed 19 Iraqi police and soldiers and wounded another 16 in three separate attacks near Baquba, north of Baghdad, on Saturday, police and hospital sources said.
The first attack came in the morning at an Iraqi army checkpoint 30 kilometres north of the mainly Sunni Arab city, when four soldiers died.
Later, four police officers were killed by armed gunmen at a checkpoint in the centre of Baquba, 65 kilometres north of Baghdad.
The third attack was on a checkpoint manned jointly by police and soldiers four kilometres south of Baquba, in which seven police and two soldiers were shot dead.
Deidre e-mails to note "Editorial: New ideas needed to help Iraq" (New Zealand Herald)
Two polls last month suggest that President George W. Bush's job approval rating is at the lowest point since he began his presidency. In part, this can be attributed to rising petrol prices. Mostly, however, it reflects growing disillusionment with events in Iraq, That sentiment can only have deepened over the past week or so, despite the President's attempt to rally Americans to the cause of a "free Iraq" - and now there is further questioning of his leadership to contend with in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (see below).
During that short period, the White House's attempt to secure a draft constitution more amenable to Iraq's dethroned Sunni minority fell largely on deaf ears. More dramatically, a stampede on a Baghdad bridge, which killed about 1000 Shiite pilgrims, brought tensions among Iraq's rival communities to a new peak. A civil war threatened as the long-suffering Shiites blamed Sunni insurgents for provoking the incident. For the meantime, that conflict has been averted. The Shiites, who comprise 60 per cent of the population, continue to place their faith in the path to a democratic Iraq laid out by the United States. On October 15, there will be another step along that track when a referendum on the draft constitution is held. Frustratingly, this, however, is shaping as a severe obstacle.
Gareth notes "Iraq war 'costlier than Vietnam' " from the BBC:
The monthly cost to the US of the war in Iraq is now greater than the average monthly cost of the Vietnam War, a report by two anti-war groups says.
The report put costs in Iraq at $500m (£278m) a month more than in Vietnam, adjusted for inflation.
This makes Iraq the most expensive US war in the past 60 years, they say.
Gareth also notes Rory Carroll's "Sunni teenager who died saving Shias hailed as hero" (England's The Guardian):
A Sunni Arab teenager who died saving Shias during last week's stampede disaster in Baghdad has been hailed as a hero whose sacrifice should unify Iraq.
Othman al-Ubeydi drowned after rescuing at least three people who tumbled into the Tigris when Shia pilgrims panicked at rumours of a suicide bomber among them, leading to 1,005 deaths.
The 19-year-old student's face was on newspapers and television screens yesterday and the provincial council said that a street would be named after him.
Mr Ubeydi was sitting down to breakfast last Wednesday when loudspeakers from his Sunni mosque said Shias needed help at the al-Aima bridge, where Iraq's deadliest disaster since the 2003 invasion was unfolding.
While hundreds were crushed to death on the bridge, hundreds more jumped or fell into the river. Witnesses said that the teenager, a strong swimmer and wrestler who trained at a gym, repeatedly dived in and saved between three and seven people. However he was exhausted when he tried to save a large woman, and she reportedly pulled him under.
Iraq's government and media called Mr Ubeydi a martyr of national unity whose heroic sacrifice should reconcile Shias and Sunnis, rival Muslim sects which have edged towards civil war.
Dominick e-mails to note "Saddam lawyer says October trial gives too little time to prepare defence" (The Irish Examiner):
LAWYERS for former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein complained yesterday that plans to start his trial next month gave him too little time to prepare his defence.
British-based lawyer Abdel Haq Alani also said Saddam's defence attorneys are being kept in the dark on charges against him and doubted that the trial would start on October 19 as announced by Iraqi officials.
Saddam's family called on his new legal team to highlight alleged breaches of the Iraqi former dictator's human rights since he was captured and imprisoned. Raghad Hussein, his eldest daughter, is assembling a new panel of international legal experts to represent her father and claims he is being treated unlawfully.
Following meetings with supporters from Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, Sudan and Lebanon, she said: "Participants discussed the recent developments of trial and the conditions of detention of President Saddam Hussein and his comrades which breach all human rights international laws, treaties and conventions."
Mick e-mails to note Ros Davidson's "Sign of the times: dissent on America's highways" (Scotland's Sunday Herald):
It's a new American graffiti – the art of freeway blogging. Americans driving to work or the mall are increasingly being confronted by guerrilla art, or political messages, strung across freeway bridges or staked on verges and embankments.
Agitprop for the post 9/11 era, the signs are typically anti-Bush or anti-war and succinct enough to grab the attention of motorists whizzing by. Or cryptic enough to linger annoyingly, like an advertising jingle.
As dissent over the war in Iraq and the Bush presidency grows, illicit "freeway blogs" are sprouting daily on major freeways from California to New Jersey. Road workers, and ordinary drivers who differ politically, tear down the cardboard signs but new ones soon appear.
"The war is a lie."
"Yee-ha isn’t a foreign policy."
"Quagmire accomplished."
"When Clinton lied, nobody died."
"War president? My pet goat."
"Jesus drives an SUV. Mohammed pumps his gas."
"Osama Bin Forgotten."
"Why change horsemen mid-apocalypse?"
"You have the right to remain silent but I wouldn’t recommend it."
On a Seattle bridge, alongside the Republican slogan "comp-assionate conservatism", stands a stylised reproduction of the infamous photograph of a hooded Iraqi prisoner, arms stretched out and wires attached for electrocution.
Above a busy freeway near Sacramento, the official home of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a triptych of small but prominent cardboard posters is affixed to a bridge: "Worst." "President." "Ever."
And outside the First Baptist Church in upper New York State, the sign has been altered, a technique known as culture jamming, to read: "Jesus Loves You. Bush doesn't."
American politics is famed for rude bumper stickers and big brash badges. But never before has guerrilla art, rather than official adverts for a particular candidate or party, been so common.
Proponents say that the blogging is a free speech retort to corporate-run media and endless advertising billboards. The country is more divided than it has been for a generation, and millions of people spend hours daily on car-choked freeways.
DK e-mails to note Georg Mascolo's "CINDY SHEEHAN VERSUS GEORGE W. BUSHThe Iraq War Besieges Crawford" (Germany's Der Spiegel):
Why the effort? It's all because of Cindy Sheehan -- a mother whose son Casey died in the war in Iraq -- and her disgruntlement with the ongoing violence there. For weeks, she has been besieging the ranch near Crawford where US President George W. Bush has been spending his astonishingly lengthy vacation. With the unassailable authority of a grieving mother, Sheehan asks the question that the rest of America is also beginning to ask: For what, exactly, are our children dying?
It's the stuff of drama -- the story of the president and the grieving mother. Ever since Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford on August 6, she has been demanding that the president answer her questions in person. "I don't believe that my son died for a noble cause," she says.
Bush may have refused to give in to her demands, but the persistent Cindy has become a constant fixture, her presence felt whenever the president makes a public appearance at the ranch or whenever his motorcade comes or goes. Indeed, the president and the mother are already deeply involved in a very public dialogue. We owe them something, says the president, referring to US soldiers who have already died in Iraq. We must "finish the task they gave their lives for."
[. . .]
Throughout the country, peace groups have begun dreaming of the emergence of a powerful anti-war movement that could force the president to withdraw from Iraq. The protestors at Camp Casey have already assembled a crude model of a commemorative plaque, with the inscription: "The end of the Iraq war began here in 2005."
And Pru e-mails to highlight this from the UK's Socialist Worker:
"Iraqis rise to stop the US’s plans to divide and rule"
Over 100,000 demonstrators took to the streets across Iraq last week to campaign against the US orchestrated constitution.
Those marching were overwhelmingly Shias protesting against the threatened break up of their country and the ongoing lack of electricity, oil and basic services.
One banner in Baghdad's Sadr City read, "Iraq will remain without fuel, water and electricity as long as the occupation remains." Another banner read, "Occupier, our oil is for us, not you!"
In towns such as Ramadi and Tikrit, Sunni Muslims also protested against the proposed constitution, shattering the myth that just one section of Iraqis opposes the US plan.
The US-approved constitution threatens to break Iraq into competing states battling for control of the country's oil wealth. It is a recipe for civil war.
Jeremy Corbyn, the anti-war Labour MP, told Socialist Worker, "The experience of taking the troops into Iraq has led to the deaths of around 100,000 people.
"It has not brought more civilisation or freedom. The US and UK troops are the cause, not the solution, of many of Iraq’s problems.
"The troops must leave Iraq so that the Iraqi people are given the opportunity to decide their own future."
Pressure is mounting inside the US to bring the troops home. Wes Hamilton served in Vietnam and is a member of United States Veterans for Peace. "The troops need to come home now. Any delay just means that more people die," he told Socialist Worker.
"It only took a matter of days for the British and American troops to invade.
"Why can't they withdraw at the same pace? Too many innocent people have died, American, British and Iraqi. This tragedy must end."
Wes added, "This anti-war movement is a people's movement. It is the working class people of our countries who are the victims.
"It is our taxes that pay for it and our sons and daughters who are sent to die -- while the multinationals are gorging on profits from Iraq.
"They are currently building 14 military bases in Iraq, and they are spending billions of dollars in doing so.
"But they are not spending the money to rebuild the country, to allow the people to live in peace.
"Working people in America are waking up, they are becoming conscious of the truth about this war. And they will be out on the streets on the 24 September making their voices heard."
Here in Britain Ghada Razuki from the Stop the War Coalition's national office reports that support is swelling for the UK wide demonstration in London.
"There have been Stop the War activist meetings held in many parts of Britain in the past couple of weeks.
"Groups have been coming together to plan the best way to get as many people as possible out on 24 September.
"The atmosphere at these meetings leaves you in absolutely no doubt how important this demonstration is.
"The meetings have been big with lively discussions. The fact that Muslims in particular are being attacked by both the government and the media has really angered people.
"People are excited by the plans for 24 September. There will be three feeder marches from east, west and south London, all converging on one central area.
"This is an opportunity to show the word that we are still here and that it is time to bring the troops home."
Demonstrate
Sat 24 September, 1pm central London called by: Stop the War Coalition, CND, Muslim Association of Britain
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
You've recently written about the minutes of the meeting that took place between Tony Blair and his foreign policy and security advisers in the run-up to the war in Iraq, now known as the 'Downing Street memo'. How significant have these revelations been in the US?
The Downing Street memo has fit in with a general perception on the part of the US public that the war was begun on false pretences and the Bush administration was not honest about the reasons they were taking the country to war in Iraq. All of this results from the fact that the war is going badly.
Within the memo itself it is interesting that Blair at one point says, 'We need a political strategy that will function well at least until the military strategy is successful', meaning that the war, once it was successful, would essentially have justified itself. The fact is the war has not been successful and it has not justified itself, so there is more and more pressure being put on the original rationale. Although probably 80 percent of the US public has only a very vague idea about the specifics of the memo, it does dovetail with a general perception, and intensifies a general perception, that the rationale of the war is becoming cloudier and more difficult to discern.
The rationale for going to war which was stated by Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and other public officials has gone away. We have this misty, murky indistinct reason for being there. So the US public is left only with this awful 'present' in which Americans are being killed every day without any rationale and without any sign of an ending. And I think that the Downing Street memo fits into the general notion that we shouldn't be in Iraq, something is not right and we've been misled. So I think in that sense the Downing Street memo has been important.
How has this created problems for the Bush administration generally and are you beginning to see splits and ruptures emerge within official US politics and the Bush administration?
Well, at this point barely a third of the US public tells pollsters that the war was worth fighting. And so nearly two thirds say it was a bad idea. Similar numbers think that the president's performance on Iraq has been inadequate, and the president's general popularity ratings have plummeted - they are now in the low 40s, which is about what they were for President Lyndon Johnson around the time of the Tet offensive in 1968.
This plummeting in popularity has not been noticed that broadly in the press, so there's still an interesting divorce in a funny way between the press treatment of the administration, although it's become somewhat harsher, and the general lack of popularity with the public.
The above, sent in by Polly, is from Peter Morgan's "The Thrashing Around of the Beast" (England's Socialist Review). It's Sunday and we're in the midst of our "What's being reported outside the US mainstream media." This entry focuses on Iraq.
Olive e-mails to note Reuters' "Iraqi police, soldiers killed in Baquba attacks" (Australia's ABC):
Unknown gunmen killed 19 Iraqi police and soldiers and wounded another 16 in three separate attacks near Baquba, north of Baghdad, on Saturday, police and hospital sources said.
The first attack came in the morning at an Iraqi army checkpoint 30 kilometres north of the mainly Sunni Arab city, when four soldiers died.
Later, four police officers were killed by armed gunmen at a checkpoint in the centre of Baquba, 65 kilometres north of Baghdad.
The third attack was on a checkpoint manned jointly by police and soldiers four kilometres south of Baquba, in which seven police and two soldiers were shot dead.
Deidre e-mails to note "Editorial: New ideas needed to help Iraq" (New Zealand Herald)
Two polls last month suggest that President George W. Bush's job approval rating is at the lowest point since he began his presidency. In part, this can be attributed to rising petrol prices. Mostly, however, it reflects growing disillusionment with events in Iraq, That sentiment can only have deepened over the past week or so, despite the President's attempt to rally Americans to the cause of a "free Iraq" - and now there is further questioning of his leadership to contend with in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (see below).
During that short period, the White House's attempt to secure a draft constitution more amenable to Iraq's dethroned Sunni minority fell largely on deaf ears. More dramatically, a stampede on a Baghdad bridge, which killed about 1000 Shiite pilgrims, brought tensions among Iraq's rival communities to a new peak. A civil war threatened as the long-suffering Shiites blamed Sunni insurgents for provoking the incident. For the meantime, that conflict has been averted. The Shiites, who comprise 60 per cent of the population, continue to place their faith in the path to a democratic Iraq laid out by the United States. On October 15, there will be another step along that track when a referendum on the draft constitution is held. Frustratingly, this, however, is shaping as a severe obstacle.
Gareth notes "Iraq war 'costlier than Vietnam' " from the BBC:
The monthly cost to the US of the war in Iraq is now greater than the average monthly cost of the Vietnam War, a report by two anti-war groups says.
The report put costs in Iraq at $500m (£278m) a month more than in Vietnam, adjusted for inflation.
This makes Iraq the most expensive US war in the past 60 years, they say.
Gareth also notes Rory Carroll's "Sunni teenager who died saving Shias hailed as hero" (England's The Guardian):
A Sunni Arab teenager who died saving Shias during last week's stampede disaster in Baghdad has been hailed as a hero whose sacrifice should unify Iraq.
Othman al-Ubeydi drowned after rescuing at least three people who tumbled into the Tigris when Shia pilgrims panicked at rumours of a suicide bomber among them, leading to 1,005 deaths.
The 19-year-old student's face was on newspapers and television screens yesterday and the provincial council said that a street would be named after him.
Mr Ubeydi was sitting down to breakfast last Wednesday when loudspeakers from his Sunni mosque said Shias needed help at the al-Aima bridge, where Iraq's deadliest disaster since the 2003 invasion was unfolding.
While hundreds were crushed to death on the bridge, hundreds more jumped or fell into the river. Witnesses said that the teenager, a strong swimmer and wrestler who trained at a gym, repeatedly dived in and saved between three and seven people. However he was exhausted when he tried to save a large woman, and she reportedly pulled him under.
Iraq's government and media called Mr Ubeydi a martyr of national unity whose heroic sacrifice should reconcile Shias and Sunnis, rival Muslim sects which have edged towards civil war.
Dominick e-mails to note "Saddam lawyer says October trial gives too little time to prepare defence" (The Irish Examiner):
LAWYERS for former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein complained yesterday that plans to start his trial next month gave him too little time to prepare his defence.
British-based lawyer Abdel Haq Alani also said Saddam's defence attorneys are being kept in the dark on charges against him and doubted that the trial would start on October 19 as announced by Iraqi officials.
Saddam's family called on his new legal team to highlight alleged breaches of the Iraqi former dictator's human rights since he was captured and imprisoned. Raghad Hussein, his eldest daughter, is assembling a new panel of international legal experts to represent her father and claims he is being treated unlawfully.
Following meetings with supporters from Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, Sudan and Lebanon, she said: "Participants discussed the recent developments of trial and the conditions of detention of President Saddam Hussein and his comrades which breach all human rights international laws, treaties and conventions."
Mick e-mails to note Ros Davidson's "Sign of the times: dissent on America's highways" (Scotland's Sunday Herald):
It's a new American graffiti – the art of freeway blogging. Americans driving to work or the mall are increasingly being confronted by guerrilla art, or political messages, strung across freeway bridges or staked on verges and embankments.
Agitprop for the post 9/11 era, the signs are typically anti-Bush or anti-war and succinct enough to grab the attention of motorists whizzing by. Or cryptic enough to linger annoyingly, like an advertising jingle.
As dissent over the war in Iraq and the Bush presidency grows, illicit "freeway blogs" are sprouting daily on major freeways from California to New Jersey. Road workers, and ordinary drivers who differ politically, tear down the cardboard signs but new ones soon appear.
"The war is a lie."
"Yee-ha isn’t a foreign policy."
"Quagmire accomplished."
"When Clinton lied, nobody died."
"War president? My pet goat."
"Jesus drives an SUV. Mohammed pumps his gas."
"Osama Bin Forgotten."
"Why change horsemen mid-apocalypse?"
"You have the right to remain silent but I wouldn’t recommend it."
On a Seattle bridge, alongside the Republican slogan "comp-assionate conservatism", stands a stylised reproduction of the infamous photograph of a hooded Iraqi prisoner, arms stretched out and wires attached for electrocution.
Above a busy freeway near Sacramento, the official home of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a triptych of small but prominent cardboard posters is affixed to a bridge: "Worst." "President." "Ever."
And outside the First Baptist Church in upper New York State, the sign has been altered, a technique known as culture jamming, to read: "Jesus Loves You. Bush doesn't."
American politics is famed for rude bumper stickers and big brash badges. But never before has guerrilla art, rather than official adverts for a particular candidate or party, been so common.
Proponents say that the blogging is a free speech retort to corporate-run media and endless advertising billboards. The country is more divided than it has been for a generation, and millions of people spend hours daily on car-choked freeways.
DK e-mails to note Georg Mascolo's "CINDY SHEEHAN VERSUS GEORGE W. BUSHThe Iraq War Besieges Crawford" (Germany's Der Spiegel):
Why the effort? It's all because of Cindy Sheehan -- a mother whose son Casey died in the war in Iraq -- and her disgruntlement with the ongoing violence there. For weeks, she has been besieging the ranch near Crawford where US President George W. Bush has been spending his astonishingly lengthy vacation. With the unassailable authority of a grieving mother, Sheehan asks the question that the rest of America is also beginning to ask: For what, exactly, are our children dying?
It's the stuff of drama -- the story of the president and the grieving mother. Ever since Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford on August 6, she has been demanding that the president answer her questions in person. "I don't believe that my son died for a noble cause," she says.
Bush may have refused to give in to her demands, but the persistent Cindy has become a constant fixture, her presence felt whenever the president makes a public appearance at the ranch or whenever his motorcade comes or goes. Indeed, the president and the mother are already deeply involved in a very public dialogue. We owe them something, says the president, referring to US soldiers who have already died in Iraq. We must "finish the task they gave their lives for."
[. . .]
Throughout the country, peace groups have begun dreaming of the emergence of a powerful anti-war movement that could force the president to withdraw from Iraq. The protestors at Camp Casey have already assembled a crude model of a commemorative plaque, with the inscription: "The end of the Iraq war began here in 2005."
And Pru e-mails to highlight this from the UK's Socialist Worker:
"Iraqis rise to stop the US’s plans to divide and rule"
Over 100,000 demonstrators took to the streets across Iraq last week to campaign against the US orchestrated constitution.
Those marching were overwhelmingly Shias protesting against the threatened break up of their country and the ongoing lack of electricity, oil and basic services.
One banner in Baghdad's Sadr City read, "Iraq will remain without fuel, water and electricity as long as the occupation remains." Another banner read, "Occupier, our oil is for us, not you!"
In towns such as Ramadi and Tikrit, Sunni Muslims also protested against the proposed constitution, shattering the myth that just one section of Iraqis opposes the US plan.
The US-approved constitution threatens to break Iraq into competing states battling for control of the country's oil wealth. It is a recipe for civil war.
Jeremy Corbyn, the anti-war Labour MP, told Socialist Worker, "The experience of taking the troops into Iraq has led to the deaths of around 100,000 people.
"It has not brought more civilisation or freedom. The US and UK troops are the cause, not the solution, of many of Iraq’s problems.
"The troops must leave Iraq so that the Iraqi people are given the opportunity to decide their own future."
Pressure is mounting inside the US to bring the troops home. Wes Hamilton served in Vietnam and is a member of United States Veterans for Peace. "The troops need to come home now. Any delay just means that more people die," he told Socialist Worker.
"It only took a matter of days for the British and American troops to invade.
"Why can't they withdraw at the same pace? Too many innocent people have died, American, British and Iraqi. This tragedy must end."
Wes added, "This anti-war movement is a people's movement. It is the working class people of our countries who are the victims.
"It is our taxes that pay for it and our sons and daughters who are sent to die -- while the multinationals are gorging on profits from Iraq.
"They are currently building 14 military bases in Iraq, and they are spending billions of dollars in doing so.
"But they are not spending the money to rebuild the country, to allow the people to live in peace.
"Working people in America are waking up, they are becoming conscious of the truth about this war. And they will be out on the streets on the 24 September making their voices heard."
Here in Britain Ghada Razuki from the Stop the War Coalition's national office reports that support is swelling for the UK wide demonstration in London.
"There have been Stop the War activist meetings held in many parts of Britain in the past couple of weeks.
"Groups have been coming together to plan the best way to get as many people as possible out on 24 September.
"The atmosphere at these meetings leaves you in absolutely no doubt how important this demonstration is.
"The meetings have been big with lively discussions. The fact that Muslims in particular are being attacked by both the government and the media has really angered people.
"People are excited by the plans for 24 September. There will be three feeder marches from east, west and south London, all converging on one central area.
"This is an opportunity to show the word that we are still here and that it is time to bring the troops home."
Demonstrate
Sat 24 September, 1pm central London called by: Stop the War Coalition, CND, Muslim Association of Britain
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)