Unbelievably, the Democratic leadership in Congress seems about to cave in to Bush and grant him, of all things, more power to spy on Americans.
This, even as Alberto Gonzales continues to dissemble about the spying that has already been going on.
But whenever Bush lights the scare fluid, the Democrats jump back in fear.
In his Saturday radio address, Bush said, "Congress needs to act immediately to pass this bill, so that our national security professionals can close intelligence gaps and provide critical warning time for our country."
Bush also said that "FISA was passed nearly 30 years ago, and FISA has not kept up with new technological developments."
He conveniently failed to note that FISA has been updated 50 times over those last 30 years, and 20 times since 9/11, as the ACLU notes.

The above is from Matthew Rothschild's "Dems Complicit in Bush Power Grab" (The Progressive). Hold on a second, it's noted by Sherry and Rebecca. Rebecca just finished posting at her site when she found an e-mail from Sherry highlighting Rothschild's piece. She called and wondered if there was any way to note it here? Yes, because it goes to straight to not only how we ended up with the unconstitutional Patriot Act, it goes to how we ended up with the illegal war. Democrats won't stand up. They're afraid and some of them are honestly authoritarians who have more than a bit of the Bully Boy in them. No one twisted their arms to vote for what Bully Boy turned into an authorization of illegal war. No one twisted their arms to make them decide to hop on board Bully Boy's attack on Americans's right to privacy (Rothschild notes the Russ Feingold came out strongly against this measure). But how would it look? What if there's another attack? Will we look weak!!!!!

If there's another attack, as the so-called Homeland Security Dept. seems to be telegraphing more and more (often based on the precision detection system known as Michael Chertoff's gut -- let's hope he doesn't eat spicey food anytime soon) who looks bad? The Bully Boy.

He can spin it and sell it anyway he wants but the reality is he identified Osama bin Laden as being responsible for the attacks and he said ObL would be captured dead or alive . . . six years ago. The FBI has taken him off their most wanted. That this took place under the Bully Boy also goes to him. He has had six years to do something, anything, but all he's done is attack the rights of the American people (with Congress' permission). Another attack isn't an indictment of Democratic leadership (other things -- such as the continued illegal war -- may be), it's an indictment of the Bully Boy and a testament to his failures in office. It's that simple. He's had six years to address the problem he's campaigned on repeatedly and another attack will only (yet again) demonstrate that he has never been up to any job other than booze hound.

Many elected Democrats and former members of Congress went along with the illegal war. Some are War Hawks. Some wanted it. It was a plan that began during the Clinton era and many, including Joe Lieberman and Bob Kerrey (now an Air America Radio host -- 'progress'!) were all on board. Bill Clinton himself laid the steps for Bully Boy's illegal war.

Could some of the elected Democrats have risen up in 2002 or before the illegal war started in March 2003? Yes, they could have but few of them did. Some were scared, some were for it, and some were unable to go against the grain. When the Democrats took control of Congress in the November 2006 election, they had the power to end the illegal war. Forget the nonsense about one Senator's sick and the Dems Senate majority is just a sliver. They have the power in the Senate, they have the power in the House. They've refused to excercise it. Mike Gravel has offered many examples of how the Congress could end the illegal war. They've refused the advice.

The other day Yawn Emmanuel, whom David Swanson's pointed out has publicly spoken of how good the illegal war will be for the Dems in the 2008 elections, was boasting of the need to force votes -- meaningless ones -- to put pressure on Republicans. Pressure to get them to end the illegal war? No the real 'pressure" is exposure and the hopes that, once exposed, voters will turn against him and go rushing into the arms of Democrats. Yawn Emmanuel is a bit like a man who terrorizes a woman in order to frighten her so she'll fall into his arms our of fear. In fact, it's as though the nation has been cast in the role of Ingrid Bergman in this remake of Gaslight.



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)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3645. Tonight? 3662. Before we go futher on the topic of the deaths, Tori notes a highlight and asks what is the point of the column? For an exploration of that, read on after the highlight. This is from Norman Solomon's "Media Blitz for War: The Big Guns of August" (Common Dreams):

The media maneuvers of recent days are eerily similar to scams that worked so well for the Bush administration during the agenda-setting for the invasion. Vice President Cheney and his top underlings kept leaking disinformation about purported Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda -- while the New York Times and other key media outlets breathlessly reported the falsehoods as virtual facts. Then Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and other practitioners of warcraft quickly went in front of TV cameras and microphones to cite the "reporting" in the Times and elsewhere that they had rigged in the first place.
Last Monday, the ink was scarcely dry on the piece by O'Hanlon and Pollack before the savants were making the rounds of TV studios and other media outlets -- doing their best to perpetuate a war that they'd helped to deceive the country into in the first place.
The next day, Cheney picked up the tag-team baton. Tuesday night, on CNN's "Larry King Live," he declared that the U.S. military "made significant progress now into the course of the summer. … Don't take it from me. Look at the piece that appeared yesterday in the New York Times, not exactly a friendly publication -- but a piece by Mr. O'Hanlon and Mr. Pollack on the situation in Iraq. They're just back from visiting over there. They both have been strong critics of the war."
On Wednesday, the U.S. News & World Report website noted: "The news that the U.S. death toll in Iraq for July, at 73, is the lowest in eight months spurred several news organizations to present a somewhat optimistic view of the situation in Iraq. The consensus in the coverage appears to be that things are improving militarily, even as the political side of the equation remains troubling."
Such media coverage is a foreshadowing of what's in store big-time this fall when the propaganda machinery of the warfare state goes into high gear. The media echo chamber will reverberate with endless claims that the military situation is improving, American casualties will be dropping and Iraqi forces will be shouldering more of the burden.

Yeah, but that really doesn't excuse the fact that you're refusing to note (a) that July 2007 was the deadliest July for US troops and (b) 73 was a laughable figure on Wednesday. Norman Solomon wants everyone to understand that the illegal war will be switching to air war mode more and more and when that happens US deaths will most likely go down (as during Vietnam) and some pressure may then be off the administration.

That really doesn't excuse publishing a piece at some point on Wednesday (if not today) where the MSM and military lie of 73 is repeated. By Wednesday evening, 80 was already the announced deaths in Iraq. By today, it's risen to 81. The talking point imploded and before a 'war critic' does anything else it is his or her responsibility to note that.

As to the death count that will most likely go down (on the US side) when the air war is in full assault, what do you want, Norman? Seriously, what do you want?

You're a genius, no question, I have tremendous respect for you, but do you really think these scolds are helpful? They aren't. You're tired of the death count (as are we all). And?

Phyllis Bennis (whom I also have tremendous respect for) wants to shoot down Alexander Cockburn on the issue of finding out about the resistance. Now this was actually raised by Tom Hayden months ago and he was mocked (hopefully that was unintentional) on air for it. The host was reading something from the show's blog asking if this was a proposal to start a pen-pal list? Is Cockburn right? (Cockburn and Hayden before he was publicly humiliated, Hayden really hasn't touched on the topic since in any great detail.) So that's not going to be a focus.

Where is the focus going to be? How, Norman, are we going to translate the illegal war? We certainly can't depend upon a mainstream media holed up inside the Green Zone. More marches in DC (brief marches at that -- when Congress isn't in session)?

If the death count for US service members drops to one a month, we'll still note it here. If there was a reliable count on Iraqis (there actually is but no one's forcing the US government to release it -- or even trying to force them to) we'd note it. Instead we note that it is now approximately one million based on The Lancet Study published last October which found over 655,000 Iraqis had died.

The fact of the matter is that the US administration put the breaks on the death announcements, the military was derelict in their duty and went along with it, and the mainstream press -- in fact all the press! -- played dumb. We didn't here, as Tori notes in her e-mail. We didn't suddenly notice this week (or last) that the US military was delaying death announcements by as much as four days. We noted that all month long. We're not a media outlet. But find a media outlet that did -- big or small. Find anyone who prepared their audiences by informing them what was going on?

No one did. Reality, the US military was issued clamp down orders on the death announcements, told to slow them. Reality, military brass, under orders from the White House, began selling the talking point that deaths were down and this would be the lowest month in terms of US military deaths since last year. Reality, their talking imploded. Reality, they knew it would but hoped by delaying the truth, all the print editions would have run, all the gas bags would have moved on to another talking point.

On August 1st, as papers and networks repeatedly ran stories claiming it was the lowest death count since last year, the US military knew damn well that wasn't true (as did the White House) and they didn't correct the record. They announced a few more July deaths later in the first day of August, they announced again today.

That's reality and that's not addressed in Norman Solomon's column. Nor is it addressed exactly what we are to focus on? The deaths? Well, speaking for myself (but I'm sure it applies to others outside the community and I damn well know it applies to community members), we follow the deaths of Iraqis. What is it that the masses aren't doing, Norman?

Now I fully grasp the natural demand of a column that you have an opinion and to express it strongly but what I don't grasp is what's the take-away from your column?

The air war? I believe most are already noting that now (online). Don't focus on the deaths? Is that the edict because it won't fly here. We will note the deaths we can. The very nature of the illegal war? Find an entry here where we've ever called it anything but an "illegal war". Your column doesn't do that. At one point, in one sentence, you refer to the illegal war as "illegitimate and fundamentally wrong". It's illegal. In this community, we've grasped that for some time.

Now if you're getting at the disappointing coverage in small media, use an example other than Frank Rich. But in terms of what most reading your piece are going to take away, it's another scold. You're too good for that and you're too smart for that. Instead of using terms like "the media" and naming Frank Rich, why not go after the real roadblocks? The Nation magazine would be a perfect starting point. What sort of journalistic institution has "dozens" of photos of abuses and refuses to run any? What sort of journalistic insitution of the left hides behind centrists veterans and refuses to cover (in print) the ones who speak out against the illegal war because it is illegal and the ones who refuse to serve in an illegal war?

Norman Solomon wants to again tell readers that it's wrong to focus on the numbers of the dead. That's not because he doesn't care about everyone who dies in Iraq (on all sides -- which he does care very much about), that's because he's fully aware that an air war means US fatalities (the only thing tracked and often the only thing US audiences care about) will most likely go down. He's right. But to steal from Brando (in A Streetcar Named Desire, or Diane Keaton impersonating him for a scene in Sleeper), "And do you know what I say? Ha ha! Do you hear me? Ha ha ha!" First of all, the US administration and military have been caught in a lie that he takes a pass on. Second of all, the mainstream media is guilty of reporting a falsehood -- one they and small media should have known better about. But so what?

What is it that we should be focusing on? Hiding behind centrists? Turning the peace movement over to a pedophile? Attacking war resisters? More actions revolving around DC?
What is it? I've read the column, in full, twelve times and can't figure that out. If I can't, and I will always bend over backwards to see any point Solomon raises, I doubt many others can?

Funding the war is killing the troops, as Tina Richards and Iraq Veterans Against the War note. Funding the illegal war is killing everyone. It's an illegal war, not an "illegitimate" one -- it has many fathers true, but they are known -- and not just "fundamentally wrong" -- it's illegal. "Fundamentally wrong" makes it sound as though Bully Boy meant to pick up fries at McDonalds but got chicken nuggets instead. Illegal.

Brandon notes Amy Goodman's "The Uncounted Casualties of War" (Truthdig) and we'll go out on that (Goodman's points are very clear):

U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Jeffrey Lucey is not counted among the Iraq war dead. But he did die, when he came home. He committed suicide. His parents are suing the Department of Veterans Affairs and R. James Nicholson, the secretary of veterans affairs, for wrongful death, medical malpractice and other damages.
Kevin and Joyce Lucey saw their son's rapid descent after he returned from combat in Iraq in June 2003. Kevin said: "Hallucinations started with the visual, the audio, tactile. He would talk about hearing camel spiders in his room at night, and he actually had a flashlight under his bed, which he could use to search for the camel spiders. His whole life was falling apart."
Jeffrey told his family that he was ordered to execute two Iraqi prisoners of war. After he killed the two men, Jeffrey took their dog tags and wore them until Christmas Eve 2003, when he threw them at his sister, calling himself a murderer. A military investigation concluded the story is without merit, but Kevin Lucey says: "An agency investigating itself, I have a lot of problems with that. We fully believe our son." Joyce Lucey added: "It really, to us, didn't make a difference what caused Jeffrey's PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder]. We know that he came back different, so something happened to him over there."
Jeffrey got worse, secluding himself in his room, watching TV and drinking heavily. Jeffrey was reluctant to seek care, fearing the stigma that he felt accompanied mental-health treatment. Finally, on May 28, 2004, the Luceys had Jeffrey involuntarily committed. The Veterans Affairs hospital released him after three days.
On June 5, 2004, Jeffrey had deteriorated significantly. His sisters and grandfather brought him back to the VA. Joyce said the VA "decided that he wasn't saying what he needed to say to get involuntarily committed. Later we were to find out that they never called a psychiatrist or anybody that could have evaluated him. And they have this all on the record. It said that the grandfather was pleading for his grandson to be admitted."

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

and the war drags on
donovan
iraq
amy goodman
norman solomon
matthew rothschild
iraq veterans against the war
tina richards

Today, the US military announced: "A 13th SC(E) Soldier was killed and two others were wounded when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle while conducting a combat logistics patrol in the vicinity of Al Basrah, Iraq August 1." And they announced: "Two Task Force Marne Soldiers were killed and 10 were wounded in an indirect fire attack Tuesday." The latter brought to 80 the number of announced deaths in July. The former is the first death announced in August. The total of announced US military deaths in Iraq since the start of the illegal war now stands at 3660. Mike noted the count rising to 80 for July last night. To repeat, that's one death less than in February and March and there may be more announcements but find the retractions or corrections if you can. (You won't in the New York Times.) Also find anyone pointing out that adding almost 30,000 troops to reduce deaths by one is not a sign of "progress."

We had a very early speaking thing this morning and I started the entry and then dictated the rest. It's only gone up a short while ago because my friend killed himself trying to insert links. They are in a pain in the butt and I didn't mean for any past entries to be noted. If you show up late the party, you may get a brief recap but no one's going to walk you through every event that took place. I appreciate the work that went into locating the links to the entries but my own attitude is visitors who want to complain should honestly take some responsibility for not knowing about something all this time later.

I'd thought with that lengthy entry, I could postpone "Other Items" until Dona, Ava and I were done speaking. Since it took so long to post, the e-mails flooded in wondering if there were computer problems of it today was a day off. (On the latter, I wish.)

Marcia found an article but guessed it wasn't linkable. It's not for the reasons Marcia noted including the fact that The Nation's overly praised article is a bit like Dexy's "award" winning one in that it doesn't tell the full story (not limited to the fact that the article says "dozens" of photos were handed over of abuse to the magazine and the magazine obviously decided that their readers couldn't handle them and that censorship was the 'brave' thing to do). I will note that the publication was Marxist and it's distressing when even a Marxist publication rushes to prop up the timid piece by The Nation. Apparently no one will call it out. (Or note that to make it into a program, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez had to add their own taped interviews with war resisters. The article can't stand its own.) If you're wondering why it was pimped so heavy, The Nation thinks they'll get a national magazine award off it. And considering how NO ONE wants to call them out for the fact that they didn't print photos they were given, they just might. But the US government had no right (and still has no right) to shield the American people from the photos of the abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib and The Nation has no right to shield their readers from documentary proof of abuses they have. But the magazine's run by a 'celebrity' (I saw that, Lucy, and I laughed too, we may work that into something on Sunday).

We will note NOW with David Brancaccio this week (PBS stations determine the time and day programs are aired, the earliest this will air is Friday, check your local listings) features:

A strong blow to the Bush Administration's detainee policy, and the military lawyer who dealt it. On Friday, August 3 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), David Brancaccio talks with Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift, whose Supreme Court victory on behalf of his client, a Guantanamo Bay detainee, successfully challenged the Bush administration's detainee policy. It also laid the foundations for the current Congressional debate over how to try those accused of terrorism. Will this development in the war on terror deliver swifter justice or false hope? The NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will offer special insight into detainee treatment through the perspectives of a former prisoner and an army interrogator.

Martha notes this from Megan Greenwell's "Sunnis Quit Cabinet Posts; Bombs Kill 75 in Baghdad" (Washington Post):

Iraq's largest Sunni political group partially withdrew from the Shiite-dominated government Wednesday, the latest indication of growing Sunni frustration with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The announcement by the Iraqi Accordance Front came on an especially violent day in Baghdad, as three car bombs killed at least 75 people in the capital. Meanwhile, the U.S. military announced the deaths of four U.S. troops, bringing the total number of Americans killed in July to 78, the lowest monthly figure since November.

I wish I'd seen that early this morning. (Martha had sent it by then.) The news analysis didn't even go over it -- in the Times, didn't go over the political situation of the puppet government. We noted that withdrawal yestereday in the snapshot but this morning I was just trying to get something together quickly (and the Washington Post isn't available where we're speaking).

Here's Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) on the withdrawal:

The pullout reduces Iraq's Shiite-dominated government to little more than caretaker status. Barring a major political realignment, it also makes it less likely that Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's regime will be able to reach significant compromises on legislative benchmarks sought by the Bush administration to help quell sectarian strife.
Tawafiq member Tariq Hashimi retains his post as one of Iraq's vice presidents.The bloc's pullout cast the gravest challenge yet to Maliki's tenure as prime minister. His government has been burdened for months by talk of conspiracies, most prominently featuring former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.
Scenarios included tapping Maliki's immediate predecessor, Ibrahim Jafari, also with the Shiite fundamentalist Islamic Dawa Party. Jafari recently traveled to Iraqi Kurdistan in an apparent attempt to curry favor there.
A Kurdish official told The Times last month that Jafari was now preferable to Maliki, despite the fact that Jafari had been vetoed for a second term last year after failing to win the backing of any of the main sectarian or ethnic blocs.
The prospect of Iraq's other vice president, Shiite Adel Abdul Mehdi, being tapped for Maliki's job also has surfaced. At least one plan for an alternative government to Maliki's has been submitted to the U.S. Embassy by Iraqi political leaders.

Stephen Farrell (New York Times) notes puppet of the occupation al-Maliki "reacted cautiously to the Sunni walkout". AP quotes US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the matter, "In some ways we probably all underestimated the depth of the mistrust and how difficult it would be for these guys to come together on legislation. The kinds of legislation they're talking about will establish the framework of Iraq for the future so it's almost like our constitutional convention ... And the difficulty in coming to grips with those, we may all have underestimated six or eight months ago." Or maybe it's that you can't install a puppet government? Or maybe that it's you can't force through a constitution without support and with the promises that it will be 'adapted' and never address the problems you said would be addressed? Or maybe it's that those free and full elections still haven't taken place? Or maybe it's that illegal war destroys a country but can't remake one? Only the people of a country can make their own country and they can't do so at gun point.

CBS and AP note that "at least" 142 Iraqis died yesterday.

A visitor notes Gabriele Zamparini's "Phyllis Bennis and the Post-Modern Anti-War Movement" (Dissident Voices):

It's official. Phyllis Bennis, the spokesperson of the US peace movement, stated, "the U.S. peace movement doesn't embrace the Iraqi resistance. Right."
Bennis wrote,
"I never supported Saddam Hussein, who was 'resisting' the U.S. during the sanctions years, and I didn't -- and don't -- support what is called 'the Iraqi resistance' today."
Note that "what is called." One could try stop for a second and reflect why so many people use that "what is called" when addressing what is called the anti-war movement Bennis now has become the official spokesperson for.

The visitor is wrong that "you won't link to it." The visitor is correct that I won't offer my take on Bannis' remarks. Not because I'm "afraid," as he suggest, but because I haven't read it. If it appears elsewhere, I may. But I've taken out the link to Bennis' article. You're late to the party. We don't link to that site. We have no respect for that site. Two years ago a fourteen-year-old boy was bullied and intimidated by two so-called 'professionals' at that site, writing from their e-mail accounts provided by their jobs. The kid didn't need to apologize for a joke to begin with. But he did. And that wasn't good enough for the bullies. They wanted him to grovel. They threatened him with never covering his four favorite sites (this was one, Rebecca's was another and two sites that are not community sites). He groveled. His e-mail was this long apology. For a joke that needed no apology. He replied to them and also sent to every one of the four sites. That's where we come in. We delinked from that site and will never link to it again. If it were the only site in the world, I wouldn't visit it. That was my attitude before Gina and Krista ran the full exchange of e-mails between the two assholes and the kid in the gina & krista round-robin. After that ran, Eddie and others shared their e-mails. No one knew West (the 14-year-old) and, for instance, Eddie thought it was strange that Evan was writing him to get dirt on someone he'd never heard about. But when the exchange ran and Eddie read them and realized "West" was was the one Evan had tried to pump him for information on, Eddie was among those sharing their e-mails. That's really sick. It's sick that they thought (they is Matthew and Even -- I believe Matthew is the name of the bald or balding man), they could bully a little kid because they didn't like his joke. (Their e-mails still, to this day, outrage West's parents.) It's even more sick that an allegedly left site would go around trying to get dirt on a 14-year-old kid. If they'd do all that, what wouldn't they do?

They've never apologized to West or his parents (who used to support the site). They're quite aware that everyone knows what happens. After I noted it here, without noting the site, they delinked from this site the following day. (No loss.) They're cowards, they're abusers and they aren't professional. This community was enraged by what happened to a 14-year-old kid. That site doesn't exist. We don't support those behaviors in the White House and we certainly don't support them when they're done by an allegedly 'left' website.

So I have no idea what Phyllis Bennis is writing about. If it doesn't appear elsewhere, I never will. I can live with that. We don't link to that site and I would never go to it. We've covered this in full before. You're late to the party and spilling things on the rug. Try to be a little more careful.

The article by GZ is interesting (GZ because I'm attempting to finish this, I've got about five minutes and I don't want to mispell a name here and have that seen as a slam) and raises some interesting points. I'm not offended by it. One thing I will add, to GZ's article, is that the resistance, in any form, isn't and hasn't been covered so anyone who says they don't support it needs to grasp, anyone not just Bennis, that they're weighing in on something they probably know very little about. I like Phyllis Bennis and am tempted to add an "in fairness" statement but I haven't read her piece and won't at that site, so I won't comment in any way on what's excerpted. I will say that I hope she doesn't, as another did while rushing to reject Alexander Cockburn, make comments that are demeaning to Muslim women. I don't think she would but I'm still reeling from that other nonsense which really offended some Arab feminists. (And if I hear that friends of mine once again felt insulted, I will comment on it and confine myself to that reaction only unless the article's made available elsewhere.)

That's all the time. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


megan greenwell
the washington post
los angeles times
dissident voices
iraq

On the front page of the New York Times, Mark Mazzetti's "Iraq Snapshots Give 2 Views" can be found. First, I think the the "Iraq snapshot" gives more than two views. I think we have consistently, Monday through Friday, offered a look at war resisters, at the daily violence reported, at activism in the US, at reactions in other countries. I'm not sure which of our "Iraq snapshots" (there are probably over 300 by this point), Mazzetti is referring to but I'm sure we've given more than "2 Views."

No, Mazzetti's not talking about the "Iraq snapshots" that run here which is a bad thing because if he were he might actually have something to write about as opposed to his usual junk.

Mazzetti wants to talk partisans and how they use things to prop up their own arguments. So you can read it as the paper's self-confession.

They are the paper that lied us into illegal war. That was Judith Miller's faulty reporting, yes. But she wasn't alone. Michael Gordon's finally gotten attention for his own part in lying. Of course the non-existent link between Iraq and 9-11 was pushed on the front page in October of 2001 by Chris Hedges and another writer when they were tricked/fooled into believing two "defectors" were telling them the truth about terrorist training camps in Iraq, sanctioned by Saddam Hussein, were teaching people how to hijack planes.

That 'report' also aired on PBS in cooperation with the New York Times. The 'defectors' were liars using phony names. (And the State Dept. backed up the article though they aren't an on the record source.) And the paper, as of last year, still hadn't run a correction on it. I don't remember seeing any correction since, but if Mazzetti knows of one, drop a line. PBS corrected it on their website but the Times appears to still stand by those lies. The 'defectors' gave phony names. They told pleasing tales. And how they were brought to the Times is one of the aspects of the story that no one still wants to talk about. Just like they don't want to talk about the State Dept. involvement in that article. Just like they want to pretend like Mother Jones exposing one of the 'defectors' as a fraud mitigates the fact that everyone dummies up about the fact that the article quoted two 'defectors' and only one has been revealed to the public (and by Mother Jones, again the New York Times is in mute mode).

Now the lies didn't end after US forces hit the ground in Iraq.

Telling the truth was really a problem for the New York Times. John F. Burns wanted Saddam Hussein's head on a pole and was happy to say whatever helped that before the illegal war started and continued all the way through the execution. Saddam Hussein is dead. Hopefully, John F. Burns has finally found peace.

His Go-Go Boy in the Green Zone fellow lied repeatedly. Dexy Filkins, early on in the illegal war, was giddy over his planned interview with a group of fighters opposing US forces. Like many a Go-Go Boy Gone Wild, he couldn't stop shooting his mouth off about it. The proposed story, as a fellow journalist revealed publicly, got cancelled when the US military wasn't pleased with the idea.

That was only the beginning of Dexy self-censoring to please the US military. It would reach its lowest point when he 'reported' on the November 2004 slaughter of Falluja.

He was there, embedded with the troops. He was supposedly providing an eye witness account. But it was funny what he saw and what he didn't see. Using Dexy as the 'expert,' the paper would deny it when Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! addressed the use of white phosphorus one week. On Democracy Now!, the Pentagon would admit that white phosphorus was used and Scott Shane would be sent out with the big mop to clean it up.

Dexy's rah-rah reporting from Fallujah would win an award. The piece was entitled "In Faulluja, Young Marines Saw the Savagery of an Urban War" and ran November 21, 2004.

The same day, Edward Wong's more realistic article was reduced to inside the paper while Dexy's ran on the front page.

November 21st and Dexy had a "Nov. 18" dateline. We called it out and further pointed out that the dateline was wrong because the events Dexy was 'reporting' on took place November 15th. That's six days to make it into print. That's why the rumors about Dexy allowing the military to vet his copy became so popular to journalists in Iraq.

By the time his Iraq 'tenure' was over, Dexy's "Warrior King" would have exploded as a reliable source to anything and Dexy himself would be the Sob-Sister of the Embeds.

Terry Gross and New York Observer magazine would prop up Dexy and treat him like he was a real reporter. He wasn't. And when Thomas E. Ricks (Washington Post) put into print what everyone already knew (the US military saw Dexy as their go-to-guy whenever they had a rumor they needed to get into print) a lot of journalists thought he'd finally be widely called out. Didn't happen. Because back then the lie was that Judith Miller single handedly lead a nation into illegal war. Apparently, she not only 'reported,' she edited her articles, she edited the paper, she delivered it to your house, she told the networks and cable outlets what stories to run with, she ran the news division at every outlets and she was the power behind the Bully Boy.

The all powerful Judith Miller. When she left the paper, you might have thought others at the paper would finally get the attention their behaviors had called for. Didn't happen. In fact, if Michael Gordon hadn't attempted to sell war with Iran with his unsourced pillow whispers, he probably would have gotten away with his own journalistic crimes. But he was selling war with Iran and suddenly the gas bags (of all stripes) remembered, "Woops! Judith had a partner on some of those stories."

Media 'criticism' had been reduced to Bash the Bitch and Judith Miller was the God of All Things Media. And would have stayed that had Gordo not started beating the drum beats for Iran.

So it takes a special sort of uselessness for Mark Mazzeti to show up on the front page today claiming that 'partisans' shade the news for their own means.

The reality is that the news, at all outlets, is always shaded. It's shaded in the choices of what to tell and what not to tell. Some events will stand out to some people and they'll zoom in on that. Other events won't get the coverage they need.

Considering the New York Times' Iraq reporting in whole, they are the last to ever speak of 'partisans' because they've been war boosters all along.

Here we've said since at least January 2005, if Judith Miller got us over there (she helped, she was not alone, nor was the paper the only outlet selling the illegal war), it was the Dexys that kept us there. They lied, they told big lies, they told little lies. They holed up inside the Green Zone even when they could have been out and about reporting without the military because, yes, there was a brief time when that was possible. But they hunkered down with their team of bodyguards in their pricey Green Zone villa, rewrote military press releases, were rude to the stringers (the stringers were among the first to complain to this site about the paper's coverage) and thought because they were so high on the illegal war, they were making journalistic names for themselves.

(And it needs to be noted, when selecting what to emphasize each day, the 'stars' and the stringers were in frequent disagreement.)

They were the joke of the Green Zone with other domestic outlets as they paraded around the Green Zone and spoke loudly over drinks (thinking they were holding court when all they were doing was proving Americans can be drunken bores in any land).

We could get into the laughable idea of 'fidelity' at a time when the paper, domestically, was pushing the 'values voters' myth. We could go into the firing and how the Guild had to get involved and how things got a little uncomfortable.

But that's the personal business that their unprofessional behavior made public news.

Their real crime all that time was never telling readers that they weren't leaving the Green Zone unless as an embed. Never noting the stringers until they started dying. Creating laughable end credits when most of the reporting was done by stringers who were not given bylines. I've disclosed this before but I've done uncredited (and unpaid for) stringer work for friends and family in the press before. With the exception of the Los Angeles Times, no one ever offered payment. Nor did I expect or want any. (I sent back LAT's check. And that was a long, long time ago. Before the days of online.*) I grew up in the press, I know what a stringer does. What the Times' stringers were then doing was actually reporting but they got no credit for that.

That's, at best, bad behavior. But in terms of the readers, it was far worse because the situation would quickly change on the ground to the Times being holed up in the Green Zone because it was so comfy into the Times being holed up there because it wasn't safe to leave. For months and months, for years, the paper refused to tell readers that. When Sabrina Tavernise began getting bylines that would change and she and others would note from time to time that they weren't able to travel about Iraq safely. Had readers known that earlier, they would have realized the illegal war was lost.

So it's a bit late in the game for Mazzetti to be finger pointing at others in an alleged "News Analysis."

He opens his nonsense with "July ended with a monthly death toll for American troops in Iraq that was the lowest this year." What was the toll?

I'm sorry to be the one to explain journalistic basics to Mazzetti (who presumably didn't grow up with them drilled into his head at the dinner table) but apparently someone has to. When you open by mentioning the death toll was the lowest, the next logical thing is to include the number. He never does.

Readers of the paper might flash back to yesterday and feel they know the toll. They might wrongly assume they're informed by reading the paper. Yesterday, Stephen Farrell's "U.S. Death Toll In Iraq in July Expected to Be Lowest in'07" ran on A8 and they may remember that number and feel they are informed. That number the paper ran was "74." The number for announced deaths in July currently?

80.

Mazzetti's lede is "July ended with a monthly death toll for American troops in Iraq that was the lowest this year." 80 was the lowest? What was the next low? 81. That was the number in February and in March. Now July's totals may or may not be complete (Farrell, to his credit, noted that possibility when using the 74 number yesterday.)

The escalation, all the added troops have, if no more deaths are announced, resulted in one less death than in February and one less than in March. That negates (actually destroys) Mazzetti's lede and if the paper had real editors he'd be asked about it.

July 2007 had two ways to go when it came to the coverage. The paper went with "lowest death toll." Mazzetti wants to write (apparently with a straight face, but maybe he's stoned the entire time?) that "The war's staunchest supporters have seized on the reduced death toll in July for American troops as a sign that an influx of troops is dampening sectarian violence in the country."

That may be the closest to a confession (admittedly, an unintended one) the paper makes. Because there was always another detail about the July count. We began making it here last week. July 2007 was the highest US military death toll of any July. There were two ways to go there. One was to push the lie that the escalation had reduced the violence (it hadn't) and base that false claim on the spin that the death toll was down. The other was to note it was the deadliest July for US service members since the illegal war began. Who is shaping for their own gain here, Mazetti?

Mazzetti tells you that the "staunchest supporters" (which, by his definition, includes his paper) "seized" on that. That's a lie. They were fed it. See "Rewriting Ned Parker on the death toll" from last Friday and you'll see that this talking point didn't come out of whole cloth, it was fed by the US military. And, like the Times today, the general had to avoid the actual number of dead the Thursday he promoted the talking point to reporters.

A news analysis that can't note the actual death toll isn't much of a news analysis but Mazzetti's not much of a reporter. Or an analyst. Inside the paper, he does note that Michael O'Hanlon and Kenny Pollack are "occasional critics of the Bush administration's war strategy" but neglects to note that they are supporters of the illegal war. You can't push the illegal war before it begins and be anything but a supporter of the illegal war. They have only been concerned with strategy (and the guilt by association of the lost war). Now not including the detail that they regularly pushed the illegal war before it began was a choice Mazzetti made.

So he's really the last who should be fretting over what gets included and what gets excluded. His 'analysis' goes beyond merely personal choices made to choices made that convey an unrealistic picture of the illegal war.

He gets it wrong when he talks about Iraqi body counts. That's factually wrong. It's an error.
He writes that after the lies of the body counts during Vietnam, the Pentagon stopped keeping them "but over the past four years in Iraq, military commanders have often used their numbers for insurgents killed when detailing the success of a particular operation." The Pentagon still keeps numbers. We noted that here when no one wanted to. In July of 2006, Nancy Youssef wrote about it for Knight-Ridder (it was about to change titles to McClatchy Newspapers-Ridder but when her story was published it was Knight-Ridder). At that point, with on the record military source, she wrote about how the count had been kept for over a year but the US military refused to release the count to the press (and, by proxy, to the American people). That's pretty big news but it got drowned out. (Little media was off on the elections in Mexico, I forget where big media was.) Earlier, Sabrina Tavernise had co-written an article on a similar topic but Youssef's was the one that was concrete.

That an analyst is unaware of that factual reality would suggest that the analyst isn't up to the job. More than likely, Mazzetti is aware of it and just made the 'choice' not to include the detail.

He quotes a war source who states that the illegal war can't be judged.

That's hilarious. The four year mark was passed in March but we're all supposed to pretend the jury's still out on what was sold as a cakewalk, what has claimed approximately one million Iraqi lives, what has torn apart the country (I mean Iraq, but it's certainly divided this country as well -- news to Nancy Pelosi who claims impeachment would divide the country), what has fostered and created civil wars and sectarian divides, what has made Iraq worse in every measurable way whether it's basic services, malnutrition, employment or any factor you want to use.

Oxfam released a report this week. Damien Cave covered it inside the paper. He did a few paragraphs at the top of his article on it before moving on to other topics. By contrast, the paper repeatedly covered the soccer games. One day, they covered the soccer games at length and made a whopping paragraph -- one paragraph -- available to note that 50 people had been killed by bombings (see "Oh look, it's universal . . . for some men"). That was a personal choice, apparently. It certainly wasn't a journalist choice because the paper isn't called Sports Illustrated, it's called the New York Times. And sports isn't hard news. There seems to be some confusion there today. Soft news is the arts, cooking, sports, etc. But the Times ignored the bombings (one paragraph, buried in the soccer feature, is ignoring) and went with soft news. Feel good news. That's how you sell an illegal war, how you keep selling it.

Oxfam? Search in vain for a mention of their report in Mazzetti's alleged 'analysis.' You can find a lot of war hawks quoted. You'll never get peace activists, but you can always find the war hawks.

Mazzetti rewrites history as well pinning the benchmarks on Congress. The benchmark talk began with the report by the James Baker Circle Jerk and was seized on by the administration. Maybe Mazzetti's trying to be kind and give the Democrats in Congress credit for something, anything -- goodness knows, they haven't done much since taking control of both houses. But the reality is the administration pushed 'benchmarks.' He notes the administration doesn't favor them today but forgets the whole point about how they did favor them, about how Bully Boy used 'benchmarks' as a talking point when addressing the escalation that he called a 'surge'.

It's a funny kind of half-informed analysis that Mazzetti offers so considering that and the paper's own history (just during this illegal war, but we could go way back), he truly is the last to note that various people will emphasize what stands out to them.

What the 'analysis' should be remembered for is that on August 2, 2007 he offered a news analysis whose chief talking point was that the jury's still out on the success or failure of the illegal war. When the illegal war is ended (it's already lost) and people look back, they largely won't remember that. You'll have little bits from each year and most likely 2007 will be remembered as the year approximately 70% of Americans were against the illegal war. That, long after the public turned against it in such huge numbers, Mark Mazzetti offered what was billed as "News Analysis" which offered it was too soon to tell how the illegal war was going will be forgotten. It shouldn't be because that's how illegal wars are sold before the start and how they continue to be sold after they started.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


the new york times
democracy now
dexter filkins

[*For newcomers who need their disclosures of things already noted, I also wrote an overly praised film review when the reviewer and I went out for Chinese and then to see the movie. We were both sick from the food about 15 minutes into the film. There was a deadline and I was the less sick. I wrote a postcard piece -- focusing on scenery because I had no idea what the plot was. I didn't claim that then and don't claim it now. But it demonstrates how stupid the press can be that it actually got singled out when it was nothing but scenery and "How many more words are needed?" I had no interest in being part of the press. Then or now. But then and now, I did and do help friends when they're trying to get someone to talk to and, in a pinch, I'll be a sounding board.]

Wednesday, August 1, 2007.  Chaos and violence continue, over 100 Iraqis are dead or reported dead today, the press tries to sell the illegal war some more despite reality, the July death toll for US service members rises again, and a pig attempts to book his own title match: Pedophile vs. the Peace Mom (with everyone rooting for Cindy).


Starting with war resistance.  In June of 2006, Ehren Watada became the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq (after months of working privately with his military superiors, offering to resign, offering to serve in Afghanistan, etc.).  In violation of the Constitution's double-jeopardy clause, he faces a second court-martial  October 9th  following last February's court-martial which ended just as he was about to take the stand in his own defense only to find Judge Toilet (aka John Head) rule a mistrial over defense objection.  The October 9th date is considered iffy at this point by his civilian attorneys due to the appeals process that will address issues such as double-jeopardy and whether or not Judge Toilet should recuse himself.  Thus far those (and other issues) have not been addressed.  (Judge Toilet ruling that his own actions do not violate the Constitution or ruling that he's fit to serve on another court-martial does not make for objective rulings.)  Watada's bravery has inspired many and that's not limited to the military.  Melissa Regennitter (Muscatine Journal) reports on Ashley Casale and Michael Israel's March for Peace which began May 1st in San Francisco and is headed for DC and added a third person, Antonio Kies, on Sunday and a fourth, Isabelle Salmon, on Monday.  Asked why she was joining the march, Isabelle Salmon explained she'd just completed college, wanted to take part in an action to end the illegal war and "I'd have to say inspiration comes from Lt. Watada and my belief in world peace."  And exploring the connections between art and activism, Jen Angel (Boise Weekly) recounts, "This past January I spent a week in a chilly warehouse in Tacoma, Wash., making puppets with 20 other activists to support Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to public refuse deployment to Iraq.  We were creating a play to perform on Feb. 5 at the vigil outside the gates of Fort Lewis, Wash., where his court-martial -- which would end in a mistrial -- was being held.  We spent hours painting, taping, cutting, gluing, eating and talking.  For the characters in our play, we created a 15-foot-tall judge with a sculpted cardboard head and papier-mache hands, jurors and witnesses, and, for our finale, doves and suns to end with a vision of a beautiful future."

Watada and others inspire action with the stories of the courage as does Iraq Veterans Against the War.  On June 19th, when Eli Israel decided he couldn't serve in the illegal war, while stationed in Iraq, the response was swift from the military and equally swift was the response of support he received.  Last week, Courage to Resist filed an update noting, "Last month Army Spc Eleonai 'Eli' Israel, while stationed at Camp Victory in Baghdad with JVB Bravo Company, 1-149 Infantry of the Kentucky Army National Guard announced that he would refuse any combat role in Iraq.  Afterwards, Eli noted 'It would have been a lot "easier" for me to simply keep doing combat missions for a couple more weeks, and be done with things.  Moral convictions are not based on timing or convenience.'  He is scheduled to be released today [July 26th] from the Theater Field Confinement Facility at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait where he served a 30 day sentence.  Eli pleaded guilty to five counts of disobeying orders at a summary court martial.  He expects to receive an Other Than Honorable discharge and to be flown to Mississippi within a couple of weeks.  After he's out, he plans on fighting for a discharge upgrade as the officer who sentenced him ignored his application for discharge as a conscientious objector or take into account his prior service."




Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.

 
In Iraq today everything was falling apart.  Lebanon's Daily Star reports that today saw the Sunni Accordance Front resigned today which "pushed the government into a new crisis undermining its efforts to reconcile Iraqis and end sectarian strife." Mairam Karouny and Peter Graff (Reuters) identify the withdrawal as being the heads of "the ministers of culture, women, planning, and higher education, and the junior foreign affairs minister" as well as Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zobaie.  And, as The Daily Star also reports, there's the issue of the Baghdad bombings.

Now those who live and breathe by their Operation Happy Talk talking points should take a deep breath because that 'turned corner' just got drop kicked out of the narrative.

Several bombs in Baghdad led to mass deaths.  Al Jazeera notes the "fuel tanker rigged with explosives" and BBC describes the bombing near "a popular ice-cream parlour" using a parked car.  AFP says there were 3 "large bombs" in all and notes: "Iraqi forces sealed off the area, as residents and ambulances ferried the dead and dying to city hospitals.  Tens of bodies were taken to Ibn Nafees hospital following the explosion".  CBS and AP note, "An Associated Press reporter at the scene said the explosion ripped a hole one yard deep and one and a half yards wide in the asphalt.  Three minibuses and six cars were damaged by flames and flying debris.  Blood pooled in the street."

Al Jazeera and Reuters figures for the dead are at least 70.  Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) offers more detailed figures noting 20 dead from the parked car bombing near the ice cream shop, 50 dead from the fuel tank bombing and 3 dead from a parked car bombing in Doura (that's the third of the three being reported on by most outlets) and notes 105 were reported wounded from the three bombings.

The numbers will likely rise as the rubble is cleared and bodies are discovered, as some on the wounded list do not pull through.  But it may be a big shock for some Americas buying into the latest waves of Operation Happy Talk.  It's, as Robert Parry (Consortium News) has dubbed it, New Pro-War Propaganda":
"No need to wait until September.  It's already obvious how George W. Bush and his still-influential supporters in Washington will sell an open-ended U.S. military occupation of Iraq -- just the way they always have: the war finally has turned the corner and withdrawal now would betray the troops by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  At one time, the Iraq story line was how many schoolrooms had been painted or how well the government security forces were doing.  Now there are new silver linings being detected that will justify a positive progress report in September -- and the U.S. news media is again ready to play its credulous part."
.
And hasn't it been glorious?  Sell-sell-sell.  Ignore realities about the US death counts (see below after corpses), ignore reality period. 

Turned corner?  Alexandra Zavis and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) report, "The number of Iraqi civilians killed in violenc rose to 1,753 in July.  The toll in June was 1,227.  The number of bodies found in and around Baghdad also climbed in July, to 619, compared with 540 in June."  Lebanon's The Daily Star crunches the figures to note, "New goverment figures also showed civilian deaths in the country rose by a third last month, dealing a further blow to a five-month-old security plan designed to stabilize Baghdad and allow for reconciliation."  A blow?  Yes.  The Daily Star, not a US outlet.  Who knows how the New York Times and others will rush to spin it tomorrow (only their military handlers know for sure?)  But it's a huge blow.  And the escalation which was supposed to bring security for Iraqis?  Deaths rose a third.  Repeating, deaths rose a third.

73 dead from 3 Baghdad bombings and those weren't the only bombings in Baghdad, nor the only violence.


Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "Iraqi police said that 4 people were wounded when US army helicopters bombed Zafaraniyah neighborhood southest Baghdad at 4:00 am" in Baghdad,  two US Humvees and one US tank were destroyed or damaged in Baghdad by explosions, a downtown Baghdad car bombing claimed 3 lives (six more wounded), a Baghdad IED exploding claimed the life of 1 police officer (seven more wounded), a Baghdad mortar attack claimed 2 lives, and a Falluja bombing claimed the lives of 2 police officers.  Reuters notes the bombing of a building in Madaen that claimed 4 lives (six more injured) and an Iskandariya roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi solider (three more injured).  That's 20 reported dead.  Add the 73 from the other bombings and that's 93 reported dead.


Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Major Gen. Mahir Nori was shot dead in Baghdad and 2 "men working for the anti terror directorate were killed by gunmen in Saidiyah neighborhood south Baghdad".  96 is now the total reported dead today.


Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 25 corpses discovered in Baghdad.  Counting corpses discovered it's 121 reported dead today.



Today the US military announced: "Three Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldiers were killed and six others wounded when an explosively formed penetrator detonated near their patrol during combat operations in an eastern section of the Iraqi capital July 31."  And they announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier was killed by small arms fire during combat operations in an eastern section of the Iraqi capital July 31."

This brings the ICCC totals for number of US service members killed in the illegal war since it started in March 2003 to 3657 and the number of announced deaths for the months of July thus far to 78 making July 2007 the deadliest July for US
troops since the start of the illegal war. The first July (2003) saw the deaths of 43 US troops, July 2004 saw 54, July 2005 also saw 54 and July 2006 saw 43. With 77 announced deaths thus far, this was the deadliest July of the illegal war for US troops. 

Which we repeat because Big Media largely missed that point.  Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) shared reality this morning, "U.S. commanders meanwhile are touting last month's US death toll as a sign of progress on the ground.  Seventy-seven servicemembers were killed in July, the lowest monthly total since November.  But the July total is also the highest over the five Julys since the U.S. invasion.  The July death toll one year ago was forty-three."

Are there more July deaths to be announced? Last week we saw deaths announced as late as four days later. It happened this week and, in fact, for the month, the standout feature about deaths was how slowly MNF announced them.
The July announced deaths is now at 78.  And the press wants to run with the nonsense that this is an improvement?  Are they serving Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno?  Last Thursday, he gave the Operation Happy Talk point that the deaths were "falling" and cited the July totals as good news.  It's not.  Nor is it a sign that the escalation is working.  But notice how many outlets grabbed that talking point and repeated it today. 

Today the UK Ministry of Defence announced: "It is with much sadness that the Ministry of Defence must confirm the death of a British soldier from the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment in Basra City, southern Iraq last night, Tuesday 31 July 2007.  The soldier died as a result of injuries sustained by an Improvised Explosive Device attack which targeted a British Forces Warrior vehicle patrol that was carrying out routine duties in the Mustashfa district of Basra City."  This death brings to 8 the number of British soldiers who died in Iraq last month and brings to 164 the total number killed in the illegal war since it started.

Thank goodness we have an independent press. Thank goodness we have a press that doesn't just run with whatever talking point they are fed.

In other news, the pig who should probably be behind bars is squealing again.  Not booked on The Nation cruise -- indicating that perhaps Katrina vanden Heuvel's fine with promoting his work but doesn't wasn't associate with known pedophiles -- he kicks up his own feces at Truth Dig today.  (Link goes to Truth Dig's main page.  We do not link to that pig.) 

Looking at the comments, you will see people are shocked and outraged by the Pedophile's latest nonsense (sliming Cindy Sheehan, suggesting a National Nazi Program -- that's all his suggestion of 'national service' is, etc.).  Where the shock really should be is with those who have felt the need to promote the Pedophile.  It's a long list of people (and include Sy Hersh who went on a truck and bus tour with him repeatedly).  Whatever analysis the Pig had to offer were of no use after the illegal war started.  (Yes, he's repeatedly stated that the US will go to war with Iran -- in fact, he's offered predictions of specific time frames . . . which have all have passed.  There's your first clue about his 'analytical' abilities.)  As I stated last week, not having promoted a known pedophile, I have no blood of my hands. 


Maybe those leaving outraged comments now wouldn't be shocked by the latest nonsense if they grasped that we are talking about someone who the MSM reported was twice arrested for attempting sexual set ups with underage females?  Maybe if they made sure everyone grasped that when he was asked directly about it on CNN, he refused to discuss it and lied claiming he couldn't because the records were sealed (as the defendant, he could speak in this matter, sealed or unsealed records).  So the MSM washed their hands of him (rightly) and that had nothing to do with Judith Miller, it had to do with the fact that someone twice arrested for attempting sexual relations with underage females -- a CRIME -- isn't someone to shore up or go rushing to.  But small media picked him up, propped him up and acted as though existing reports of the two arrests didn't exist.  Which makes you question their committment to their own audiences?

So the Pedophile wants to explain that Cindy Sheehan's a distraction, David Swanson's a distraction, Hurricane Katrina is a distraction . . . everything's a distraction.  Except himself.  And John Conyers!  Conyers is "one of the strongest antiwar advocates in the U.S. Congress".  Well no wonder the country's in trouble!  John Conyers isn't an advocate for anything these days.  He is hemmed in and allows himself to be hemmed in.  (I don't expect the pedophile to know Congress.  Most members refuse to meet him.)  He gets in the sexist slame that Sheehan lacks "grace".  What does he know about grace?  Or is he confusing grace with the leniancy he was shown in his pedophile busts?



When the pig first took his attacks on Sheehan public, we called it out (over a year ago) and noted that he wants to turn to the peace movement into the military with himself as commander.  In fact, he earned his own special spot in "2006: The Year of Living Dumbly" (he really earned it):

Another low happened when The Nation, Democracy Now! and about every left and 'left' outlet decided to continue to give a platform to the man they portray as a Cassandra but whom the mainstream media has noted was twice arrested in stings to capture sexual predators. As Chrissie Hynde once sang in "How Much Did You Get For Your Soul," "How much did you, How much did you, How much did you get?" He went around the country with Seymour Hersh slamming the peace movement (and wanting to turn it into the military -- presumably with himself as commander), he ridiculed and mocked Cindy Sheehan in an independent weekly, and despite that, despite the mainstream media's reports of two busts for seeking out sex with underage girls online, he was given a platform repeatedly.

He's a moron and disgusting trash.  And he's selling "mandatory national service" like a good little Nazi today much to the shock of many commenting.  They should be more shocked that a KNOWN PEDOPHILE can get away with penning statements about what "legally, morally and structurally binds our nation together" becuase, if the MSM coverage is to be believed, were it not for backdoor deals (that led to some firings), the Pedophile would be behind bars where his CRIMINAL ASS belongs.  The Pedophile calls Cindy Sheehan's actions "self-destructive".  That's rich -- a pedophile wants to speak of destruction.  Reality is that the trash should have been carried to the curb.  Reality is that the MSM did.  It's independent media that's decided a PEDOPHILE is just, apparently, what the world needs now. 

And it's time to start demanding accountability from small media.  I don't tolerate pedophiles, I have no idea why The Nation, Truthdig and others are welcome to give them a 'pass.'  I doubt they'd give the same pass to Mark Folely but the objects of his affection were male.  (And it should be noted, Folely does not appear to have attempted anything with anyone under 18 which means he is not a pedophile.)  With the Pig, apparently Small Media is saying that it's perfectly understandable for those things to happen.  Two busts being reported and the perv refusing to respond to the reports is okay.  It's not okay.

But it allows him to trash Cindy Sheehan yet again.  And laugh as the twice busted pedophile wants to warn Sheehan's about to destroy "whatever vestige of credibility is left to her as a mainstream activist."  This from the Pedophile who has no mainstream outlet because -- unlike Small Media -- MSM was firm in refusing to air the opinions of a Pedophile. 

He's never liked Sheehan  -- though he pretends today he liked the summer 2005 actions when the reality is he was trashing her at the start of 2006 and trashing the same actions he now pretends to like.  Pedophile could never like the Peace Mom.  She is a "mom."  She's a mother.  A wounded mother grieving over her child.  Pedophiles need to divorce their victims from any sort of relations other than objects for the pedophile's perversion.  Mothers are very scary to pedophiles.

He's a pedophile, he's a right-winger and he can't shut up about "anti-war."  He's trashed Cindy Sheehan repeatedly.  Why the left wants to embrace him is anyone's guess.  But we don't embrace pedophiles.  A good question to ask now is why others on the left continue to give him an outlet?  Non Credo's remarks stand out among the ones read to me over the phone.  From the opening of Non Credo's comments: "How dare ____ smear Sheehan as a 'narcissist.'  ____  wants to pose in contrast as the 'manly man'.  It's sexist and crass.  It's ____ who's preening here, in his pretty uniform.  And ___, this idea is nuts.  If Bush had us all in his army, we'd all have to shut up, the way he shuts up anybody now serving, on the excuse of military necessity."

Avoid the Pedophile.  But call him out if you see him around children -- especially girls.

Finally, as Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, the Oil Ministry in Iraq has put in a place a ban on anyone dealing with the oil unions in Iraq who went on strike in opposition to the theft of Iraqi oil.

the los angeles times

No need to wait until September.  It's already obvious how George W. Bush and his still-influential supporters in Washington will sell an open-ended U.S. military occupation of Iraq -- just the way they always have: the war finally has turned the corner and withdrawal now would betray the troops by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  At one time, the Iraq story line was how many schoolrooms had been painted or how well the government security forces were doing.  Now there are new silver linings being detected that will justify a positive progress report in September -- and the U.S. news media is again ready to play its credulous part.

The above is from Robert Parry's "The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda" (Consortium News) detailing the many waves of Operation Happy Talk.  Operation Happy Talk has never gone away though some have been stupid enough to participate it.  For instance, no independent writer should ever pen an article about how a soccer match had "united" Iraq.  Let's be really clear on that.  When religious minorities are persecuted, when femicide is taking place in Iraq (all women and girls are victims), when gays and lesbians are the objects of witch hunts, let me state clearly: Lose your macho high.  (I'm not referring to Parry, by the way.)  It's nonsense in the MSM and it's even worse when the independent media wants to push "Iraq is united! Soccer!"  But think about how many front page stories the cup got male writers (they love their cups) at the New York Times.  And the paper used "Iraqis" but -- repeatedly -- ran photos (on the front page) of men, quoted men, noted only men.  But somehow the fact that a bunch of crazed men were whipping off the shirts and shooting guns in the sky meant all of Iraq had united.

Could you spare a dime
Well I'm sick of it, it's a load of s**t
We could stop the world and let off all the fools
And let them go live with their guns in the sky
-- "Guns In the Sky," INXS, Kick

The White House should be very proud of themselves.  Not only did the MSM fall for a meaningless sports competition, so did a lot in the small press.  The Times did several front page stories on that (and when the stories weren't front page, the photos for it still were).  By contrasts, Oxfam's report -- "Rising to the Humanitarian Challenge in Iraq" -- on the devastating conditions for Iraqis not only ran inside the paper (A8, yesterday), not only had no photo (front page or otherwise) to 'catch the eye,' it also didn't rate a full story.  It's the opening to Cave's "Report Finds Dire Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq" story.  Tick it off, move along.  A huge contrast to the way the soccer match ups repeatedly played out in the Times.

From Thursday morning's "Oh look, it's universal . . . for some men:"


We'll stay on the above violence by noting the New York Times' coverage of it and we'll pick up mid-stream because apparently when two men cover the topic they think it's important to make like they're doing the sports minute on the nightly news before getting to the violence. If we all agree to assume Richard A. Oppel Jr and Qais Mizher are such big jock 'studs' that they have to wear athletic cups at all times when reporting, will they agree not to start out a story on bombs that left at least 50 dead by talking "errant kick"s, goalposts and "4-2 shootout victory"s? Will they agree that when they're allegedly reporting on at least 50 dead, they devote more than a single paragraph to that and avoid 'reporting' on a game they watched on television?

If not, could the paper please transfer them over to the sports section and assign these type of stories to reporters who grasp that 50 dead is more important than a sporting event which, for the record, did not take place in Iraq?

It's been one of bit of nonsense after another.  The Oxfam report was a major issue.  But let's all pretend the fact that some Iraqi men enjoyed the soccer results that a 'corner' has been turned or that the title somehow means anything.  Oxfam noted approximately "half the population are now without work," child malnutrition is now at 28%, 70% lack access to water fit for consumption, 80% lack sanitation . . .  As we noted Monday, "43% of Iraqis in 'absolute poverty' but let's focus on a soccer match."  And strangely in all the 'kick butt' coverage of the soccer match, no one ever wondered what it said that Iraq beat Vietnam?  No one wanted to run with that foreshadowing.   Today, we saw that planting your talking point last week paid off very well for the administration today.

And of course, two weeks ago the push-back began to lower the public expectation on the reports Congress will get next month on the 'progress' in Iraq from Patreaus and Ryan Crocker.  Odierno didn't think up the push-back, he was just the go-to-guy.  Ned Parker and Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) report the latest on Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno in "General Sees a Few More Years in Iraq:"

The day-to day commander of the U.S. military in Iraq said Tuesday that American forces would be needed in the country for a few more years in order to stave off chaos. 
"We think that based on the campaign plan that we need forces here for a few more years," Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno told The Times during a tour of a U.S. Army base in Babil province south of the capital.

This follows Bully Boy's pick for Joint Chiefs of Staff chair Michael Mullen telling the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday that the US military would stay in Iraq "years, not months."  These 'bulletins' don't just happen, they are part of a coordinated message meant to resell the illegal war, meant to buy more time.  That the administration would try these cheap tactics isn't surprising, they've shown no more respect for Americans than they have for Iraqis and they lied to get the country into a war so it's no surprise they'd lie to keep it in the war.  What is surprising is how so many in All Things Media Big and Small rush to enlist.

In fairness, daily reporters are bombarded with a ton of information.  All administration will always benefit from that and most modern day ones have.  But when, for instance, you're writing about the "Anbar model" being taken to the Diyala Province this week and you're still unaware of anything but talking points from the military, even I'm not tempted to do "in fairness" because this has been called out loudly by the press (granted, more often in press conferences than in their reports for their outlets).  Point, some of it will understandably surface in first day reports but other things there really are no excuses for.  Trumpeting "July 2007 US Deaths Lower!"?  No excuse for it.  July 2007 saw the most US service members killed in Iraq of any July since the illegal war started.  There's no excuse for falling the spin planted last week.

Parry, Robert Parry, also addresses the latest episode of Mainstream Makeover wherein Michael O'Hanlon and little Kenny Pollack get to be billed by the Times (and other outlets) as "war critics" even though they were war cheerleaders.  Well, when the MSM won't give space to genuine war critics such as Parry, Howard Zinn, Norman Solomon, Phyllis Bennis, et al, they have to cast someone in those roles and O'Hanlon and Pollack failed as prophets so they'll grab any day work they can get these days.  Parry notes, and pay attention, this is key, that, "In other words, they have fit themselves in with many Washington insiders who still maintain that the invasion was a fine and noble idea; the only problem was the incompetent occupation." 

That's how the next illegal war gets sold.  "We weren't wrong to start an illegal war, we were wrong not to plan better for the illegal occupation."  And that's the theme of an overly praised 'documentary' by a 'director' with the Council for Foreign Relations.  He was interviewed yesterday on KPFK and I didn't hear it but I heard of it from friends who did.  (We've already noted here, weeks and maybe months ago, that film pushes the lie of 'good war, bad occupation' to prolong the illegal war.)  Make no mistake that the illegal war is being sold again. The fact that 70% of Americans want a timetable for withdrawal is one of those 'polls' that doesn't matter to Bully Boy or to centrist organizations for that matter.  (The right is called out but exactly why are the War Hawks in the center so often left out?  If they weren't given passes, Parry wouldn't have to point out the realities about O'Hanlon and Pollock.)


Turning to periodical news, the Summer 2007 edition of Ms. magazine is out.  The letters from readers are always worth reading and this issue includes a response to "What Are You Doing With Your Women's Studies Degree?" (replies include nonprofit work, working for the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and starting the Women's Business Initiative, law clerk for Judge Gregory Jackson in DC) (nice photo, in another letter section of Amy Schmeets and her daughter Sophia).  "Keeping Score" is notable quotes and, among them is this by Gloria Steinem: "Women's bodies are valued as ornaments.  Men's bodies are valued as instruments."  The quote went on a Starbucks cups last month.  "How We're Doing" looks at women and the media. One thing to add on the radio aspect (excellent pie charts, by the way) is that one outlet created to address the declining listenership of women to radio and the declining women on air is GreenStone Media.  Along with The Radio Ritas, Women Aloud, Rolonda and Lisa Birnbach, GreenStone Media is now producing The World According to Giles & Moriarty hosted by Nancy Giles and Erin Moriarty both of whom have much experience in broadcast (including CBS).  Their program airs on Saturday mornings and has been added since we last noted GreenStone Media.  All programs can be streamed online live or you can listen to archives of recent broadcasts (for free, no sign up, no premium fee).

Back to Ms., the cover theme is "1-2 Punch" and includes Allison Stevens' "A Major Blow to Roe" and Justine Andronici's "Court Gives OK to Unequal Pay" and you can also pair it with two other articles in the issue.  Allison Stevens' "Sticker Shock" addresses the issue of the huge increase in prices for birth control (which both increases the profit for Big Business and limits access for many women).  Stevens notes, "Millions of women who purchase contraceptives at student and community health clinics across the country have seen prices go from about $10 a month to anywhere between $30 and $50.  Such out-of-reach prices are putting intense financial stress on women who can't afford to pay retail for birth control.  And the pressure goes beyond the individual level: Some family planning clinics serving low-income women may be forced to shut down if prices aren't soon reduced, leaving poor women with even fewer resources to determine the number and spacing of their children."  That article runs on pages 12 and 13.  Jessica Sites' "Police Story" (page 15) addresses the overturning of a 2002 jury verdict agreeing that discrimination based on race was taking place in Los Angeles County's decision to pay county sherrif's deputies more than county police officers.  This was a breakthrough case and Sites reports, "Now a three-judge California appellate court has overturned the verdict.  . . . Because the appellate court relied on job descriptions to make its decision -- discounting interviews with personnel that showed substantial similarities in the two forces' duties -- there is concern that the ruling opens the door for employers to use different titles and descriptions to cloak discrimination." 

What happens when visibility increases in the media doesn't come with an increased awareness in the coverage?  Nikki Ayanna Stewart explores that in "Black Girls' Dreams" (pages 66 and 67).  The arts section includes playwright Susan Miller's essay "Conversations With My Son."  This is from Eve Ensler's A Memory, a Monologue, a Rant, and a Prayer which features essays by Miller, Alice Walker,  Suheir Hammad, Howard Zinn, Jane Fonda, Tariq Ali, Edward Albee, Robin Morgan, Kathy Najimy, Kate Clinton, Patricia Bosworth and others (including Ensler herself).  Among the book reviews, Jennifer Pozner's look at Selling Anxiety: How the News Media Scare Women (author Caryl Rivers) is a must read -- one sentence from Pozner's review: "With wit, ire and in-depth social-science research, she exposes how corporate media conspire to convince us that despite -- or precisely because of -- women's professional, political, academic and cultural strides, most of us are thoroughly miserable, the cost of all that uppity ambition."  Helen Zia reviews Edwidge Danticat's Brother, I'm Dying, Julie Phillips reviews Doris Lessing's The Cleft, Nasrin Rahimieh reviews Gina B. Nahai's Caspian Rain, and Frances Winndance Twine reviews Susan K. Cahn's Sexual Reckonings: Southern Girls in a Troubling Age.

That's just a small sampling of the contents of the summer issue of Ms.  Dona says we can note Rebeca Clarren's "The Invisible Ones" (pages 40-45) at The Third Estate Sunday Review this weekend, Elaine will note Nadia Bernenstein's column tonight at her site Like Maria Said Paz . This was dictated in two parts.  Thanks to ___ for typing it up and for the patience.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

the new york times
ms. magazine
robert parry
the los angeles times
like maria said paz
the third estate sunday review

Today the US military announced: "Three Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldiers were killed and six others wounded when an explosively formed penetrator detonated near their patrol during combat operations in an eastern section of the Iraqi capital July 31." This brings the ICCC totals for number of US service members killed in the illegal war since it started in March 2003 to 3656 and the number of announced deaths for the months of July thus far to 77.

That makes July 2007 the deadliest July for US troops since the start of the illegal war. The first July (2003) saw the deaths of 43 US troops, July 2004 saw 54, July 2005 also saw 54 and July 2006 saw 43. With 77 announced deaths thus far, this was the July of the illegal war for US troops.

There may or may not be more July announced deaths to come. Last week we saw deaths announced as late as four days later. We saw that repeat this week. For the month, in fact, the standout feature about deaths was how slowly MNF announced them.

Thank goodness we have an independent press. Thank goodness we have a press that doesn't just run with whatever talking point they are fed.

Oh. That's right. We don't have that.

The Seattle Times in in rah-rah mood. They haven't been so excited since they went to town on Ehren Watada with that crappy editorial.

As for this year, for those wondering, the lowest completed total is 81 which was the number of deaths in February and in March. Let's hope the July announcements are over because otherwise a lot of outlets will have to play dumb if four or more July deaths are announced late in the next few days. For those who've forgotten, MNF has had a pattern of doing that during the illegal war as well to get that favorable first day of the new month look back on the month that has past.

Last week, we noted repeatedly that whatever the final numbers were, July 2007 was already the deadliest July on record for US service members. On Friday, when everyone was reporting the Happy Talk from we noted:

From reality to Operation Happy Talk. The push-back is on and Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno has enlisted. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) writes of the press briefing Odierno gave yesterday where he issued the talking points that US military deaths were falling. Parker rightly notes that seven deaths were announced after the press briefing and the one of the deaths announced on Thursday dated back to Sunday. The US military was delaying announcing deaths. Reality is that in terms of what has been annouced, the deaths were 67 on Thursday and that July is not yet over but July 2007 is already the deadliest July for US service members since the start of the illegal war. July 2006: 43 US service members were killed in Iraq. In July 2005 and July 2004, 54 US service members were killed in Iraq. In July 2003, 48 US service members were killed in Iraq.

That was in the snapshot and we addressed reality earlier that morning with "Rewriting Ned Parker on the death toll." It takes a special kind of stupid for a news outlet to still run with that talking point from last week today but there are a lot of outlets displaying just how stupid they can be today.

Odierno issued the talked point and all that matters is that they follow up, reality be damned.

In the New York Times, Stephen Farrell exhibits MPD as he issues the talking point (he's not responsible for the headline) and also notes, "Estimates of the death toll varied, but Iraq Coalition Casualty Count put the July total so far at 74, down from 101 in June and the lowest number since November 2006. Some casualties in late July may be reported after the beginning of August, so the count is not yet definitive for the month." With all the staffers the paper has in Iraq, some may wonder why no one could assist Farrell by checking the most obvious indicator: past July totals?

The e-mail address for this entry is common_ills@yahoo.com. And, on e-mails, the next entry will be completely dictated and e-mailed to the site by a friend who hates Blogger/Blogspot (no disagreement from me on that) but is willing to add links et al using Yahoo mail (which really is easier to use than Blogger/Blogspot).

the los angeles times
the new york times

Tuesday, July 31, 2007.  Chaos and violence continue, religious minorities in Iraq get some press attention, the air war continues, the US military announces another death, the realities of medical care for veterans, and more.


Starting with war resisters.  Yesterday on on WBAI's Law and Disorder, Dalia Hashad, Michael Smith and Michael Ratner spoke with war resister Camilo Mejia.

Dalia Hashad :  You're one of the very first publicly known conscientious objectors to this Iraq war and I believe the first military soldier who went to Iraq, saw what happened, came back and said I will not go back.

Camilo Mejia:  That's right.  Let me start by saying that when I allegedly went AWOL, I didn't really go AWOL because when we received orders to go to Iraq I had pretty much come to the end of my eight year service.  So what happened was that I was extended from the year 2003 to the year 2031 by this thing that they called "stop loss"

Michael Ratner: (chuckling) Only 28 years more, you mean?

Camilo Mejia: 28 years more.

Dalia Hashad: Is that typical for stop loss to extend for that period of time?

Camilo Mejia: It's typical, it's typical because I mean  the likelihood of soldiers actually serving that long beyond their service or their eight-year-service it's very low. But what it does, it just gives the military, you know, a pretty big window to just keep extending people as many times as they need them.

Michael Smith: You know what it reminds me of, Camilo?  My grandfather came here from Romania in 1912 and the draft law in Romania, particularly for Jews, in 1912 was fifty years.

Camilo: Wow. 

Michael Smith:  And he packed up and left.  And now they're trying to do the same sort of thing to the country that people  fled to.

Camilo Mejia: Right, so yeah, that's  happening now.   it's pretty common.  I don't think anybody's going to actually serve 28 years beyond their contract. But what it does it gives the military the ability to keep extending people two years at a time.  When I deployed to Iraq I was just politically opposed to the war
but it was a very detached and selfish opposition because I basically didn't want my life disrupted.  And when I actually went to Iraq, and, you know, the first mission that we had there was to just  basically torture prisoners -- to keep them awake for periods of 72 hours and, you know, we did that by performing mock executions, putting pistols up to their heads, yelling at them, creating explosion like sounds just to scare them.  And from there we moved on to more combat
missions and because of a combination of bad leadership and disregard for the lives of both Iraqi civilians and soldiers we ended up killing a bunch of innocent civilians and, you know, just doing things the opposite way from what we should do.



Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.


Today Democracy Now! broadcast an interview Amy Goodman did with  Military Families Speak Out's Kevin and Joyce Lucey about the lawsuit they've brought against the US Veterans Affair Dept. over the death of their son Jeffrey Lucey who, as Goodman explained, "hanged himself after the US military refused to deal with his post-traumatic stress disorder. In May of 2004, Jeffrey's parents had him involuntarily committed to a VA hospital. But the hospital discharged him a few days later. Two weeks later, Kevin Lucey came home to find his son hanging from a hose in the cellar. Lying on his bed were the dog tags of two unarmed Iraqi prisoners Jeffrey had said he was forced to shoot. The Luceys are suing the VA for negligence."

Joyce Lucey explained, "Jeffrey went to Kuwait in the beginning of February of 2003, into Iraq with the initial invasion in March. He returned home to us in July of 2003. And at the beginning, we really saw -- we didn't notice any major difference, although his girlfriend said he was distant when they went away for the weekend to Cape Cod, and he told a friend that he had seen enough sand to last him a lifetime, so he really didn't want to go on the beach.  We found out during the fall that he was vomiting on a daily basis. We encouraged him to go to the doctor on that. And they went more for a physical reason, rather than a psychological, and now, looking back, it might have been the PTSD starting. And then he progressed onto Christmas Eve, where he threw the dog tags at his sister and called himself a murderer. From there to nightmares, which I heard him yelling out, and to which he said he was fine, that he was just having a dream that he was caught in an alleyway and they were coming after him. And then Jeffrey went back to college. He had been in college since September, after his return, went back to college in January and was fine until March, when they have their college break. And at that point, he got very depressed, drinking, and couldn't go back to school, even though he didn't actually tell me that. But he would go and come home early and say class had ended early or the professor didn't show up. So I didn't really know he wasn’t attending classes, but he was having panic attacks, and when he finally did say something, he said he just couldn't stay in class. And he was also having a startled response, if somebody would slam a door. So he went to our primary care physician at that point and was put on Prozac and Ativan to see if it could keep him in class. And it just continued on from there, the inability to sleep, the lack of appetite, the social seclusion. "

From the broadcast:

 
What the two psychiatrists were most likely doing was the initial assement upon entry and the discharge.  This isn't treatment.  The assesment is just to get a general feel and know what issues need to explore.  The final interview is, in Jeffrey Lucey's case, most likely the cover-your-own-ass interview that is actually supposed to ensure that the patient is not a harm to themselves or others.  Kevin Lucey goes on to stress that Jeffrey Lucey, while under VA care, spoke of "three ways that he had planned to commit suicide".  Joyce Lucey notes this is in "the records" and that's the charts.  In the commercial world of medicine, what has happened was that Jeffrey Lucey received no medical treatment.  He was babysat.  That's not an insult to the staffers.  But they chart for a reason and that's not to kill to time.  The doctors are supposed to be reviewing the charts.  In the for-profit world this would be described as a 'treatment team'.  The staffers would be on it in terms of charting.  But with Jeffrey Lucey, it appears the only ones treating him were the staffers and, most likely, they were not medically trained.  I'm not saying "Bad staffers."  I am pointing out that were we speaking of a commercial hospital setting with the exact same circumstances, this lawsuit would be a strong one.  (It should be a strong one now but the government has a habit of weaseling out of blame.)  In a commercial setting, an excuse might be offered that by admitting on a Friday, no doctor was going to do anything with him over the weekend unless he had an episode.  I'm not justifying that but I am noting that Jeffrey Lucey was discharged on a Tuesday (June 1, 2004) and the point there is if the weekend excuse (or 'excuse') was being used, it would mean that treatment started on Monday.  No psychiatrist saw Lucey on Monday.  The Tuesday interview was the mandated exit interview that had to be done so it could be charted.  If this isn't clear -- or the VA's failure -- again, Jeffrey Lucey was committed.  He didn't check himself.  Jeffrey Lucey was given no treatment at all, he had no medical supervision at all (the entry and exit interviews are not supervision).  He was babysat from Friday through Tuesday. 

The Luceys explain to Goodman that the days after the release were not good ones.  A non-drunk Lucey "totaled the family car on Thursday, June 3rd" and two days later, at his sister's graduation, he was "barely able to walk . . . slurring his words".  Again, he goes to the VA and he's not admitted, he won't go inside, the VA sends someone outside to speak to him but it's not a psychiatrist.  There are many issues here but, and remember the Luceys are bringing this lawsuit so that no other family has to go what they went through, the one that's a standard and repeating thing with the VA is staffing.  Where were the doctors, how many were scheduled, why weren't more scheduled (there clearly was not enough if -- in a five day stay -- Jeffrey Lucey was never assigned a psychiatrist as part of his care) . . .   The details may be a bit different (or not) but this story is not uncommon today and it wasn't uncommon during Vietnam.  Pretending that these issues are being addressed with the nonsense of a panel is insane.  Kevin Lucey speaking during the broadcast:

I think one of the biggest things that got destroyed in my mind was my perception of the American government. I couldn't believe and I can't believe even until today that the government would have never prepared for the soldiers upon their return home. It was more of an afterthought. Even now, even now, even with all the money that they've been investing and all the Blue Star commissions, Blue Ribbon commissions, they aren't really dealing with what they need to deal with. Not one military family, I noticed, was ever appointed to any of the Blue Star commissions. And I thought that that was a horrible slap in all of our faces. So, right now, due to the fact that this administration and due to the fact that past congresses haven't done anything, it's the whole -- the phrase of the government by the people, for the people, by the people -- I think we have to do something.


Last week's panel got a lot of soft press.  As Kevin Lucey points out, no one serving on it is from a military family.  And, to be honest, that's not even good enough.  Veterans will not be served today by someone serving on a panel that can say "I served" or "my husband served" in WWII or any other war.  The panel needs to have veterans or their families (ideally both) from this war because they are the ones facing the problems right now and they can be the strongest advocates.  Donna Shalala and Bob Dole don't know the first thing about accessing a new medical system as a stranger.  It's insane to suggest that these 'names' know the first thing about the issues let alone how to fix them.

We're going to note one other section of the broadcast and we'll have less of the day's news but (a) there's not a whole lot on any given day to begin with (not when journalists are confined in the Green Zone) and (b) this is a story that is going on for other families and will continue to go on until it's addressed.  It usually isn't addressed, in any US war.  It's usually swept aside and ignored or you get a nonsense committee like the one Shalala and Dole 'served' on that's not going to fix anything but makes for nice some headlines.  So, one more time, from Goodman's interview with the Lucey's:

Poverty, hunger and public health continue to worsen in Iraq, according to a report released today from Oxfam International, which demands more humanitarian aid from abroad and calls on the Iraqi government to immediately decentralize the distribution of food and medical supplies.
[. . .]
The report states that as many as four million Iraqis are in dire need of help getting food, many of them children; 70 percent of the country now lacks access to adequate water supplies, up from 50 percent in 2003, and 90 percent of the country’s hospitals lack basic medical and surgical supplies.
One survey cited in the report, completed in May by the Iraqi Ministry of Planning, found that 43 percent of Iraqis live in "absolute poverty," on less than $1 a day.

The above is from Damien Cave's "Report Finds Dire Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq" in this morning's New York Times. We noted it yesterday in the snapshot. Today it makes it into print (A8) but where are the photos -- front page photos -- of cheering males? Where are the reports of the males whipping off their shirts and running through the streets of Iraq screaming "We're number one!" With, of course, the headlines that present Iraqi males as all Iraqis?

I guess this is one 'win,' one 'championship,' that can't be sold as 'turned corner'? Lucky for Bully Boy and Gordon Blair their big meeting that crapped out and resulted in nothing but the usual nonsense has wound down. But wasn't the rah-rah wonderful while it lasted? Give their meeting a backdrop of promise and that maybe -- presumably if Iraq could next begin training for an international spelling bee or mahjong competition -- there was good news to be found in an illegal war that has destroyed a country?

Martha highlights Megan Greenwell's "A Dismal Picture of Life in Iraq" (Washington Post):

The numbers in the report offer a contrast to the picture of steadily improving conditions painted by the Iraqi government and the U.S. military over the past several months. Seventy percent of Iraqi residents lack adequate water supplies, compared with 50 percent in 2003, while more than 4 million people have been displaced during that time. Yet funding for humanitarian assistance in Iraq has declined precipitously, from $453 million in 2005 to $95 million in 2006.

And you learn that David Petraeus told Good Morning America yesterday that mid-2009 is the target date for 'success' in Iraq. Almost two years from now and six years after the illegal 'cakewalk' began.

Some Americans still buy that nonsense of a 'turned corner' being just around the corner. A small number, granted, less than 30%, but some do buy it. All this time and all the lies later, they still buy into the idea that a 'win' is coming and that what the US has broken can be fixed by the US despite the fact that Iraqis want the US out of their country, despite the fact that what couldn't be 'fixed' in four years plus won't be 'fixed' by the US by tacking on another two years.

The illegal war should never have started. But the lies didn't just get us into war and then stop. The lies continue to this day and keep pushing the myth that if the US stays longer, somehow, magically, everything will finally turn around.

More damage is done, two more years may accomplish lowering the figure of a dollar day to fifty cents for some Iraqis.

There's really no excuse to continue to push the myth of a 'win'. The illegal war should have never started but just as damaging has been the 'turned corner' nonsense that has repeatedly allowed things to get even worse.

In two years time the current problems will be even greater. That's the only thing 'staying' will accomplish. The numbers calling for withdrawal then may top 90% among of the American public. But already you have approximately 70% of the American public who've wised up to reality. It's only the White House and Congress that refuse to wise up. (And some members of the press.) Democratic leadership is more interested in shell games that they sell to the public as "Troops Home Now" but really translate as, at best, some troops home in a little while and, at worst, no one's coming home.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


the new york times
the washington post

Today the US military announced: "A Marine assigned to Multi National Force-West died July 30 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province." 3653 is the number of announced deaths of US service members in the Iraq war since it started and 74 is the number announced who have died in the illegal war thus far this month (ICCC figures).

Turning to news of Abeer. Gang-raped by US soldiers while they murdered both of her parents and her five-year-old sister, then they murdered her and tried to set fire to her body after breaking into her home in a plan that included damaging the family's fence ahead of time, leered in the days prior with Steven D. Green reportedly even stroking the underage girl's face (no wonder the child was so freaked out and her parents had made plans to move her for her own safety) and rendered invisible repeatedly by the New York Times. She was murdered on March 12, 2006. Multiple US soldiers have pleaded guilty to their actions in war crimes. Apparently James P. Barker and Paul Cortez alone last year didn't reach the magic number? Or is that over a year later, it's finally time to name her? Or maybe an editor just wasn't paying close attention? Regardless, via AP's "Soldier Admits Lesser Crimes in Iraq Killings" Abeer's name finally makes into print at the New York Times, A15.

Let's return to what Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) reported last summer:

Fifteen-year-old Abeer Qasim Hamza was afraid, her mother confided in a neighbor.As pretty as she was young, the girl had attracted the unwelcome attention of U.S. soldiers manning a checkpoint that the girl had to pass through almost daily in their village in the south-central city of Mahmudiyah, her mother told the neighbor.
Abeer told her mother again and again in her last days that the soldiers had made advances toward her, a neighbor, Omar Janabi, said this weekend, recounting a conversation he said he had with the girl's mother, Fakhriyah, on March 10.
Fakhriyah feared that the Americans might come for her daughter at night, at their home. She asked her neighbor if Abeer might sleep at his house, with the women there.

For those who've forgotten, there was confusion about Abeer's age originally. An ID card set the record straight (had she not been murdered, she would have turned 15 last August) and had the US military finally stop their campaign claiming she wasn't just an adult, she was well over 20.

For those who've forgotten or missed it, an Article 32 hearing took place in August of 2006 when All Things Media Big and Small reduced Iraq to a footnote. Here's how the military prosecuter, Capt. Alex Pickands, summer up what went down, "They gathered over cards and booze to come up with a plan to rape and murder that little girl. She was young and attractive. They knew where she was because they had seen her on a previous patrol. She was close. She was vulnerable."

The AP article in the Times today tells you that Jesse V. Spielman entered a plea of guilty to some charges but denies knowing of the events ahead of time. He owned up to arson. They tried to destroy the evidence of the war crimes by burning Abeer's body -- they also said it was 'insurgents' that did the crimes. He owned up to obstruction of justice, to "touching a corpse and drinking" -- but apparently in that drunken card game while the plot was being hatched Spielman was taking a long piss and apparently far too drunk to grasp that the others changing their clothes and all heading -- in the dead of night -- to an Iraqi home was in any way out of the norm. Maybe he just thought Steven D. Green (who has denied he had anything to do with the war crimes but other witness finger him as the ringleader, note he was last in line in the gang-rape and assert that he is the one who shot dead Abeer, her parents and her sister) was in love with Abeer and this was just funning? Maybe in Penn. it's perfectly normal for adult males to express their desire for 14-year-old girls?

It's not. And this is the war crime that should have gotten serious attention. They leered at her, they made comments to her, they touched her -- all in the lead up to the war crimes. And it was never "okay." No adult male in the United States is under the impression that he can get away with consensual sexual relations with a 14-year-old girl. This wasn't consensual. They plotted to rape and kill her. They knew what they were doing was wrong. They weren't sent out on a mission by commanders where things were confusing and then went tragically wrong resulting in details that had to be sorted out later. They snuck off to conduct these war crimes.

The criminal nature of their actions were never in doubt. That's why they had to sneak off. That's why they tried to burn her body and tried to blame it on 'insurgents.' And they almost got away with it.

They knew all along what they were doing in the lead up was wrong. They didn't stop. They frightened Abeer so much she told her parents and they made plans to have her moved. If they'd attempted to attack the next day, she wouldn't have been there. Her brother (who wasn't in the house) has explained that, neighbors have explained that.

The crimes didn't just happen. They weren't the result of a mission gone tragically wrong.

There was never any doubt that these were war crimes. (Though last summer some online voices issued threatening, blustering remarks to any who called it out for what it was.)

And there was never any doubt in the minds of those participating that what they were doing was criminal. This wasn't a case of 'different cultural expectations.' Rape is rape and there's not an adult male in the US who doesn't know that it's a crime. But that didn't stop them from gang-raping a 14-year-old girl. Murder is a crime. But that didn't give Paul Cortez or James P. Barker any pause as they went about gang-raping Abeer while shots in the next room (the parents' bedroom rang out). They gang-raped her and not only did she have to experience that, not only did she have to experience the fears of that and of a home invasion, while they gang-raped the little girl she had to hear the sounds of her parents and her sister being murdered in the next room.

Even with the few in small media that covered it seriously (Robin Morgan and Off Our Backs among them), this still hasn't gotten the attention it needs. These were war crimes. And the New York Times' response was to refuse to name Abeer in print. The paper's response was, in the lead up to the Article 32 hearing, to feature a defense of the war crimes masking as reporting. A defense that, remember, was the same one the defendents would attempt to present in the Article 32 hearing and one that, a military law expert would explain in another outlet, had no known precedent. But somehow Robert F. Worth and Carolyn Marshall just stumbled upon the same tactic for their article that the defendents would argue.

As Capt. Alex Pickands would sum up in the Article 32 hearing, "Murder, not war. Rape, not war. That's what we're here talking about today. Not all that business about cold food, checkpoints, personnel assignments. Cold food didn't kill that family. Personnel assignments didn't rape and murder that 14-year-old little girl."

There was never any excuse for the crimes and there was never any excuse for the journalistic crimes the New York Times carried out or the silences that greeted these crimes in other outlets.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

the new york times
the washington post