Echo Chambers, Mirrors and Henny Penny Temple-Raston

Juan Cole and NPR Check reader, informedveteran, recommended Tom Englehardt's excellent piece on the Washington Echo Chamber's reaction to the revolutions sweeping the Middle East. Englehardt writes:

"It would seem like a good moment for Washington - which, since September 12, 2001, has been remarkably clueless about real developments on this planet and repeatedly miscalculated the nature of global power - to step back and recalibrate.

As it happens, there's no evidence it's doing so. In fact, that may be beyond Washington’s present capabilities, no matter how many billions of dollars it pours into 'intelligence.' And by 'Washington,' I mean not just the Obama administration, or the Pentagon, or our military commanders, or the vast intelligence bureaucracy, but all those pundits and think-tankers who swarm the capital, and the media that reports on them all. It’s as if the cast of characters that makes up 'Washington' now lives in some kind of echo chamber in which it can only hear itself talking."

(Enter Dina Temple-Raston stage far-right)

Dina was not about to let her bread and butter (banging the al-Qaida fear drum) get drowned out by the inspiring and historic events in North Africa and the Middle East. On Thursday's ATC she dragged out a trio of "those pundits and think-tankers who swarm the capital" to rattle on about the terrifying opportunities that the uprisings provide to al-Qaida. The statements of these "experts" provided some rich irony:

Bush stooge Juan Zarate said,

"That is to say, al-Qaida has been very good at focusing the attention of their constituents and of the world on this idea of the far enemy. That is that all of the world's problems, all of the angst and grievances of the Middle East can be blamed on the United States, or at least can be affected by attacking the United States."

Seems to me there was some other terrorist organization that focused its constituents' attention on a far enemy and blamed every problem on a distant foe.

Then Temple-Raston trots out NPR regular & CIA-award winner, Bruce Hoffman to state that al-Qaida will

"exploit whatever issue is served in front of it, and do so equally adroitly. So for now it will focus on the near enemy."

Oh my God, enemies of freedom and civil rights focusing on the "near enemy"!

Lastly Temple-Raston highlights the expertise of Rick "Ozzie" Nelson whose "last military assignment was with the Joint Special Operations Command" (can you say JSOC?) Regarding Yemen and Libya, special operative Nelson explains that al-Qaida's leadership is

"probably best positioned to exploit the weakness in those countries."

Imagine the cynicism of a group that exploits weakness and upheaval in troubled countries to indiscriminately murder civilians.

Seriously, one of the things that I love about these uprisings in the Middle East is how starkly they expose the history of US government actions in the region as being based on complete contempt for the human rights and dignity of the actual people in the region. The fact that al-Qaida apes Washington in its contempt for the people it claims to champion and - like the US government - is willing to use extreme methods of violence to achieve its aims is almost laughable compared to the decades of such behavior by Washington.

But it's not laughable if you are one of the media "professionals" who depend on the Washington echo chamber that Englehardt critiques. In that case you have to keep hammering on the same discredited themes that earn you access to the "expert" think-tankers and counterterrorism wankers that populate your predictable reports. These reports are predictable that you'd think a journalist would be embarrassed. Not Temple-Raston, she was back on Saturday morning squawking about the terrible danger of al-Qaida rising Phoenix-like from the turmoil in Libya. Want to guess who her experts were? Bruce Hoffman, Juan Zarate, and Rick "Ozzie" Nelson. Now where have you heard those names before?

Tank Diving with Jackie Northam

Jackie Northam is one of the worst of the Think Tank Scrapers™ at NPR. She gained early recognition on this blog for her tanking prowess way back in Oct. 2006, again in Dec. 2006 and March 2007, and was still going strong in March 2009. So on Thursday morning when I heard that Northam was covering US and Israeli talks focusing on Egypt, I wondered how deep her think tank plunge would go. I think she may have set a new low mark in this area.

Northam's first "expert" is Robert Danin of the Council on Foreign Relations. The most stellar part of his bio has to be his role as

"Former head, Office of the Quartet Representative, Tony Blair, in Jerusalem" (Tony Blair...ouch!).

Danin also has been employed and recognized by the US State Department with "Superior and Meritorious Honor Awards."

Northam's second guest, Aaron David Miller, from the Woodrow Wilson Center is also a standard State Department award winning expert. As Miller's bio indicates:

"...he served at the Department of State as an advisor to six secretaries of state, where he helped formulate U.S. policy on the Middle East and the Arab-Israel peace process....received the department's Distinguished, Superior, and Meritorious Honor Awards."

But it is Northam's third expert that sets a new low standard. To bring in the Israeli perspective Northam features Dan Schueftan, a professor who has made the following classy and nuanced remarks:

• "The Arabs are the biggest failure in the history of the human race.”
• "While Israel sends while sends a sophisticated satellite into space, the Arabs come up with a new kind of hummus." "
• "There is nothing more fucked up under the sun than the Palestinians."
• "The Palestinians are a repulsive part of the Middle East, let’s leave those ratbags."
• "All over the Arab world they fire shots at weddings in order to prove that they have at least one thing that is hard and functional and can shoot."

How's that for a diverse line-up? And what do these three have to say about the situation in Egypt?

• Danin makes the relatively innocuous comment that "There have been a few comments out of Israel, but for the most part they're keeping quiet, and that is wise."
• Miller also contributes a rather dull observation: "I think the administration is doing a lot of hand-holding and minding of the Israelis. But then again, why would the Israelis bet on our assurances?" Later his comments expose his State Department roots, noting that "The critical point will come once the transition is secured and once a process of political reform is underway, to see exactly how constraining the new Egypt is to American interests, how hostile it may be toward Israeli interests."
• Schueftan - speaking like the Neocon that he is - rails "There has been almost unanimity here in understanding the significance of the American policy vis-a-vis Egypt, namely you can't trust the Americans. More specifically, you can't trust Barack Obama.

Of all the substantive reflections and analyses that one could find on the effects that the Egyptian uprising might have on Israel and US behaviors in the region, this lousy lineup is the best that Northam and NPR can offer.

Fourth Estate Finds Third Way

(you can buy the original here)

Mara Liasson's statement on last Tuesday's ATC caught my attention. She was reflecting on Joe Biden's statements made at the time that the Obama/Democratic gift to the insurance industry was signed into law:

"The final girder in the great liberal project - Biden knew what he was talking about. The health care bill will be the last great middle class entitlement, says Jim Kessler of the policy think-tank Third Way."

Well, that was a doozy. And Jim Kessler of this "Third Way" think tank didn't let up:

"With the passage of health care reform, the 80-year Democratic quest to build the best possible safety net is essentially over. And the Democratic Party has to shift from being a party primarily concerned with economic security and dividing up the pie to one that is primarily concerned with economic growth and expanding the pie."

Did you get that? The party's over folks. You know all that redistribution of wealth that the Democrats have been fighting for all these years (hee...hee...) and that glorious safety net (hee...hee...) - those namby-pamby days are over! Too bad there wasn't a journalist around to remind Mr. Third Way that the pie has been growing and growing - it's just that one segment of the population has been eating the biggest pieces.

I wondered about this creepy "Third Way" tank of thinksters. Who are they and why are they getting so much airtime on NPR? No surprise: Third Way is a basic "Blue Dog" corporate-lovin' Democratic think tank - which explains why it has found such a warm welcome at NPR - and, with Obama's appointment of Third Way William Daley, it's star is on the rise.

This infatuation with Third Way seemed so typical of NPR's love of the corporate center that I wasn't going to bother posting about it until the tragedy of the massacre in Arizona broke, and NPR weighed in with it's personal connections to Representative Giffords.

On Weekend Edition Sunday, Scott Simon - lauded Representative Giffords and revealed,

"Our families are friends. We don't talk a lot about politics when we get together as much as kids and parents, great quesadillas, and all the new movies we never get a chance to see. We swap jokes and dreams."

It struck me as odd that a reporter would be close friends with the government officials they are supposed to be scrutinizing - and show no qualms in revealing that information. But Simon is always eager to show his caring, emotional side...and this was an obviously an opportunity he couldn't pass up. Then, on Sunday's ATC Andrea Seabrook had this interchange with Guy Raz:

[Raz] "Andrea, I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to ask you to step out of your reporter's shoes for a moment and just talk about Gabrielle Giffords. So many people seemed to love this person on both sides of the aisle, and you've come to know her pretty well yourself, haven't you?"

[Seabrook] "Yes...Gabrielle Giffords is a wonderful woman. Aside from her politics, we members of the press up here often work with these members of Congress and their staff so closely that we come to think of these people as colleagues. And often, we care more...about how a person is as a person than we do about their politics."

This is truly astounding. Representative Giffords may be a wonderful person, but you begin to suspect that NPR reporters think the Fourth Estate is a social club where they get to be friends with the powerful, instead of an institution that should keep a check on power (though that institution may be so far gone as to be dead). Hearing these unabashed declarations of friendship and collegiality made me wonder how many other officials (military, corporate, and governmental) NPR reporters count among their friends - and how these friendships affect the news that finds its way onto the air.

And that brings me back to Third Way and the tragedy of the assassination attempt on Rep. Giffords. I thought her name seemed familiar, and then it dawned on me that when I was researching the Third Way think tank earlier in the week - I had seen her name and picture on the Third Way website: she's one of the honorary co-chairs of Third Way. Seems like the Beltway social club is a small world after all...

Dunces Weigh in on Education

In its education coverage, NPR consistently ignores the negative effects of poverty on student outcomes - and instead opts for the corporatist focus on "effective teachers." It's an approach that one expects from right-wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, not from a news organization [though the American Enterprise Institute gets inordinate and favorable airtime on NPR].

Today's Weekend Edition featured two education reports that ran back to back and are striking for highlighting NPR's intentional focus on the small effects of teacher effectiveness versus the overwhelming effects of poverty.

The first "report" featured host, Liane Hansen talking to Claudio Sanchez and Larry Abramson about education (if there were merit pay for reporting on education both these characters would be seeing pay decreases). To his credit, Sanchez made these startling points:

"...and finally a handful of reports are out that are kind of scary. They warn that the poverty rates among children and families are on the rise and the numbers are off the charts. The Southern Education Foundation for example says that over 2 million Americans now face acute hunger, homelessness and medical problems - and all of this, of course, has horrible implications for school-age children and how schools deal with them."

How does Liane Hansen respond to this stunning statement? She says, "Is there an issue or event that might make news early in 2011?" That's it. These are exceptional observations that Sanchez has made, and any rational (not to mention compassionate) human being would be interested in pursuing more information about them. He is absolutely correct - the data is scary

and the implications for education are horrible. But as a writer for the Washington Post (of all places!) pointed out, discussions about poverty and its effects on student achievement are the elephant in the room for our press.

Ignoring Sanchez' statements, Hansen then turns to Abramson to ask briefly about higher education and finally turns her sights where NPR loves to focus:

"What about the emphasis on teachers performance? How will that play out in 2011?"

Abramson then introduces the theme of the next story on the show; he says, "...I think what a lot of people are more focused on...what makes an effective teacher...There's one program that I looked at that's pretty interesting from the Gates Foundation. They're spending millions of dollars to answer that question..." And what is this "pretty interesting" program? The amazing idea of - brace yourself - videotaping teachers as part of evaluating their classroom practice.

Whoa, how cutting edge! It just happens that in 1987, when I was working on my masters in education at the University of Iowa, we used videotaping to evaluate our teaching techniques. Good thing one of the beneficent billionaires is "spending millions of dollars" to help teachers be more effective. If only these billionaires had 80%-90% of their wealth taxed, maybe we'd have less poverty to begin with - and then we really could justify focusing on teacher effectiveness.

Thinktankistan

When the armed-and-dangerous (and well funded, and well connected) in Washington cook up their insane (and murderous) ideas for global victory, you can count on NPR to spice up the crock o'crap and serve it up as a perfectly tasty and rational proposal. All that's needed is a quick trip to the pantry of well-funded/connected (and dangerous) think tanks that are soooo... fond of the projection of US power. This morning was a case in point with experienced tank chef Jackie Northam chattering on about a splendid recipe for drone-bombing the Baluchistan province of Pakistan.

The range of opinions Northam puts in the pot is telling:

• NPR regular Anthony Cordesman (winner of the "Department of Defense Distinguished Service Medal") of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
• Daniel Markey of the Council on Foreign Relations(CFR)
• U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill (former NATO commander in Afghanistan who by retirement should be ripe for think-tank or con$ultant harvesting!)
• Seth Jones of the Pentagon-lovin' RAND Corporation.

How's that for a tasty bowl of CSIS, CFR, DOD, NATO, RAND soup....mmm, mmm, good. Anybody have a knife?

In fairness, I have to give Markey a nod. Despite his claim that there appears to be at least passive support for Baluchi Taliban within Pakistan's military, he points out that US bombing in Baluchistan would "cross a red line" and "fuel further unrest" (unrest!!?). Beside that tepid dissent, the rest of the piece features Northam cooking up the apocalyptic alarmism that Juan Cole and other analysts (hee-hee) have derided:

• "Cordesman and other analysts say the Taliban operates openly in Baluchistan...."
• "Removing the leadership in Quetta could severely disrupt Taliban operations in Afghanistan. Some analysts say if the Pakistanis won't do it, the U.S. should take action."

Go Jackie, go! Drone on.

Amnesiastan

A rather major problem with nearly all of NPR's reporting is the "history scrub." You can guarantee that if the essential background history to a story reflects poorly on the actions of the US government - that history will be deleted, scrubbed, sanitized - sent down the memory hole. Afghanistan proves no exception on Tuesday's ATC.

Michelle Norris blandly explains that thousands more US troops are headed off to Afghanistan and doesn't even chuckle in noting that the United States Institute of Peace [tee-hee] released some new policy recommendations for Afghanistan. To discuss the report, Norris interviews Seth Jones, co-author with Christine Fair of the report (both authors are connected with the RAND Corp).

In fairness, a lot of what Jones says comes off as fairly informed and reasonable. His basic thesis is that Afghanistan has been most stable in the past when there were stable functioning rural/regional leaderships that had a lot of autonomy but were connected and cooperative with a central/urban leadership. He even offered corrective to Michelle Norris' knee-jerk assumption that the answer to all problems in Afghanistan is more US troops and military might:

Norris: "...since so much of the problems in Afghanistan are so widespread, this strategy policy would seem to require many more troops, many more advisers to work at the tribal level to gain that trust and build some sort of security."

Jones: "I would actually say it's the reverse....local forces can a) protect themselves and b) provide services."

What I found so stunning is that neither Norris nor Jones ever mentioned that the baseline of stable functioning "legitimate" local leaders was essentially destroyed and replaced by the most ruthless, fanatic and illegitimate leaders that the US could recruit and train in its 1980s campaign to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. Even US News & World Report acknowledges this basic history. On NPR, though, it's as if this nasty little chapter of US involvement in the sorrows of Afghanistan never even happened - or that it had no continuity with the current configuration of the US-Afghanistan project.

I find it fascinating to occasionally hop into the way-back machine and re-read cartoonist Ted Rall's piece on Afghanistan written at the time when most were crowing about the stunning US victory over the Taliban. His piece in the Village Voice from December 2001 is provocatively called "How We Lost Afghanistan," and it is disturbingly prescient. Consider just this nugget:

"Now a Third Afghan War is wrapping up its final act around Kandahar, and a laughable band of charlatans has lobbied in Bonn, Germany, for the right to rule the unruly. Somehow, if the Bushalopes and the Annanites are to be believed, a New Democratic Afghanistan will be cobbled together from the Hekmatyars and Dostums and Rabbanis, all united under the banner of an 87-year-old king who owes more to Fellini than to Shah Mohammed."

I have a suggestion for NPR. How about airing the views and opinions of people who got it right for a change - instead of only consulting the same old stale bunch of State Department, CIA, and Pentagon lovin' pundits and scholars that you rely on again and again and again.

Execrable Takes on Great Expectations

(click picture for source)

In the comments of the "Crystal Ball" post below there were some angry (and informative) posts about Mara Liasson's Foxist assault on the expectations of Obama supporters. You have to love the bottom of the tank "scholars" that Liasson stitches together for her report (in order of appearence):

• Norman Ornstein of the extreme right American Enterprise Institute
• Michael Gerson, former Bush speech-writer (his bio at the Council on Foreign Relations lists his "Expertise" as -get this - "Democracy promotion; human rights issues; health and disease; religion and politics.")
• Bob Kagan who Liasson calls "a foreign policy scholar."
• Michael O'Hanlon - sorry hack of the Brookings Institution.

With the aid of these characters Liasson puts together her septic rant:

Regarding solving "the huge problems he's inheriting" Liasson says that "On the campaign trail he made it sound easy. The only sacrifice he asked people to make was (sarcastic tone) turning off the lights and checking the pressure in their tires." Funny how Liasson ignores Obama's campaign calls for sacrifice and service, but revives the ignorant Republican attack on tire gauges.

She then lets Ornstein make claims for "the left." He whines, "if the expectations are high generally, their highest on the left. You've got a group of people who think - first of all - that it's their victory, who believe that Obama is one of them..."

After Ornstein, it's on to Gerson who she says worries that "nothing Obama said during the campaign indicates when or if he might push back against the Democratic leadership in Congress." Seriously, a Bushist speech-writer worried about a President who won't "push back" against his party's leadership in Congress.

Next it's on to money. Liasson warns that "Then there's the clash of campaign promises with dollars and sense reality." Yes, Liasson has just been all over "dollars and sense reality" for that little war that she is so fond of.

As the "tire gauge" jab above shows, Liasson is interested in reviving old Fox News/Republican attacks from the campaign. She revisits the covertly recorded remarks of Biden predicting that Obama would be tested by an international crisis. Liasson says, "His running mate made it clear what he expected in the first six months for a young president just four years out of the Illinois state legislature. 'Mark my words,' Joe Biden told a group of Democratic donors. 'Mark my words.' (This is followed by the distorted recording made of Biden's remarks). This sleazy use of the Biden remarks leaves one wondering where Liasson's gig with Fox ends and her work for NPR begins.

Her piece winds down with Bob Kagan warning that Obama will need to take a complex view of Pakistan and Afghanistan, because "there are no easy answers"--this from easy-answer Kagan himself. It ends with O'Hanlon ratcheting things up on Iran and admitting that Obama does have world popularity.

This from what Montagne calls "NPR's national political correspondent." Astounding really...and disgusting.

Not Straight, but Definitely Narrow

Nash over at Categorical Aperitif sent me a heads up about FAIR catching NPR at its usual business of squeezing the limits of debate to absurd proportions. Michele Norris offered some New Years yuck on Bush's year ahead by sampling assessments of the Bush presidency from the Council on Foreign Relations and from...the Council on Foreign Relations!

Sea Sick

Andrea Seabrook is a strange choice for host of Sunday's All Things Considered. She has a bubbly, "Oh wow!" tone with nearly every story, and often reads her script in a deliberate overly emphatic way. It's the insulting tone that people uncomfortable with children often use when speaking to children. Apparently she also thinks her audience is made up of complete imbeciles, too.

Yesterday she was just bursting with enthusiasm for the "Fiscal Wake-Up Tour," which she described as "a new Al Gore-style traveling slide show...about the breakdown of the federal budget."

Regarding the monstrous Federal deficits, you might wonder if the tour addresses the current, deliberate tax policy of the US federal government which transfers wealth UP the income ladder to the wealthiest segments of the US population (a trend that long preceded the rabid Bush administration).

You'd be far, far off the mark if you were thinking about that. No, the targets of the Wake-Up Tour are - want to guess? - medicare, medicaid and social security! As NPR notes on it's website summary of the piece, "What's the biggest problem? Among these experts, it's Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — the promised future benefits for retirees and the poor and sick."

That's not so surprising given that the obvious goal of the Bush administration (and neoliberals) has been to destroy Social Security and Medicare. But what you'll be surprised to learn from Andrea Seabrook is that "what makes the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour different is that this time the warning sirens are not being used to sell a political agenda." Not selling a political agenda! I'm not making this up - and it gets worse. She goes on with this bit of mind-numbing stupidity:

"In fact the tour includes policy experts from across the ideological spectrum. There's Stuart Butler from the conservative Heritage Foundation...and there's Douglas Elmendorf from the left-leaning Brookings Institution."

There it is: the wide open ideology NPR News, from the Heritage Foundation to the "left-leaning" (that is priceless, eh?) Brookings Institution.

Help me, I think I'm feeling a wee bit sick.

Between the State Department and the State Department

Poor Palestine. Any time NPR covers Palestine you can be sure that the debate will range between Likud and Kadima or between the US State Department then and the State Department now. Tonight offered a nice example of this wide open debate. Michele Kelemen is covering the "grotesque spectacle" of the Annapolis conference. Siegel sets the table with this lead: "...and now all the talk is about what happens after Annapolis and whether the US will continue to put its diplomatic weight behind negotiations." I love how he sneaks that "continue" in there, disguising the fact that the US has been complicit in the wholesale destruction of the Palestinians and - on the contrary - implying that the US has been pushing for serious negotiations over the years.

Kelemen, fresh off the ropes, tags up and jumps in: "When President Bush called for the conference back in July...the idea was to boost moderates in the Palestinian Authority and build up institutions that would be needed for an eventual state." Wow! Boosting moderates! And building institutions! [translation: promoting peace-lovers like Bombardier Olmert and building settlements].

In the interest of fairness and balance NPR doesn't give us just Kelemen; we get to hear from two analysts. The first is Aaron David Miller from the Woodrow Wilson Center. "For the previous two decades, he served at the Department of State as an adviser to six Secretaries of State, where he helped formulate U.S. policy on the Middle East and the Arab-Israel peace process." [from his bio at the Wilson Center]. That seems like a fair representative of the US State Department point of view. And now for the different point of view...


The second analyst is Rob Malley from the International Crisis Group. Rob's bio at the ICG gives his work history: "Director for Democracy, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, National Security Council, 1994-1996, Executive Assistant to Samuel R. Berger, National Security Advisor, 1996-1998, and Special Assistant to President Clinton for Arab-Israeli Affairs, 1998-2001." What do you know, he worked for the US government, too - even the NSC!

Of course neither of these jokers offers any serious criticism of the US role in the destruction of Palestinian rights and culture and with helping Israeli expansionism. Instead both offer mild pessimism about the Annapolis conference. Miller predicts that instead of achieving anything, the conference will "launch - presumably - a very serious permanent status negotiation on these issues." (That's rich!) Malley is a bit more pessimistic, though he says the conference "...at least allows President Bush, President Abbas, and Prime Minister Olmert to say we're moving forward, we've launched something new, now let's hope something good happens from it."

Good Lord, if NPR opens the debate up any farther, things could get way out of hand!

Neocon Public Radio

As Porter pointed out in the "Open Thread" comments below, NPR brings on a couple of neocons -Kenneth Adelman and Joshua Muravchik - and gives them lots of free airtime to offer their propaganda unchallenged and with support from from Scott Simon. The interview serves two main purposes - to shine a positive light on neoconservatism and to propagate anti-Iran misinformation.

Part I: The Glories of Neoconservatism

Simon describes neocons as "...often former liberals...who thought that liberals had accomodated communist totalitarianism at the cost of human rights..."

Adelman states, "....to save people in horrendous situations, which is to me the very essence and the very identity of the neoconservative movement."

Simon asks Muravchik, "What about the idea that stimulating democracy around the world was a good thing?" He then asks Adelman, "How do you see the idea of encouraging democracies around the world - is that idea still looking good?"

Simon simply accepts and asserts that neoconservatism is about human rights and the spread of democracy. There is no critique of Neoconservatism's main ideal - complete US military hegemony over the world to protect our "interests." And, of course, there is not one reference to the historical record of neoconservatism's brutal human rights program as practiced in Latin America.

Part II: The Iranian Nemesis

Simon asks Muravchik to respond to the following statement: "You explore the idea that Iraq might have been the wrong war, the wrong time, the wrong place...the United States has been left out of position to confront a threat in Iran."

Amazing isn't it, how a complete non-threat like Iran, is posited as a threat by Simon.

To which Muravchik responds, "Whatever you might have thought about how much connection there was between Sadaam Hussein and al-Qaeda, what was crystal clear was that THE BIGGEST STATE SUPPORTER OF TERRORISM IN THE WORLD WAS THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN. (Simon can be heard grunting "ummhmm" in agreement).

Not only does Simon not challenge this utterly unsupported assertion, he offers his agreement!

Simon then turns to Adelman "Is the United States just out of position when it comes to credibility on Iran at this point?" Out of position? How about ethically and morally bankrupt.

Adelman claims that "a military solution is impossible in Iran because the main problem is nuclear weapons being developed there, and the nuclear weapons there are hidden buried and dispersed..."

Muravchik accurately corrects Adelman: "Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons," and then rolls on into his own bomb Iran bloodlust, "it has facilities and some of them may be hidden but we know where most of them are, and I believe we can cripple Iran's drive to get nuclear weapons through air strikes...."

Not only are the factual distortions unchallenged in this sorry excuse of an interview, but there isn't even a peep made about the immorality and illegality of an unprovoked air assault on a country that poses no significant threat to the United States.

Our Day is Coming

On ATC Michele Norris opens NPR's report on Cuba, "'Your day is coming,' that was the message from President Bush to Cuban dissidents today...it was an attempt to rally the world to help Cuban dissidents seize this moment." It's fascinating how hard it is to tell where Bush leaves off and Norris begins.

After this fine introduction, Michele Kelemen takes the baton and is off like Marion Jones. But poor Kelemen; she just can't get it straight on Cuba. Like a good little parrot, she chirps Bush verbatim, "He said of Cuba, the socialist paradise is a tropical gulag and he said there are horrors still unknown that once revealed will shock the conscience of humanity and shame the regime's defenders." That is some fine irony given the little US gulag that's been humming along down in Cuba for over five years, and yes there will be more "horrors still unknown" from Gitmo that will be revealed in the future (Is there a journalist in the house?)

So do we get any dissenting views on US policy toward Cuba? Sure, from Phil Peters of the far right Lexington Institute! Kelemen introduces Peters by commenting on Bush's speech: "...and though he won lots of applause from Cuba-watchers inside the room; those outside have serious doubts." What a brazen distortion of language. She implies that the range of Cuba-watchers extends from the rightwingers inside the US government to the rightwingers in rightwing think tanks! I'd say that fulfill's NPR's committment to "present all important views on a subject." Notice, too, how positive the misnomer "Cuba-watchers" sounds.

Well, Michele Norris, the Decider has declared that "your day is coming." But if you want to know what that glorious day looks like you might want to see it in action at our own little corner of "Cuba Libre." Just put on your X-ray glasses; you can't miss it!

The Line on Lebanon

On the dangerous situation in Lebanon NPR turns this morning to "expert" David Schenker. Schenker is from WINEP (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), a right-wing, pro-Zionist think tank. (At least NPR mentioned that Schenker has honed his expertise in the Pentagon from 2002-2006.) Schenker is a complete tool of Neocon-Israeli policy as this gem of an interview reveals.

It's pretty sad, that when the US public should be getting information about the complexities of the Lebanese crisis, NPR turns to someone who churns out the standard bunk about a "pro-Western" government threatened by the Syrian hegemon. Nothing about Washington helping Israel to bomb away the "Cedar Revolution" during the summer of 2006. Nothing about the occupation and crimes of Israel during its years in southern Lebanon that gave rise to Hezbollah in the first place. Instead it's just the flattened narrative of good guys vs. bad guys.

Let's Look in the Hoover...Again

So Putin is visiting Iran. I wonder where NPR might turn for a little insight on this...I know, how about another far right think tank - how novel!

How stupid does Mike Shuster and NPR think you are? Well, consider this little nugget of expert analysis about Russia and Iran from Michael McFaul of the rightwing Hoover Institution (see this entry from PFAW):

"Both countries have very rather difficult relationships with the West right now because of the way that they organize their regimes, neither are considered by western standards to be democracies."

See, it has nothing to do with all of our oil and natural gas that Iran and Russia happen to be sitting on. No it's that they are not democracies - and we all know how the US deals with authoritarian dictatorships.

Surging News

This week simply demands a midweek post!

No Shame Department

On Sunday Tom Bowman had the gall to say "Now, some nine months later, Petraeus has convinced some skeptics like Michaels O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution." Skeptics!? O'Hanlon has been an ardent liar and promoter of the Iraq War from before the get-go! NPR knows he is always wrong and a pro-war spokesperson and yet brings him on again and again (including today) as a supposed expert - or tries to pass him off as a skeptic.

Major General Garrels reports that 'It's Working'

Quoting Petraeus on Monday's ATC, Block asks Garrels, "...the military objectives of the surge are in large measure being met...a drop in security incidents....Does that jibe with what you've been seeing and hearing when you've been there?" And in-bedded Garrels responds, "Yes it does. Most people, most commanders here, say things have improved, but...the gains are very fragile..." Then citing Crocker, Block adds, "...2006 was a bad year for Iraq. So 2007 is looking better." Garrels responds, "That's right. It's slow." Regarding Petraeus' shell game "draw down" Garrels notes of US troops, "they thought that his timeline makes sense....One captain said to me 'Listen, we're finally engaged in counterinsurgency strategy head-on and it's working. Let us make it work.'" These NPR News drones would do well to read McClatchy - they actually investigate the cooked numbers from the US military about the success of the surge and come up with a different picture.

On Tuesday ME Inskeep talks to NPR's Garrels and Bowman. Amazing, astounding, big improvements and progress is what Tuesday morning is all about. Reporting from combat outpost "Apache," Garrels tells Inskeep, "There are dramatic improvements here..." According to her ethnic cleansing north of the "outpost" has not happened "because of the surge...according to commanders and Iraqis who live here" (since when has Garrels freely talked to "Iraqis who live here"). Garrels credits all this improvement to, "The big difference is that US troops are now living in the neighborhoods. They know their areas of operation very well. They know the people. And they are working very, very closely with the Iraqi Army..." Later we get treated to - BING! - a former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan (at least he's earned his liar credentials). Bing West is on to tell us how he can stroll around peaceful Fallujah without his flak jacket - wow!

Tarabay Uses Her Microphone

Tuesday ATC was much better. Jamie Tarabay does an admirable job of letting various Iraqi workers talk about their views of the surge (they have a bitter, dismal view of their security). Seriously, isn't this what journalists are supposed to do - use their skills and resources to hold up to scrutiny what the powerful are telling us - without always turning to sources who are beholden to the institutions of power? Also on Tuesday, we hear not only from a Republican Senator, but from Democratic Senator Feingold who is articulate and firm about the Iraq disaster and the nonsense of surge success.

Let it Snow...

On Wednesday's ATC Michele Norris talks to Tony Snow: "You've had a particularly tough run defending an increasingly unpopular president and an unpopular war..." She lets Snow get away with saying, "I hate to say it, but the public trust in journalists is far lower than it is the President's..." Two major issues with this: 1) Popularity is not the main issue for Snow. The FACTS of Bush's lies and incompetence are the problem and the public's growing awareness of the reality of Bush's disasters is the issue and 2) Snow's statement about journalists doesn't wash at all (except among Fox viewers) - Bush has disapproval ratings of 62-64% while favorabilty ratings for news reporting from national cable, network, and newspaper outlets are 75%, 71%, and 60% respectively.

The Freaking Beard

Please tell me that I had an auditory hallucination and that my listener support dollars weren't really used to put together Wednesday ATC's 2 and 1/2 minute segment on whether Bin Laden's beard is fake or dyed black. Seriously, why not spend a little time explaining why the foreign policy of the US first helps train and create a despicable character like Bin Laden and then continues policies that play right into his hands? That would be worth at least a couple of precious minutes.

Smart Imperialism

Given the dreams of militaristic domination and triumphalism that neocons were dreaming of back in the days of PNAC - it is refreshing to see some of them like Iran-Contra Armitage and go-it-alone Fukuyama are changing their tune (and trying to hide their own culpability). But today's Morning Edition piece on US foreign policy was a true work of constricted debate. The "experts" brought in represented a range of opinion varying from the Pentagon to the US State Department.

The scholarly guest list was as follows:

• James Carafano, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation. Carafano had a long career in the US Army.
• Joseph Nye, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Nye has been a loyal servant to both the Pentagon and State Department.
• Richard Armitage, currently working with Nye on a "bipartisan" study for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Armitage was a Deputy Secretary of State during Bush's first term.
• Edwin Luttwak, a senior advisor at the CSIS who as his bio states "has served as a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, the U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force."
• Francis Fukuyama of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Worked for the State Department.
• William Martel, an associate professor of international security studies at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. Professor Martel has worked for the Air Force, the RAND Corp., Air War College and Naval War College.

You can probably guess that none of these fellows is going to challenge the underlying premise that the US can and should dominate the globe. Instead these men all agree that since 2001 the US has relied too much on threats, military action, and unilateralism--what they call "hard power." But don't despair, by using more carrots and diplomacy Jackie Northam assures us that "...the US can attract them [allies] with the legitimacy of its long-standing policies and values. Nye calls this soft power."

Don't worry, NPR is not suggesting any wild-eyed hippie ideas like dismantling our global network of military bases or slashing our bloated war budget. Northam lets us know that "Professor Nye is the first to say that soft power by itself is not enough, and that hard power — whether it be coercion or military might — is also needed. The key, he says, is to balance the two so one doesn't undercut the other. The new term for this is 'smart power.'" And if any of you peaceniks are still whining about this, "Armitage says the ability to balance soft and hard power is a sign of a country's maturity and confidence."

And so children, the bedtime story ends: the US is a gentle giant at heart, with a history of noble and legitimate values, and the last six years have just been a little aberration (like the Vietnam War) and now we will get back on our best behavior, just like after Vietnam when as Northam tells us, "within a few years after American troops pulled out of Vietnam, the U.S. had regained its prestige and diplomatic power."

Team Bush

"Amen," I thought when I saw the guilty verdict against Libby pop up on the Internet this afternoon. That's one sleazeball down - out of many occupying the Bush White House. As Dave Lindorf noted on Common Dreams, if we have a press with any integrity left, this will be just a starting point for outing the rest of the thugs and liars running the executive branch. Regarding the Libby verdict, I also saw where Cursor.org picked up this prescient warning from Media Matters about lies in the media to watch out for.

And then I made the mistake of tuning in to ATC as they came storming out of the dugout to see what damage control they could effect for Bush-Cheney. Within minutes of the guilty verdict, someone at NPR must have been busy on the phone seeking out one of their many go-to right wing extremists. They rounded up one of their favorites, Dan Goure of the Lexington Institute (interestingly NPR has run into trouble with this creep before).

Here are a few of the whoppers that Goure, who at least is identified as a former employee of Libby's, is allowed to air without any challenge:

• "We now know that neither he nor Cheney first outed Ms. Plame.
• "No one in the Vice President’s was responsible for the leak."
• "Cheney did not leak."
• "...a miscarriage of justice."

So why does NPR want to have on a liar like Dan Goure to defend Libby? And if they are going to give such important airtime to him, where is the counterbalance? Why bring someone like him on the first news show after the Libby conviction? Why don't we get to hear from someone with a progressive viewpoint to challenge these falsehoods? (Interviewing Wilson doesn't count--he's not a progressive.) Why not at lease have on someone like The Nation's David Corn who has written about the full scope of the operation that was being waged against Wilson?

Whatever the reason, the fact is that the crucial first commentary NPR airs on the case, the first impression that its listeners get, is one that is fully loaded with misinformation favoring Bush and Cheney - and that is really sickening.

Added Wed. am: For a refresher on the whole sordid Libby-Bush-Cheney-Rove affair take a look at Juan Cole's Wed. post here.

Noise machine Participation Radio

I'll keep it brief. Instead of covering the significance of Al Gore's claims about global warming and the idiocy of the current fools running (ruining) our country and planet, NPR joins in with the rabid foxes of the world to feature news that obviously comes from the rightwingosphere money machine. NPR wastes its time joining in the attack on Al Gore's wealth and consumption to portray him as a hypocrite. It's not that Al Gore's lifestyle is sacrosanct and off limits to criticism, but it is not the central issue in the ongoing catastrophe of global warming; it's at best a tiny footnote--unless like NPR you source your news from illegitimate front organizations.

The Company You Keep

Steve Inskeep followed up yesterday's hostile interview of Jimmy Carter by hosting Emory University history professor Kenneth W. Stein, a critic of Carter's book. In some ways the interview proves the validity of Carter's stated goal - encouraging debate on Israel's land confiscation and human rights atrocities against the Palestinians. Stein is unable to refute the allegations made by Carter against the Israeli government, and when asked about the use of the term apartheid, he is reduced to claiming that just because Israeli policy is in every respect like apartheid it shouldn't be called that (he says just because it looks, walks, quacks and smells like a duck doesn't make it a duck!)

Inskeep instead continues quibbling about Carter's meeting with Assad of Syria in the 1980s and whether his account of it makes the Israelis appear less flexible than the Syrians (as if this is the heart of the book's argument). Stein's weak argument against the book is that it doesn't blame Palestinians enough for corrupt Palestinian leadership and for terrorist acts against Israel, however, he in no way can counter the assertion that Israel is a gross abuser of Palestinian rights and has illegally seized and annexed Palestinian land. In fact he admits that it is true.

What I find significant in this report how blandly it is mentioned that Stein has published a rebuttal to Carter's book in the Middle East Quarterly (and they provide this link to the article). This deserves far more attention. What NPR doesn't tell us is the nasty little organization of extremist Likudnik neocons that runs the Middle East Quarterly - The Middle East Forum. The director of this bunch of smear artists and bigots is the vitriolic Daniel Pipes. That a history professor would want his "work" to appear in such a disreputable forum is indicative of the lack of integrity of his attack on Carter's book - and NPR's neglect in identifying the bias of the Middle East Forum indicates where their sympathies lie.

Saving Bipartisanship on a Sinking Ship

Worried about health insurance, the rise of the surveillance state, climate devastation, the takeover of government by corporate money, the prospect of endless war, etc? Don't fret, because the real issue of the day is BIPARTISANSHIP.

After the November 2006 elections I posted on NPR's attempt to distort the significance of the results, and NPR is back at it with a vengance. Not only is NPR picking a non-issue to focus on, but they the coverage they give is telling.

This morning Mara Liasson presided over a laugher. Imagine seriously trying to pass off the center-right Brookings Institute as moderate left! That's exactly what Liasson does! It explains how NPR can consider itself balanced when the range of their ideology extends from the Brookings Institute to the Hoover Institute which is presented as the "moderate right." Given NPR's strangled ideological boundaries, I guess Reagan would be a centrist, George H. W. Bush would be left-of-center and Bill Clinton would be far-left!

And who else does Liasson talk to in this sorry piece? Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute and Tom Mann of the Brookings Institute.

Sadly NPR doesn't deal with the real bipartisan issues that people are concerned about. For those reality-based numbers you'll have to go elsewhere. Or you can always go to npr.org and read this nonsense: "As part of our Crossing the Divide series, Melissa Block brings together the far left and the far right for a conversation with members of Congress Carol Shea-Porter and Bill Sali." Far left! Honestly, they're not kidding...