They're Not Kidding

NPR's coverage on the Maliki machinations has been about as close to nonsense as you can get. On one day the situation shows how Petraeus should be made the emperor of Iraq, while on another day it's a struggle against "rogue elements...trained in Iran." Today the spin is that the Basra/Sadr City assaults "have worked out better than it seemed at the time," to use Inskeep's words. Even though Maliki's assault on the Sadrists leaves his favorite Badr militia untouched, Inskeep insists that because "the Shiite Prime Minister showed himself willing to strike at Shiite Muslim militias he built some political credibility."

Westervelt continues this narrative telling us that Maliki "has rebounded militarily and politically." Westervelt also praises the lethal strikes on Sadr City: "Sadr City, the cleric's powerbase in Baghdad is basically penned in by Iraqi and US troops." Penned in?

Westervelt also tries to claim that the Sunni Accordance Front reentering the government is due to the Maliki assaults. Funny but this rapprochement preceded the Basra assault, and seems to have more to do with the US releasing thousands of innocent Sunni detainees.

Lastly Westervelt claims that "the fact is Maliki's crackdown has won him praise and support from Iraqi Sunnis Kurds and some Shiia as well as the United States, key Arab and European states, and the Iranian ambassador to Iraq." Funny how that last little bit about Iran slips in there without comment. That's the big story isn't it? The fact that Iran and the US interests have converged in Maliki's attacks. And there's no comment on how this contradicts NPR's previous coverage alledging that Iran was behind the Sadrists.

Notes and analyses monitoring rightwing, pro-government, and corporate bias on National Public Radio News

More Bing for the Buck

On Morning Edition Inskeep talks to propagandist Bing West. Inskeep is pushing a line about the Basra assault: "Iraqi forces tried to remove Shiite Muslim militias in Basra and elsewhere. Their failure raises questions." So the Maliki assault on Basra was about trying to remove Shiite militias. Does that include the Badr Corps that came to Maliki's defense (even a dummy at the National Review realized that)? Does that mean it had nothing to do with oil and coming elections.

Bing West carries on this mindless distortion: "on the good side, he did move against Sadr and he did move against the militias....he did take action that was definitely in the best interests of Iraq; there's no question about that."

And where does this made-up narrative lead? To the necessity of the US staying and leading, of course. Here's Inskeep: "Does this basically mean we're still in a situation where Petraeus has to be the man calling the shots...that they [Iraqis] must follow the lead of the Americans if they're going to succeed." To which Bing West claims that the Iraqi generals would say, "We would prefer to take our cues from General Petraeus."

The stupidity of this is unbelievable. Even the Council on Foreign Relations, no bastion of progressive politics, has a far more nuanced take on the story.

Stooges

In a story on Friday's Morning Edition I heard Jackie Northam say, "he pressed ahead without enough military intelligence or troops." Who could she be talking about? What idiot would do such a thing? Hmmm....

Maliki, of course! Yes, NPR is covering up the mess of the Basra operation so as to make the Bush administration's role look as positive as possible. Northram says "analysts here in Washington say that decision revealed Maliki's weaknesses: he pressed ahead without enough military intelligence or troops, giving the US very little notice of his plans. The offensive quickly began to unravel, threatening to undo recent security gains in other parts of Iraq and forcing the US and Britain to help defend Iraqi security forces."

Nothram works hard in this excerpt, pushing the ludicrous idea (lie) that the Maliki offensive was launched without US knowledge of its extent. But she's doing even more here: she posits that the Basra operation ruined all those miraculous security gains of The Surge™. And not only that, it FORCED the US and Britain to help. You've got to hand it to Northam, she packs a lot of BaSra into one little paragraph.

The tone of Northam's piece was a stunner, too. Imperial prerogatives are simply assumed for the US. Northam states that Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations "says Crocker and the US military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, will have to tell Maliki in unambiguous terms, that the US will not tolerate and similar unilateral actions in the future." And she doesn't flinch a bit as she says, "Wayne White is a former State Department analyst and currently adjunct scholar with the Middle East Institute. White says the US could engineer a coup against Maliki, but it may be better to just let the political process play out..." Could engineer a coup? Echoes of Diem, eh...

The last big accomplishment of Northam's piece is that it not only covers up the stupidity of Bush, Crocker, Cheney, and Petraeus - but it covers up the stunning fact that it is Iran that saved the day in Iraq, essentially pulling the administrations chestnuts from the fire. I'd say that is definitely a defining moment, no?

Increasingly Sucked

Let's take a look at NPR's coverage of the al-Maliki government's attempts to crush the rival Mehdi army starting in Basra (and how the the gentle giant of the US has been blindly and helplessly pulled into this defining moment).

On Friday's Morning Edition:

• Dina Temple-Raston says to Renee Montagne, "technically what he's [al-Maliki] taking on, and this is what the American line has been too, is they're taking on rogue elements of that army, because technically there's a cease fire...so what they're saying here is that the fighting is just among these rogue elements who were trained in Iran and aren't listening to Muqtada al-Sadr."

Trained in Iran? Says who? Where's a shred of evidence? Has Temple-Raston ever heard of Iran and Daawa (al-Maliki's party), SCIRI, and Badr Corps? Has anyone at NPR?

On the hourly reports on Friday afternoon:

• (Early afternoon, Jack Spear): "the US has been increasingly sucked in" to the fighting.
• (Later in the evening) Jack Spear says, "the Iraqi Government offensive...is stalled...but as NPR's Anne Garrels reports, the US may now have to assure its success." (Garrels comes on) "...but now that the Iraqi forces have started the offensive US officials can not afford to let them fail."

Funny that there is no mention in these reports about Cheney's mid-March visit to Iraq and his likely pressure on al-Maliki to attack the Sadrists. Nothing about how al-Maliki's Shiite allies are closer to Iran than any of Sadr's forces. Nothing about the absurdity of the US occupation not knowing what al-Maliki was planning. Is anyone really stupid enough to believe that al-Maliki could mount a major military offensive without the knowledge, planning, assistance, (and permission) of the US occupation? NPR thinks so...