A Tale of Two Cities - NPR and US Exceptionalism

This morning on Weekend Edition Sunday, I heard the following:

"...but the fact is...this is all unconfirmed. We know the government...has lied on several occasions about civilian casualties and strikes and damage, and frankly, we only have their word so far for what happened."

Isn't that the standard that ought to apply to all reporting? It seems reasonable that when a government has been proven to have lied about civilian casualties (e.g. here and here), lied about its reasons for going to war, and lied about the torture and murder of detainees then shouldn't all unconfirmed claims by that government be treated with skepticism and always be prefaced with the qualifiers included in the quote above. The answer is a rather obvious, "Yes." But on NPR there is one standard for countries and forces that the US government opposes and a completely different standard for the US government and its closest allies. Despite a long record of systematic lying about war, civilian deaths, and the abuse of detainees - I have - over the past five years - documented how NPR consistently grants official US statements the weight of confirmed evidence (or simply ignores stories where the evidence points to systematic lying and wrongdoing).

The quote above, from Sunday's Weekend Edition, is about the war in Libya and the lying government in question is the government of Libya's Gadhafi. The war in Libya - and especially the siege of Misrata - offers a unique opportunity to highlight NPR's embrace of American exceptionalism.

The forces of the Libyan government have attempted to destroy the rebel forces in Misrata in operations that are chillingly similar to the US military's destruction of Fallujah in Iraq. Misrata and Fallujah have about the same population size, about half-a-million for each. In April 2004 in Fallujah, as documented by the intrepid Dahr Jamail, the US used cluster bombs, indiscriminate sniping of civilians, and attacks on medical facilities. George Monbiot documented further war crimes of the US November 2005 assault on Fallujah - including the use of white phosphorous, thermobaric weapons, and the refusal to allow males of "fighting age" to flee the city. As in Misrata, US forces illegally focused their operations on hospitals and medical facilities. In spite of these illegal and barbaric tactics, you can search NPR in vain for stories on these crimes (cluster bombs- nothing, white phosphorous - mentioned after Pentagon admitted it, sniping civilians - nothing, attacking the hospital - nothing). Not only has NPR never reported the US war crimes against Fallujah, it has actually celebrated the assault.

Consider that NPR's censorship of the US horror show in Fallujah is now into it's eighth year, but in the less than two months of Libya coverage we have been given extensive coverage of every crime that the Gadhafi forces have perpetrated on Misrata. For example, in just this one Morning Edition report from April 13th, we hear the following from refugees:

• "We heard the Gadhafi troops were kidnapping people."
• "The Gadhafi forces aren't differentiating among their targets. They're attacking the young, the old, women, dragging people from their houses."
• "In the streets of Misrata I've seen bodies, I've seen them burned. The snipers are shooting people at random."

And a few days later on April 17th Lourdes Garcia Navarro reports on Misrata,

"From rebels that I've spoken to, Gadhafi's forces are shelling civilian areas - we are talking grad missiles, mortar fire, tank fire. A few days ago came the first reports of cluster bombs, which are banned by international law for use in civilian areas."

It's too bad that it is really impossible to imagine NPR ever providing such immediate reporting on US military actions and their impact on civilian populations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, etc... or to imagine that they would ever give such well deserved qualifications of the lack of credibility that should always be given to any official statements issues by the White House, the US military, the State Department, NATO, etc.

Velvet Gjelten Covers Iron Fist

(source of graphic)

Tom Gjelten weighed in Thursday morning to explain how US-supported torture states are one of the greatest assets to the United States in its "war on terror." Gjelten - in yet another NPR report [see Wednesday's ME piece] warning of the grave terrorism & security threats produced by a free, open Internet - used the uprising in Egypt as a chance to once again champion the benefits of torture and authoritarian rule:

Gjelten: "Egyptian democracy activists, nevertheless, complained the Obama Administration moved too slowly. If so, that could be because pushing too hard in Egypt on one goal could set back progress somewhere else. Promoting Internet freedom, for example, might have been seen as competing with the goal of fighting terrorism. And that's an area where the U.S. relies on Egypt, according to Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism adviser to Presidents Clinton and Bush.

Clarke: "The Egyptian role in counterterrorism has been essential to us for the last 15 to 20 years. They've been one of the best allies we've had in the fight against al-Qaida and other radical groups.

On its face this all sounds rather bureaucratic, bland, and acceptable. Gjelten uses positive terms like "progress" "fighting terrorism" and "relies on Egypt," and former US official Clarke speaks in likewise euphemistic and glowing terms: "role in counterterrorism" "essential to us" and "one of the best allies..." But consider for a moment what these empty words and phrases actually refer to.

Among the Egyptian security services techniques that have been so "essential" to "progress" are documented cases of severe beatings, electroshocks to all parts of the body, suspensions resulting in dislocations, whippings, sexual assaults, rape, threats of rape, torture of children, torture of victims in front of family members, drownings, and of course murder and disappearance. What Tom Gjelten (and NPR) are praising is Egypt's role as an "international centre for interrogation and torture on behalf of other states as part of the 'war on terror'."

Back in the summer of 2009, when Alicia Shepard was pushing her defense of NPR's refusal to call torture torture, she wrote on her blog, "To me, it makes more sense to describe the techniques and skip the characterization." Putting aside the fact that Shepard was well aware that NPR never did or would describe in detail what the US was doing to its detainees, can you imagine how different Gjelten's (and ALL NPR's slanted Egypt coverage) would be if the actual practices and their effects on real human beings were described and the US foreign policy "characterizations"/euphemisms were dropped? Imagine if Gjelten said,

"Having an Egyptian state where detainees know they will be sodomized with sticks, raped, cut with razors, beaten and hung from hooks so that their bones are broken and joints dislocated really helps the US fight terrorism and keep its Middle East agenda in place. It is essential that Egyptians are so terrified of being held by state security forces in Egypt that they dare not organize against US wars on Muslim countries or US/Egyptian support for Israel no matter how unpopular these policies are."

That would be eye-opening! Obviously, such honesty would require a universal standard of decency and morality - instead of one that assumes US government/military goals carry the greatest moral weight with everything else being secondary [not to mention the inherent anti-Arab racism that assumes Arab people deserve nothing but poverty, torture, corruption and dictatorship as long as such conditions support US foreign policy goals.]

Finally, Gjelten's stance is not even internally consistent within the limits of its own sick reasoning. Looked at in a detached and cold-blooded light, one can easily demonstrate that instead of aiding counterterrorism, the US support for torture states (and its own torture practices) serve to swell the ranks of extremists and potential terrorists. In 2005 Naomi Klein wrote how torture is an essential ingredient in the radicalization of extremists. Chris Zambelis brings the issue up to date in 2008 and Glenn Greenwald makes a similar case in 2009. A detached observer might also note that torture produces radically false information, such as the torture confessions in Egypt of al-Libi used to buttress the launch of the Iraq War. Any rational person would have to at least consider that one of the main reasons for supporting torture regimes is to produce more violence and terrorism, thereby sustaining the endless "war on terror" and justifying the grotesque injustices (and spending) involved in this cynical enterprise.

Gjelten concludes his homage to the Iron Fist with this gem:

"The Obama administration may learn whether a new government there, one that more vigorously supports Internet freedom and other democratic values, could be as strong a counterterrorism ally as the Mubarak regime has been."

Gjelten is one scary character...

More Blood Soup

NPR do luv them some Nagl. John Nagl, Mr. Soup with a Knife genius, has been one of their regular counterinsurgency go-to guys for a while - and they did pick the right horse. Nagl is climbing the rungs of power (to the Defense Policy board along with neo-imperialist Robert Kaplan). You can bet we'll hear a lot from this COIN snake oil soup salesman.

Yesterday on ATC Siegle had a chummy talk with Nagl about our clients in the colony of Iraq. It was the typical "training wheels" talk about whether Iraqis can manage without all the great protection and security the US military has brought to Iraq. Siegel asks Nagl, "How well prepared are the Iraqis to deal with threats to their own security?"

Nagl brags that they are capable of handling counterinsurgency, but "they certainly still need our help for deterring conventional attacks from some of their neighbors." Later in the interview Siegle picks up this thread to remind us of the Iranian threat(!?):

"Are Iraqi forces sufficiently trained and improved to deal with any interference in their country by Iran?"

That was certainly out of the blue, but Nagl doesn't miss a beat and chimes in with, "No. The short answer is no."

Yet again NPR's discussions about US counterinsurgency is an utter whitewash - never touching on the sickeningly brutal aspects of these dirty wars. Instead they allow people like Nagl to peddle their "brilliance" without challenge. Probably the best all-around dissection of the movement that Nagl represents is found in this piece by Justin Raimondo.

Honduras? Never Heard of It

It's really quite telling how drastically different NPR's coverage of Iran is from it's non-coverage of the Honduran coup. Do a search on NPR's site of Honduras coup and see what's been offered on Morning Edition, All Things Considered and the two Weekend Edition shows in the last week:

• A July 11th ATC sympathetic piece on coup supporters in Miami (which I critiqued here)

However search Ahmadinejad on NPR's site and see what the past week has featured:

• July 22 ATC on deepening divisions, demonstrations, and state violence against protesters
• July 21 ME on challenges to the election from former leaders

I don't have any complaint with NPR giving coverage to events in Iran, but the non-coverage of Honduras is stunning. After all, this past week has been very eventful in Honduras with ousted President Zelaya accepting a mediated solution only to have the coup government reject it.

NPR's non-coverage ignores Zelaya's compromise and is helpful in covering up the supportive role that the US military is continuing to offer the Honduran military in spite of official US denunciation of the coup. It also allows NPR to ignore the increasing repression of the coup government and the role of graduates from the US School of Coups in the overthrow of the Honduran president.

Agent Gjelten Recruiting

For your reading pleasure - they're fortified with hyperlinks, too!

The Archangel Simon

Scott Simon sermonizes about evil this morning. Simon decides that the premeditated killing of civilians doesn't deserve to be probed for motives:

"A word like 'motive' seems to imply there was reason or purpose. It suggests that, however profane their actions, the terrorists had the incentive of some goal in mind."

He notes that when human beings are "the very objects of damage" it is simply evil, no matter how "terrorists and apologists may ultimately embroider the assault with supposed political significance."

Maybe Simon is right when he says "that evil men and women see no innocents in the world. They will slaughter mothers without conscience and their children, too, because mothers give birth to children who can grow up to be their opponents." Given this new, righteous Scott Simon, I'll look forward to his denouncing ALL targetings of civilians whether done by terrorists in India or by the US government and it's friends and proxies.

Private Shapiro and Sutherland

(Lt General William Caldwell speaking through JJ Sutherland)

The US Army releases its Stability Operation Field Manual and Alabama Moon points out that there's nothing "new" about its goal ("conflict against enemies intent on limiting American access and influence throughout the world") and its author's implied threat against "homeland" instability!

But from the news organization that revels in counterinsurgency and gets all goosesteppybumpy over Army Strong you can expect nothing but an upbeat commercial for this latest product of US militarism.

Here's the meat of the report:

(Ari Shapiro opens with): "When the US army fought its way into Baghdad in 2003 soldiers there found they were not prepared to establish peace, security and the rule of law in Iraq. It's taken the military years to show some progress on those fronts..."

(Sutherland follows): "That lack of coherent planning for what happens after the shooting stops was intrinsic to the army...that process bore terrible fruit in the days, then months, then years after the invasion of Iraq: chaos in the streets, no basic services, a growing insurgency, thousands of dead Americans. Security in Iraq has improved dramatically - from a civil war to at least a modicum of peace. Fragile certainly, but an improvement, an improvement driven by fundamentally changing the army's approach.

The manual lays out a series of steps on how to stabilize a country after a war - from providing security, establishing the rule of law, to things like social well-being, stable governance and a working economy....

....an army needed to win the wars we're in, an army this manual will help to build. "

As always, not a mention of the terrible "fruit" of 4.5 million Iraqi refugees and over a million dead. Makes me want to scream. And this passes for journalism...ugghh.

The Big Stick of Enforced Amnesia

NPR's constant erasure of the US role in the history of Latin America comes in very handy as they offer a completely one-sided report on the expulsion from Bolivia of US Ambassador Philip Goldberg. The report is not really a report, but a transcription of Golberg's claims against Bolivian President Evo Morales (with back-up provided by the aptly named Michael Shifter who worked for that favorite spawn of Reagan, the National Endowment for Democracy).

Kelemen (taking the side of the US State Department) says:

"Goldberg called it a roller coaster ride, saying President Morales often used the US and the US embassy as a foil, a distraction from the problems inside Bolivia....he says the Bolivian government aired what he called a propaganda infomercial about him on TV."

Goldberg then follows:

"It was a vile piece of propaganda, accusing the United States, accusing opposition members, too of taking instructions from the US, making links with people I never met. It really is a sad display."

It's a vile piece of propaganda only if you are completely ignorant or completely dishonest about what the US has been up to in South America for well over a hundred years. Jim Shultz of the Democracy Center of Bolivia, in an excellent post on the crisis in Bolivia points out:

"The U.S. has a long history of intervention in Latin America, and Bolivia has not been spared. For nearly two decades Bolivian governments been pressured by Washington to wage a "War on Drugs" in Bolivia, with serious collateral damage to human rights."

And of Goldberg, Shultz notes

"Goldberg himself, who took over as Ambassador shortly after Morales' 2006 inauguration, has proved to be an inept diplomat over and over again. In June 2007 the military attaché at the Embassy in La Paz, a U.S. Army Colonel, decided to have a relative carry down 500 rounds of 45-caliber ammunition packed in her suitcase. The event spiked Bolivian fears of U.S. intervention and Goldberg made the public uproar even worse by going against the advice of senior aides, trying to downplay the incident as a minor mistake.

Last February, a young U.S. Fulbright Scholar revealed to ABC News that an Embassy official had asked him to gather intelligence on Cubans and Venezuelans in Bolivia. It also turned out that the Embassy was systematically asking U.S. Peace Corps volunteers to do the same – a direct violation of the laws governing both programs. Again Goldberg tried to downplay the incident as an innocent error. The Morales administration threatened to prosecute the official involved and he left the country."

You won't hear that on NPR!

For a rather biting take on Bolivia and the US role in destabilizing that country BoRev.net is always provocative. Or you can cozy up with the US Government (the same one that had nothing to do with the Pinochet Coup of 9/11/73) side of the story by tuning into NPR or reading the Washington Post.

Of course, no NPR story on South America would be complete without a BushCo. approved swipe at Venezuela's elected President, Hugo Chavez. Kelemen trots out Michale Shifter to end the piece, including this:

"Chavez seems to have in this moment got a bit feisty. The challenge for the US is how to sort of deal with this situation in a sort of step by step calm quiet approach which is not always easy."

Ah yes the feisty natives, and the need to walk softly - seems like I've heard that sentiment somewhere before...hmmm.

Joker Discusses Race Card

Bolivia is voting in a presidential and governorship recall vote and Juan Forero is there. Seabrook insists on telling us how to view the vote in Bolivia: "The referendum has exposed sharp divisions in Bolivia between those who support the President's socialist agenda and those who worry he's concentrating too much power in his own hands."

O.K., I'm sorry that's just too simplistic. She doesn't give any indication that Morales' administration is also opposed by the extremely wealthy and reactionary and racist elites in Bolivia who fear losing their right to exploit the indigenous poor for their own gain. No doubt that there are fears among the middle class of Bolivia that Morales is seeking too much power and is indifferent to their interests. A much better description of the situation is available from the Democracy Center blog; it also has better reporting on the results.

Seabrook does ask Forero, "And I understand race also plays a role?"

Given the really appalling racism of the opposition [on vivid display in May of this year], this is an important question (Imagine the coverage that such racist thuggery would garner if it were employed by Morales - or Chavez in Venezuela). Now take a look at Forero's duplicitous answer:

"It does. The government is very much allied with indigenous groups here....There is certainly an element of race in a lot of this, in this crisis among the two sides here because many opposition leaders - though not all - are of European extraction. But some analysts also say that Morales has been using the race card to sow divisions and paint his foes as racists - in other words delegitmize their concerns."

It's quite a performance really. It's not racism; it's just "because many opposition leaders - though not all - are of European extraction." Chew on that one for a while... And then not only does Forero minimize the racism of the opposition, he pulls out the ubiquitous "some analysts" to blame Morales for "using the race card." Scary.

For more leftist (and funny and irreverent) analysis on the situation it's hard to beat Borev.net.

Target Iran

Yesterday on ATC, Eric Westervelt's piece on Iran might have well have been written by Dick Cheney or the Israeli Defense Forces. Consider these statements that formed the substance of the report:

Melissa Block: "....some Iranian leaders have called for Israel's destruction....and Israel is within the reach of some Iranian missiles."

Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz: "We want to make sure we're prepared for every option. We don't want war, we want peace. But we will not let that second Holocaust take place."

Westervelt: [Dr. Shmuel Bar, who directs Israel's Institute for Policy and Strategy] "says Iran is renowned for using diplomacy as a stall tactic."

Bar: "I don't think that anybody really does believe that there's a diplomatic solution. The Iranians are well known for attrition and wearing down their opponents with never-ending negotiations that can go on and on. This is their strategy and has been their strategy forever."

Bar: "Iran is a country which is openly committed to destroying Israel, is committed to performing another Holocaust. I think that what's happened in Israel the third generation after the Holocaust has sort of gone back to a Holocaust mentality, sense that 'yes this could happen again.' The statements coming from Iran have exacerbated that feeling."

Westervelt: "...it's not clear whether direct engagement will prevail, or how long Israel is willing to wait. As Deputy Prime Minister Mofaz put it recently, 'it's a race against time and time is winning.'"

Wow, kind of makes you want to climb in cool stealth bomber with Ripper and head for Tehran. Too bad we can't hear about the less than stellar behavior of US/Israel regarding the Non Proliferation Treaty and how the "West's" hypocrisy is driving proliferation.

(apologies to Gary Larson)

No Comment Necessary

Yesterday, introducing a report on the Israel/Palestine conflict and Olmert's announcement that he will retire, Michele Norris states:

"At the State Department today, Condoleezza Rice tried to keep the push for Middle East peace on track."

I guess if Henry Kissinger can win the Nobel Peace Prize, anybody can be a pusher for peace...

More Balance

Obama is touring Israel and Palestine and NPR is on it. This morning Inskeep and Gonyea report with a big emphasis on balance:

Inskeep tells us that Obama's tour "is taking him to both sides of the dividing lines between Israelis and Palestinians. But while visiting both sides..."

Gonyea insists that Obama "is trying to balance things...probably the trickiest day of Senator Obama's overseas' trip."

Too bad our intrepid NPR journalists don't report on some of that tricky balance. They could have started with that slightly imbalanced US aid to Israel (you can also click on the graphic above to see another breakdown of this aid). They also could have gone looking into the balanced killings and human rights abuses between Israel and Palestine. Or reminded us that one side is an internationally recognized state which has used the full force of its military and US alliance to occupy, annex and repress the other side for over forty years instead of treating the situation as if it were a conflict between two balanced forces.

The other interesting aspect of this Morning Edition report is that Gonyea's pretense to being an authority on the full spectrum of Israeli and Palestinian opinions. Consider this exchange:

Inskeep: "What questions do Israelis have about Obama?"

Gonyea: "They are worried that in dealing with the peace process with the Palestinians that in forcing compromise and trying to broker a deal, he might push the Israelis harder, he might side a bit too much with the Palestinians...and that's obviously reflected in the kind of things we're hearing from Jewish voters in America."

Inskeep: "Are Palestinians any happier about Barack Obama?"

Gonyea: "They have some concerns as well...will no doubt have a warm meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, but there is concern...he might bend over backwards to please Israel."

I'm just curious how Gonyea knows what they are worried about? Who is this mythical they anyway? Gonyea is not reporting on surveys or polls. It's sloppy to report as if Israelis have some kind of unified opinion on Obama (or just about anything for that matter), and in spite of the reactionary politics of many American Jewish organizations - there are diverse opinions about US policy in Israel/Palestine (Jewish Voice for Peace or Tikkun for example). And of course, Gonyea is not talking about even a sampling of Palestinians, but only the US/Israel approved Palestinian officials who supposedly represent the "other side" in the conflict.

Leading the Charge

Inskeep was loading the language this morning. First he introduced the story on Iran firing its missiles with this:

"Iranian officials CONTEND they are responding to hostile rhetoric from the United States and Israel - THAT is their explanation for firing a long range missile today. The test shot comes as THE WORLD is trying to persuade Iran to abandon any ambitions for NUCLEAR WEAPONS."

And then discussing the US push for anti-missile installations in Eastern Europe, Inskeep states that

"Iran's test comes during the same week that the United States MADE PROGRESS on installing a missile defense system in Europe. And one of the goals would be to DEFEND AGAINST IRAN'S MISSILES...."

When was the last time you heard Inskeep say "the Pentagon contends" or "President Bush contends," etc. It's also quite an inflation to go from the US/Israel/Europe to "the world" and of course it's a mighty jump to go from enriching uranium to "ambitions for nuclear weapons." To follow these misstatements with the claim that the US military expansion east is making "progress" and will "defend against Iran's missiles" [hitting Europe(???)] is not reporting or newscasting, but simply arguing the case for the Pentagon.

And the Answer Is...

There's something to be said for hearing from establishment figures who are loyal to the role of US as global hegemon. People like Richard Clarke are interesting in that they reveal just how radical and extreme the Bush administration is, but they are not usually critics of US military, economic, and political control of the world. This morning Linda Wertheimer interviews Clarke about the troubles that the US-NATO is experiencing in Afghanistan. Wertheimer asks, "Is there a way to turn the situation in Afghanistan around at this point?"

Now astute readers, what do you think the answer is? Any guesses? Maybe a regional solution? Come on, I think you can guess. Clarke says, "There is, but only by sending in MORE TROOPS, and keeping them there for a while...."

Now that is a smart idea, as the Soviets discovered. Clarke goes on to explain how the problem is also with Pakistan that and US unilateral action without Pakistani permission makes sense because, "any President has to act that way to protect the lives of Americans."

As Barnett Rubin notes in a post on Afghanistan, this flattening of the complex situation in Afghanistan to a rather stupid either/or proposition is common in the US media, but doesn't do anything to inform people, or suggest a way out of the morass of Afghanistan:

"As usual, the Times article presented the alternatives as do nothing, Predator missile strikes, or invasion by U.S. Special Forces, without any discussion of competing Pakistani and Pashtun political agendas for the tribal agencies. A successful and sustainable strategy has to be carried out together with allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan, within a political framework that they support."

Velvet Gloves

This morning Ari Shapiro talks with Benjamin Wittes (of the Brookings Institute - ugh) about the "need" for new laws to codify detention in the eternal GWOT. It's a brilliantly repulsive interview in which the entire sham of the "War on Terror" is accepted and extolled - and in which the US is the exceptional nation, blessed with the responsibility for waging this "war" exclusive of any international laws or obligations.

Here's a taste of the interview:

• Shapiro: "So it needs to be a new set of laws crafted by Congress. Describe what those laws would look like."
• Wittes: "In a military conflict in which, you know, Congress has authorized the use of force against an enemy that has declared war against the United States, the nature of that conflict necessitates some kind of a detention authority, that is a detention power that is not connected to necessarily a pending indictment in US Federal court."
• Shapiro: "And so when you say a detention authority, you mean conceivably for that person's lifetime."
• Wittes: "You know one would hope that it would never have to go on that long but you know there are a certain group of people that you're going to be holding for a very long time."
• Shapiro (interjecting one vague critique): "If as you propose, Congress creates a system of military commissions or national security courts...human rights groups say that opens the door to harsh interrogations, secret evidence, and things that the US really doesn't and shouldn't condone."
• Wittes: Responds that though he has "a lot of sympathy with a lot of human rights groups complaints," he is "a little bewildered" by critiques of his proposals. Given how extremely bad the current system is he just can't understand how his own authoritarian system is "retrogressive."

Listening to these two, you'd never know that there is something called International Law which is meant to prevent just this kind of legal morass in which the most powerful nation makes up the rules that only it is allowed to follow and which only it gets to enforce. It's easy to find information on international laws (unless one is committed to US exceptionalism) : the American Society on International Law, the UN, and the Red Cross for example.

I'm struck by how often NPR turns to these soft-authoritarian types like counterinsurgency promoters and torture apologists. In many ways they are a perfect fit for NPR news which also promotes, celebrates, and justifies the iron fist of US military, economic, and political hegemony in the world, but always with a velvet touch.

Radio+active

(source of graphic)

Yes, kids, if you had your handy Family Radiation Measurement Kit set up next to next to the radio Friday evening you would have realized that you'd been exposed to more lethal radiation than these dummies at a test site (great source!).

Though it's no news that there is a real risk of non-state terrorists eventually setting off a nuclear device in the US (e.g. Chomsky has repeatedly commented on this issue and the Union of Concerned Scientists has noted this problem, too). So, you might ask yourself why, just as the presidential election election race is heating up, does NPR decide to dedicate a story focused on the "possibility of a single relatively primitive bomb set off by terrorists in a U.S. city that could potential kill hundreds of thousands of people"? David Kestenbaum tells us:

"....the Cold War is over. No one worries about thousands of megaton bombs wiping out the country. No, the concern now is a single much smaller bomb, like the one dropped on Hiroshima. Til Jolly with the Department of Heimat Homeland Security set the tone: 'there are those who would like to do this to us. Is it likely? I don't know'..."

Actually, NPR could have done quite an interesting program on the nuclear threat, including the fact that though the Cold War is over, there is still a grave threat from an accidental exchange as nearly happened in January of 1995. Regarding non-state terrorism and nuclear weapons, they might have looked at how nuclear non-proliferation is a key to reducing the chance for such an event, and how recent US policy is going away from non-proliferation and has undermined the NPT. Another key would be making US foreign policy less violent and aggressive, thereby reducing the conditions that encourage the growth of terrorist tactics and ideologies - something the Bush administration has been exceptionally inept at.

Could have, might have...instead NPR chose to do a simple FEAR! report: "There coming!" "They'll set off a nuclear weapon!" "Oh My God!" "Hundreds of thousands dead!" "The White House vaporized." The hell with FISA! Who needs habeus corpus? No time for inexperience. What we need is a Strong Leader, any suggestions?

Like a Hit and Run for Health

The "news" summaries this morning were just packed with information. Here was Eleanor Beardsley reporting on Sarkozy's trip to the Middle East:

"With fears that the US drive for peace will slow down as November's election approaches, journalists say France's Sarkozy could be political partner in the peace process in the Middle East."

Yep, I imagine that all those Gazans and West Bankers are just scared to death that the US Drive For Peace™ will slow down - oh no! What will we do if the there are no more Quartets, and Roadmaps, and Annapolis Conferences, and Summer Rains, and...

An Existential Crisis

When NPR hunts down two "experts" to talk about nuclear proliferation, you'd better have your seatbelt on. This Sunday morning the talk is of India, Pakistan, and Iran. Of course the main nuclear outlaw in the Middle East is conveniently not included (until the talk gets around to attacking Iran). Auntie Liane chats with George Perkovich and Michael Krepon, two heavyweights in the intellectual world - both have written reams of books and articles. Seriously, the two seem pretty dang smart, so why, when the talk gets to Iran, do they say such things as:

Perkovich:

"Iran feels fairly ascendant...and so they're always willing in principal to negotiate if it's to accept your surrender, but if it's on the terms that the US and others would seek which is 'Hey, hey Iran, here's what you need to do,' they're not interested."

"Accept your surrender"?! Does either Hansen or Krepon interject to say, "Whoa, wait a minute; the US position on negotiation with Iran is that to talk Iran must capitulate on the core issue of uranium enrichment. Isn't that a surrender and then we'll talk position?" Do either of them even ask politely, "Could you give one example of Iran asking for surrender?" But wait, Perkovich isn't done; he continues:

"The Iranians pretty much quit negotiating in the summer of 2005...have taken the position of we're going to do what we want and you can't stop us. So it would be kind of a breakthrough if actually they decided yes, we're prepared to negotiate...."

and

"I think Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has testified...Iran fundamentally is deterrable. The problem is that Israel isn't as convinced of that - and has reason not to be so convinced - so one thought is the Israelis might come to a crucial existential decision which says, well you can't just sit here and let them do that, so military action may not be perfect, may not solve the problem, but it's better than doing nothing."

Existential? You have to wonder about these kind of buzz words, especially when they originate out of the White House; and you have to question the integrity of a scholar who is simply willing to pick up such language and run with it. Again, neither of the other participants in this otherworldly exchange suggest that actually Iran may be undergoing a bit of an existential threat when it considers what's "on the table": the US blessings of liberty bestowed on Iraq and Israel's gentle interventions in Lebanon in '82 and '06 (not to mention Israel's arsenal of peaceful nuclear weapons).

Oddly, both speakers eventually indicate that they think the military option and the threat to use it is not such a great idea. However, that gets buried under the bulk of their discussion which demonizes Iran and makes the case for justifying a US/Israel military option.

Can We Please Take "On the Table" Off the Table?

One of NPR's most crucial roles as an enabler of unchecked power for the US state is to normalize the most grotesque and barbarous activities of the US. The support of torture states in Central and South America becomes a positive "counterinsurgency" strategy - and it's victories are praised as in yesterday's piece and many others. Civilians killed by the US and its allies are barely mentioned, and if mentioned are usually lumped together as "insurgents" or "militants." And of course our torture is never torture, just "enhanced interrogation" or "harsh interrogation."

You'd think there might be limits to encouraging the banality of evil, but not on NPR. The supreme crime of Nuremberg (that quaint trial of the 1940s), as eloquently spelled out by US Justice Robert Jackson in his opening statements was the Crime Against Peace:

"A basic provision of the Charter is that to plan, prepare, initiate, or wage a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances, or to conspire or participate in a common plan to do so, is a crime."

Count 2 against the defendants in the trial included:

"All the defendants with divers other persons, during a period of years preceding 8 May 1945, participated in the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances."

So it is that I am really sickened to hear the matter-of-fact tone that NPR uses in discussing the Bush Administration's threats to wage a war of aggression against Iran. Here's Inskeep and Gonyea this morning:

• Gonyea: "...at a press conference yesterday with European Union leaders - when asked about Iran - the President did not say something he has always said when talking about Iran: that all options are on the table in dealing with the Iranians. It made some of us think that perhaps he had taken the military option off the table. Well, guess what, he was asked about Iran today and he said not once but twice that all options are on the table, so if there was a slight easing of the rhetoric yesterday. It was back in place today.

• To which Inskeep responds: "But wait a minute. One of the questions here is can the US and Europe agree on how to handle Iran? Is Germany saying that all options are on the table?"

Honestly, if there's another war crimes trial in the future, NPR should have several seats reserved - in the docket. Have these mouthpieces for war ever considered demanding from officials EXACTLY what "all the options" are? Do they include surprise attacks, tactical nuclear weapons, terrorist bombings within Iran, assassination, etc? How do military options square with international laws and treaties?

Even Gonyea Had to Snicker

Bush is off to Europe. Renee Montagne asks Don Gonyea, "and Don does there seem to be any nostalgia as the President - you know he's got seven months before he leaves office - as the President makes this final go round of these European capitals?"

Nostalgia?! Is she out of her mind? Let's see would that be nostalgia for the good old days of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, or March of 2008? Even Don Gonyea had to hem and haw:

"Eeaaaaaaahhh....I, I, I don't know that nostalgia is really what we're seeing here...perhaps just the tiniest tinge of it...I mean he's never been popular in Europe, at least not in Western Europe..."

Now there's a polite understatement. But, don't be misled. Gonyea wasn't about to let such foolishness get in the way of his staying on the war message du jour:

"...he [Bush] wants them to take the threat posed by Iran and its potential to become a nuclear power very seriously."

Notice how Gonyea simply asserts that Iran is a threat. He doesn't say the "alleged" or "claimed" threat. He just owns it as fact, when it is anything but... And it's not just a few people who recognize that Iran is not the real threat to peace.